Updated and slightly edited…scroll to bottom.
And the fallout continues to mount from the ongoing debate on how to handle antiporn activism, in the wake of StopPornCulture’s now completed antiporn “feminist” conference and the “Pornography Harms” gabfest just concluded yesterday in DC.
In one front, there is now an ongoing Twitter/Laconica/Twitlonger exchange ongoing between Maymay (@maymaym), @makomk and @Iamcuriousblue regarding whether or not there should be any accomodation to or dialogue with antiporn feminists.
For those who missed it, three well known female sex+ bloggers — @DebauchedDiva, @pledgemistress, and @HiOhMeagan — decided on their own to attend the StopPornCulture,org conference this last weekend, primarily to update themselves on what was the prevailing antiporn feminist positions. Diva only stayed the first day, citing her disgust at some of the speeches there, she is currently posting her reflections on her visit over at her blog. The other two managed to stay and analyze the entire conference; Megan even managed to ask a question in one of the panel discussions.
In the aftermath, Makomk suggested via a tweet that having pro-porn (or anti-censorship) feminists infiltrate the contest could have been an opening for a dialogue between pro-porn and antiporn feminists to reach a consensus on shared issues, such as concerns about the treatment of porn performers and the quality of content.
IACB responded swiftly to such talk with his repeated claim that it is sheer folly to even talk with antiporn folk, let alone compromise with them, since their base goal is to eliminate porn altogether and compromise simply enables the anti- side to push their agenda that much stronger in the absence of a strong and principled pushback from the pro=porn side.
Maymay, for his part, generally agreed with IACB’s point, but noted that the three attendees of SPC’s conference were not there to break dialogue with the conference promoters, and to say that merely being at the conference amounts to any sort of compromise is foolhearty and divisive.
The resulting exchange, which has become a bit chippy at times, can be accessed via Twitter here .
The irony of all this, of course, is that we are seeing three men debate the notion of how “pro-sex feminism” should deal with the issue of porn. For their part, most of the women involved do have differences of opinion on whether it is worth talking with and reaching concensus with antiporn feminists (Megan seems to think so; Diva, not so much.)
The real question, though, might not be whether there can be a consensus to take shape, but whether or not there should even be a dialogue between what appears to be two irreconcialble positions, and what kind of onsensus would that produce.
Mostly, this debate has been contained to within those calling themselves feminists, seeking to redefine their particular view as the official “feminist” view on porn and sex work. The anti- side tends simply to use intimidation and smears and ridicule to freeze out any view other than their own; the pro- side tends to favor a more moderate approach of respecting all sides (including the anti- position) and attempting to reach that hallowed middle ground.
Unfortunately, like so many attempts at “centrism”, in the inequal power dynamics that currently exist in the porn/sex/feninist debates, it is more likely to throw those groups most likely to be affected directly by The Porn Wars — namely, active porn performers/sex workers and the men who purchase their content and keep them afloat — under the bus and render them either useless or as props to sell a more “moderate” position.
Or worse, it can simply silence more radical pro-porn principles to defend more narrow turf wars of more politically favored groups. It is like “progressives” within the Democratic Party using more militant Left rhetoric to sell their own liberal programs and win election to powerful positions, only to move rightward when in power to accomodate the “center”, at the expense of their original electorate.
At it’s worst, though, accomodation of anti-porn abolitionist opinion can very easily be used to rationalize the more radical antiporn positioins by giving the latter a “centrist” patina while repressing pro-porn criticisms or even mere criticism of antiporn initiatives as “extremist” and beyond the pale.
Such an example of the process of where “concensus” in the absence of equal pushback results in the debate being tilted to the Right appeared today, in the midst of Violet Blue’s “Our Porn, Ourselves” counter campaign against SPC.
Cyn from the blog High Feist, posted this weekend a three-part blog post series where she, while calling herself a “pro-sex and pro-porn feminist” and “closer to Pat [rick] Califia than Andrea Dworkin”. nevertheless attempts to rip VB and OPO to shreds for their “misinterpretation” and outright “assaults” on Gail Dines’ organization, and antiporn feminists in general.. The essential points Cyn made were:
(1) that Violet and OPO (and by extension, other “pro-porn feminists”) were simply mindless and reflexive defenders of “the porn industry” who simply glossed over SPC’s legitimate criticism of porn as damaging to women and to culture;
(2) that slamming SPC for their lack of online social media nuance is the height of elitism and ignores the overall message about the prevailence of porn;
(3) antiporn feminists are merely the underdogs fighting the good and proper fight against the popularity of the Big, Bad Porn Industry which dwarfs the antiporn activists;
and, (4) “feminst porn” is simply nothing more than another ruse of the “porn industry” to make profits off the backs of women, in the absence of more substansive “feminist” criticism of “porn culture”.
A nice snippage of her rant follows:
Consider the conference context. Stop Porn Culture conference presenters are academics from disciplines including philosophy, medicine, and sociology who have been brought together by their concern over pornography. Sure, one might surmise that there’s a touch of ivory-tower-ness, that these folks who breath the rarefied air of academia daily are “out of touch” with the real world. That might be the case. However, it’s important to note that their work on pornography has different parameters than what Blue is doing. It makes sense that they use more traditional channels of communication.
So, they’re not as concerned with how pretty their Web site is, how many followers or fans they have, whether they’re on Twitter, or how much user-produced content they can inspire. Instead, these anti-porn feminists study the actual subject of pornography, not how many people love porn. That’s basically what Blue’s video contest proves: people love porn. Well, file that under “water also wet” news. The numbers regarding how much porn is out there and how frequently it is viewed have already told that story. People like porn? No shit. Porn producers are exquisitely attuned to supply and demand, and the demand is high. Further, as Sarah Palin’s book sales and Tea Party gatherings and Fox News ratings have shown, a bunch of people liking something doesn’t mean that thing is unassailably good and right, or that smart people shouldn’t question it. Porn is no exception.
I question whether the tools Blue uses: her blog, Twitter, and anti-conference Web pages are any less out of touch than the other side. She’s preaching to her wired chorus, essentially, and in the process ignores academics who ply their trade primarily in the great big world offline: in classrooms, laboratories, universities, academic journals, and academic conferences. Their preferred media are NOT the same in terms of publication standards, either: journals and conferences involve peer review, whereas blogs require no such moderation (lucky for me!). That’s fine, though, because they’re speaking to different audiences with differing agendas.
But Blue implies that savvy use of social media somehow lends her argument credence, and that is not true. As I tell my students, “Any idiot can have a Web site, and many do.” A quick glance through YouTube comments demonstrates that saying something online doesn’t imbue the message with merit. It’s up to the audience to evaluate the credibility of any argument, regardless of the medium used to deliver it. I’m finding Blue’s argument to be prettily and widely disseminated but ultimately unconvincing as it perpetuates stupid stereotypes and “reasons” via logical fallacy.
In short, under the guise of supporting “debate” on porn, Cyn wants to simply eliminate and demonize one side to gain hegemony for the other. Hardly what I would call a “debate”.
Of course, we can argue whether any panel that includes the likes of Sam Berg and which includes Donna M. Hughes cracking a joke about killing men can be constured as merely an “academic” conference…but I digress.
Even worse, Cyn even goes as far as to say that sex workers and porn performers who are the most affected shouldn’t even have a say in their own profession merely because…well, they’re paid porn performers.
Or maybe it is all about money. Perhaps “oppressed” pro-porn advocates protest so loudly because rising anti-porn sentiment would eat into their profits. In a clear example of pro-porn’s symbiosis with the porn industry, one of the winners of Blue’s “Our Porn, Ourselves” video contest is herself a porn star. Blue, too, has an economic incentive to generate interest in porn and inspire people to defend it. Writing a book on porn and having porn sites advertising on one’s homepage likely encourage a more zealous defense. I’m not sure anti-porn academics have any such financial incentive, as anti-porn forces (especially feminist ones) do not have a wealthy and powerful political lobby or millions of willing consumers, unlike the porn industry.
Right. so the fact that Gail Dines has an honoraria and a fat speaking fee as a standing professor at Wheelock College, two books promoting her positioins, numerous and even exclusive publicity via outlets like CounterPunch and AlterNet as a spokesperson of antiporn feminism, and enough credibility to be featured at a mostly right-wing confab openly supporting sexual censorship?? Gee, she sure sounds like she’s an underdog to me. And of course, there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Max Hardcore and Ms. Naughty, between Brazzers and Femme, between Meatholes and Playboy and HUSTLER and Girlfriends; they are ALL just one and the same hustlers using women’s bodies for profit and teaching men to abuse and degrade women.
Yup…she’s a hell of a lot closer to Patrick Califia than Andrea Dworkin. As close as I am to David Duke than Nelson Mandela, too.
But…it’s not just antiporn “moderate” feminists who are critical of the OPO effort.
FurryGirl (@furrygirl) over at Feminisnt is a currently active sex worker and part time pornographer who once called herself a “sex-positive feminist” before she decided that the feminist label was simply too tainted with bias against her chosen profession and personal choices. Her perspective — posted this morning at her blog — couldn’t be any more different than that of Cyn.: she feels that if anything, the bloggers pontificating on the sex worker/porn debate are, if anything, way too soft and far, too much accomodating to antiporn activism. Being a sex worker and a pornographer who is most directly affected by the actions of SPC, you can understand why FurryGirl would feel that way.
Her main point is that many of those who defend sex work from afar simply aren’t as invested in a direct defense as those like her….and that they don’t even bother to consider that people like her directly in the line of fire should be the ones at the forefront of defending themselves rather than depending on proxies.
At the outset of the discussion, I was reprimanded by several people and told I’m mustn’t even joke about porn being evil since I’ll surely get quoted out of context and harm the cause. I wonder what it’s like to feel like to be so smugly self-important that you refrain from all use of sarcasm, finely honing every tweet to make sure that no one could ever misquote you or take offense at what you typed, because surely, your 140 character tweets hold within them the future of discourse on sexuality? I’m always ruining things for the proper upstanding folks – this time, I was guilty of debasing Twitter to a mere vehicle of amusement and brief exchanges, rather than the erudite academic journal for which everyone else uses it.
The core concern from most sex blogger types commenting on the topic, though, is that apparently, “we” need to respect anti-sex worker activists, “be kind” to them, and seek to engage them politely and find common ground – not be angry or sarcastic like me. Easy for you to say, folks – they aren’t trying to put you in prison or take your business away from you. How big of you to be cordial to those who are not seeking to make your life more dangerous or difficult. It’s no real skin off your enlightened backs to tut-tut philosophically at people about how they should react to their oppression when you’re not the one being oppressed. It’s armchair politics at its most offensive.
This isn’t just an annoyance of mine with sexuality issues, it’s a problem amongst liberals/lefties and how they discuss all sorts of political issues. I think the underlying problem is that these sorts of people just can’t stand the jarring, ego-deflating idea that their opinion as an Very Concerned Outsider isn’t as important or valid as the opinion of an insider. It isn’t. (As a white chick, I would never harangue a person of color about why my opinion of how to handle racism is better than theirs.)
I absolutely do not aim to build bridges with extremists who hate sex workers and want us penniless and in prison, any more than I aim to do so with people who commit anti-queer hate crimes. I wouldn’t really even want to debate them directly, unless I felt the particular forum was large and neutral enough. People who have devoted their lives to taking away freedoms from other people are not seeking compromises and rational conversation – they are devout ideologues, not misguided random citizens that just need the real facts.
In other words, when you decide to lie in bed with snakes, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get bit by ‘em. A person’s humanity is simply not negotiable; and while treating everyone as a human being is desirable, that doesn’t necessarily translate into being a pushover for those who would kill you. Respect must be mutual, or it is nothing at all.
Porn defenders need not water themselves down with fawning tributes to their enemies in order to speak their truths. They are the fascists and the loonies, and their deeds and words speak for themselves. That’s all the “compromise” and “accomodation” we need. Organize ourselves and counter these losers (and the “center”), and seize control of the debate….that works much better.
Update by Anthony: Furrygirl has now commented that I completely misrepresented her position regarding Violet Blue. Quoting her comment:
You’ve completely and utterly misrepresented my position. My blog post was not a criticism of Violet Blue that attacks her as “too soft” on anti-porners. It’s a criticism of the sex blogger scene’s Twitter conversation about Stop Porn Culture and how they think sex workers need to respect and build bridges with anti-sex worker activists.
I don’t want to misrepresent Violet’s position, but I take it that her OPO project is to attack the false dichotomy of anti-porn activism that says porn is something men *do to women* by showing that lots of women love porn. I think that’s a perfectly valid thing for a non-sex worker to do.
After further review, I see my error, and I have redited the original post to reflect the true record. My apologies, Furrygirl.
This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Anthony_JK on 
Emily on 
