Porn Perspectives

Why pornographers want to protect kids

People are sometimes surprised that the porn industry at large is one of the biggest champions of protection of children. When you think about it for a minute, it makes sense. The porn industry is probably more invested than anyone in ensuring underage people do not have access to porn, from both the consumption and production side.

I read a quote from an Internet adult producer who summed things up nicely; he basically said that no one wants kids on their site because they take up bandwidth and they don’t have credit cards. Makes sense.

Additionally, of course, is the media and government scrutiny that inevitably results from any child-involved scandal. The media circus surrounding the Traci Lords story was huge. Lords basically used a fake ID to make porn movies while underage back in the '80s. Adult producers lost a lot of money when her true identity (and age) were revealed—it became a felony to sell or possess any Traci Lords video, so retailers and distributers around the country had to quickly dump a lot of stock. They certainly were not reimbursed.

News of a young actress who may be using a fake ID, Lords-style, is currently rippling through the industry. Understandably, insiders are concerned. I’ll keep an eye on this story and see if anything comes of it.

Meanwhile, on the consumption side, Playboy is launching a parental control initiative which would educate people on how to keep their naughty interests out of the reach of children. Obviously, the motive here is to negate many of the anti-porn crusaders’ arguments and to placate the American public concerned with how easy it has become for children to stumble upon porn. Bad publicity and anti-porn groups are not good for business. This is a smart strategic move for Playboy, and hopefully the good-PR effects will trickle down to smaller producers as well.

Though the motive is not altruism, the fact remains that the best business move for adult producers is to keep kids away from porn. Everyone wins—producers keep profits up, and parents and conservatives are reassured that someone is working to protect children, even if it is an unlikely actor.

Stop Fucking Him

Just a quick note to bring attention to a brilliant blog post I learned about from Susie Bright's podcast. Apparently, Democrats have asked Republicans to put their votes where their mouths are by introducing into Senate a bill aimed at preventing abortion via education, increased family planning funding, and birth control access. The article is here. The bill, of course, has been met with deafening silence from Republicans.

Responding with outrage, and more importantly, revealing the true nature of this war over women's bodies, is blogger Cherie Priest. Her post, now entitled "The Great Stop Fucking Him Post," has become a minor legend in online circles. Please read it.

Chronicling the Suicide Girls Controversy

The story behind the hugely popular site SuicideGirls is fascinating to me. SG is the first and possibly the biggest porn site built on and appealing to the next generation of porn consumers—young people of my generation, and especially women. Though its articles, interviews with bands, model journals, and message boards, SG has been able to build a strong brand from its “alternative” models, who now number over 1,000. Watching SG’s rapid growth and their missteps along the way provides a lot of insight into this new kind of porn, which aims to appeal to women, politically-aware individuals, and young people receptive to online community-building. SG’s pitfalls and successes offer valuable information for other sites seeking to break into this new aesthetic and demographic.

For example, a central problem with building a site around a DIY aesthetic, sex-positive feminism, and freedom for models is that there is still a business to run. This is a challenge on two fronts: the headstrong models, and the (sometimes) incompatibility between capitalism and counterculture.

As far as the first challenge, one of the main reasons SG has become so popular is that the women featured on it are tough, self-possessed, and intelligent. This is great—far too many porn sites portray women as weak and sexually submissive—but the downside is that many of these women chafe under authority and are not sympathetic to the capitalistic decisions necessary to sustain a business.

To wit: on September 28, 2005, thirty models left the site in a huff. The models were apparently upset to learn that a man (co-founder Sean Suhl) was one of the main managers of the site, contradicting SG’s image as women-controlled. Another complaint was that at $300 per photo set, the site did not pay the girls enough. The Wired article detailing the outrage can be found here.

While it was never widely publicized, the fact that men were involved in the management of the site was no big secret. The charge that the site didn’t pay enough strikes me as absurd; potential SG models know the rate, and they have the choice to not appear on the site if they decide the fee is inadequate. Furthermore, the real value of appearing on the site is the network of members one gains access to; many models gain valuable exposure for their outside pursuits, and even if they do not continue with modeling, they will have built a network of intelligent, talented, and creative people. Plus, the cache of appearing on SG is really strong in certain social circles; as the site’s popularity explodes, it is becoming slightly less cool to be a SG, but it nonetheless commands a certain respect among peers. Because there are so many perks, the $300 seems to me a reasonable payment.

SG attempted to win back member sympathy two days after the Wired story broke, announcing that SG would be self-censoring some of its racier (though always soft-core) content in order to avoid government attention. A discussion can be found here. Members were outraged that the government was forcing SG into this disruptive act of censorship. Images depicting bondage scenes and anything involving bodily fluids (real or implied) were replaced with a black screen containing the message: “We found this image to be art. We didn’t know if Alberto Gonzalez would agree. So we had to take it down because of the war on porn.” Of course, the site had never actually been threatened with prosecution. Missy (the site’s founder and queen bee) posted the following in her official statement on the matter:

We have received no formal government notice to remove these images, however in the course of our involvement, as witnesses, in a federal criminal prosecution that does not target SG, we have been made aware of the risks posting such content poses the owners of the company. Given the U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales' new war on porn task force and it's intent to bring obscenity charges against their loosely defined "Deviant" imagery, we have removed any images with fake blood and any images we felt could be wrongfully construed as sadist or masochist.

The ploy seemed to work, and attention turned from the departure of the SG models to commiseration with SG over the Bush administration’s war on porn.

The latest controversy, reported last week by AVN, centers on Content Pinup’s distribution of images of Suicide Girls. It remains unclear exactly how Content Pinup gained legal access to these images (my hypothesis is that as one of the first sites expanding to mobile content, SG made some sort of contractual error and didn’t adequately protect its proprietary content), and is now selling them to third parties. Here is SG’s attorney’s letter to ContentBlowout acceding defeat.

Once again, the SG community is outraged. The models understandably don’t like the idea of their images being sold to outside companies. This whole mess sounds like a pretty clear mistake on the part of SG, since this leakage of content will likely damage the brand.

The thing is (and here enters the second challenge of running a “DIY” business) this is totally par for course in porn. Models’ images are sold and resold, packaged and repackaged, all the freaking time. A woman shoots a porn movie, and then along with the original movie, each scene will be repackaged in countless compilations videos for years. When a woman signs the model release, those images no longer belong to her and can be used for just about anything. It’s unfortunate the images were acquired by an outside party who will indiscriminately sell them, but it was always a possibility.

SG comes mighty close to misleading models about what they can expect (not in the contract but in casual postings on the message boards). I imagine models end up making decisions they might not otherwise make with full disclosure about the hypothetical uses of their images. It becomes easy to forget that SG is a business above all, and that just because it co-opts subculture aesthetics like DIY and sex-positive feminism doesn’t mean that the bottom line isn’t what matters most. The company would be well advised to reconsider its representations of its priorities to models. Perhaps asking models to just trust them isn’t a great move. I read in an interview with Missy that SG receives 1,500 applications a week; the site clearly isn’t hurting for models, and I think that even with full disclosure there would be plenty of interest in appearing on the site. There is no need to mislead models.

At the same time, the SG models who like to get self-righteous about their rights and SG’s betrayal should look more closely at their contracts. Frankly, I’m disappointed that these supposedly smart, savvy women aren’t more informed about the legal aspects of their decision to become a SG model. They decide to take their clothes off for a Web site, and now they’re outraged when they’re treated like porn stars.

This ties back into what I was saying at the beginning of this post about SG entering uncharted territory. The site aims to appeal to feminists and a younger demographic, but at some point its ultimate priority is profit. The struggle for companies following the SG model will be to stay true to feminist ideals while still remaining a viable business. It is not impossible, but it takes a little finesse, something the powers-that-be over at SG may not possess. One problem might be that people who tend to be super-committed to feminist (and other) ideals are not so interested in running a large company, and those interested in running a large company aren't so interested in feminist ideals. I’m curious if others have a different take on this situation…for example, isn’t it a little unfair that a generally women-positive site like SG gets so much flak for its policies while outright exploitative sites get away with much worse treatment of women?

Jenna Jameson on Tyra's Show

Porn superstar Jenna Jameson appeared on the Tyra Banks Show this morning (thanks for catching that, TiVo!). The exchange between the two women was really interesting.

I’ve been following the careers of both for over a year now, and they are remarkably similar. From humble beginnings, they each began in their respective industries at a young age, taking off their clothes for a camera. They used their bodies and sex appeal to rise to the top of the porn (in Jenna’s case) and the modeling industry (in Tyra’s case). They each were savvy enough to notice that they wouldn’t be able to command the attention of the industry as they aged, so they employed their entrepreneurial talents to launch media empires. Tyra went on to create “America’s Next Top Model” and her own talk show, while Jenna founded ClubJenna.

Watching the segment, I was impressed that Tyra didn’t seem judgmental of Jenna’s career choice. Instead, she just appeared to be profoundly uncomfortable—not because of the sex necessarily, but I think because she realized that in a tiny twist of fate she could be in Jenna’s shoes and Jenna could be the one with the talk show sensationalizing porn stars.

Tyra seemed to loathe the idea that she and Jenna were more alike than different. They are nearly the same age, their industries are very similar, and they even look alike. Jenna’s jabs at Tyra with comments like, “I could have been you!” were absolutely hilarious.

For whatever reason, Tyra felt the need to guilt Jenna about all the money she made. She tsk-tsked Jenna’s Louis Vuitton earrings, the fact that Jenna drove a $200,000 Bentley, and she was weirdly ruthless about finding out exactly how much Jenna earned. It all seemed strange, since Tyra isn’t exactly taking home small potatoes. Overall, I was impressed with Jenna. She did an excellent job sticking to her narrative, even as Tyra clumsily stumbled through prepared questions.

There was no mention of Tyra’s previous run-in with the porn industry.

Cracking Down on Orgasms in South Carolina

In the latest attack on American women, the state of South Carolina is considering banning sex toys.

According to today’s article in AVN:

Under the proposed measure, sponsored by Republican Rep. Ralph Davenport, the sellers and buyers of the devices could face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine, according to the Columbia, S.C. newspaper The State. The law would allow police to close down sex shops and confiscate all sex toys, deeming them indecent and illegal.

The only segment of the adult industry which counts women as its best customers is the adult novelty segment. Many women rely on vibrators, dildos, and other toys to achieve orgasm either privately or with their partners.

Banning novelties amounts to a government crackdown on female orgasm; women are affected much more by this measure than are men. Of course, women are inventive and I’m sure the women of South Carolina will find a way to get their orgasms through other products (“back” massager, anyone?) or illegally obtain adult novelty toys, but they will have to do so in a state that is actively attacking their freedom and privacy.

The Republicans really need to leave female sexuality alone.

What is Feminist Pornography Anyway?

People often ask me to clarify what I mean by “feminist porn.” It’s a term I sometimes throw around, and the definition I use—porn that respects the female experience in its production and depiction of sex—doesn’t really help people imagine what I’m talking about. In feminist porn, the sexual acts are no different, the actors aren’t specially trained, and unless you’re looking for it, you likely wouldn’t notice a difference between regular and feminist porn. Feminist porn can include S&M, fetishism, crazy freaky sex, and basically anything else people can think up…what makes it different, in my eyes, is that underneath it all runs a respect for women's experience.

My rule of thumb for determining whether a porn scene is feminist or not is whether I grimace and avert my eyes. Not surprisingly, I tend to empathize strongly with the women on screen, so when I see a woman who is clearly not enjoying herself and who is being degraded by her male partner, I can’t help but have a physical reaction. It’s not the acts themselves, but rather the intent behind them. There are many acts I've seen that I would be unlikely to perform in real life, but I don't necessarily pity the people performing them. Once pity enters the picture--once I start feeling sorry for the woman--the scene becomes degrading and non-feminist in my eyes.

Unfortunately, my little test means my definition of feminist porn is relative to me and my reaction, but I honestly cannot think of any way to make it more objective without making it overly restrictive (she goes down on him for x minutes and he goes down on her for x+4 minutes=feminist porn). This is a problem because something I might view as feminist might absolutely revolt someone else. A classic example is blow jobs--some people view blow jobs as inherently degrading to women, while others see it as the most powerful act a woman can perform. So obviously this definition is lacking. I'll keep working on it.

To ground the term in something a little more tangible, I’ll offer a few video titles that in my view are feminist porn. Many more titles fit the definition, but here is a small sample to start with:

This grouping includes soft-core, hard-core, gonzo, artsy, dirty, male-directed, female-directed and fetish titles to indicate that feminist porn is not a specific genre or niche. It really can exist in just about any genre; the way it is created, reflected in the way it depicts sex, is what's important. For more titles, check out Violet Blue's recommendations on Tiny Nibbles. Good Vibrations also carefully screens their videos before recommending them to their largely female clientele.

If you’d like to learn more about feminist porn, be sure to check out Becky Goldberg’s excellent documentary, Hot and Bothered: Feminist Pornography. The film includes interviews with many of the main players in feminist porn as well as clips from feminist porn videos. The film was part of the inspiration for my thesis, and Becky herself was really helpful in offering me advice at the outset of my project. You can buy it here.

Self-advocacy in porn: protect thyself

I like to think that the notion that women are universally coerced into appearing in porn—forced at gunpoint to perform sexual acts for the camera, raped by everyone involved—have been discredited and abandoned by the thinking public. Of course, cases of rape and coercion crop up every so often, but such incidents are not widespread and are not endemic to the porn industry. (In fact, because it is under such scrutiny, the industry has a strong interest in eliminating abuses and improving its reputation.)

Still, the porn industry is certainly not known for being warm and fuzzy, especially when you’re a woman. Many women report feeling disrespected by producers, crew, and even other talent.

A particular point of contention seems to be the struggle over what a performer will and will not do in front of the camera. While a woman might establish boundaries prior to shooting, whether or not they will be respected in the heat of the moment is always an unsettled question. Producers like to get the most bang for their buck (literally), so they often pressure women to push boundaries. For this reason, porn actress and activist Nina Hartley told me she recommends always signing the model release form after the shoot as a way of increasing the performer’s power over the producer.

The producer, she said, is less likely to pressure a woman to push her boundaries when he knows that she can refuse to sign the release, rendering his video footage unusable. In other words, without a release form already signed, the producer’s motives are shifted from wanting to capture the most graphic and extreme content, to wanting to keep his talent happy.

Unfortunately, it seems many women are either not given the opportunity to assert themselves or do not know that this is an option. In the thick of filming, I imagine it is very difficult to protest when a producer starts requesting more extreme sex. So news that a new advocacy group has formed with the intention of improving communication and relationships within the industry is music to my ears. The organization, Best Practices in Adult Video, was founded by Xbiz publisher Alec Helmy with the support of Paul Fishbein, president of Adult Video News.

BPAV’s stated goal is to work towards improving the relationship between producers and performers through a series of “best practices” initiatives. The BPAV site lists its initial set of best practices:

• Disclosure of Acts 
Producers must fully inform performers in advance of the nature of any shoot, specifying explicitly who they will be working with and the types of acts they will be performing.

• Care in Types of Acts 
BPAV encourages producers to avoid any situations that place performers in physical danger or lead to a performer feeling mistreated as a result of non-consent

• Respect of Performers
Adult performers are the backbone of the adult entertainment industry. BPAV believes in the professional treatment of all performers on and off the set.

• Performer Responsibility 
BPAV believes that it is the responsibility of performers to take all measures necessary (in personal life and profession) to protect themselves and their fellow performers from sexually transmitted diseases. In addition, responsible producers should only cast performers with proof of current AIM (or equivalent) tests

• Proof of Age
Producers must be diligent to ensure that all performers are of legal age.

This all sounds good to me, but I do wonder what effect this organization’s male roots will have on its policies. The two most prominent adult industry advocacy groups, Adult Industry Medical and the Free Speech Coalition, both have strong female leadership, while BPAV appears to be very male-driven (this is based on the AVN article and the organization’s website). Founded by a man, every statement on BPAV’s “Support Statements” page is from a man. This is curious to me because female producers are often known for their commitment to creating respectful working environments (see Veronica Hart, Tristan Taormino, Nina Hartley, Candida Royalle, and many others); they would seem like obvious supporters of this organization. Why are none of the above mentioned on the BPAV site? Were they simply not contacted, or is there some other reason?

While I do not wish to belittle men or their interest in securing a safe and ethical work environment, the fact that the adult industry is so gender-driven means that women and men often confront different issues, and they certainly have different experiences. All of the best practices listed above apply to women as well as men, and I hope that BPAV works to actively engage women performers and producers with its mission.

I am curious to see if this organization remains afloat (many seem to blip in and out of existence) and if it can generate sufficient support to institute many of its best practices on an industry-wide level. I certainly hope so.

A Little Background

While interviewing people in the porn industry for my undergraduate honors thesis, I quickly learned the most important bit of information to offer interview subjects within 30 seconds of initiating conversation. Because this blog concerns itself with the same subject matter involved with my interviews, I will use this bit of information as a way of introducing myself.

I am a young feminist in academia researching pornography—but don’t worry, I think porn is good.

That last bit has proven to be the most important part of every single introduction I made while researching pornography. And the fact that people in the industry—men and women alike—needed to hear this in order to consent to an interview is telling: feminism and pornography are not generally considered complementary pursuits. Yet I am a feminist who believes there is nothing inherently wrong with pornography. I do not believe it is always exploitative, degrading, or harmful. (Those interested in how I arrived at this conclusion can read my thesis, a link to which will appear in the sidebar soon.) To me, feminism and porn can certainly coexist, and indeed at times work in concert to further one another’s goals.

At the same time, I’m not willing to throw my name behind porn as a hearty supporter. The fact is, most of the time porn makes me want to vomit. Essentially, my position on pornography is that there is nothing harmful about it—but at the same time it fails to live up to its potential as a rebellious, subversive force undermining oppressive attitudes and institutions.

I ended my recent undergraduate honors thesis with a quote by a peepshow dancer, Vicky Funari. After a remarkable account of her career as a peepshow dancer, in which Funari reflects upon the positive as well as negative aspects of the sexual exchange, she reflects:

"Our only choice as women is to remake the system and pornography itself in our image, to surround our daughters and sons with images we want them to see and, more importantly, with a reality we want them to live."

This nicely sums up my position. Before images of revolution and porn bonfires start cropping up, I should say that this remaking of the system and pornography itself is not a drastic overhaul. It does not, in my view, require a massive revision of the porn industry. Rather, it involves a widening in the variety of images and in the means of image production. It involves a shift in the power structure of the industry, and it involves a shift in both the consumer demographics and what consumers expect of porn. All this can be pursued through shrewd application of business strategy. I hope to explore various possibilities in my postings here.

While this brief intro to my position on pornography might not be as clear is it could be, and perhaps some will see it as unnecessary, I hope that it offers a sense of my basic ideological framework. I do feel that as someone about to write about the politically-charged subject of pornography, I need to articulate my ideological position.

I look forward to initiating debate and hearing different viewpoints about this taboo and (to me, at least) endlessly fascinating topic.