You're definitely right that this guy was prosecuted for all the wrong reasons and that the real issues we should be concerned about in his case are totally ignored, as usual. And I also agree that people can't control their kinks and shouldn't feel guilty about them. Feminism should be a movement that liberates people from the guilt that's been heaped on them by a patriarchal culture and its religious fundamentalist undertones.

But I'm still not willing (and you and I have had this one out before) to embrace this kind of porn. I don't think that this kind of porn is so much the problem as a symptom of the problem. Why are there so many men who can't even get aroused without behaving in a way (or watching porn) that's degrading to women? Why are there so many women who equate degradation and mistreatment with sexuality? And why is this generally not reciprocal? I guess if there were just as many individuals of both genders who enjoyed the whole degrading/being degraded thing I'd feel better about it, but there's not. And I think the fact that this is such a turn-on to people reveals deeper attitudes and beliefs about gender in our culture that are really disturbing. Being prudish about it and prosecuting pornographers isn't going to change any of this. To me it's a deeper systemic problem that needs to be addressed. But how do we address it?

Wow. First off, I absolutely cannot believe that someone would write a post on a feminist blog saying that there is nothing wrong with violent and degrading depictions of women (I hope someone backs me up on this).

Max Hardcore is just plain wrong on so many levels that it is difficult to know where to start. Aside from the obvious objectification of women and the association of physical pain and torture with sexuality, perhaps one should take into the account the fact there are men who watch these videos thinking this is how women should be treated. And just why is it that it is the women who are being tortured, and not Max?

Perhaps it is just my opinion, but violence, pain, and sexuality do not seem to go very well together. Nor do they seem to go along with any notions of equality. But aside from that, is there not enough violence and degradation in the world today? Do we really need more? And do the people who perpetuate violence against women really need to be defended?

As far as the issue of consent goes, try doing a little research on just how it is that some women wind up doing violent pornography. I can assure you, the path which leads to that sorry state is not pretty. And while you're at it, try doing a little research on the meaning and origins of free speech in American society (funny how people who use the free speech argument to uphold hatred and obscenity usually have no idea what free speech actually means).

the porn industry is HELL and everyone gets treated like shit especially women. i believe it is different if two or three or however many consenting people have sex for pleasure whatever that sex may entail BUT getting paid to get beaten or "fake/real" raped is SICK. Just because something benefits you or pleases you like this type of porn doesn't mean its good for the people you are watching. Its kind of like Noam Chomsky said that just because child laborers consent to working doesn't mean they are not being exploited. So its like buying a 4 dollar shirt from WallMart that some kid in India had to make so that you can be happy you bought it because you like those kinds of shirts.

Like I stated before there is nothing wrong with sex or sexual pleasure but when "your pleasure" trumps on someone's life (and that does happen if you keep purchasing this product) then it is wrong.

I agree that this kind of porn should be okay-- IF, IF every film or clip is preceded by the actors and actresses sitting down, clothed, saying, okay, these are our safewords, this is what I'm comfortable with, etc. They can even do it "in character," basically acting like a loving couple who is into this stuff. And if it's stills, a disclaimer under EVERY picture, as part of the picture so when it's copied or saved it's still there, stating that the actors fully consent and are doing this because they enjoy it and know it is safe and can stop any time.

Banning it just makes it go underground, and is a repression of free speech and free sexuality. You want to make a difference? Make people understand REAL BDSM and how it's all about consent, safety, and trust. I don't care how degrading it is unless there is fecal matter or real blood involved (which can make the actors ill) or they don't use condoms for vaginal or anal sex and they aren't clearly a long-term couple doing it for fun; BUT I want PROOF in every single video or still that everyone involved is doing it because they WANT to be doing it and is not coerced. That way people who watch it will internalize that while this can be okay, it is ONLY okay if it's safe, sane and consensual, which I think is a lot better than banning it outright and having the watchers have the same fantasies without those restrictions.

BDSM is about giving yourself fully to a partner you trust, and the altered state of consciousness that comes from surrendering control. Clearly Max Hardcore should be in jail, but not for "obscenity," just because he is an ass who is taking advantage of his actresses. But just because there are guys like this doesn't mean that the entire BDSM community should be ostracized. Have you guys ever watched amateur BDSM porn? It's loving, sweet couples who care a great deal about each other, experiencing what turns them on in a safe environment with someone they trust so completely and know will take care of them and keep them safe while still letting them explore their sexuality in the way that is right for them.

As someone who enjoys safe, sane, consensual BDSM sex which I am sure people like JohnJ would consider degrading, I know for a fact I am not perpetuating violence against women. Violence, pain, and sexuality can go together-- IF the couple knows the limits and loves and respects each other. And being into violent sex doesn't make men violent outside the bedroom; while men who are violent outside the bedroom can also be violent in sex, the reverse is not true. My boyfriend would sooner chew off his hand than hit me in anger. BDSM sex is not any more or less obscene than any other form of sex, it doesn't perpetuate violence against women, and it can definitely promote an egalitarian relationship. Be angry that Max Hardcore abused his position and the women he worked with, not that that kind of stuff exists at all.

And rootedwillow, that is why the porn industry needs to be regulated. Not the porn, the industry. I will add that I never watch or buy pornography that isn't amateurs, anyway, because I don't agree with the porn industry's treatment of it's actors.

The problem is that Max Hardcore wasn't arrested for perpetuating a shitty industry that abuses it's workers, he was arrested because someone decided that his product was obscene.

I agree with the OP. Being one of those problematic Feminists who happens to be a sub in a BDSM relationship, I've had the argument more times than I can count.

And no, not every woman in the porn industry is going through hell. The majority of porn in this country is made by people who choose one way or another to be there. Sometimes it's the best of several shitty choices, but it's still a choice. Granted, I definitely agree that the industry could use much more regulation, perhaps unionization of the performers. I would much rather see it regulated from the inside than let politicians from outside fuck it up.

If you'd like an example of this, check out kink.com Every BDSM film they do features an after interveiw with the participants. Those should ease some concern.

I'm sort of going down the road of JohnJ.

And although I am uncomfortable with censorship, I'm more uncomfortable with the shadowy, under-regulated industries that are fueled by greed and where people are driven to find out how far they can push the envelope.

This has nothing to do with what people like to do in the bedroom in the privacy of their home. Videos to be produced, marketed and sold, are by definition not private. And I don't understand where people got it in their head that anything and everything deserves a marketplace.

I suppose it's anti-capitalistic of me. But people's entitlement is one of things that drives the over consumption of everything from easy credit to food to cheap sex.

Entitlement and over-consumption are bad combinations and when it comes to sex. Let's face it, it's not working out that well except for making a relatively few men and women rich. Meanwhile the rest of us in the world struggles with the basics of consent, human rights, and fair labor.

Personally, I would be happier if they had fined the sick fuck for all he's worth and donated the money to sex ed programs and to industry watch dogs.

Brianna, I agree with you in principle about the actors sitting down and coming to an agreement, etc. I think the problem is that this gives a false illusion in many cases. If the actor is told that she won't get paid without "consenting" on camera, then she'll "consent" on camera, but what does the "consent" really mean? In many cases sex workers are technically consenting adults, but that "consent" is backed up by some degreee of financial coercion, in which case the word "consent" seem kind of hollow.

And I also agree that there's a world of difference between an actual couple who has some kind of real relationship engaging in BDSM and two actors who have never met before and are just there to make money. In the first instance the focus really is arousal and pleasure for the partners, and it's just about them. In the second case the focus is the viewer, the male gaze, the producer, etc. Once the pleasure of both partners has been eliminated from the equation it just seems abusive and exploitive. Her pleasure doesn't even factor in anymore, and the primary goal is to produce the maximum amount of shock and arousal in the viewer. How is this not exploitive?

What I do not understand is why so many people speak out against sexist portrayals of women (and men) in advertising, television, and other forms of popular media, then turn around and defend pornography as free speech. You cannot have things both ways; it is all part of a larger, ochestrated social meliue in which some peoples' existence is given a higher value than others.

People write about consent, freedom of speech, free sexuality, choice, yet it seems to me that very few people have even a basic understanding of these concepts.

Does the woman whose fishing village was destroyed to make room for an industrial complex have a free choice about whether or not to work in sweatshop? Does the 14 year old girl who ran away from home to escape rape at the hands of her father have a choice about entering prostitution? Does the single 35 year old single mother with no education have a choice about working at Wal-Mart?

Freedom of choice for most people is an illusion; at its best, freedom of choice means making the best of a situation, at its worst, freedom of choice means simply surviving another day.

The point I am trying to make is that reality is not what is read about in the newspaper, nor what is written about in a feminist blog. Reality is what is created by the priveleged few who have made the world what it is today. Reality is what the woman being tortured so men have something to feel entitled about is living through. Freedom, of choice, of speech, of sexuality, of consent, does not exist in reality.

The point is not whether or not the porn industry is flawed. It is. Of course it is. It needs to be fixed.

The problem is that he was jailed for OBSCENITY. Not for abusing his actresses. The judge and the law didn't care about that. They cared about the CONTENT of his material and that it didn't fit in with their standards of upright, moral, normal sex. We should be decrying this, demanding he be tried for his REAL crimes-- abuse against women. Instead, you are applauding censorship of the material even though it's obvious the law doesn't care about how it was produced, only the end result. If his actresses were enjoying it and were volunteers he would STILL be in jail for obscenity, because the law here didn't care about the women, they only care about the consumer-- and preventing the consumer from "inappropriate" sexual expression.

This is a dangerous road we're on if we support this. I hope you women who support this ruling look good in red.

I agree that you shouldn't be ashamed of what turns you on as long as you don't hurt anyone. However, I am not in the least bit convinced that Max Hardcore hasn't hurt anyone, and I am happy he has been prevented from making his films for the next few years, even though the obscenity charge is deeply troubling. Ironically, he passes my Miller test for obscenity, but clearly the OP and others in this thread would disagree with me, so there would be no consensus in this community.
The thing is, we need to be conscientious consumers here. If you're not going to buy coffee unless it's fairly traded, or milk unless it's hormone free, or clothing made in sweatshops, why buy a porn film that lines the pockets of a man with a reputation for hurting women?
You say your appetites aren't wrong because you're not hurting anyone. But by supporting a man who has hurt others you are indirectly hurting them too by condoning it.

God, Brianna. I agree with you that this guy was prosecuted for all the wrong things. But suggesting that those who disagree with you must be right-wing extremists simply because they disagree with you is inappropriate. Ad hominem and slippery-slope arguments (even when they're just implied) are unconvincing and kind of insulting. Not cool.

Have you ever read a Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood? She postulated that the only way the religious right could get a hold in this country was if they were supported by feminists looking to ban pornography and prostitution. Which is exactly what I see here. I don't think anyone here is a right-wing extremist, I just think you don't seem to understand that THIS is a right-wing judgment, and is NOT a feminist one. The enemy of your enemy is NOT your friend when they would also seek to limit your own rights.

It scares me that modern feminists would be so enthusiastic about limiting sexual freedom. I get that there are problems with the industry that we want to change, but that's not what was done here, they censored his content. They really don't give a damn about the women or the judgment would be very different.

The result of this is that women have no more protections in the industry than they did before. There are no new judgments saying that porn producers have to treat their actors better, no new laws. This is not a victory for feminism just because one asshole is behind bars for the wrong reason, because this says as always that porn is about the consumer. It reinforces that standard.

"The problem is that he was jailed for OBSCENITY. Not for abusing his actresses. The judge and the law didn't care about that."

Wait. Was there a formal complaint on behalf of actresses in this case? No?

If you truly think that Max's outfit is abusive, you must recognize the limitations of the court system in light of the contracts and waivers that the actresses/actors sign.

Furthermore, the court is only as good as the community in which it exists.

I simply don't see how people can in one breath say that "free" adult expression should essentially have no limits AND that the court should be compelled to act in a way to protect people from actually being mistreated. Short of gross negligence (e.g. loss of life or limb), this is unenforceable.

The only teeth the court has had up until now is in protecting minors and limiting the spread of communicable disease.

And I'm not saying I agree with the way this is all going down, but I certainly don't agree with the way things have been developing. Maybe this will get folks brainstorming.

If the actresses did not lodge a formal complaint, there is no case. That doesn't mean we should support a sentence that doesn't help them anyway.

Basically, what I am hearing a lot of here is "oh, they were coerced, they didn't really want to do it." Maybe that's true, but the ONLY way to prevent it from happening in the future without restricting the rights of others is:

1) Outlaw porn involving blood or feces because of the spread of communicable diseases. That would eliminate very, very bad violence for a reasonable reason.
2) Provide free job training with stipends during education for women who want to get out of the porn industry. Make sure it's a job that will pay them as much as they are making in the industry.
3) Make sure there are very detailed contracts involving the actress clarifying EXACTLY what is and is not okay to be done to her, and what her compensation will be.
4) Encourage porn stars to report sexual harassment and violations of contract.

If she signs a contract KNOWING exactly what she is getting into, and there is access to alternative education, but the porn is still degrading, maybe she's still being coerced. Maybe. But you know what? There is NO WAY that we can prevent it from happening without basically removing her rights. She has the right to be a porn star, even one who is being degraded and beaten, for money. Lots of people do shitty, dangerous, and degrading jobs for money. We can make there be limits and we can make sure they have other options and we can help them as much as possible but we can't sit there and say, no, you can't have sex for money, even if that's what you want to do for whatever reason, because you know what, we wouldn't want to do it, we don't think it would be worth selling our bodies for money, so clearly you are coerced into it. That's why prostitution needs to be legal. By outlawing it we are saying that the poor little women, they can't make decisions for themselves, so we need to protect them from bad choices.

I look on this as similar to the abortion debate. We can make abortion, or degrading porn, as safe and clean as possible. Or we can ban it. Either way it will happen, but at least if it's legal we can make sure it's safe and clean and women know their options.

As others have noted here, the choice to do pornography is not clean-cut. Choice is extremely complex and should not be treated as one act/decision that did not have any other factors involved. It can’t just be said, “Well, she signed this consent form”. Even if you could somehow prove that a particular woman in a particular movie was making the choice in a meaningfully free manner, the consumption of that “non-harmful” product necessarily creates demand for other material that will be harmful. If doing a porn scene paid minimum wage or even somewhat more than that, you would see the the pornography industry shrivel up. The women in pornography, with extremely few exceptions, are not performing because that really turns them on or these are just their kinks. Economic hardship can make the “adult industry” seem appealing, not to mention the high percentage of women in porn and prostitution who have abusive pasts. This is similar to how so many of the troops who join the army come from areas with limited opportunities.

Pornography, just like “harmless rape jokes” and such, do not exist in a vacuum. Women have historically been beneath men in the hierarchy of power. I don’t know why so many progressives and feminists abandon this idea as soon as pornography is mentioned. Why don’t we critique it just as we would any other form of media that influences people? Pornography definitely influences people. It makes men (the primary consumer by far) view certain sex acts as more common and more desired than they actually are, and further ingrains the idea that women exist solely for the use of men. Just because erections and orgasms are involved, it does not mean we shouldn’t critique an industry that portrays women as always wanting whatever is done to them, and, as Robert Jensen said, as “three holes and two hands”. What does it mean that there are a great deal of men who enjoy watching women be degraded and reduced only to what she can sexually provide to a man?

I’d suggest reading Jensen’s book “Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity” and looking at his many articles online that he has written on this topic (http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/articles_gender.html). “Cruel Edge” and “Pornography is a Left Issue” in particular are quite good. Gail Dines and Rebecca Whisnant have also done wonderful work in this area. There are also various videos from the Feminist Antipornography Conference on Google video, including the results of a content study of the most popular DVDs (as defined by Adult Video News) that showed that only 10% of the scenes in these mainstream videos did not include aggression, and in 95% of those aggressive scenes, the person being aggressed had a neutral or positive response (http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/13/presentation-content-analysis-bestselling-porn-films.aspx). I would hope this is a pretty big drop in the bucket for disproving the idea that the “bad” porn is only a small portion of the industry.

As far as the censorship thing goes, I think something along the lines of the AntiPornography Civil Rights Ordinance (written by Dworkin and MacKinnon), which approaches the issue as a human rights issue rather than an obscenity issue, would be preferable. The radical feminist critique of pornography has not been about censorship. The goal has been to incite critical thinking and create a conversation about how pornography effects the lives of its participants, the people who use it, and others who have been harmed by its consumption, while holding the industry accountable for such harms.

I don't support the porn industry, as I have said. They've never seen a dime of my money.

But you know what? Pornography sells. So it will always exist. If it turns people on, there is a market for it, and yes, degrading stuff turns people on. We can try to frame it with a better context like I originally suggested, and get the actresses decent contracts, but then we would have to accept that we can't get rid of it. Or we can ban it.

But then what we are doing is pushing the industry further and further underground. Prostitutes in the US are a lot worse off than the ones in the Netherlands, where it's legal and they have a voice and can protest poor treatment. The same is true of porn stars-- if we acknowledge them as actresses with the right to be such, give them alternative work training if they want it, and require movie contracts similar to the ones normal actors have, then they will actually benefit from their work instead of being treated poorly.

In the meantime, we can raise our children to respect women and see degrading pornography as bad, and buy from companies that sell good, safe pornography, and maybe in the future it will change. But banning things that are in high demand never works and in the case of sex work, it ultimately only hurts the women involved. The porn will still be there.

Banning pornography for the sake of women is like banning prostitution for the sake of women. It doesn't work. Period. And the women suffer for it.

While it may be the case that prostitutes in the Netherlands fare better than do those in the US, this is not the case for all the women involved. As employment and other opportunities continue to open for women, it is in fact becoming more difficult to recruit women into prostitution in the Netherlands (as well as in other countries). The situation has become a case of women being trafficked into the Netherlands to work in brothels, with all of the evils enherent in trafficking.

Just because you think something should be protected under free speech, doesn't mean you agree with it.

I've never heard of this max hardcore guy until I read this thread, but this does sound like a free speech issue. I believe fully in free speech. Yes, sometimes I complain about the material I see in advertisements, but that doesn't mean I believe the creators of those advertisements should be thrown in jail. I just wished they'd be a little more thoughtful.

Being someone who gets turned on by femdom, I feel obligated to say this guyshould not be arrested for obscenity. Femdom can get pretty degrading too, although it's always the men being degraded. Ironically, femdom is most popular among males.

I had another spiel written but instead I'm going to provide this link to some recent news stories about prostitution in the Netherlands, since someone brought it up.

It may come as a surprise but the Dutch are actually scaling back red light districts and revisiting their prostitution laws.

*Trigger warning*

Here is a story about the biggest trafficking case ever brought to trial (sad) in the Netherlands.

"Five of the six convicted men were found guilty of participating in a large, well-established network that kept women in prostitution by force — and with extreme violence.

Some of the victims were compelled to have breast enlargement surgery, and one defendant was convicted of forcing at least one woman to have an abortion. Women were beaten and forced to sit in icy water to avoid bruising. They also were tattooed."

Some of the women recanted at trial too. Most likely were intimidated and threatened. Makes Max look like an angel.

In another town the Dutch tackle closing red light zones and providing incentives for the workers to leave the business.

In Italy where I live, trafficking is out of control also. The industry (legal with restrictions) is not as well regulated and there is still a strong mafia control in the some parts of the country.

People are underestimating the potential for abuse in the sex industry and I can't stand to see folks using Europe to bolster their case.

Trafficking is a problem. It is always a problem. So basically what you are saying is that since there are women from other countries who are being brought in and abused, we should make the whole thing illegal so we can go back to it being the native women who are abused, as well as trafficked women.

OR we could crack down on trafficking, regulate the sex trade more, make sure that women who are brought in illegally for the sex trade are given asylum and protection and that such is advertised on billboards and everywhere possible so they know all they have to do is go to the police, and they will be given asylum, protection from their abuser, and access to job training.

I don't see how the fact that people are engaging in illegal sex trade is an argument for outright banning it and thus making there be LESS regulation. It sounds like Italy and the Netherlands just need a better system of handling the trafficking.

Banning doesn't work. It has never worked. Maybe the European system isn't perfect either, but that DOESN'T mean that we should ditch it for ANOTHER SYSTEM THAT WORKS EVEN LESS.

New ideas, people. Not the same old broken ones.

The thought seems to follow that porn would be OK if it wasn't degrading. Then we talk about the way that porn makes men see women.

What about women who get off on being submissive? Why is it that we have to be damaged to have this kink? Why do we have to analyze it and change ourselves based around this assumption that getting off on BDSM--and dare I say it, humiliation porn--make us sick, bad people (or that the only reason we'd participate in this sort of thing was due to either coercion or money)? Men may be the main consumers of this industry but they aren't the only ones. Why are they villains while we female kinksters are victims of the patriarchy?

I come from the old school of feminism, from a time long before the so-called "third wave." I am from the school of thought that pornography and prostitution are forms of violence and hatred against women. There was a time when the majority of feminists held this view; however, during the fight for equality the battle against pornography and prostitution was dropped in return for certain concessions which were deemed essential to the movement. I consider this to be the great failure of the feminist movement.

Today, it seems that so many of the younger generation of feminists are pro-pornography and pro-prostitution. To defend their positions they use the very same rhetoric that the male establishment used against the "second wave" feminists, without seeming to realize that what they are really doing is upholding male positions of privelege and entitlement.

There seems to be a prevailing viewpoint that regulating pornography and prostitution will make a difference. The regulations that are already in place are for the most part not being enforced, by design. The situations which have created an increase in pornography and prostitution are not accidental or coincidental, they are controlled by men in power.

I have a revelation for all those who believe that women being in control of pornography and prostitution will change the nature of relations between men and women. Anyone who has even a basic understanding of the mechanisms of slavery will tell you that a people in control of their own exploitation is the most effective form of slavery. The only way to overcome exploitation is to overthrow the institutions that create the circumstances which allow the exploitation to continue.

OK, Brianna. If you don't think that anyone here is a right-wing extremist then don't imply that they are. Doing so is a personal attack that's intended to stop conversation, when open dialogue is one of the purposes of forums like these.

And I don't think that it's all or nothing when it comes to defending or condemning things like porn and prostitution, and I don't see how occasionally making a judgment that happens to agree with your opponent is automatically fatal. If you have to disagree with them in every way just on principle, then they have control of you. I think feminist judgments can come in a variety of forms, especially on complex issues like this one.

And tarsiers, nobody is saying you're damaged or sick or bad if you have this kink. Nobody's objecting to BDSM in relationships or in amateur porn. But I can question the cultural context that makes you associate pain and degradation with sexuality without judging you. Of course there are some males who are into submission and degradation, but the fact that they are few and far between is a telling indicator of cultural attitudes and beliefs about gender. In this kind of porn it is always women who are being humiliated and mistreated by men. Doesn't that suggest anything about the larger cultural context?

"In this kind of porn it is always women who are
being humiliated and mistreated by men.

I don't get it... in what kind of porn?

I can't tell how many submissive men there are, but I can tell you there are LOTS of sites that cater to it. Obviously, then, there must be a pretty high demand.

Some of these sites are run by independent women who do everything on their own, including taking their own pictures. Lots of them are financial dominatrices and everything they make goes directly to them. No pimps or any sort of corporate heirarchy that determines how much they get to keep. These women don't degrade themselves by getting naked in front of a camera, rather they have men (often referred to as "slaves") send pictures of themselves naked as a form of humiliation.

Who is being exploited here? sounds like the men are. But you see, some men LIKE this sort of thing, so why can't women enjoy it too? How do you determine the difference between exploitation and kinky women doing what they enjoy?

Of course there are cases where women really are being exploited and those are serious crimes that should be punished, but you can't define exploitation based on content because it might seem like it's exploitive when it's really not so.

And let me just add one more thing to my above post. The reason I am so against the sentence is because he was prosecuted based solely on CONTENT and nothing he actually did. If this was about him abusing women and forcing them in situations they didn't want to be in, I'd be applauding the fucker's demise. I'd say throw him in jail and let him rot for eternity.

However, this obscenity crap I can't defend. This is a FREE SPEECH issue. You cross this line and then you're going to start crossing all kinds of lines.

Evie-lu, thank you for the links, I read several of the articles and listened to several of the interviews. Also JohnJ, I happen to agree with most of what you have said here also.

I'm not sure why so many here are so hesitant to criticize pornography. I don't understand why it is not being put under the same microscope as standard everyday media.

Let me make myself clear. I don't agree with censorship and I don't think prosecuting obscenity cases will do any good (it will probably only do more harm than good). But I just can't understand why so many feminists are not more critical of an industry that thrives on misogyny, racism, and homophobia. I really suggest reading some of the links that were posted earlier. Here's a few good starting points:

https://www.againstpornography.org/crueledge.html
https://www.againstpornography.org/articles.html

For a woman, I think I have seen my fair share of porn, especially hard core porn. I had a roommate that spent hundreds of dollars a week downloading and ordering off the internet. He watched all the extreme stuff. As a feminist I was interested in watching these movies to see how women were being portrayed. I sat through hours of this type of porn (at least what I could stand) so that I could understand the industry better and so that I could offer a better critique of it. I watched hours of hardcore porn, read up on the industry, and also read articles by opponents of the porn industry.

Some of the stuff I saw in these videos, for example, I couldn't imagine any feminist defending. First of all, some of what I saw would NEVER be defended if it were under the umbrella of "typical media". So I don't understand why, just because porn is used (in general) for the sexual gratification of men, at the expense of women, that it is for some reason tolerable or acceptable.

For example much of the videos I watched contained hard-core porn. I'll be explicit to get my point across. Anyone who doesn't feel they can read this can skip over the next paragraph (just a warning)
[POSSIBLE TRIGGER]
***Here's some examples: women being called "human toilets", shat on and peed on. Having their heads violently shoved in a dirty toilet bowl while they very visibly choked on the water, inhaling it in their lungs as they appeared to be drowning. Violent rape scenes. Choking, beating...scenes where the woman would be "gang raped" and then murdered by the men by cutting her up and leaving her in a pool of her own blood. Women being shown sucking on animals body parts. Women who appear to be under-age or who give the illusion that they are children. There is an infinite permutations of violence coupled with everything from bukakke (think stinging eyes full of semen from 50+ men), to gagging to the point of puking. Then there's all the racist porn. Jewish women being raped by nazi's. Black women working on plantations and being whipped and forced by their "white masters". Asian women - because of the Western fantasy of their supposed "docility" - tortured by being burned by cigarettes, battered, bound, and penetrated by bottles, baseball bats, even knives.***

Okay folks, in case you haven't gotten the idea yet. This is INDEFENSIBLE SHIT HERE! I mean does anyone seriously think this is justifiable? Sorry, but one person's sexual fantasies does not trump another person's rights as a human being. I understand the BSDM, thing...I do. But trained BSDM professionals who are safe and healthy look very different from this shit (I've seen BSDM shows as well- done by professionals- it doesn't even compare). And the thing that scares me, is that more and more men are learning about sex through this type of "hardcore" porn which is becoming more and more mainstream. This type of misogyny and racism would never ever be tolerated in regular media... So, why is it excused when people call it pornography?

I don't even know what the answer is to any of these problems. But I'm sick of people assuming that I'm a prude, or I'm for censorship, or I'm anti-sex, just because I criticize certain types of porn. I'm not saying that all men who watch this type of porn are going to be influenced by it or are going to experience negative effects or are going to become violent etc. etc.. But I don't think these types of videos are going to have a negligible effect either. I'll say two more things and then I'll end because my post is already super long.

First I agree that perhaps a human right approach to the issue should be further explored. And secondly, JohnJ, I agree with you when you say that most people have no idea about freedom of speech and freedom of choice and that true what you say, in general, for many, it is just an illusion.

Looks like the European Union is considering the Swedish model for prostitution. Interesting.

Rachel:"In this kind of porn it is always women who are
being humiliated and mistreated by men.

Steve 0: "I don't get it... in what kind of porn?"

I think what Rachel is saying is that Max's material (and others') seems to go above and beyond BDSM. I'm not an expert so feel free to chime in.

But there is a certain level of contempt for women AS A GROUP that is part of Max's bag of tricks. It's as if the viewer desperately wants to believe that the women have been emotionally and psychologically manipulated and suckered. That's a powerful fantasy, even if it's make believe. And even if the women do enjoy this treatment, this is NOT part of the fantasy being sold to the viewer.

The fantasy being sold is that Max is a hero that has the magical ability to sucker any woman--from "innocent" girl to "empowered" woman. And should it be construed on the part of the viewer that the woman actually enjoys this treatment, Max makes sure that she is reduced to the level of an animal, sub-human.

Max's goal is to really cater to the illusion that women (any woman off the street) could be picked up and abused. And to do this he needed to add elements to the act that the vast majority of people have never (up until now, that is) associated with consensual sexual pleasure.

Remember, this material is pretty popular. This guy isn't some hack one-hit wonder. So Steve O, to answer your question, THAT kind of porn.

And I'm not saying agreeing with the verdict, but I'm taking a wait and see approach, as it will likely be challenged. Hopefully it will stir up some debate.

i think people are living in an illusion if they think that this type of media does not affect people...I mean I think it is different when two people (or more) decide to do BDSM and they trust each other and they have a sense of safety there. But porn is two or more strangers fucking in a sometimes unsafe and violent way so that you can get off. This is a human rights issue. AND by saying that the content should not be regulated is abandoning these people who get hurt. THE CONTENT IS THE PORN, how do you separate content from the industry? There is no way to control the industry if you don't control the content. Because if you set up "rules" for the industry you do control the content. I just don't understand how you separate the two.

FREE SPEECH DOESN'T MEAN HATE SPEECH. Same thing with freedom of expression. You loose your freedom of expression when you infringe on someone's right to safety. As far as I know hate crimes are a big deal in the US, if someone beats the shit out of a gay kid in highschool is that freedom of expression? Get a grip on reality people defending hate speech, hate crimes and violence is what keeps us behind. The sooner we stop defending "content" the sooner we can put "restrictions" on the porn industry as there should be some. If anything the BDSM porn stars should be required to take some safety class and they should be "certified" to do this kind of porn. That would make it more legit, at least in my eyes.

Disliking hardcore porn is not my first instinct. It actually came about after years of watching this type of porn and finally connecting differing types of oppression. For me being a gay woman in the military opposed to the occupation of Iraq led me to question my other beliefs. The way women are treated in porn is way to similar to the real world treatment of women for me to to be ok with.

One large problem with this post is that is tries to say the real problem is that the actual crime isn't tried, the degridation and abuse of real humans that is later put on film. This problem arises from our legal system, not from feminists views on porn.

Other peopel feel the same way and tried to do something about that. The porn industry fought very hard to make sure those the types of changes needed did not happen. Two people who tried to change the legally weak and questionsable obscenity laws into real laws that protect those involved and affected by porn were Mackinnon and Dworkin. Like I said however, the porn industry (the multi-billion dollar industry) did everything they could to stop it.

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/OrdinanceCanada.html

(btw- Dworkin was NOT affected by the Cabdian law as is commonly thought, please read the above link)

I just wanted to mention that you might want to add a trigger warning to those articles about actress abuse that you link to; they're pretty intense.

Also, I agree with you, this man should be in jail for his actions, not his ideas. Jailing him for obscenity makes him look like a free speech hero, when in reality he's a rapist who makes his living exploiting and abusing women (as evidenced by the articles you linked to).

I used to be into hardcore pornography and loving-consensual-SSC BDSM. I was into bondage and domination, and a little bit of pain and whipping. I masturbated regularly to BDSM porn from websites like kink.com because I thought it was really good that they seemed to respect the models. I even watched some of their corporate videos and everyone there seemed to be decent people. I even at one point suggested doing a bondage shoot for kink to raise money for a student group - very seriously. I mean, we needed $4,000 and I was incredibly turned on by the idea of being strung up in an uncomfortable position and whipped!
I asked my partner to cane me - he even made me a beautiful cherry cane. I felt deliciously owned. I thought of myself as a slave, and my partner as my master. I deferred to him in sex and .. get this.. without wanting to ... in real life.
Even though we both acknowledged that we thought 24/7 or lifestyle BDSM was kind of intense, and not at all desirable, I still found myself playing a submissive role. Whenever I was horny (which was quite often and still is) I would feel, think, and act submissive.
We're feminists, and part of being feminist means that we strive for equality in our relationship. We do equal shares of housework, often together. We both cook. We bring each other cups of tea.
But BDSM was affecting not our daily actions, but _my thoughts and emotions._
Then I got to thinking - and I don't know if it was the Media Ethics class I took last year, or just the fact that I think a lot - but I started understanding the power of images have to perpetuate a culture. This changed my opinion about violent pornography.
I also started noticing that my mindset was not just submissive in the bedroom.
I still cared about how I looked - the most important thing was that I looked good.
Now I can honestly say I don't care if I look good or bad. It's funnier when I look "ugly" though.
I don't want to paint a picture which suggests that my experience is common, or that I'm trying to relate to everyone else in their BDSM relationships. But it would be cool to know if anyone else has gone through this.
Over the course of about six months, I gradually lost interest in BDSM. And what's more - I am now discovering my authentic sexuality.
Like a lot of kinky women, I'm very sexually charged and always have been. I remember masturbating as young as three. I've had weird fantasies ever since I was a little girl.
I've come to realize now that those fantasies weren't really my own. They were a product of my culture. I didn't want to be a part of that anymore. And, without trying, without saying "I'm going to rid myself of dirty evil sadomasochism!", I lost interest to the point where BDSM kind of disgusts me now. My sexuality is my own - it may still be culturally influenced, or whatever - everything has a cultural influence. But this time, I've actively sorted through the different cultures - cultures of fear through power, violence, love, equality, and I've settled on the latter two. I can't honestly say the the images in hardcore pornography come from a culture of equality and love.

I want to censor violent pornography. I want to make it illegal, and ferociously so. These men take advantage of a system which makes women feel like they have to enjoy whatever a man gives them in order to be a fully sexual, fulfilled, and valid being. They do this for personal profit, and to perpetuate the culture that gives them these 'sluts' in the first place.

I don't however, want to make people feel guilty about doing loving BDSM in their homes.
I do realize that it is loving, quite a lot of BDSM - and if you don't mind a little bit of power bleed-over in your daily relationship, or if you're positive it won't happen, then BDSM might be just fine for you.
However, I found that egalitarianism meant more to me than a culturally prefabricated sexuality. I wanted to find my own sexuality.

We don't do any BDSM anymore. The shibari ropes lie abandoned at the bottom of the closet as well as the clamps, pins and canes that I used to long for.
Now what I long for is the way my partner's body shakes against mine when we come together.
I don't think it would be an exaggeration to say this is one of the more important things I've done for myself and my relationship.

I'm kinda disappointed in some comments here.

Firstly - reading the some of the links in the OP it is clear that Max is a rapist. He has clearly attempted to rape at least one actress in the presence of a film crew and I see no reason to assume that he has not carried out rapes on other women working in the porn industry.

And this is not rape in the "but how can we know her capacity to consent, or if she was cabable of knowing what consent means", but the more standard "she was forced into sex by threats and intimidation".

And the worst that a lot of people can say about his production is that he abused his actresses. ABUSED?! Yelling at someone is abuse, raping them goes a long way past abuse. In a community where we are supposedly aware of the power of words I'm amazed that people are belittling the experiences of women who have been raped by this man.

On the obscenity thing - I agree with the OP. He was charged for the wrong crime, and just because one person finds something ickey or upsetting doesn't mean it should be illegal. Nobody is forcing them to watch it. In cases where the actresses are consenting, there should be nothing wrong with this material and I think we should fight the idea that there is.

Who is it who gets to judge what is "OK" for two consenting adults to do and make? If you want to draw the line in one place then why can I draw it somewhere else? Or should we get the Catholic church to draw the line for what is OK for people to do or produce?

My feeling is that the line should only be drawn by the adults actually doing whatever it is.

I'd like to thank nattles_thing for posting here. I really like that she has a very realistic viewpoint regarding the difference between pornography and abuse, and is willing to take the backlash of people who would belittle "agency," in the production of pornography.

When it boils down to it, agency is the most important thing, and a society that would prosecute the depiction of something more stringently than the actual commission of it is pretty sick.

Sorry to double post, but I get that This Max Harcore is a rapist. That is what he should have been convicted of.

@Alex101 "Firstly - reading the some of the links in the OP it is clear that Max is a rapist."

And yet nobody, no judge, no victim, no industry executive, no consumer, no blogger, NOBODY has offered up any serious legal mechanism for prosecuting him for rape. To my knowledge he has not been charged with this crime. I wish it were clear.

And don't you see the irony in the fact that most rapists get off scott free? Hell, most aren't even charged. What makes you think, this guy would be any different?

If as you said, it's "so clear that he is a rapist", then taping it and distributing certainly wouldn't fall under free speech. The problem is we have no mechanism to discern between which acts were rape and which were consensual.

OR

If you believe it's purely and issue of free speech between consenting adults, then you really have no grounds claiming that he rapes people without substantive proof that holds up in a court of law.

You can't have it both ways.

Spike the cat:
How about better regulation (e.g., vetting system for pornographers, and unionization of sex workers) and treating the complaints of sex workers as just as valid as the complaints of virginal joggers?

Too extreme?

Max Hardcore is a pig. Porn has been taken to a different extreme, apparently violent. Hasn't porn always perpetuated some sort of violence against women? A cum shot on a woman's face is not violent? Some of you may disagree with my opinions, but that is fine. The justification from viewers is women choose to do that. Do you realize how many of these women are lured, drugged, and have alcohol issues? A lot of them have been survivors of sexual abuse and feel the best way is they might as well get paid. Seriously, can't regular porn viewers maintain a healthy relationship? Along with Max, I would like to see Joe Francis and other pornographers go out of business. Realistically, it will not happen, it will always exist. But I don't give a dime to that industry. I am tired of this misogyny and degradation being perpetuated by these pigs. Just my two cents.

I had to sleep on this to be able to articulate exactly what I wanted to say.

First, I find the use of terms like "pro-prostitution" similar to terms like "pro-abortion". At best, inaccurate.

I'm having a hard time digesting a lot of comments here. These actresses in Max Hardcore's work, in all porn, are people. They are women. As people, they can act with agency. I find using the "but they have drug problems!" or "they were abused!" cards really problematic.

Treating women who come out of pornography like victims or criminals is incredibly harmful. If sex workers weren't treated like passive, victimized jokes, then perhaps their cases against Max Hardcore could see the inside of a courtroom.

Zobabe,

I'm all for whatever it would take to clean this mess up. But what we have today, right now, is a situation where someone commit a crime, film it and not be prosecuted for it.

As far as unions, in the US unions have become less powerful in recent decades. And from what I see the porn actors last tried to unionize in 2004. Anybody know how it turned out?

And as far as taking sex worker complaints seriously: ya know, these days even virgins are wannabee "lying whores", so that's a problem right there.

But seriously, rape is hard enough to prosecute as it is. It's not just about taking the complaints seriously. There are some serious logistical issues about proving non-consent on a porn set especially when violence or rape simulation has become so prominent and popular.

Imagine yourself on a jury having to look at two similar videos: One that was consensual and one where an actress was actually physically and sexually assaulted. In both cases the scene is violent, and in both cases a contract was signed. Do you think the jury will be able to make findings beyond a reasonable doubt most likely based on the testimony of the victim alone?

I really wish someone could tackle this specific problem. Because as it stands now, some folks in the industry are completely above the law. They are untouchable.

ok, i'll admit, i didn't read all the comments, because this is a sensitive issue for me and i gotta get through the workday. so, if my comment is repetitive of the above, that's why.

nattles_thing, i agree with you that obscenity is a sketchy (and possibly outright patriarchally controlling of sexuality) area of law, and the real concern in this case was ignored: whether the women (and other actors) were treated in a fair and human (yes i mean human, and not humane) way. also: whether they were making a true consensual choice to be involved and had the option of opting out at any point, and whether they were treated with respect and dignity. etc.

this asshole should be brought to justice for what he did to live humans who were involved, not "obscene" material that he created. just another instance of a system that values upholding the moral codes of itself over women's lives.

however, i disagree with one sweeping assertion that you made.

you said "No one can control what turns them on."

I know several people who can and have controlled various aspects of what turned them on, myself included.

I certainly won't take that as evidence that everyone can control what turns them on.

So, I could definitely agree with something like "not everyone can control what turns them on, and we shouldn't have standards of what is and is not acceptable to find arousing, as long as it is coming from a place of true consent."

but, i think it's dangerous to make absolute statements either way. as in "no one can control it" or "everyone can control what arouses them if they just try." both are too dogmatic.

now, i will say this:
i would love to see what sexual desire would look like in a world free of racism, classism, able-ism, homophobia, sexism, gender bias, and, well, hate.

i wonder at and dream that violence wouldn't play a part in sexuality at all.

but we don't live in that world.

and so, again, i agree with you that it is not ok to stigmatize kink.

i see the intertwining of violence and sex as stemming from the soil of misogyny, and all other forms of oppression and hate.

i think at the end of the day women from all sides of the discussion about violence, sex, misogyny, and pornography want the same thing:
women who have control of their bodies and their sexuality. women who never have to say yes when they want to say no. women who laugh, love, and f*ck as they please.

feminist love,
jen

A domme is still eroticising dominance and submission, degradation and humiliation. Eroticising inequality is a core of the patriarchy. It doesn't matter what gender the sub or dom is. What matters is the erotic content - that of hierarchy.

You're only turned on by humiliation and degradation because it's placed in a sexual context.

If you were turned on by non-sexual images of humiliation, dehumanization and submission, that would be outright disgusting. I mean, then you wouldn't need porn, all you'd have to do would be to go to the holocaust museum or watch live war footage.

It's that same violence, that same inequality, in war and slavery, only this time it's taken and put into sex - something that should be loving and reciprocal and amazing.

I guess my question is:

If someone proved to you that pornography (under the Dworkin/McKinnon definition) was degrading to humanity as a whole, would you quit supporting it? Or would it still be erotic and good to you? Would you still (want to) be turned on by it, and would you still laud your "Feminist Choices" to do as you please without caring about the consequences of your actions?

voluptuouspanic, it's like you took the words right out of my mouth. Thank you.

A domme is still eroticising dominance and submission, degradation and humiliation. Eroticising inequality is a core of the patriarchy. It doesn't matter what gender the sub or dom is. What matters is the erotic content - that of hierarchy.
You're only turned on by humiliation and degradation because it's placed in a sexual context.
If you were turned on by non-sexual images of humiliation, dehumanization and submission, that would be outright disgusting. I mean, then you wouldn't need porn, all you'd have to do would be to go to the holocaust museum or watch live war footage.

This is really an interesting way to look at it. It reminds me of the test used in media studies to analyze ads that feature violent or degrading images of women: if you portrayed a puppy in that same situation would people still think it was OK? Amazingly enough, when they did this test on the Wrangler ads that showed a dead woman face down in the mud, and replaced her picture with a puppy, face down in the mud, everyone was horrified, but they didn't see a problem with the original ad. How fucked up is that?

But I still think it's a larger, systemic problem. No matter what we think or feel or say about it, porn will never change until the broader culture changes. So trying to control it through laws and court cases is useless. It's the mindset(s) behind it that's the issue.

@joyfuldinosaur:

I think you're over-analyzing it. Most sexual fetishes are caused by random associations, usually while the person is younger. Seventy-five percent of kids who get spanked grow up to have sadomasochistic sex. I'll definitely believe that kink is influenced by culture -- the Victorians were seriously into their whippings -- but I really don't think there's anything bad about kink in and of itself.

This is why I'm willing to give porn a free pass when it uses images I otherwise would consider degrading. Pornography is above all functional. It's about arousal, not about a message. Offensive images are just a byproduct. Treating actresses badly shouldn't be, though.

From what I've heard, a lot of BDSM porn companies treat their actresses better than mainstream porn companies. So if you want to make sure your actresses are being treated fairly, you're probably better off watching extreme kink than vanilla or the Max Hardcore style degradation that is now considered mainstream.

I agree that there's nothing bad about kink in and of itself, nattles_thing. But I think it's going too far to say that "offensive images are just a byproduct." Images are extremely powerful and become internalized over time. And I agree that it generally is just about arousal and not intended to send a message. But an implicit message is sent each and every time the image is viewed, regardless of what the original intention behind it was. And that's what I think we need to be cautious about.

I don't think 'vanilla' porn is really all that vanilla.

In my experience, all but the rarest of amateur couples porn has some degree of dominance and submission in it. Even mainstream advertising, as this blog has repeatedly confirmed, has implicit sexist and degrading messages in it.

Human sexuality is really complex stuff. I was one of those kids who got spanked and then found they liked spanking as an adult during sex. I embraced it for a while, but then grew perturbed that my kinkiness wasn't my authentic sexuality; it was a by-product of my parents' discipline.

Authentic sexuality for some people might include some aspects of restraint, dominance/submission, passivity, pain. That's something I'm willing to admit. But in a culture where those themes are so widespread, there is little room for the legitimacy of egalitarian sexual relationships. They're even mocked as being 'boring' in some kink communities.

I think that there _is_ something wrong with producing sexual images that contain degrading or sexist, classist, homophobic, racist material without regard to the consequences of those actions.

@Rachel_in_WY - Although I agree with a lot of what you say, nothing is ever 'in and of itself', itself alone. Everything has a context surrounding it. Obviously we can't control porn through the courts, at least not in this country where "personal agency" reigns supreme. But we do have bans on hate speech - and I think that violent and degrading pornography classifies as such. However, the way the system is set up, you'd have to personally sue whoever made the porn.

@nattles_thing - maybe you haven't analyzed it enough.

@JohnJ - I agree.

"It reminds me of the test used in media studies to analyze ads that feature violent or degrading images of women: if you portrayed a puppy in that same situation would people still think it was OK? Amazingly enough, when they did this test on the Wrangler ads that showed a dead woman face down in the mud, and replaced her picture with a puppy, face down in the mud, everyone was horrified, but they didn't see a problem with the original ad. How fucked up is that?"

It is assumed that animals are unable to consent, which is one reason some consider sex with an animal rape, even if it is a "willing" male animal.

@spike the cat: Once again, I find myself agreeing with you. I'm not sure how this could be prosecuted. I think perhaps a larger problem is how ridiculously stupidly okay most people are with rape myths.

I'd bet, though, that a huge reason these guys (and I'm using guys intentionally because most of them are men) are untouchable is money. They make TONS of money off these videos, while the actresses make a lot, but proportionally so much less.

I'm sure most of these actresses are women culled off online sites for amateur actresses. They don't have a high-powered lawyer on retainer. I guess one of my dreams as a sex workers' rights activist would be to set up a network of lawyers willing to take these cases to court (I've met only a handful of good ones!) and a defense fund. If the actresses could fight fire with fire, without having to be afraid of the expense, that might help. I'm sure there's also a way they could go to trial without having their legal names in the court documents, another serious problem.

@ joyfuldinosaur

I guess I'm not sure how my comments here came to mean that I think the cultural context doesn't matter. My comment above about "kink in and of itself" was in response to a comment from nattles_thing. The point I've been trying to make is that trying to deal with porn on it's own is never going to be effective, because the deeper, and more disturbing, problem is that it reflects the underlying attitudes in our culture about gender. So I'll say it again:
...I'm still not willing to embrace this kind of porn. I don't think that this kind of porn is so much the problem as a symptom of the problem. Why are there so many men who can't even get aroused without behaving in a way (or watching porn) that's degrading to women? Why are there so many women who equate degradation and mistreatment with sexuality? And why is this generally not reciprocal? ...I think the fact that this is such a turn-on to people reveals deeper attitudes and beliefs about gender in our culture that are really disturbing. Being prudish about it and prosecuting pornographers isn't going to change any of this. To me it's a deeper systemic problem that needs to be addressed. But how do we address it?

@ A_male

Of course it's true that animals can't consent so the sexual interactions in porn would be unacceptable. But what about the part where guys like Max make them eat puke, or shit on them, or shove their heads in toilets? Try doing that to a puppy and selling your videos. Why is it that people are outraged when somebody treats a puppy that way but think it's erotic if a woman receives the same treatment? People will say "the puppy doesn't deserve to be treated that way." And women do? Kinda scary.

"This case is not about the conduct," [federal prosecutor Edward] McAndrew said. "It's not about consenting adults. It's about commercial distribution... He made a choice that his material would be more extreme than others. What he creates gives mainstream pornography a bad name."

So... the DOJ couldn't care less whether the conduct that led to the porn is illegal, or even whether two adults legally consented -- but it's concerned about tarnishing the pristine reputation of "mainstream" porn?

WHAT THE FUCK. That quote boggles my mind.

I agree, nattles_thing, that the prosecution and conviction is totally fucking backward -- as evidenced above. Still, I don't think it's safe to say that, barring this producer's likely rape of a woman, such degrading porn is all fine and healthy.

Porn doesn't exist in a vacuum. Some people's turn-ons do not excuse the proliferation of corporate arrangements in which women are frequently exploited, coerced and degraded by male superiors in largely unregulated industries. We balk at the images of well-oiled women in music videos and in television commercials, knowing they're endemic of deeper-seated problems simply by virtue of the fact that it's usually women doing the gyrating and groveling. (We also know that, despite commercial exploitation, those women are still at least afforded the protections of widespread industry unionization, regulation and, in many cases, transparency.) To avoid those things, we watch indie performers or Lil Kim and write outraged companies to companies with sexist ads.

Why shouldn't we set the standard at least as high when it comes to porn? Plenty of guys get off on those commercials we so revile for their degrading fixations on women's bodies. Why not question more deeply one's own attraction to that kind of degradation, in porn or elsewhere, rather than throw up one's hands and say "no one can control what turns them on" (false) and "there is nothing wrong with any of this?"

I'm not saying, by the way, that that is what you're doing or that there is something wrong with that kind of sex you mentioned you're personally into. I don't think that BDSM-tinged sex is bad (when I think "degrading," I think far more grisly - and less professional - than codified BDSM), just as I don't think being a feminist and wanting to look sexy for some man is bad. But there's a world of difference between getting handcuffed to the bed, knowing you're both consenting, and ignoring that the porn featuring the kind of sex that turns you on may well have been made under exploitative, unregulated and dangerous circumstances. And that not only might the makers of that porn have exploited their actors, but that porn itself may well be feeding and validating violence toward women.

@Rachel

I've seen some videos and read some books on 'why' - basically, it has to do with dominance = masculinity.

We've never had a matriarchal society. Men have always, throughout time, held the Power. (except in hunter-gatherer societies, where it's speculated that prestige in the community was based on knowledge of the land - men or women could be held in high regard. There was no hierarchy, the community was the ultimate law. If you killed someone, you would get kicked out of the community, where you'd only survive on your own in the wild for a few days. Women had 3-4 children in their lifetimes and unwanted infants were frequently killed. Skeletons of hunter-gatherers tend to be taller and healthier than the agriculturized humans.)

There are a variety of reasons for the shift to hierarchical, patriarchical, agricultural society:

- we learned how to farm, and had surplus of grain or famine if the crops failed.
- because we didn't know much about the land, humans became very superstitious, often blaming female witches for crop failure
- population boomed - surplus in food enabled women to have twelve or more children in a lifetime.
- more children = more mouths to feed = angry people = need to protect source of grain (maybe?) => leader (who then had to invent a reason why he was the leader)
- that leader got his authority from 'god' and was probably always male for some reason.
- women have the babies, women are smaller on average, humans are superstitious and weirded out by things like pregnancy, childbirth and menstruation - especially since a lot of their troubles came from having too many mouths to feed, they blamed the people who were producing the crying infants.
- people got smaller and weaker on the whole
- because man got his power from god, and the god had power over all the other gods - it only made sense that there would be a hierachy on earth, with one man ruling over a bunch of other men who ruled over the women and children.
- this male dominance established itself in sexual relations.
- then we had all sorts of cities
- then we had the industrial revolution

Well, this mode of living kept up, evolved with technology, and the patriarchy hasn't changed much since.

So, that's the why. I could go into it a little more in depth, but I might bore you/forget some stuff from the lecture I heard. (a non-feminist lecture from a biostatistician studying morality and biology)

I guess with feminism, for me at least, I'm trying to 'be the change I want to see in the world'
I don't want violence or domination to be sexualized any more. I can't outlaw pornography, and I can't tell people what to do with their lives.

@everybodyever
being a feminist and wanting to look sexy for some man isn't _bad_ , it's just not ideologically congruent. Unless we're working under 'choice feminism' which seems to get its logic from the land of free-market capitalism and consumerism.

@SpikeTheCat

"And yet nobody, no judge, no victim, no industry executive, no consumer, no blogger, NOBODY has offered up any serious legal mechanism for prosecuting him for rape."

That's because no formal complaints have been made against him. Sadly often we can't, under

"What makes you think, this guy would be any different?"

In the incident mentioned in one of the articles the video evidence of him attempting to rape the actress would be pretty strong evidence, well past the he-said vs she-said of many rape cases.

"You can't have it both ways."

Um... yes I can.

What you are saying is equivalent to charging a wife beater who also does amateur boxing on the weekends with assault in the boxing ring because his wife won't press charges for the domestic violence.

This is quite removed from my initial point however - we have a guy who quite clearly has attempted to rape at least one woman, on camera, in front of witnesses - though she did not press charges. It stands to reason that he has probably carried out other rapes when documentary film crews haven't stepped in to stop him. And people on this board are saying he "mistreats" or "abuses" the women who works for him. If an office boss raped one of his female employees.

My other point is that "Obscenity" is a dangerous road to walk, as who is to say the Saudi Mullah declaring a woman walking outside in a skirt should be lashed for obscenity has any less a valid point than you do for saying a guy who makes nasty porn should be jailed for obscenity?

@Rachel in WY

"Of course it's true that animals can't consent so the sexual interactions in porn would be unacceptable."

We don't normally worry too much about an animal consenting to being killed and eaten (vegetarians excepted). Why would the animals ability to consent to sex be an issue either? (devils advocate)

@ joyfuldinsaor

I know this is off topic - but isn't that a lot to infer about societies of which we have no written records, no recorded history and what evidence we have is the odd bone here and there?

There is also a conflict - you say that they both have more food but also have so little that they starve?

With this evidence couldn't you equally say that agriculture reduced the need for physical power and so smaller but smart humans started to fare as well as their physically more powerful companions did?

(Personally I suspect the shift from fertility religions (which often had fertility goddess worship) to patriarchal religions occurred when humans worked out that a particular man was the father of a particular child, but that a man could never guarantee that a child he spends his life raising his actually his, which gave him a strong motivation to control female sexuality.)

Alexa101,

I'm having issue with the way the speech issue is being framed in terms of how the porn industry operates and does business.

1. It's not like the FBI flipped a coin and chose not to try him for rape and instead went after obscenity. The facts seem to indicate that nobody filed a formal complaint. Which leads me to my next point.

2)The expectations of the bounds of consensual sex are have been completely altered by the mainstreamization of violent porn. Every woman should be concern about this.

Furthermore your boxer wife abuser is a poor example, because outside of a sexual context, it's a lot less credible that a wife would consent to being beaten up. She may not press charges, but if she does, she has a better chance of at least being credible. And if it were video tapped or there were witness, a conviction would probably be guaranteed.

3)People seem to have loads of ideas as far as cleaning up the industry. The truth is that the people who have the most power in changing the industry are the very people who put money in Max's coffers---the consumer.

Consumers get companies to change all the time, by boycotting sponsors and refusing to buy products. So in this sense the the OP is right about women not being important, in the grand scheme.

People expect the government to step in and regulate, but it doesn't happen like that. Ever read The Jungle? Most regulations are born from past fuck-ups, lawsuits or fear of lawsuits.

Large profitable industries will generally do whatever they can get away with. When there was the HIV scare in the porn industry, the government stepped in because then it became a matter of public health, not because they gave a shit about whether women who signed legally binding contracts were mistreated.

Like I said, unless sex workers complain, organize and fight for this, there is little the government can do. Or the pressure comes from the consumer (not likely).

My worry is that there are a lot of brilliant minds who might be speaking louder about what's going on. But for fear of further demonizing kinky sex, they are afraid of making the connection between unlimited freedom of expression, the power that it has to shape our hearts and minds, and the weaknesses that are already inherent in our justice system in dealing with sex crimes.

And that is what we mean when we say Free Speech is not really free.

joyfuldinosaur, nattles_thing,

Count me on the side that is pretty hesitant about this kind of violent porn, legalizing prostitution, etc.

Let's see: I came from a family with lots of fighting and a fair amount of violence. I have had BDSM-type fantasies since I was a kid. When I got into high school, I started uncritically buying into the "porn culture" as all the other kids did, and it wasn't until college that I learned the problems with the industry. My first couple of sexual experiences were overall enjoyable, but involved guys who took control, without me telling them I wanted that. So, I can totally see in myself where some of these tendencies come from. As I've gotten older sub-like fantasies have come and gone, and recently has been intensified, and one thing I've noticed is that for me it correlates a lot with current self-image. When I'm feeling ugly, or kind of "blah" about life in general, the idea of violence with me as the sub becomes more appealing.

Now, I'm not suggesting that's necessarily the same way for everyone, but, I have read enough books on the issue and I do believe that sexuality is a deeply psychological thing, and also that it can and does change constantly in individuals, even if only subtley. A lot of times what turns you on is simply a matter of habit, and if you have orgasms with someone in a new context you'll learn to associate that context with good feelings and suddenly something that didn't turn you on before will start to turn you on.

Now with regards to porn, I would like to point out that studies show something like 90% of sex workers were abused as minors. Which really does point strongly to some sort of psychological link between that and the desire to do sex work, which I'm sure can very somewhat from one individual to the next. Now, I think feminists have long struggled with how to deal with this fact. I don't think anyone here is looking to condemn porn actresses or sex workers and make them feel like bad people. But, I cannot help but feel like supporting the industries that involve the buying and selling of women's bodies is somehow supporting the overall system in which women are abused and made to feel like their body is an object separate from themselves.

And I've also seen studies done on the legalizing prostitution issue, that are very indecisive on whether or not prostitutes would be treated better under that system, but that more women would become prostitues. I feel like until cultural factors change that make men and women approach sex work more equally (whatever this would look like -equally likely to become prostitues? equally unlikely to go to a prostitute? I'm not quite sure) prostitution will be a raw deal for women, and won't change all that much.

So what do we do in the meantime? I absolutely favor increasing social support for women interested in leaving the sexwork industry, and also in providing more counseling services for and more open discussion regarding women who have been sexually abused.

I would also like to say that I think it's a very strong meme in our current culture that sexuality is this sacred thing that can't be questioned, can't be analyzed. I think people like Dan Savage promote this viewpoint.

We come from a culture that has so often tried to regulate sexuality and take away people's freedoms, that I think people are very paranoid about that and the above conception of sexuality is what's often used to defend rights (whether it is being gay, kinky, etc.)

I'm all for defending consenting people's rights to do what they want sexually (although I think once it enters the commercial zone it's another game). But I'm not so sure I buy the idea of sexuality being so inflexible as some of the popular modern arguments suggest. I know people fear control and regulation from conservatives, I know it's a fine line to walk, but I think we lose something as people by denying that sexuality is integrated with the rest of our lives and our psychology, in short, denying the range of erotic potential.

a.k.a. Nina -

What _do_ we do in the meantime?

I don't want to sit around waiting for studies that prove my point. I think there are already enough reasons why pornography and prostitution are detrimental to women as a class.

I spent a long time thinking about this, and discussing it with my partner. We arrived at the conclusion that most of the change that needs to happen to this world has to come from the bottom up. Yes, lobbying for equal pay for equal work, increasing funding for programs to help battered people leave abusive relationships, socialized healthcare, counselling, etc, all of these large visible things are what we need to be fighting for.

But underneath all that, we need dramatic social change. But it won't come overnight. Maybe not within the decade.

Feminists, and people who are in general against the eroticisation of violence, the cult of appearance, our culture of rape, our obsession with personal agency, binary gender roles, the objectification (and the SELF-objectification) of women, etc - we're struggling with how to convey to people our dislike of these things, our desire to change, without coming across as 'telling people what to do'.

The only way to enact social change is to gradually make certain things socially unacceptable. Making feminism cool won't do it. We have to make un-feminist things uncool.. None of this "un-feminist guilty pleasure" stuff. Of course, do whatever you want. I'm not for forcing people to do thing against their will. But I AM for outlining what is acceptable and what is not, and then holding my feminist friends accountable for at least trying to overcome their cultural hang-ups.

It's like, if your friend became a vegan, and then started eating meat every once in a while, are they being hypocritical? Or are they simply excercising their vegan choice? Afterall, veganism is about allowing animals the right to choose how to live their lives, without having another animal make that choice for them. And humans are animals, so if I decide to excercise my vegan choice and eat meat, then that's a vegan action.

See how you can create the most twisted, illogical arguments using the 'choice' model? (I'm not a vegan, btw. But I'm against factory farming and 99% of egg production.

This is the same way that stripping is empowering, choosing to watch pornography is liberating, etc, buying make-up and fashion is a feminist act.

By this logic, if all feminists decided to support the patriarchy, that would be a feminist act.

I don't believe we're so postmodern as to actually buy that crap.

In my personal life, I've been taking steps to not participate in institutions I don't agree with - whether that's not shopping at walmart, buying local produce, insulating my home so I don't waste energy and contribute to global warming, not wearing make-up, not buying fashion, only buying free-range eggs (with a move to keeping my own chickens).

I'm starting a feminist group at my school - for people who are dedicated enough to the cause to actually make changes in their lives.

Our country is poised on the brink of change - idealism and hope are making a come back. We're beginning to see the problems inherent in advertising, consumerism and unregulated free-market capitalism.
Instead of just sitting around and 'critiquing' these things, we should be NOT participating in them.

Take a sharpie with you everywhere and write feminist messages on advertisments in magazines in waiting rooms.
I'm sure we can think of other stuff.

I stopped caring about looking hot about 2 months after I stopped watching television.

And yeah, I'm a hairy feminist with a shaved head. But you know what? I've never felt better about myself in my entire life.

Anyway I shifted topics quite a bit.

Oh, and the stuff about the hunter-gatherers and shit comes from studies from real hunter-gatherer societies (who only recently died out). as well as from some research scientists are doing on morality, history, evolution, and neuroscience.

"Like I said, unless sex workers complain, organize and fight for this, there is little the government can do."

Sex workers ARE trying to organize for their rights. The problem is, no one wants to listen to them or acknowledge them. Everyone wants to come in and speak FOR sex workers, rather than listen to them. I've been involved in this movement for several years as an ally.

"Now with regards to porn, I would like to point out that studies show something like 90% of sex workers were abused as minors."

Can you cite this? I highly, highly doubt the efficacy of these studies. Furthermore, I said this earlier, it is not okay to talk about others' abuse, especially when talking about sex workers.

I feel like using those kind of statistics and arguments directly conflicts with the notion of listening to sex workers.

voluptuouspanic,

There are sex workers who want the legalization of sex work and want more rights.

There are sex workers who want to get out of sex work and are having trouble doing so. There are ex-sexworkers who want to abolish sexwork.

To whom should we listen? It's not a black-and-white issue.

""Now with regards to porn, I would like to point out that studies show something like 90% of sex workers were abused as minors."

Can you cite this? I highly, highly doubt the efficacy of these studies. Furthermore, I said this earlier, it is not okay to talk about others' abuse, especially when talking about sex workers. "

I can't cite it off the top of my head, but it's a stat I was told about when I was being trained by a reputable nonprofit to assist survivors of sexual violence. Also, of the few people I know who have done sex work (and still do it), it's true for all of them.

And why can't we talk about other peoples' abuse? How will anything ever change, if we can't, as a society, talk about abuse? Do we have to be sensitive? Absolutely. But when it's rampant in our culture, it's not just a "personal matter".

Here's a non-profit a friend worked for, and I think she like it. I'm sure some of their work is controversial, given the strong stance they take. They did some studies on prostitution. According to them, like 90% of prostitutes polled in 3 different studies by 3 different organizations said they'd like to leave the industry: http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/

@ Spikethecat:

So essentially when we don't have enough evidence to prosecute someone for rape, or do have a lot of evidence but nobody is pressing charges, we should just prosecute them for filming consensual sex with a different person because we think the type of sex in question is distasteful?

Which is kinda the point I was making with the boxer.

As to the general thing about legalizing sex work - is there any way that making it illegal benefits the women who do it?

Alex101,
Is that even what I said? No. So I'm not going to even answer your question. I'm uncomfortable about censorship too. But speech is a powerful thing: sometimes something as simple as an idea or an expression has unintended consequences.

Voluptuouspanic @ Ninapendamaishi,
I think a lot of people are trying to listen to sex workers. The problems is as Ninapendamaishi said, the messages are really confusing.

I also suspect it's partly a class issue. The men and women who have been hugely successful are mostly a privileged minority (as in most industries--a few tycoons and shining stars at the top of the chain). They have the means to put on trade shows and conferences to paint a rosy picture to the public. Some of the stars have their own blogs that are wildy popular with adoring fans. How many regular folks on the other hand get to see or hear about programs and conferences about women on the other end of the industry spectrum?

Lastly, as a citizen and consumer EVERYBODY has an interest in making sure our system works fairly, not just people in the industry. Speaking for someone isn't the same as SPEAKING UP FOR someone. By now there is enough information out there for anyone with the dedication and patience to understand that there are some serious problems that need to be addressed.

So this has been a great post, giving me a lot of food for thought.

Thanks to nattles_thing and everybody!

P.s. I heard about a new documentary called The Price of Pleasure. Has anyone seen it? Looks pretty good for the previews.

Cheers.

Spike, thanks for sharing that link. The film looks really interesting. Unfortunately it looks like it has already been screened where I live here in NYC. Do you know if it's going to be going to DVD, or if there perhaps will be anymore screenings?

I watched the trailer, and they show part of the toilet drowning thing that I described in one of my earlier comments on this thread, and of course they hint at some other stuff too. I watched, actually "studied" hard-core porn probably about 5 years ago. So I was thinking to myself- is it possible that it has gotten even more degrading/racist/misogynistic/violent etc. since then?! I can't even imagine. Furthermore, I can't even imagine that this type of porn has now been "mainstreamed"...which is equally disturbing to me.

Again, thanks for the link, also, if you have anymore info on the film, I'd definitely be interested.

Meeneecat,

I've just happened upon that movie a few days ago too. What's on their website is all the info I have. Perhaps someone could put together a feministing viewing in NYC! It will probably eventually be out on DVD and online, but it will take awhile.

If anyone is interested, this looks like a good resource on recommendations and the background surrounding attempts to regulate the industry from an occupational safety perspective. It also helps explain why the industry remains loosely regulated with little incentive to change.

I see it not as choosing who to listen to, but making sure all sides are heard. I see it as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each story is one that fits into a bigger picture. We don't know how much of a minority or majority any given story is, since we just don't have enough information.

A number of activists have attended TPoP screenings and had legitimate criticisms ignored, for example.

This is the last I will say on this.

So, if a woman's “free choice” to appear in pornography is an illusion, as I've heard some folks say, what about a woman's decision to have an abortion? Shall we now start second-guessing that?

After all. Who knows what went on in her life that made her think she wants that abortion? She could've been brainwashed somehow.

Suppose we found a correlation between child sexual abuse and the likelihood of having an abortion in adulthood. Would we conclude that abortion was a tool of the patriarchy, and try to make it illegal (or at least “socially unacceptable”, per joyfuldinosaur)?

I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Start minimizing the choices, however illusory, of consenting people, and you find yourself heading down a very unpleasant road. If you set a precedent like this, sooner or later the wrong people will be in charge, and then you're fucked.

Cheezewizard,

Continuing with your abortion example: What if we lived in culture where women could earn a small income by aborting say 1-day-old embryos. Would the discussion about choice and consent be different and would the concerns about exploitation be legitimate?

Spike,

Interesting example. But I'd say the discussion in that case is exactly the same. I don't see the addition of money as something that should change our take on the morality of the situation. That's why I have no problem with women selling their ova, for example.

Would your concerns about exploitation in pornography be assuaged if it was all produced by volunteers, who claimed they did it because they enjoy it?

If you're concerned about the women out there who are making pornography, when it may not ultimately be in their best interest to do so, purely for the money, then you have a point. But determining what is in someone's best interest is tricky. And we should get really uneasy when people believe they know what's good for you better than you do. (Not trying to imply that you're among this group, but there's a lot of people out there who are.)

This issue seems pretty complex, and I don't know if I have the brain-power to go into it at this time in the morning. So, to veer somewhat off course:

A few posters above have noted the difference between authentic sexuality and sexual kinks instilled by society. I don't mean to discount anyone's experience, but I'm vaguely miffed by this. I like spanking, I like the male (when my partner is male) to be dominant and sometimes even belittling, and even occasionally what's referred to in many of the online communities i inhabit as "non-con" play or "non-consensual", in a purely consensual environment; needless to say, it's happened to me before in a non-consensual environment and I was absolutely not okay with it, kinks notwithstanding. I am fully aware that this may have come from being spanked as a child and the nature of the shows I often snuck into my older sisters room to watch after bedtime :)

Because my sexual gratification comes from being put down, is my sexuality less authentic? Even if it comes from images absorbed over time - which I'm pretty sure is just the way life works - does it make any orgasm I have somewhat less in nature than one I have while experiencing my "authentic" sexuality? Is this pleasure that I absolutely admit to loving and, what's more, occupies my mind a great deal of the day, somehow fake, even to myself? I appreciate that any poster who changes their idea about what gets them off has their own experience, and are free to call whatever they prefer most their "authentic" sexuality, but what I'm asking is if the pleasure you receive from it just as good as any other, how is it less authentic?