A mother who does porn gives an interview about her opinions on the porn industry. The interviewer prints her real name. An angry ex-husband finds out, and the woman subsequently loses custody and all visitation rights for her child.
Though somewhat strangely written, this Salon.com article asks the following questions:
Is a pornographic actress inherently unworthy of being a parent? Setting aside the morality of the industry, will even the best-intentioned porn star put her child in danger of stalkers?
Is a pornographic actress inherently unworthy of being a parent? Absolutely not. Are men who watch porn unworthy of being parents? Nope. And as far as stalkers—vitctim-blaming, much? Women are stalked every day, regardless of their livelihoods. Aren’t non-pornographic actresses just as likely—if not more likely, depending on how famous they are—to have stalkers? Should Angelina Jolie lose custody of her children? How about Gwyneth Paltrow?
If there is no evidence that a mom who does porn exposes or directly brings any of it to her child– why should she lose all rights to visitation? Because our society has a hard time understanding women who don’t fall neatly into the falsely constructed virgin-whore dichotomy— women who can be sex workers and good mothers, at the same time.
Women who are sex workers—in porn, prostitution, stripping, etc—have jobs and lives that are highly stigmatized. Yet the men who use the services they provide are seen as normal, mainstream individuals. Women in porn are shamed and lose their children, yet pornography remains a multi-billion dollar industry, and an accepted part of American male life. This hypocrisy should be the real shame.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Mom Who Does Porn Loses Child Visitation Rights.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/14872
any contact info for judges or whatnot here?
This is complete bullshit. How about a CEO for a tobacco or liquor company?
any contact info for judges or whatnot here?
This is complete bullshit. How about a CEO for a tobacco or liquor company?
Sorry for the double post. Type-Key is made of FAIL.
Salon question on stalking: epic fail.
The concept is absolutely unacceptable. The Matt Smith guy who exposed her identity should suffer some sort of reprimand for it. He's put her and her family in danger.
I have a friend who recently lost custody of her children because she was exposed to the court as an escort. Same awful prejudice. Even though the law where she is states that you cannot lose your children for work that you do (unless it directly endangers the children), the judge brought her sanity into question. His prejudice was evident as soon as she walked into the courtroom: he said, "I know what kind of a woman you are and I don't need to hear anything you have to say. You'll never have custody of these children!"
He ruled that she had to see a psychiatrist and take medication for her mental problems in order to be eligible for supervised visitation rights. She's been to 5 (FIVE!!) court-appointed psychiatrists, all of whom have refused to see her again because they say there is nothing wrong with her. They refuse to prescribe her any medication because they say there is nothing wrong with her. She is in a catch-22. The judge is still convinced she's crazy (well, really, just hates her having been an escort and this is his legal way of punishing her), so the ruling still stands (that she has to see a psychiatrist and take medication). But she can't satisfy that requirement because she is not crazy. She has no more money to pursue justice.
The system is stacked against women, period. All women suffer from the whore stigma. Who is to prevent any man from pointing the finger at a woman and yelling "SLUT!!" and drawing her "morality" into question? As long as our morality is tied to our sexuality, any of us who has ever been sexual in any way is vulnerable to this.
It is victim blaming, indeed!
She has no more money to pursue justice.
Has she contacted a legal aid clinic? States, cities, and law schools have them, and their purpose is to provide pro bono or reduced cost legal services.
Good question! She's already spent about 60K on this. I will ask her if she has looked into these options. Thanks for suggesting it!
Hypocrisy indeed. Would a man who views porn have his children taken away from him?
um... yes?
um...no.
I found this on a quick search
E.A.L. v. J.L.W., 662 A.2d 1109, 1115 (Pa. Super. 1995) (reversing trial court’s
change of custody from grandparents back to mother, partly because “mother and stepfather
regularly view ‘dirty’ movies,” and “[t]here was evidence that these films are physically
available to the children”) Stephenson v. Stephenson, 847 So. 2d 175, 180–81
(La. Ct. App. 2003) (upholding grant of physical custody to mother, partly because father
“periodically possesses and views pornographic magazines and internet websites, although
he claims that [the son] was never exposed to such material,” a matter that court seemed to
classify as relevant to father’s “moral fitness”)
Eugene Volokh - Parent-Child Speech and Child Custody Speech Restrictions Footnote 39
That was a big
um... yes!
I stand corrected. I've never come across one before: what I've heard about is the "porn addiction" argument, where women claim that their husbands are addicted to internet porn. I've never heard of a case before where a parent was denied custody because of letting their children listen to "inappropriate music," or not having proper filters on the internet.
I haven't seen very many restrictions on what can be brought up in child custody complaints. So if you can conceive of it, it has probably been objected to.
It seems that the harm here for the child is the irresponsible media and our slut-shaming, whorephobic child, not the mother's occupation. This is indeed a sexist double standard!
"It seems that the harm here for the child is the irresponsible media and our slut-shaming, whorephobic child, not the mother's occupation. This is indeed a sexist double standard!"
Halleluja!
Let me get this straight - having sex for money makes a woman a bad mother. Having sex for free makes a woman a good mother. Got it.