The Endless Debate Continues: A Response to Witchy-Woo

Once again, the chasm that is the Feminist Sex Wars reemerges to remind us how totally incompatable and fundamentally different the world views of radfems and sex-positives have been….and that even attempts at reconciliation reveal how impossible it is when one side refuses to acknowledge and respect the other.

Recently, RenegadeEvolution invited radical feminists to join her site and express their opinions on her personal beliefs and her profession.

One radfem, the ever-present Witchy-Woo, decided to take up the challenge…and when RenEv posted her thoughts on sexual objectification and stereotyping, W-W was one of the first to respond in dissent of RE’s view that objectification (especially sexual objectification) is not innately harmful or degrading.

Now, considering that me and W-W do have a history of fierce debate (since we so fundamentally disagree to the core on issues of sexuality), I was seriously tempted to issue a response to her over there…but, since the last time I debated her, I was accused of "butting in" on a conversation that I did not belong in, I have decided out of respect for RenEv not to intervene over there. However, some of W-W’s remarks in her (mostly civil and thoughtful) response nevertheless deserve a rebuttal of its own on the basis of clearing up some basic assumptions about men and sexuality and sex work and feminisn….and I will use this post to render my thoughts. I will use the usual format of responding to specific points as I go along.

[Posted by Witchy-Woo on 8/28/06 @ 9:05 PM] 

[Quote from Ren Ev] "And I do not universally dismiss the words of all radical feminists, in fact, I am curious to hear what they might have to say on this- both the post and the comments (Psst, WW & SE, that’s you’re cue!). I do not even expect them to agree or sugar coat their opinions, but I am pretty sure they will be civil."

Truth be told, RE, I’m feeling really unwelcome to comment here due to the now almost ritual misrepresentation and slamming of the radfem pov in some of the comments. That said; this is your blog and you invited me to speak my piece. And I will be honest.

Interesting that W-W harps on the "ritual misrepresentation and slamming of the radfem pov"….as if she would only be comfortable posting on blogs that support her views, and that it is an act of extreme discomfort for her to cross over.  Funny, no one placed the gun to your head and forced you to come over; in fact, RenEv actually invited you to come in and post your comments. (How many radfems would be so accomodating to their critics….especially consdering how sex-positives and those who otherwise critique antiporn feminism are totally misrepresented and slandered as tools of the Patriarchy and sexbots (at best) or enablers of male rape and murder (at worst)? That is, if they are even allowed the right to defend themselves in radfem journals?) 

I seriously do hope that your scholarly shadow is seeking opinion/experience from a variety of sex workers in order to gain a balanced view. I’m somewhat heartenened that she stated "I like sex, but if I said I did not have some problems with porn and the media and some advertising, I would be a liar…" but I’m also concerned that your ‘gung-ho’ approach to what you do could colour her research. But I’m not her. What do I know. I just know what I know.

Yeah, I get it….so, her research would be fatally "coloured" by merely following and documenting RenEv’s position; by comparison, if she had decided to follow a sex worker who was much closer to W-W’s position of total abolition, that would be much more "balanced"…..but at least her antipathy about porn gives W-W hope that she can be turned to the correct…ahhhh, I mean, the more "balanced" view. I think that our interviewer should be trusted to make her own decisions about her thesis without bias from either one of us, thank you very much. 

From where I sit, your post and the resulting comments don’t dig deep enough into the sexual objectification of women: the reasons behind it and its impact on women’s lives. You start with a feminist argument against objectification which you acknowledge as legitimate and which I largely agree with apart from:

"that things such as stripping and porn portray women as merely their bodies" "Their" doesn’t enter into it. "Their" signifies some kind of recognition by the user/viewer of another human person living in that body. That kind of recognition makes objectification difficult. It would be more accurate to say "that things such as stripping and porn portray women as merely bodies".

Nice try with the sematics, W-W…but that doesn’t make your point any less insulting. How can a viewer of a stripper or a porn actress see a woman as anything other than a real person? I mean, a mainstream actress who plays the role of a zombie in a horror flick appears as merely a "body"; just like a runway model who sashays down a catwalk is seen to the viewers of a fashion show as merely a "body" showing off clothing for rich buyers. But since none of the latter actually engage in sex openly, I guess that their temporary objectification is perfectly acceptable, if not less of an issue, on your part. 

Yes, it is true that during that exact moment of her performance as a sex worker or an actress, the woman does become an object — or more accurately, a subject — of male (and female) desire.  But that doesn’t mean that the viewer couldn’t still respect the performer as a human being with her own feelings and desires and personality, even as (s)he is momentarily aroused by her performance or her outer beauty or her sexual persona. What RenEv was doing, in my view, was simply restating the radfem belief as a starting point to stating how she deviates from that view; it is not in any way an endorsement of that view, however legitimate some portions of that theory may be.

Your piece goes on to illustrate that more fully with your evaluation of Mr Average: "In short, they are not human…They are dirty and vulgar, they are whores who will get naked and spread and grind and screw for money…and therefore all they are worth is the cash you throw at them and good only for one thing. They are objects: hard-bodied, fake breasted, non-thinking, emotionally voided constructs, used to fuel lust and fantasy…but they are not women "Healthy? No. Typical? All too." And I agree that all too often women will blame other women by "instead of turning their anger and distaste towards the men in their lives, they turn it towards the object which is corrupting him and inspiring him…the other woman; the dancer, the porn girl, the nasty, evil, whore who is making him this way." because women are taught from the cradle, just like men, that women are to blame for everything. This kind of shrouds the way men are tricked by other men into becoming Mr Average and places all the initiative with women – the doing of the bidding and the being blamed for doing it – and men…well, they just get to sit back and enjoy the show safe in the knowledge that their circular little power game is working.

After all, if you can successfully divide your enemies so that they see one another as enemies themselves and you sit far back enough, keep quiet enough, you don’t even get noticed and the show goes on. That’s one of the reasons why ’sex worker’ and ‘feminist’ don’t sit well together for me. Most sex worker feminists that I’ve encountered seem more concerned with the sex work than the feminism and are almost totally blind to the sexist manipulations behind what they do.

You may note the subtle way that W-W reads sex-pos feminists out of her vision of "feminism" by denying them even the right to call themselves "feminists"..their activism in favor of women and their stated views in favor of giving sex workers more economic opportunities to leave their professions to the contrary. And that notion of "Mr. Average" tends not to represent the views of all men who engage in sex work or consume porn; it reflects, in my view, a certain dominant conservative cultural worldview (that is, an ideology) about how sexual women should be treated as second-class citizens and worthy of abuse, loathing, and disgust.

Men and boys are not so much taught to "blame women for everything"; they are generally taught that their feelings of sexual attraction for some women are inheritently degrading, destructive, and inappropriate to the dominant society…unless channeled toward the predescribed channels of marriage and monogamy. Yet, despite all those messages, they still manage to get hard-ons and become sexually excited at the sight of a scantily-clad or naked woman….it is that conflict between their brains and their bodies that fuels a lot of the angst that they feel about sexuality. 

Add to the mix Hollywood and Madison Avenue’s use of sexual tittlation and double entrendre as a prop to sell their products (but not too much, thank you, since we can’t piss off our conservative base of buyers!!) and the equally powerful cultural influences that exist to demonize such desires as damaging to God, family and country…and you can see why there is such volativity in sexual relations these days.

Given all that, porn and sex work is actually a small-time secondary player in all this; but because it is the most explicit and most open in portraying sexuality in all its glory, it becomes the grand pinata for bashing by moralists (both feminist and traditionalist) for all the social ills of man and woman. In any case, what W-W does in denying the human social agency of the female sex worker in using her medium to transform her profession and even her clients for the better is not that different from what the traditionalist fundamentalist Right does for most sexual dissidents….and putting a radical feminist patina on the cover does not change that fact one bit.

Reading your "third party objectification" paragraph about the camaraderie that exists amongst your colleagues made me feel sad. Having just read a piece a day or so ago that gave a similar account to yours by Annabel Chong in juxtaposition with comments made about her by the men that used her and that so didn’t reflect the warmth and respect she seemed to have for them… Maybe the people you work with are different. I don’t know, but I hope so.

Considering that Annabel Chong is retired from active porn work since 2003 (as her Wikipedia entry states), and that she herself has defended her porn activity (which included her notorious record-setting gangbang) as challenging traditional notions of female sexuality, I’d hardly consider her to be example of someone being "used" by her suitors. But then again, I guess that to W-W, any woman who chooses to have sex outside of her stated radfem limitations is automatically placed in the "used" or "prostituted" category…regardless of whether she publically seeks it herself or not.

And then there are your "me" paragraphs. I understand that you love what you do and that you’d do it for no money. The fact remains that, globally, most women who do what you do loathe it and would pay money (if they had it) to get out. Globally, most women in sex work are forced into it through poverty and/or male violence. The men who consume ‘the product’ give not a jot, not a moments thought, about whether the object they’re using/viewing is there of it’s own volition or has been forced/coerced to perform for them. You love what you do for money. Well, yay, good for you. But if we’re talking feminism – which is "about political action on behalf of a class of people who are culturally, socially, politically, inellectually, physically, and violently oppressed, impoverished, abused, enslaved, objectified, raped and murdered." [Twisty Faster] – what you do for money, no matter how much you love it, feeds the objectification and stereotyping of all female people that keeps us in that place.

Translation here: You may even like what you do (but only because Teh Patriarchy pays you well), but when what you do causes other women to get killed, raped, and abused, we real feminists have the right to take away your individual right to do what you do….and you surrender the right to call yourself a feminist. The fact that some women are indeed coerced in many ways and in many forms (poverty, lack of better opportunities) into doing sex work does not reflect on those who willingly choose, for their own reasons, to engage in that profession…and the fact that some clients of sex workers can be boorish, aggressive, and (in the extreme case) quite violent does not reflect on those who do respect the humanity of sex workers and sex entertainers, and treat them accordingly.  The fundamental difference between I as a sex positive and W-W as an antiporn radfem is that at least I allow for different narratives and experiences.

 And someone in comments mentioned your "RIGHT" (it was in caps as I remember) to do what you do and someone else questioned another commenters thinking about "responsibility". As far as I’m concerned the two go hand in hand. One doesn’t have rights without responsibilities unless, of course, one wants to promote the kind of world where those without full ‘rights’ get disappeared, brutalised, abused, oppressed, made ‘less than’.

Of course, rights mean nothing without the responsible and respectful administration of them….but who are you, W-W, to become commisar and say to these women what their rights and responsibilities should be?? Since you would openly deny women their basic right of determining their own sexuality out of "protecting" them from Teh Patriarchy and "the male gaze", how does that make you any different than any antifeminist patriarch who seeks the same control based on the notions of "God’s (or Allah’s, or Yahweh’s, or Jesus’, or whomever deity you prefer) plan"??

Incidentally, I looked at your LJ. You might have "come like a banshee" but that picture is truly horrible. It depicts something that has really happened to more women than I can count and they’ve been destroyed by it. Whatever gets you off is fine but do you really have to promote it as some kind of healthy way to be?

Now, this is just plain catty and out-of-line, W-W….what RenEv described in her Live Journal was totally consensual and done with her approval and her pleasure….and has not a damn thing to do with violence against women.  And if it doesn’t concern you about what gets her off, then why in the next breath do you downgrade it as somehow "unhealthy"??  Remember, W-W, you did say you were going to be honest…so why not cut the nonsense and say how you really feel and say that RenEv (like sex-pos feminists in gereral) is really a dirty, promiscuous slut who brings womanhood down and enables rapists?? But then again, honesty about your personal disgust for women like RenEv wouldn’t be quite so able to convert people to your point of view, now wouldn’t it??

Being a feminist isn’t easy and it isn’t fun. The world is stacked against feminist thought and ideas and you can’t use the masters tools to bring down the masters house. From slamming women who play the game to wondering "is it me?" – it doesn’t work. We need different tools. Promoting the acceptance and enjoyment of the humiliation, debasement and objectification of women for the male gaze is simply conforming to what’s expected and does nothing at all to help the fight for women’s freedom.

Well, W-W, maybe not..but just try being a working class sex-positive Black male socialist living in a conservative, capitalist, racist, puritan, sex-hating society for a day or two…that’s hardly a ride in the park, either. It may be tough for feminism these days….but aping the policies of the Religious Right and reserrecting sexual puritanism won’t make it any easier to promote feminist values….and baiting and bashing the majority of men who don’t rape or abuse or other wise degrade women merely for the sake of having a lusty gaze and an erection for a woman willing to show off her love of sex certainly won’t help matters, either. 

And while appropriating Andre Lorde’s classic quote may feel appropriate, we should remember that one of the master’s main tools of controlling and regulating women (and men) is to control and repress their sexuality. The fundamental issue here should be eliminating sexism and institutions of inequality which promote and enhance gender inequality, then building counterinstitutions which respect full equality and mutual respect and free will; then men and women can make clear and informed decisions about their bodies and desires. 

In other words, as Marcia Pally said so clearly:  "Ban sexism…not sex."

The views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone; I take full responsibility for them.

UPDATE: RenEv has posted a lengthy (and quite cordial, especially for her) rebuttal to W-W over at her blog, see it here (scroll to the bottom).    

Meet Me In The Trail….It’s Going Down… (Sex-Pos/Sex-Rad Carnival Set For 10/20)

 

 

 

 

Well, the Sex-Pos/Sex-Rad Carnival is now officially on and set; and Miz B gave me the final authority to host it.

She also refered me to a kewl site called Blog Carnival where you can set up and promote carnivals; I took full advantage and set up a Sex Pos/Sex Rad Carnival page here.

Just so that I can get this right, I have set a deadline of October 18 for submissions (so that y’all can get some time to submit, of course); the first Carnival will be posted on October 20.

The general idea is to put out the fundamental theory and practice of sex-positive theory and sex radicalism and it’s impact on political and social theory…with a special emphasis on it’s legacy on the political Left (though libertarian sex rads will also be more than welcome to contribute, too).

OK….start sending your submissions in.  And bring your best!!!

 

Sex-Pos/Sex-Rad Carnival Coming Soon…

Personally, I think that it’s an idea whose time has come….(ugggh, bad pun)

 

 

Me and Bitch|Lab are teaming up on this one; We haven’t decided as of yet whether it will be here or at Bitch|Lab’s place, but it is definitely in the planning stages.

Consider this the official shoutout for entrants and essays.

If you are interested, or find someone or something that could be useful, either email me (anthonyk_6319 at charter dot net) or respond in the Comments section of this post.

Also….Miz B has set up a mailing list — SexPos: Sex On The Brain – specifically for planning for the carnival and discussing issues concerning sex-positive feminist theory and practice; a visit there is strongly recommended.

As this takes more and more shape, more details and a final date is forthcoming.

 

Three Inevitabilaties: Death, Taxes, and Radfems Hating On “Sexbot” Women

Oh, but it didn’t take long before the Patriarchy Police struck back at RenegadeEvolution and her views on objectification, didn’t it?? Yup…less than four hours after RenEv posted her piece, this anonymous missile landed in her comments section:

Anonymous said…

It’s absurd that a woman with a body that looks like an advertisement for muscularity, starvation and obviously fake breasts would write about anything real or natural. You talk about “sexualized caricatures of women”? Look in the mirror! You’re a perfect example! You embody what the Patriarchy likes in its women, or more acurately, its whores. How many real women do you think look like that or further more, want to look like that? You can say you are thin naturally as much as you like, but no one gets that definition without work, and that chest of yours is so obviously unreal it is painful. Congratulations, you look like a sex toy, which I can only assume was your intent.    It’s no wonder you have to deal with people looking down on you and stereotyping you, you ARE a stereotype!

9:27 AM

 

 

Forget about all the contradictions and oxymorons abounding in that last statement (muscular and starvation??? The notion of what "real women" look like?? As if RenEv is a freakin’ alien sexbot from Romulus??)…it’s the stupid assumption that RenEv even began to represent herself as every woman (rather than her own self), that really gets me. Either way, it was just too loony to resist a response:

Anthony Kennerson said…

Oh, I’m sooooo sorry, RenEv, but that last attempted anonymous crackback is just too tempting to pass up.    ‘

Yo, Anon….who the fuck are you to lecture anyone on what a "real woman" should look like?? Just because a woman chooses to have breast implants (and gee, what does that say about women who are naturally well endowed??) or chooses to work out to maintain muscular and fit bodies (as opposed to the thin-as-a-rail anorexic model so popularized by Madison Avenue and Hollywood actresses) does not in any way reduce her to a "sex toy"…..it merely makes her a woman with a particular style and feel that she likes.

And in your rage to blast RenEv as a living sexbot toy for Patriarchy, you may have missed the part where she says that not every woman wants to or needs to copy her style; she only stands for herself. Unlike you, of course, who claims to speak for every "real" women (I guess that RenEv must be an alien android or a male impersonator, then??). But then again, such is the hypocrisy and meanspiritedness of today’s modern radical cultural feminist; always gripping about how women should be unified…while demonizing other women who don’t fit their narrow standards of "sisterhood".

 I’m sure that I will be construed as "butting in" again by the likes of Witchy-Woo…but so what. This shit is getting real old….real quick.

Her body, her choice. You don’t like it….too bad.

 End of take/rant.

Anthony    

10:35 AM  

This is where the phrase "Be careful of what you ask for, ‘cuz ‘ya might just get it" really comes to mind…because Anon decides to attempt a more direct smackback at moi:

Anonymous said…

MR: Kennerson-    “Just because a woman chooses to have breast implants (and gee, what does that say about women who are naturally well endowed??)”

Women who are naturally well endowed are NATURALLY well endowed. Their breasts are a real part of them, not some saline bags shoved in their chest that will never look or be natural. What is natural about going to a doctor, undergoing anesthetic, getting your breasts cut open, having something synthetic shoved in them, then having them sewn back together?  

“…does not in any way reduce her to a "sex toy"…..”   

She’s a stripper and in porn. That is the sex industry. What does that make her? A liberated, empowered icon of feminism that strikes a blow against male domination every time she spreads her legs? I don’t think so. “But then again, such is the hypocrisy and meanspiritedness of today’s modern radical cultural feminist; always gripping about how women should be unified…while demonizing other women who don’t fit their narrow standards of "sisterhood".”

How on earth could any radical feminist truly unify with a woman who supports, works in, and rationalizes the continued exploitation of other women in the sex industry? Even if her intent is noble and if she is there of her own free will, stripping, pornography and prostitution are based upon the degradation, abuse and use of women. Biologically, she may be my sister, but ideologically, we are no relation. Even if there is non-abusive, non-exploitive ‘exotic dancing’ or porn out there, that is not (by her own admission) what she does, or enjoys, and for every woman like her that likes ‘violent sex’ or showing off her body to men for money there are twenty-five who do not. If the industry was filled with nothing but women like her I might feel differently, but it is not, and if I have to make ‘a demon’ out of Renegade to humanize those others, I will.

“I’m sure that I will be construed as "butting in" again by the likes of Witchy-Woo…but so what. This shit is getting real old….real quick. Her body, her choice. You don’t like it….too bad.”

It’s apparent you’ve never had to deal with sexism and misogyny in the ways a woman does. It’s apparent you’ve never known how the words and thoughts many men have about women like Renegade reflect upon the rest of us and color male thinking towards us. Face it, Mr. Kennerson, you are a man, so you have no idea what it is like to be a woman. Yes, it is her body and her choice and I do not have to like it, and I have the right to tell her so.  

11:34 AM [Some emphasis added by me.]

OK….now it’s my turn.

What is natural about going to a doctor, undergoing anesthetic, getting your breasts cut open, having something synthetic shoved in them, then having them sewn back together? I don’t know…you tell me what is so natural about doing the same thing for a Caeserian section or an angioplasty or putting a plate on a broken bone or an organ transplant?? And why those invasive and highly dangerous surgeries are more acceptable to you than breast implants.  Oh, wait, none of the latter have anything to do with SEX, now doesn’t it??

And most implant surgery these days don’t involve that much cutting anymore, in case you didn’t know….now they insert catherers from the belly to insert the implants, then fill them up latter. And it wouldn’t matter anyway if RenEv was naturally endowed, since you’d still find a way to label her a slut and a sexbot who brings women/feminists down..so why bring up her implants, anyway??

She’s a stripper and in porn. That is the sex industry. What does that make her? A liberated, empowered icon of feminism that strikes a blow against male domination every time she spreads her legs? I don’t think so.

No, not an icon of feminism….just an individual woman who decides to take full advantage of what she has to offer, and actually like what she does for a living.  And actually, she isn’t really in porn, since she hasn’t made any commercial movies. But then, that wouldn’t matter to you either, wouldn’t it?? But this is the real kicker:

It’s apparent you’ve never had to deal with sexism and misogyny in the ways a woman does. It’s apparent you’ve never known how the words and thoughts many men have about women like Renegade reflect upon the rest of us and color male thinking towards us. Face it, Mr. Kennerson, you are a man, so you have no idea what it is like to be a woman.   

Now…just imagine, friends, neighbors and Clones, if I decided one day to post a similar paragraph to an obnoxious racist asshat:

It’s apparent you’ve never had to deal with [racism] and [bigotry] in the ways a [Black man] does. It’s apparent you’ve never known how the words and thoughts many [Whites] have about [Black men] like [rapper Ludacris] reflect upon the rest of us and color [White] thinking towards us. Face it, Mrs. Anonymous, you are a [White person], so you have no idea what it is like to be a [Black man].

Luda’s here just as an hypothetical example.

Now, such an analysis might even be true (since my being a man and having a working dick might disqualify me from knowing what it would be like to live inside a woman’s body)….but, you see, there is this tiny bit of issue with something called "empathy".  You see, Anon, I happen to have been developed in a woman’s womb (rest in peace, Ma); shared that same womb with a female who grew up to be apretty strong and active young woman (I’m a fraternal twin); grew up with five sisters in a big family (and still lives with one of them and her family; have a gaggle of nephews and nieces, most of whom happen to be girls; and, in my current occupation as a middle-level supervisor, oversees mostly women. And, of course, I meet and greet women of all ages, sizes, temperments, and desires online.

Trust me on this one, Anon….I may not know about being a woman, but I know and respect plenty of women who are; and I have learned plenty about what they endure. Of course, I could go off on you on the same wavelength about not knowing a damn thing about men and about how the thoughts of the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon color female opinions of us as innate brutes…..but I’m not one for cattiness and petty BS.

The main point is, Anon, that when all the crap is wiped off and the shades are removed, the only thing left remaining about your obsession with bashing Renegade Evolution for her sexual choices and her occupation is just plain simple sex-hate against women who dare to actually like sex more than you want them to.  RenEv never claimed for one second to represent all women or all feminists; but you openly attempt to slam all women who don’t share your narrow views as sexbots and mindless whores kneeling to The Mighty Patriarchial Cock…if not enablers to rape and pillarage. 

In my view, you’re a far worse objectifier than any pornographer ever could be.

I’ve heard your opinions, and now you know mine. Let’s leave it at that, and may our paths not cross again.

And try not to hide behind anonymity next time you attempt a drive-by bashing of a woman who did no harm to you. It makes you look less like a coward.  

 

Now…just imagine, friends, neighbors and Clones, if I decided one day to post a similar paragraph to an obnoxious racist asshat: This is where the phrase "Be careful of what you ask for, ‘cuz ‘ya might just get it" really comes to mind…because Anon decides to attempt a more direct smackback at moi: Now…just imagine, friends, neighbors and Clones, if I decided one day to post a similar paragraph to an obnoxious racist asshat:

RenEv & Nina on Sexual Objectification of Women

I see that Renegade Evolution has posted an intriguing essay on sexual objectification and whether or not it is a positive or negative thing…..some highlights:

Now, as everyone well knows objectification is one of the main feminist bones of contention with the sex industry, in all its many forms, as a whole. The argument is a basic and legitimate one: that things such as stripping and porn portray women as merely their bodies, as sexualized caricatures of women: tan, sleek, often surgically altered, made up, unrealistic parodies of ‘female’…and those caricatures are nude and willing and eager to reveal and abase themselves for the sexual gratification of men. They withstand the most degrading of leers and dehumanized of acts with a smile and a sigh and thus come across as little more than toys with tits and holes that exist solely for the pleasure of the male of the species. They are, or at least play the part of, objects and reflect that image back upon all women.

And my academic shadow asked me two things regarding this: One, did I think it was true, and two, did I care or did it bother me.

I had to do some thinking. And this is what I came up with.

Yes, I do think it can, and does, within the minds of some men, contribute to the objectification of women. I can and will admit that, and I think that objectification takes many forms.
[...]

And I have also noted that by in large, the objectification is a third party thing. The dancers I work with and the woman who runs our agency? We all treat each other as humans, as we would wish to be treated. We socialize outside of work when and if we want, we understand bad days and sick leave and relationships and family time and all those things ‘normal people’ understand. Hell, we even have Christmas & 4th of July parties, which are, aside from the talk about what doctor did whose tits and how good his work is, much like any other company’s holiday parties. As for my other sideline work, that which takes place in front of a camera, well, I can tell you this. All of those people, the ones who run the camera, the ones who do the make up, the ones who get naked and have sex, are real people too, with real feelings and real humor and real lives, just like anyone else. And they are also very, as a general rule, good too and protective of those in the same line of work. I can get naked and engage in some truly brutal, dehumanized, degrading activities with these guys (& gals), get called every name in the book, call them every name in the book, and when it is all said and done, well, the act is over. The same guy who just had his cock up my ass while calling me a worthless whore will ask me how my S.O. is, how is the work on my house coming, tell me his wife says hello, his kids are doing great, and then we order pizza and have a beer and do totally mundane things like watch the game on TV, talk movies or politics, just like anyone else might. Some people get great insurance plans, we get orgasms, but it’s still a job, same as any other, and we all seem to see it that way. I do not feel objectified with these people, unless I want to. 

Plenty more where that came from here.

Perhaps RenEv would be interested in this alternative view of sexual objectification, straight out of the sexy brain of Teh Sex Goddess named Nina Hartley (this excerpted from an essay titled “In The Flesh” that she wrote for the anthology Whores and Other Feminists (edited by Jill Nagle)):

I’ve come to believe that those individuals who universalize their self-appointed victim status do so at least in part as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for their own dissatisfaction with the state of their intimate lives. I say this because I was once one of those women. I’ve since reevaluated some of my feminist analysis of sexual objectification.

When I was growing up in the early 1970s, the received truth on sex was that men’s objectification of women was the root of all gender inequality. If men would only stop appreciating, rewarding, and wanting to fuck women because of their looks (to the exclusion of any other traits she might possess), the world would be a better place. I grew up pitying women who only felt comfortable when wearing makeup and feminine or “male-defined” clothing.

Yet I myself loved to look at women of all types. My bisexuality made me wonder what they’d look like naked, made me want to touch them and make them come on my mouth. My feminism made me want to honor and cherish their sexual prowess, not demean them because of it. What was I to do?

For some women, objectification was painful and humiliating. At the same time, other women suffered for never being the object of anyone’s desire. My logic told me that certain feminists threw out the baby (sex and the mating dance) out with the bathwater (male violations of women’s space and dignity). We do not need less objectification (why else does one get the courage to say “Hi” to someone at a party?) Rather, we need to make men more aware of how to act once they are next to a woman. I want women to be treated as people first and sexual beings second.

Women will feel freer to say “yes” to sexual pleasure when men start honoring our “no’s”. Such a change in attitude cannot take place without men being allied in the struggle. Until and unless men as a group believe that it’s more manly to treat women respectfully instead of insensitively, not much will change. Men challenging other men on their sexism, in language that men can relate to, will be an important key.

For all its trappings, objectification is a central part of most, if not all, human cultures. We don’t mate by scent, seasons, or instinct alone. As primates, we learn a great deal visually, by watching and imitating. Since we can’t experience most people on deeper levels, everyone is, at least initially, an object to others. Because my professional image is available on videotape, I am an object to most people who enjoy the fruits of my labor. I meet and entertain, on average, upwards of 20,000 men a year; none of whom know me as a real person. I don’t have the time or inclination to have all these men get to know me as a full person. I save that for my family and my private life. This split between public and private is by no means unique to the sex industry.

I present the image I think would be most effective in helping men to change their attitudes about sexual women, while at the same time not forgetting that my primary purpose is to arouse; when I lose sight of that, men cease to pay attention. I’ve learned that if a woman is presenting a sexual, confident persona, men generally will listen to what she has to say. Susan Sarandon said it succinctly in Bull Durham when she tied Tim Robbins to a bed and read him poetry: “Men will listen to anything if they think it’s foreplay.” If she happens to underscore her point by encouraging/facilitating/inducing his orgasm, the point may stick for good.

 [Emphasis added by me]

Something to really think about, I’d say.

 

RenEv & Nina on Sexual Objectification of Women

I see that Renegade Evolution has posted an intriguing essay on sexual objectification and whether or not it is a positive or negative thing…..some highlights:

Now, as everyone well knows objectification is one of the main feminist bones of contention with the sex industry, in all its many forms, as a whole. The argument is a basic and legitimate one: that things such as stripping and porn portray women as merely their bodies, as sexualized caricatures of women: tan, sleek, often surgically altered, made up, unrealistic parodies of ‘female’…and those caricatures are nude and willing and eager to reveal and abase themselves for the sexual gratification of men. They withstand the most degrading of leers and dehumanized of acts with a smile and a sigh and thus come across as little more than toys with tits and holes that exist solely for the pleasure of the male of the species. They are, or at least play the part of, objects and reflect that image back upon all women.

And my academic shadow asked me two things regarding this: One, did I think it was true, and two, did I care or did it bother me.

I had to do some thinking. And this is what I came up with.

Yes, I do think it can, and does, within the minds of some men, contribute to the objectification of women. I can and will admit that, and I think that objectification takes many forms.
[...]

And I have also noted that by in large, the objectification is a third party thing. The dancers I work with and the woman who runs our agency? We all treat each other as humans, as we would wish to be treated. We socialize outside of work when and if we want, we understand bad days and sick leave and relationships and family time and all those things ‘normal people’ understand. Hell, we even have Christmas & 4th of July parties, which are, aside from the talk about what doctor did whose tits and how good his work is, much like any other company’s holiday parties. As for my other sideline work, that which takes place in front of a camera, well, I can tell you this. All of those people, the ones who run the camera, the ones who do the make up, the ones who get naked and have sex, are real people too, with real feelings and real humor and real lives, just like anyone else. And they are also very, as a general rule, good too and protective of those in the same line of work. I can get naked and engage in some truly brutal, dehumanized, degrading activities with these guys (& gals), get called every name in the book, call them every name in the book, and when it is all said and done, well, the act is over. The same guy who just had his cock up my ass while calling me a worthless whore will ask me how my S.O. is, how is the work on my house coming, tell me his wife says hello, his kids are doing great, and then we order pizza and have a beer and do totally mundane things like watch the game on TV, talk movies or politics, just like anyone else might. Some people get great insurance plans, we get orgasms, but it’s still a job, same as any other, and we all seem to see it that way. I do not feel objectified with these people, unless I want to. 

Plenty more where that came from here.

Perhaps RenEv would be interested in this alternative view of sexual objectification, straight out of the sexy brain of Teh Sex Goddess named Nina Hartley (this excerpted from an essay titled “In The Flesh” that she wrote for the anthology Whores and Other Feminists (edited by Jill Nagle)):

I’ve come to believe that those individuals who universalize their self-appointed victim status do so at least in part as a way of avoiding taking responsibility for their own dissatisfaction with the state of their intimate lives. I say this because I was once one of those women. I’ve since reevaluated some of my feminist analysis of sexual objectification.

When I was growing up in the early 1970s, the received truth on sex was that men’s objectification of women was the root of all gender inequality. If men would only stop appreciating, rewarding, and wanting to fuck women because of their looks (to the exclusion of any other traits she might possess), the world would be a better place. I grew up pitying women who only felt comfortable when wearing makeup and feminine or “male-defined” clothing.

Yet I myself loved to look at women of all types. My bisexuality made me wonder what they’d look like naked, made me want to touch them and make them come on my mouth. My feminism made me want to honor and cherish their sexual prowess, not demean them because of it. What was I to do?

For some women, objectification was painful and humiliating. At the same time, other women suffered for never being the object of anyone’s desire. My logic told me that certain feminists threw out the baby (sex and the mating dance) out with the bathwater (male violations of women’s space and dignity). We do not need less objectification (why else does one get the courage to say “Hi” to someone at a party?) Rather, we need to make men more aware of how to act once they are next to a woman. I want women to be treated as people first and sexual beings second.

Women will feel freer to say “yes” to sexual pleasure when men start honoring our “no’s”. Such a change in attitude cannot take place without men being allied in the struggle. Until and unless men as a group believe that it’s more manly to treat women respectfully instead of insensitively, not much will change. Men challenging other men on their sexism, in language that men can relate to, will be an important key.

For all its trappings, objectification is a central part of most, if not all, human cultures. We don’t mate by scent, seasons, or instinct alone. As primates, we learn a great deal visually, by watching and imitating. Since we can’t experience most people on deeper levels, everyone is, at least initially, an object to others. Because my professional image is available on videotape, I am an object to most people who enjoy the fruits of my labor. I meet and entertain, on average, upwards of 20,000 men a year; none of whom know me as a real person. I don’t have the time or inclination to have all these men get to know me as a full person. I save that for my family and my private life. This split between public and private is by no means unique to the sex industry.

I present the image I think would be most effective in helping men to change their attitudes about sexual women, while at the same time not forgetting that my primary purpose is to arouse; when I lose sight of that, men cease to pay attention. I’ve learned that if a woman is presenting a sexual, confident persona, men generally will listen to what she has to say. Susan Sarandon said it succinctly in Bull Durham when she tied Tim Robbins to a bed and read him poetry: “Men will listen to anything if they think it’s foreplay.” If she happens to underscore her point by encouraging/facilitating/inducing his orgasm, the point may stick for good.

 [Emphasis added by me]

Something to really think about, I’d say.

 

Etiology, Part Deux (or, Why Nina Hartley Is My Living Aphrodite)

I believe that at last post, I kinda left y’all hanging about my main influences in sex-positive activism…including one particularly special woman who especially molded my brain (and a few other parts of my anatomy). Since I’m now free to tie up the loose ends, I will proceed to finish the job I started and explain how this woman became my main “sheroine”:

I hereby present to you Nina Hartley — porn legend, sex philosopher, progressive, and all around kick-ass, fine-ass sex goddess.

[That pic of Nina chillin' it in Colorado Springs circa 2002 is courtesy of Alex the Acolyte, one of the mods over at Nina's excellent forum. Hey....it was the work-safest Nina photo that I could find on my hard-drive that was suitable for this blog...if you want to see her in her....errrrr, more natural environment, feel free to join her site at nina.com.] 

The first time I ever saw or even heard of the name “Nina Hartley” was when waaaaaaaay back in the late 80s when the Playboy Channel (now Playboy TV) was first running softcore porn movies on their cable service. Back then, before the censors came along, Playboy was part of the offered cable package, and you could easily catch a few hardcore movies late at night (albeit modified and edited from their original form to eliminate any explicit penetration or “money shots” in order to appease the censors and the FCC).

Well, as a young man with both plenty of time and a working libido, and little access to sex flicks before then, I took to the sexy images of sexy women doing sexy things like a fish to water; I can still remember even to this day some of the many episodes of “Sexcetra” (the original featuring Shannon Tweed, that is), as well as some of the unedited softcore erotica they used to feature right along with Hef’s usual fare of Playmate features and Playboy mansion parties.  But it was the sex videos that really attracted me, since it was one of the first times that I actually saw people having sex (even if it was more simulated than real. 

It was one of those videos — Sensual Escape, one of the series of “women’s erotica” produced by former porn actress-cum-producer Candida Royalle, where I first discovered one particular blonde porn starlet who really seemed to stand out from the rest….mostly because she seemed to actually get into the sex.  Not that the other actresses seemed to be faking and sleepwalking through their scenes any, but this particular actress really seemed to be totally into the part….and totally loving what she did on screen. (Well….that, and probably the most well-rounded and ripest booty I’ve ever seen on a White woman; the phase “fine ass” gives new meaning to the word “understatement” when it comes to Nina……and it still does, too, BTW.)

Once I managed to pick up my jaw from the floor (and my hand out of my pants…heh), I immediately began to look for more films featuring Nina, and the more I saw, the more I lusted. She really did seem to be into it for the right reasons, and she certainly acted like she really enjoyed sex for its own pleasure. 

That was only the beginning….then I discovered a print interview that Nina did for a then obscure porn fanzine called Adam Film World (now under the tutilage of Larry Flynt’s Hustler empire, but back then more of a “feminist” sex zine), in which she revealed her intellectual and social vision of sexuality and sexual expression.  It was her profoundly progressive social and political vision, as well as her open and honest and openminded views about sex and men (and especially interracial sex with Black men) which basically blew the rest of me away.

But the final nail in the coffin that hooked me to Nina for life came around 1989; when I read up an old “Beat the Devil” column in the Left/liberal news weekly The Nation by Alexander Cockburn (now co-publisher of CounterPunch).  That column was mostly about AC bitching about how leftie publishing wasn’t supporting more independent media….and then Cockburn began to promote a small (and now deceased) “journal of progressive Jewish thought” titled Shmate which he thought quite highly of. What he wrote next follows (my paraphrasing, since the article was originally 17 years ago):

 [...] The latest [Spring 1989] issue….includes a fascinating interview with sex actress Nina Hartley (Red diaper baby, over 450 jizz-filled wankfests, socialist feminist)….. [...]

Hold. Up.

A porn actress who also is a feminist???   And a socialist?!?!?

Being a feminist supporter and a socialist myself, that really perked my interest.  Of course, I had by then already read plenty about Nina’s sex-positive activism and her support for the erotic medium….but her being a pronounced and fully outed Leftist???

Unfortunately, despite many attempts, my attempts to locate that article initially were a failure (back then), but my respect and lust for her couldn’t get any stronger.

Yeah, right….sure it couldn’t.

Being the inquisitive sort and the library/Internet rat that I was becoming, I started literally turning over book after book searching for anything even remotely related to Nina Hartley….but it wasn’t until much later, around 1992 or such, that I finally got to actually communicate with her directly through her website.  There I found more than a few of her greatest essays that she had written to various feminist and sex radical anthologies, where she amplified on her basic sex philosophy and her role as a pro-sex/pro-pleasure activist….as well as her battles with the more conservative and sex-negative strains of feminism. (A few of them were digitalized by me and are now posted over at the Red Garter Club site; I am working on actually creating a collage of all of her essays and columns for release soon.)

Fast forward to around 2002, when Nina finally got the urge to form a forum at her website to better communicate with her multitude of fans and followers.  Naturally, I joined up….and have not been disappointed with the results. 

Having been a contributor and a member of that forum for the past 4 years has simply reenforced my worship of Nina as the living representation of the sex goddess Aphrodite on this earth; she has been so generous and so giving of her wisdom and intellegence and her passion……and I even got to get that interview too.  (Actually it was Sheldon Ranz, who did the original interview for Shmate back then, who sent me his original copies of the interview; Sheldon is as much a porn historian and a contributor as he is a leftist Jewish activist.)

A lot has happened to Nina since that day I first discovered her:  She has modified her political views somewhat (from early Red Diaper babe/Che Guevera socialist to strong principled liberal/social democrat); she is now discovering her more dominant/submissive side; she left her former triad relationship for a more convential (yet probably more kinky) marriage with Ernest Greene (nee’ Ira Levine), who has a political and sex radical activist heritage of his own right; and she is for the most part through with making commercially based porn, generally sticking to her Sex Guides series of “How To” videos and her upcoming book that is scheduled for release early next year.  Yet, even at her more advanced age, she still has the ability to stop traffic and take over a scene by sheer strength of her will and her sexual power……and there are countless young actresses in the field of erotic entertainment and sex radical activism who owe the world to her for bringing progressive principles and intellegence to the medium of sexual expression.

And, in case you wanted to ask….the ass is still as fine as ever.  As is the rest of her.

The proof is in the scoreboard:

 

Keep bringing it, Goddess.

 

We Really Should Stop Meeting Like This….

OK…sorry for leaving you hanging for so long since my last posting…..between work and some personal issues, I haven’t been as able to get online as I should; but that is all history.

I promise y’all….honest I do….I will complete my thoughts and get back up to speed.  Just give me a spell to unwind myself and play catch-up.

 

 

Etiology of a Sex-Positive SmackDog (A Response to ‘Da Bitch)

OK….since K over at Bitch|Lab asked me for it; I decided to post it here.

The original question that Miz B asked was simply this: What made you into a “sex positive feminist” or got you interested in “sex positive feminist” theory??

I thought that a mere response via her comments would not be respectful of the question, so I’ve decided to elaborate more as a general post here.

For me, it started as a college student…..I was mostly your traditional Black liberal who was just shaking off the crumbs of a conservative Catholic upbringing (both my parents were devout to the point of making us attend Cathecism and getting Communion…though personally I saw it as more of a diversion from my main love of music and band).  I was more of the loner type who simply loved to read…so while other students would hit the clubs when they weren’t hitting the books; I’d be at the college library stocking up on books on political theory.  The fact that I was a severe loner also helped in that rather than harrass women to get laid, I would simply internalize my sexual fantasies into thoughts of powerful, intellegent women who would seduce me, rather than the other way around.  That particular fetish tended to reenforce my basic bias towards the more independent, sexually assertive, yet politically progressive woman that became my own particular sort of fetish, if you will.

Naturally, being a progressive man with a working dick and an active erotic imagination (if mostly avoiding “playing the field” in real life due to shyness (and a speech impediment) tended to lead me to support the type of social liberalism and feminism that supported both women’s autonomy and equality AND her basic right to be whatever she wanted to be sexually….and to admire (and secretly lust after) those who took the risk of being openly sexual beings. Unfortunately for me, my sexual and intellectual self-discovery happened to take place exactly when antiporn feminism and its “cultural feminist” stepparent theory was becoming the rage amongst the general Left/liberal intellegensia; it was then that I got my first bitter taste of the likes of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon. Shelia Jeffreys, Kathleen Barry, Diana E. H. Russell, and the rest of the porn-busting feminist posse. 

Their concept of reducing sex to innate male rapicity/female passivity and their demonization of sexual desire as innately evil and destructive was such a radical departure from everything I had thought feminism (especially the more liberal branch of feminism) to be. Particually galling to me was their incessant bashing and guilt-tripping of progressive (that is, Left/liberal) men as basically only favoring women’s equality as a ruse to get into their panties. Not that the thought of getting into certain women’s panties didn’t come to my mind on occasion, of course, but the notion that to even think of a woman with sexual intent in private while respecting her full freedom and consent amounted to the equivalent of rape (mentally, if not physically) simply struck me as as best foolish and misconstruction of our individual motives and desire…and, at worst, outright sexist, sex-hating fascism parrotting the Christian Right.

All seemed lost….until four women came along and finally set me right.

The first was Gayle Rubin, who offered up a long serial essay called “Thinking Sex” in Carole Vance’s anthology Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality which attempted to define and develop a distinct progressive theory of sexuality and erotic justice that combined a liberationist and expansive view of positive sexual discovery with a legitimate and honest empathy with the dangers of sexual exploration in a conservative culture. Her willingness to treat sexuality (not just women’s sexuality, but sexuality) as a positive force and a ground for neutral study rather than just  something to be condemned was very much refreshing and somewhat radical for my ears and eyes.

The second woman was Susie Bright…who at that time had just founded On Our Backs magazine as a counterweight to the radicallesbian belief that lesbians should neuter their sexuality to meet a narrow, restrictive, “woman-friendly” model.  Her mastery of studying sexual culture from a liberatory POV, as well as her perspective as an old-school radical of the 60s and 70s on how social movements often ignore the intimate issues of sexuality and sexual desire to their peril, greatly enlightened me on my own political transformation.

Another influence was Dr. Carol Queen…she was the first one to introduce me to the diversity of queer theory and the vision of what a truly “sex-positive” culture would be like; and her experience as an actual sex worker and sex educator gave some intellectual ballast to my base beliefs.

But all those women pale in comparison to one special woman who would completely blow away every last pretension I had about intellegent sexual progressive women.

Two words will suffice here:  Nina.  Hartley.

Why this one particular woman???  I’ll tell you in Part II of this post, coming up.

(Sorry to make this a two-parter..but gotta run for family business.)

 

 

 

…And Speaking of Ass-Kickings…(or, I Really, Really [Heart] RenegadeEvolution)

Miriam (aka Renegade Evolution) over at The Fine Art of Free Speech and Dissent has been as of late doing a lot of excellent dropkicking and orbit-launching of antiporn feminist alchemy.  Two of her latest masterpieces have been posted at her blog, and they are worth the trip:

1) MacKinnon causes tension headaches 
Whereas RenEv responds in depth and thoroughly debunks and smashes to little bitty pieces classic antiporn theory about sex and violence being the ultimate hallmark of male/female relationships

2) The dark side of sex
Whereas RenEv offers up a sterling and decisive defense of her right to enjoy both BDSM (or what she calls S&M) and “rough sex” (offered consensually); against all the classic antiporn/radfem loathing and disgust thrown at her consistently.

Well said, Souljah, and said well.

A trip there to see the entire entries would be worth your while here, too.