The Deep Throat and Catherine McKinnon
| February 10th, 2005
The 1970’s porn movie Deep Throat is coming to movie theaters near you:
Deep Throat,” the infamous 1972 adult film that led to a government crackdown on pornography, is being re-released in theaters as a new generation of lawmakers wages a renewed assault on smut, trade paper Daily Variety reported in its Tuesday edition.The release of the Linda Lovelace opus, which was banned at the time in 23 states, coincides with the premiere of the documentary “Inside Deep Throat,” which hits theaters in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Boston on Friday.
The original film, which was made in six days for $25,000 and has grossed over $600 million, will not be ready until at least Feb. 18, the paper said. Las Vegas-based Arrow Prods., which owns the rights to the mob-funded “Deep Throat,” started striking 10 prints on Monday, it added. Five of the prints will be edited to garner an “R” rating, which allows admission to children aged under 17 if accompanied by an adult.
The media reports I have read seem to present the relaunch as yet another battle between the freedom of expression gang and those who want to ban pornography, and every one of them so far has taken the side of the freedom of expression. This is not that surprising. Porn is everywhere today and things which were seen as shocking in the early 1970’s are no longer so. That porn, and especially violent and misogynistic porn, might directly or indirectly hurt some women is not a hot topic in the mainstream media, and neither is the possibility that plentiful supply of porn geared towards the sexual desires of mostly men might lead to a distorted view of women’s sexual needs and the expected sexual behavior of women. Instead, when something sexual provokes wider outrage this tends to be about the consequences of porn to its unintended viewers, such as children. The Janet Jackson breast episode is a good example of what the media might address.
All this explains the treatment of Catherine McKinnon’s comments about the movie. She participated in a panel discussion at the New York premiere of Inside the Deep Throat, a documentary about the movie, and she appears to have been the one on the panel who was most vigorously arguing the unpopular points about porn’s possible effects. This is how she was written up later on:
Mitchell looked on helplessly as McKinnon did her thing, claiming that the film we had just watched was promoting the acceptance of rape. At one point, however, her righteous zeal became unhinged when she claimed that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis. “What’s so funny?” she snapped as the audience rippled with mirth. Todd Graff’s hand shot up - “I can do it,” he said, and the room echoed with a chorus of gay men going “me too!” (Gigi Grazer - wife of Brian - later told Graff to stop bragging and that she could do it better than him and had the rocks on her fingers to prove it. Touché). But La McKinnon was not to be discouraged; she claimed that emergency rooms were filled with women victims of throat rape, not to mention the ones who hadnt even made it that far and had died in the act.
Former New York Times movie critic Elvis Mitchell moderated, and the group consisted of HarperCollins publisher and controversy lightning rod Judith Regan, journalist Peter Boyer, famed criminal defense attorney Alan Dershowitz and feminist professor Catherine McKinnon.The latter, who turned out be quite mad, I thought, immediately coined the phrase “throat rape” about what happened on screen to the movie’s late star, Linda Lovelace.
That declaration produced hissing, and a few laughs, from the audience.
McKinnon, infamously known in intellectual circles as the “feminist censor,” does not often appear before mainstream audiences. Her “partner in crime” is the militant feminist Andrea Dworkin, who was not among us.
“Inside Deep Throat” producer Brian Grazer’s hair was already standing straight up. More of McKinnon’s theories might have made it curl.
And so on. In other words, Catherine McKinnon is viewed as an extremist, someone quite removed from mainstream ideas, someone who is a safe object for general ridicule. Yet I could list many current commentators whose views are more extremist in some other directions and who still get accorded both respect and a place in public debate. Consider Ann Coulter’s proposal to nuke Islamic countries and to convert them to Christianity or Michelle Malkin’s views on detention camps as a good way to prevent terrorism. To name the men whose ideas are even more outrageous would take me the rest of this post. Clearly, some extreme views are more acceptable than others.
But what does McKinnon really say? The anti-feminist websites tend to have a field day picking out isolated comments from her writings, all of which are intended to show how unreasonable McKinnon is, and sometimes her name is used in debates to tar all feminists with the same brush of freakiness. This is partly McKinnon’s own fault. She likes to use strong statements as a rhetorical device, and they do work to draw attention to what she is saying. But they tend to do this only in a superficial sense and seldom lead to an extended discussion of what her actual arguments are. Or this is what I believe. Though using careful phrazing is not as exciting to begin with, it tends to turn fewer listeners off and ultimately results in a more fruitful discussion.
Consider the often heard argument that McKinnon compares all heterosexual sex to rape. I read the book in which this idea is discussed before I was aware of McKinnon’s mythological proportions among the anti-feminists, and this let me interpret her arguments quite differently. Not necessarily agree with them, but to see what her point might be, and to me it was that if sexuality is defined by purely patriarchal standards women living in patriarchy are unaware of their true sexual desires and needs and therefore cannot in a fundamental sense make free choices to engage in sex. This may not be the reading that McKinnon intends, but it’s quite a different reading from the one which equates voluntary sex with rape. Even more generally, McKinnon writes theory and to understand her arguments one must understand the way she defines the concepts. Not that this excuses her use of the terms in public debates without proper definitions.
All this is background for my argument that when McKinnon called the events in the Deep Throat “throat rape” what she said was quite different from what the audience heard. Linda Lovelace, the actress performing in the movie, stated in her autobiography that swallowing a penis so deeply did not come naturally to her but needed a lot of practice. She also revealed that her then-partner and manager had used physical violence to control her during the making of the movie:
Unlike two earlier autobiographies, Ordeal was not a titillating affair, and the liberation Lovelace talked about was not sexual but deeply personal. Chuck Traynor was not her ‘creator’ as she had previously announced, but her abuser. She claimed that she had made Deep Throat under threat of physical harm, and explained that Traynor would use guns and knives to get his way. There was also a confession that some found ironic: on the set of the movie, Lovelace felt less threatened than she had before; the movie people were a creative family, and she drew strength from her new relationships. Traynor observed this, and would double his beatings.
The generous reading of McKinnon’s comments would take all this into account. But feminists seldom receive generous readings these days and radical feminists practically never, even when the point they are making is one that deserves wider discussion.
February 10th, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I’m not sure MacKinnon’s point is a good one, though, considering that the discussion was about the film and not about the making of the film. I do think she goes overboard sometimes, such as when she suggested that the rape camps in Bosnia were a result of the widespread use of pornography by Serbian men, without apparently considering that the pornography was symptomatic of the Serbians’ attitudes towards women and that the rape camps were the result of those attitudes combined with hatred of the Bosnians.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
I’ve read a few stories on this too, and most remarkable to me is the either complete elimination of Linda’s oft-given testimony that Deep Throat is a recording of her sexual torture and rape or its glossing over as when the NYTimes put it as “Ms. Lovelace claimed she had been coerced into appearing in the film”
http://nytimes.com/2005/02/09/movies/09thro.html
Everyone else in the article “says” or “cites” or “adds”, but only the now-dead rape victim “claims”.
claimed she was coerced
said (wrote, testified in court) that she was raped
What’s in a word?
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 3:59 pm
Poor Catherine MacKinnon. So privileged. So clumsy with words. So misandrist. So misunderstood.
She wants to make a career out of hating men. She gets what she deserves. It’s called karma, d00d.
This comment was written by Fleezil.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:06 pm
By “she gets what she deserves,” you mean she gets an enourmously successful legal and academic career, and widespread respect within her field?
Gosh, you’re right - MacKinnon has gotten what she deserves. Or, rather, the due she’s earned.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I want to comment on zuzu’s assertion about Bosnia.
Chris Hedges, foriegn correspondent from the NY Times in Bosnia and other wars and author of the book “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning” was on KBOO radio last year and he said that within 24 hours of war breaking out in Bosnia pornography sales soared and shelves of pornography were emptied.
You may discount the “if a then b” one-way directional flow of pornography’s effects if you want, and since few things in the world are so clearly unidirectional that would be sensible, but there’s much evidence supporting increased porn usage in militarized cultures (like the modern US) and increased amounts of sexual torture (like genocidal rape) in war, so porn obviously plays some important psychological role in war zones where it’s available and that’s not unconnected to increased sexual violence in war zones.
Of course, Hedges is “allowed” to publicly say such things about pornography and the Bosnian war and MacKinnon isn’t despite her world-changing work on behalf of women’s legal rights.
This is written on the back of MacKinnon’s just out new book, “Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws”, which I’m reading currently and enjoying immensely:
“MacKinnon is a figure of singular importance for the history of feminist thought and for its present. Before MacKinnon, there was no legally usable concept of sexual harassment. Now in any law library there are shelves of publications developing her ideas. Before her work, sexual advances in the workplace were not typically seen to involve an asymmetry of power (although they always did involve this, and women knew it). Now even the most conservative judge will use MacKinnon’s framework of analysis in adjudicating cases. Before MacKinnon, again, issues of sexual equality were commonly dealt with by saying “equals to equals, unequals to unequals” - so if a difference could be shown between women and men, for example that only women get pregnant, not providing employees with pregnancy insurance did not constitute sex discrimination. After MacKinnon the concept of equality was understood in terms of a different antonym - subordination, second-class citizenship. Before MacKinnon, the law of obscenity focused on the alleged offensiveness of the sexy. Now even those who do not agree with her practical proposals agree that issues of violence, subordination, and abuse must be central in coming to grips with the problem of pornography. Finally, it is to a considerable extent due to MacKinnon’s influence that sexual abuse of women is now regarded as a major human rights violation internationally. In short, as even critics of her views will readily agree, there is no single person who has done more to change the course of American law. She is among the century’s most important thinkers, and I can think of none whose theoretical work has done more to improve human well being.”
–Martha Nussbaum, author of “Cultivating Humanity”
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:31 pm
Mac has earned my utmost admiration. Yes, her success and her ability to change the face of debate nationally reflects her hard work and great intellect.
[Post edited by Amp.]
This comment was written by Fleezil.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:34 pm
Also, I am a very privileged person whining about how ‘oppressed’ I am. How lame and pathetic. Of course, anti-feminist bigots of either sex will support hatemongers like myself. That I consider anything I say worth reading or posting just shows that I need to spend more time baking yummy goodies.
I think I’ll go bake a chocolate cake now. Perhaps a layer cake, with pudding. Yum!
[Content altered by Ampersand]
This comment was written by Fleezil.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:51 pm
1. Where is the disclosure that Echidne owns a store that sells porn? Did the Maggie debate teach us anything?
This comment was written by d.2. The lady’s name is MacKinnon, not McKinnon. Strange to behold someone who has really read any significant amount of feminist discussion about porn get something like that wrong.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 4:54 pm
Fleezil, do you have any rational points to make, any logical analysis, or a coherent argument about pornography, women, and the media? Or did you just want to spend your time throwing a temper tantrum about MacKinnon and prove Echide right?
Oh, wait. Don’t bother. Your posts speak for themselves.
This comment was written by Sheelzebub.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 5:41 pm
Fleezil, you’ve made your point. Now please stop posting on my website, ever again. Thanks.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 6:53 pm
Wait. I had assumed, that since we are all doing the Deep Throat nostalgia bit, that Linda Lovelace had retracted her statements that the film is the document of her sexual torture. Now you are telling me that this is not the case, and all this publicity is going on with the complete elision of this fact? I feel sick.
Well, sexual torture seems to be the rage these days. Woe to our country.
I only listen to critics of MacKinnon who have actually read and understood her work. She approaches the topic of pornography from an atypical perspective, so her views are not likely to coincide with any conventional wisdom, but she’s not the lunatic she is so often excoriated as being.
For that reason, when I read this account of her comments, I’m fairly confident that she’s being misrepresented yet again.
On the substantive question of pornography, I am not sure that sexual explicitness per se is deleterious (it probably isn’t). But take a look at the content of your typical pornography some time, and tell me that the vast majority of it doesn’t say some truly messed up things, not just about women and what women want in sex, but also about what is sexy, what men ought to find sexy, and how sexual relationships ought to be. I know some people say, “Well, we know it’s fantasy, it just gets us off, we can tell the difference.” Maybe they can. I hope they can. But I know that a lot of people are consuming a LOT of porn, and consuming any form of media in large quantities will have an effect on you.
I recently got a spam email advertising a video tape that teaches you how to satisfy your boyfriend by deep throating. What kind of relationships are people having that if they want to experiment with a technique, they have to learn it from TV rather than play with their partners?
This comment was written by Melissa O.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 7:46 pm
I have no objection to pornography that is produced by consenting adults. I have a very big objection to documentation of sexual crimes being glorified in any way. Are we going to let the Heidl film be distributed as well? This film should never be shown because it was a part of numerous criminal acts. It isn’t about censorship. It’s about not allowing sexual predators to profit from glorification of their crimes.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 8:02 pm
Morgaine, I think part of the problem is that the line between crime and consent is often blurred by coercion, making the choice of what “should” be shown to have a rather large blurry area. Just to pick on “Bang Bus” (I hope I’m getting the name right), is that criminal? Is it degrading? Should degradation be criminal? How does one prove consent in a film?
Here’s an interesting article from feministing:
This comment was written by wookie.http://feministing.com/archives/000545.html
Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 8:38 pm
True, but in the case of Deep Throat, the star has stated that she was performing at gunpoint and suffered physical and psychological abuse throughout. Sorry, I’m not familiar with the other reference you made.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 10th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
I followed the link, and left a detailed response over there. As I said, the intent of “bang bus” makes it criminal. The women in question don’t know the actual intent. How do you prove consent? Well, a signed release and a check payable to an actress is a start.
Any form of deception surrounding a sexual encounter should be criminal. It shouldn’t be legal for a guy to tell a girl he’s single if he is, in fact, married. It shouldn’t be legal to tell a woman you are faithful and then father a child with someone else. Women should have legal recourse in those cases.
It shouldn’t be legal to film people without their consent except in public places. It isn’t legal to stalk unsuspecting women to degrade them on film. That’s Conspiracy to Rape. My opinion is that if the man has that intention at the outset, the woman can’t consent. Any act that takes place is non-consensual because he has pre-meditated an exploititve act without her knowledge.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 1:12 am
At one point, however, her righteous zeal became unhinged when she claimed that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis. “What’s so funny?”? she snapped as the audience rippled with mirth. Todd Graff’s hand shot up - “I can do it,”? he said, and the room echoed with a chorus of gay men going “me too!”? (Gigi Grazer - wife of Brian - later told Graff to stop bragging and that she could do it better than him and had the rocks on her fingers to prove it. Touché).
Haven’t seen the movie + not familiar with CM’s writings, so this is just a guess. Since even controlled fellatio will elicit a gag reflex, I think CM was pointing out that situations where the woman doesn’t [can’t] have control over the fellatio act can be dangerous. Mentioning this, when discussing a fellatio movie, isn’t righteous zeal or a sign of becom[ing ] unhinged. It simply denotes an understanding of anatomy and physiology. On the other hand, the anecdote about TG, GG, and a number of men in the room having a hypoactive gag reflex, or being desensitized speaks poorly of the reporter’s understanding of the topic under discussion. [People, even accomplished fellators, have to work at overriding the gag reflex.]
This comment was written by ema.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 4:02 am
From the articles I gather that Linda Lovelace was forced to perform fellatio in the movie Deep Throat. This is an outright crime, for which the responsible must be punished.
Now the question seems to be: can the movie Deep Throat be showed in theathers? This is a tough question; can you show a movie whose creation required a criminal act (and which, to certain degree, glorifies this crime)? The three possible answers I can think of are,
a) Yes. All movies should be able to be shown, given freedom of speech.
b) No. You can’t show movies whose creation required a criminal act.
c) We should ask Linda Lovelace’s permission about wether or not to show the movie, given that the crime was, in the end, performed on *her*.
The closest analogy that comes to mind would be snuff, so a) seems extremely unlikely. The liberal in me favors c) , although I wouldn’t find b) bad either.
This comment was written by Mikko.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 5:37 am
Chris Hedges, foriegn correspondent from the NY Times in Bosnia and other wars and author of the book “War is a Force That Gives Us Meaning”? was on KBOO radio last year and he said that within 24 hours of war breaking out in Bosnia pornography sales soared and shelves of pornography were emptied.
You may discount the “if a then b”? one-way directional flow of pornography’s effects if you want, and since few things in the world are so clearly unidirectional that would be sensible, but there’s much evidence supporting increased porn usage in militarized cultures (like the modern US) and increased amounts of sexual torture (like genocidal rape) in war, so porn obviously plays some important psychological role in war zones where it’s available and that’s not unconnected to increased sexual violence in war zones.
I do discount the “if a then b” as stated. After all, the sales of pornography soared after the violence started, not the other way around. And you can be sure that there was violence against and oppression of women in the culture — if not on such an organized and wide scale — prior to the availability of porn. In the article I read, and I admit that it’s been quite a while, she made the “if a then b” link, which I found simplistic, given the simmering ethnic/racial hatred of the region and the fact that one of the purposes of the camps were to “breed out” the Bosnians by impregnating Bosnian women with Serbian sperm. That’s a very old strategy, far predating porn.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 8:14 am
Deep Throat
This comment was written by SIVACRACY.NET: Siva Vaidhyanathan's Weblog.Echidne of the Snakes talks about the re-release of the movie Deep Throat from a feminist perspective at Alas, A Blog. It’s quite interesting, focusing in part on the work of Catharine McKinnon. I watched Deep Throat many years ago…
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 10:51 am
1. Where is the disclosure that Echidne owns a store that sells porn? Did the Maggie debate teach us anything?
2. The lady’s name is MacKinnon, not McKinnon. Strange to behold someone who has really read any significant amount of feminist discussion about porn get something like that wrong.
1. I don’t sell porn. But I’m planning to sell t-shirts with snakes peeking out of the armpits, so check my blog in a few months if you want to buy one!
2. I get lots of things wrong with the English language. It’s not my first language. The Mc/Mac thing is something about whether it comes from Ireland or Scotland?
3. You have a good critical approach here.
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 11:23 am
“After all, the sales of pornography soared after the violence started”
No, it sold like hotcakes *concurrently* with the official announcement of the war’s escalation. There was much violence in the area before the offical announcement, but it was the announcement that brought the immediate surge in porn consumption.
Why?
No one thinks average, non-raping men in Bosnia bought porn by the truckloads as the war began then became rapists during the war because of it. Why did men’s consumption of misogynist, degrading pornography increase so dramatically as they mentally prepared themselves for the coming destruction and chaos of war? Why did a not-feminist war correspondent feel this point was worth bringing up in a radio interview when speaking of the impact the outbreak of the Bosian war had on people there?
“she made the “if a then b”? link, which I found simplistic”
I have read and am currently reading MacKinnon, and if there is one adjective that absolutely doesn’t define her theories it is simplistic.
There was lung cancer before filtered cigarettes, too, but a sharp spike in sales as people mentally prepare themselves for an announced war is worth noting by addictions researchers.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 11:45 am
How in the blogosphere did I get that idea in my head?
My humblist apologies, Echidne.
This comment was written by d.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
lso, I am a very privileged person whining about how ‘oppressed’ I am. How lame and pathetic. Of course, anti-feminist bigots of either sex will support hatemongers like myself. That I consider anything I say worth reading or posting just shows that I need to spend more time baking yummy goodies.
I think I’ll go bake a chocolate cake now. Perhaps a layer cake, with pudding. Yum!
[Content altered by Ampersand]
Was this intended for me? I am not quite sure, but I am indeed a very privileged person compared to the vast majority of human beings. And so are probably all of us who have access to the internet. Chocolate cakes are excellent, by the way. You should try baking one and eating it with a really good friend.
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
See, to me the increased use of porn suggests a lot of young men in an all-male environment (without women to court or have sex with). This still leaves the possibility of a link to sexual violence, particularly if the porn in question fed negative views of women. And of course, that last seems disturbingly likely. But we still have no clear proof. Given MacKinnon’s history of backing unconstitutional censorship, you can see why people might take a skeptical view of her arguments.
How does one prove consent in a film?
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.To satisfy the cops, you mean? Because in court, the prosecution has the burden of proof.
Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Never mind the legality, let’s talk about what’s right and what’s wrong. Look, I enjoy porn now and again, but I have no desire to see “Deep Throat.” With or without the horrifying accusations Lovelace made about the methods used to make her film it, the supposedly playful theme of the movie is that this woman has a clitoris in her throat.
That’s two big strikes against it, as far as I’m concerned, and two strikes which should be mentioned in any responsible discussion of the film’s rerelease. There are men and women who enjoy performing oral sex, and some who enjoy deep throat, but none of them enjoy it because of stimulation leading to orgasm. It’s about pleasuring a partner, or it’s about oral fixation, or it’s about fantasy and power or any number of things. I’ve always found the idea of “Deep Throat” the movie to be disturbing because it promotes a lie; it gives the idea that deep throat can be pleasurable for the wrong reasons.
I’ve never read MacKinnon, but my sense of her has been that her ideas are sounder than they seem when just turned into slogans and soundbites. That might not make her the best person to put on a panel discussion about pornography, but she doesn’t deserve the vitriol spewed her way, either. But, what do you expect these days? Ideas that are at all complex don’t get a lot of attention from people who want their minds made up fast.
This comment was written by Steve Pick.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 12:50 pm
D, you might have mixed up Echidne with flea at One Good Thing maybe?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
Oh, I don’t plan to see it and I strongly doubt I’d've re-released it. But MacKinnon’s history introduces the issue of law and censorship.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 1:14 pm
“After all, the sales of pornography soared after the violence started”?
No, it sold like hotcakes *concurrently* with the official announcement of the war’s escalation. There was much violence in the area before the offical announcement, but it was the announcement that brought the immediate surge in porn consumption.
That still doesn’t prove the point MacKinnon made in the article I read, which was that the pornography led to the violence. As you acknowledge, there was violence before that, and only when war was officially announced did porn sales spike. That seems to me not to be a causal factor but a concurrent one.
By the way, Amp, I hate you for making me do math problems.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 1:15 pm
Dammit!
Now your comments are doing weird things with tags, too.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
“That still doesn’t prove the point MacKinnon made in the article I read, which was that the pornography led to the violence.”
I think you probably misread. I’m reading her writings on this issue and I don’t see anywhere this notion that “first there was porn, then there was genocidal rape” any more than she ever said “first there was porn, then there was rape”. It’s my experience that nothing having to do with sexual violence is ever so perfectly clear cut or leaves a bread criumb trail back to The One True Source, but that’s not what I see MacKinnon says.
You should give her more credit than to believe her theories are this preposterously “if p then q” facile.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 2:36 pm
You know, that Nussbaum quote hits the nail on the head, as it were. Mackinnon is one of those writers (perhaps like a Stanley Hauerwas, or a Peter Singer), who takes outrageous positions and in the process of defending them, forces all of us to rethink basic issues of justice. I’ve been a fan of hers for years — though I vehemently disagree with her proposed remedies, I also find her diagnoses to be apt.
This comment was written by Hugo.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 2:39 pm
I don’t “believe her theories” in general are anything, Samantha. I’m not sure what you’re reading, but I don’t think we’ve read the same thing. Perhaps the writings you’re referring to are of a more recent vintage of the one I am, which is from 1993, before the true scope of the atrocities were known. She may have amended her theories since then, but I remember being struck by the chicken-and-egg quality of her argument at the time I read it, which was when it came out.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
I’m not a fan of MacKinnon or Dworkin. I haven’t studied them enough to speak with authority, but my knowledge of their work includes a sense that they encouraged and even drafted censorship laws, and I am opposed to censorship in any form. When there is violence, have laws against violence, but not against expression. As civil libertarian Aryeh Neier said: “Those who call for censorship in the name of the oppressed ought to recognize it is never the oppressed who determine the bounds of censorship.” And while there is dispute over whether MacKinnon encouraged Canadian censorship that ended up backfiring, it is a concern.
Additionally, it appears to me that that the MacKinnon/Dworkin school is dangerously close to sliding (clear around to the far right) into paternalism in that it promotes a view of women as victim needing protection (even from themselves and their own desires), rather than promoting a view of empowerment.
While I have no studies to point to, my sense from years of watching the news and reading case law is that oppressive religion that teaches shame while suppressing sexuality is far more a factor in violence to women than pornography is.
Finally, although my knowledge of feminism is limited, I admire the work of Avedon Carol, Nadine Strossen, and also Feminists for Free Expression http://www.ffeusa.org/
This comment was written by Pete Guither.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
zuzu, you had two beginning italics and only one ending italic code in one post. Everything after that came out in italics. I fixed it. I hope you don’t mind.
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 3:14 pm
Pete, let me put this gently. Lots of men like the work of Feminists for Free Expression and Nadine Strossen (whose work I know well). One key reason: if porn is positive for women, then “nice guys” can enjoy it guilt-free! Hurrah! Pro-porn feminists sanction sexual self-indulgence for men; Mackinnon and others call men to accountability and transformation. No wonder she is so vilified.
I’m not suggesting that your reasons for liking the pro-porn feminists are anything other than purely intellectual. But please know that many men have an ulterior motive for embracing the Feminists for Free Expression of the world!
This comment was written by Hugo.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 3:47 pm
MacKinnon wasn’t on a quest to censor porn as she wasn’t requesting that the government force pornographers out of business.
She sought to allow people who have been harmed by a product to sue the makers of the product that harmed them, to allow women to make their cases in court about how porn has harmed them and may be harming others. Why shouldn’t women have a chance to make their case in court and, if successfully proven harmful, have the harmful product removed from the marketplace just as other harmful products are?
These aren’t unreasonable goals, but just as Hooters calls its food-serving waitresses ‘entertainers’ to avoid gender discrimination labor laws, so too do pornographers hide this mass-produced product behind empty claims of artistic merit and political speech to avoid laws that have often ruled certain products in the workplace constitute gender discrimination. Women fought hard for sexual harassment laws and the right to a discrimination free workplace, now more women are fighting hard for sexual harassment laws and the right to discrimination free public and private places.
There is the unfortunate neoliberal misconception that free markets are the best kind, that the economic marketplace has the ability to regulate itself through the cause and effects of competition, supply and demand. Is Walmart really the world’s largest private employer because they are “better” than other companies? In light of the evident failures of free marketism to produce diverse, consumer-driven and fair business practices, how well should the free marketplace of ideas fare under the same laissez faire system? Why wouldn’t we expect the same opportunistic consolidations, narrowing of the agenda, money equals the right to speech, more powerful trampling of the less powerful?
Pornography isn’t free speech, it is costly speech manufactured by corporations who market their products aggressively and profit enormously. Am I supposed to believe that in this so-called democracy the weight of my antiporn speech is the same as Hugh Hefner’s pro-porn speech and the free marketplace of ideas will triumphantly, evenhandedly let the best, most viable and most socially responsible ideas rise to the top? Martin Luther King, Jr. once mentioned it is unfair to start a black man 300 years late into a race and expect him to compete equally with the white frontrunners, and I think of that when told by my progressive peers that economic, political, sexual, and social gender oppressions faced by women for thousands of years are no noteworthy hinderance to the participation of women’s voices and opinions in prostitution and pornstitution. I am told all voices are equal and the free marketplace of ideas will sort it all out for the best in the end.
Missing from the discussion is how the ideas of an oppressed, objectified people whose very bodies are needed to create the ’speech’ of wealthy men could ever be able to begin to compete with the privileged big boys in this stacked system.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 4:03 pm
By Steve: the supposedly playful theme of the movie is that this woman has a clitoris in her throat.
Uh, Steve - this was a fantasy element, not meant to be taken literally; I have seen the movie, and that was presented as an anomaly of the character, not as an anatomical fact. The movie was intended to be a comedy, not a biology lesson.
DT was, in fact, different from its predecessors in an important thematic way: the sexual satisfaction of the female protagonist was the issue; unlike the run-of-the-mill porn movie, male pleasure was not of paramount importance.
Given that Traynor was frequently sent away from the set, Lovelace’s tales of being forced to work at gunpoint beggar belief. Was she manipulated by him? Certainly, but it should be noted that her subsequent tales of violent abuse only surfaced after her failed foray into mainstream movie making, when she was fading into obscurity. At the time that she turned state’s evidence in the obscenity trials, she could easily have asked for protection and pressed charges against Traynor; she did not - and any DA would have been happy to prosecute him, if only for the publicity. Becoming the darling of the anti-pornography movement made her famous again. [Am I cynical? Oh, definitely…]
I sincerely hope MacKinnon doesn’t truly believe ‘that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis’. That’s an idiotic assertion, unsupported by fact. [Hasn’t the woman ever seen a sword-swallower? Practice, practice…] She damages what credibilty she has with comments such as that.
It should be noted that I am not a fan of MacKinnon; I believe that she is the architect of the woman-as-victim model that weakens women - if she had striven to play into a patriarchal vision, she could not have done more damage to our gender. Her involvement with the discredited Meese Commission and her effective support of Donald Wildmon, founder of American Family Association, a conservative pro-censorship group, was intolerable, and gave ammunition to organisations whose mission it is now to destroy any pretext of adequate sex education for American youth. [Ironically, the law she influenced in Canada caused one of Andrea Dworkin’s books to be banned there…]
Frankly, if people wish to become activists against female exploitation in pornography, it would be better to focus on that industry in countries like Brazil. Conditions in Brazil are a frightening contrast to the American industry, with not even feeble attempts at safer-sex practices, starvation wages and no pretence of vetting the ages of their actresses.
This comment was written by Kait Williams.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 4:22 pm
A major problem is that the implementation of anti-porn and obscenity laws is going to be in the hands of Christofascists and their neocon fellow travelers.
Would you trust Alberto Gonzales to tell you what was appropriate for adults to read or view?
There is also a serious causation problem with MacKinnon’s proposed tort against porn producers allegedly causing rape. How can you determine which one of hundreds or thousands of tapes/DVDs was *the one* causing the criminal to do his deed? Do you assess industry-wide liability? (Then you have to determine what is porn, and then assess fines against both violent porn and Good Vibrations’ porn.)
This issue has been addressed; parents of children killed in a Kentucky school shooting sued the makers of the movie The Basketball Diaries because it supposedly prompted the crime. The judge dismissed the case, probably at the summary judgment level, citing precedent that media is not subject to product liability law, and that an individual’s criminal actions are unforeseeable.
There is a big difference between persuading people that they should avoid a particular work and advocating it be banned or subject to liability for imitation. The first I agree should be done; the second is censorship, and I think the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is one of the touchstones of badly fabricated law.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 5:22 pm
I remember reading an interview with Linda Lovelace back in the 70’s. She specifically stated that Traynor married her so that she could not testify against him; that she was physically and psychologically controlled and abused; and that there was an automatic weapon pointed at her most of the time she was filming. The details she told were horrendous, and it didn’t impress me as a person trying to save a career, it impressed me as a person who had been to hell and wanted to warn others about it.
I don’t agree with censorship either, but I’m not objecting to DT on basis of content. I’m objecting to it as being produced as a result of criminal activity. Would you let a serial killer who filmed his crimes sell copies of the film? Would you show it in a theatre? Of course not. I consider this the same thing.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 6:22 pm
A fascinating issue, and discussion. The issue of pornography and how it represents female sexuality is something I’ve always found alarming, but that’s pitched at odds with my strong belief in freedom of speech and expression. I don’t know where I’m left.
This comment was written by Le Driver.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
I certainly think that what was done to Lovelace sounds horrible, but on the more general issue of pornography, I think that this discussion generally is being had with the assumption that it’s overwhelmingly watched by men or something. I think it’s still mostly consumed by men, but far less lopsidedly than it used to be.. I think.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
February 11th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
Le Driver– maybe the same place I am - where nobody is getting hurt. They can depict anything they want, but at the point where we know a crime is being committed before the camera, we have to draw a line. Otherwise those evil kids out in California who filmed their gang rape of an underage girl could sell the tape and make a profit. Ugh.
Also, porn is obviously more mainstream now. I know that because they got away with joking about it on “FRIENDS”- ha ha. It’s still mostly a guy thing, though, especially the more hard core stuff.
Also let me point out that the scene in DT where the guys are drinking through a straw, the container inside her was made of glass. That woman was in every conceivable kind of danger.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 12:49 am
Morgaine - yes, I generally hold the view that people can consume what they like, as long nobody has been hurt and it doesn’t involve a criminal act. In the case of DT, it seems like someone was being hurt - and if the actress has claimed that she was abused on the set, then the film simply shouldn’t be shown.
As for the question of porn in general, if all parties are consenting adults, then there’s nothing that can (or should) be done. Still, I have doubts about its broader effects, the way in which it depicts male power, that a good woman should do all kinds of painful things to please her man, etc. If asked whether I thought it was good for the advancement of women, I would say no.
This comment was written by Le Driver.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 1:54 am
I agree, but there’s the reality of the bad sexual imprint that needs some form of outlet. I’d rather someone indulge a fantasy than act out a compulsion that had no other outlet.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 7:58 am
Morgaine said:
“Otherwise those evil kids out in California who filmed their gang rape of an underage girl could sell the tape and make a profit. Ugh.”
Knowing how our society works it’s a good bet that someone, somewhere will make a profit off that footage. Probably on the internet too, where it will live forever. Truly ugh.
This comment was written by DRA.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 9:49 am
Amp, I have to disagree with your conflation of several issues.
Yes, Mackinnon is vilified (as is every prominent feminist), and statements like ‘all heterosexual sex is rape’ are presented as things she has actually said.
Yes, the relationship between Linda Lovelace and Chuck Traynor was abusive. If you’ve ever read Ordeal, Lovelace had a lot of positive things to say about many of her co-workers, at least the ones who she didn’t think were lesbians.
But why do you think we should refrain from pointing out when Mackinnon isn’t reasonable? Using “strong statements as a rhetorical device” is just stupid, when the strong statements themselves are ridiculous, because it obscures any good points she might have. Anf I’m not quite as confident as you that she simply uses those rhetorical statements, Al Sharpton-like, as rhetoric.
I also have friends who attended her law classes at Michigan, so I admit I have a less charitable view of her than some might. I honor her achievements in reforming sexual-harassment litigation, but her pronouncements about what is Good and Bad for All Women are just nuts.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 10:12 am
I really need to fix the design to make the author of posts more explicit. This post was authored by Echidne, not by Amp. :-)
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 11:51 am
By the way, “Christofascists” is more than a little offensive. , even in today’s polemicized climate.
This comment was written by Hugo.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 12:29 pm
Doesn’t that refer to people who are fanatic devotees of the artist who just wrapped Central Park in saffron cloth? ;)
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 1:07 pm
This issue has been addressed; parents of children killed in a Kentucky school shooting sued the makers of the movie The Basketball Diaries because it supposedly prompted the crime. The judge dismissed the case, probably at the summary judgment level, citing precedent that media is not subject to product liability law, and that an individual’s criminal actions are unforeseeable.
There is a big difference between persuading people that they should avoid a particular work and advocating it be banned or subject to liability for imitation. The first I agree should be done; the second is censorship, and I think the obscenity exception to the First Amendment is one of the touchstones of badly fabricated law.
Thank you, Aaron.
Kait Williams: I sincerely hope MacKinnon doesn’t truly believe ‘that it was not possible to do deep throat safely, that it was a dangerous act that could only be done under hypnosis’. That’s an idiotic assertion, unsupported by fact.
Without a direct quote, we have no way to know if she actually said this.
Morgaine, as far as I know, we have not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the makers of DT committed a crime. Lovelace’s accusations disturb me — otherwise I wouldn’t make any decision about the film without having seen it — but I don’t see them as proof.
This comment was written by Omar K. Ravenhurst.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 1:41 pm
By Morgaine: She specifically stated that Traynor married her so that she could not testify against him
That isn’t how spousal privilege works in the legal arena. Essentially, one spouse cannot be forced to testify against the other re: actions committed, and communications between spouses during the marriage are sacrosanct. However, three of the exceptions allowing testimony by one spouse against another are:
1. Prosecution for crimes committed by one spouse against the other, or against the children of either;
2. Suits by one spouse against the other (e.g., a divorce);
3. Communications made for the purpose of planning or committing a crime.
Lovelace could have testified against Traynor without any problem.
that there was an automatic weapon pointed at her most of the time she was filming.
People who were on the set have stated unequivocally that that didn’t happen; Damiano said he sent Traynor away from the set because Traynor exhibited signs of jealousy during Lovelace’s scenes with Harry Reems, on whom she reputedly had a crush.
Lovelace certainly wasn’t the only actress in the porn industry who could perform fellatio at that level; it would have been idiotic for any producer to use someone who was being coerced at gunpoint.
IMX, reformed “sinners” tend to tilt wildly in the other direction - look at Norma McCorvey. An attempt to rehabilitate reputation often means demonising and over-exaggerating one’s past, in order to portray oneself as a completely innocent dupe/victim, when the reality would have been sufficient. Don’t get me wrong - I’m not defending Traynor, who was, by all reports, an asshole with a nasty temper who found himself a woman he could play Svengali with. But I find the rush to give credibilty to Lovelace’s more extreme assertions to reflect a disturbing lack of rational consideration.
This comment was written by Kait Williams.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
I don’t know the truth of Lovelace and Traynor’s relationship, but its entirely possible that Traynot thought marrying Lovelace would give him immunity from her testimony. It’s a fairly fine point of law, one that’s been mangled by the popular culture many times, so it’s not unreasonable for him to have had a false understanding of the rule.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
My understanding of spousal privelege, which is meager as I have not studied law, is that it is applied differently in different states. I believe that the case is that in some states not only can a spouse not be compelled to testify against the other, but is not permitted to testify at all. Someone please correct me if I am mistaken.
My position is that the final word rests with Ms. “Lovelace”? since it is film of her that is in question. I believe in such a case it would be preferable to err on the side of the “victim”? and I’m not going to be a stickler for proof that no crime has been committed. It might not be enough to prosecute, but it should be enough to prevent the distribution of the film. Again, I do not believe that is censorship. We are not talking about preventing anyone from expressing an idea. We are preventing the distribution of film to which the subject does not consent. It is a privacy issue, not a free speech issue.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 6:40 pm
Unfortunately, Linda Lovelace has passed and so there’s really no way to get her permission or not.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 6:44 pm
She testified in court that she was raped in the course of making the film, right?
Seems that what’s missing here is either a religious or feminist (or a religiously feminist) group with some cash to burn and a vicious lawyer or three. Get an injunction against the display of the film on the grounds that its evidence in a criminal matter. They wouldn’t win, but the proceedings could raise a stink about this shitty film, and maybe put some egg on the face of the isn’t-porn-chic media promoting it.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 8:19 pm
Mythago, sorry if I conflated the issues. Perhaps that was my point, in a minor way, that these issues are conflated in the so-called mainstream debates. In other words, a particular viewpoint is ridiculed when MacKinnon’s way of presenting it is ridiculed. I don’t know if she’s volunteering for these panels or if she is sought out by the organizers, and it would be interesting to know which the case might be. Is she picked for the way she is seen?
I don’t have the answers to this, but ridicule is an old trick that is used against opinions that one doesn’t wish to discuss.
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 9:09 pm
She’s a good debater. Very smart, very analytical. Even when she has wacked opinions, there’s still coherence. That might be why they pick her.
Lots of people have some wacked opinions but are still pretty smart.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
February 12th, 2005 at 10:43 pm
They wouldn’t win, but the proceedings could raise a stink about this shitty film
In other words, they’d be deliberately filing a frivolous lawsuit in order to stop the film from being shown. Anti-SLAPP laws, anyone?
Mackinnon is unquestionably smart and coherent. Echidne, the problem I see here is that while anti-feminists overblow her stupid stuff in order to paint her as irrational, you seem to be doing the opposite–minimizing outrageous or stupid statements in order to paint her as thoroughly reasonable. I note that as a law professor at Michigan, Mackinnon did not permit any taping of her lectures.
Oh, and on Traynor marrying her–Kait is correct. Lovelace may have been told by Traynor that marrying him disallowed her testimony against him, but that’s not the case. I know of no state where one spouse is FORBIDDEN to testify against the other. Spousal privilege means that one spouse can say “I refuse to offer testimony against my husband/wife.”
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 13th, 2005 at 7:28 am
I note that as a law professor at Michigan, Mackinnon did not permit any taping of her lectures.
That wasn’t really commonly done with any professor’s classes, though. Her class was only offered once while I was there (she was spending a lot of time in Connecticut, because she really wanted to be at Yale), but I didn’t take it because I wasn’t interested enough to attend for three hours every weeknight for two weeks.
I agree with you that silly statements are silly statements even if they’re meant to be provocative and stimulate debate. We’re not getting the most objective account of her statements, but if she really claimed that the only way you could deep throat is hypnosis or throat rape, then she’s talking out her ass (hypnotherapists will tell you that you absolutely will not do things under hypnosis that will harm you or that you do not want to do).
I also take Lovelace’s accusations with a grain of salt, particularly the claims about an automatic weapon being pointed at her head. You’d think someone else would have noticed.
This comment was written by zuzu.Report this comment to the moderators
February 13th, 2005 at 11:29 am
Mythago, I don’t think that she was thoroughly responsible and logical. I tried to show the generous reading of what she was saying. Because the issues are worth discussing, and the current treatment is not getting there. I have really enjoyed these comments, by the way, some very good analysis and points of view. That was really my hidden hope! :)
This comment was written by Echidne of the snakes.Report this comment to the moderators
February 13th, 2005 at 4:50 pm
[…] backs. Without reading her work it’s easy to miss the points she’s arguing, as one commentator rightly observes. Nevertheless […]
This comment was written by Bark at the Hole ».Report this comment to the moderators
February 13th, 2005 at 6:28 pm
As for Lovelace, grain of salt or no, she should have the right to withdraw her consent to be filmed and to prevent that film from being shown. We shouldn’t allow the glorification of a crime.
Can someone give me a good link to learn about McKinnon’s opinions? I’m not familiar with her work.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
February 13th, 2005 at 6:36 pm
That wasn’t really commonly done with any professor’s classes, though
Depends on your school, I suppose. It certainly prevented anyone from verifying some of the odder things she was alleged to have said.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 12:54 pm
As a POI: Lovelace stated, in two interviews, that she had been “exploited and abandoned” by MacKinnon, much in the way she had been “exploited and abandoned” by the porn industry.
I’ve read MacKinnon, heard her speak, and firmly believe that her positive work - helping define sexual harassment as sexual discrimination - is far outweighed by her insistence that woman are all victims, her denial that women can make rational decisions re: sexuality for themselves. [”Matronising” is the word I’d use.] Hell, even the concept of sexual harassment has got way out of hand, encouraged by the woman-as-victim culture she encourages - I got to testify on behalf of a gay friend whose company was being sued by a female subordinate “because it’s well known that gay men hate women, so that made the workplace a de facto hostile environment.”
I find MacKinnon’s hypocrisy interesting, as well: She married a man who has boasted that he had sex with over 1,000 women. Now, of course, he has “repented”…
My standard comment: I didn’t let the patriarchy tell me what to do with my life; I’m damned if I’ll let the matriarchy.
This comment was written by Kait Williams.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 1:16 pm
How does Catharine MacKinnon tell you what to do with your life, Kait?
This comment was written by littleviolet.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
“I find MacKinnon’s hypocrisy interesting, as well: She married a man who has boasted that he had sex with over 1,000 women. Now, of course, he has “repented”…”
She was never married to Jeffrey Masson.
And I find it interesting that you would take the position that men can’t repent of their sexist ways.
And, FYI, her name isn’t Linda Lovelace. It’s Linda Boreman. Show some respect for her desire to be called by her name, not by the moniker she was forced to use by the man who pimped, raped, and beat her.
And further FYI, Linda Boreman bore the scars and physical infirmities of the sexual, physical, emotional, and psychic abuse visited on her by Trainor until the day she died.
I’d find your opinions about MacKinnon and her work a bit more believable if you were able to get the basic facts right.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
“I also take Lovelace’s accusations with a grain of salt, particularly the claims about an automatic weapon being pointed at her head. You’d think someone else would have noticed.”
What makes you assume that anybody would have cared?
And it’s funny — the words of the guy who made the film, who has every interest in covering his as re: abuse of Ms. Boreman, are given so much more veracity by certain posters than the word of the woman who was abused.
After all, *he* said he sent Chuck Traynor away because he was “jealous”. *She* said Chuck Traynor put a gun to her head and forced her to be in the film. Why is *he* so much more believable?
Not to mention, the two statements aren’t even logically inconsistent. He could have held a gun to her head in some instances and been sent away in other instances. I mean, he wasn’t sent away because he was being violent to Ms. Boreman. He was sent away because he was disrupting the shoot.
This comment was written by Paige.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 2:03 pm
Heart was right, ‘There is too much contempt there, there is too much hatred, there are too many lies. And yet what is in there, I guess, passes for civil enough discourse nevertheless. But it isn’t civil. It is civilly hateful. And it will keep committed feminists away.”
I’m stunned by how many here give the benefit of the doubt to men pornographers who profited 600 million (so far) from Deep Throat over the woman who died poor and in her last interview said she supported MacKinnon’s goals and hoped she would some day succeed with her ordinance. Linda was upset feminists could not give her more money, but til the end she supported MacKinnon’s goal of establishing a way for porn prostituted women to have legal redress.
“You’d think someone else would have noticed.”
How many times have abuse victims been told their word is not good enough and that surely such evil things would have been noticed? Mothers who ‘didn’t notice’ the men in their lives sexually abusing the children in their lives, pornographers who ‘didn’t notice’ a 15-year-old drug addicted Traci Lords snorting coke and being child prostituted, strip club owners who ‘didn’t notice’ 16-year old runaways performing lesbian sex acts onstage.
The average age of entry into US prostitution is 13 because thousands of men ‘don’t notice’ the children beneath them.
With all the thousands of pages MacKinnon has written, why focus on old unrecorded lectures? If you want to know how MacKinnon thinks about something you can find it easily and no one is prevented from verifying her beliefs on any of the topics she speaks of.
I find Kait’s assertion that Deep Throat was about fulfilling women’s pleasure beyond absurd. Almost all porn is about fulfilling women’s pleasure if you stop at “she looks like she’s enjoying it!”, but men have depicted women orgasming from being raped, cut up, spit on, fucked by animals and worse and really it’s about men’s pleasure seeing women acting like animalized dirty whores than women’s pleasure at doing the sex.
The vibe in this thread of “if it were so bad, why didn’t she just leave and/or prosecute?” leaves me with a sick, cold feeling in my stomach. The rape victims I know who didn’t report, the women whose husbands kicked the crap out of and choked them who didn’t report, these women come to my mind when I see “someone would have noticed” and “she could have called the cops if the abuse were really that bad” used as excuses for disbelieving abused women.
This comment was written by Samantha.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 2:04 pm
There’s something suspicious about the “Bang Bus”. If it really is what it appears to be, then each installment is evidence of a crime, and it would require only a single one of the women involved to go to a D.A. to put the participants behind bars. Given that, it’s more likely the whole thing is staged, and the “reality” aspect is just part of the marketing. (The fact that something is marketed on such a basis is in itself creepy, though.)
This comment was written by Walt Pohl.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
This is on porn in general, not on DT. If Linda Lovelace *was* forced to do that film against her will, that falls into a whole other argument. But I’m going to talk about porn in general.
First of all, it is a myth–and a dangerous one, if you carry it to its logical conclusion–that porn is exclusively consumed by men. This is especially true when deciding how you *define* porn. Is written, explicit erotica ‘porn’? Trust me when I tell you that most anti-porn crusaders would consider it as such. I am an author of erotica, so trust me when I tell you that. If I saved some of my hate mail I’d share it with you.
Because it’s pretty well established that women are less aroused than men by visual stimulation but *more* aroused by a more literate presentation, there are a lot of women who consume and enjoy written erotica. There are a bunch who write it, and many who are damn good, including one of my best friends (I edit her stuff, which is the easiest job in the world!) And because my erotica is of the romantic gentle variety (if you want rape erotica you can find it, but that’s not what I write), I have a rather large female readership.
Now, obviously, there is a difference between visual porn and written erotica, as written erotica doesn’t involve exploiting real people. If I *did* write a rape story, the only person being raped is a complete figment of my imagination, not even an actress. I understand that puts written erotica in a whole different light.
The problem with *that* is that too many of the anti-porn crusaders aren’t capable of making that distinction. This has been hammered home with me because many of my stories feature characters that are under the age of consent. Now, that means *both* of them–pedophilia ain’t my thing–but one of the most popular things I’ve ever written is a long novel in which my two protagonists do the nasty for the first time when both are only 14. Believe me, to some people, that’s ‘kiddie porn’. Funny–to me the problem with ‘kiddie porn’ is it exploits and damages children. How can a written piece of erotica damage figments of my imagination? *sigh*
Anyhow, because I have a personal stake in this issue, anti-porn crusades worry me, because we get caught in the undertow. You and I know that it’s not the same thing. But, let’s face it, too many anti-porn crusaders aren’t worried about ‘exploitation’, they just hate sex. The fact that anyone might actually be getting off to my little non-exploitative works of fiction frosts them.
As for the ‘regular’ visual porn world, I’d never say that exploitation never happens. However, this is not 1972. One of the most famous ‘adult film stars’ is a woman named Jenna Jameson. She’s famous not just for appearing in films–she *makes* them. She owns her own production company. She’s the creative brains behind the whole operation.
Another one I’ve heard of is Zara Whites. According to a couple lesbian friends of mine, her lesbian films are considered classics, they’re not made to tittilate male viewers with threesome fantasies–they’re made for women. So, there’s an example of a woman making porn *for* other women. Obviously, if my lesbian friends are any indication, there’s an audience.
It’s a complicated issue. I think too many people tend to make it simple: women in porn *must* be exploited, anything that creates sexual feelings *must* be bad. I, as you might have guessed, reject all that. Exploitation of women is one thing, porn is another. Sometimes they’re the same thing. Sometimes they’re not.
This comment was written by ChurchofBruce.Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
re Hugo’s comment in message #48 - conservatives started it by calling those seeking to replace secular Muslim governments with theocracies based on sharia “Islamofascists.”
Likewise, fundamentalist and otherwise conservative Christians seek to replace secular laws with their own dogma, stripping people of rights.
Christofascists seek to abrogate the First Amendment by punishing “obscenity” and “indecency”, the Fourteenth Amendment by prohibiting same-sex marriage, and penumbral U.S. Constitutional rights and many states’ right to privacy by making abortion illegal or very hard to obtain, prohibiting contraception, and seeking the reinstatement of anti-sodomy laws.
Christofascists also seek to gut secular education by mandating teaching of creationism in public schools (now creationism is called “intelligent design”) and seeking federal money to open charter schools with heavy doses of proselytizing.
You started it. Us liberals will finish it.
This comment was written by Aaron V..Report this comment to the moderators
February 14th, 2005 at 2:55 pm
My standard comment: I didn’t let the patriarchy tell me what to do with my life; I’m damned if I’ll let the matriarchy.
Why yes, because we have such a problem with matriarchal power here, what with a female president, female-dominated congress and judiciary, female-dominated Fortune 500 executives. . . oh, er, nevermind.
You can disagree with MacKinnon without spreading misinformation and hyperbole. Save the fiction for novel writing, okay?
Sheesh.
This comment was written by