(no subject)
Sep. 26th, 2005 12:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaChris Wilson of Lakeland, Florida, said in an interview that he created the site in 2004 as a simple Internet pornography venture: Users post amateur pictures--supposedly of their wives or girlfriends--and for a $10 registration fee, others can take a look. He claims there are about 150,000 registered users on the site, 45,000 of whom are military personnel. Of the 130,000 unique visitors who come to the site daily, Wilson estimates that 30 percent of the traffic, or 39,000 unique users, are US military personnel.
Early on in his Internet venture, Wilson said, he encountered a problem--potential military customers in Iraq and Afghanistan couldn't pay for membership, because credit card companies were blocking charges from "high-risk" countries like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not wanting to shortchange US troops, Wilson established a rule that if users posted an authentic picture proving they were stationed overseas, they would be granted unlimited access to the site's pornography. The posting began, sometimes of benign images of troops leaning against their tanks, but graphic combat images also began to appear. As of September 20, there were 244 graphic battlefield images and videos available to members.
...The website has become a stomach-churning showcase for the pornography of war--close-up shots of Iraqi insurgents and civilians with heads blown off, or with intestines spilling from open wounds. Sometimes photographs of mangled body parts are displayed: Part of the game is for users to guess what appendage or organ is on display.
from The Porn of War (some foul language, so perhaps NWS), cited in The Heart of Darkness, linked byantiwar_dot_com
Is the link between sex and violence in pornography, which keeps coming up in myriad ways, an inevitable side effect of the medium? Or does this link form when pornography is produced and consumed in a society rife with imperialism and oppression? I lean towards the latter, and i still hold on to the idea that non-exploitative, non-sexist pornography can be a good thing.
A while ago i wrote about the suggested link between pornography and the Abu Ghraib photos. In that discussion i pondered the ways in which militaristic culture would twist the medium of pornography to the purpose of mischanneling pleasure as part of the culture's efforts to produce a class of soldiers.
If my thesis is right, then woman-positive porn should have some effect towards calming sexism, racism, and militarism -- that is, *if* consumers bottle-fed on high-impact thrill porn can develop a taste for kinder, gentler woman-positive porn.
Unfortunately, exploitation remains profitable, even (perhaps especially) in an industry like pornography. It is as if the archontic forces are aligned against the success of such a project: capitalism, militarism, desensitization, misogyny, racism, addiction, and... i don't know a term for "compulsively seeking prurient thrills in the depiction of violence."
Postscript. I recall having a discussion in my journal at some point, though going back through memories now i can't find it, about the prurient-violent depictions of Hell sometimes given by Bible-thumping preachers, in which it is clear that pleasure is being taken in the thought of sinners suffering in Hell. I think that style of religion plays a role in this too, as part-and-parcel of the cultural pattern of what militarism has done to American culture.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 04:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 04:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 04:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 05:51 pm (UTC)Even so, it is tricky to just say that rape fantasies are wrong, period, because many, many women have them, and each woman who does deserves to enjoy her sexuality without her needs being marginalized as pathological. One might say that simply suppressing rape fantasies altogether is a way of punishing women for their femininity a second time -- after their sex drive has already been coupled with the social ubiquity of rape.
I don't have an easy answer for that. But it seems to me that i would feel more comfortable with rape-fantasy depictions that were directed by women.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 06:44 pm (UTC)My gut feeling is that the answer is yes. I personally feel that fantasies involving non-consent are, on a deep level, reflective of internalized kyriarchal values. For one thing, rape fantasies reflect the idea that rape is rough sex, rather than a crime of violence and power, which is exactly how sexual predators want rape to be seen.
IMO this is reflected even in accounts i've seen of lesbian rape and battering, in that the rapist/batterer uses the prevailing social climate of sexism/homophobia to her advantage. For example, the batterer might threaten to "out" the survivor if she does not remain silent.
I'm not willing to engage in victim-blaming, however, and say that it is 'bad' for people to have rape fantasies. We react to injustice in our society and in our experiences in ways that best suit our survival.
As a person who has non-consent fantasies, i recognize their strong potency. A lot of the material i wrote during my own brief exploration of a career as a smut writer dealt with the fuzzy boundary between consent and non-consent.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 07:34 pm (UTC)I'm not sure what you're asking. I have no problem with consentual adult sex in any form. This isn't me being "prudish" and saying people shouldn't have rape fantasies, or that people shouldn't act them out.
I've had plenty of fun hog-tying people of both genders, myself... and having it done to me.
It's me saying that i do not believe a society without sexism, without racism, without homophobia, would see large percentages of people sexualizing their experiences of degredation.
I respectfully disagree about all expressions of power being related to gender. That would nearly mean that homosexuals have vanilla sex.
What i mean is that expressions of power in any dealings between two people are inextricably tied to the ubiquity of power relations in their culture. Sexism, racism, classism, and homophobia are in my mind variations on the same theme -- which is why i use the word kyriarchy instead of patriarchy. So i am not saying that power relations are a man/woman thing, but that our society's understanding of what it means to be a man or to be a woman cannot be removed from kyriarchy in our culture.
RE: consenting to rape-fantasies.
Date: 2005-09-26 07:11 pm (UTC)many of our fantasy lives will have things such as the "rape scenes" appearing into our minds during consensual intercourse (even if only momentarily), or even conjuring these fantasies inentionally in order to remove the faces of the original molesters (i.e. parents, strangers, ex's, etc.) and replace them with the identities of people that (we hope) actually love us and accept us and do not intend to harm/kill us... (because to be honest, during each actual rape, i was always waiting to die)....
BDSM is the only lifestyle that i "know", and that is able to get a physical response from my body... and even though i have tried to alter "the rules" as an adult (as i started to realise what dangerous situations i had placed myself in, in the past), i do still need it to feel like i am in my element, in the bedroom.... and the thought that i am playing into the sex/war really worries me...
its taken this long to get to this point, i can't make myself be asexual or celibate and i can't suppress my sexuality.. i just don't know what else to do.
Jules.
Re: consenting to rape-fantasies.
Date: 2005-09-26 07:44 pm (UTC)Particularly this:
"I'm not willing to engage in victim-blaming, however, and say that it is 'bad' for people to have rape fantasies. We react to injustice in our society and in our experiences in ways that best suit our survival."
So let me elaborate on that. I'm not saying that you or anyone should stop doing what you enjoy. You've had a lot taken from you already, you shouldn't have to give up anything more.
It would not be just or compassionate to demand you give up what you enjoy.
A lot of people read things like what i have written in this discussion and then jump to the conclusion that i therefore think that pornography is bad, or that rough sex is bad, or that BDSM or roleplay is bad, and i want to be VERY CLEAR that i am not jumping to those same conclusions.
This is why i have been very careful throughout the discussion to say that i myself enjoy smut, i myself have non-consent fantasies, i myself enjoy BDSM, and i'm not advocating against them in any way. My concern is with the misuse of sex, and the misuse of its artistic expression -- not with what people do to bring pleasure.
Re: consenting to rape-fantasies.
Date: 2005-09-26 07:55 pm (UTC)i think i was just venting a little to you because i knew you were a sympathetic ear....
i'm not even really overly-upset or wracked with guilt (most of the time), just feeling kind of lost and tired at times when i think about the connections and associations that my own fantasies play into, and how i *do* wish i could be different sometimes... just snap my fingers and be cookie-cutter squeaky clean with regards to my sexual appetites....
i hope you didn't think i was accusing you of being short-sighted about this...
just me being a dork and rambling again....
Jules.
Re: consenting to rape-fantasies.
Date: 2005-09-26 08:09 pm (UTC)Discussions like this tend to put people in a very defensive headspace and i was hoping you didn't think i am insensitive to your situation.
i'm not even really overly-upset or wracked with guilt (most of the time), just feeling kind of lost and tired at times when i think about the connections and associations that my own fantasies play into, and how i *do* wish i could be different sometimes... just snap my fingers and be cookie-cutter squeaky clean with regards to my sexual appetites....
I feel bad that stating my ideas about these connections has that effect on you, it is not my intent to contribute in any way, even by accident, to what has already been done to you. This is a difficult subject to discuss without making those who have been most affected to feel as though they are being set upon yet again.
I have some idea how you feel... i can't count how many times i wished i could snap my fingers and make my gender identity or sexuality normal, thinking about how much happier i would be if i could.
(edited for clarity)
Date: 2005-09-26 10:17 pm (UTC)I was thinking earlier today about how lots of anti-0feminists insist feminists hate sex, and I came to a disturbing theory on why - people who say that really think rape is the same thing as sex, and so rape can't be bad because it gets them laid, and so anyone trying to work to stop rape hates sex.
Rape fantasies are very different from actual rapes. The "victim" in the fantasies is actually in absolute, complete control of what happens. Even in "take down scenes", things is usually worked out very carefully beforehand and some sort of cool down or aftercare happens. It is nothing like having some jerk deciding that since you had a drink or two too many or no one is around to stop him he is entitled to take whatever he wants.
Re: (edited for clarity)
Date: 2005-09-26 10:54 pm (UTC)In the case of feminists who are concerned about the misuse of pornography, the presumed agenda is banning pornography and stopping people from having kinky sex. I understand the historical reasons behind that, but it is really distracting to have to defend myself against that accusation, especially to people whom i feel should know me better by now.
Rape fantasies are very different from actual rapes.
Indeed. That's why i mentioned that rape fantasies have the effect of confusing "rape" with "rough sex" for many people. Someone who has actually been raped is in no danger of having that confusion, but someone who has not may have trouble seeing the distinction.
Re: consenting to rape-fantasies.
Date: 2005-09-26 08:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 05:50 pm (UTC)For me, sex and the fight-or-flight response are a bit confused, as they are for a lot of women, and I don't know how you're ever going to portray that and not have someone scream "Misogyny!"
I recommend the classic Coming To Power for more on this subject.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 05:56 pm (UTC)I'll admit that this was a poorly chosen phrase. I primarily wanted to contrast the woman-positive porn i've seen against the sensationalistic, mass-marketed, commodified, standard-issue, cookie-cutter stuff which is usually marketed in extremely misogynistic contexts.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 07:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 04:30 pm (UTC)I'm telling you, ljArchive lets you grep! (:
no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 06:05 pm (UTC)However, the government does NOT have that level of control over the media in the porn industry, and especially internet porn. In fact, with the Bush administration's new War on Porn, the gulf between the government and pornographers grows wider. Porn has always been a target for censorship, and pornographers are old hat at fighting censorship. So if there's material being censored for other political reasons (beyond maintaining the sexual status quo), maybe pornographers are the ones most able to share it.
So while I have no doubt that there is a connection between the consuming of mainstream porn and the consuming of violence, I wonder if showing the violence is, in a way, a political act, why we defend free speech in the first place, and whether Americans might not even have an obligation to expose themselves to the violence that they're paying for.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:25 am (UTC)Sure, there have been token attempts to rein it in. I think the new War on Porn is a token.
But, if one does not have a healthy relationship with pleasure, which requires the ability to relate to other people in a healthy give and take of pleasure, then one is more prone to violence. One is more pliable in the face of authority. One is therefore more likely to be molded into the kind of shocktroops that empires find helpful to have around.
I honestly think that if most of the porn available was not misogynistic and dehumanizing, and instead portrayed the beauty of life and sex, that there would be a much more forceful push to control it. The sexuality of women has always been threatening to authoritarian types, and they have always felt a need to control and degrade it.
As for the portrayal of violence in Iraq: i have mixed feelings about it. I do wish that it would inspire more people to see the horrors of what our children will be paying the bills for. Instead it is treated like a game.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 12:59 pm (UTC)In this case, I think it's a mistake to view the government as an individual entity. I've studied a lot of obscenity and smut cases, and while the judiciary has tried to strike some sort of principled balance on free speech, the executive branches (at state and federal levels) have, at various times, put a hell of a lot of energy and resources into trying to shut down pornogrpahers. They have had the most success when they've allied themselves with feminist theorists and fought porn from the "porn = violence against women" angle.
So while I agree with part of your other comment, that independent producers are going to be hurt the worst in this war on porn, I also think that people who produce images that are blatantly violent (BDSM) are going to be the major targets of the campaign.
I am a sadomasochist. While I don't have much of a taste for mainstream sadomasochistic porn (and particularly the porn coming from nations with less strict employment laws, etc.), I am a subscriber of dyke-made for-dykes made-in-the-USA porn, and the images I like most don't really celebrate "the beauty of life and sex", at least not in a conventional sense. Have you ever seen "Bittersweet"? In my opinion, it's one of the most beautiful life-celebrating films I ever saw, but if the "average" person were to see it, they'd probably be put off by the beating and the needles. I think it would be an error to try to categorize what I look at as somehow more healthy than other mainstream SM porn. It's healthier in that there are more safeguards available to protect the people who create it, but the actual content involves images of real sadomasochism, real violence.
Chances are, it's likely to be a vulnerable target of the War on Porn precisely because it involves images of violence against women, and the "violence-against-women" theory is the weapon that anti-porn prosecutors like to rely on most. They may go after it because they're threatened by women's sexuality, but they'll shut it down because of the element of violence. Anything that prosecutors can describe as misogynist is a more vulnerable target.
And I think the thing that bothers me most with your approach, that porn that "celebrates life" is more okay, is that that reminds me of the other angle that prosecutors have used, that porn which depicts "unnatural" acts is obscene (illegal and without 1st amendment protection). They use this to shut down video stores that include gay male porn or anal sex. "Natural", just like "celebrating beauty and life", are such subjective terms, that in the hands of the authorities, that test is going to be used first to exclude people on the sexual fringe, while only really protecting the soft-focus gentle hetero how-to-please-your-spouse 1980s tantric stuff.
I realize that you're also a bit out on the fringe with me, and I don't mean to be rude in the way I disagree with you. I'm just extremely wary of arguments that the content of porn can be easily categorized into acceptable and not acceptable, because while you didn't mention "violence" as a key factor, it's the first factor that regulators tend to look at.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:02 pm (UTC)reposted with correction
Date: 2005-09-27 01:35 pm (UTC)It is misogynism-in-context that concerns me, not the appearance of misogynism in content. By which i mean, as i tried to touch on in a thread above, that even depictions of fem-sub BDSM or the acting out of rape can be done in a way that is not misogynistic.
That sounds like a contradiction, but as a feminist my views are very complex.
I am concerned about what might be the ultimate root of things like rape fantasies, but i am not interested in shutting them down; i see them as a survival reaction to an unhealthy reality. I do not criticize people for their survival reactions to oppression. So to that extent i strongly support the development of outlets where things like rape fantasies can be explored in a way that is helpful and healing to everyone involved.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 02:22 pm (UTC)When i speak of "authoritarians" i am not speaking of an organized party or institution so much as of a memetic/cultural current of control in society.
With respect to SM there is still a general lack of awareness and understanding in our society; even in the supposedly "ultra-liberal" state of Massachusetts, you find events like the "Paddleboro" incident. Many of those who oppose SM are well-meaning, but lack understanding, and often fail to see that they feed something harmful when they support blanket bans on sexual expression and artistic depiction.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:26 am (UTC)Expanded Definition of Pornography
Date: 2005-09-26 07:18 pm (UTC)Pornography is anything that get's you "Off" which may or may not be a graffic sexual depiction. Shows like 20/20 and that show with Stone Phillips on NBC fall under the heading of Scandal Porn.
FOX News and CNN Headline News definitly fall under the headings of NEWS PORN.
Pornography does not necissarily equal erotica.
Re: Expanded Definition of Pornography
Date: 2005-09-27 01:28 am (UTC)Re: Expanded Definition of Pornography
Date: 2005-09-27 04:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 07:30 pm (UTC)I feel that if it were not for Christianity (or religions like Christianity) it would be far more difficult to get people to go and murder/torture strangers who did nothing to them.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:32 am (UTC)Authoritarians find it to be in their interest to control the ways in which people have access to pleasure. This is as true of Christian authoritarians as it is of those of the atheist, Muslim, and Hindu persuasions.
I truly believe that guiltless pleasure is the greatest rebellious act one can perform.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:38 am (UTC)> I truly believe that guiltless pleasure
> is the greatest rebellious act one can perform.
While I can relate to your stratement, I do think it is a fucking shame that it must be an act of rebellion. It should, IMO, be a totally natural and instinctive act with no need to be a rebel to do it.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-09-26 08:15 pm (UTC)The question, in this context, is whether porn is the "illness" or the "symptom." Will changing the porn improve our society or is it rather that improving our society will, very naturally, change the type of porn we crave? When you take porn out of the center, the issues of victim blaming, non-consensual fantasies, and other "deviant" sexuality go away (please note I'm not condoning actual non-consensual porn or behavior of any type).
If we can transform our world into a healing and functional place where people can develop their sexuality in an atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance -- without guilt, shame, and abuse*, then we would be able to see the true and full spectrum of healthy human sexuality. Healthy porn would naturally follow.
* How do we do this? I wish I knew.
no subject
Date: 2005-09-27 01:39 am (UTC)So i think there is a healing role that non-misogynistic porn can play in the sexual healing of our society. It would not be a "strong" catalyst for a change, in that we'd be able to see its effects rapidly, but i think that the more of it we have available, the better.