Porn Perspectives

I was mentioned on the Huffington Post this morning, which is always an effective way to rouse me out of bed. The context was a discussion about porn (among other things) between Nona Willis Aronowitz, the author of Girldrive, and Chauncey Zalkin, a brand strategist and writer.

The interview is worth a read if you've got time. It covers different areas of Girldrive and issues of interest to women, but let's cut to the chase. We're here to talk about porn.

Joanna Angel, self-proclaimed feminist porn star, with her porn entourage. (source)

The conversation got a bit muddled, so I feel the need to clarify a number of points. Though I do give props to Nona, who did a stellar job of explaining her ideas about porn (she went to the same college as I did and she wrote her thesis about porn TOO...it's like we're twins).

I really don't mean to pick on Chauncey. She doesn't position herself as an expert on porn, so I don't want to overanalyze her every word. She has not thoroughly researched porn or the porn industry, and is basing her ideas on second-hand information and stereotypes. That is totally normal. In fact, I'll make the rest of this post about "Porn Skeptic", which is a stand-in for people like Chauncey who mean well, but don't have the full facts about today's porn industry. I've heard her arguments a million times, and I'd really like to do what I can to take the stale half-truths out of circulation.

See how it is? (source)

So let's sit down for a second and have a little chat about porn. Our Porn Skeptic implies and outright asserts a few things that we need to discuss. Her points are in bold below, with my comments following:

• Porn which shows women having a good time (Nona's and my definition of feminist porn) - is "art" rather than "mass turn on"
• Only "rich white academics" or people in gender studies courses are aware of this feminist porn

Far as I can tell, our Porn Skeptic agrees that while some types of porn are unobjectionable (porn where women's pleasure is evident), not very many people know about or watch this porn. In fact, it's potentially not even "real" porn.  (My assumption is that her definition of "porn" is that which is necessarily objectionable--a common definition.)

Susie Bright being intense

To bolster her point, our Porn Skeptic points out that Vivid Entertainment is much more popular than sex writer Susie Bright. Ok, yes, the largest porn production company in the world is in fact better known than a single writer. But the story is more complicated than that. Vivid employs feminist pornographers including Eon Mckai (who directs for Vivid Alt, an arty, edgy Vivid imprint) and Tristan Taormino (responsible for Vivid's educational imprint Vivid Ed). Both imprints produce quality, non-exploitative, women-focused content. Vivid wouldn't keep making the stuff if it weren't selling and winning awards.  Meanwhile, Susie Bright is not terribly marginal; she has written a bestselling book about sex, and regularly appears in the mainstream media. 

Perhaps the best trump card (to which our Porn Skeptic cannot argue) is Oprah. Who can argue with Oprah? Even Oprah agrees women are watching more porn, since studies show a third of visits to adult websites are by women, who conceivably aren't interested in watching exploitation of other women.

It's really a different story when both people are clearly engaged and having fun.

So if our Porn Skeptic and I can agree that there is some type of porn which is unobjectionable, then I propose this: let's spread the word about this good porn. Let's shout it from rooftops. Let's mention it in articles on the Huffington Post. But no matter what, let's not sweep it aside, label it irrelevant, and continue to criticize all porn as if it doesn't exist. Deal?

• "Porn is a mammoth industry and most of it is comprised of drug addicted young women without much if any support system."

Our Porn Skeptic is absolutely correct that porn is a mammoth industry. People really like watching porn, and they will probably continue to do so...which is why I think it'd be grand if we could help spread the word about sex-affirming, women-positive porn out there. Perchance some Porn Skeptics might even be interested in watching porn, if only they knew about this fantastic content.

To our Skeptic's second point, there are indeed drug addicted people in the porn industry--but it's unclear why the fact of some people's drug use is an argument against pornography. Working in porn offers fast money for people with little education or experience, so it attracts people who need fast money and have little education or experience. Some people use drugs, and some people don't. The people who stick around in porn typically are not drug addicts, and few legitimate porn outfits have much tolerance for substance abuse. The industry has advocacy groups in place to help assist people who need help, and some even offer medical services like STD testing (which is a prerequisite for work in the industry).

• The comparison of Jenna Jameson to Martha Stewart is "ludicrous" because being a women who creates a media empire is not necessarily a positive thing

This comment is a response to my famous Jenna-Martha comparison: each woman built a brand around herself, and then extended that brand to a range of products. (In Jenna's case, that meant a strip club, sex toys, and a mold of her vagina. In Martha's, it was a magazine, a line of paint colors, and bath towels at Kmart. You see the similarity, no?) Consumers followed the woman-brand to its furthest reaches, because each woman did a fantastic job of establishing a relationship with her audience. Consumers knew that with the Jenna/Martha label, it had to be good.

The reason I draw the comparison is twofold. The comparison underscores that porn operates like any other industry--it just happens to sell sexual images. It also demonstrates that women in porn are not all "drug addicts without much of a support system." In fact, women are able to take advantage of technology and evolving business dynamics to create a successful career for themselves. They can find self-determination, financial stability, and fame. Jenna is an extreme example; most ambitious women find success on a smaller scale. For many women, creating porn is sexually gratifying and even a creative outlet. That sounds pretty positive to me.

• The idea of kids growing up accessing porn online is worrisome

I completely agree. It freaks me out to think what kids these days have access to online. I'm all for parental monitoring (notice I don't say government censorship) and open discussion with kids about what they're seeing. I also think this is a huge reason why it's important to support sex- and women-positive porn. If people are going to be exposed to porn from a young age--and it seems this is an inevitability--I at least want it to be respectful, realistic, and life-affirming.

* * *

That's all for today. I hope I've done our fearless Porn Skeptic's viewpoint justice and enlightened at least a couple minds out in the Internet ether--please feel free to leave comments to continue the discussion, tell me I'm crazy, and so on.

Further reading: In Which Women Are Changing The Sex Industry From Inside (This Recording)