Chris Hedges’/Gail Dines’ Mining Of Antiporn Bullshit Mountain (Part Deux)

OK…break’s over…..back we go into the sewage pit. For background, you might want to read Part One of this essay. [Also crossposted at SmackDog Chronicles, too. Part 1 Part 2]

When we last left this, Chris Hedges had given the mic over to Gail Dines to project her standard nonsense about porn being both the template of men’s subjugation of women and capitalism’s primary source of power. To that end, Dines/Hedges now get really specific…and really nasty, too.

To keep the legions of easily bored male viewers aroused, porn makers produce videos that are increasingly violent and debasing. Extreme Associates, which specializes in graphic rape scenes, along with JM Productions, promotes the very real pain endured by women on its sets. JM Productions pioneered “aggressive throat fucking” or “face fucking” videos such as the “Gag Factor” series, in which women gag and often vomit. It ushered in “swirlies,” in which the male performer dunks the woman’s head into a toilet after sex and then flushes. The company promises, “Every whore gets the swirlies treatment. Fuck her, then flush her.” Repeated and violent anal penetration triggers anal prolapse, a condition in which the inner walls of a woman’s rectum collapse and protrude from her anus. This is called “rosebudding.” Some women, penetrated repeatedly by numerous men on porn shoots, often after taking handfuls of painkillers, require anal and vaginal reconstructive surgery. Female performers may suffer from sexually transmitted diseases and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). And with porn mainstreamed—some porn video participants are treated like film celebrities by talk show hosts such as Oprah and Howard Stern—the behavior promoted by porn, including stripping, promiscuity, S&M and exhibitionism, has become chic. Porn also sets the standard for female beauty and female comportment. And this has had terrifying consequences for girls.

Once again, you have to admire Rev. Hedges and Her Holiness Pope Gail I for their seemingly superhuman ability to concentrate and distill so much pure bullshit in one small paragraph. For those of you who may not be historic readers of this blog, Extreme Associates and JM Productions were a couple of third-level porn production companies that specialized in the type of “extreme porn” that Dines so lovingly quotes. Problem is, these two companies were nowhere near the level of the major companies like VIVID or Wicked; and both companies were essentially bankrupted and shut down in the late 1990s and early 2000’s due to both lack of sales and the increased attention of the authorities. Rob Black, the mastermind behind Extreme Associates, even served some serious jail time due to tax evasion charges. (He now spends his time as a self-identified “critic” of the major porn companies via the porn tabloid blogosphere.)

Now, that’s not to say that there isn’t still a small subgenre of porn that includes the more aggressive type of porn so aptly described by Hedges and Dines; or that deepthroating and gagging or “swerlies” or “rosebudding” prolapse porn doesn’t exist. Bear in mind, though, that these are still the tiny fish in the porn ocean that is still dominated by three major genres: 1) girl/girl “gonzo”; 2) solo masturbation; and 3) sex between couples already romantically involved, as in husband/wife or boyfriend/girlfriend. (I’m actually surprised that Dines/Hedges didn’t go to the “Anal sex leads to uncontrollable bowel movements!!!!!!!!” card for special flourish.) In fact, most anal sex scenes in porn are not only well scripted in advance, but also well prepared in advance, too…and the girls who specialize in anal are also those who like anal in their private, personal sex lives. Contrary to popular myth, and in spite of the occasional trolling from fans, no porn girl/woman is forced under a gun to her head to do anal or deepthroating, or any other act that she doesn’t feel comfortable doing. The technical term for that, folks is RAPE, and that is still quite illegal. Plus, a woman does have a very strong counter for any man who dares to attempt to ram his cock down her throat without her permission: we call them teeth.

And remember about how all of this was supposed to be about attacking violence against women? So, how does “promiscuity”, stripping, and “exhibitionism” play into all this?? Or, the not-so-thinly veiled “S&M” smack??

All of the references to PTSD and “anal and vaginal reconstructive surgery” (ummm…I don’t think that means what Dines/Hedges thinks that means; I mean, isn’t labioplasty and anal bleaching more cosmetic than anything??) are simply langiappe for their obsessions. And come on, Professor/Reverend…can’t you give Oprah at least some credit for backing your other pet causes, such as the war against legal sex work…..errrrrrrrr, the war on “sex trafficking”??

“Women are told in our society they have two choices,” Dines said. “They are either fuckable or invisible. To be fuckable means to conform to the porn culture, to look hot, be submissive and do what the man wants. That’s the only way you get visibility. You cannot ask adolescent girls, who are dying for visibility, to choose invisibility.”

You mean, like, Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton or Beyonce Knowles or Michelle Obama or even Michelle Bachmann only get their sizable power from being “fuckable”?? OK, I’ll cede just a tad on Beyonce, since she’s hot, but she also happens to have a genuine singing voice. Also….has she actually seen some of the top porn starlets? “Submissive” would not be a term you would describe them as….at least, not to their face.

If there really is an issue with adolescent girls using porn women as role models (and considering the awesomeness of plenty of porn women, I really don’t see the issue), the real solution is to expand opportunities for women through increased access to education and high-wage, comparable work. Then, let them decide for themselves if they want to be “fuckable” off the clock. That’s what social agency is all about, and what feminism should be all about…at least before feminmentalists redefined it to mean “whatever we say it is.”

Next, Dines goes into her revisionist history of how Hugh Hefner hijacked capitalism for his own personal concubine, and how that led to the PornoRapeocracy of today. Or, not.

None of this, Dines pointed out, was by accident. Porn grew out of the commodity culture, the need by corporate capitalists to sell products.

“In post-Second-World-War America you have the emergence of a middle class with a disposable income,” she said. “The only trouble is that this group was born to parents who had been through a depression and a war. They did not know how to spend. They only knew how to save. What [the capitalists] needed to jump-start the economy was to get people to spend money on stuff they did not need. For women they brought in the television soaps. One of the reasons the ranch house was developed was because [families] only had one television. The television was in the living room and women spent a lot of time in the kitchen. You had to devise a house where she could watch television from the kitchen. She was being taught.”

“But who was teaching the men how to spend money?” she went on. “It was Playboy [Magazine]. This was the brilliance of Hugh Hefner. He understood that you don’t just commodify sexuality, you sexualize commodities. The promise that Playboy held out was not the girls or the women, it was that if you buy at this level, if you consume at the level Playboy tells you to, then you will get the prize, which is the women. The step that was crucial to getting the prize was the consumption of commodities. He wrapped porn, which sexualized and commoditized women’s bodies, in an upper-middle-class blanket. He gave it a veneer of respectability.”

Yeah. Right. Sure. OK…whatever you say, Gail. I won’t intervene with the inconvenient fact that the dawn of advertising really took place with the blowup of radio and television in the 1950’s and 1960’s, and somehow escaped the grasp of Hef’s Playboy magazine, which was founded in the early 1960’s and mostly restricted to the Chicago area due to the dominant ultraconservative sexual mores of that time. Using wealth and material goods to impress the ladies certainly was a theme of “gentleman’s mags” that Playboy mined with the additional sexiness of pretty topless nudes; but they were hardly alone….as the sale of Playtex push-up bras and Chanel perfume can attest to. Forgetting about their award-winning journalism and highbrow fiction doesn’t help Dines’ “theory”, either.

That, of course, was before the social protests of the 1960’s and 1970’s, the development of effective birth control, and the entry of women from the kitchen into the workplace and even the boardrooms, seriously modified and challenged that paradigm of consumer capitalism. Plus, you had Penthouse now muscling in from the libertarian Right, and some guy named Larry Flynt bringing in working class beaver and bad bathroom humor….and nearly sacrificing his life for expanding free speech.

The VCR, the DVD and, later, the Internet allowed porn to be pumped into individual homes. The glossy, still images of Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler became tame, even quaint. America, and much of the rest of the world, became pornified. The income of the global porn industry is estimated at $96 billion, with the United States market worth about $13 billion. There are, Dines writes, “420 million Internet porn pages, 4.2 million porn Web sites, and 68 million search engine requests for porn daily.” [Link to excerpts from Pornland redacted]

Here’s where context really matters, yallz. The Big Three Pornifiers weren’t pushed to “harder stuff” because of  “gonzo porn”. They were challenged mostly because women pornographers (Club 90 and Pink Ladies Social Club in porn; Danni Ashe on the Interwebz) actually kicked their asses into the 21st Century by developing an alternative business model for bringing porn to that same group that had been neglected in the past: namely, women. What Candida Royalle, Gloria Leonard, and the rest of the “Femme” collective did with their creation of “women’s porn” set the stage for the success of glamour porn companies like Wicked and VIVID just when the Internet and On Demand cable markets started to kick in. Danni’s Hard Drive revolutionized the industry with their concept of girl/girl content trading and live streaming of hardcore g/g porn as an alternative to the harder b/g stuff for hard-pressed female performers, as well as being the first to exploit the concept of the interactive “camshow”. And, even though the initial efforts of Nina Hartley, Angel Kelly, Porsche Lynn, and Jeanna Fine to organize female performers in the 80’s wasn’t successful, it laid the foundation for today’s organizations like the Free Speech Coalition and ASAP, as well as the modernized testing protocols of first AIM and now PASS.

In other words, you simply cannot draw a breath about the evolution of porn as an industry without also including the talents and accomplishments of its workers. You would think that someone legitimately on the Left would be cognizant of that.

Oh, and let’s not get into the often hyperinflated stats about porn’s earnings and gross profits, which still probably match the yearly gross of Walmart by itself. And last time I checked, Walmart was and is still rabidly anti-porn (its sales of the book version of Fifty Shades notwithstanding).

Along with the rise of pornography there has been an explosion in sex-related violence, including domestic abuse, rape and gang rape. A rape is reported every 6.2 minutes in the United States, but the estimated total, taking into account unreported assaults, is perhaps five times higher, as Rebecca Solnit points out in her book “Men Explain Things to Me.”


“So many men murder their partners and former partners that we have well over a thousand homicides of that kind a year—meaning that every three years the death toll tops 9/11’s casualties, though no one declares a war on this particular kind of terror,” Solnit writes.

Of course, it would be shameful of me to intervene with the fact that all credible studies show that violence against women in all its modes (sexual included) have actually decreased in tandem with the availability of sexually explicit media. Also, there really is far more a link between antiporn attitudes stemming from antifeminist fundamentalist Christian mores and violence and aggression against women, than there is linking porn and such acts. Yes, misogyny is a real issue (ask the victims of Elliot Rodger’s rampage), but targeting porn is a major misfire and a delusive distraction. But, as Kermit would say, that’s none of my business…

Porn, meanwhile, is ever more accessible.

“With a mobile phone you can deliver porn to men who live in highly concentrated neighborhoods in Brazil and India,” Dines said. “If you have one laptop in the family, the man can’t sit in the middle of the room and jerk off to it. With a phone, porn becomes portable. The average kid gets his porn through the mobile phone.”

The old porn industry, which found its profits in movies, is dead. The points of production no longer generate profits. The distributors of porn make the money. And one distributor, MindGeek, a global IT company, dominates porn distribution. Free porn is used on the Internet as bait by MindGeek to lure viewers to pay-per-view porn sites. Most users are adolescent boys. It is, Dines said, “like handing out cigarettes outside of a middle school. You get them addicted.”

Ahhhh… Not by a long shot. MindGeek (formerly Manwin) uses free porn as a hook for their websites, not just their PPV cable sites. Most of the users are in fact legal adults (18 and over), because only they can access credit cards or debit cards used to access the paid membership sites. Not to mention, there is serious consternation at MindGeek/Manwin from independent porn producers as well as talent, because the “free porn” model is seen as an absolute drain and a funnel sucking up their profits through tube sites and message boards.

Dines (and her proxy Hedges) also ignore the explosion of social media outlets where the talent can communicate directly with their fans without the need for middlemen. While many of those outlets are very restrictive in what they will allow adult performers to do (Facebook, Instagram don’t allow any nudity or adult advertising whatsoever), newer, more open outlets open up daily…and that allows for an alternative to the MG/Manwin Evil Empire for independents. Pooling talent into website networks such as Brand Danger, Pornstar Platinum, and the Vette Nation Army, is another alternate outlet for those escaping the Big Boys. For people who claim to know porn capitalism, Dines and Hedges sure don’t get out much to actually study it, do they?

“Around the ages of 12 to 15 you are developing your sexual template,” she said. “You get [the boys] when they are beginning to construct their sexual identity. You get them for life. If you begin by jerking off to cruel, hardcore, violent porn then you are not going to want intimacy and connection. Studies are showing that boys are losing interest in sex with real women. They can’t sustain erections with real women. In porn there is no making love. It is about making hate. He despises her. He is revolted and disgusted by her. If you bleed out the love you have to fill it with something to make it interesting. They fill it with violence, degradation, cruelty and hate. And that also gets boring. So you have to keep ratcheting it up. Men get off in porn from women being submissive. Who is more submissive than children? The inevitable route of all porn is child porn. And this is why organizations that fight child porn and do not fight adult porn are making a huge mistake.”

Because, you see, adolescent boys are totally incapable of processing images of naked women and people engaging in wild, crazy sex without degenerating into mad Black apes…..errrrrrrrrr, violent Ted Bundy wannabe rapists….right, Professor?? You mean that porn itself overwhelms even the even more prevalent imagery of romance novels, books, and mainstream TV which always promotes the virtues of monogamy, love, and intimacy….you know, those very values you claim to want?? And what about gay men, Professor? If porn carries such a powerful wallop on their psyche, how do they escape the transformation…or do they, just on another level?

In addition….aside from the fact that the women in porn are very much real women and not just androids or plastic dolls (at least, not yet), where is this lack of interest in sex with women you talk about? Are you saying that men should have more sex with the women/girls they directly befriend? Or…just the kind of sex you approve of? What “erectile dysfunctions” are you really talking about, Gail?? The kind that reduce sperm count so that less babies are produced? (Less White babies, maybe?? Errrrr..OOPS, there goes my inner voice again. Sorry.) Or, is it the spilling of too much seed into the ground rather than produce more radicalfeminists that is haunting you about all that nasty jack-off pornification, Professor Dines??

Scratch underneath the “leftist” veneer and patina, and you see the real motivation behind Dines and Hedges: a not so veiled hatred of working people (especially working-class women) for having feelings and desires that don’t meet her politically correct fine-tuned standards. In short, the same old right-wing repressive sexual fascism, only dressed with a nice pink body suit.

The “all porn leads to child porn” smack is the real opening to the true lack of a soul that burns within her.

The abuse inherent in pornography goes unquestioned in large part by both men and women. Look at the movie ticket sales for “Fifty Shades of Grey,” which opened the day before Valentine’s Day and is expected to take in up to $90 million over the four-day weekend (which includes Presidents Day on Monday).

Just a reminder that an R-rated movie that contains NO explicit sex scenes and only projects a caricature of what BDSM sex really about is about probably cannot be considered to be “pornography”, let alone the prototype for “abuse”. If Dines and Hedges feel this way about Fifty Shades of Grey, I guess a legitimate hardcore erotic BDSM novel from authentic players like, say, The Master of O, would absolutely send them into orbit. Oh, wait….Gail’s already been there and done that.

I really wish that was all to this….but there’s that final paragraph to Hedges’ essay in which he quotes Dines so lovingly. And what a beaut of a quote, which exemplifies everything about the fools gold faux-leftism that Gail Dines and Chris Hedges represent oh, so well. I must introduce a trigger warning for this quote, though, for it is their excuse to introduce some vividly obscene and shocking content that might not be suitable for sensitive ears…content that makes the 99 percent of porn which they wish to abolish in the name of “progressivism” quite tame by comparison.

Nevertheless, I present it in its uncensored, unvarnished form (with some emphasis added) as a service to free speech and expression. Unlike Gail Dines and Chris Hedges, I actually respect the Constitution and the Bill of Rights…and free expression, even when I absolutely abhor what is said.

“Pornography has socialized a generation of men into watching sexual torture,” Dines said. “You are not born with that capacity. You have to be trained into it. Just like you train soldiers to kill. If you are going to carry out violence against a group you have to dehumanize them. It is an old method. Jews become kikes. Blacks become niggers. Women become cunts. And no one turns women into cunts better than porn.”

Your Honor? The prosecution rests.


The Porn Obsessions Of A Harvard Divinity Grad (Or, Chris Hedges’/Gail Dines’ Latest Mining Of Anti-Porn Bullshit Mountain)

[Originally posted to SmackDog Chronicles]

So….I’m chillin’ at home, enjoying what’s left of my Mardi Gras week vacation from my night job; surfing the Internet, flirting with my favorite porn women, busting wingnutters, and generally minding my business. I never thought that I would have anything to post about my favorite antiporn “feminist” crackpot, Gail Dines, since I figured that I’ve said more than enough about her wackery about porn as the center of capitalism and the gateway to rape and assault against women.

And then, like a jack in the box, this bullshit crops up.

Yes, the author of the piece isn’t Gail Dines, but Chris Hedges, a Puritan Lefty with a known rep for sexual priggishness and elitist guilttripping. But, since he’s always been up Gail’s ass….ummm, I mean, interlocked with Gail’s brain for a good long time on the issue of porn, you can assume that their views thereof are in perfect sync.

And, indeed, there are plenty of prime Dinesean quotage in this essay. More on that anon….but first, let’s establish the foundation.

The trigger for this latest is the release of the movie version of E. L. James’ erotic novella Fifty Shades of Grey, which pretends to depict a woman’s descent from her frumpy Soccer Mom life into the world of BDSM sexual submission through the “mentorship” of a multimillionaire playboy. The original book was panned a thousand ways by both actual BDSM advocates (for misinterpreting actual rules of safe, sane, and consensual BDSM play) and antisex fundamentalists both radfem and religious (for its ungodly/patriarchial tolerance for “perversion”). It did attract enough interest from noobs to sell over 1 million copies; and that was enough for prompting interest for bringing the book to the silver screen. Since it premiered on Valentine’s Day, Fifty Shades (the movie) has grossed over $100 million in sales, mostly due to all of the interest in its (mis)interpretation of Christian Grey’s “unconventional tastes”.

Given all this, it’s not too surprising that the usual peanut gallery of antiporn/antisex fundamentalists would attempt to mine all the publicity of Fifty Shades of Grey as a crutch to sell their main theory of porn as the alpha and omega of sexual perversion of women and mass “femicide” the ultimate goal of all pornography…even the vanilla type.

But, because this is Chris Hedges and Gail Dines talking, this essay goes well beyond even their usual lunacy. Let’s fisk a tad, shall we?

‘Pornography Is What the End of the World Looks Like’

BTW…the quote from the lede is actually from that other antisex guilttripper, Robert Jensen. We’ll spare you his history for now; but if you must, here’s a sample of his bullshittery.

BOSTON—“Fifty Shades of Grey,” the book and the movie, is a celebration of the sadism that dominates nearly every aspect of American culture and lies at the core of pornography and global capitalism. It glorifies our dehumanization of women. It champions a world devoid of compassion, empathy and love. It eroticizes hypermasculine power that carries out the abuse, degradation, humiliation and torture of women whose personalities have been removed, whose only desire is to debase themselves in the service of male lust. The film, like “American Sniper,” unquestioningly accepts a predatory world where the weak and the vulnerable are objects to exploit while the powerful are narcissistic and violent demigods. It blesses this capitalist hell as natural and good.

“Pornography,” Robert Jensen writes, “is what the end of the world looks like.”

Ahhhh…so much crap piled in one opening paragraph. The mocking of a piece of fiction, a fantasy movie (if probably a flawed fantasy, of course) by proclaiming it represents and abets actual acts of violence. The linkage of consensual acts of sex play with nonconsensual acts of violence. The portrayal of one movie above all others as the prototype of “capitalist domination” merely due to its sexual theme. Also, the comparison to American Sniper, which just might be genuine deliberate propaganda for war. And, all this as a prop to slam not just BDSM, but all pornography or sexual acts produced by everyone for everyone, for not meeting the distinct “egalitarian feminist” standards of Hedges/Dines.

Oh, but that’s just the beginning of Rev. Hedges’ sermon. Get a load of what he says next:

We are blinded by self-destructive fantasy. An array of amusements and spectacles, including TV “reality” shows, huge sporting events, social media, porn (which earns at least twice what Hollywood movies generate), alluring luxury products, drugs, alcohol and magic Jesus, offers enticing exit doors from reality. We yearn to be rich, powerful and celebrities. And those we must trample to build our pathetic little empires are seen as deserving their fate. That nearly all of us will never attain these ambitions is emblematic of our collective self-delusion and the effectiveness of a culture awash in manipulation and lies.

This is the usual Hedges social elitist nonsense that he shills to every “progressive” media outlet: “Working folk are distracted from attacking the evils of capitalism by media ‘spectacles’ like pro wrestling, reality TV shows, religious programming, infomercials, and (most of all, apparently) porn. If we could just remove all those dirty, unhealthy, and destructive distractions and replace them with wholesome, fulfilling alternatives, then the worst of capitalism would wither away.” Were it be ever so true…except that it isn’t. Does it ever enter Hedges’ mind that such an agenda is propagandized just as aggressively by fundamentalists of the Right….including the likes of Islamic State or the Dominionists?? I guess that free will and the knowledge to make decisions for themselves is just another tool of the “liberal class”/”liberal elite” to brainwash people into compliance? (Yeah..a Harvard Divinity School grad slamming the “elite”. Kinda like, say, a Wheelock College tenured professor earning $1K honoraria for speaking decrying capitalism??)

Porn seeks to eroticize this sadism. In porn women are paid to repeat the mantra “I am a cunt. I am a bitch. I am a whore. I am a slut. Fuck me hard with your big cock.” They plead to be physically abused. Porn caters to degrading racist stereotypes. Black men are sexually potent beasts stalking white women. Black women have a raw, primitive lust. Latin women are sultry and hotblooded. Asian women are meek, sexually submissive geishas. In porn, human imperfections do not exist. The oversized silicone breasts, the pouting, gel-inflated lips, the bodies sculpted by plastic surgeons, the drug-induced erections that never subside and the shaved pubic regions—which cater to porn’s pedophilia—turn performers into pieces of plastic. Smell, sweat, breath, heartbeats and touch are erased along with tenderness. Women in porn are packaged commodities. They are pleasure dolls and sexual puppets. They are stripped of true emotions. Porn is not about sex, if one defines sex as a mutual act between two partners, but about masturbation, a solitary auto-arousal devoid of intimacy and love. The cult of the self—that is the essence of porn—lies at the core of corporate culture. Porn, like global capitalism, is where human beings are sent to die.

My congratulations to Rev. Hedges, because it takes real balls to project all of those unified false stereotypes of men and women who do porn. First off, plenty of women “slut out” and take dick (and/or pussy) for free because (clutch your Rosary pearls, Reverend) they like that kind of sex. And, some of them even like it so much that they are willing to get paid decent money to show off that love of sex to men and women who like the fact that these women love sex. It’s not just reduced to being called a “bitch” or a “cunt”, or taking a 9″ dick up the ass; it could be as simple as an orgasm from tickling one’s clitoris, or taping a lively scene with your lover/husband/boyfriend/significant other.

What absolutely slays me, though, is that every phrase of this paragraph of concentrated ratshit can be debunked simply by referencing any credible porn performer/camgirl who defies all these stereotypes. “Black men are sexually potent beasts”?? Tell that to Lex Steele or Sean Michaels or Prince Yashiva. “Black women have raw, primitive lust”?? Heather Hunter, Marie Luv, Diamond Jackson holding on Line 2, Reverend. “Latin women are sultry and hotblooded”?? Vanessa del Rio, Tara Holiday and Gabby Quinteros, hello!!! Oh, and “Asian women are meek, submissive geishas”???? Ava Devine and Asa Akira would like a word with you on that. And, don’t make me break out the Caucasian MILF caucus of Vicky Vette, Julia Ann, Lisa Ann, Sara Jay….I need not go on here, do I?? My point being: unless you actually talk to and listen to actual porn performers/sex workers talk about their experiences doing what they do, you probably shouldn’t make assumptions about their condition.

Oh, and Reverend Hedges?? Dana deArmond is also waiting for you to ask about that “fake breasts and Botoxed lips” meme.

Finally for this graph: how nice that Hedges is so willing on a putatively leftist essay to define true sex as “a mutual act between two partners”, while slamming solo masturbation as “auto-arousal” that is “devoid of intimacy and love”. Take away gay marriage, and that’s the meme of the Christian Right to the letter. Hell, I even know some conservatives who don’t frown on masturbation as much as “leftist” Hedges does.

There are few people on the left who grasp the immense danger of allowing pornography to replace intimacy, sex and love. Much of the left believes that pornography is about free speech, as if it is unacceptable to financially exploit and physically abuse a woman in a sweatshop in China but acceptable to do so on the set of a porn film, as if torture is wrong in Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were sexually humiliated and abused as if they were on a porn set, but permissible on commercial porn sites.

So here, Hedges rehabilitates the old saw that all porn (with the implication that BDSM is the root of all porn, of course) is the equivalence of Abu Ghraib torture….ignoring the basic fact that fundamentalist cultures who are as rabidly antiporn (and far more aggressively antifeminist) as he is also engage in sexual torture, abuse, and even murder of sexually dissident folk. Of course, if you consider anal sex and ability to take decently sized dick and like sex unattached to “intimacy” and “love” to be “abuse”, then it gets considerably easier to understand his analysis.

His whining about how most Lefties just don’t grok the evils of porn because “free speech” is basically the mirror image of Black Tea Party right-wingers moaning and crying about how the majority of Black folk don’t crawl down to them because of the “liberal Democrat plantation”. Could it be just a bit more likely that most serious Lefties understand what a crock of bullshit antiporn “feminism” really is, and avoid it like the plague?

A new wave of feminists, who have betrayed the iconic work of radicals such as Andrea Dworkin, defends porn as a form of sexual liberation and self-empowerment. These “feminists,” grounded in Michel Foucault and Judith Butler, are stunted products of neoliberalism and postmodernism. Feminism, for them, is no longer about the liberation of women who are oppressed; it is defined by a handful of women who are successful, powerful and wealthy—or, as in the case of “Fifty Shades of Grey,” able to snag a rich and powerful man. A woman wrote the “Fifty Shades” book, as well as the screenplay. A woman directed the film. A woman studio head bought the movie. This collusion by women is part of the internalization of oppression and sexual violence that have their roots in porn. Dworkin understood. She wrote that “the new pornography is a vast graveyard where the Left has gone to die. The Left cannot have its whores and its politics too.”

Uhhh…yeah. Andrea Dworkin, who cared sooooo much about feminism and the Left that she openly backed a “civil rights ordinance” calling for triple monetary damages against anyone viewing or producing porn, all because “porn degrades women”. Same ordinance that was endorsed by the very anti-feminist Concerned Women of America, of which every Democratic woman (yes, that would be the definition of liberal) voted against, and whom was ultimately declared unconstitutional by a female federal court judge.

Also…how nice to knock critics/opponents/victims of the Hedges/Dines worldview as wealthy elitists who put their personal perversions and profits above womanhood…or to simply, in the case of Fifty Shades, render them “sellouts” merely because they are women who don’t march in perfect goosestep with the radicalfeminist (or, as I am wont to call them, #Feminmentalist) model. But at least, Hedges does sorta kinda pity them as being brainwashed with the “internalization of oppression of women”. Most others would simply bash them as “cumdumpsters” and “mindless sluts”.

Having quoted literally from the Book of Dines, Reverend Hedges now turns the altar over to Her Holiness, Gail I.

I met Gail Dines, one of the most important radicals in the country, in a small cafe in Boston on Tuesday. She is the author of “Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality”and a professor of sociology and women’s studies at Wheelock College. Dines, along with a handful of others including Jensen, fearlessly decry a culture that is as depraved as Caligula’s Rome.

“The porn industry has hijacked the sexuality of an entire culture and is laying waste to a whole generation of boys,” she warned. “And when you lay waste to a generation of boys, you lay waste to a generation of girls.”

“When you fight porn you fight global capitalism,” she said. “The venture capitalists, the banks, the credit card companies are all in this feeding chain. This is why you never see anti-porn stories. The media is implicated. It is financially in bed with these companies. Porn is part of this. Porn tells us we have nothing left as human beings—boundaries, integrity, desire, creativity and authenticity. Women are reduced to three orifices and two hands. Porn is woven into the corporate destruction of intimacy and connectedness, and this includes connectedness to the earth. If we were a society where we were whole, connected human beings in real communities, then we would not be able to look at porn. We would not be able to watch another human being tortured.”

Of course, most of you are familiar with Gail’s screeds, of which plenty of rebuke is readily available. I mean, readily available.

Oh, I’m sorry….was that my inner voice, Professor Dines??

For the sake of accuracy and continuity, though, let’s give Gail her full say.

“If you are going to give a tiny percent of the world the vast majority of the goodies, you better make sure you have a good ideological system in place that legitimizes why everyone else is suffering economically,” she said. “This is what porn does. Porn tells you that material inequality between women and men is not the result of an economic system. It is biologically based. And women, being whores and bitches and only good for sex, don’t deserve full equality. Porn is the ideological mouthpiece that legitimizes our material system of inequality. Porn is to patriarchy what the media is to capitalism.”

Of course, all those other factors such as economic exploitation, lack of working class organization, religion, maldistribution of production, multinationalization, racism, and other forms of social inequality have nowhere near the impact on gender inequality like porn does…am I correct, Gail??

We’re only halfway through climbing this Bullshit Mountain….but I will grant you all a bit of a break from the stench. Part 2 forthcoming.

[Update: In fact, Part 2 is now up. Turn the page, please.]



Cameron Bay Goes On The Interview Circuit To Clear Some Issues….But Raises More Questions Than Answers

If you have been following the continuing saga over mandating condoms in porn in order to “protect” porn performers from sexually transmitted infections (STI’s) such as HIV, you aleady know all too well by now the story of Cameron Bay, one of the confirmed porn performers to become infected with HIV during 2013, and the main perfomer spokesperson for Isadore Hall’s and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation’s attempt to force condoms and other forms of “barrier protection” through legislative action. Their bill before the California Senate, AB 1576, is now scheduled to be heard before the Senate Appropriations Committee on August 4th; passage there would then allow it to be heard by the full Senate for approval. It has already passed the California Assembly.

As a prelude to the Assembly meeting, apparently AHF and Cam Bay decided that it would be a good idea to send the latter out on the interview circuit within the porn media, mosty in order to response to criticism that Ms. Bay is essentially ducking her own responsibility for her infection (and that of her boyfriend, performer Rod Daily) in order to serve as paid henchwoman for AHF’s condom mandate agenda.

Which is how Cameron Bay managed to contact Michael Whiteacre, contributor for and one of her strongest critics and opponents of the condom mandate, for what ended up as a 45-minute phone interview. The results, along with Whiteacre’s analysis, was posted to TRPWL last Thursday, and they make for some interesting reading and analysis.

In the interview, Ms. Bay attempts to answer all of the criticisms and questions that Whiteacre and TRPWL has raised about her acquiring HIV, as well as her paid testimonials for AHF and Izzy Hall’s bill. Her answers do clear up some aspects of the controversy…but they also raise, in some parts, some new questions.

I’ll use Whiteacre’s TRPWL post as a template for my own personal thoughts and reactions.

It should be noted that Michael does give Cameron Bay her respect for being cordial and for responding in a mature adult manner, and renders no ill will for her due to her illness. I will share that sentiment 120%; all criticism of Ms. Bay here reflects the hope that she survives her illness with all the best.

That said, though, there’s plenty of Cam’s testimony that doesn’t pass the smell test….and some of her answers actually don’t kill the stink, either.

All quotes from here on out, except where clearly stated, are from Whiteacre’s TRPWL post.

At the outset of our conversation, Cameron said that she wanted to explain why her earliest statements related to her infection stand in stark contrast to statements made later — i.e., after she hooked up with AIDS Healthcare Foundation to join its campaign against the adult business. Cameron explained that she “didn’t want to be that graphic” at first. This statement is odd because her earliest interview was with Adult Video News (AVN) — an adult business trade magazine. Why would it be less okay to be “graphic” with AVN than with the Los Angeles Times?

Cameron’s move to reconcile her differing statements is strangely reminiscent of 2010 ‘Patient Zeta’ turned AHF spokesman Derrick Burts’ attempts to do the same. In a 2011 interview, Burts sought to pass off his latest version as mere elaboration: “I gave this version to the media, but I’m sure you can see why they omitted it—it was probably a little too graphic.”

Maybe, Michael, because this time she is being coached by AHF to say whatever graphic Gothic tale will suffice to scare the public into favoring mandatory condoms, perhaps?? As we will see further along, Cameron Bay seems to have discovered the way to inflate her charges with each venue she offers.

Cameron, who has been shooting scenes since 2008, also justified statements made to the California legislature that she had only been in the business for three months at the time of her HIV infection by stating that she only considered herself a professional adult performer for three months. Prior to that she hadn’t had an agent and was only shooting scenes for her husband — or when she was in need of cash. Whether this distinction is relevant or not may be debated, but there’s an old saying, “amateurs don’t get paid.” Furthermore, many professional adult performers don’t have an agent.

So..if you don’t shoot any scenes in California, and/or do not have an agent representing you, then all of your history doesn’t count or exist?? You mean, then, that Derrick Burts flashing his AIM tests on doesn’t count, either?? Not to mention, her involvement with Shy Love (then head of ATMLA) in 2012 in setting up shoots for her??

The main focus of Michael Whiteacre’s post, though, was to attempt to reconstruct a timeline for when Cameron Bay was infected, and to rebuke her claims that she was infected through that controversial shoot on July 31st….the foundation that underlies the entirity of AHF’s/Izzy Hall’s legal rampage.

Cam asserted to Whiteacre that she had “broken up” with Rod Daily prior to her trip to San Francisco for the shoot, and that the last time they had sex together was in July when they got together in Los Angeles.* Since Daily’s last PASS test was on July 10th (which he was found to be HIV/STI-free), that would put their last tryst by mid-July. (A screenshot of Daily’s final PASS test is posted in Whiteacre’s interview post. Remember, though, that Daily refused to use the PASS system after that, announcing his positive test on September 3rd through another source…either his personal doctor or an AHF-backed physician using more traditional ELISA testing.) Cam then retested, and was cleared, on July 27th, then traveled to Frisco for the Kink shoot with Xander Corvus and Lorelei Lee.

The party line all along being pushed by Cameron Bay and all the other proponents of the condom mandate was that Corvus was the “Patient Zero” who infected her during that shoot. Considering that Corvus tested negative before the shoot, tested negative right after the shoot, and has not had a positive test since then despite shooting all kinds of bareback scenes, that assertion could be highly questionable. (Ditto for Lorelei Lee as well.)

Cam’s attempted response to all that?? The system is LYING. Really, it is.

I asked Cameron about her fixation on Xander’s bloody penis at the Kink shoot, in light of the fact that he’s HIV negative. Her response was, “How do you know?” She sought to denigrate PASS testing by saying that any PASS “administrator” could change a performer’s status from “Not Available” to “Available” with a mouse click.


This is pure propagandistic deflection by Cameron. Aside from the fact that every HIV test result at a clinic / laboratory is automatically reported to the county health department, regardless of PASS protocols, Corvus has shot hundreds of condom-less shoots since July 31, 2013. If Corvus is HIV-positive, either he would have infected dozens of people by now (who would have infected dozens if not hundreds more), OR, mandating condoms in porn as proposed by AHF is not necessary because HIV is not transmittable on porn sets.

Forget the basic fact that no PASS “administrator” would be that stupid to modify an infected performer’s status to make him/her available for shoots and risk a cataclysmic epidemic of performers that would essentially shut down the porn industry for good. And, forget Whiteacre’s point that any HIV+ result is mandated to be reported to the health authorities post haste, with the threat of fines and jail as enforcement.

Indeed, you could even make a presumption that since Corvus was clean but it was Bay who initiated the crisis at that shoot by biting down just a bit too much on Xander’s dick, she, not Corvus, was the threat to transmit infection. I don’t make that presumption, of course, since it’s my assertion that Cameron Bay probably was either infected right after or a few days after that shoot.

Cameron then attempted to explain away her charge that exploited her by “forcing” her to continue the shoot without a condom, in spite of reams of testimony by others at the shoot that she had multiple options. This time, she went to the “They violated the LAW” card:

As for Cameron’s claim that she was taken advantage of on the Kink set because the shoot with Xander continued after she accidentally scraped his penis with her teeth, she gave a similarly-crafted answer. She agreed to continue shooting when asked, she says, but she claims she did not know that to do so was allegedly in violation of Cal/OSHA regulations, so therefore it was not a fully informed consent.


This is a very legalistic answer, and perhaps explains how Cameron could rationalize her statements to the California legislature, but it’s still a dodge that does not reflect the tone and tenor her public testimony.

Really??  This is miming the standard AHF line that “condoms are already required by law, so if you don’t mandate them, you are in violation” canard. If that’s the case, then why is AB 1576 being pushed? Why is CalOSHA attempting to rewrite the regulations on “bloodborne/bodily fluid transmissions” to include adult businesses and mandate condoms and other forms of barrier protection? Other than the civil action AHF has filed against on their lack of mandated condoms with CalOSHA (which should be a moot point anyway since, once again, no performer in that shoot (other than Bay and Daily) has been found to be infected at that time of since then), is there any other case that’s not an AHF propaganda ploy to sell the condom mandate?

Whiteacre continues with this:

Cameron told me that she has focused her blame on the brief time spent at not because they are a top AHF target, but instead because, other than her on-camera performances, she had only had sex with one person during the time period in question, and he has since tested negative. Presumably, it’s okay to rely upon the result of his test…

Of course, she won’t say what type of test he relied on, or whether it was followed up.

And then, this happens. Remember when Cameron said that she had “broken up” with Rod Daily last July? Weeelllllll…

In any case, Rod was already in San Francisco when she arrived on July 31, 2013. Cameron confirms that when she arrived, Rod had been in San Francisco for a “nearly a week”. Like the other times when “he wasn’t around” her, she cannot speak to his activities.


Daily shot a scene for Kink with a TS performer (using a condom) on August 1st; Cameron recalls him working with a blonde TS performer. This would be Aubrey Kate. According to Kink, every performer who shot with Rod has since tested HIV-negative — including Aubrey.


After Rod’s shoot, Cameron and Rod flew to Burbank, California. Rod had a connecting flight to Phoenix, but Cameron stayed in the Los Angeles area.


Cameron has perviously stated, “My last shoot was with Kink and the last time I saw Rod was a week later”, meaning they met up in Arizona before her she tested positive for HIV.

Keep in mind also that one of the options that was offered to Cameron at the time of the shoot, according to contemporaries there, was to bring Rod Daily over to finish the scene. Would that be an option for her if they had really “broken up”??

And, the fact that Cam and Rod would hook back up in Arizona the week after the Kink shoot is highly problematic for a couple who had presumably “broken up” a month ago.

Could it be that Daily was infected doing some extracurricular off-the-clock activity like Derrick Burts was in 2010? And then, somehow, the week after the Kink shoot, he infected Cam Bay when they met afterwards? Like I said, just my personal unproven, unverified assumptions.

In any case, everything changed after August 21st, when Cameron Bay learned of her HIV+ status.

After her HIV diagnosis, Cameron returned to Arizona and got back together with Rod. They moved in together.

When I asked Cameron why shy thought Rod did not test immediately after her HIV-positive diagnosis, she said it was “we weren’t a couple” — meaning that, since they had allegedly not had sex since mid-July, he didn’t think he was at risk.


With all due respect to Cameron, who was very open to answering hard questions, I find it hard to believe that Rod would not at least take the precaution of an HIV test at that point.

It was right about that time when Daily was all over Twitter, running all sorts of smack about how he wasn’t HIV+ and how he would be posting his test results to prove everybody wrong….while simultaneously refusing to take the PASS tests. He ultimately did confirm his HIV+ status on September 3rd through Twitter, testing through a non-PASS source, and then squawking about how the PASS database was useless in preventing HIV because the medicine he was taking for treatment was undercutting the tests by cloaking the virus. (To which, actual AIDS testing researchers and people knowledgable with retrovirals and HIV testing responded: Bull. Poop.)

The only logical explanation you could give for Daily’s response was that he was already infected at the time, and all his show-n-blow was either myopic denial or deliberate playacting for the inevitable moment. And after that, the AHF paychecks to pay for his treatment started kicking in.

But, hang on….the intrigue only gets better.

Remember that there was a third performer in 2013 that got infected with HIV during that crisis period; her diagnosis on September 10th is what prompted the second moratorium following Cam Bay’s announcement on August 21st.

Before now, she was just speculation….but now, we can attach a name and a history to her. Sofia Delgado is her name, and she officially introduced herself to the world at the California Senate Labor Committee hearings as a supporter of AB 1576, albeit only briefly as a sideshow to Cameron Bay’s main Big Tent antics.

However, she had already been partially revealed by Michael Whiteacre’s/TRPWL’s prior investigative efforts as Performer #3, and as a close friend of both Cam Bay and Rod Daily.

In the actual phone interview, Cam Bay strenuously denied that she and Delgado were actual lovers on the side, and that she could have gotten infected indirectly from Sofia….even though, all three of them hailed from the same area (Phoenix).

She says that she never had any sexual contact with Delgado, and never knew her in Arizona. Delgado was (and still is) under 21, so Cameron says it would have been unlikely for her — or Rod — to have met Sofia at a bar or club in the Phoenix area.



Delgado had been a stripper in the Phoenix area since she was 18, dancing at the gentleman’s clubs Dream Palace and Elite Cabaret in Tempe, Arizona, so there were many other opportunities for them to meet. Cameron countered that Rod never liked strip clubs, so she finds it hard to believe that he would have met her there.

But again, as Cameron stated, she “wasn’t always around him.”

Can’t be your brother’s keeper all the time, I guess.

Whiteacre rounds out the sad tale thusly:

If that phrase sounds familiar, perhaps that’s because it is — to the word — the same thing Derrick Burts’ girlfriend, performer Kaycee Brooks, told an interviewer in 2012.


Incidentally, this was the same answer Cameron gave when I asked whether Rod was escorting during the time they were together. “He never said anything to me about it,” she says, “Unless he was living a double life…”


On the morning of September 3rd, Rod Daily announced on Twitter that he was HIV+, and implied he had known this for days. A few hours later, ATMLA tweeted that Delgado’s L.A. trip had been pushed a week — to September 15th.

Funny how everything seems to go right back to Rod Daily, doesn’t it??

The final piece of unfinished issues in that interview dealt with Cameron Bay’s new wealth since becoming AHF’s official condom mandate spokeswoman. It’s one thing — and no one should have any objection at all — for AHF to offer to pay for Cam’s HIV treatment. But…

Cameron claims she was not paid by AHF for her testimony. I asked where she suddenly got the money this year to buy a car, get a new pad, pay $10,000 toward her court fines, pay for new boobs and be robbed of $10,000?


Cameron replied that she won $16,000 at a casino.


I see a tweet about a casino on March 8, and that could account for the $9,027 payment to the court on April 8, but Cameron got her boobs re-done in back in January and started furniture shopping for her new place in February. The numbers don’t add up.


Cameron claims, however that AHF has only “provided transportation” for her. She also denied that AHF had hooked her up with someone who would provide for her in one way or another.

You mean that an organization with nearly $250 million in revenue wouldn’t give a penny in bonuses to their chief advocate that could potentially bring millions more in revenue from condom advertising to their org?? Seriously??

The point is not that Cameron Bay shouldn’t get paid for the job she’s doing for AHF, but that they should be just a bit more transparent about what they are doing and call it for what it really is.

There is this to say about Cameron Bay: she has stones to survive what she’s been through. Even if I strongly disagree with her message and her campaign, I gotta give her credit for that.

Incidentially….Cameron Bay also did an interview with Whiteacre’s nemesis/antagonist/condom mandate proponent Mike South for his blog; that interview was more focused on ripping the current ATMLA porn agency’s leadership while propping up former head agent Shy Love, and for the usual South circus of bullshit. That’s another tale for another time, though.

*A previously saved version of this post implied that Cameron Bay and Rod Daily had shot content in Los Angeles just prior to the shoot in San Francisco. That is incorrect; Cam Bay’s interview with Michael Whiteacre only stated that they had engaged in private sex, not actually shot content. My apologies for the initial error.


The Ultimate #FAILDines (Or..No, Gail, Elliot Rodger Was Not Fapping To While Murdering Those People)

Gail Dines would not be Gail Dines if she wouldn’t exploit a horrible event to slam pornography.

And since she is Gail Dines, it comes to no surprise that she twists the Elliot Rodger massacre at Ista Vista, CA, at the University of California – Santa Barbara campus, into yet another of her attempted rants against the evil misogyny of porn.

It is beyond issue that ERodger was a misogynist asshole who blamed women, especially the sexy kind that was beyond his reach, for all his inner troubles, and was privileged enough and twisted enough to spew his hatred onto the world through YouTube vids and his “manifesto”. That he was able to take his sickness to the ultimate level of mass assassination says plenty about the mixture of loneliness, privilege, toxic MRA ideology, and having enough wealth to buy a stockade.

But, that simple fact isn’t enough for Professor Dines, who simply isn’t satisfied until the magic bullet is found that directly links porn to violence and “degradation” of women.

Now, Dines wasn’t the first to attempt to link ERodger and porn; her sister antipornfem radical Meghan Murphy had set the foundation with a brief tome at her Feminist Current blog blaming the Ista Vista massacre on “male entitlement to women’s bodies”….which porn, according to Megs, directly enables.

In a world wherein men learn they not only deserve, but have the right to women’s bodies, Rodger’s behaviour isn’t really all that surprising. From the time they are young, boys are offered women’s bodies. They are provided with pornography, told that this is what women are for: your eyes, your pleasure, your dick.


Men and boys learn that what they want, they should have. That their every fantasy should be fulfilled. That prostitution even exists is proof of this message. That we live in a rape culture and a porn culture is further proof. What exactly did we think would come of telling men that sex is a right? That women owe it to them?


My dear friend, Elizabeth Pickett, wrote, of Rodger: “Real women failed to live up to the expectations created for him by pornography. So he killed some.” We offer men this fantasy — it’s no wonder they become enraged when women don’t perform as expected.

Other than the fact that Rodger wrote in his “manifesto” that he really didn’t view much porn, other than the occasional dirty Playboy spread, because he was personally disgusted by it, Megs’ statement might sound more like an inspiration rather than a mere false flag factoid.

But still, Murphy only took the lead block. On Monday, on the UK bureau site of the Huffington Post, Dines took off behind Megs and ran off with the “PORN caused Elliot Rodgers to kill them WOMEN!!!!!” meme football. Or at least, she tried to.

Yes…time for another Red Garter Club blog fisking.

UCSB, Feminism and Porn

I have been a radical feminist for as long as I can remember. As I witness the marginalisation of radical feminism in the cultural discourse, in publishing, and in women’s studies programs, I see the feminist movement I once loved become powerless to explain what is happening to women -especially the horrific levels of violence against women.

This failure has reached a new level following the massacre by Elliot Rodger of students at UC Santa Barbara. The media is on fire with women, and some men, writing about misogyny as the cause, as if that explains why Rodger targeted young women and rambled on about “sluts” refusing to date him.

Well….the many pages of his manifesto combined with the fact that he had serious issues with sexy women who wouldn’t immediately crawl themselves to his front door and kneel at his dick for free, might have something to do with that. But, as we will know, only Gail Dines and her merry band of “radical feminists” know better.

Misogyny is not something created out of thin air, to be caught much like a cold, that drives those infected to commit horrendous acts of violence. It is an ideology produced and disseminated by social and cultural institutions that work seamlessly together to create a social reality that normalises, legitimises and glorifies violence against women.

Karl Marx was one of the first theorists to explain that ideology is not a free-floating set of ideas, but rather a coherent system of beliefs that are purposely and carefully created by the elite class to promote their interests. Using their ownership of key cultural institutions, the elite then set about distributing these ideas until they become the dominant ways of thinking.

OK…so Dines acknowledges that cultural and economic institutions can contribute to creating inequal structures that can indeed justify violence against women. And, her miming of Karl Marx’s economic theories of class ideology is so touching. So, will Gail finally come forward and target actual institutions of power, such as the Church or Big Business or Madison Avenue or Hollywood or Wall Street for their role in maintaining inequal institutions of power??

Misogyny has now become the catch-all term to explain why men murder women, and that explanation is true as far as it goes. But if we see misogyny as an ideology, then the key question–too rarely asked – is where the norms, values and beliefs that constitute misogyny come from. Unless we believe that men are born misogynists, however – and feminists know only too well how dangerous the “biology is destiny” argument can be – then it is incumbent upon us to explain why some men hate women enough to rape, maim, and kill us. Blaming misogyny without delving into its aetiology is lazy social theory, and it does not cast any light on the specific institutions and processes that result in mass murders like Rodger’s.

Here’s the setup that Gail gives us, y’allz: It’s one thing to say that “misogyny” triggered Rodger’s rampage, but it isn’t enough until we go deeper into the basis of that misogyny…as in, what exactly transforms people like Elliot Rodger from a normal person to a stone-cold killer? Or, any man into a rapist? Since the overwhelming majority of men don’t end up battering or raping women, the real issue is: What cultural/political force is out there that directly aids and abets those men to become assaulters/batterers/murderers of women?

(I’ll simply spare you the fact that Elliot Rodger also killed men as well…apparently, that’s not nearly as suitable for Professor Dines’ analysis.)

So…what did trigger BRodger?? Upbringing in absolute wealth/privilege? Exposure to the Pick-Up Artist/Mens’ Rights Activist extremism? Years of sexual self-hatred projected towards the women who aroused him?

Of course not. Everyone (or, at least, everyone in Gail’s circle) knows what was the real trigger:

The more I read about Rodger’s unspeakable acts, the more enraged I become with the unwillingness of the mainstream feminist movement to take on the elephant in the room: a well resourced, multi-billion dollar a year industry that doesn’t just produce misogyny, but actually ties it to male arousal and ejaculation. Mainstream porn has now become so violent that when radical feminists describe it in debates and presentations, we are accused – including by other feminists -of exaggerating and only focusing on the very worst of porn.

Yup….it’s the PORN, y’all….and if you don’t understand why porn is the centerpiece of all rape and murder and abuse of women, then you aren’t a true feminist. Or, at least, a true radical feminist.

In the best case scenario, this is because most mainstream feminists have never actually spent time on the most traveled porn sites, and in the worst case, it is a wilful desire to not rock the boat with boyfriends, husbands, brothers, publishers, and tenure committees.

In other words….the only reason “mainstream feminists” don’t agree totally with Gail’s “analysis” of porn as “Rape Incorporated” and “The Official Template For Femicide” is that they don’t want to scare THE MENZ. Especially, the MENZ who apparently blackmail non-radical feminists into silence. Funny, though, that Dines’ own tenure at Wheelock College seems not to be affected at all by her publishing, isn’t it?

But hey, who cares about that….because Gail has EVIDENCE that proves that porn leads directly to rape and murder!! And, from one of the more notorious porn performers of recent memory, too!! I’ll just quote the next few paragraphs from Dines verbatum without comment, and let you feast on the depth of the example she uses of performer Belle Knox and the fringe site

So here is a test, and one that comes with a trigger warning because trigger warnings are not some right wing plot, as recent media stories would have us think, but ways to avoid re-traumatising victims of violence. I am going to quote extensively from a popular website that was made even more popular by the outing of Duke student “Belle Knox” as a porn performer.

We all know her name, – or at least her porn name – but does anyone know the name of the porn site where she was gagged almost to unconsciousness, smeared with semen to the point that she couldn’t open her eyes, slapped, and penetrated so roughly that she was gasping in pain and sobbing? At one point she was pushing the male performer/abuser away because she couldn’t breathe, and in typical porn-sex behaviour, he dragged her closer to his penis by yanking her hair, spitting in her face and screaming at her to shut up.

The site is called Facial Abuse, and the images and videos that populate it can only be described as torture. With no pretence that this is about consensual or mutually enjoyable sex, the text describes, in unbearable detail, what they are doing to the women:

Big Tits. Check. Airhead. Check. Daddy Issues. Check. Brook Ultra has all the makings of being the next big deal in big tit porn. I can totally see the LA companies gobbling up this cunt, but we had her first. Today, she was trained to be a submissive little whore, taking cocks in all three holes. Pauly Harker blew her asshole out with his giant knob. We shot some great fucking anal gapes with this pig… so much that you could see what she had for dinner last night. Another well rounded scene with a model who’s top shelf. Enjoy this… and when you see her all over the place, remember who taught that cunt the ropes.

Of course, Belle Knox has done hundreds of other porn scenes and sites other than, so I’m guessing that she survived and recovered well enough from this particular scene that her porn career is moving along unabated. (Actually, I’m surprised that Gail actually showed that much respect for Belle by giving her name “air quotes”; most other radfems were simply outing her by showing her real name.)

Also….the antics of are well known and documented to porn performers; who actually are not forced at gunpoint or any other method to do shoots for them. In fact, many performers and models decide to defer from such in-your-face shock porn sites on their own accord.  Those who do decide to shoot for sites like that are certainly aware of their particular schtick; and they make the decision themselves to get paid for shooting those kind of scenes.

And those who pay to see those scenes?? OK, a bit offputting at the stereotyping of the performers, and probably a bit too messy for most fans of porn…but, hardly the case for committing violence against women. And, not even close to a connection to Elliot Rodger.

Spooge all over a woman’s face, an overly enthusiastic deep throat or anal tryst, or the sexual equivalent of smack-talking geared to entice people to purchase memberships to their site, is not quitethe definition of torture Gail would like us to think it is. Then again, neither is, either.

While most social and political institutions create woman-hating ideology, name one other that delivers it in such a crisp, succinct, unambiguous manner. Name one other cultural institution that prides itself on torturing women as its raison d’être. Porn is now the major form of sex education in the western world, and it produces an ideology that makes women seem disposable “sluts” who are undeserving of dignity, bodily integrity, or the slightest shred of empathy. Whatever psychological disorders Rodger had, he was sane enough to internalize the pornographic ideologies so perfectly embodied in Facial Abuse and the thousands of other websites that tell the same story.

Nice try, Professor Dines…except that Elliot Rodger did not troll porn sites on his spare time, as I noted before, save for some nudie pictorals, mostly because he was disgusted by the sight of other people having sex without him.

And, only Gail Dines is dense enough to call a site that maybe gets…I don’t know…..10 or 15 hits a day, and is so deep into the innards of porn fringedom, “a social and political institution” that “prides itself in torturing women”. As if and Ernest Greene’s “The Master of O” series no longer count for you, Gail??

It should also be noted that porn did not invent the term “slut”….that phrase, whether considered to be a cosmic insult or a celebration of unabashedly sexual women, tended to precede the growth of the porn industry by almost a millenium.

And here’s how Dines concludes her essay:

Mainstream commentators and feminists tie themselves in knots trying to avoid any discussion of the way porn is implicated in violence against women. They talk about porn as empowering, as fun, as a celebration of women’s sexual agency, and then express outrage when men act out the woman-hating messages that are the constituent elements of porn.

Radical feminists who make porn a central part of our activism are not (pick your slur) anti-sex, prudish, man haters, censors or ugly bitches who are jealous of porn stars. Rather, we fight the porn industry because we know that as long as this tsunami of woman-hating ideology continues to shape masculinity, there will be a never-ending supply of Elliot Rodger laying in wait for their next batch of victims.

They don’t just talk about it, Gail….they live it. Because, contrary to your bullshit lies, women and men are perfectly capable of creating, analyzing, and consuming porn for themselves, and do not need either your approval or your analysis to defend their right to do so.

And no, Gail….critics of antiporn whackjobs like you do not criticize you for being “prudish man haters” or “ugly bitches”; it is your policies and your campaign to blame and harness simple male erections and reduce sexuality to its worst actions in order to justify government censorship and control that earns you every bit of ridicule and derision.

If anyone, in fact, should be condemned for the possible future Elliot Rodgers, it should be the PUAs and MRAs who do indeed project the very woman-hatred that Dines attempts to level all of porn with, as well as our overall antisex culture that punishes women for attempting to be autonomous sexual beings. All Gail’s rantage here does is to divert resources and focus from attacking those true sources of misogyny….and all so that she and her antiporn feminist radicals can get another crack at mass virtual castration. Or….perhaps not so virtual??

I wonder when CounterPunch will cross post this, as they usually do for other Gail Dines rantages?


Eden Alexander/WePay Update: Crowdtilt Saves The Day, And More About WePay’s Decision Exposed

[Also crossposted over at Blog of Pro Porn Activism]

Since I broke the news (also here) of the unfolding controversy involving cam model/porn director/sex worker Eden Alexander and the actions of payment provider WePay and crowdfundraising site, events have been breaking early and often. So, here’s an update on what has happened and what may happen next.

First, some wonderful news: Eden Alexander did tweet on Saturday that she is out of surgery and now recovering in her hospital bed; she is getting the treatment and the rest that she needs, and she is, from every indication, in good spirits (albeit ovewhelmed and exhausted from all the physical and emotional strain of the past few days).

Secondly, some more wonderful and pretty heartening news: The porn/sex work disapora has, to say the least, responded to Eden’s plight the way the Allies responded in Normandy in World War II. Since the alternate fundraising site was set up over at, it has raised more than $8,500 in all of nearly 48 hours…and is currently about to hit $9K. Not too shabby, if I may say so. Those wanting to give their contribution can still access Eden’s page here if they choose.

Amazingly enough, one of the more significant contributions came from the head of GiveForward, the crowdraising site which operated Alexander’s original fundraiser. Attached to it was a message from GiveForward representative Michael Powell, apologizing to Eden for their role in the disaster and contributing the equivalent of their and WePay’s donation fees as an atonement. (Screenshot of Powell’s donation statement courtesy of Chris Lowrance’s Twitter page)

GiveForwardApologyToEdenAlexanderUnfortunately, no such atonement has as of yet come from the actual instigators of the whole controversy, the payment processor WePay. As of right now, they are still sticking to their story that they were simply forced by their regulations and rules to axe Eden’s account because she allegedly violated their Terms of Service involving using their account for “pornographic services”. They did clarify, though, that they have released all of the funds collected from the fundraiser; funds raised before May 14th were processed and transferred to Eden’s account; while funds raised after that were returned to their respective donors.

A bit more clarity has now been opened on WePay’s processes since this first broke.’s Motherboard blog on yesterday posted their perspective on the whole controversy, which opened up some new revelations about the controversy.

We now know that WePay’s backdoor processor for all its financial dealings is a company called Vantiv, which was described as one of the largest processers of bank card payments in the United States; as well as the owner of nearly 12,000 ATM’s (Automated Teller Machines) nationwide. No one as of yet has asked their spokespersons whether those who take out money at those ATM’s are screened for their outside activities the same way that Eden Alexander was screened for hers, or whether they even care that the money pulled from ATM’s or other transactions could be used for porn or other illicit or even illegal purposes.

And that’s kind of a relevant question, because, according to the article….

On Twitter, WePay’s cofounder Bill Clerico explained a bit more. Many of things banned in the service’s terms (like porn anything) are required by processors because “they are prone to fraud and abuse.” WePay is required by its partners (financial partners, presumably) to actively monitor (surveill) its users for policy violations, which includes combing through Twitter accounts, a task done by actual humans. “We must enforce these policies or we face hefty fines or the risk of shutdown for the many hundreds of thousands of merchants on our service,” said Rassa.

This begs some huge questions: How can private firms and banks and other financial institutions retain the power to sanction and fine or even shut down payment processors for the mere “crime” of association with certain types of transactions…even if such transactions are perfectly legal and above board? Does the mere suspicion of abuse or fraud warrant dropping the hammer, the anvil, the Rock of Gibraltar, and a million gallons of genuine Niagara Falls on a woman raising funds for her medical bills?? And, more importantly, are these rules being enforced equally, or are they selectively enforced based on mere personal bias or selective prejudice against…..oh, I don’t know….sex workers and porn performers?

This also brings us back to that “Operation ChokePoint” thing that the US Department of Justice is now doing to target banks and financial institutions to combat all sorts of shady activities. The initial educational material that the DoJ pushed out to Big Finance did label “pornography” as one of the subset activities warranting suspicion and further investigation, alongside other, more traditional activities such as subprime lending, online payday loansharking, telemarketing, and other sources of possible chargeback/usury abuse. There is still plenty of furious debate whether the real responsibility lies with the government for “overzealous” regulation (the theory of the Libertarian Right and the traditional conservatives who oppose all regulation on general principle); or Big Finance for misinterpreting and twisting the regulations around for their own purpose, and using sex workers and porn folk as human shields and stepping stones to get back at the regulators (the more liberal/progressive view).

And then, you wonder whether even WePay understand their own Terms of Service. The alleged acts that triggered Eden Alexander’s account to get pulled were two retweets that she did of a couple of porn sites which attempted to give some…ummm, incentives to donate to her fund….namely, some free pics and reduced prices on some porn videos that Eden had starred in. Forget the basic fact that retweets are not necessarily endorsements of what is tweeted, and that nowhere in Alexander’s initial funding pitch or any of her own tweets does she offer anything in quid pro quo for donating to her fund. And, never mind the basic fact that the whole point of the fundraiser was to pay her medical bills and help her through a potential life threatening situation. You could make the case that she really did not violate their ToS at all..and yet WePay (perhaps under pressure from Vantiv or maybe OCP) simply decided they had to pull the trigger and nuke Eden’s account for “consistency’s sake”.

The fact that WePay is induced (by their contracts with their financial partners, they say) to essentially spy on their paying customers’ personal social media accounts in order to detect even the smallest excuse for dismissal…errrrrrrr, the slightest indication of “fraud and abuse”, does not induce much comfort for those who care about privacy or free expression, either.

More likely, it looks like WePay/Vantiv is engaging in the same old tired bullshit act of slut shaming, sex shaming, and porn shaming that other financial institutions like PayPal, Amazon, JPMorganChase, and a few others have mastered. Considering that a major antiporn summit just concluded this weekend, alongside of a just as major confab of “movement conservatives” bent on imposing similar moral values on the rest of America. Between that and the ongoing “sex trafficking” panic that is scaring plenty of liberals into compliance with antisex legislation, that’s more than enough to keep Big Finance and the politicians they buy to keep holding the line against “those dirty sluts and whores” using “their money” to “corrupt” fair patriotic American society.

It may be that Eden Alexander is simply a small victim in this major war of financial wits. Thankfully, due to the generosity of her fans and those who actually think that sex workers are as human as everyone else, she will survive and recover.

WePay, for its part, has backslid a bit since getting absolutely singed by the social media firestorm. They did offer to provide Eden a new fundraiser page, but by then her followers had already moved over to Cloudtilt. They also promised a review of their ToS and procedures for shutting down accounts, though they didn’t say whether or not they would change their procedures for reviewing accounts or even their surveillance of customer’s social media accounts.

It should also be noted that while Cloudtilt’s ToS does not mention porn at all; their own payment processing company,, does have a Sellers Agreement with their clients that does ban “sexually-oriented or pornographic products or services”. (Raising the question of whether a company like, say, Lovability Condoms could use their services.)

The main issue in all this remains that sex workers who practice a legal profession (and in California and New Hampshire, porn is fully protected as constitutional free speech) should not face any Scarlet Letters when they attempt to raise funds for whatever reason they choose for legal purposes….and especially NOT for the purpose of paying their medical bills. Why they should have to resort to crowdfunding for essential healthcare in one of the richest countries in the world is an issue in and of itself….but that’s another issue to tackle.

It all comes back to the basic ideas:

Sex workers and porn performers/cam girls are human beings; “sluts” are people, too; and if you exchange money for sex in any way, then you might be as much a “whore” as an actual sex worker….they just only are open and out and honest about it.


Why Anti-Sex Worker/AntiPorn Discrimination Matters: Operation ChokePoint, JPMorganChase, And The Eden Alexander/WePay Debacle

[Now also crossposted over at Blog of Pro-Porn Activism]

[Update: Eden Alexander’s new fundraising page has now raised over $6,000; you can add your contribution, if you are so inclined, over at her page.]

There has been plenty of ink spilled recently over how sex workers, porn performers, and adult models are being targeted for discrimination and abuse, but this week has now focused this issue much more intensely through an ongoing situation that could turn potentially tragic.

I have posted previously over at the Blog of Pro-Porn Activism on the ongoing saga of JP Morgan Chase, the major financial conglomerate, and its efforts to cancel the accounts of porn performers, citing “reputational risk”. For those who have missed it, Chase started mailing cancellation notices to several porn performers (Teagan Presley among others) around mid-April, warning them that their accounts would be pulled by May 11th due to unstated violations of their Terms of Service…..even though they didn’t provide any evidence that any of the accounts were used for unsanctioned purposes.

I’ve also posted on the recent program by the Department of Justice, “Operation ChokePoint”, which began as a guide for financial regulators and banking institutions for seeking out and screening potentially suspectible practices and illegal activities through third-party payment processors. The program did list “pornography” as one of many forms of activity warranting added scrutiny, but it did not endorse specifically going after adult transactions for proscecution; it was designed as more of a broad-brush means of regulation. Nevertheless, banking institutions such as Chase has used this program as a justification for their current blacking out of porn performers and other adult transactions; and opponents of regulation have cited what they see as the overreach of Operation ChokePoint into porn accounts as a critique of regulation per se.

But…all of that, for what it’s worth, merely pales to the human tragedy now unfolding that exposes the cold heart and the ultimate consequenses of what discrimination against adult sex workers can lead to.

That would be the human tragedy that Eden Alexander is now facing.

Eden Alexander is a cam model, producer, and independent artist whom recently faced a series of medical emergencies that nearly cost her her life and required her to undergo multiple bouts of hospitalization. First, she suffered an allergic reaction to a common prescription drug. When her original doctor refused to offer proper medication and treatment for her condition, effectively citing her profession and hinting of “drug abuse”, that condition elevated into a full-flared MRSA/staph infection, which then triggered other reactions that nearly killed her. Due to the delay in getting proper treatment, her infection even further spread to the point where she was further incapacitated…to the point where she was (and still is) unable to provide for herself or her family through her work.

Thusly, she and her friends opened up a fundraising drive through in order to solicit funds for her to essentially stay alive until she recovers. (You may know about GiveForward from here earlier, because it was the same fundraiser site that Nina Hartley used nearly four years ago to raise funds for her fibroid surgery recovery.) The fundraiser managed to suceed quite well, with nearly $5,000 raised from friends and performers alike.

And that’s when WePay, the payment processor for, decided to intervene in a very bad way.

This morning, Eden Alexander tweeted this to her timeline:

The email, which she attached to her tweet, did not state explicitly how they determined that she was using the fundraising for “pornographic activities”; it simply noted that the account was in violation of their Terms of Service, and abruptly cancelled it without notice.

Shaken enough by her condition, this new shock to her system may have pushed Eden off the cliff. She subsequently tweeted even more disturbing thoughts of ending her life, and then disappeared off the timeline; prompting real concerns of suicide. She has since been hospitalized and is currently in ER treatment.

The adult world has also been shaken to its own core by all this; a new fundraiser for Alexander has been launched through, which has recouped more than the share of funds that the original GiveForward fundraiser did; it is still ongoing as of now.

And, the rage of the adult performer diaspora has been raining down on WePay like the eyewall of Hurricane Katrina over the Louisiana coast. Kitty Stryker, a close friend of Eden and one of the creators of the first fundraiser, let loose a furious retort to WePay and its inconsistencies in its ToS that is must reading. A sample:

What WePay (and therefore GiveForward) is effectively saying is that because Eden is a cam girl by profession, raising money for medical funds is suspicious and banned. Because we all know sex workers can’t be trusted, and we’ll probably blow our money on porn rather than self care, and we all have robot bodies that never get ill, right?

However, and here’s where I’m really, really fucking angry, here’s some other areas they ban.

Oh yeah, WePay? Like “revealing the evils of the homosexual agenda“? How about going to other countries to spread imperialist Christianity among communities of colour? AWESOME SO GLAD YOU FUND THAT

Yeah cool so you’re totally not helping fund “love donations” for psychic readings. Cause science has totally explained that.

But you’ll totally help people go to fat camp, or get post-weight loss surgeries. Even if it’s someone raising money for their partner because he’s decided she’s too fat.

If they seriously ban everyone who has ever worked retail from using WePay, I’ll eat my hat. Not for selling the products through WePay, but ever selling licensed products ever.

For their part, WePay did attempt a public response to the firestorm of criticism…which only fanned the flames that much more. WePay CEO Bill Clerico tweeted an attempt to defend their actions, stating that Eden Alexander violated their ToS and justified her cancellation by retweeting a post from her supporters offering free porn for donating to her fund. (To which the proper response by anyone with a shred of decency and humanism should be: “So?? Does that justify denying a sick woman funds??”) Then, WePay issued a written press statement “apologizing” to Alexander for all that took place, but still defending their actions due to compliance with “back end processors” such as Visa and MasterCard. (Riiiight, because they don’t do business with porn sites, either, as my inability to use my paycard to join porn sites can attest.) Here’s WePay’s “statement” (via Cyborgology):


One Clerico tweet even went so far as to admit that WePay screens and monitors’ their customers for suspicion of “fraud and abuse”, but only “because they have to”….an oblique reference, perhaps to Operation CheckPoint and the DoJ’s initiative.

P. J. Rey of The Society Pages’ Cyborgology blog cuts through that bullshit most adequately:

WePay’s response, predictably, amounts to the old “don’t blame us, blame the market” strategy of denying responsibility. This is the same pattern we recently witnessed with Paypal and Chase: Rather than working to find ways to conduct business without discrimination, execs shrug their shoulders and point to the markets as supposed justification for what, in this case, is not only unjust, but downright inhumane, treatment. We, the public, are expected to just resign our democratic values when the market deems them inconvenient.

Fuck that. The discriminatory practices of a back-end processor and concerns about fraud do not and will not ever justify denying medical care to a very real human being, regardless of her occupation.

And , Rey adds this depressing thought about how all this feeds into general stigma and slut shaming and sex shaming in general, as well as how even libertarianism isn’t enough in defending sex workers/porn performers/adult models:

What is perhaps most shocking about this tragedy is that it illustrates how readily we dehumanize sex workers. Whether it is the doctor (who reportedly dismissed the severity Alexander’s condition, assuming it to be the product of drug abuse) or WePay shutting down her donations page because she is connected to the production pornographic content, institutional policies and practices reduced Alexander (as they do all sex workers) to being nothing more than her work. Unfortunately, this too often how stigma works. From the perspective of this institutionalized stigma, you can’t be a sex worker and a person in need of medical treatment because when you’re a sex worker, you are only a sex worker. A person’s humanity is flattened and they are seen only as their stigma. This is an observation that Kitty Stryker and Melissa Gira Grant both made pointedly:

kitty melissaWhat market logic does–when we fail to intervene demanding that humanitarian values be respected–is to reduce humans to mere risks and opportunities. Risk is stigma in market terms. Both flatten a person and mark them for exclusion. When a CEO says “sex workers are a risk,” they always, implicitly, mean “a risk–and nothing more.” The purpose of such language is to depersonalize and dehumanize and, thereby, to remove the moral impediments to exclusion.

What we, collectively, need to do is present new impediments to exclusion–to create conditions where exclusion itself is risky business. I know I, for one, won’t be using WePay any time soon for any of my projects.

I would say that it’s not just “whore stigma”, but simple sex hate and slut-shaming, combined with the additional stigmatization of keeping their money while denying them their humanity, that drives institutions like WePay, JPMorganChase, PayPal, and all the rest. (It wasn’t until the protest tornado hit WePay’s pig farm that they finally decided to release the funds from the GiveForward fundraiser over to Eden Alexander, and offer to “help” her restart her original fundraiser. Otherwise, they would have probably even kept those funds in their back pocket, or at least pocketed the commissions and fees from processing it.)

If the funds raised so far end up ultimately funding Eden Alexander’s funeral, then WePay, Chase, the Department of Justice, and all the other financial institutions endorsing this gratituous discrimination have blood on their hands. And they need to pay, through their wallets. Slut/whore/sex stigma has got to be opposed and stomped out, by any means necessary.



How To Respond To Antiporn “Feminist” Illogic: A Response To One Angry Whackjob…Errrrrr, One Angry Girl

It’s not easy being a defender of adult consensual sexual media, or those in the majority of humankind who safely and consensually consume and produce said media for our personal pleasure and even profit.

Actually, it’s very easy in most aspects, because sex with someone you love or someone you really like, or watching people who are really into each other engage in sex, can be pretty damn cool, if you ask me.

No, the real difficulty is that you have to deal in a regular basis with people who basically want to persecute, prosecute, or even kill you for the sin of enjoying people engage in consensual sex. And, you have to deal with their ceaseless attempts to control the debate with all sorts of illogical and obtuse arguments against consensual adult pornography, those who make and produce it, and those who consume and enjoy it.

For once, this isn’t part of the continuing series against Gail Dines, since her monstrosity as an antiporn “feminist” has been well established here.

Rather, the subject of this essay is a slightly more militant antiporn “feminist” going by the moniker of “One Angry Girl”, who works out of the United Kingdom through the British antiporn group Object.

Recently, in an effort to deliver what she considered to be the coup de’gracie to those evil pro-porn arguments, OAG broke out a pamphlet crib sheet in which she attempted to fisk out 17 “pro-porn” position statements, with rebuttal arguments attached to each argument. The actual sheet can be found here at OAG’s blog as a PDF file; but here’s a copy of it:

One Angry Girl Antiporn "Comebacks"

Others have already taken full umbrage of OAG’s crackpot strawmen, and have posted re-rebuttals of her “arguments”; see this Jordan Owen YouTube video (or scroll down to the bottom of this post), and this response by the British anticensorship group Sex and Censorship (via their chief spokesperson Jerry Barnett).

However, since some, if not most, of OAG’s arguments are so over-the-top wacked out and filled with her own bile of vengance, I thought that it deserved a more personal touch.

Henceforth, here’s my own point-for-point rebuttal of One Angry Whackjob…errrrrrrr, One Angry Girl. Like Jordan and Jerry before me, I will break it down per argument. Bolded is the supposed “pro-porn” argument; italicized is OAG’s rebuttal.

Dive into the deep crazza with me, folks.

  1) They say: But they’re enjoying themselves

You say: If they enjoy it so much, then they would be willing to do it for $7.50 per hour.

Ummm…you do know that porn women do actually have sex for free with their significant others/husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends, right?? And, there is this thing called “masturbation” for which you need neither money or permission from others to play with yourself, am I correct?? If people are so willing to pay them for the pleasure of watching them engage in sex they already enjoy, then who am I or you to prevent them from collecting their hard earned pay??

And…kind of strange for a movement that calls itself “leftist” to say that workers should permanently restrict their compensation for services they offer to less than what the market would compensate them for?? I mean, if forced free labor is so immoral and wrong, why should sex workers, porn models, and performers be required to put out for free?? A right-winger makes that kind of argument every day against Walmart cashiers/stockers making $8 per hour. It’s no less right-wing when “feminists” throw it at sex workers.

Or: Women in porn are often screaming with joy, but sometimes they are also screaming in pain. Which should we believe? If their pleasure is real, and not faked, then their pain is also real, and not faked.

Yeah, and should we believe it when we see Jason slice and dice through several humans in the Friday the 13th series, too?? Or, when pro wrestlers or pro boxers run plenty of “I’ll KEEEEEEL YOU!!!” smack prior to their matches? Yeah, Mike Tyson really would eat Evander Holyfield’s children, if you believed the mythical powers of overhype and satire.

Some women in porn really are loud when they come, and some women aren’t so much, but they enhance the performance up a bit to heighten the portrayal of sexual pleasure for their audience. That’s what we call…good acting.

Now, some acts might indeed be uncomfortable or even somewhat painful to endure, too…but that’s for the performer herself to endure for her craft, or complain to the producers or her partner to not quite push so hard. It is NOT, however, up to some outside bypasser to determine just out of sight or assumed bias.

Emphasis here on “assumed bias”, since OAG essentially assumes here that porn women only scream out of pain from being “raped” and “degraded” and “abused”, because that’s the only roles she is capable of giving them that fits her narrowly tailored vision of porn as perpetual rape.

Or: Once Jenna Jameson got very powerful in the industry, she began refusing  do scenes involving anal sex. This suggests to me that she doesn’t actually enjoy anal sex. Yet Im sure if you investigate her earlier movies, you can probably find a scene or two where she is appearing to enjoy it. Why? Its called acting.

Interesting how Jenna Jameson always seems to crop up in antiporn “feminist” arguments as the antihero who profited from her own abuse, doesn’t it?? Maybe the reason Jenna decided not to do anal sex after she got some power was that she simply lost interest in it, or, she decided that she didn’t need to engage in it in order to pursue her porn career.

Plus, if I remember right, she became a highly publicized “VIVID Girl”, which (if I recall correctly; someone can correct me if I’m wrong here) contractually forbidded her from performing anal scenes for anyone other than that company. Not sure about her later contract with Wicked.

Besides, Jenna is but one performer; what about the hundreds of other performers who willingly perform anal sex with relish and without any damage whatsoever, or those who do so even with the occasional injury because they simply love the feel of cock inside their asses?? Or, the multitude of performers on the other side of that paradigm whom have had successful careers without so much as performing one anal scene…even though some of them enjoy anal in their personal non-porn lives? All OAG would have to do to get some truthful information is to simply ask porn performers about their anal experiences. Apparently, that would be just a bit too much effort; so much easier in the antiporn hivemind to simply assume injury out of spite.

2) They say: Strippers are empowered

You say: If they’re so powerful, then why do strip clubs have security guards protecting the dancers? Why do women working bachelor parties have to take security with them?

The answer to OAG’s first question: Because strip clubs are under strict regulations to avoid direct sexual contact already, and the security guards are there as much to control the dancers from going too far as they are to protect them from the occasional drunk assholery of some patrons. Plus, gate crashers looking for trouble can be an occupational hazard.

To answer Q #2: As far as I know, most women working bachelor parties don’t need security; if things go awry, they can simply leave or call the cops. Plus, there is one very important control on the bachelor’s (or his buddies’) behavior: his wife-to-be (or their sig others) discovering his overstepping his boundaries and throwing his ass out. (Or, their asses out.) That tends to keep things handled quite well.

Or: How is it empowering for women to give men exactly what they’ve come to expect from us?

Really, OAG?? You mean, men only expect women to drop their panties, get on their knees, and suck on men’s knobs at a moment’s notice? Does that include men’s mothers, sisters, relatives, and any woman they see at the moment?? If that was the case, then there wouldn’t be any need for porn because men could get their rocks off quite easily through the next woman they see, amirite?? Misandry is a powerful drug, I guess.

Or: How is it empowering to grovel and compete for male attention and cash…like a trained seal doing flips in a tank to get his fish reward?

First off…adult women are not FISH.

Secondly…even trained seals used to flip around in the ocean when they were untrained in the wild in order to attract their mates.

And finally….whatever happened to equal pay and comparable worth?? And, isn’t it the MEN who are doing most of the groveling for female attention…and they’re the ones being seperated from their cash, too??

3) Porn/prostitution have always been around, they always will be, so what’re you gonna do?

You say: Rape, murder, and incest have always been around too. Should we be okay with those things?

Sexually violating, physically abusing, and murdering people are already illegal and should damn well be. So is having sex with blood relatives. Consensual adult sex, whether done for free or in exchange for cash, isn’t quite the same, and should not be persecuted or punished anywhere near the same. Being OK with it isn’t the issue; actual informed consent is.

4) They say: Porn-stars and strippers are celebrating their sexuality

You say: Why does celebrating your sexuality always seem to happen in public for strangers and a paycheck? Does anyone ever get to celebrate their sexuality in private with their partner?

Aside from the fact already made in response to Point 1) that porn perfomers and sex workers already engage in such private sex with their significant others, what in the hell does OAG have against celebrating consensual adult sexuality in public?? Or, getting paid enough to survive comfortably by promoting consensual adult sex?? She sounds more like an antigay fundamentalist ripping on about Leathermen and twinks to dismiss gay men..while ignoring, perhaps, the radicalfeminists celebrating lesbianism as “female bonding”?? Oh, I’m sorry…am I stepping on your hypocrisy a bit too much, OAG??

5) They say: My partner and I both enjoy using porn, so what’s the problem? Who’s getting hurt?

You say: Some people like to wear fur coats, or eat veal, or shop at Wal-Mart. Your enjoyment of a product does not erase the suffering that went into creating that product.

Except that not all fur coats come from dead animals, not everyone eats veal or chooses vegan, and there are actual alternatives to Walmart that are as bad or even worse when it comes to exploiting their employees. But hey, if OAG really did care about exploitation of working folk outside of porn (or veganism or animal rights, for that matter), wouldn’t she actually give those issues the same emphasis of anger that she so throws at women who do porn and the men (and women) who enjoy watching them??

6) They say: Ok, maybe some of the women in porn didn’t freely choose their careers, but lots of them did.

You say: If you have a comprehensive research survey of all current and former porn workers, I’d love to see it. There isn’t one available. However, there are major studies involving prostitutes around the world, which found that 90% of them wanted out immediately, but didn’t have the resources.

Hate to get ahead of myself, but let’s remember: In porn, performers are paid to engage in sex with other performers for their own pleasure and the pleasure of others. In prostitution, the worker is paid to have sex with the client actually paying. Now, there are gray lines, such as self-made “Fuck-a-Fan” porn where a “civilian” gets to have sex with his favorite performer…but only after stringent testing. And even there, the “civilian” usually is a long-time fan of the performer to begin with. There is a difference, you see.

Plus, as Jerry Barnett responded with, even before the Porn Studies Journal became a burr up Gail Dines’ butt, there has been plenty of study of porn performers from plenty of angles. Do the works Pleasure and Danger, Sex Work, Dirty Looks, Whores And Other Feminists, and You Study WHAT??? ring any bells, OAG??

Also….so sorry, but just as the plural of “anecedote” is still not “data”; regurgitating Melissa Farley’s ofted disproved/debunked stat of “90 percent of all ‘prostituted women’ want out of the industry” is still not the same as “scientific study”. Not even if Ashton Kutcher endorsed it once.

7) They say: Ok, well not everyone who uses porn becomes a rapist/addicted/fucked-up

You say: Not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets lung cancer, and cigarettes still come with warning labels.

Except for the essential facts that 1) Cigarettes and other tobacco products contain active carcinogens that have been proven beyond a doubt to contribute to lung cancer, yet we still don’t go so far as to ban people from smoking; 2) There has been NO scientific studies even coming close to proving that porn contributes in any way to increased rape or “addiction”..and many studies actually reach the opposite conclusion; and 3) Kind of hard to place “warning labels” on sex acts since it is still people who commit abusive acts, not the acts themselves…..other than that, OAG might actually have a point there. Ahhh….no, she doesn’t.

8) They say: If you hate porn, just don’t watch it

You say: That’s like saying if you hate air pollution, dont breathe. I’m surrounded by porn everywhere I go whether I like it or not. Where’s my free choice not to see it?

Well…I’m surrounded by assholes, wingnuts, idiots, and other assorted miscreants everywhere I go, but I don’t feel the need to go out and banish people for even being assholic or wingnutty or idiotic. That kinda comes with living, you know.

And, just like I don’t have a free choice to determine where my tax money is going, nor do I have a free choice to choose which taxes I have to pay, part of living in a diverse world is that you put up with people, imagery, or acts that you may or may not like or even detest. As long as those acts or people do no harm onto others or themselves, though, you’ll just have to run along and deal with it. You can’t just shut out the world because it upsets you.

Plus, there are more direct ways than censorship to control air pollution: Punish the polluters and have them clean up their environment. Or, give support to efforts by responsible businesses that are committed to cleaning up said environment and improving the conditions for everyone. You know, like, what sex worker activists and some porn performers/producers/consumers are trying to do right now, but can’t suceed in doing as long as you dismiss them with your cries for blanket censorship??

9) They say: Nobody is forcing them to do it. It’s their choice.

You say: The word “choice” implies that there was at least one other viable option available. What was their other option?

Are you saying, OAG, that if another choice other than stripping or porn performing was available, they should have been forced to take that other choice?? Even if the other choice was worse off (even if you considered it “viable”)?? Or, are you saying that a sex worker’s choice shouldn’t be accepted or recognized if it doesn’t fit your fatalistic fantasy of innate abuse and rape?? Either way, who the hell are you to judge someone else for their actions merely for your personal fee-fees??

10) They say: Pornography and prostitution are different.

You say: Not really, pornography is just prostitution plus a camera.

See response to 6).

11) They say: Porn has always existed. Look at Pompeii.

You say: Three wall paintings in Pompeii do not compare to the multi-billion dollar global industry we have today. That’s like comparing a caveman’s smoke signals to the iPhone.

You mean that the cavemen or the Romans could have actually invented the iPhone back then, but they were just too stupid and manly and too busy jacking off to wall paintings to put forth the effort?? Seriously.

Plus, you’d be surprised and shocked and amazed by the depth of sexual imagery that went on in ancient cultures, and not just in Rome, either. If anything, the depth of the sexual freakery was even filthier than modern times. Plus, they made their money through touring, too. Maybe not in the same form as the modern industry, but sexual commerce thrived when not repressed by fundamentalist religion…and probably even in those places, too, under the radar.

12) They say: You just hate sex.

You  say: Porn is not sex, but a distorted, for-sale, fictionalized version of sex. If I told you I don’t eat at Burger King, would you tell me I hated food?

Not eating at Burger King is certainly your perogative, as is not watching porn you dislike. Nuking all hamburger-based restaurants because you don’t like Whoppers, on the other hand, or calling for jailing every man who views a porn clip because he MIGHT end up raping someone, probably makes you a fascist censor. And no, your personal opinion on sex has not a Goddess damn thing to do with that.

And…”porn is not sex”?? Isn’t that like saying that the National Football League isn’t real football, but a “hyped, for-sale, fictionalized version” of…you know, high school football??

Or: I like sex just fine. But I prefer to have sex only with someone I actually know and like, for free, in private with no strangers watching. Why is that weird to you?

As if porn performers don’t like the other performers they let into their pussies, mouths, and asses? I mean, you have to like someone very much in order to be that intimate with them, even if it’s only for an 4-5 hour shoot.

And…just because you are more conventionally prudish (and that is your right to be, as well), doesn’t mean you get to bash down on those who aren’t so private with their enjoyment of sex, and who still do no harm to anyone. They’re not imposing their openess on you; why should you impose your prudishness on them??

13) They say: You’re just jealous because you’re not as pretty as a porn-star

You say: Even porn-stars don’t look like their original selves. After a few rounds of surgery, a dye job, and some makeup I could look exactly like them.

Two words: Shelley. Lubben.

Three more words: Tammy. Faye. Bakker.

Plus, allow me to introduce you to Dana DeArmond, Siri, Courtney Trouble, Jayla Diamond, Debi Diamond, Marilyn Chambers (well, when she was still alive), Christy Canyon, Vanessa del Rio, April Flores, Carmen Valentina, and countless other porn performer legends/superstars/models who managed to survive on only makeup and slutpower, without any artificial enhancements.

But, why knock on women who are actually physically attactive and can perform well on screen or online? Like, only mainstream Hollywood actresses can’t make sex tapes, too??

14) They say: You’re just jealous because men like them better than you.

You say: It’s been successfully proven that just about any naked woman can get any straight man’s attention pretty quickly. It’s not hard to do, and it doesn’t make you special.

So….are you saying, OAG, that if Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin tomorrow decided to go on the teevee tomorrow announcing their candidacies, take off their clothes, and pose buck naked for a nudie magazine, every single man would fall so head over heels for them that either one would be appointed President of the United States by acclamation?? Naaaaah, I don’t think so.

Nudity can produce plenty of reactions….overwhelming sexual arousal is only one of them. It depends on the individual responses of the subject, as well as the audience.

15) They say: I’ve watched porn and I’ve never raped anyone.

You say: I guess you are arguing that words and images paired together do not have the power to influence human behavior. If that is your argument, then kindly explain:

[1] the multi-billion dollar industry called ‘advertising’
[2] kids learning their ABCs from Sesame Street
[3] people learning to make a meal by watching Martha Stewart
[4] public service announcements telling us not to drink and drive
[5] (insert your own example here)

First off….rapists have been raping without the need for porn as an aid for centuries, and probably will still do so even if porn is banished as OAG would love to happen.

Seccondly….advertising does not control people’s hunger or thirst or desire for education; it simply passes on messages that people internalize and take into consideration in making their own decisions.

“Influencing” behavior is not the same as regulating it…and notice that OAG is using that as an excuse for her opinion that government should directly regulate male (and female) sexual behavior by criminalizing certain imagery and behavior as “abusive” and “degrading” to a group of people (women) solely on the basis of assumption.

16) They say: The women in the industry make more money than men, therefore it’s empowering to them.

You say: It’s true that pornography and prostitution are the only industries where a woman can out-earn her male counterparts. What does that say about our economy, or about women’s power, that the only way for a woman to outearn a man is to get naked and fuck strangers?

What it says is that the economy needs to be restructured so that women who perform the same jobs as men and who show the same compentency should be paid at least the same amount, and that women should be given the same level of benefits and responsibility and accountability as men should be. That’s an issue of sexism and inequality, not an issue of porn.

And, I have in my hand, as The Mighty Carnac’s straight man would say, the final argument:

17) They say: You want to censor all porn!

You say: I haven’t ever mentioned censorship, which doesn’t address demand for porn. You’re saying that to shut me up and it won’t work.

Of course, you don’t mention “censorship” since you want to cloak the issue of your dislike and disgust of porn under the realm of “civil rights” liberalism, and differentiate your movement from the Christian Right. And yet, how else would your hatred of porn resolve itself but to rely on censorship and punishment of the consumers and users?

Since “demand” for porn simply isn’t going to abate regardless of how much shame you throw at its users, how else are you going to bring down the demons? More “civil rights ordinances”, a la Catherine MacKinnon’s seminal Minneapolis ordinance?? Nope….that was killed by the US Supreme Court as censorship. Remarking porn as “sex trafficking” and sending all male users to “john school” to rid them of those nasty degrading desires?? Lotsa Luck there, ladies….that’s not even working for clients of street sex workers. I guess that all that’s left is forcing filters on ISP’s and “education” and bans on “revenge porn” and “violent porn” and “torture porn” expanded to drag everyone else in their dragnet.

But then again, if One Angry Whackjob….errrrrrrrr, One Angry Girl actually was interested in discussing real solutions to her angst about sexually explicit media, she wouldn’t be One Angry Girl, now wouldn’t she??

BTW…here’s that video from Jordan Owen I talked about earlier. The “One Angry Valley Girl” simulation of OAG’s “rebuttal” gives it a nice touch, no??

Jordan Owen (@JordanOwen42) refuting OneAngryGirl’s “handy comebacks” on pornography (via YouTube)






Nice Allies You Have, Gail!! (#Chapter 206): Judith “Bat-Ada” Reisman Goes Wingnut Daily Against Condoms For Anal Sex (And AHF’s Condom Mandate)

[Note: A slightly condensed and edited version of this post is crossposted over at BPPA.

There is a saying; Be careful of who you lie with, because you just might get bitten in the ass. Unless, of course, ass bites are one of your most cherished fetishes.

You may remember the name Judith Reisman from her recent alliances with Shelley Lubben; the two actually joined forces in a You Tube video taped at a recent porn convention where Shelley was actively trolling for new fresh recruits to scam for her Pink Cross faux ministry or ex-porn starlets. Before then, “Dr.” Reisman was well acclaimed as a crackpot right-wing “scholar” who focused her antiporn activism on the calamitous impact of porn on the synapses of its user through “erotoxins”, as well as her usual crackpot opposition to any form of sexual activity not approvable to her Christian fundamentalist sensibiities.

You may also remember “Dr.” Reisman from her legacy of going from being a script writer for the old-school children’s TV show Captain Kangaroo (an eye-roller of its own, considering that Mr. Captain himself, Bob Keeshan, was a openly activist liberal) to becoming an antiporn “feminist” activist who blamed adult sexual speech for causing child sexual abuse, pedophilia, rape, and other degradations to women and children. In an essay that was posted to the 1970’s antirape radicalfeminist anthem, Take Back The Night, she maligned the three founders of print porn media — Playboy’s Hugh Hefner, Penthouse’s Bob Guccione, and HUSTLER’s Larry Flynt, in no particular order, as “Hitler, Stalin, and Goebbels”. She then parlayed that pub into an appearance giving testimony to the 1980’s Meese Commission On Pornography, where she got to pontificate on the cosmic danger of Playboy pushing child porn to impressionable youth through its…cartoons.

So…how does this connect with Gail Dines?? Well, Reisman’s “scholarship” on the negative impacts of porn has been used, reused, and used over and over again by Dines and her associates over at Stop Porn Culture to make their case for censorship of all sexually explicit material. Also, Shelley Lubben has often used Reisman as a go-to source for some of most classic rantage about the destructiveness of porn on those who perform it.

Even better than that, Dines and SPC have been more frequently using Reisman’s “scholarship” as a means to unite the antiporn “feminist” and traditionalist Religious Right “obscenity” movements with the anti-sex work “abolitionists” in connecting porn and prostitution/escorting/oncall sexual services/sexual commerce as “sex trafficking”.

Plus (and here’s the kicker to all this), Dines has been attempting to glam her way into the debate over mandatory condoms in porn by positively citing the efforts of the AIDS Healthcare Foundation to force performers to use condoms and other “barrier methods” as a means of containing an alleged STI/HIV “pandemic”. Never mind that the efforts of AHF come from a fundamentally different paradigm of making money off condom sales….ahhhh, I mean, protecting the jobs of crossover HIV+ performers who would be otherwise prevented from performing in the “straight” porn industry due to the current screening/testing regimen imposed by the Free Speech Coalition’s PASS protocols. And, never mind that AHF’s core constituency happens to be the very gay male community that has been truly wrecked by the HIV pandemic, albeit there is vast opposition even there to what some feel is AHF’s hamfisted approach to selling condoms as “behavior modification” as opposed to treatment or development of a vaccine to cure HIV. To Gail Dines, anything that can be used to slam porn as “corporate capitalist” mass rape and abuse of women is a good thing.

Except, with Judith Reisman, she may have bit off just a bit too much.

Michael Whiteacre of The Real Porn Wikileaks alerted me to an article which ran today over at the very, very ultra right-wing site World Net Daily, which most folk would much prefer to call “Wingnut Daily” due to its predisposition to the most bizarre conspiracy theories known to mankind. You know…”Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a MUSLIM, born in Kenya, raised in a madrassa, imported by Godless Communists to America, raised again by a stripper….and then he cheated and bought his way to become the Imperial Socialist/Muslim President of the United States through ACORN and 14th Amendment illegals and Black Nationalist gangstas and baby-killing slut porno women mooching off the “makers” for their birth control, so that the United Nations and their Democrat Party stooges can impost Agenda 21 and Sharia Law and lock up good conservative Patriots in concentration camps!!! WHERE’S THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE????????”

Anyways..the article pretended itself to be an attack on the notion that condoms are the most effective means for gay male folk to protect themselves against STI’s, including HIV/AIDS. It preferred the old tried-an-true method of gays giving up their nasty, sinful, disgusting “buggery” and coming home to Jesus Christ and the joys of heterosexual monogamy and procreative marriage..or facing the full brunt of criminalization through anti-sodomy laws. The article also called for good, God-fearing families of people suffering from HIV, and/or the relatives of people who actually succumbed to HIV/AIDS, to be able to file class action suits against “pro-gay” organizations for lying about the true nature of condoms failing to protect their users from contracting HIV.

Further, the WND article claimed that anal “sex” (yes, the fright quotes are included, because to the author of the piece, penises should never, ever attempt to even touch the tender anal passages of any other person, especially not another man) is not subject to the wonderful protection of more Godly acts like “natural” vaginal sex, because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) allegedly never approved the use of condoms for anal penetration.

The author’s evidence for this?? Merely citations from a “study” from a right-wing Hawaii state senator named Bob McDermott, attempting to oppose a sex education program in that state that was used by a whopping 12 schools, which called for the usage of condoms as a barrier protectant for PIV and anal penetration. That study took note of the disclaimer that the CDC had not endorsed the use of the original condoms for anal sex due to the risk of breakage and the inflexibility of anal passages. A single line quote from Rep. McDermott condenses the point concisely:

“Genitals are sexual reproductive organs,” McDermott told EAGnews, “and the a– isn’t that.”

Don’t you just love how fundie rightwingers are so quick with cursing, and just as quick with masking it?

The payoff paragraph in this is whom the author recommends to be sued:

A class action lawsuit by AIDS victims and their loved ones would rock the world – a suit based on the fact that condom pushers have for years dispensed false, deceptive claims about how the product protects – or fails to protect – the health of sex participants. The reality is that everyday condoms are manufactured and approved for natural, vaginal sex, not anal “sex” – they are not effectively designed to protect from disease those people who engage in sodomy.

Such a lawsuit should target the AIDS Heathcare Foundation, Planned Parenthood and a myriad of teachers and school systems, too many to count, that have taught that anal “sex” (traditionally termed “sodomy” or “buggery” under British-based legal codes) as not so different than natural coitus.

A right-wing antigay organization targeting AHF for representing HIV+ gay folk isn’t really news, of course. Until you find out that the author of that piece happens to be…. (screenshot, please)


[click on thumb to link to article]

Yup….you read right….THAT Judith Reisman. Gail Dines’ go-to source for “feminist” analysis against porn. The artist formerly known as “Judith Bat-Ada” who was so trusted by radfems that she scored a essay in one of their classic anthologies. The one connection between the whacked-out Hard Right and the radfem antiporn “Left”. THAT Judith Reisman.

And now, the same Judith Reisman who is now attempting to ride the wave of antiporn/anti-sexwork activism, and link it with the anti- “sex trafficking” and “porn addiction” movements, and bring her old-school historic antigay bigotry into the mix.

Gee…I wonder what Michael Weinstein would be thinking once he reads this? Or, the “radicallesbians” now totally committed to this “alliance”? Or, for that matter, Professor Dines herself, since she constantly rails about her movement being nicked falsely as palling around with reactionaries. Or…is World Net Daily now simply her newest ally in the fight against The Great Porn Capitalist Conspiracy, and any talk of a “progressive” antiporn “feminist” movement merely just a ruse to cover up the usual sex-hate against anything not linked to procreation or “mutual love”?

I suppose we will all have to see for ourselves, right??


The Faux-Left (More Like Right-Wing) Antiporn/Anti-Sex Work “Feminist” Movement (Or, Why Gail Dines Is WAY Closer To The Tea Partiers Than She Thinks The Porn Industry Is)

Reading the response of Sex and Censorship’s Jerry Barrett to Gail Dines’ assault on his group for daring to oppose Dines’ and Stop Porn Culture’s scheduled London conference on pornography is quite illuminating, to say the least. It isn’t just that Barrett has the courage to rebute and rebuke all of Dines’ prattle about how porn is capitalism’s means of suppressing, raping, and torturing women, and how the “porn industry” is the equivalency of the Tea Party in defending corporate plunder…never mind that Dines has never said or typed one letter of one word regarding corporate abuse in any other profession other than porn. It’s really more about how Barrett responds to the attempt by Professor Dines to shame him and his organization as right-wingers. Here’s how he responded to one of her slanders:

As for Dines comparing my small campaign group with the Tea Party: my own politics are left-of-centre. I am no anti-government militant. Yes, I am an ardent campaigner for free speech, but an equally strong supporter of Britain’s National Health Service (which, incidentally, gives free, regular STI checks to pornstars), a strong welfare safety net, and other tax-funded government services. I believe that government belongs in health, education, welfare, social services, environmental protection and transport; but I do not believe – unlike Dines – that it belongs in our bedrooms.

As a working-class Black man, a Lefty who believes in pretty much the same economic political agenda as Mr. Barrett (of course, adjusted to the political spectrum of the US, I would be well to the Left of even his positions), and a long time defender of free consensual adult sexual expression and adult sexual media, I can pretty much feel for his frustration and anguish at always having to apologize for linking his sexual/social libertarianism with his economic radicalism. As someone who has for the past 10 years or so battled with the socially regressive policies of antiporn “feminist” activism in regards to sex work (including the pornography/erotic dance and prostitution/escort/outcall services), I share with him the belief that sex work can be, even in an egalitarian or even socialist society, a legitimate and socially acceptable means of work for women and men which should be treated and reformed like all other forms of work done in exchange for compensation.

For walking the talk of these principles, we men who reject the Gail Dines/Stop Porn Culture/Andrea Dworkin/Catherine MacKinnon/Julie Bindel/Melissa Farley-led ideology of “Men are eternal rapist, seeking control and possession and access to women’s BODY!!!” (more on that shortly) are essentially maligned in radicalfeminist circles as “pimps”, “pedophiles”, “abusers”, “basement dwellers who masturbate endlessly in our mother’s basements”, “trolls”, and other such endearments….all for the sin of having working penises and the forethought to accept them and use them wisely and appropriately. The fact that we absolutely abhor and fundamentally oppose any means of abuse, sexual or otherwise, or any person — woman, child, or man, simply does not measure in the hive mindset of the antiporn/antisexwork “feminists”…to them, you are either one of them, or you are one of the rapists.

But, perhaps one of the most astonishing ironies is that for all of their attempts of recent time to paint themselves as the vangard of the Left in opposing pornography/consensual adult sex work as “corporate fascism against the civil rights of women”, the history of antiporn “feminism” reveals a stunning projectionism on their side. Indeed, they are far, far closer to the policies and even tactics of the Right than any “pro-porn” male could ever dream of.

Let’s go back in history, shall we?? Back to 1986, when Barnard College held its annual Sexuality confrence, in which a group of “sex-positive” and anticensorship feminists attempted to bring a more liberatory and progressive praxis of sexuality. You may remember these names: Carole Vance, Amber Hollibaugh, Ellen Willis, Gayle Rubin, Pat Califia (before her gender transition), Betty Dodson, Susie Bright….these were the pioneers of what was then called “pro-sex feminism”, which attempted to bring a fresh and progressive analysis of institutionalized sexual regulation and repression into feminist and Leftist political theory.

You may also remember these names as well: Kathleen Barry, Robin Morgan, Andrea Dworkin, Catherine MacKinnon, Shelia Jeffreys, Rebecca Wheishunt, Norma Ramos, Judith Bat-Ada (also known as Dr. Judith Reisman)…these were the antiporn “feminist” activists of that time that vigorously fought against anything that deviated from the party line that porn was man’s template to raping women and that only censorship, albeit deferred through “civil rights ordinances” and “Nordic Model”-style legislation targeting male consumers/users rather than the women themselves.

In 1986, the “anti’s” responded to the “pro-sex” side’s attempt to enliven the debate with the same tactics that Gail Dines and Stop Porn Culture excel at to this day. They flooded the sponsors of the conference with propaganda depicting the “pro-sex” feminists as sexual “deviants” and apostates, indulging in the worst “male oriented” sexual deviancies, including depicting BDSM (or, as it was called back then, S&M) as rape and torture. They disrupted conference venues with staged protests under the guise of defending “feminist sexuality” against the male “violence” they alleged was implicit in the other side’s advocacy. And, they were successful in tainting the conference such that funding for future feminist conferences were withheld due to political pressure from conservative politicians aghast that such sexual freakery would be given such legitimacy in the stoic halls of Academia.

Fast forward now to 2013….and the newest attempt by academics to develop truly accurate and sustainable research on the diaspora of pornography and its impact on people and culture. Two British academics decided to launch a new repository called the Porn Studies Journal, which would serve as a foundation for studying the industry, its clientele, and its social and political impacts. Almost immediately upon learning of this, the antiporn “feminist” side — in particular, Stop Porn Culture — went beserk, and instantly attempted to silence this uprising under the ruse of “academic bias”. Their leader was none other than….Gail Dines:

 In the interest of academic integrity and thorough critical inquiry, it is imperative that a journal titled Porn Studies creates space for critical analyses of porn from diverse and divergent perspectives. Our hope is that you will change the composition of the editorial board, confirm the journal’s commitment to a heterogeneous interrogation of the issues embedded in porn and porn culture, and ensure that diverse perspectives are represented – on the board and also in the essays published in the journal. Failing that, we ask that you change the name to reflect and make evident the bias of its editors (Pro-Porn Studies) and create another journal which will represent the position of anti-porn scholars and activists and the voices of mental health professionals, porn industry survivors, and feminist scholars whose analyses examine the replication and reification of misogyny, child abuse, and sexual exploitation in mainstream pornography (for instance, Critical Porn Studies).

In other words: no venue for “pro-porn studies” unless and until the antiporn view was present to “balance” it out…or simply the sole position available. And then, the “pro-porn” view would only exist as marked with the antiporn “scarlet letter”, like the McCarthy days when labor unions would have to register as “Communist” in order to even be allowed to exist.

It is a mockery and a disgrace to the word to label this kind of repressive action “progressive” or “Leftist”…even if far too often some self-identified Leftist do on occasion give their support to such campaigns under the guise of “protecting women and children from abuse”.

It is even worse, however, when the same movement who props themselves as “anticorporate” and mimes the liberal rhetoric is revealed to engage in the very corporate fascist behavior they would project onto their opponents. Lately, antiporn “feminists” such as Dines and the SPC have attempted to glam themselves onto the coattails of the anti-sexwork/anti-“sex trafficking” movement, seeking to apply the same repressive “Nordic” model laws targeting male clients/enablers of prostitution/escorting as “pimps” and “johns” to the porn industry. Not surprisingly, their main source for bringing porn into the sex trafficking debate happens to be an antifeminist fundamentalist Christian — former porn performer Shelley Lubben, whom Dines befriended in 2012 at a debate on porn at Cambridge. Lubben had, in an historically incoherent rant there, called porn “sexual slavery” and “a major source of sex trafficking” in America.

Problem is, though, the new “abolitionist” movement is hardly the anti-corporate populist campaign that is portrayed in friendly antiporn radical “feminist” media; it is reinforced and backed by non-profit organizations swelling with contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations (such as the Hunt sisters); and the laws that they propose are backed by the full force of the very corporate state they deem to be dominated by the “pornographers”. Some of the “Nordic” Model’s most ardent backers are traditional conservative Repubican attorney generals, sheriffs, and even ultraconservatives like Texas Attorney General and potential Governor Greg Abbott — who happens to be endorsed by his state’s Tea Party!!!

Of course, anyone who understands the fundamentals of basic cultural Right politics understands the depth of sexual fear and loathing that allows antiporn “feminists” and the Religious Right to work together on cultural/political causes (even if at arms’ length from each other, in their own venues). Both movements share the basic idea that sex is only redeemable and acceptable under a narrow, politically correct, and restrictive context. For the “traditionalist” Right, its Biblicly-pronounced procreation within heterosexual monogamous marriage; for the “radfems”, its “transcending, unifying, fusion with “woman’s body/spirit” absent of all those nasty, male-oriented, corporate-based orgasms. Both segments assert blind faith in their ideology through selective interpretations designed to overwhelm actual experiences and scientifically proven facts that don’t mesh with their belief systems. But mostly, both “faiths” malign and ultimately destroy people who do no harm to themselves or others, merely for the goal of self-profit and self-sustainablilty…all the time purporting themselves to be the ultimate “good” for everyone to either adapt totally or die.

Both segments also tend highly to slander their opponents as sexual “libertines” (or, to use a slightly less obtuse word, “libertarians”) who put their personal pleasures ahead of the suffering of a victimized “class” or likeminded group. This is a severe bastardization of any decent Leftist definition of “class”, which traditionally only meant anyone who depended on their wages in exchange for their labor to survive. It is also a massive scapegoating and dissembling that denies that men or non-heterosexuals or the transgendered person or sexually deviant could ever be a normal, responsible, healthy, law-abiding citizen who is capable of making informed decisions for him/herself.

It is well understood by any Leftist worth his/her salt that the fight for equality nevertheless requires transfers of power and wealth and privilege away from those who currently have too much of it into the hands of those lacking it. Redistribution of wealth and power, as well as correcting the real life history and legacy of discrimination and subjugation, as well as debunking the bigotry and outright hatred used to justify inequality, is a absolute must for anyone who takes the idea of egalitarianism seriously.

What separates the serious Leftist from the charlatans who attempt to pretend on the fly, however, is that the former balances their goals of equality and justice with respect for individual growth and development and choice and personal agency. (S)he understands that you cannot, as much as some would like to, shoehorn every one into one shape, one form, one style, or one template; and that mutual respect, mutual consent, and mutual pleasure, if not negotiated peaceful coexistence, is the means for our earth to survive.

It is legitimate progressives like Jerry Barrett and Renee Richards, like Nina Hartley and Ernest Greene and Katherine Cooper and Liza Sabater, who represent the finest of Left tradition in balancing respect for individual rights and choice with passion for true human equality. It is fools like Gail Dines and Stop Porn Culture and Robert Jensen and other faux “progressives” and “male feminists” who sully the good name of the Left with their totalitarianism and sexual bigotry. Time and action will ultimately prove my words to be correct.


No, Gail Dines…Sex And Censorship Is NOT Even Close To The Tea Party. Check Your Mirror.


So, Gail Dines, on the eve of her Stop Porn Culture conference in London, is all in rage because the group Sex And Censorship decided to get UK porn performers and anticensorship activists to directly rebuke her antiporn “feminist” nonsense.

And then, she decided to vent her fury once again over at her favorite lefty journal, CounterPunch.

I just finished posting some commemorative posts here in celebration of Nina Hartley’s 55th birthday (which was actually yesterday), and didn’t hear about Professor Dines’ latest rantage until about an hour ago.

In this latest attempt at riposte’, Gail goes even beyond her usual extremes of looniness by attempting to compare SaC with..hold on to your hats, folks…the Tea Party of the United States.

I’ll give you a minute to clean the spill off your shirt before I begin the fisking.

OK…time’s up.

The UK porn industry seems to have taken a page from the Tea Party’s organizing playbook by setting up a group called Sex and Censorship that markets itself as an organization dedicated to “defending Free Speech and Sexual Freedom.” Reading their website and Facebook page, however, reveals a very different story. S&C seems more like an organization dedicated to defending the speech of the porn industry by consistently attacking groups that question the industry’s exploitation of its employees or its domination of the sexual landscape with misogynist images that undermine the civil rights of women.

Number One, Gail…the Tea Party is actually an organic movement of Far Right citizens linked together by a particular group of ultraright-wing billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund pushers. Sex and Censorship, on the other hand, is an ad hoc group of porn performers and anticensorship advocates who basically unite to defend the rights of porn performers from exactly the type of slander, libel, and outright lies that orgs like Stop Porn Culture and people like you throw at them.

And Number Two, Gail….only someone as ignorant about American politics as you would even think of equating the most right-wing, religious fundamentalist political organization with a scattered group of performers using a free blog and a protest outside your conference. But then again, you’re a woman who thinks that consensual BDSM sex warrants sending in the United Nations.

A bit of digging around reveals that S&C, rather than being an authentic grassroots organization, is actually an industry-driven Astroturf group with fake grassroots. S&C is the brainchild of Jerry Barnett, who was described by the BBC in 2008 as “the boss of the UK’s biggest adult website”, and is now chairman of the Adult Industry Trade Association. Given Barnett’s porn industry background and backers, it is not surprising that S&C is particularly concerned with limiting governmental regulation. According to the website, “We aim to reach out to journalists and politicians and ensure that scare stories are not used to introduce yet more laws and regulations….”

Leave it to Gail to define what is “astroturf” and what is authentic…especially since we kow nothing about how Stop Porn Culture is funded….though considering that Gail has now gone all-in on the “sexual trafficking”/anti-sex work “abolitionist” movement that is directly funded through corporate NGO’s and wealthy folk (like, for instance, the Hunt sisters), you have to wonder whether the real issue is “not our Astroturf”.

And yeah….owning the UK’s biggest website certainly makes you the equivalent of the Koch brothers or Richard Mellon Scaife or ALEC, right??

Last month, New York Senator Chuck Schumer criticized the Tea Party for being funded by wealthy, selfish, narrow-minded people who “don’t want government interfering with their companies no matter what damage their companies may do to their workers, to the environment or to anybody else.” He could have been talking about the porn industry here, because it has willfully put porn performers at risk by fighting measures in the US to enforce condom use. Although studies have found that STDs are rampant in the industry, the industry treats the performers as contract workers, so it doesn’t have to pay health insurance or any other benefits.

Ahhhh….no, Professor Dines, not even close. The issues with the condom mandate is not that the industry opposes condom usage, it’s that the mandate’s forcing condoms down performers’ throats and removing of the current testing/screening system that has worked in curtailing HIV/STI outbreaks would be a far greater threat to performers and fans. But, by all means, Gail, keep quoting the AIDS Healthcare Foundation propaganda as your new standard, and avoid the actual facts.

Also…so funny that Dines is so quick to attack porn companies for not providing health care benefits as “employees” rather than “contract workers”, but has nothing whatsoever to say about her allies not even allowing their employees to form unions to protect their rights and benefits. Or, for that matter, even empowering performers themselves to organize to protect their benefits.

The similarities between the Tea Party and S&C became most apparent last week when the group placed Stop Porn Culture in the crosshairs of their rifle by organizing a protest of our first UK conference on March 15th. Adopting the now-predictable Astroturf method of inverting reality, S&C framed Stop Porn Culture, an educational group dedicated to raising consciousness about the effects of porn, as a group working to ban and censor porn, and to “shut down debate.” This claim reeks of hypocrisy, coming from a group whose purpose is to shut down any criticism of the industry and to disrupt our educational conference!

Oh, gee, Gail, why would we thing that of your organization?? I mean, surely SPC has never, ever endorsed censorship in any way, right?? You mean, your stated support for forcing ISP’s to filter out adult content and force those adults wanting such to “opt-in” through registration with the government (thus opening them up to not only abusive spam and selective harassment, but potential blackmail) isn’t a form of censorship?? Or, your attempt to intimidate the Radisson Hotel for hosting an adult business conference (XBiz EU)?? Orrrrr…your campaign to put down the Porn Studies Journal for being insufficiently antiporn?? Or, 3ven…your continuous crackbacks at “feminist porn” advocates/producers and the journalists who enable them?? And, let’s not begin to bring up “The Price of Pleasure“, OK??

What makes this protest’s methods so like those of the Tea Party is the way S&C adopts standard corporate political strategy by claiming to act on behalf of workers to mask the interests of capitalist elites. S&C is calling the protest “Don’t Censor Me! Performers and Models protest in London,” and is trying to mobilize porn performers to protest against Stop Porn Culture. Astroturf groups’ manipulating workers to protect corporate interests is a tried-and-true tactic that has worked especially well for the fossil fuel industries.

“Mobilize porn performers”??? You mean, Gail, that porn performers are so mindless that they can’t protest on their very own accord against your libelous bullshit? That, they can only speak through the tainted money of the evil Porn Capitalist Complex??? So, if porn performers don’t accept your condemnation of them, Gail, they are merely “manipulated”?? Gotcha.

If the porn industry wants to protest our conference, then fine…. But have the guts to send the producers, owners and distributors who get rich from porn—not the contract employees who make next to nothing. There is something especially manipulative and cowardly about the porn industry and its shills hiding behind the most exploited of women, who are at daily risk of bodily injury, STDs, and emotional and physical abuse.

Ah, yes….back to the old “prostituted women” meme, now extended to include porn performers who obviously are too stupid or too horny to realize how “prostituted” they really are. The idea of porn performers actually organizing to get more of the pie by attacking piracy from tube sites or organizing unions/performer guilds to pool their resources?? An alien idea to an “anticapitalist” like Dines. Like their “prostituted” sisters, the only choice is either: convert to the radicalfeminist hivemind, or lose your livelihood through the “Nordic”/”Swedish” Model legislation punishing men for their erections (and by extension, women who make money off male erections and female damp panties).

One of the ironies of this carefully choreographed circus by the S&C is that the very same weekend, across the pond in Virginia, pro-porners will be holding their own conference called Catalystcon. No feminist anti-porn groups will be protesting this conference because, unlike S&C, we believe in the right of individuals to speak freely. As much as we oppose the views held by most of the presenters at this conference, we refuse to adopt Tea Party strategies to silence those we disagree with.

Oh, pull to the muthaeffin’ LEEEZE, Gail….like you had even heard of CatalystCon before you planned your conference in London, and like you wouldn’t have, if given the choice, attempted to intimidate that meeting.

And allow me to remind you of this: the SaC protest would take place OUTSIDE of the convention where SPC would convene. There would be NO interference, no interruptions, no attempt to intervene and halt SPC’s seminars. In other words, not quite the attempt of “silencing” that Professor Dines would have you believe.

And, finally….I’m real sure that Dee Dennis (the former Diva) would truly agree with your assertion of her conference as  for “proporners”.

Here’s how Gail wraps up her rant:

What we do protest are porn-industry-based conferences because—not withstanding the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, or Mitt Romney’s famous 2011 statement that “Corporations are people, my friend”—protesting corporations is not the same as protesting individuals or non-profit groups. As a non-profit educational group, Stop Porn Culture will not be bullied by the porn industry or their front groups. We ask porn performers to see us, not the industry, as allies, because our goal is to radically restructure this society that allows men to get rich off the commodification of our bodies.

Because, you see, because Stop Porn Culture is non-profit, they are totally immune from accountability for their misstatements and outright lies about porn performers; and they are only crusaders against the power of corporate money and influence. Funny, but where was that sentiment in 2009, Gail, when you and Shelley Lubben shared the dais with Patrick Trueman at the Congressional Luncheon? Or, when you joined the very antifeminist Witherspoon Institute in spouting the “porn addiction” meme for SPC’s website??

This really makes me want to see SPC’s tax records to see whether or not they really are taking corporate money…and considering their alliances with the “sex-trafficking” abolition movement, I’m sure that the money is practically flowing like the Mississippi River into their coffers right about now. Show us the 501(c), Gail!!!

That CounterPunch seems fit to continue to pass Gail Dines on as a legitimate progressive, yet continue to deny legitimate progressive sex workers the same decency of a rebuttal (Hello, Jeremy?? You still have Nina’s email on your eRolodex, right??) says wonders abut the dominant Left blogosphere’s LACK of thought about sexuality and freedom of expression. Seriously, CP…get it right or shut it down.

Well….turns out, they listened for a change. Sex and Censorship’s Jerry Barnett posted a rebuttal to Dines…and CounterPunch actually had the stones to post it. Well done, CP…but only a start. Nina still awaits. Me, too, for that matter.

Also….XBiz gets in on the story with their usual perspective and context. Check them out, too.

Afternote: I just noticed that Gail, in her attempt to move into Michael Weinstein and AHF’s astroturf, linked to the infamous UCLA/CalOSHA study of STI’s in porn released in 2012 and used by AHF as the foundation for their condom mandate campaign. Of course, only those of us addicted to the Porn Capitalist Complex would notice that it is complete bunk, based on cooked stats that treat multiple treatments of the same performer for STI’s as seperate infections; and justifies the condom mandate not for actual protection, but as a means of “mentoring”.  Nice try, though, Professor.

Afternote #2: If you have time, people, go over to the Facebook page of Sex and Censorship and get a load of the attempted comment bomb by some of Gail’s/SPC’s peeps in response to SaC’s protest. It will illuminate your brain as to how they respond to constructive criticism.