Radfem Anti-Porn Sex Hate — Part Deux

Alrighty….let us all get out our noseclips and dive back into the river of free-flowing crap that is Stephanie Cleveland’s ode to antiporn radicalfeminist myopia, shall we??

When we last exited for air, Ms. Cleveland was riffing on the many ways in which "liberal men" and the "male Left" were turning a blind eye to how porn was innately causing the brutality and outright degradation of women as a class; we pick up the action now somewhere in the middle of the essay, where she now aims her sights on the alleged oxymoron of "feminist porn" [Once again, emphasis added by me]:

It has also been suggested to me by liberal men and some women, that rather than attack pornography, I should work towards putting control of the industry in women’s hands. The people who suggest this seem not to have noticed patriarchy is still pretty firmly in place. Men have the money and power to control what types of pornography get made, and by whom. And judging from the direction the industry has taken in the past decade, men who use pornography want to be able to use women—they want to be able to use us as objects, without having to worry about being ‘gentle.’

One male reviewer’s comments on ‘feminist’ pornographer Candida Royalle’s website seem pretty telling: “Not too much for my wife, but still arousing. I am not sure if it would be great to sit down to alone. I might want something a little less ‘lovable.’” Sadly, women, like men, can abuse other people, and women, like men, can be pimps. This is why the idea of a woman-run pornography industry is not only improbable, but awful. In that case, the industry would still be based on injustice—on selling people for sex—the only difference being, women would be the pimps as well as the victims.

Now, never mind the basic fact that there are known examples of women who do actually make erotica/porn exactly with women’s stated desires in mind (Candida Royalle is an example; or that there are women in positions of much power who manage to run whole enterprises (Christie Hefner of Playboy, Danni Ashe of DanniMedia; and various webmistresses who manage to run and maintain their own websites; orrrrrrr that even much of what passes for "male porn" actually runs against the stereotype of men abusing women (try Vivid Video or Video Team or any of the softcore late-night erotica on cable and try to find any violence, if you may).  In the mind of the likes of Stephanie Cleveland and her MacDworkinite sister travellers, it’s all the same as an Anabolic or a Extreme double anal gangbang…even when it clearly isn’t.

And for this "selling people for sex" deal…..I’d think that an educated woman like Ms. Cleveland would be able to ascertain the difference between a person performing sex acts for their and other people’s vewing pleasure; and someone actually doing sex with that person in exchange for pay.  (Of course, not that it would matter to her, since even if it was done for free, it would still be considered nothing less than horrible and degrading and male-dominant for the very reason of it involving hard-ons and penetration and semen and thrusting and grunting and orgasms and all those other "male-identified" intrusions on an "authentic female/feminist sexuality".

And it should be noted that even many feminist women see Femme Productions (Candida Royalle’s "women’s porn" project) as much too soft and romantic for their taste; and that there are plenty of men who actually do prefer that kind of more "sensual" porn (though apparantly not sensual enough for Cleveland’s tastes/political ideology, I’d assume).

The lives of women hurt by pornography should matter. The lives of those who feel broken by it should count, more than any bogus attempt to revamp the industry. The speech of those raped by porn users should be allowed to matter. Their voices should matter more than the ‘speech’ rights of men, who can very much live without porn. They should also count more than the voices of a small, elite group of women willing to dignify pornography professionally, and exploit women’s sexuality just as greedily as men. These women, who claim porn empowers us all, operate from a position of privilege. They don’t have to live through being assaulted by a father who uses porn, or being pushed into performing sex acts by a boyfriend who saw them in his favorite gangbang flick. This tiny group of women pornographers gets to stand behind the camera, producing about one percent of the industry’s porn, their privileged role provided for them, temporarily, by pro-porn men. The men, of course, are only too happy to support them and pay lip service to their idea of ‘feminist erotica,’ all the while continuing to film women fucked inside out, penetrated by two men at a time, raped, used, and sold as commodity.

The pro-porn ‘feminists’ claim they are entitled to their individual ‘freedom of expression.’ Feminism should be about giving women choices as individuals, yes, but it should also be about doing what’s best for the status of women as a whole. Some women may enjoy pornography, but many more have been brutalized because of it. Some women may see sex as power, but many more realize that power is still in the hands of men, whenever they get to buy us. Why women should have to reclaim an industry men came up with in the first place? Why should we try to make ‘lovable’ porn, instead of creating our own ideas about sex that don’t involve industry at all?

Ah, yes…the rights of the "victims" of porn should definitely outweigh the "rights" of women who are not even harmed by it or even gain much pleasure from it….even if most perpetrators of violence never viewed so much as a naked nipple or a shaved pube in his life, or that most rapists managed to harm women long before any porn video or Internet site (or even Kama Sutra carvings in caves); or that  there are far more vast sources for misogyny (such as traditional conservative religion, or the lack of political power, or the inequality of the economic system overall.  But forget all that…..only by banning and banishing images of explicit sex and converting men to radfem principles will women be able to overcome these obstacles and gain true equality. And…what about the vast majority of men who don’t particularly have the power to "buy" women for sex….or the power of the human sex drive and base sexual desire which induces men (and women) to seperate themselves from their money to attract these things?? The men may have most of the money, but it’s the women (and in the case of gay male porn, other men) who are inducing them to give up that money in the first place. So who, really, has the power? The person who pays, or the person who gets paid???

And now we come to the best part of the article…I promised you a Nina Hartley bashing, and heretowith…

On her web site, Nina Hartley claims to offer pro-woman pornography. One of her films is entitled Hot Cherry Pies. The cover features a woman’s vagina, neatly hidden by a smashed piece of pastry. A caption reads, “sink your teeth into a slice of hot cherry pie! 20 panty-soaked scenes of toy stuffing, muff munching, dong dunking fun, [courtesy of] pussy pro Nina Hartley!” A reviewer notes enthusiastically, “The box has a scratch and sniff on it. If you scratch the pussy it smells like cherries. It’s a great conversation piece.”

As a feminist, I want to be able to critique sexist images of women in the media. But how can I do that, if I have to accept Hartley’s version of the same thing as ‘liberating?’ Her ideas are the same as those found in male porn—that sex is about force, being stuffed, bitten into. The women marketed as lesbians in her girl-on-girl scenes don’t look like any lesbians I know—or even straight women for that matter—with their bleached blonde hair, fake breasts, and fully waxed bodies. The enormous range of touch, emotion and sensuality that encompasses women’s sexuality, or any kind of authentically human sexuality, isn’t even hinted at. The problem is—those aspects of sex can’t be captured by pornography; they can’t be commercially boxed and marketed.

Keep in mind, Clones, that Nina basically and correctly, IMHO, savaged Cleveland’s ally Chyng Sun a couple of years back….and apparantly, the hurt of the truth still lingers….how else would Nina’s name keep cropping up as Pu(l)bic Enemy Number One for the Radfem Sexxx Police.  Yet, even for the usual, the "Hot Cherry Pie" reference is, shall we say, one gigantic reach.  Sheldon Ranz, a journalist and porn auteur who knows Nina enough to have actually interviewed her a decade ago, decided to research the video reference….and promptly posted the results to Nina’s forum yesterday:

"Hot Cherry Pies" is a compilation tape – it’s not a Nina Hartley feature. That’s why it will never appear on my authoritative videography of her work. And any way, what Cleveland is referring to is the advertising, not the video itself. She has obviously never seen that actual clips in the video – she judges a book solely by its cover. This has happened to Nina before – the cover box to "Debbie Duz Dishes" originally depicted her as a Jewish American Princess, when in fact the video itself portrayed her as anything but.

It should also be noted that none of the sex acts promoted in the promo box cover for that video —  the "toy stuffing" (penetration by sex toys), the "muff munching" (oral sex), or the "dong dunking" (regular PIV sex) contain not a hint of violence or degradation of any kind.  And would it be misogynic of me to say that the "scratch the pussy and it smells like cherry pie" reference is more an ode to the infamous scene in the classic mainstream comedy American Pie, where the lead actor is caught by his father with his dick in a cherry pie because he was told by his friend that that was what sexual intercourse with a woman felt like?? But considering how much of an expert Ms. Cleveland is on porn (not seeing an actual porn video notwithstanding; since only fervent rehashing of the Dworkin/MacKinnon/Reisman microcode is more than enough for antiporn feminists to convey them as experts in human sexuality), it is no surprise at all that she can see the total misogyny where the rest of us can’t.

Not to mention Cleveland’s laughable bitching about the "lesbians" in porn not looking like any "real lesbians" she’s personally known….uhhh, Stephanie, ever heard of those people called "bisexuals"??? Or about straight women who just might actually like pussy on the side because….well….it’s FUN?!?!  And as for the typical reference to "fake breasts, blonde hair, and waxed bodies" (whatever the hell that means)…..she does know that Nina did actually appear in porn before she got her implants….and that there are plenty of naturally endowed (and some not so endowed), non-blonde, and non-anorexic women who have succeeded quite nicely (Marilyn Chambers, for example, was an actual A-cup brunette during her heyday; she didn’t get her boobs done until well after she had left the XXX business, during her softcore period of making Pay-Per-View specials during the early 2000s.)

Ohhhh…but never fear, because all this is all about developing an "authentic female sexuality", or simply a "human sexuality" that better represents "the enormous range of touch, emotion, and sensuality" that that bad, nasty old male-dominated porn just can’t touch.  Kinda like, say…romance novel sex, ‘ya think?? (Never mind that even that has been invaded by those evil male values of physical pleasure over "sensuality" thanks to the influence of "Romantica"…and that much of the move is driven by the main consumers of romance novels, which remain WOMEN…but I guess that Cleveland doesn’t really care about that, since that gets in the way of policing women’s desire by smearing men as rapists and human sperm fountains.)

Here’s how Cleveland concludes her little ranting:

Some of us would like to experience sex that is not commercial, but human; we are ‘pro-sex,’ to the point of wanting sex as human beings. What happens to us, if as women, Hartley’s pornographic version of sex doesn’t make us feel better? What happens when all the men we know use pornography and think of us as pussy? As a woman, I remember times when men have used words like those to hurt me. Trying to redeem them as sexy, seems as pointless as redeeming words such as ‘nigger’ or ‘kike.’

I don’t want to be ‘pussy’ or ‘pie.’ I want the chance to be a person, even in sex. As Andrea Dworkin wrote, “Girls want so much, not knowing they want the impossible: to move in a real world of action and accomplishment; to be someone individual and unique; to act on one’s own feelings, appetites, and ambitions.”

I have my own appetites; I don’t need the sexual script that pornographers—male or female—lord over me. I have my own ambitions. I want to find my own vision of sex. I want lovers who are willing to abandon pornography, so that I can have partners in respect and mutuality. I want to be, not the fuck-hole of male pornography, or the Hot Cherry Pie of Hartley’s, but a human being.

Now, for once I will actually agree with Ms. Cleveland…to a point.  No woman wants to be reduced to any part of her body (whether it’s her pussy, her womb, her boobs, her face, or her legs; and most of us do want to be seen as full human beings.  That is perfectly fine and fair and just; in fact, it’s a fundamental essentuality to be treated as a equal and fair human being.

The problem that radfems like Stephanie Cleveland will face is that for the majority of human beings, men and women, sex and sexual pleasure is an essential part of being human; indeed, in that it is sex that creates human life to begin with, it could be said that sex is the most essential value of humanity….as essential as food, shelter, and language. Only problem is, though, that sex sometimes has a way of defying attempts to criminalize and define and restrict its desires; it is no surprise that cultures that have attempted to repress sexuality to a narrow boundary have simply redefined desire in much more uncontrollable means. The Catholic Church’s repression of homosexuality and its vow of celibacy resulting in such gross sexual abuse by their priests of their pre-pubescent subjects is one example; the recent antics of homophobic self-denying gay men like former Congressman Mark Foley and Jeff Gannon are but a few other examples of sexual repression coming back to boomerang in abusive fashion. It’s one thing for radfems to say that porn does leave a lot to be desired when it comes to accurate information about sex or conveying the realities of human desire; but it’s quite another to use that as a crutch to attempt to replace one form of social and sexual repression with another model and call it "feminism" or "anti-capitalism".  Whether they like it or not, a woman’s vagina is as human as the woman whom uses it for her own pleasure (and the same for a man’s penis); and to deny her the agency to define her own pleasures for herself and experience the joy of sexual ecstasy is the exact opposite of what feminism should represent.

You may not like what most pornography represents personally, and that is your right…but when you decide to prejudge, indict and convict people who happen not to be harmed or to feel harmed by viewing sexually explicit media of crimes that they did not commit, you simply lose the right to call yourself a progressive…or, for that matter, a feminist.

What "feminists" like Chyng Sun and Stephanie Cleveland do does far more harm to women — in effect, dehumanizes and objectifies women — than anything Nina Hartley or Candida Royalle (whatever my disagreement is with her particular vision) has ever done on stage or online.  As far as I am concerned, the latter two are the genuine progressive feminists…..the former two are simply right-wing fascist wannabes cloaked in "leftist" drag.

A side note: The Adonis Mirror site from which Cleveland’s nonsense originated is actually more of a "male radicalfeminist" site mostly dirven by a man named Richard Leader; who wrote most of the essays featured there. Strangely enough, as I noted previously, Cleveland’s essay is the only essay written by a woman there. Not a trace of misogyny there about a bunch of men attempting to tell women how to live their sex lives, isn’t there??? (I guess that some "male Leftists" are more acceptable than others..ya think?? (Just Google for the actual link if you want; I’d rather not give them any more support than they deserve.)

 ————————————————————————————————–

UPDATE:  Nina Hartley just posted this righteous and succint response to Stephanie Cleveland’s nonsense over at her forum:

 

http://www.nina.com/vboard/showpost.php?p=37541&postcount=5 
(Posted by Nina Hartley ("Nina") on Dec. 13 @ 9:07 PM CST; "Kimberly" was another forum member)

Kimberly,

Thanks for your succint and pointed response to yet another dreary rehasing of a very tired anti porn rant that hasn’t changed much in nearly thirty years.

Sigh. She shows her ignorance by thinking that I had anything to do with "Cherry Pie." We are contractors: when we shoot the scene, we get paid and we go home. The producer does what he sees fit with the footage. That’s why one scene of me having sex on a pool table with Billy Dee where he comes on my face can show up: in the original movie ("Little Bit ‘o Honey," c. ‘86); in a "Blacks and Blondes" tape; in a "Sex and Sports" compilation; in a "Horny, Cum Eating Blondes"; and a "Bubble Butt Babe" compilation. The performers have zero to do with any of this.

But that’s beside the point. What these types of porn bashers of either gender don’t seem to realize is that their morbid preoccupation with the "prostituting of women," etc., is THEIR psychiatric fixation and not necessarily an accurate depiction of the landscape. I’m not saying that x percent of porn isn’t ugly and distasteful. I don’t like a lot of it, myself and so don’t watch it. These people seek OUT porn they find particularly horrendus and then spend a lot of time getting worked up over its existance [sic] and what it "means" for the culture. Like the anit-communist hysteria in the ’50’s, they see female subjugation under every bush and in every bit of advertising.

Of course women who would prefer not to be sex workers should be helped out of their current situation, including those who’d prefer not to make videos. But porn is not keeping them there. Could it be that society still stigmatizes women with a less than ‘virtuous’ background, making it hard to get other, equally well-paying work? Could it be that our educational system does a piss-poor job of getting young people ready to make their way in the world? If the stats are true, that 25% of women are molested/raped by the time they’re 21, why aren’t 25% of our female citizens making livings as sex workers? Could it be that other factors than a history of sexual abuse lead performers to adult videos? Why don’t these "porn is bad for all women" women ever seem to pay ANY attention to male victims of sexual abuse/rape? To the lives of male performers? Could it be that they still labor under the delusion that "the patricarchy" somehow includes/benefits ALL male citizens, even when that is clearly not so?

If a woman’s boyfriend is so dopey that he can’t tell the difference between a movie and a real-life person, then she’s dating a jerk and needs to dump him. If she is so insecure that she feels a rivalry with a 2-D image, then she needs to understand why that is and quit blaming a movie for her unhappiness in life/love. If the relationship is so strained that he thinks he can get/ask/have her do things that the model is doing without asking the girlfriend if she’s into it, then she need to get the fuck out or learn to speak up to/for her needs. No one takes advantage of someone without the implicit or explict permission of that person.

If she wants a man in her life, she needs to understand that-news flash-men like to look. As long as he doesn’t do it in front of her and hurts her feelings, that’s life. If she wants a doormat or a self-loathing man, she’ll see what kind of sex she gets from him: not much and not very good.

Just because SHE is disgusted/outraged/dismayed/angered by an act she sees on camera DOESN’T mean that the performer felt the same thing when she made the movie, and to have that notion is very childish and anit-intellectual. There are many women who love a kind of sex that I don’t get. I don’t watch their scenes, as their version doesn’t turn me on at all. But in person, they’re pretty sweet and clearly liking what they do. Has Ms. Clevland [sic] ever considered the notion that these are PERFORMANCES and not some documentary?

She gets to be angry, etc., about the world and how she sees it. She gets to be angry, etc., about porn. What is so infuriating is her arrogance in thinking that her version is the only version of events.

BTW, I encourage women to leave porn all the time. As well, I encourage many to never start in the first place, if I think this business wouldn’t be good for them. Guess what? These are young women with attitudes and they didn’t listen to Mom and they sure as hell aren’t going to listen to me. When they’re ready to listen, I talk to them again. This poster needs to get a copy of "Porn 101" to see just how strongly we take our responsibility to warn women of the realities of making that first movie.

Whether she like it or not, many of the women making movies now like what they do. Not all of us have the opportunity to be in academia like Ms.Cleveland. Most don’t have the choice of, "Hmm, porn or NYU?" Porn is very well compensated blue collar labor, better than working the chicken-plucking assembly line, and that’s where Ms. Cleveland’s "analysis" falls short. Like all of the other porn bashers out there, the class bias drips from her keyboard, as well as her amazing ignorance. When have any of these women EVER talked to me and heard my story? Never. No, it wouldn’t do, as my story contradicts their theory. They only want to talk to women who feel they’ve been harmed by their involvement with adult entertainment. It’s sort of like how Bushie got us into Iraq: only listening to those "advisors" who already agreed with him and not paying any heed to other voices.

These women have been silencing me for 22 years. If you’re anti-porn, you get invited to speak at congressional hearings and the like. If you’re me, you don’t get the time of day.

I make porn and I also make love with my husband as a full human person. He’s not married to Nina; he’s married to ME and loves ME and makes love to ME, as myself, not some creature I’ve invented to get my message out there.

Ooh, it makes me so fucking angry!

Enough freakin’ said.

 

 

Intermission: A Fun Book Meme

While I await to post Part 2 of my dissection of the Sex-Fascist known as Stephanie Cleveland; I stumbled upon yet another one of those classic Internet "chain letter" memes that spring up often for fun and laughs.  Since I didn’t have the courage to respond when Kevin (aka The Thin Black Duke) at Slant Truth tagged me on his last meme; I will use my Mulligan and crash in uninvited for this one….since even a ‘Dog like me can do this one.

Here is the challenge for this meme, as Kevin stated it:

1)  Pick up the book that you are nearest to.
2)  Turn to page 123.
3)  Locate the fifth sentence in that page.
4) Copy the three sentences that follow.
5) Tag three more bloggers to do the same.

Well, a ‘Dog’s gotta do what he’s gotta do.  Here’s what I find on the three sentences following the fifth sentence of page 123 in the book I’m currently browsing:

But remember who checks in to teaching hospitals: mostly folks who are poor.  I, for one, am decidedly uncomfortable with a health care industry that uses the less fortunate as guinea pigs.

You’ve heard of "recovered-memory syndrome," no doubt.

The source??

Carol Queen, "Just Put Your Feet In Those Stirrups", in Real Live Nude Girl: Chronicles In Sex Positive Culture (2nd ed.)

What does that have to do with sex-positivity, you ask??  Well, Doc Carol was riffing on the bone ignorance of most medical practictioners on the subject of sex.  Go find the damn book if you want to read more..or better yet, go to her most  excellent blog.

OK..for the tag, I choose……RenEv, Belledame, and Da Bitch.  Bring it like you know how, ladies.

 

 

Radfem Anti-Porn Sex-Hate: The Death That Keeps On Killing (An Ongoing Series)

If there is anything more consistent that death and taxes, it is the myopia that consistently streams from the mouths of certain antipornography radicalfeminists; and lately, I’ve discovered a much more recent example of their total illogic, bonehead ignorance, willfull neglect, and total unconciousness about men, about sexuality, and about porn.

Recently, I came upon a post from RenegadeEvolution over at The Fine Art of Free Speech and Dissent which linked an essay she discovered at a "male radicalfeminist" site called Adonis Humor, which claims on their homepage to be dedicated to:

"…pro-feminist activism and the habitual self-examination of the male Left as an antidote to liberal vanity.

In short, the Robert Jensen/John Stoltenberg school of male sexual self-hate and MacDworkinite (and yes, Witchy-Woo, in case you are reading this, I use the insult directed at antiporn feminist extremists deliberately) cult worship.

Ironically enough, it is the only piece on the site that is actually written by a woman; the rest are typical "male radfem" analysis written mostly to beat down "liberal" men and the "male Left" for their apparent sins of not following the wonderful theories and practices of MacDworkinite antiporn cultural feminist activism.

I won’t bore you with the full text of Stephanie Cleveland’s essay, though if you wish, you can find it here.  A few excerpts fron the essay should be more than enough to prove my point. 

The title of her smash piece, "Hot Cherry Pies: Pornography and Justice For Women", is actually a oblique reference to a compilation porn video with one scene featuring porn actress/sex educator Nina Hartley [NFSW link alert!!]…..that would be the same Nina who had the unmitigated gall to openly call out one of Cleveland’s main antiporn collaborators, Dr. Chyng Sun, in the pages of the CounterPunch website, on Sun’s gross misrepresentations of Hartley’s profession and of sexuality in general.

Needless to say, Cleveland decides to pull no punches in attacking Nina…but we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. First, let’s begin at the beginning, as it were [Emphasis added by me for the juicier tidbits]:

A few weeks ago, I attended a Take Back the Night rally on campus. The evening was devoted to raising awareness about sexual assault. I was glad to be there, glad to be supporting an important cause, and glad to be surrounded by some incredible women, many of whom were survivors of rape. But even though I felt proud to be taking part, I also felt sad: as I listened to the speakers who had been chosen to address our group, I heard discussion of everything from date rape to harmful depictions of women in the mainstream media. But there was one issue nobody seemed willing to talk about. No one said a word about pornography.

No one spoke about the fact that so many of the women in the pornography and prostitution industries are survivors, too. No one mentioned that over two thirds of them have lived through childhood sex abuse. Nobody talked about how the average prostitute is raped eight times a day and no one dared question whether or not there were similarities between the descriptions often given by porn stars of how filming a scene feels (“It’s like I’m outside of myself, like I’m watching what’s happening to me”) and the dissociation frequently experienced by rape victims. While everybody acknowledged that we live in a culture where men often feel they have the right to take sex by force, no one seemed willing to admit that most men also feel they have the right to buy it, freely availing themselves of the forces perpetrated by capitalism. No one brought up the issue of pornography until I brought it up: as an anti-pornography feminist, I oppose the selling of women for sex, and to me, that seems like the quintessential feminist position, reviled as it is these days.

It really doesn’t take long, doesn’t it?? Right off the bat, Ms. Cleveland (who is described in the article as a senior at the University of Georgia and a collaborator to Chyng Sun (more on that anon), rehashes all the usual boilerplate about how porn actresses (but not the male actors, mind you, since their alleged suffering doesn’t quite fit into her neatly built coccoon of male rapicity and female victimhood) are merely virtual living sexbots who are raised like chickens to be slaughtered for Thanksgiving; to be "raped eight times a day". (Really??? Does that include the times the "pornstitutes" "self-rape" themselves with their sex toys or their own fingers penetrating their orfices??? Or the times when they engage in sex with their own lovers not for pay, but for their own pleasure???)  And what about the idea that the "outer-body experience" of engaging in a totally pleasurable experience has to be the equivalent of experiencing a horror such as rape?? Most thinking human beings would understand that there is a difference between ecstasy and violence, between coercion and willfull consent, between pleasure and pain….but somehow, these concepts manage to escape the synapses of our young crusader for women’s "intimacy".

Then, Cleveland breaks out Anti-Porn Meme #2: "Bust the Liberal Men":

I oppose the businesses of pornography and prostitution because both hurt me, and both hurt other women. As a woman, I would like to be treated as an equal human being. I would like equal treatment for all women, but I don’t see how we can reach that goal as long as some of us are being bought and sold as fuck objects. Not surprisingly, my feelings about pornography do not make me popular with men. I can count on one hand the number of male friends I have who support me. I am not a closet-conservative, but am strongly pro-choice, pro-environment, and anti-capitalist. Most of the men I speak to about pornography agree with me on these issues. They identify themselves as liberal and feel that the subordination of human beings is wrong. They believe that massive corporations do not have the right to exploit people in the name of global capitalism—unless, of course, those corporations are part of the porn industry.

The porn industry is the epitome of capitalist greed. It is a ‘service’ industry, ninety percent of which markets women to men. Yet, most of the liberal men I know staunchly defend their right to use pornography despite their supposed commitment to social justice. They defend pornography despite that the fact that in the most popular pornography women’s humiliation is glorified. We are depicted as enjoying rape, being fucked by strangers, and performing oral sex on large groups of men until they cover our faces with semen. A glance around a typical porn shop will tell you that’s a description of mainstream porn.

These films feature real violence passed off as ‘speech,’ but pornography is neither speech nor fantasy. Pornography is made by doing real things to real women. Many of these women might choose not to be fucked on film, contrary to popular belief, if they were not physically or mentally coerced. But a lot can happen to a woman, if her boundaries are broken down early; and if she is poor enough to lack other options. A lot can happen in a culture that still teaches us sex is the most valuable thing we have to give.

Often liberal men remind me that pornography is not the only problem facing women. They suggest I focus my energies on more ‘important’ issues, like sexist depictions of women on television. The porn industry however, claims to have a 10 billion dollar a year profit margin. It is as mainstreamed as TV commercials, sitcoms, or any other media that might degrade women. More importantly, pornography fuses men’s orgasms with women’s dehumanization. At best, it connects male sexual pleasure with the belief men have the right to buy sexual access to women; at worst, it lets men jerk off to images of physical violence against us.

Notice how Cleveland really tends to focus her ire toward the "liberal men" who apparantly are so controlled by their erections that they just can’t see the innate harm that their desire for watching women engage in sex does to "us" radicalfeminist women.  (As opposed to conservative or even right-wing men, I guess, who apparently are given the benefit of the doubt even with their proven misogyny in other matters mostly because they at least attempt to play the role of protecting women from the evil "male gaze" and preserve the purity of the sexual pedestal.) Of course, the fact that there are actual WOMEN who happen to defend their right to view, consume, and even produce such sexually explicit material (and those many more women who don’t happen to be into porn, but defend the traditional feminist principle of "her body, her choice, her rules") does not even register a pulse in her ideological microcoding, since that would kinda mess up her Ponzi scam of thought. Obviously, such women are merely paid dupes of the Patriarchy, or mere slaveholders and "house n—-gers who side with the masters", to use Catherine MacKinnon’s deft phrase….or just plain mindless sluts who don’t know any better.

Most of the men and women I know who use pornography believe sex is naturally about domination and subordination. They feel sadomasochism is an inherent part of sex. Any critique of sadism, they say, is ‘puritanical’—the rougher and more brutal the sex filmed in porn, the realer it must be—since human sexuality is coercive at its core. Anyone who thinks sex could be about tenderness, caring or respect, is kidding herself. Thus, pornography is about offering women sexual ‘choices’ just as long as we don’t choose something other than a cold hard fuck.

For defenders of pornography, filmed violence against women is ‘natural,’ and cannot constitute sexual abuse. Violence in porn doesn’t matter because the woman in porn ‘consented.’ The underlying assumption is, deep down, some women just like to be hurt. What does that say about women’s status, or men’s view of us in general? Those who critique pornography are told never to think about what the woman being fucked might be feeling. We are told not to consider whether or not her ‘free choice’ hurts women exposed to pornography or women as a group.

Yeah, right….most of the men and women that YOU know??? Funny, Ms. Cleveland, but since when did your own experiences become so universal that you could speak for every man or woman??? Especially coming from a young person who is only just about to graduate from college??? Not that I as a 42 year old Black man can speak for anyone, either, but I’m not the one making universal assumptions about men who view sexually explicit media, now am I??

"Sadomasochism is an inherent part of sex"?? Me thinks that Ms. Cleveland is mixing her metaphors and her targets…since the overwhelming majority of sex scenes in porn (either on screen or on the Internet) happen to consist mainly of hetero couples doing mostly vanilla sex, then single women masturbating, then sex between women…..most of which contain nothing even as violent as an occasional slap on the butt (for stimulation purposes rather than for pain). Not even the most devout BDSM advocate has ever gone as far as the strawpeople that Cleveland has constructed as the flimsy foundation for her crackpot theories. 

I’ll just leave the "some women just like to be hurt" jab to women like RenEv to dissect, if you don’t mind.

And so, so interesting that she moans about how "[a woman in porn's] ’free choice’ hurts women exposed to pornography or women as a group"….isn’t that an implied notion that women shouldn’t even HAVE a choice in the first place; that women should instead only choose to be as opposed to certain sexual expression as certain antiporn activists are…or simply adjust their personal sexual practices to fit her particular ideology??  Gee, that sounds sooooo progressive and radical…as in, radical RIGHT. Just substitute "children" for "women" and "homosexuality" for "pornography", and "Christians" for "women", and you get what should be a troubling similarity…..the attacks on the "(male) Left" and on "liberal men" are more than a bit telling by themselves.

Most women in the sex industry are poorer, have had less educational opportunities, and fewer alternatives, than the men and women who defend pornography. Yet, as a feminist, if I show concern for these women prostituted through pornography, I am usually accused of denying them agency. While liberal men and women agree that the poor are entitled to help and compassion from their governments, for some reason, they act as though women being sold through pornography and prostitution don’t deserve help to leave. I am an anti-feminist, they tell me, if I dare to suggest that all women deserve better than being turned into spittoons for men’s semen. I am the one making women into victims, and not the men who use them. Women in pornography should be unionized and well-vetted, its defenders repeat, but never, ever encouraged to leave.

Oh, really???  I guess that not every young woman has the opportunity to attend the University of Georgia on a full scholarship, to graduate in Women’s Studies courses, and to be able to run with such prominent antiporn feminist activists like Chyng Sun, who manages to charge four- to five-digit honoraria for lectures on the evils of capitalism and pornography…while taking all of the profits from her upcoming "documentary" and the privileges of her tenured professorship.  Yeah, sure….I guess that Nina Hartley really did sleep around to get her nursing degree from San Francisco State (Magna Cum Laude, baby!!); and Keisha really didn’t study hard enough and was waaaay too poor to be able to earn her Masters degree. The idea that thoughtful, intellegent women may actually use porn as a vehicle to finance their education in the absence of other forms of funding might not have ventured far into young Stephanie’s mind yet…but she will probably learn soon enough, if she cares to.

And this just in, Ms. Cleveland….most women in porn do nott need anyone’s permission (not men’s, not yours, not even Nina Hartley’s permission) to walk away from the porn industry if and when they wish; many an actress/model have done that on their own without a mere thought of retribution or loss of face or profit.  One or two even go on to become antiporn activists who badmouth their former profession (Remember the former Linda Lovelace??  Traci Lords??); but the majority of them tend to simply look upon their porn careers as just a phase they went through….and some are even actually proud of their accomplishments.

Oh…and "spittoons for male semen"???  Goodness, enough with the bukkake obsession!! It’s just semen, not battery acid, for Goddess’ sake?? Would you say the same about female starlets who squirt, too…or is female ejaculate considered just as poisonous and nasty??

 [Update: OK, so I fibbed a bit....this is going to take a two-parter, because the mountain of crap continues to build ever so high.  I'll continue this dissection  anon.... ]

 [Updated to fix the links to the CounterPunch articles by Professer Sun and Nina]

 

You Just Can’t Keep A Bitch Down These Days: Bitch|Lab Back Online!!!

Well…thanks to the generosity of some fans and some creative ingenuity, Bitch|Lab is back online again and K is posting more bits and bytes of her knowledge again.  She managed to find another host to run her site and blog, and though the site is still not up fully to where it was before all Hell broke loose, it is up and running.

And she does have a place at her blog for anyone wishing to give some donations for getting back some of the lost money from her last hosts who booted her…so I won’t have to solicit any funds here for her; just send them over to her.

Great to have you back, Ms. B….and watch for those Kama Sutra gingerbread sex dolls in the rotating headers, y’all.

 

The End of Bitch|Lab??? Over This Dog’s Dead Body!!!!

If there was ever a time for the Fighting Progressive Headbussa Brigade to hook up the bayonets and battle, now is a perfect time. One of our greatest strategic assets has been stricken from us suddenly, and the time is urgent.

I just discovered this sudden and frightening email from K over at Bitch | Lab enclosing some horrible news:

Hello,

 

Our host is kicking us off, telling us that we burn up to many bits and bytes.

 

RIP, to Bitch|Lab. We are trying to move it elsewhere, but we can’t afford

dedicated hosting fees.

 

That means the lists will all have to go away.

 

Very sorry about this.

 

 

K

For those of you who may remember, Bitch’s site was the subject of a nasty denial-of-service hack attack a coouple of months ago from someone who couldn’t quite accept her criticism of the likes of Ann Bartow, the radfem professor and creator of the Feminist Law Professors blog who basically threatened to out Bitch publically as a phony and a fake scholar who was "bashing feminists and feminism" (especially the kind Bartow supported).

 

Well..it turns out that the hosting company for Bitch’s site — hell, why not out them, HostM.com — basically attempted to blame and persecute the victim of the attack (namely, B|L) rather than actually go after the perpetrators….and decided to charge Bitch for all the overhead.  Apparantly, this became too much for them, and today they unceremoniously and without any warning pulled the plug on Bitch’s entire domain (pulpculture.org); thusly killing not just the Bitch|Lab site, but also the three mailing lists (Kickingass, Squeeze, and Sexpos) that B|L had formed under that domain account.

 

She did say that she would attempt to reform the blog under another host, but due to the expense of  dedicated hosting, she would not be able to afford to totally rebuild the site.

 

Obviously, this is such horrific news, since B|L’s unique combination of scholarship, theory, and biting humor has sustained a viable and important Left critique for such a long time.

 

I’m not sure what she will ultimately do, but I happen to think that those of us (Blackamazon?? Nubian?? Kactus?? Kevin??  Belledame?? Renegade Evolution?? Sly Civilian?? Do I have to go down the roll here???) who have been enriched by B|L have an obligation……hell no, a FREAKIN’ DUTY….to give back a little. What I am offering is that some of us should donate either some spare change or some of their bandwidth to allow B|L to reform her site and her blog…or else, donate the funds to allow her to find a suitable and adequate web host.  I personally nominate my own host, LaughingSquid.com, which has served this ‘Dog quite well, is relatively cheap, and is totally reliable enough that their record of handling hackers is renowned.  I am even willing to put up some of my own bandwidth, including space on this blog, to enable her to keep her message online.

 

Whatever it takes, whatever is neccessary, and by any means neccessary…we will revive Bitch|Lab to its rightful place.  Or die trying.

 

OK…what say thou???  Say it with words..but mean it with action.  Bitch|Lab deserves nothing less!!!

 

[Written by one verrrrrry pissed off 'Dog]

 

Why Madonna Will ALWAYS Kick Ass: The “Live To Tell” Smackdown of Christian Right Pretensions

Once again, my apologies for not updating the blog as much as I could…you know the deal about my whack work schedule.

If there’s one consistency about the musical/cultural living human icon known. loved, and/or hated as Madonna Veronica Louise Ciccione, it is the fact that she will absolutely, flat-out find new ways to push buttons and boundaries, and on occasion deliberately piss off people who need to be bothered about certain issues.  Her legacy in pushing the boundaries of sex (as in her book titled, of all things, Sex), in challenging emotional repression, and in using the maximum of her talents to tweak the noses of the more politically and socially repressed, is unmatched by many artists of her time. 

Now, I’m usually not a Madonna fanatic, since she was a bit too late in my main development years growing up…but I did respect her for her outspokenness against sexual and personal repression, as well as her "I am what I am, accept it or kiss my ass" attitude….and on occasion, I’ll even listen to a song or two from her, too.  One song that I really do like was a 1980s classic called "Live To Tell", in which Madonna goes off on the perils of emotional repression. The song itself is pretty damn powerful, and the lyrics speak a great deal (an excerpt follows):

A man can tell a thousand lies 
I’ve learned my lesson well

Hope I live to tell the secret I have learned–
Till then
It will burn inside of me…

The full lyrics can be found here.

Fast forward to this past summer and Rome, where The Material Woman decided to launch her worldwide "Confessions" tour with a rollicking concert performance with all the typical Madonna bells and whistles, scantily clad (mostly gay) dancers, mock softcore sexual thematics (non-explicit, of course)….in short, all the trimmings that a world icon of Madonna’s class usually deliver. The entire concert performance was also taped by NBC to be broadcasted on Thanksgiving Eve…..but you may have missed it, mostly due to some local affiliates getting cold feet over the content and nature of the performance (and Madonna’s past rep for pushing those said envelopes a bit too much for the local Puritan’s comfort zones. (Remember the controversy about the "Like a Prayer" video, which was roundly slammed as "blasphemous" by most religious authorities….mostly for the images of a Black Jesus, ’Dita dancing next to burning crosses…and for the implied connection between sexual and religious ectascy??)

Well, it seems that the years has changed Madonna quite a bit…..yeah, right. For the opening act of the performance, she decided to revive the emotional power of "Live to Tell" to literally raise some hell about the plight of Africa’s youth, and to once again tweak some Christian Right noses….and as always, she used all the subtlety of a nuke. (She recently adopted a child out of Africa whose parents passed away from the symptoms of HIV/AIDS right after her birth.)

The results, as taped by a fan who was at the Rome performance, appear thusly (courtesy of YouTube):

 Above:  A brief clip of Madonna rising on the cross at the beginning of "Live to Tell". Click here for the YouTube page from whence this clip appears.

 

Another clip of the entire song from another perspective. (Again, from YouTube)

Needless to say, some of our more religously conservative friends were not too thrilled at Madonna’s reinterpretation of the Crucifixion; several Catholic and Orthodox religious authorities (and not a few Muslim and Orthodox Jew organizations ripped her performance as "blasphemous" and "a profanation of the Cross".  And back here in the States, several righty Christian orgs, including Donald Wildmon’s American Family Association, went even so far as to letter-bomb and email-bomb NBC for the alleged sins of allowing her to "attack Christians" and "mocking the crucifixion of Christ." (A particularly strident and hyperventilating "Action Alert" from the AFA on Madonna’s sins can be seen here.) NBC responded by cutting the opening number from their broadcast of the performance…much to the anger of Madonna fans.

Now….perhaps it was (and is) indeed ’Dita’s rep for tweaking the noses of our Puritan commisars that so enrages them about her performances…or it’s the implicit message of sexual liberation (though thoroughly neutered for a live audience) that practically oozes through much of her songs. (And of course, as I noted at the beginning, her performance did include plenty of the usual sexual innuendos, too.)

What makes this particular act far more interesting, though, is the way in which Madonna not so subtlely uses the theme of the Crucifixion to lay out and whack religious folk for not paying enough attention to the plight of the less well off. 

I could say more, but I’ll let  ’Bina Becker (of News of the Restless) take it from here, since she says it better than I ever could:

As the performance progresses, we come to see why she picked this particular song to open the show–and sing from a cross, doing a modern and literal Imitation of Christ. In another version of this performance (videotaped from further off by an amateur in the audience), you can see a digital counter over her head, spinning faster and faster until it reaches 12 million. Then it stops and the number lights up. That’s when the spotlights temporarily dim. Then she steps off the cross, moves downstage, and sings the bridge:

If I ran away, I’d never have the strength
To go very far
How would they hear the beating of my heart?

Will it grow cold,
The secret that I hide?
Will I grow old?

How will they hear,
When will they learn,
How will they know?

 

 

 

 

 As she sings it, we learn that the number on the counter is the number of African children orphaned by AIDS. (Item: Madonna recently adopted a boy from Malawi whose mother died soon after his birth.) Pictures on the screen behind her show the searching eyes of African children; the reinterpretation of the song seems to ask the audience to spare a thought for them. Above, the words "For I was hungry and you gave me food…I was naked and you gave me clothing…Whatever you did for one of the least of my brothers…" flash. Another biblical reference.

By coming down off the cross, kneeling and averting her face as if the sight of so much suffering is too much to bear, taking off her crown of thorns and placing herself at human level (at the end of the song she actually prostrates herself on the stage, like a priest or nun at the taking of the vows), Madonna is not-so-subliminally telling people to get off their high horses, their holier-than-thou attitudes, and get better acquainted with "the least of my brothers", the orphans of Africa. In so doing, they might find some redemption–or a little more meaning–in their lives.

Maybe that is what gets Donald Wildmon’s bloomers in a wad; he’s about doing just the opposite, you see. To him, AIDS isn’t a tragic, indiscriminate disease that kills young parents and leaves beautiful, innocent children orphaned; it’s God’s righteous punishment on the homo-sex-you-alls. That is the message he’s repeatedly preached to his flock. And damn that scarlet harlot Madonna for having the effrontery to say it isn’t so, and to remind people of what Jesus actually said. There wasn’t a word in it about punishing the gays; there were, on the other hand, plenty of admonitions to be thy brother’s keeper and look after those in need!

Yes, I can see why a fundamentalist would call that blasphemy. Heaven forbid that a pop star might be sincere when she gets off her glitzy disco cross to deliver a message laced with the New Testament, not the Old. Or that she might just be a better Christian than the Reverend Furnish-My-Church-With-Silver. How many African AIDS orphans has Wildmon helped, I wonder? Or does he secretly think that they, too, somehow deserve to be punished by a plague of biblical proportions, for being non-white?

Someone famous is bashing Christianity, all right, but it sure as hell ain’t Madge.

Now, I know that there will always be skeptics and cynics who will say that Madonna is simply playing the martyr for ratings and record sales; and that she is simply, like the Brangelinas (Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, whom have also garnered controversy by adopting African children), simply White liberal elitists who exploit Africa’s fate for their own benefit and profit. But….then why would she go so far to generate such controversy by going into the Crucifixion act, when she could have gone the safer route (like, for instance, choosing a song like "People Together" or, heaven forbid, "Vogue" for her opener)??

Nope…..I don’t see it that way myself.  I believe that the choice of "Live to Tell" as Madonna’s opening act is nothing less than her way of cracking back at all the critics whom have bashed her as nothing more than a material slut and a money grabber who cares little about social issues; in a way, this is the ‘Dita’s progressive Christian anthem of resistance against the Religious Right’s bald-face ignorance and willful neglect (if not active involvement) in the pandemic and genocide taking place in Africa. In other words, helping "the least of thee" and giving comfort and aid to the suffering should be a bit higher up the scale of importance than obsessions about gay men kissing or young women baring their midriffs…or potificating about two-ton monuments to "The Ten Commandments".

If for nothing else than that, Madonna gets my support…and I’m no "progressive Christian", either (though I know and like and admire more than a few. Anyone who gives Donald Wildmon aneurysms gets my vote any day of the week.

Not to mention that ‘Dita still looks damn good for her advanced age…and it takes some huge ovaries to sing on a 10-foot platform held up only by brackets.

Way to stick it to ‘em, Madonna….just keep bringing it.