Porn Perspectives

A more chaste porn star

First of all, I want to make clear that Jenna Jameson did a knock-out performance on Oprah in November. Like, perfect 10. Her publicist and speaking coach must've worked overtime, but Jenna said all the perfect things you want a porn start to say on Oprah. (It's not that I think her words are untrue; her level of self-awareness and eloquence was just off the charts higher than anything I'd seen from her before.) If you missed it, check out this play by play.

Ok, so that glowing review aside, I did take exception to one part of the interview where Jenna claims she's not like "other women" who have lots of partners and are called sluts/whores. According to Jameson, because her primary partner on camera was her husband, she's somehow more chaste (my word). Take a peek:

Look, the world's biggest porn star DOES NOT need to defend her chastity. No woman does, but particularly a woman whose sexual performances have made her a millionaire and a global brand. Like, whatever you did, you did good. Also? You got paid to have sex--to most people keeping tabs on the morality scale, that's a big no-no.

My issue is that Jenna is separating herself from "others" who (she implies) ARE deservedly called sluts. That's unkind to her fellow ladies of the set. Most women in porn are honest ladies who just want to make a buck--they don't deserve scorn for violating some outdated notion that women should retain their purity. Not everyone finesses a porn career having sex with as few partners as Jameson. Jenna really set a new paradigm in her career, but it isn't helpful for her to then separate herself as somehow more "pure" and "chaste" than other porn stars. 

Prediction: in the next few years we'll see a move away from women's liberation-via-girl's-gone-wild (and the ancillary strip pole dancing classes), towards reclaimed chastity. Seriously, not having sex will be the new hot thing.

Porn Popular in Bible Belt

Can't say I'm surprised to read about a Harvard University study's findings that traditionally conservative states are high consumers of online pornography.  Eight of the top 10 states are conservative-leaning: Utah (staying strong at #1!), Alaska, Mississippi, Arkansas, North Dakota, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Hawaii and Florida are the only two of the top ten which are politically liberal.

Here is a quick article about the study, a Mormon writer's thoughts on the issue, and the original study (PDF).

Porn-related activities and discussion is rife with contradiction; ask any pornographer, who will tell you that the Bible Belt serves up the best customers. God bless porn?

 

A billboard in the Deep South

Careful, Porn Makes you Gay!

I had hoped to simply skip over this news item, but people keep asking me about it. I can't justify the time it'd take to write out my response, so I'll leave it to Jon Stewart to speak for both of us:

Banning sexist advertising

I can scarcely wrap my mind around the monolithic effort it would take to put into effect a ban on sexist imagery in advertising. Some would argue that nearly all advertising is, by virtue of its existence, sexist. Unfazed, both the Danish and Norwegian governments have passed laws banning sexist images in advertising (as reported by the BBC). Sweden recently decided not to ban such ads ("Cuz we're chill like that."). The law in question would makes a distinction between merely sexy ads (a-ok):

And sexist ads (no-no):

For those wondering, the offensive nature of the latter photo is that it shows women in a low-paying job (as though this is some sort of deviation from the norm?). The BBC article did not run specific examples of the ads that so offended Denmark and Norway. It did mention that one of the banned ads depicted a woman nurse with men's underwear on her face, "implying that she just had sex with a patient." I did a Google image search for "nurse with men's underwear" which immediately turned up the ad:

It's part of a series of ads for men's underwear; other photos show a sexy secretary and a sexy maid similarly sniffing men's skivvies. To be clear, I am against sexism--I believe in the equal valuation and treatment of all genders and support efforts aimed at this goal. However, if we're going to use this ad as a reference point, I disagree with the anti-sexism law on a number of fronts. First of all, let's get to a correct read on the scene. This woman did not just have sex with her patient. This image is way more subversive than that. It evokes a classic panty fetish scenario, in which the fetishist steals a pair of his lust object's dirty undies and revels in the remnants of the occupant's nether regions, risking discovery at any moment. The image is subversive, both for its gender reversal and for having broached "deviant" sexuality. Sure, you can read it as sexist, but more than that it's hot and rebellious. I kind of love it.

Beyond the artistic merit of this specific ad, it is a deeply troubling notion that governments would get involved with legislating sexism in art (yes, I'm calling advertising art) for several reasons. It is not possible to stamp out sexism in advertising images, since the very context of the medium is inseparable from sexism. Secondly, sanitizing advertising will not help reduce sexism in the world. Even if a governing body were sophisticated enough to pick up correctly on sexist nuances in advertising (and as the banning of the ad in question demonstrates, the Scandinavians certainly are not), sexism is not caused by advertising. I'll buy that ads reinforce sexism, but they certainly did not invent it, and sexism will persist even if all advertising disappeared tomorrow. Thirdly, it is up to the public and consumers to let advertisers know when they've gone too far--not the government. That is the point of capitalism and is why 1984 gives us the shivers. And finally, kick-ass, subversive, sexual images should not suffer in the service of a politically correct, utopian, heavy-handed, government-enforced law to systematically stifle expression.

So, naughty nurses, sniff away. Subversive sexual images are so much more powerful than any law which strives to ban them.

Spring Break is a waste of time

Aren't we over this yet?

The LA Times recently published an article shaking its head at the the hordes of young women flocking to Spring Break locales in order to demonstrate or gain confidence. States the author:

'[Y]oung people, women especially, [have decided] that the way to measure their readiness for the adult world is not in terms of education or emotional maturity but sexual desirability."

I'll throw my shaking head into the mix. I am baffled that young women still--STILL--think that sexual availability is a demonstration of anything other than, well, sexual availability. When are women going to understand that it is nothing special to have men lust after you? Dare I say, it's even a trifle boring? Have we really been so thoroughly cowed by the constant media messages telling us sex is all we have to sell, they boyfriends who say they'll dump you if you don't put out, the companies that toss you out as soon as you enter the marriage/baby-making age group?

My point is this: The simple fact of a young woman able to get sex is a given, so much so that the concept is boring.  In today's post-Pill, permissive society,  sex is freely given and taken. Women have careers, raise babies alone, and run for president. So why are they still stuck in the archaic prison of believing that sexual attractiveness is what determines social worth (and nothing more)?

Obviously it's still important to look good and be able to attract men--so we are reminded every day (and of course we must constantly challenge these messages). But instead of becoming mired in this thinking and never moving past it to contribute anything, I challenge women across the board to take it as a given that they want to sleep with you and then focus on something else! It will change your life, I promise.

This post is a poorly-sketched kernel of a Manifesto which I'm preparing. It will blow your mind!

For Christmas this year, 19 boxes of obscenity

As I emerged from my local California post office, triumphant after dropping off another set of six 40 lb boxes full of books in what I can only describe as potentially the most epic transcontinental sex book relocation project undertaken thus far this century, a wave of appreciation washed over me.

Why, you ask? One would think that mailing 19 boxes (so far) of books to oneself in New York would be nothing but a royal pain in the ass. While my back is unlikely to forgive me for several months, my heart is nonetheless warmed to think of the years of incarceration I would be facing should I have attempted such a feat a mere century ago. (Or, you know, in another country today.)

The Comstock Act, enacted in 1873 (and declared unconstitutional in 1936 thanks to Margaret Sanger), aimed to cleanse America of vice through a restriction on the distribution of obscene material--including information about contraception--through the mail. While the contraception ban was declared unconstitutional, the remainder of the laws restricting the distribution of obscene material remain to this day. What has changed (and what keeps changing) is the definition of "obscenity".

Despite the persistent vestiges of this ludicrous act, I am nonetheless able to send these books (which span such topics as feminist theory, histories of sexuality, analyses of sexual behavior, and so forth) with little fear of the law. And for that, I am thankful.   

Women watch porn; Christans flip out

It's such sweet satisfaction to be right.

Recently-published Nielson NetRatings show that women are an increasing driver of the market for Internet porn, currently representing thirty percent of traffic to porn sites.  Enterprising women understand the potential here and are capitalizing on this growing (and sophisticated!) market segment. As I've been saying all along, it's not that women aren't interested in porn. The biggest barriers to women purchasing porn are social stigma and poor quality products. Both factors are fixable, as we are seeing with growing niches of quality porn and the anonymity of the online marketplace, and in return women are buying.

Meanwhile, true to form, the Christian Right is freaking out that so many women will join men (all of whom are porn addicts) in hell for looking at naked people online.