you're reading...
Pre-2008 Posts

Gonzo Porn Star “Jack Venice” Charged with Breaking Into Sorority House, Raping Student, or How Much “Gonzo Porn” is Actually Rape on Film?

Above is a sample of “Jack Venice’s” “work”.  Audio is not safe for work!  Warning:  might trigger.

 news.jpg

Christopher Jack Reid, 25, above, who has gone by the screen name “Jack Venice” in some 86 gonzo porn films, has been arrested for attempted rape after having broken into a sorority house at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington.  According to police, Reid and one or possibly two male WSU students he met in a bar broke into three sororities early Thursday morning. A woman staying at one sorority reported waking up to find two men in her room sexually assaulting her.  Police says there were break-ins the same early morning at two other sororities.  The distributor of Reid’s “Frat House Films” has reported that Reid has been on an “amateur college tour” described as “a state by state tour where they’re going into these college towns and they’re literally going into bars and frat parties and talking to girls about what they want sexually, and these girls are doing it on camera.”  According to media reports, Reid’s victim believes she woke up when one of the student perpetrators broke open a condom in order to hand it to Reid, who was in her bed touching her.  She believes she was sexually assaulted as she slept.

Here are titles of some of Reid’s films:

Slut Collector (2006)
Sorority Sex Kittens: Kappa Kappa Sex (2006)
On Your Knees B**** (2005)
Meat Pushin in the Seat Cushion 4 (2004)

Contacted by radio station KXLY, Reid said he had been drunk and didn’t remember anything and reported that as an adult film actor, he gets paid to have sex with women and would therefore have no reason to rape anyone.”

Right.  As though men rape because they need to when nobody will have sex with them.  As though Reid doesn’t have, as a “reason” to rape, filming the rape and selling it as pornography.

Don’t tell me a lot of the pornography being sold isn’t actually girls and women being raped on film.  Of course it is.

Link Link Link Link

Comments severely moderated and restricted to anti-pornography commenters, male or female.

Heart

Discussion

37 thoughts on “Gonzo Porn Star “Jack Venice” Charged with Breaking Into Sorority House, Raping Student, or How Much “Gonzo Porn” is Actually Rape on Film?

  1. Here’s a video of a reporter talking to this guy’s mother:

    [video src="http://www.king5.com/sharedcontent/video/makeASX.php?title=www.king5.com/ki_091907rapesuspectmom_interview.wmv&adurl=adcontent/King5/King5GoodChevrolet001B_a_492664.wmv" /]

    Sad. He was in the Marines for four years and she thought that made him a “better person” who knew the difference between right and wrong.

    Posted by womensspace | September 20, 2007, 9:03 pm
  2. Link not working Heart.

    And by the way, xxxooo to you o fiery one. There’s all kinds of outrage on the internets. Let those reading here see how it should be done and for whom.

    Posted by Sis | September 20, 2007, 9:34 pm
  3. Fixed, I think (the link I mean) and xxxooo back, Sis!

    Posted by womensspace | September 20, 2007, 9:42 pm
  4. I wish she had told them to fuck off. All of that appeasing and skinning and grinning pisses me the fuck off. If that little pooky butt fucker would have approached me about making a porn video I would have said, “yeah you little punk ass bastard, let’s make a porn video in the trunk of my car, where I can get a jack handle to whack you up side your stupid pimply looking head, asshole loser.” What a little weasel, it really pisses me off.

    “Hee hee hee, I’m a porn star yall!”

    Posted by E. K. "Kitty" Glendower | September 20, 2007, 11:58 pm
  5. “Contacted by radio station KXLY, Reid said he had been drunk and didn’t remember anything and reported that “as an adult film actor, he gets paid to have sex with women and would therefore have no reason to rape anyone.”

    Right. As though men rape because they need to when nobody will have sex with them.

    Says it all, doesn’t it? That people still don’t get that no rape is really about sex reveals how the men are socialized to see regular sex as somewhere on the rape continuum. That’s why rape is not tried as a hate crime; it’s still “sex” to them in a rape culture, albeit on the extreme end of the spectrum.

    Posted by K.A. | September 21, 2007, 12:29 am
  6. I know I’m really showing my ignorance here, but what exactly does the term “gonzo” mean?

    BTW I agree with your statements that porn is rape. IMO- not only does the rape appear on the screen, but porn also assaults the women who see it as well as perpetuates the objectification of all women, which in itself, is a form of rape.

    Thanks for your work here, Heart!

    Posted by Macs Grandy | September 21, 2007, 1:32 am
  7. I suppose this is the next logical step from people like Joe Francis. I wish I could say I was surprised.

    Posted by Metal Prophet | September 21, 2007, 2:24 am
  8. Kitty, SO TRUE re that young woman’s response! Thank you for that far more satisfying response! Maybe we should start some sort of alternative radfem “fanfic” along those lines. HA. Rewrite pornography and sexist, stupid movie scenes the way WE want to see them, just like you did right there.

    You know, I was quite triggered by that video, and I’m betting many women who watched it were or will be. Two or three men in a car accosting women that way is terrorism. It is terrorism all women know, too, it is what we learn to fear, it is what keeps us on our guard.

    One of my earliest memories is of going to my piano lessons by myself as a little girl in the 50s. In the 50s, children went places by themselves, walked or took the bus– our moms didn’t have cars, didn’t drive,back then. My mom didn’t get her license or her first car until I was 10 or 11. Anyway, I would walk about six blocks to the bus stop and would then take the bus about a mile to piano lessons. I was 6, 7, 8 years old. Coming home from piano lessons, I had to wait for a bus near a junior high school, just as school was getting out for the day. The groups of teenage boys walking up the sidewalk terrified me. I can still recall those sick-to-my-stomach, terrified feelings, watching their behaviors with one another, behaviors *just* like the behaviors of the idiots in this video, freaking rapist bullying punk-ass pieces of crap. As a little girl I knew those boys meant me no good and might hurt me.

    Like all little girls and young women and women, I have lived with that awareness all of my life, that a group of men is a dangerous thing, that in a moment, a man who is smiling and apparently friendly can turn, can grab, can hit, can rape, can kill, then go back to his friends and laugh about it.

    I think women respond like that young woman did because they are taken by surprise (though they shouldn’t be, but that’s kind of the way of things, women telling themselves, against all reason, that incidents like this are anomalies) and sometimes their impulse is to placate, to appease, just be a nice girl, don’t make any trouble.

    And that makes sense, because if they fight back, they might go to prison for 11 years, like women of the Lesbian Seven.

    You’re supposed to smile. Act flattered. You’re not supposed to say kiss my ass, you nasty piece of crap, get the hell away from me before I pull out my, um, athame, and take you severely OUT. If you *do* say anything like that, if you dare to defend yourself, you will end up in jail.

    Mac’s grandy, always great to see you here.

    From Wikipedia about “gonzo porn”: (Note: Wikipedia’s description of gonzo porn SUCKS. Wiki tends to be sexist, just in general, and its articles about porn are definitely androcentric and misogynist.)

    Gonzo pornography is a filming style of adult video. It is characterized by a filming style that attempts to place the viewer directly into the scene. The name is a reference to gonzo journalism, in which the reporter is part of the event taking place. By analogy, gonzo pornography puts the camera right into the action — often with one or more of the participants both filming and performing sex acts — without the usual separation characteristic of conventional porn and cinema.[1] Deeply influenced by amateur pornography, basic gonzo porn tends to use far fewer full-body/wide shots, and more close-ups (see Reality porn). The loose and direct camera work often includes “tight” shots of the genitalia, unlike much of traditional porn.

    I mean, just what we need. Those shots of penises in and out of vaginas like pneumatic drills. So sexxeee.

    It’s obvious, though, by the above definition, why breaking into a sorority and raping a woman would be such great “gonzo porn.” A man rapes a woman and captures it on video. “You were there!”

    I agree with you, Mac’sgrandy, that pornography rapes the imaginations and souls of women.

    Great point K.A. about rape as a hate crime. That’s EXACTLY what it is. And pornography is a hate crime, too.

    Hey, Metal Prophet. As always, you give me hope.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 21, 2007, 3:35 am
  9. heart,

    ive been reading your site quite a bit lately, and i just wanted to first say that since anonymous readers always make me personally feel kinda batty. more importantly, i want say how much i appreciate the strength i believe it takes to write and speak the truth the way you do. i dont find much comfort on the internets these days (i quit my feminist blog when it just became too much of an emotional drain to read hate spam everyday), but i sure do love your analysis and think youre really fucking on it. it makes me feel really aligned and valid and legitimate to read your words. its sometimes hard for a young feminist to find important critical analysis, and i appreciate your divergence away from crap lies of a lot of ‘popular’ feminist blogs that say absolutely nothing about who i am or who we could all hope to be.

    bring it on, sister. every time you have strength.

    yours
    b

    Posted by b | September 21, 2007, 3:52 am
  10. b, thank you so much for that. You made my day. You do not know how much I appreciate that encouragement!

    I accidentally, I think, deleted a comment by you, Sis, that was right on time, and short, so I remember it:

    Sis: The saddest thing in that video was that the woman thought she was being complimented.

    Heart

    Posted by womensspace | September 21, 2007, 4:00 am
  11. Heart,

    I am not ‘pro-porn’ but I am not anti-porn (in theory) either. It is true that the porn coming out of a deeply misogynistic culture offends me, but I can imagine good porn (I believe it even exists, here and there).

    If I make love with my lover and film it, it’s porn. But it’s good porn (at least for me) and so I can’t consider porn _inherently_ evil.

    Do you have a stance against that too? Or is the porn you talk about the porn that is mainstream, and you simply don’t want to point that out every time in a culture where most porn is sexist?

    I think you are doing important work… a lot of us women’s sexuality is defined by something alien to us and we internalize it. I myself have internalized it and now don’t know how to get rid of it. But sometimes, I fear that the complexity of the issue is not being addressed in blanket statements like “All porn is hate crime and rape”.

    Good luck.

    Posted by Elissa | September 21, 2007, 4:25 am
  12. How about you and your boyfriend break up and he sells your love-making to amateur porn sites for $X a jerk, and he’s raking it in; and you ask him to stop and he says fuck you? Is it still not porn?

    Posted by Sis | September 21, 2007, 4:49 am
  13. Heart, I’ll try to have an article up on gonzo tomorrow.

    “But it’s good porn (at least for me)”

    Assuming that lover is male and you are female: No matter how good that porn would be for you, it would be better for him.

    His status would be raised by being the type of guy who can get a woman to participate in that more than yours would be raised for participating.

    No matter how conventional attractive or not you might be, he’d score even more points for filming acts such as anal sex.

    Even if he didn’t post the footage on the internet, even if he didn’t tell his best friend about it, just internally he’d have the knowledge that he accomplished that “feat” — something that would occur to just about any man, even if he wants to get rid of such thoughts just as you do.

    Candida Royalle has a book out called _How to Tell a Naked Man What to Do_.

    It’s sold to women as a feminist empowerment type of thing.

    So of course this book on telling a naked man what to do has a picture of a naked woman on the cover. To sell to straight women. And Candida Royalle is a feminist. This all makes sense, right?

    The book is about creating amateur porn and role playing the director, producer, etc. parts in your own bedroom. It presents that direction as a sort of dominatrix theme: women in control equals feminism right?

    Of course, what the book is really about is making the women who play these games feel superior to the women who don’t play these games. (Which is why BDSM is treated like a PH.D. series by the people involved, as if it’s the most difficult thing in the world to learn about or understand without a 12th degree blackbelt dungeonmaster elf-lord at your disposal).

    Thus homemade porn all to often means:

    *man feels superior to other men (losers not getting the kinky sex) and all women.
    *woman feels superior to other women (losers too dumb to be educated on the finer points of kinky sex).

    So it “proves” (but not really) that you’re not at the bottom of patriarchy, and I suppose that belief alone, unfounded as it is, is rewarding enough for most people.

    Posted by Rich | September 21, 2007, 4:58 am
  14. Revised:

    So it “proves” (but not really) that you’re not at the VERY bottom of patriarchy, and I suppose that belief alone, unfounded as it is, is rewarding enough for most people.

    Posted by Rich | September 21, 2007, 5:01 am
  15. “Maybe we should start some sort of alternative radfem “fanfic” along those lines. HA. Rewrite pornography and sexist, stupid movie scenes the way WE want to see them, just like you did right there.”

    I’ve always dreamed about rewriting Lolita from Dolores’ point of view. She would have taken Humbert Humbert to pieces and destroyed all the jollies of the intellectual men who read Lolita for masturbation fodder.

    The worst thing about that video was that when he called her over she came. I could understand her being appeasing once she was faced with that rapist bastard because women know when men are dangerous, but to do what he told her right after he’d been shouting out for her to be in a porn movie – so sad. There are probably quite a few videos of women telling him to “fuck off” but they won’t publicise them, will they?

    Posted by delphyne | September 21, 2007, 12:16 pm
  16. Did Elissa say her lover was male?

    Is feminism concerned with status among men, or injury to women?

    Posted by funnie | September 21, 2007, 2:48 pm
  17. delphyne, in a school paper once, I highlighted all of Delores’ quoted “”dialogue without Humbert Humbert first person narrative to explain it away and concluded it was ongoing pedophile rape. He raped that girl. Her actual words did not cosign with his narrative. However, it is his first person narrative that provides the rationalisation to insist otherwise and is what provides the masturbation fodder for men. Her voice was explained away, explained as consenting.

    Posted by E. K. "Kitty" Glendower | September 21, 2007, 4:08 pm
  18. “If I make love with my lover and film it, it’s porn. But it’s good porn (at least for me) and so I can’t consider porn _inherently_ evil.”

    I find it inherently difficult to understand why anyone would want to watch, even themselves, have sex. Seriously.

    The view of the naked body does not, by any stretch of innateness, cause arousal. Seriously.

    Most, if not all, images considered “sexy” are as such because they are socially constructed as so. Even the images of our “lovers.” It seems crass to think we are interacting with those we “love” through artificial means.
    Welcome to the patriarchy.

    Elissa, I think you are quite right to recognize the internalizations of sexuality. Such a difficult maze it is and my best goes out to you on your journey out. These “complexities” you mention (and many do) seem to me a resistance (denial?) of just how far do we take this whole unraveling-of-sexuality?
    -Are we willing/able/ready to trade in some orgasms for some knowledge/deconstruction?
    -Are we willing/ready/able to think of nearly every orgasm/arousal we have experienced as conditioned?
    -Are we willing/ready/able to think of ourselves as mere pawns and minions to someone else’s definition of sexuality?
    -Are we willing/ready/able to feel the violation and hurt felt by every person who is objectified or humiliated by a sexual construct that even we, in what we believe happens in a vacuum, perpetuate with partners/words?
    -Are we willing/ready/able to think of ourselves as mere pawns and minions in this game?

    The reason so many radfems get called fundies is because they go there. Ready, willing, able. Because they question sexual practices that claim root in sexual “freedom” and, apparently, freedom always comes when people stop asking questions (???hmm…).
    It should be obvious through porn and its many contexts that violation, violence, children, animals are all orgasmic possibilities. It should be obvious through cultural studies that “sexy” comes and goes by border. It should be obvious through historical records that, yes, people can walk around each other naked and no one has/wants sex. Or, for that matter, present day indigenous people.

    So why the No-Outcry-Law when radfems take on porn? Why are our words a restriction and the pornographer’s a choice? It seems to me, if I have any notion of “choice”: none of us have much freedom to choose, just freedom to pick–from the sexual constructs laid out for us via business, media, and patriarchy.

    So to not ask the questions, to not wonder where your orgasms start, to not question your masturbatory/bedroom/whatever practices and words that DO perpetuate and affect our future lovers, friends, children and world is a violation on us all.

    (PS. That was not a shot at Elissa–I mean no ills.)

    Posted by pisaquari | September 21, 2007, 4:09 pm
  19. funnie,

    nail. hammer. head.
    🙂

    Mary

    Posted by Mary Sunshine | September 21, 2007, 4:25 pm
  20. I certainly enjoyed what “Kitty’s” response would have been. I’ll have to try and remember that for the next time some guy tries to accost me from his car.

    As for his alleged victim, my thoughts are most definitely with her. You and me and anyone with 5 brain cells know they are going to try and drag her and her sexual history (b/c when rape is sex, your sexual history is relevant, duh) through the sludge b/c we all know she was a dirty whore who was asking for it. At least that’s what we learned from porn! GAH. And people wonder why I didn’t tell anyone (much less the police) for months that I had been raped.

    Posted by freakingdork | September 21, 2007, 4:26 pm
  21. Sis, you asked: “How about you and your boyfriend break up and he sells your love-making to amateur porn sites for $X a jerk, and he’s raking it in; and you ask him to stop and he says fuck you? Is it still not porn?”

    I never said it wasn’t porn — it’s always porn, from the moment sex is filmed. If he sells it to an amateur porn site without my permission, he’s an asshole. The porn remains the same: So is it inherently evil, or not, even though nobody was hurt or degraded to make it, regardless of what happens, or doesn’t happen, after it is made?

    Rich, thanks for your thoughtful response. I’m still thinking about it (by the way, thanks for helping me understand, everyone; I don’t feel like I have a good grasp of these issues, but still find myself emotionally drawn to your point of view. I would just like to intellectually understand it too). I have a few questions and comments and I would appreciate further clarification.

    Assuming that lover is male and you are female: No matter how good that porn would be for you, it would be better for him.

    What if the lover is female? I want to talk about the ‘inherent’ qualities of porn without making too many assumptions about who is in the porn and what the motivations or personalities of the people involved are. If my lover is male but not a jerk (or is that not possible?), is the porn I make with him still better for him? What if it’s better for me — does that make porn bad from his point of view, even if he enjoys it, but not as much as I do?

    His status would be raised by being the type of guy who can get a woman to participate in that more than yours would be raised for participating.

    What if it was my idea, unmoved by anything but curiosity, and he (let’s assume it’s a he, but I’m also interested in knowing how and why ‘porn’ is different when it’s with a female lover) doesn’t connect making porn with his lover to be a ‘victory’ of any sort?

    Even if he didn’t post the footage on the internet, even if he didn’t tell his best friend about it, just internally he’d have the knowledge that he accomplished that “feat” — something that would occur to just about any man, even if he wants to get rid of such thoughts just as you do.

    I don’t know why you think this is likely to be true of all men.

    Candida Royalle has a book out called _How to Tell a Naked Man What to Do_.

    It’s sold to women as a feminist empowerment type of thing.

    So of course this book on telling a naked man what to do has a picture of a naked woman on the cover. To sell to straight women. And Candida Royalle is a feminist. This all makes sense, right?

    I agree with you 100%. That is ludicrous.

    Thus homemade porn all to often means:

    I was giving one example of “innocuous” porn — because I was trying to get at the inherency of the evil of porn. It doesn’t have to be home-made. It can be something I do with a friend for spare pocket-money. The question is this: Is it always inherently evil, the mere depiction of people having sex, even if they don’t suffer (even if they enjoy it) and don’t feel exploited, and don’t do it for a career, and have other choices?

    Let me also make clear that this is mostly an abstract question, and I understand how different the majority of porn in the real world is, and how much abuse and degradation is involved.

    I just want to know if Heart’s analysis of porn is about real-world porn as it is mostly made, or is it about any and all depiction of sex, no matter what the context?

    Thank you very much for letting me participate. I really appreciate your answers and your help in gaining clarity on this issue, which really bothers me.

    (Pisaquari: Thanks. Still thinking about all you said.)

    Posted by Elissa | September 21, 2007, 10:51 pm
  22. Pisaquari, that was great. It hit exactly on a lot of things I’ve been struggling with lately…I wrote down a few of the things that resonated with me the most. Which reminds me, are there any resources for people who want to “sexually de-program” themselves? Of course, I don’t mean I want to learn not be sexual or think sexually anymore, but unlearn the infinite harmful sexual things we all learn and internalize.

    Elissa, I’m not as well versed in this as most others here, so take what I say with a grain of salt until somebody with more knowledge of this weighs in. First, keep in mind that in the situation you describe, nobody would say YOU’RE evil for making porn; rather, we believe that porn is generally a really, really bad thing for women, even under the best circumstances. (And while usually pornographers are quite awful people who definitely don’t have women’s best interests at heart, they’re just part of the equation, which is what I’m going to get into next.)

    So, with that out of the way, my way of looking at your scenario is that in a perfect, egalitarian world, no, you and your lover making a video of yourselves having sex wouldn’t be problematic. Unfortunately, as we all know, we don’t live in anything even close to a perfect world. We live in a world where men’s status is enhanced by having sex with women and women’s status is utterly degraded by having sex, where a woman who’s had any sex at all can have that used against her in court if somebody rapes her. So even if the person you’re with really is great, what if one of their friends finds the video and decides to copy it and distributes it all over the place? And if it’s a straight relationship, who’s going to be penalized and painted as a whore, you or your boyfriend? In a lesbian relationship, you’ll both be painted as whores and your lovemaking will be sold as a fetish to straight guys.

    And, people also change — your partner might be a great person now, but somewhere down the line that could change and they’ll sell that video. I also think that if I had done something like this with a guy and later on the relationship wasn’t working out, I might be inclined to continue it anyhow because I’d be afraid of what he might do with that video after we broke up — it would create a fucked-up power dynamic in our relationship because again, for him it wouldn’t be as much of an issue since he’s not going to be dragged through the mud if that video sees the light of day. See, the harm in porn is that even in the very few cases that seem innocuous or not misogynist, it can always be used as a weapon against women. (The road to hell and all.) And in your case, part of the selling point for the video you and your boyfriend made would be that it was something you didn’t want to have disclosed; that alone would give it the power-over that porn needs to survive in a world whose notions of sex and gender depend entirely on fucked-up power relations. If you’re consenting and enjoying it all the way through the video, well, the guys buying it can still get off on the fact that you didn’t consent to having it see the light of day.

    Another problematic thing about porn as you’re talking about it is that if the video sees the light of day and somehow you’re not upset about it, what will happen when you try to apply for jobs? Worse yet, what if you get raped? That video will surely be entered as evidence that you’re a whore who wanted it. One thing that always gets me about porn is that men will defend to their death the right to have it, talking about how it’s so empowerful for the women who participate in it, yet when a woman stars in porn or participates in any other aspect of the sex industry, she’s effectively giving up all her rights. If she gets raped, it couldn’t have been rape because she’s a porn star, or a stripper, or a prostitute. If she wants to get out of the industry, she can’t because no decent-paying job will hire a woman who’s been in the sex industry. (I mean, hell, look at how they skewered Miss New Jersey for “racy” photos that weren’t even remotely racy.) It’s also worth mentioning that the vast, vast, vast majority of porn in this world isn’t the type that you’re talking about. Nonetheless, porn, even when it’s not overtly, obviously violent toward women, is still inherently harmful to women because of the way power, sex and gender is structured in our society. And it sucks that our world is like that, but at least all of us here are working to change it, right?!?🙂

    Posted by mekhit | September 22, 2007, 5:30 am
  23. “I just want to know if Heart’s analysis of porn is about real-world porn as it is mostly made, or is it about any and all depiction of sex, no matter what the context?”

    What you’re asking is if sex is ever neutral in a patriarchy and I think our male overlords have been consistently clear that the answer lies in the disrespectful, dehumanizing way all sex-having, sexualized women- not just filmed ones -are talked about and treated by men across thousands of cultures around the world.

    That “sex-having, sexualized woman” just happens to coincide with every woman (and girl) when you’re the half of humanity deemed The Sex is not divorced from educated guesses about how any and every sex act filmed will generally be interpreted by denizens of the male-dominated world in which we live.

    Posted by Sam | September 22, 2007, 5:58 am
  24. “I want to talk about the ‘inherent’ qualities of porn without making too many assumptions about who is in the porn and what the motivations or personalities of the people involved are. “

    The word you bolded is short for the whole word, “pornograghy,” the Greek roots of which mean *the writings of whores (or of prostitutes, if you prefer).* How can that, the stories of enslaved women, women whose flesh has been bought and sold, ever be a good thing? By it’s very meaning, pornography is about the sexual objectification and commodification of women, something that can not be possessing of good qualities (except to the pimps and johns, I suppose).

    Posted by CoolAunt | September 22, 2007, 6:31 am
  25. Bouncing off a couple of things Elissa said:

    “I don’t feel like I have a good grasp of these issues, but still find myself emotionally drawn to your point of view.”

    Human beings are emotional creatures. Emotions are part of who, what and how we are; compassionate, appreciative, admiring, through righteously raging, etc, on and on.

    Male emotional experience is largely quashed under patriarchy. Emotionless expression, in any realm of human beingness, resembles what? Sociopathy, or something like it, perhaps?

    Acceptable female emotional expression has been reduced to a sickly kind of sentiMentality, for the most part, under patriarchy. It’s no wonder most of us are at least somewhat, if not a lot divorced from our intrinsic, healthy emotional experiences and expression; that we have learned to deny that aspect of ourselves its proper place, its rightful equality in our lives, in our experience and expression of being human.

    Certainly the establishment and maintenance of power-over and control of human beings could not have been achieved without degrees of severing human emotional responses to others, by gender, race or class, for starters. That’s how we Other others, those who are not like us, how we deny their humanity, so that we may gain, take advantage of, capitalise upon, those Othered others without giving them a second, nevermind properly emotionally tinged, thought.

    “I would just like to intellectually understand it too.”

    I read somewhere, just yesterday, there can be no real, meaningful thought without emotion. Attempting to function well, healthily, individually and collectively, without emotional cognition in, of and around any human experience, especially finer emotions, perhaps, again, resembles what? Nothing fully human, for sure.

    An emotional response is really a very good starting place, and not something to be rationalised away, but something that may be built on, a connecting place or point.

    Posted by Starfish | September 23, 2007, 1:16 am
  26. As a younger girl, I had a strong proto-feminist reaction to pornography. When I found my dad’s sacred stack of Playboys, I didn’t even have the words to say why magazines full of young women naked and splayed for anonymous men’s pleasure seemed like a symptom of a power imbalance in our culture. My best friend and I set them on fire in the driveway.

    Later on I would subsume these feelings and choke on them because it just wasn’t okay to feel this way about men’s behavior and men’s power over women. If you weren’t down with porn, bsdm, giving sex on demand, participating in sex acts for amateur pornographers, wearing uncomfortable underwear and atrocious mesh clothing to make yourself appear sexually available, giving head, being chained up, praising the popular stupid asshole male musicians and other “voices of our generation” who hated women (i.e. Fred Durst), well you were beyond worthless, a tightass unliberated prude who wanted to crush everybody under the heel of facist feminazi oppression. It was the nineties, and all the girls I knew were “bi” at parties to impress the men. The boys taped the girls kissing and handcuffing each other. You showed your tits to get into the parties. If your tits “sucked,” you were out. Sexually open did not mean getting good sex or kissing who you wanted, it meant aping softcore porn for the pleasure of any man who might be standing around. His hard on was your highest compliment.

    I have read sex positive feminists who work in the sex trade who consume and participate in the making of porn. The consensus seems to be that if it is your almighty Choice, then fuck it, it must be wonderful! If they don’t feel exploited, then abracadabra!, they are not! I am suspicious of their claims because they seem to see themselves and their actions as completely separate from this toxic patriarchal culture. Also, just because a woman is behind the camera does NOT mean that women are not exploited in the process of making the film. While I would never promote the idea that they should be disallowed from doing what they do, and I want to protect their rights, I disagree with the sex positive assessment of porn and all sex-for-money endeavors.

    When the pornography gets released into the public, it is much the same as with any media or published book—it is subject to interpretation, and it mixes with all the other detritus of our culture. It grows larger than itself and takes on unintended or unexpected meanings. An innocent film of lovemaking between partners, when released into the public sphere, may not be all that different than exploitative porn. It will still reinforce the popular notion that women are for fucking and that sexual release is a sovereign right that must be appeased at any cost, and that sexual gratification can and should be bought (and if the buyer is a woman, it is so very feminist!). If the partners are heterosexual, their sex act will be interpreted and used as yet another example of a man fucking a woman, with the man as the dominant character. Although the partners might be progressive and feel like equals, most porn consumers will see the film through a prism of their own toxic upbringings and will import their preconceived notions (disdain of women) onto the film. The film may not do damage, but it will not challenge the status quo or help equalize men and women.

    Here’s an article I got from Pandagon today about contemporary porn:

    http://www.nerve.com/regulars/badsex/025/

    It’s written by a pro-porn dude who makes every effort to appear straight and to let everyone know how sexually liberating porn can be and pad himself against accusations of prudery, but I held my nose through it because I am interested in his analysis of how the genre has changed over time. It ain’t pretty. (May trigger.)

    Posted by Magpie | September 23, 2007, 4:54 pm
  27. Great thread thanks to everyone, but I have to single out magpie, whom I’ve not read before. Your post is a stunner. And Elissa? The answer to your question is there in mappie’s post. Is pornography always bad you ask? Yes. It’s always bad. Your question is no different than asking “Is violence always bad?” You may think you’re engaging in love making, but as soon as you have an audience, you’ve made pornography. No court of law would convict your asshole boyfriend for selling you, pimping you, because you did it willingly. See? Wrong, but the way it is.

    Definition

    {…}
    The word, pornography, is drawn from the Greek words porne (female captive, slave or prostitute) and graphos (writing or drawing). Thus the etymology of the word links graphic portrayal of women with bondage and inequality with men.

    The danger of pornography is in its addictive quality and its power to corrode real flesh-and-blood relationships with objectified, idealized fantasies. Most pornography is designed as a masturbation tool for men, in which the pleasure of sexual stimulation becomes associated with isolation and degrading depictions of women.
    {…}

    Posted by Sis | September 23, 2007, 6:02 pm
  28. Thanks, Sis! I am a relatively new reader & commenter here.

    Posted by Magpie | September 23, 2007, 9:24 pm
  29. Kitty, re: Lolita.

    in a school paper once, I highlighted all of Delores’ quoted “”dialogue without Humbert Humbert first person narrative to explain it away and concluded it was ongoing pedophile rape. He raped that girl. Her actual words did not cosign with his narrative. However, it is his first person narrative that provides the rationalisation to insist otherwise and is what provides the masturbation fodder for men. Her voice was explained away, explained as consenting.

    Nabokov’s Lolita is often interpreted this way, as an example of a first person Unreliable Narrator. He uses the technique in quite a few of his works.

    Some interpret his intention as “comedy”… I prefer to read the text as a very dark examination of self delusion by a predator.

    Anyone reading the text “as is” without picking up on that subtext is not only doing the text a disservice, they’re displaying a great level of misogyny if they find it arousing or enjoyable.

    Posted by hexy | September 25, 2007, 2:20 am
  30. I found it disturbing and did not believe it was anything but his inner thoughts. Thoughts that I would easily believe were acted upon.

    Posted by ekglendower | September 25, 2007, 4:45 am
  31. The point about Humbert Humbert being an unreliable narrator is that intellectual wankers can slap one another on the back for being sophisticated enough to notice the device, whilst at the same time getting turned on by the sexual abuse of a young girl (the second part is the better kept secret). That’s why it needs to be rewritten from Dolores point of view because there would be nothing sexy in her account, in fact it would be erection-killing (a terrible fear for most men).

    It’s the same mechanism as happened in the UK during the rise of lads mags where the sexism in them was rewritten as irony so the journalists and the readers got double pleasure from degrading women whilst at the same time being able to accuse their detractors of not getting the joke.

    I’d be less worried about someone who found Lolita arousing doing a “disservice” to the text, and more concerned about how their predilections were experienced by the girls and women around them.

    Posted by delphyne | September 25, 2007, 1:11 pm
  32. Thanks Hexy. I’d love to have a literature seminar with you.

    Posted by Sis | September 25, 2007, 3:50 pm
  33. And Kitty too. I didn’t ‘see’ the italics Kitty

    {Coffee…where’s the coffee?}

    Posted by Sis | September 25, 2007, 3:53 pm
  34. Apparently, I have two wordpress sign ins, one with the “Kitty” and one without. Funny, my icon comes up for both. It recognizes me as conjoined twins I guess. LOL!

    Posted by ekglendower | September 25, 2007, 4:58 pm
  35. Delphyne will you contact me please?

    Posted by Sis | September 25, 2007, 8:12 pm
  36. Sis: Some of my favourite university moments were the feminist literature seminars. One particular lecturer made certain that, if I ever get back to a place where I can study, I’ll be considering any subject she teaches.

    Delphyne: And quite rightly. That misogyny I specifically mentioned is, as we all know, dangerous. The unreliable narrator technique is generally examined in exactly the way you suggest: contrasting what is said by the narrator with how the events are likely to be perceived by the characters being discussed.

    Posted by hexy | September 30, 2007, 1:47 pm
  37. Well guess what — this sick guy jack is in a movie that just came out called Frat House Fuc*fest 3, produced by Shane’s World, with the following “promotional” language:

    More pu**y per beer! Relive the best 2 hours of your college education. Watch these college girls get railed by huge frat house **cks. Is that your friend’s daughter sucking a big **ck through a glory hole?!?!?! Sorority wh**** getting down and dirty on their parents money, this frat is where it’s at!

    Posted by realsue | October 30, 2007, 10:11 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog Stats

  • 2,557,926 hits

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Archives

The Farm at Huge Creek, Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, The Feminist Hullaballoo

206672_10150156355071024_736021023_6757674_7143952_n

59143_424598116023_736021023_5026689_8235073_n

Afia Walking Tree

More Photos