Why The TPoP Producers Are A Bunch Of Chickenshi…..errrrrr, Chickenheads

Oh, WOW..like this wasn’t too expected of them.

It seems that the last two times that the producers of the antiporn agitpropfest known as The Price of Pleasure attempted to promote themselves were a little too large for their comfort…mostly due to the contingent of porn performers, producers, and other assorted sex workers that apparently ambushed them seeking to tell the other side of their wretched tales of porn harm (what we civilians would call “the truth”.

Well….for tomorrow’s scheduled screening of the “documentary” at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, you won’t have to worry about that happening, because….well, I’ll just let Ernest Greene fill in the details (from the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism):

Well, it turned out pretty much like I called it. Today Nina made voice contact with the indivdual at U.S.C. here in Los Angeles who is coordinating the 2/26 showing of The Price of Pleasure and was told that this showing would be for “faculty, staff and students only” and thus closed to the general public. The voice on the phone declined to divulge the physical location at which the screening would take place.

Clearly, there are some people Professors Sun and Jensen and their cronies don’t want to meet face to face. I’m shocked, shocked I say! After they’ve shown such ethical regard for the rights and concerns of those who appear in their masterpiece of documentary objectivity, I’m positively gob-smacked that they would go into hiding at the prospect of encountering these individuals in person. How could this be?

Are the makers of this film, as it turns out, cowards as well as liars? If not, why their reluctance to have it widely seen in the very locus of the industry it claims to expose? One would think this would be the venue in which the producers would want to make their case the most fervently. They were certainly nervy enough when it came to trucking their cameras around the floor of the AEE in Vegas, hounding performers who were trying to work and promising to tell their side of the story. Of course, in that situation, it was the producers who were asking the questions.

Clearlly, when they’re the ones whose actions are being “questioned” and “examined,” well, that’s quite a different matter.

Anyone who believes in his or her creative work stands behind it, even in the face resistance. What does it say about the motives, methods and character of these flimmakers that they batten down the hatches merely at the prospect of being confronted by a handful of angry women in the same age group as the invited students who feel they were exploited and misused in the making of this project?

Nothing good. In trying to shame all of us, they seem to have been more effective at shaming themselves, both in the content of their cinematic smear-job and in the behavior they’ve exhbited while trying to ensure it’s viewed only by those already sympathetic to its one-note message.

Nope, not good at all, but so, so typical.

Myopia: it’s not just for right-wing Republicans anymore.


Update: When Ren Ev reprinted this post over at her place, she got this comment from an self-described “antiporn feminist” who was also miffed at the restrictions imposed at the USC TPoP screening:

[Posted by Anonymous @ 10:59 on 2/24/09]

I too wanted to attend the film. I am actually in the feminist anti-porn camp. I am a recent grad school graduate of USC. But I am not familiar with the building in which the film is being shown. So, when I called up the Executive Director of Women’s Student Assembly (is that who you spoke with?) she rudely informed me that only CURRENT students and faculty are allowed. I want to clarify that this is not Robert Jensen’s idea. I wrote the director an email expressing my disappointment and also emailed the director of the film. He was quite kind and told me that he thought the screening was open to the public. He spoke with the event director at USC and got back to me. He apologized and he had hoped that I could get it. Unfortunately, it was not his decision to make.

I am frustrated. Whether you are in the pro-porn or anti-porn camp. Whether you want to see the film to further your education about the harms or the perceived virtues of the porn industry…I am upset that it is not open the the wider public.


[posted @ 11:04 PM on 2/24/09]

Oops, I forgot the mention why only current students and faculty are allowed to see the documentary. Well…at least the reason I was given was that the students funded the event and it would be too expensive to have the event be any larger. Doesn’t make much sense to me but that is what I was told.

Ernest, though, was having none of that, and dispatched this response:

[posted by Ernest Greene @ 11:33 PM on 2/24/09]


“Oops, I forgot the mention why only current students and faculty are allowed to see the documentary. Well…at least the reason I was given was that the students funded the event and it would be too expensive to have the event be any larger. Doesn’t make much sense to me but that is what I was told.”

And if anyone believes that, perhaps I could interest them in some credit default swaps. Being a U.S.C. grad, I’m sure you’re aware of the variety of venues on campus in which this film could have been shown and that several would have easily accommodated a substantial audience.

The film and its presenters will already be present, so their travel costs must have been covered already. If paying a projectionist or other minor costs would have been associated with showing the picture in a larger space, a small fee charged at the door would more than adequately have covered any additional expense entailed in opening the program to a wider audience.

I would be equally skeptical of the director’s claim that the decision to close the screening was made by anyone affiliated with the university, or that he was unaware of the restrictions imposed. If the producers insisted on an open showing or refused to allow it to be screened under any other circumstances, I hardly think the institution would have been in a position to overrule them.

Just as the producers lie in their film, they clearly lie about their intentions regarding who may or may not see it and for what reasons.

They’re certainly nothing if not consistent.

Oh, one more thing. Though Jensen frequently appears with the film, as well as in it, he is not one of its directors, and I would no more believe that closing the screening was not his idea than I would believe anything else he said. He seems to adjust his descriptions of the nature of his involvement with this project according to his audience as he tends to adjust his remarks on other subjects to his assessment of the listeners in general, as has been thoroughly documented here and elsewhere.


[posted by Ernest @ 12:04 AM on 2/25/09]

And if you go to the TPoP Web site now:


You will see that the listing for the upcoming showing reads as follows:

Los Angeles, CA
02.26.09, Thursday
7 pm
University of Southern California
(Current students, faculty & staff only)

When the screening was first announced on this site, this was how the listing read:

Los Angeles, CA
02.26.09, Thursday
7 pm
University of Southern California
Women’s Student Assembly

Then, when I posted this information on The Blog for Pro-Porn Activism, the listing was changed within a few days, as follows:

Los Angeles, CA
02.26.09, Thursday
7 pm
University of Southern California

But of course, none of these changes, including the suddenly announced restriction to current students, faculty and staff were in any way an attempt to manipulate access by the producers. They would never stoop to such tactics.

Funny how the word “current” just popped up over there today, presumably right after anonymous called to inquire.

‘Ya just gotta love how they move them goalposts, do ‘ya. Pete Carroll has nothing on them.

Funny that that must have occurred right I gave a ahoutout to USC students to crash their party, too?? You really think that they are reading our journals??? Naaaaaahhhhh!!!!

What a bunch of chickenheads.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)