Price of Pleasure

artist_sequoia · 03-03-10 00:52:58

We're having the porn vs. feminism debate in my community which was sparked by the airing of Price of Please: Porn, Sexuality and Relationships. In my opinion the documentary is way off base and since I did perform in mainstream porn I have a somewhat clear idea of the industry, I think that the issues are with our culture, not porn and that the solution starts with education not censorship.

But, I have to admit, I'm a bit emotionally biased when it comes to this subject, I wrote a recent blog about it: http://sequoiaredd.com/blog/2010/03/pri … tionships/

Has anyone on IFM seen that documentary? What did you think?

aven frey · 03-03-10 05:07:41

Education doesn't hurt anyone and a more intelligent culture will demand a more intelligent product. Porn didn't invent racism or degradation against women, those elements were already alive and aware before they started appearing in porn. Porn is simply another capitalistic enterprise that makes its dough off what the consumer wants to see, its simply a mirror of our culture.'
From Sequoia's blog post.

For such a long time so many porn makers who are not really interested in sexuality have tried (as good capitalist enterprisers should) to make as much money as possible with as little outlay and effort as possible and this is why there is so much utter shit out there and why it's so easy to criticise but as has been pointed out by various thinkers and makers (Alan Moore comes to mind) this is actually a result of the very same 'tyranny of the masses' that loves relegating sexuality to a shamed no mans land where only base capitalist enterprisers dare inhabit. I think this is changing though, the days of copious amounts of profitable bad, boring, ugly porn is numbered as is the regulated sexual moralisation that goes ways to cause it. At least I hope it is, it feels that way to me. What do others think? Sequoia who was on your list?

I haven't seen this documentary, I would like to but I am not sending money to peoples who use the same imagery they are belittling to sell their product, (see their trailer http://thepriceofpleasure.com/index.html ). I've noticed this a few times with these sorts of docos, t.v docos etc and it strikes me as hugely hypocritical.

Also check out the clips, Noam Chomsky for one of the pre-eminent thinkers of our days has managed to make about as substantial a point as Mr Fan and he got heaps more time to talk. Wow, it seems like he has done absolutely no research or even thought about it for more then a minute, possibly his lack of engagement is a reflection of the above mentioned no mans land. While I agree with him that social inequality needs to be addressed when it comes to peoples limited options (we can't fool ourselves that every person in the sex industry wants to be there) I can't work out what he's actually trying to say in regards to improving working conditions in porn for all his irrelevant child abuse hysteria and sexism but I think it might be that there shouldn't be an industry. A pornless world is about as realistic as a world without inequality, I think a world without inequality would result in wonderful porn and excellent working conditions rather then a pornless world. Anyway he's ignoring so many issues and making sweeping generalisations or maybe that's the way that the interview was cut. He does always say degrading porn, maybe he's all up for other kinds of porn.

Also Sequoia, you can trump any pro porn censorship feminist with this here excellent argument

"The equation is simple: Those who have power get to censor, and those who lack power get silenced. If you find yourself in a position to demand and get censorship, you can be sure you are among those who have the power, and you are acting to oppress others.

Yes, supporting freedom of speech means you may have to hear and see expression that you don't like. But if you cave in to censorship, you will still hear expression you don't like - from the Powers That Be - and be left without a voice to counter it."

from this here excellent website
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/

ngaio · 03-03-10 07:49:54

Oh man, that's an awesome quote, Bobby. I am totally stealing that for my blog which I will hopefully update over the next few days as I recover from having my wisdom teeth removed. Woot!

Sequoia, awesome entry, as I said in my comment on the blog itself.

blissed · 05-03-10 03:11:18

Great post Bobby!

I think everyone owns their sexuality and should be able to decide when to hide it or show it off.

Chomsky among others definitely need educating before considering their view and saying women in porn are like children.
Some people, him included I think find it very hard to accept that there are times when women want to be sexual and want the freedom to be sexual without the negative judgements men get so little of. These people view men in porn as lucky and women as reluctant victims.

I think the freedom to be sexual the way you want, when you want and be respected as a sexual being are part of being respected as an equal person and so I'd define them as feminist aims.

.

commie · 09-03-10 16:44:13

I hope you won't mind if I barge in what looks like a conversation within the IFM staff with a contrarian position but I feel compelled to defend the ideas behind "Price of Pleasure". I may come off as a know-it-all but I genuinely think there's a misunderstanding here. And I'm of course willing to try to understand your perspective. For the record, I have never been involved in any way in the adult industry (even as a customer... well, until today that is) so I'm not going to pretend I'm knowledgeable about porn. But I think I get where the film makers and many of their interviewees are coming from.

I think I understand Sequoia's reaction. This film's use of disturbing or inflammatory imagery is often shameless. I suppose it looks like an anti-porn screed. And one of the anti-porn interviewees was quite hateful. But the film isn't what you all think it is. It looks like you're projecting other people's agenda onto this film and reacting defensively. What Sequoia wrote about porn being a mirror of "our" culture is actually pretty much the point of the film. It's a shame you missed it. They're not out to ban porn or to blame it for the ills of society.
It may have been easier for me to get it because I was vaguely familiar with some of these people's opinions on unrealted topics and because I'm used to their language. My politics and theirs are related basically. And I share many of their views on porn as well.
Please read the authors' statements (a couple of PDF files on the film's website) to understand where they're coming from. I think the statements are much more eloquent than the film. It looks like they tried not to use the film as a soapbox too blatantly but this isn't going to help people get what they're trying to do.

So here's my take on the film: it's better than I expected from the horrid title and Sequoia's reaction but that's hardly an endorsement. One of the reasons I watched it is that it has a couple of people in it of whom I had a fairly high opinion (Jensen and Wolff). Well, I was disappointed with them as well as by the film in general. If you don't follow mainstream porn and you're curious, the film could be worth watching. There are interesting and/or informative parts but it was mostly predictable and somewhat boring. In the end I found the film to be thought-provoking though. That seems to have been the author's intent so I'd say the film works on that level.
As I said earlier, there are many instances where I found the choice of imagery to be objectionable, insensitive, gratuitously disgusting or just plain bad. This is not Adam Curtis at work. Which brings me to the bizarre censorship. Recall that the film makers are supposed to be radicals. They make a film about porn in which they're going use porn clips. So far so good... but they fairly arbitrarily censor the most of the semen, genitalia and even some boobs! They leave plenty of disgusting stuff however. The hypocritical yankee prudishness beggars belief. And here's the worst as far as I'm concerned: unless the performers have semen on their faces, they're not anonymized in any way. That's right: these supposed bleeding hearts who care so much about the damage that porn is doing are showing countless faces to people who typically wouldn't watch much porn. What if someone in the audience is surprised to see a family member or something? Recall much of the stuff they show is particularly repulsive porn featuring people who I presume are amateurs. What were they thinking?
I felt sorry for many of the people featured in this movie. First the porn fans staring at women. Then the young people who feel victimized by porn. Here's a choice quote: "It was just thrown at me from the time I was 12 or 13 that you're obligated to have sex ...". And what of the guy at the end of the film who says the porn to which he wanks isn't sexy and that the way in its characters are treated makes him feel bad... why is he watching this stuff then? I learned to avoid most porn for the same reason which seems simple and straightforward enough. Can't he wank without porn anyway? Isn't his body more entrancing than sexual violence on a screen? The whole thing is quite sad really.
On the positive side, Ariel Levy is cute.
The elephant in the room that seems inexplicably missing from my perspective given what the film seems to be trying to do is any mention of non-commercial snuff such as the stuff made in Iraq. Their reference to Chilean torture techniques is doubly bizarre in that respect. If you're going to compare some yankee porn with actual torture, at least compare it to yankee torture! After all this radical posturing, aside from the obvious GWoT stuff, couldn't they have shown some of the torture gear used in yankee prisons for instance?

While I generally agree with Bobby, I don't think that "ugly" porn is going to go away any time soon (if I get what was meant by "ugly"). There seems to be a real demand for depiction of all kinds of abuse. This is one of the points the film makes and I think their case is pretty solid. Then again I'm biased too.
Bobby, if you still want to watch this without supporting its authors, it could be arranged by the way.

As to Chomsky, he was ambiguous but he seemed to be making a distinction between porn and "erotica" and then equating porn with the stuff in which women are degraded and humiliated. Presumably what he tried to say is that abuse should be treated as such even if it's supposed to be part of a job. I don't see how he's being sexist.
I used to idolize Chomsky as a youth but, though I still respect him, I stopped defending him and giving him the benefit of the doubt a while back. Clearly, he's pontificating on too many unrelated topics and political correctness is no substitute for having a clue. Not knowing what Hustler is about should have clued him in as to how out of touch he is.

Blissed, I think you're way off base. Perhaps you didn't see the film. It would help you understand what we're talking about. And perhaps you are new to our political culture as well. The Wikipedia has an article on "alienation" (Marx's theory) you might want to check as a starting point.

I think I've already written too much without explaining much of anything so I'm going to close this comment but I'll elaborate later if anyone is interested.
The bottom line is that the idea behind "Price of Pleasure" is that porn is a symptom of what we don't like about this society we live in. It may make us react strongly or irrationally because it's about sex and it affects us in a different, more personal way that the working conditions in retail for instance. But we're not singling out porn. Clearly, there are bigger problems in the world.

blissed · 09-03-10 17:40:11

commie wrote:

I hope you won't mind if I barge in what looks like a conversation within the IFM staff with a contrarian position .

You have the right to place your opinion here.

commie wrote:

Blissed, I think you're way off base. Perhaps you didn't see the film. It would help you understand what we're talking about. And perhaps you are new to our political culture as well. The Wikipedia has an article on "alienation" (Marx's theory) you might want to check as a starting point.

Can you read my post again and tell me what you think is way off base about it.

I'm English and exposed to a huge amount of US culture and like you I choose what to consume and the things I like (Infomnia, Daily show, CNN ) If your political persuasion is aligned with Glen beck crying about lost America then no I'm not impressed The USA is a diverse union of states not a single state itself.

I don't see why I should be obliged to see the film. The trailer to the film is exploitative and the whole thing seems if innocent incredibly stupid and if not innocent then incredibly malicious and exploitative. How much money has it made and for who. and how much of that went to the people who feature in it who's confidentiality has been abused.

Porn, the business of pleasure with Melissa Lee for CNBC was, though not ideal, then a lot better and more importantly didn't feature any porn and so abuse any copyright or anyones private boundaries. I didn't see all of that either, I've only seen clips and heard the testamony of a freind who complained that there wasn't any porn in it You can find out a lot more about porn by talking directly to the people who contribute to it on a porn site that tackles creatively many of the issues surrounding porn than you can from watching either of these films. And something your doing in this thread right now.

.

commie · 09-03-10 17:54:26

Mods, I followed Sequoia's links to an old Jensen article about Abby Winters and Sequoia's response. I was surprised by what she wrote. Is it OK to discuss AW frankly on this forum? I think it might shed some light on the different ways in which we perceive porn but you might be pals with them and I don't want to ruffle any feathers.

blissed · 09-03-10 17:59:07

If you want to talk about AW then do so on their forum or a forum not linked to a porn site. No matter who it is, I think it's unfair and very unprofessional to specifically name and allow a critique of another site here.

.

commie · 09-03-10 18:11:30

blissed wrote:

Can you read my post again and tell me what you think is way off base about it.

The film is simply not about women being allowed to be sexual.

We may not have the same conception of what freedom is about. In our opinion, producing and consuming commodities is not conducive to kind of freedom we're interested in. We have a problem with wealth and bosses, not with how working people choose to earn a living.

blissed wrote:

I'm English and exposed to a huge amount of US culture

I should have been more explicit. I thought my handle was clear enough but by "we", I meant us commies. We're international.

blissed wrote:

I don't see why I should be obliged to see the film. The trailer to the film is exploitative ...

No obligation of course. If you wish to comment on a trailer or on a film you imagined, that's fine by me.

Agreed about the exploitative aspect: it looks bad. This film is indeed a failure in my opinion. But it doesn't mean you get to decide what it's about without hearing what the people who made it have to say.

EDIT: no, I won't take my opinion to AW's forum. I'd rather take it to Sequoia's blog but it's probably pointless so I'll keep it for myself.

Last edited by commie (09-03-10 18:19:14)

blissed · 09-03-10 18:50:34

The makers of the film are denying the concept of women wanting to be sexual and if they didn't they wouldn't characterise all the people who appear in porn as victims.

From what I've seen I can't see why I shouldn't make that assumption about the film makers, they made what I've already seen, to try and get me to see the movie, and I don't.

It's a big world with lots of competing views and they've blown their chance at reaching me already. Topped with your opinion that the film is a failure doesn't exactly make me want to go see it any more You might as well ask me to read the whole bible before I can comment on Christianity.

If your following another thread where someone was asked if they want to change their name then you'll know that the selection of a username can't be assumed as being significant or meaningful.

I think soviet communism as apposed to the voluntary commune has proved to be a disaster and an abuse of other peoples personal freedom. Though no system is perfect a balance of Socialism and democracy however I think doesn't produce that abuse.

As consumers we have the power, if we're unethical and simply demand the lowest prices without caring about the consequences to other people or the environment. In the abscence of corrective legislation like the minimum wage, the people who take the risk and run businesses and need customers must respond (and so completing the Karmic cycle,) those other people we don't care about end up being us The solution is for us to be ethical consumers and care ourselves.

And that principle I think extends to most things including porn.

.

commie · 09-03-10 19:23:06

blissed wrote:

The makers of the film are denying the concept of women wanting to be sexual and if they didn't they wouldn't characterise the people who appear in porn as victims.

No they don't. If you had read their statements or seen the film, I could perhaps try to guess what you missed and explain why it's not a fair interpretation but you just made this is up...

blissed wrote:

I think soviet communism as apposed to the voluntary commune has proved to be a disaster and an abuse of other peoples personal freedom.

I think most commies would agree with you (assuming you're talking about the USSR and not about actual soviet communism).

blissed wrote:

As consumers we have the power

We obviously think that's a blinkered view.

The films shows (and talks about) consumers evidently bereft of that power and the statements speak to the filmmakers' own experience as porn consumers. The problem is partly psychological I suppose but that's not the whole of it. Most people do not have the power to choose IFM or something like it for instance because they don't know the choice even exists. There's a reason for that and it's not that they made the wrong choice or something.

I'm glad to have the options I have but, while I can apparently consume Rupert Murdoch's porn, it seems I don't have the option of checking out the porn that Sequoia would like to produce (going by her response to Jensen) because that guy and his ilk are hoarding most of the resources.

blissed · 09-03-10 20:22:02

I didn't make anything up, that is the impression I got from what I've seen I don't really care whats in the movie, I don't have to pay attention to everyone regardless of how poor their pitch is. Their pitch is poor and I don't want to see the movie or hear what else they have to say. Making a movie doesn't obligate everyone else to watch it. Making a controversial trailer is an old trick, in fact being controversial is a way of getting attention and making more money.

The subject I'm talking about here is the ethics of porn and it's relationship to feminism. watching that movie isn't a required preface to discussing that. Talking to the people here who address the problems with porn creatively, and who make this site, is a much better way of understanding the issues.

Why do you say we, have all communists read my post and then told you to speak for them As consumers and voters we have power, if we neglect to use it then we suffer. If you believe in renewable energy then use a renewable supplier and exclude nuclear. If you believe in tempering the excesses of the market with some socialism then vote for it. If choices don't exist then that's your opportunity to create them yourself. Obviously life isn't that simple and at points it's sometimes a big struggle but then you have to put large amounts of effort into most things to get a good result.

commie wrote:

I don't have the option of checking out the porn that Sequoia would like to produce (going by her response to Jensen) because that guy and his ilk are hoarding most of the resources.

You'd have to address that point to her.

All I'm saying to you here is I don't wish to see the film or consider it's conclusions as valid because I feel it's just trolling for money. That's just my opinion and I'm going to leave some space for alternative views to mine here, so you can have a more enjoyable and productive debate.

.

moldenke · 09-03-10 22:19:31

To those of you considering reading this thread in anticipation of it being another Jeffo-style debate, I'll warn you: it ain't. Just some mild disagreement that made me not want to watch this documentary at all.

And now, since I have nothing to say about any of this, I'll butt back out. : )

aven frey · 10-03-10 08:47:52

I’m a bit apprehensive about continuing to contribute to this discussion having not seen the film but I agree with Blissed that it’s reasonable to discuss the issues that the films website brings up as it should be a good reflection of what’s in the film. So I went and read all the statements and bios as you suggested Commie. I was initially a little disappointed with their lack of experience and in some cases interest in the porn industry. To me it reads a little like outsiders looking in to make a film.

I honestly found the statements by Sun and Wosnitzer a little confused.

Sun describing herself when buying adult dvds as a ‘fallen woman’ sans a critique of such a problematic label rings alarm bells, especially coming from someone who has studied sexuality and the media.

Other then the fact we have problems with our economic system that causes inequalities, the overarching thrust of their argument seems to be the very contentious proposition that pornography doesn’t just reflect social values it influences them. However the statements really don’t go into the complexities of this issue, rather they just skip along to the easier part, looking at those social values (well kind of, that investigation isn’t very substantive either). I see this as weak. If you’re going to take such a position, a position that has been challenge numerous times with studies and theory, you should go some ways to make an argument for it. Does the film try to prove this where the statements do not? What do people think about this? It would be nice to get some more opinions, it’s a very interesting topic.

My personal feelings about the possible not so passive effects of porn are; that if there is indeed a problem here (and I can’t say for sure that there is) it is the result of a massive glut of porn that does in fact subjugate women in an offensive way. So the problem as I see it (and as I’ve said before) is not porn but talentless and uninspired pornographers. I actually don’t even think that porn reflects social values. ‘Gag factor’ as a glimpse into the heart of the injustices of the plight of lady faces just doesn’t ring true to me. Perhaps it’s as simple as a glimpse into the plight of the greedy man with no imagination. And the plight of the horny person unable or uninspired to navigate the internets well.

Subjugation, objectification, dominance, submission are all valid parts of sexuality and pornographers have every right to represent them in order to arouse people and I can’t see how these representations should be harmful if they are contexualised within sexual play. This is what I believe the Kink people do but as I understand those websites were actually criticised in this film. So how do they expect as Wosnitzer suggests we are to create ‘new fantasies, new desires and pleasures that acknowledge our own and the world’s vulnerability’s’. It seems a tad hypocritical, or stupid or something. If he thinks that our subconscious’s are going to conjure up different fantasies under a different economic system I don’t think he is giving psychoanalysis enough credit! (For those who haven’t read the statements I’m referring to, that last sentence is regarding quotes such as ‘Pornography is where patriarchy and capitalism meet’ and ‘nothing shows any better then pornography what you get from capitalism’ etc).

The statement is also full of presumptions and generalisations, which dismisses the reality and experience of many women who work in this industry. One example is the assertion that the ‘women on screen were not treated right, and they did not want to be there’. Women who work in this industry seem to understand more so then consumers and commentators and idle Chomsky’s that working in pornography does not automatically mean a loss of autonomy (many would argue that every historic example of communism in practice does though). As long as, to quote an excellent article about such issues found here

http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/fem … x-markets/

“... consumers and producers respect the ends of porn actors. These ends include the desire to exploit for the economic gain others’ sexual interest in them and their bodies within the conventional boundaries set by various genres of sexual representation and entertainment. The relationship between porn stars and consumers of their image are market relationships and should be held to the norms of those relationships, not the norms of friendships and romance”.

commie · 10-03-10 13:27:20

bobby wrote:

I’m a bit apprehensive about continuing to contribute to this discussion having not seen the film [...] So I went and read all the statements and bios as you suggested Commie.

The film mostly gives you predictable illustration as well as the perspectives of other people. It's sometimes interesting but in any case the statements are a lot more explicit than the movie about what the authors are about.

bobby wrote:

Sun describing herself when buying adult dvds as a ‘fallen women’ sans a critique of such a problematic label rings alarm bells

It's clearly implied I think. Who would use that label earnestly?

bobby wrote:

Other then the fact we have problems with our economic system that causes inequalities, the overarching thrust of their argument seems to be the very contentious proposition that pornography doesn’t just reflect social values it influences them. [...] If you’re going to take such a position, a position that has been challenge numerous times with studies and theory, you should go some ways to make an argument for it. Does the film try to prove this where the statements do not?

No, the film only illustrates it (the film isn't argumentative for the most part). For instance they talk about porn elements in music videos, about a guy who did porn in which blacks are being raped by Klan members as well as popular music videos. Then they interviewed a hip hop guy. And so on... you get the idea hopefully.
I only see this as secondary in what they're trying to do but I agree it's an important part... and a weak one too. Again, I think the central idea of the film is that porn reveals things about the society, not so much that it influences it. I read what Sequoia wrote as quite similar to what is meant by ‘nothing shows any better then pornography what you get from capitalism’.

This idea that production and consumption of commodities influences values and the culture is so central to our ideology that they rightly take it as a given I think. If you don't agree, I very much doubt that a short film and a few pages of background could possibly bridge the ideological gap anyway.
Personally, the notion that porn stands outside of the culture somehow simply doesn't compute. Perhaps you could cite some of these studies and theories because I don't even understand what's being argued or what it would mean in concrete terms if it was true.

bobby wrote:

if there is indeed a problem here (and I can’t say for sure that there is) it is the result of a massive glut of porn that does in fact subjugate women in an offensive way. So the problem as I see it (and as I’ve said before) is not porn but talentless and uninspired pornographers.

But then your notion of porn is removed from what most of porn consists of, right? And why not? This is also what I'm doing by calling myself "commie". So if they had said that the film is about "historical examples of porn" or best-selling porn rather than about your ideal, would you be OK with that?

bobby wrote:

‘Gag factor’ as a glimpse into the heart of the injustices of the plight of lady faces just doesn’t ring true to me. Perhaps it’s as simple as a glimpse into the plight of the greedy man with no imagination.

You may not agree but she specifically said these angles aren't the point. She said the point is that the performer is being paid so much more for that than for working at a regular job. You've got social values (what's worth selling is worth making and so on) right there, along with the injustices they imply. But this is important too:

bobby wrote:

And the plight of the horny person unable or uninspired to navigate the internets well

"Unable or uninspired" trivializes it I think. Do you seriously think it's a personal defect or a lack of skill that constrains people's choices in this fashion? We don't think consciousness exists in an abstract realm that's not influenced by economic relationships.

bobby wrote:

Subjugation, objectification, dominance, submission are all valid parts of sexuality and pornographers have every right to represent them in order to arouse people and I can’t see how these representations should be harmful if they are contexualised within sexual play. This is what I believe the Kink people do but as I understand those websites were actually criticised in this film. So how do they expect as Wosnitzer suggests we are to create ‘new fantasies, new desires and pleasures that acknowledge our own and the world’s vulnerability’s’. It seems a tad hypocritical, or stupid or something.

Agreed but...
I don't know if the websites you're thinking of (which ones? I only recall they showed footage inspired by the "training of O" book) were addressed in the film but I doubt they were "criticized" unless that's what you call showing some of the content. They interviewed a guy who works at Taboo magazine and they let him steal the picture so it's not like your point of view wasn't articulated at all.
Contextualizing what looks like torture within sexual play is also problematic. And I certainly don't want to characterize all domination/submission stuff that way. I guess it's going to depend a lot on what people associate with certain things. When I see people being bound and ducked in water, I see torture. Maybe you don't. I bet you couldn't guess what came to my mind when the film brought up the ass-to-mouth thing (I'm not saying it's BDSM because it didn't look that way) for instance. Does the name Bobby Sands ring a bell? The screws at Long Kesh used to do something like that. So I have a really, really hard time seeing what's sexy or playful about it. It makes me think of people clinging on to their dignity by starving themselves to death.

bobby wrote:

The statement is also full of presumptions and generalisations, which dismisses the reality and experience of many women who work in this industry. One example is the assertion that the ‘women on screen were not treated right, and they did not want to be there’.

Yes, the statements are very short. But you're making a big assumption here. What is on the screen? Actual women that work in the industry or characters in a movie? I'd say the viewers see the characters. How do you feel when you see torture in a non-porn movie? You know nobody is being hurt but it doesn't make me feel good at all and there are movies that I'm careful not to recommend to some people who I know to be more sensitive than me.
However actual women are treated in mainstream porn, based on my very limited knowledge, the characters are usually badly mistreated to say the least. Would you agree? This is perhaps the one thing the movie tries to prove and they appropriately do it by bringing up a study, not by editorializing.
Maybe all this depends on how you emphasize with fiction characters. I'd have a hard time buying that a character has a kink for being mistreated. Perhaps in a book or a long movie if it's well done...

bobby wrote:

working in pornography does not automatically mean a loss of autonomy (many would argue that every historic example of communism in practice does though).

Working for a boss tends to do that but yeah, it's not automatic. You could say the same thing about child labour. I am also opposed to that prohibition, and for the same reason.

There are by definition no historical examples of communism in practice but I get what you mean... many are misinformed.

bobby wrote:

“... consumers and producers respect the ends of porn actors. These ends include the desire to exploit for the economic gain others’ sexual interest in them and their bodies within the conventional boundaries set by various genres of sexual representation and entertainment.

Well, I think I can call myself a consumer and I don't respect that desire. Does that mean I don't respect their "autonomy and personhood" as Laurie Sharge seems to argue in your link? I think not. I also don't agree that actors are exploiting anyone unless they're also the bosses.
And I'd say the same things about actors outside porn by the way.

SEP (Bobby's link) is great by the way... check it out people!

blissed · 10-03-10 15:15:08

commie you have a valid right to place your opinions here but their credibility is diminsished by you describing yourself as "we" It makes you look nuts (just lke a religious nut and at best insecure. I'm not saying this to be adversarial it's just something that makes me laugh, but it's up to you if you want to continue to describe yourself that way. Anyway, where was we

Your not separating fantasy from reality, BDSM is an expression of passionate desire.

All that happens in BDSM from love bites onwards has to be contextualised in consensual role play. Appreciate there are women and men who like being tied up and tormented. Many people switch between dominant and submissive. If those people want to produce sexual images that's fine. The same images as real events with or without a sexual context are awful, but so are other nonsexual fantasies like disaster movies and I enjoy them knowing they're a fantasy.

When it comes to the economic context any movies are made in, I like solutions that create a level playing field for all businesses.
When many old hollywood movies were made, there was no health and safety rules and now there are and I think there still needs to be a network of accredited observers within the film industry and any industry. A bit like a unions health and safety rep, but with a little less training, and covert, just like anyone who calls a malpractice hotline, but when the observers are trained and accredited investigation is so much cheaper. In porn this relates particularly to the use of condoms and safe sexual practice.

Porn or any film doesn't reflect society it reflects on the people who make it and people can be diverse. At the moment there's an enormous gap between the nature of the demand for sexual images ( most people are usually law abiding and pretty nice) and many of the producers who's notion of their audience is stuck in a bygone era, when porn was really hard to come by, and you had to be desperate for it to want to bother that much to get hold of it

A boss is someone who pays, serving a boss is much like serving a customer, there are good ones and bad ones and we're all customers, so when we buy something we're all bosses. I think your ego just resents the reality of serving anybody even though people serve you.

I also feel that it's easy to be critical, but you offer no specific or creative solutions for other people to criticise. I'd rather focus on crative solutions like this site than continually make the same criticisms of a mainstream industry that we all agree needs developement. Theres a place for critiscism if it helps you formulate solutions but in formulating those solutions I think we should usually reject hate and destructiveness in favour of love and creativity.

.

aven frey · 10-03-10 15:53:13

commie wrote:

It's clearly implied I think. Who would use that label earnestly?

Actually it doesn’t seem implied to me at all. Nothing in anything she has presented on this website suggests that she sees the women in this industry as 'respectable'.

commie wrote:

Perhaps you could cite some of these studies and theories because I don't even understand what's being argued or what it would mean in concrete terms if it was true.

The seop link outlines these arguments under the sub heading causal properties. There is the position that pornography leads to men committing more violence against women and also the silencing of women through a conditioning of utterances. The apposing argument being that it can’t be assumed pornography affects men in any way other then to give them a hard on as for the most part audiences, both men and women, aren’t stupid imitators incapable of understanding a text for what it is. And that text has many different meaning for different people. Any link made between a crime and pornography to strengthen the former point is actually discounting the actions of the perpetrator in a way detrimental to the goals of feminism. There is also the argument that in many contexts pornography is empowering to women (even the bad stuff) because it challenges the conventions of passive feminine sexuality and gives voice to complex fantasies and desires among other things.

commie wrote:

But then your notion of porn is removed from what most of porn consists of, right? And why not? This is also what I'm doing by calling myself "commie". So if they had said that the film is about "historical examples of porn" or best-selling porn rather than about your ideal, would you be OK with that?

I’m not sure what you’re asking here but I’m pretty sure the answer is to make better porn and lots of it. Especially the ladies.

commie wrote:

You may not agree but she specifically said these angles aren't the point. She said the point is that the performer is being paid so much more for that than for working at a regular job. You've got social values (what's worth selling is worth making and so on) right there, along with the injustices they imply. But this is important too:

I just used ‘Gag factor’ as a flippant example. In retrospect that was silly as it does confuse the statement with those issues in that particular paragraph. So let’s say I don’t see a reflection of my own social realities in ‘cum soaked school sluts’, not when I was a sex worker, not when I had a bad porn championing boyfriend and not now that I make porn for a living.

The point you are making is reliant on a particular ideology no? Whose injustice? Why shouldn’t the performer get paid more? Isn’t this an issue outside of pornography? It’s all well and good to say we’re looking at the issues behind the reality but if there is going to be such a strong position against pornography then I want some answers.

commie wrote:

"Unable or uninspired" trivializes it I think. Do you seriously think it's a personal defect or a lack of skill that constrains people's choices in this fashion? We don't think consciousness exists in an abstract realm that's not influenced by economic relationships.

I think that people are often lazy about diversifying their realm of desire. I think there is plenty of well made and ethical choices if people bothered to venture beyond the tubes and the boxes. I think an awareness campaign is in order, as I don’t believe the majority of people want to be watching feel bad porn. However you are right in that the free tubes are about economic relationships but that’s a separate issue.

commie wrote:

Agreed but...
I don't know if the websites you're thinking of (which ones? I only recall they showed footage inspired by the "training of O" book) were addressed in the film but I doubt they were "criticized" unless that's what you call showing some of the content. They interviewed a guy who works at Taboo magazine and they let him steal the picture so it's not like your point of view wasn't articulated at all.

I can’t really speak about what’s in the film and how it was presented, I was making an assumption that if they were using clips from Kink websites to support the arguments they were making in their web statements then they would have been critical about the content. I ascertained this from Sequoia’s article.

commie wrote:

Contextualizing what looks like torture within sexual play is also problematic. And I certainly don't want to characterize all domination/submission stuff that way. I guess it's going to depend a lot on what people associate with certain things. When I see people being bound and ducked in water, I see torture. Maybe you don't. I bet you couldn't guess what came to my mind when the film brought up the ass-to-mouth thing (I'm not saying it's BDSM because it didn't look that way) for instance. Does the name Bobby Sands ring a bell? The screws at Long Kesh used to do something like that. So I have a really, really hard time seeing what's sexy or playful about it. It makes me think of people clinging on to their dignity by starving themselves to death.

Well this is where the constitutional rights to free speech that my country does not have come in handy. Your torture is Dana DeAmonds fantasy. If everyone is consenting and no one is being hurt (well maybe they are but superficially and because they want to be) then what right do you have to discount someone’s expression of sexuality? Where is the line and who is the arbiter of that line?

commie wrote:

Yes, the statements are very short. But you're making a big assumption here. What is on the screen?

That’s a fair point. I was making that assumption based on the later statement ‘ and they did not want to be there’ along with ‘she chooses to do it’ in the next paragraph. I find those difficult to read as a reference to a character rather then the porn actress.

commie wrote:

Maybe all this depends on how you emphasize with fiction characters. I'd have a hard time buying that a character has a kink for being mistreated. Perhaps in a book or a long movie if it's well done...

We are complex, fucked up, healthy, mental, happy persons with all sorts of kinks!

commie wrote:

There are by definition no historical examples of communism in practice but I get what you mean... many are misinformed.

I have likely got this wrong as I’m not so knowledgable in communism but what would you call Mao’s China and Soviet Russia? I’ve read a bit about the Cultural Revolution in China and from what I can gather people did feel as though they had lost autonomy, not only over their lives but their bodies also causing all sorts of unusual sexual proclivities.

commie wrote:

Well, I think I can call myself a consumer and I don't respect that desire. Does that mean I don't respect their "autonomy and personhood" as Laurie Sharge seems to argue in your link? I think not. I also don't agree that actors are exploiting anyone unless they're also the bosses.
And I'd say the same things about actors outside porn by the way.

Well this is interesting. Why don’t you?
Just for clarification, the word exploit shouldn’t always carry connotations of an inherent victim or victims, unless of course you think that to utilise for profit always involves a victim. It can also mean an heroic feat. Yeah lets use that one!

commie · 10-03-10 16:17:50

I'd like to come back to this now that I went back to the relevant part of the statement:

bobby wrote:

So how do they expect as Wosnitzer suggests we are to create ‘new fantasies, new desires and pleasures that acknowledge our own and the world’s vulnerability’s’. It seems a tad hypocritical, or stupid or something. If he thinks that our subconscious’s are going to conjure up different fantasies under a different economic system I don’t think he is giving psychoanalysis enough credit! (For those who haven’t read the statements I’m referring to, that last sentence is regarding quotes such as ‘Pornography is where patriarchy and capitalism meet’ and ‘nothing shows any better then pornography what you get from capitalism’ etc).

There's a misinterpretation here. Let's look at the full quote:

Wosnitzer wrote:

The images that pornography provides rob us of our own creative capacity, and colonize our fantasies, desires and ideas of pleasure as objects to be consumed, rather than shared and experienced among one another. In order to create a better world, we need new fantasies, new desires and pleasures that acknowledge our own and the world’s vulnerabilities, and that reject the world that pornography proposes.

He's not talking about what he hopes would spontaneously emerge from an economic system that would somehow be fundamentally different: he's talking about the role of fantasy in creating a new economic system (and I'm not convinced but nevermind). What he's saying is precisely that fantasies aren't conjured by an individual "subconscious" but are also social. So he sets up a dichotomy (which I think is indeed "hypocritical, stupid or something") between two ways of creating social fantasies: by non-commercial direct personal communication or mediated by commodities and wage labour. And porn is supposed to be the second thing. Nevermind that movies and other cultural products that aren't considered pornography are full of fantasies. And nevermind that porn can be pretty personal (I'm not the expert here so do tell if I'm mistaken!).
There is no such problem with the Wolff quote because all he's saying is that we can see capitalism in full bloom in porn. And I guess we can all agree that, within the cultural industry, porn is uniquely commodified. The film had a porn performer reciting her rates for instance: girl-girl costs this much, DP this much and double anal that much. I don't know if the performer was bullshitting to amuse the audience but she made it sound like the only way for fantasy to get into it was if someone was to invent some new medical-sounding sex act which would pay even more. In any case I don't think you'll contradict me when I say that porn is often marketed in this fashion as well, according to obsessive and dehumanizing classifications and "fetishes".
There's something to be said for non-commercial communication obviously and I am indeed convinced that the cultural has been partly "colonized" by commodities. And I don't want to bore you with a commie rant about that... but unless Wosnitzer is using a weird definition of porn, it sounds like he's effectively denying the very possibility of pornography that amounts to something else than an obscene commodity. And that's the most glaring problem with their work in my opinion. It may also partly explain why Sequoia reacted so negatively. It's like the movie implicitly shoehorns porn, as if the best-selling stuff is all that porn could be and that people wanting to do something else shouldn't try to do porn. It's not said out loud but one indeed has to wonder why they did not show other kinds of porn (or why they misrepresented some "Kink" websites if that's what they really did).

blissed · 10-03-10 17:24:41

If sexual imagery is made or viewed with respect for other people, it isn't evil, it's rather nice and about sexual attraction and inspiration and so can't be used to discredit capitalism. There are a fair few examples of this now including this site, all created using capital. Money is one way to realise our dreams not an end in itself. Nobody will buy something from you because they want you to be rich

.

commie · 11-03-10 13:48:27

bobby wrote:

Nothing in anything she has presented on this website suggests that she sees the women in this industry as 'respectable'.

Why would see them as anything else? She wasn't even talking about women in the industry but about herself, a female consumer.

But look, there's enough commie codewords in there that you can tell she's either faking or she's some shade of red. If she isn't faking it, she won't disrespect workers for the industry they work in. Not in the 21st century anyway...

bobby wrote:

There is the position that pornography leads to men committing more violence against women and also the silencing of women through a conditioning of utterances.

Ah, OK. Well, you may be reading a criticism of porn you're used to read elsewhere into their statements.

No, I think the influence they were talking about was more general. Like, there's racist porn and that's some cultural thing independent of porn that's influencing porn but the influence obviously goes in the other direction as well.

EDIT: then again, the movie film also featured people dealing with abuse cases in which porn was involved but this is something different than porn leading to abuse. And it's not an argument anyway: it's obvious degrading and/or violent porn is going to be used that way.

bobby wrote:

The point you are making is reliant on a particular ideology no? Whose injustice? Why shouldn’t the performer get paid more? Isn’t this an issue outside of pornography?

Yes, I've tried to make it blindingly obvious by making some grandiose statements that sound ridiculous. So once again: if you have never been introduced to a certain ideology, you might not get it. And yes, if you figure the ideology doesn't hold water you're not likely to agree with some of the arguments.

Why should anyone be paid more than anyone else? Because the job takes an uncommon skill? Or because the job is hateful and no one would do it willingly otherwise? In any case the high pay is a sign that the work is valued, which is the point. Of all things, why is that job particularly valued by society? What good does it do when someone is gagged on film in this fashion? If people want to do this, why not? But where's the value really? Shouldn't the work of good teachers be valued more for instance?
The injustice doesn't stop there (there are things more important than wages) and obviously this is an issue outside porn. If we were to look only at wages, it's hardly material in porn actually. Has any worker ever been paid an obscene amount of money in porn? It seems there's a lot of money in porn but surely not as much as in sports for instance.

bobby wrote:

such a strong position against pornography then I want some answers.

I don't see such a strong position against pornography as such there... which is the point I've been trying to make all along. When people talk about the economic system, commodification and so on it's a pretty good bet they're not after porn. They're after the people who control the tubes and the boxes:

bobby wrote:

if people bothered to venture beyond the tubes and the boxes. I think an awareness campaign is in order, as I don’t believe the majority of people want to be watching feel bad porn.

Now that would be a noble undertaking no commie should find fault with! If anyone should stray from the party line, they'll be denounced as petty bourgeois agent provocateurs.

bobby wrote:

If everyone is consenting and no one is being hurt (well maybe they are but superficially and because they want to be) then what right do you have to discount someone’s expression of sexuality?

This is not about rights because censorship and prohibition haven't been advocated here.
But this doesn't mean I can just paper over the disturbing stuff with some generic politically correct arguments about everyone being different and such. Violence and oppression are real problems and are not somehow separate from fantasy. And consent isn't a black and white thing that lits up when one turns 18 or something only to turn off when you have certain drugs in your system.

If someone is being paid a fair bit of money and needs it, how do you know if it's actually "someone's expression of sexuality"? And how can you tell if someone is actually consenting in some of these situations?
The commercial aspect is going to constrain expression even when people are not in financial distress. I don't know how commercialized the stuff that looks like torture is but I've heard about regular porn performers being pressured into doing stuff because it fit some kind of commercial norm. Obviously workers are pressured to conform in other creative businesses and certainly in non-creative businesses but when it comes to violence or to stuff that looks like torture, I think there is ground for special concern. And in any case anyone's expression can be turned into a travesty under enough commercial pressure. It happens outside of porn so why not in this case?

And what's going on in the head of someone who finds enjoyment in watching what looks like torture? People generally assume that only pedophiles are interested in kiddie porn. I don't know if it's true but, when I see things like this it sets off mental alarms like: what would they do if they were given a uniform, a weapon and authority? What if they already have these things? In any case this stuff is better out there in the open. If nothing else it encourages the people who record actual torture as if it was amateur porn or something to feel entitled and to be careless...

bobby wrote:

I have likely got this wrong as I’m not so knowledgable in communism but what would you call Mao’s China and Soviet Russia?

Dictatorships would be a fair description I think. Let's take the better-known example: soviet means council or assembly. The early history of Soviet Russia is complicated (what with the war and all) but it didn't take long from the time at which a new authority higher than the councils was established and the time the councils had no real power anymore.
According to Lenin, his regime wasn't even supposed to be communist anyway, only socialist. Socialism was supposed to be a transition to an utopian society called communism. This definition is popular and useful whatever one thinks of Lenin so it's the one I'm using. It is also often argued that communism must be global or not at all unless it is confined to rather remote parts of the countryside which again marks it as an utopia. But however you define the words, the point remains: the means became an end in themselves, the ideals were betrayed and the people who stood for them were killed or put away.
Be wary of people talking about "all historical examples" of anything without having any notion of how many such examples there might be and what they had consisted of. If you care to get real, Orwell for instance wrote a book about his experience of a transition from commie revolution to dictatorship for instance.

bobby wrote:

Well this is interesting. Why don’t you?

Why don't I what? Asynchronous written communication can be a struggle sometimes...

Last edited by commie (11-03-10 13:59:01)

blissed · 11-03-10 14:54:20

commie wrote:

This is not about rights because censorship and prohibition haven't been advocated here.
But this doesn't mean I can just paper over the disturbing stuff with some generic politically correct arguments about everyone being different and such. Violence and oppression are real problems and are not somehow separate from fantasy.

Yes hitting someone for real and hitting them as part of consensual BDSM role play are completely separate.

If you look at news media, the difference between a staged kink shoot and real violence is obvious, plus most Kink practices look dramatic but just don't hurt, like clothes pegs on the skin or light whipping. Where something does hurt there are safe practices to observe. In porn I've never seen anyone being ht on the back with a cane, thats really dangerous and I've never seen that happen on a BDSM site. BDSM has safe practices like most sports or physical activities. If you read about the techniques and safe practices in BDSM then you can see if something is careless or risky.

commie wrote:

And consent isn't a black and white thing that lits up when one turns 18 or something only to turn off when you have certain drugs in your system.

Peoples right to informed consent should be respected.

commie wrote:

If someone is being paid a fair bit of money and needs it, how do you know if it's actually "someone's expression of sexuality"? And how can you tell if someone is actually consenting in some of these situations?
The commercial aspect is going to constrain expression even when people are not in financial distress. I don't know how commercialized the stuff that looks like torture is but I've heard about regular porn performers being pressured into doing stuff because it fit some kind of commercial norm. Obviously workers are pressured to conform in other creative businesses and certainly in non-creative businesses but when it comes to violence or to stuff that looks like torture, I think there is ground for special concern. And in any case anyone's expression can be turned into a travesty under enough commercial pressure. It happens outside of porn so why not in this case?

I like people to express their own sexuality but they don't have to for me to respect and appreciate a sexual image of them. If their beauty has given me pleasure, kudos to them.

commie wrote:

And what's going on in the head of someone who finds enjoyment in watching what looks like torture? People generally assume that only pedophiles are interested in kiddie porn. I don't know if it's true but, when I see things like this it sets off mental alarms like: what would they do if they were given a uniform, a weapon and authority? What if they already have these things? In any case this stuff is better out there in the open. If nothing else it encourages the people who record actual torture as if it was amateur porn or something to feel entitled and to be careless...

If your libido rewards you with arousal when you see a libido fantasy acted out on a site with safe practice or enter into the fantasy of watching a murder mystery or a war film, it doesn't instantly make you a nasty person. These are fantasies. Nasty people will do nasty things and have long before internet kink was available. But your right in that in my experience a lot of people who enjoy sexual images care about the welfare of the people in them and how ethically they were produced. They usually need to bear in mind though that the people who appear in sexual images can be pro-active both sexually and in business or sharing images of your hotness can just be a very occasional cool adventure.

.

blissed · 16-03-10 04:02:47

I think this is a much better movie and it has an outstanding news reporter!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVEKuq1gIGI

.

#1 03-03-10 00:52:58

Price of Pleasure

#2 03-03-10 05:07:41

Re: Price of Pleasure

#3 03-03-10 07:49:54

Re: Price of Pleasure

#4 05-03-10 03:11:18

Re: Price of Pleasure

#5 09-03-10 16:44:13

Re: Price of Pleasure

#6 09-03-10 17:40:11

Re: Price of Pleasure

#7 09-03-10 17:54:26

Re: Price of Pleasure

#8 09-03-10 17:59:07

Re: Price of Pleasure

#9 09-03-10 18:11:30

Re: Price of Pleasure

#10 09-03-10 18:50:34

Re: Price of Pleasure

#11 09-03-10 19:23:06

Re: Price of Pleasure

#12 09-03-10 20:22:02

Re: Price of Pleasure

#13 09-03-10 22:19:31

Re: Price of Pleasure

#14 10-03-10 08:47:52

Re: Price of Pleasure

#15 10-03-10 13:27:20

Re: Price of Pleasure

#16 10-03-10 15:15:08

Re: Price of Pleasure

#17 10-03-10 15:53:13

Re: Price of Pleasure

#18 10-03-10 16:17:50

Re: Price of Pleasure

#19 10-03-10 17:24:41

Re: Price of Pleasure

#20 11-03-10 13:48:27

Re: Price of Pleasure

#21 11-03-10 14:54:20

Re: Price of Pleasure

#22 16-03-10 04:02:47

Re: Price of Pleasure

Board footer