robert jensen is he a pest?

[swiftly]

I got my Google politics news and this article appeared mentioning the las Vegas show. http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...eminist_po.htm
So I wonder if any of you met the man and what your comments are ??

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/index.html his home page and I checked him out in Amazon reviews where he received a varied response to his quest.

[jseas]

Is he a pest? Probably.

But he was doing what any good journalist would do -- including those with strong points of view, like he has -- which was trying to push the envelope by engaging the AW models in conversation at the Las Vegas show when it clearly wasn't what they or anyone else would want. There are probably plenty of women who could give Jensen a run for his money in a debate about porn, in the right forum. (Claiming that the porn industry isn't really interested in free speech because an Australian model or two wouldn't debate him for a second day on the floor of a trade show does seem a bit disingenuous, though.)

I thought the article is a worth a read -- it's not badly written -- though Jensen seems extremely concerned that there may some wanking going on when men (and some women) are visiting websites like this. He writes: "But in the end, pornography is in the business of presenting women’s bodies to men for masturbation." (He also calls porn a "masturbation facilitator." I'd hide the vibrators when he comes to visit, girls & guys!) That is not a shock, eh? As he states early on, he's got what is essentially an Andrea Dworkin view of pornography -- that it is invariably a way of mistreating and even raping women -- which colors his entire approach. (He doesn't mention Dworkin, though.)

Since he's drawn some conclusions about porn and its treatment of women already, he worked hard to make AW fit into his view of the world, though he acknowledges that there may be differences in degree. But he doesn't really address or appear to consider the possibilities that there may be real differences that make a site like AW appropriate or permissible, if, for instance, the women involved in it want to be involved, control how they are involved, and actually enjoy their involvement.

[jseas]

Note: I do believe there is room for a thread or two like this on AW -- I think there's been an on-going one for a year or two. So let's of course keep this conversation, if it goes forward, civilized -- and let's keep it open, even if it gets a touch heated. Thanks.

[Dekoda]

I've never heard of the man, but from his so called "interview", he sounds like a real idiot. He commented:

"We asked the women to explain how the interests of women (or men, for that matter) were advanced by selling images mostly used by men as a masturbation facilitator. How did that improve the lot of women in the world?"

I guess he needs to use some stupid catchphrases in his questioning of the models, since those catchphrases sound good but are in essence, inane and stupid. I mean, what exactly do they mean?...." how the interests of women are advanced"....or..."improve the lot of women?" How does any job advance the interests of women or improve their lot? How does being a waitress, salesclerk, barmaid, secretary, or whatever accomplish these things? This clown asks stupid questions that have no real answer but sound good in sound bites or on paper.

I for one feel that at AW, the girls who model do so because they enjoy it, they are somewhat adventurous and want to do something fun that's a little daring and wild that they can talk about when they are older, and they don't mind showing off their bodies. There is no sinister motive behind the AW site that is trying to exploit anyone. It's a shame that when an idiot like him talks, people think he's an authority on women's issues....like a man could ever understand why a woman does what she does. He's just a publicity hound who thinks he knows whats best for women.

To ask those type of questions and then come back the next day to harass the models some more, reminds me of the idiot newswoman who was at the NASA launch when the Shuttle exploded killing Christa Mcauliffe (I think that's how you spell her name.) This idiot was sitting in the stands with Christa's parents and when the Shuttle exploded, she stuck a microphone in the parents face, and asked how the parents were feeling.(after having just watched their daughter explode into a million pieces.)

[Frans]

But he was doing what any good journalist would do -- including those with strong points of view, like he has -- which was trying to push the envelope by engaging the AW models in conversation at the Las Vegas show when it clearly wasn't what they or anyone else would want.

Why is that journalism? It doesn't achieve much, unless you're going for angry responses to put on the cover of a tabloid. He clearly isn't out to get an opinion from anyone but himself and his opinion is already known. He didn't need to visit the AEE to write that down, so hwy DID he visit, hmm?? Seems to me he either wanted to convert people to his beliefs, or just cause trouble. I dislike troublemakers who only want to spoil other people's fun.

There are probably plenty of women who could give Jensen a run for his money in a debate about porn, in the right forum.

You can only do that if both people discussing care enough to want to persuade the other party. Neither party cares in the above setup . Sure it would be fun to have Nina Hartley debate with mr Jensen but it would come to the same result as he'll always come when discussing this subject 'agree to disagree'. Repeating the discussion with the same 'parameters' will usually yield the same result (and if you keep repeating it, then you are indeed a pest ;-).

In the end it's not so much his opinion which bothers me (couldn't care less about him). It just annoys me when he appearantly tried to push his opinion onto other people. Esp. when that concerns people I like/love/adore.

On the bright side, even HE had to confirm that the AW stand was a succes and that there was lots of public

[heckelphon]

Do you think he lurks on these boards to see if he's having a reaction on the membership?

I reckon he's too full of his own importance to do that. He just has an agenda, and a message, and he's more interested in the microphone recording the fact that he asked the questions than he's ever going to be in listening the answer.

I mean, what would his reaction really be if his interviewee said: "You know, you are SO right, and you make me see for the first time how I am being used by evil men to the detriment of womenkind. I'm going to quite this expo right away. Thank you for saving me."

I think he would have turned the camera off before the end of any such response, because he thrives on the disagreement.

[nasturtium]

because he thrives on the disagreement.

Yes, that's the opinion I formed. Disagreement for disagreement's sake.

[Abby]

yah, we have read his article here, and actually, it's not that bad (if you accept that this whole premise is flawed as Dekoda pointed out.

Better than the Herald Sun article, that's for sure!

[Swindapa]

Any person who practices "Ambush Journalism" like Robert Jensen (who doesn't understand English a means of communication between humans) should be taken out, drawn and quartered, dismembered, shot, and then shot again...and again. I HATE the fucking press and their stupid questions..."Other than that, Mrs. Kennedy, how was your weekend in Dallas?"

And then there are the talking heads who tell us what the officeholder (President, Candidate, person, insert the proper word here) said, and JUST after I watched it and understood what he/she/they said... like we're so frickin' dumb we can't think for ourselves?

Sorry for the rant, but the "freedom of the press" is a raw spot for me...assholes all!

With apologies to all I've offended, Swindy... (except press people - you can go fuck yourself!)

[MightySpork]

Good, I'm glad there's a thread for this. Here's the key exchange from the article that caught MY attention:

In interviews with several of (the abby models), a familiar story of empowerment emerged -- we are comfortable with our bodies, confident in our sexuality, proud to be taking control of how we are represented, etc. We responded with questions that reflected our feminist critique of pornography, which sparked interesting responses regarding their feelings about their work and our assessment of the industry. We asked the women to explain how the interests of women (or men, for that matter) were advanced by selling images mostly used by men as a masturbation facilitator. How did that improve the lot of women in the world? Each of the conversations ended with an agree-to-disagree parting, and we went off to other parts of the convention.

Basically, what must have happened here was this: Jensen sandbagged the models with loaded, no-win questions that he knew they were not prepared to answer, and later was shocked -- shocked, I say -- to be told he couldn't talk to them anymore. What a dick.

Jensen's politics had no more place at the AEE than porn would have in his church, and a more honest and reasonable person than Jensen would have known that.

[artlover]

C'mon Swindy... tell us how you really feel!

Sounds like this guy had his article written before he asked any questions. Garbage in, garbage out.

[Frans]

Basically, what must have happened here was this: Jensen sandbagged the models with loaded, no-win questions that he knew they were not prepared to answer

I'm not so sure the models weren't prepared to answer such questions, it looks to me he just kept asking until he would get he answers he wanted. Hence the 'ending on agree to disagree' which according mr Jensen was the end of each conversation. He just kept on trying though, so Toby told him to get lost.. for which she should get a medal

p.s. I like your view on this Swindapa

[Frans]

yah, we have read his article here, and actually, it's not that bad (if you accept that this whole premise is flawed as Dekoda pointed out.

It's not the article I dislike, it's the idea I get he bothered the girls just to get his own views across and write this pointless article. After all, it doesn't add much happiness or anything to the world does it?

[artlover]

Some people feel happy appointing themselves as moral crusaders to appear righteous in the eyes of others. Sad, but true. Such folks really care little for the happiness or wellbeing of others.

[wannadance]

my real peeve is the 'how does this make you feel?' question, derived from 2-bit amateur psychotherapy.

examples:

as mentioned: the challenger tragedy

the war (any war), interviewing relatives: 'how does it make you feel that your child was killed in such an awful way?'

national disasters:
katrina: your baby drowned, oh how terrible! how do you feel about that?

9/11 : too many examples to cite, except this one guy who i want to marry asap: guy tries to drive his pickup into the city to see if he could help. saw that he was in the way, turned around, was driving back out. accosted by reporter who asked the usual: how does all this make you feel? he replied: i sat here in the truck and saw pieces of people falling all around me, i heard them falling on the truck. HOW IN HELL DO YOU _THINK_ I FEEL, YOU IDIOT! slams door, takes off.

my hero.

reporters have a job to do, of course. but now (started to say 'nowadays'), i do not believe anything i see or hear in the press. read/listen to foreign news to get the real news. shocking difference.

back to bed...

dancer
she of such modulated and reserved opinions..snork

[Abby]

I'm not so sure the models weren't prepared to answer such questions,

Actually, we did not prep models for this line of questioning at all. Closest we came, we prepped for the "you're hairy and ugly" line of questions, which I think never came up.

[Frans]

Actually, we did not prep models for this line of questioning at all. Closest we came, we prepped for the "you're hairy and ugly" line of questions, which I think never came up.

Ah, not prepared for saviours and preachers then? In that case it looks to me reading the 'article' that they did well regardless. Arrive at 'agree to a disagree' is the best possible outcome with such a character.

You ARE taking notes for next year I trust?

(either prepare for verbal hostile people or have Miss Hartley stand guard ;-)

p.s. good to hear the 'you're ugly' line never came up, shows most people have good taste after all, heh.

[Frans]

It just occured to me that the correct word for mr. Jensen would be 'party-crasher'. Attempting to spoil other people's fun.

[OfCanada]

Didn't look much different than the industry norm, eh? Sex looks largely the same in that respect. There's only so many things that you can do to take away from that which is common in the act. The actions are mostly the same because of what's always involved in sex. I don't really quite get why he said what he said there...

[primordialman]

I will only agree with Jensen with his argument their are avenues of porn that exploit women in the wrong ways, which is why I like AW so much, because this is definately a site where the women are free to express themselves. None of it is scripted at all, and there is nothing but respect shown to the women who model here.

[billythegit]

Well it´s not really a drama, is it?
Too many journalists aren´t interested in giving people unbiased journalism anymore. How often do you, after only a few lines, see, that all they want is to show us their opinion and try to convince us, that their opinion is right...he clearly never let any room for an opinion different to the one, he had before he ever talked to one of the girls.

Everyone here can read the posts, the girls are writing themselves and then see how strong they are and what they represent and how they proof that so called journalist wrong every single day....

[swiftly]

great bunch of replies guys and abby. I would like any of the girls who were interview to share their story if they want of course. I used to work a lot at trade shows for computers and the "tyre kickers" were always in attendance with the most inane questions.

i qualified customers for a scanner dealer each yr more and more emphasis on scanner resolution from the tyre kickers 2400dpi photos for the average users at a filesize of half a gigabyte i used to tell them to go and talk to hd experts and ask them where the drives were for their family photos. wow that is of the subject

i am a wanker ... always have been and porn on the net has sometimes preoccupied my time .. i found a usefull release in my art ... i haven't felt like i was raping anyone i have gone c2c chatted dirty done the lot ... i still have many women friends (more than men) and respect them just as much as ever ... i can see the point made by jensen but is it supported by any real research? or as often do we only research the deviant rather than the population.

yes the man is a nuisance because he chooses to come to a trade fair about a subject he hates WHY except to listen to his own rhetoric and annoy others. like the donkey seller at a car show or a Luddite at a space show still he made the headlines in some news sheets which shows us there is a feeling amoung the silent wowser minority against porn sites in general.

it wont keep me away from AB and some other sites cause i like to look i like to raise my libido to the point of explosion and why not maybe it could be my epitaphion.

[Pilot_MoonDog]

I'm fairly left wing in my political views and read a site called ZNet that posts articles from that point of view. Browsing some of the recent ones I found one on your expedition to Las Vegas. It isn't very flattering I'm afraid; but the people writing it are, I think, very set in their views.

http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16387

This leads on to a wider question. How would you refute this sort of "all pornography is exploitative and wrong" viewpoint, assuming you where taking the time & trouble to do so.

[Luxman]

I have merged these two threads because they have the same topic.

Lxm

[Pilot_MoonDog]

Sorry. I hadn't spotted this thread when I started mine.

I suspect Jensen is seeing himself in much the same light as the protesters who infiltrate arms fairs posing as customers.

As for unbiased journalism. All journalism is biased. What matters is if the journalist realises it and is at least open about their biases.

[memrosie]

Mem.

I don't think its the style of his questioning that is problematic - it is a journalist's job to go where they are not wanted, ask difficult questions and so on. Most usually, the result is crass and horrible, because of the type of media we as customers choose to consume, but that doesn't mean that investigative/ambush reporting is necessarily bad, it is simply a means.

What I think is more interesting is the fact that Jensen is obviously representing a large quantity of opinion, that all porn is bad, because it is porn; as he says, anything that facilitates wanking. And it is amazing how many "liberal" people suddenly lose their minds over the subject of porn. The interesting question is, do you think there are people who like porn, of whatever kind, but do not consume it because they consider it "bad" (or at least try not to). That is, do you think that people's objections to porn are ever more than pre-rational distaste, or even simple sex-phobia. Moreover, do you think there is a qualitative difference between "ordinary" porn and abbywinters, or between (say) pictures/videos and stories?

I do not know. Rosie and I argue in particular about whether - let's call it "Hustler" style-porn - is demeaning or not. If it is, does it matter: having a big black cock fetish is racist, but is it bad?

[MightySpork]

I don't think its the style of his questioning that is problematic - it is a journalist's job to go where they are not wanted, ask difficult questions and so on.

When it's Woodward and Bernstein exposing government wrongdoing, then that's the journalist's job. And there are people, in both the public and private sectors, who have extraordinary power over our society and should be held accountable for the things they do and create. But surely nine nude models do not fit that description, and nothing conclusive could possibly have come from asking THEM difficult questions. Jensen's strategy here seems to have been to catch the models off-guard, then cite their flustered embarrassment as proof that the porn industry doesn't consider its negative consequences, as he imagines them to be.

Which brings me to another problem with Jensen and his "feminist critique of pornography." When a government covers up a scandal, that's wrongdoing. When an Enron misleads and bankrupts shareholders, that's wrongdoing. These things are objectively true. Jensen's beliefs about the harm caused by pornography are more subjective than objective, the result of cherry-picking bad aspects of modern society and linking them to porn in ways that may not be accurate or fair.

From the article, he "asked the women to explain how the interests of women (or men, for that matter) were advanced by selling images mostly used by men as a masturbation facilitator." It's purely Jensen's opinion that: A) Porn is used mostly as he believes it to be, and B) that this is some terrible thing that harms women everywhere. Since he can't establish either of these things as fact, these were just "gotcha" questions that could never have produced meaningful answers, no matter who he'd posed them to.

What I think is more interesting is the fact that Jensen is obviously representing a large quantity of opinion, that all porn is bad, because it is porn; as he says, anything that facilitates wanking. And it is amazing how many "liberal" people suddenly lose their minds over the subject of porn.

I'm having trouble with a friend of mine over this very issue. Liberal generally, and not particularly feminist either, but porn is a blind spot. I also find it amusing that some branches of feminism regard pornography as evil, even though it represents women exercising rights that the feminist movement won for them. The notion here seems to be that there are "right" and "wrong" ways to be liberated.

[primordialman]

I believe there is a good side and a bad side to porn, or at least two roads porn can go down. Abbywinters has gone done the good road of porn where it is practiced in healthy manner where the women are in control of what they are doing, they are comfortable with the situation and our not forced to do something against their own will, while on their is porn that goes down the dark road where women are controlled and are forced to do things against their will. It is extremely sumbmisses the woman's choice and turns her into a sexual object, which is not to be respected at all. This is my opinion on the matter.

[memrosie]

When it's Woodward and Bernstein exposing government wrongdoing, then that's the journalist's job. And there are people, in both the public and private sectors, who have extraordinary power over our society and should be held accountable for the things they do and create. But surely nine nude models do not fit that description, and nothing conclusive could possibly have come from asking THEM difficult questions. Jensen's strategy here seems to have been to catch the models off-guard, then cite their flustered embarrassment as proof that the porn industry doesn't consider its negative consequences, as he imagines them to be.

Mem again. Good post. There are things that are implied in the manner of his questions, and in the pre-conceptions he has about models, which are bad journalism - he is trying to make people give him his answers, rather than letting them speak for themselves. But potentially, I think unexpectedly interviewing amateur porn models (or any models, come to that) and having them speak bout their relationship to their work is an enormously fruitful idea. And questioning the "enlightened" tag which abbywinters et al. carry around like a crucifix is not such a bad angle either, as far as I can see. He just did it incredibly badly.

Which brings me to another problem with Jensen and his "feminist critique of pornography." When a government covers up a scandal, that's wrongdoing. When an Enron misleads and bankrupts shareholders, that's wrongdoing. These things are objectively true. Jensen's beliefs about the harm caused by pornography are more subjective than objective, the result of cherry-picking bad aspects of modern society and linking them to porn in ways that may not be accurate or fair.

From the article, he "asked the women to explain how the interests of women (or men, for that matter) were advanced by selling images mostly used by men as a masturbation facilitator." It's purely Jensen's opinion that: A) Porn is used mostly as he believes it to be, and B) that this is some terrible thing that harms women everywhere. Since he can't establish either of these things as fact, these were just "gotcha" questions that could never have produced meaningful answers, no matter who he'd posed them to.

No argument, but to be clear, tht doesn't make his tactics bad.

I'm having trouble with a friend of mine over this very issue. Liberal generally, and not particularly feminist either, but porn is a blind spot. I also find it amusing that some branches of feminism regard pornography as evil, even though it represents women exercising rights that the feminist movement won for them. The notion here seems to be that there are "right" and "wrong" ways to be liberated.

It is odd. Most of the "feminists" I know are either bi or queer, and also look at girlyporn, so it has never really been an issue. I don't quite see, though, how porn represents women "exercising rights that the feminist movement won for them": surely porn has existed since forever?

Primordialman

I believe there is a good side and a bad side to porn, or at least two roads porn can go down. Abbywinters has gone done the good road of porn where it is practiced in healthy manner where the women are in control of what they are doing, they are comfortable with the situation and our not forced to do something against their own will, while on their is porn that goes down the dark road where women are controlled and are forced to do things against their will. It is extremely sumbmisses the woman's choice and turns her into a sexual object, which is not to be respected at all. This is my opinion on the matter.

I agree with you, but I think we ought to clear something up: all porn, by definition treats women (men, dogs, etc.) as sexual objects. It doesn't make porn "nicer" to say that it doesn't sexually objectify women. Rosie (my partner), and Ava (the model) are a good example. Rosie loves Ava; she downloads all of her movies, and goes into fits of giggles and coos when Ava laughs. She replays the bit where Ava sings to her guitar possibly for hours at a time. That doesn't change that fact that when Rosie watches Ava making love, she is is sexually objectifying her - that at that moment, for Rosie, Ava is a sexual object.

Sexual objectification /= bad. Which leads to the question, if some kinds of porn are bad, why are they bad?

[MightySpork]

But potentially, I think unexpectedly interviewing amateur porn models (or any models, come to that) and having them speak bout their relationship to their work is an enormously fruitful idea. And questioning the "enlightened" tag which abbywinters et al. carry around like a crucifix is not such a bad angle either, as far as I can see. He just did it incredibly badly.

No kidding. He either overlooked, or didn't know about, abbywinters.com's donations to charity, and its sponsorship of ASACP, which fights child pornography and works to keep online pornography away from minors. Jensen, perhaps unwittingly, chose to demonize one of porn's most famously ethical companies, and that's why his article reads more like unintentional comedy than serious analysis.

And, having been there at the AEE show, I'm also convinced that he was drawn to the abbywinters.com booth by its unfettered access to the models, which is something most of the other vendors weren't offering. Here was a booth staffed with inexperienced women unprepared for his line of attack, and eager to talk for as long as he wanted without making him wait in line. Easy marks.

I don't quite see, though, how porn represents women "exercising rights that the feminist movement won for them": surely porn has existed since forever?

Not in the commercial form we know today; that got started in the 70's with Deep Throat and progressed steadily as VHS players made home consumption widespread. And the resulting growth of the porn industry has allowed women to make careers in it, on both sides of the camera, and profit in ways unheard of in earlier times.

My favorite example of this is stripper Danni Ashe, who in the 90's was fed up with the poor treatment she got from club owners, and focused on her online fan club instead, which grew into a popular porn site that she sold in 2004 (it has since been bought by Penthouse Media Group for $3 million, according to Wikipedia). That sort of self-made success story would have been impossible at any other time in history.

Update: Having re-read the above, I think it's fair to give feminism and technological growth shared credit for these changes. Feminism has pushed for a society in which women can better shape their own destinies, and technology has made that possible within the porn world.

[SaharaAW]

I posted a reply to the artlice on that site, http://www.opednews.com/articles/ope...eminist_po.htm

Unfortunately I had to post it in pieces because of the word limit, but here is the response in its entirety. I also emailed this to him personally. Just thought I'd give him a piece of my mind...haha

Let me know what you guys think!

love,

Sahara


Dear Robert Jensen and Gail Dines,

I was a model for AbbyWinters.com (Sahara), I found a link to your article in one of the threads located in their discussion forum (link here) and I felt the need to write a response to your article, from an AW model’s point of view.

I have “modeled” for other adult film companies, most of which were not nearly as ethical or healthy as AW. I was also an “exotic dancer” for about six months in the South Florida area. I have a wide range of experience in the adult entertainment industry.

I flew to Australia specifically to model for AbbyWinters.com, IFeelMyself.com, IShotMyself.com and BeautifulAgony.com because I admired the revolutionary stance they were taking in an industry that is saturated with misogynistic and unrealistic ideals.

I did not make it to the AEE or the AVNs this year, but when I heard about what the team at Abby Winters were going to go there to do I felt like screaming “Hell YES, finally!”. A group of empowered, healthy, intelligent women challenging men to play speed chess, performing yoga, and engaging their fans in an arena where young women are usually exploited in an unhealthy way, how awesome?! This is exactly what the morons in the porno industry need to see.

In your article, a very poor example of journalism, you try and undermine their effect under the premise that at the end of the day they were still performing for what men want to watch and masturbate to.

Art inspires many people to do many different things. Some art pieces can make you cry, others can make you laugh and some can deeply disturb you. Art is the expression of the human experience. Yes it may seem like a stretch, but under that definition pornography is art. It is an expression of modern society’s perception and standard of sexuality. It inspires people to be sexual, whether that means masturbating to it or using it to spice up their sex life with their partner. Some of it expresses the standard woman-hating images and some of it expresses the goodness of a down to earth, healthy, natural woman.

In your article you state that you asked the women to answer how creating images that were mostly used by men as a masturbation facilitator improved the lot of women in the world. I would be happy to answer that question for you: The interests of women and men are advanced through the selling of images that are used by both as masturbation inspirations because of the improvement in content of the images they are masturbating to.

Instead of being inspired by abusive gang bangs, semen facials or double penetration garbage, these people are being inspired to masturbate to beautiful, artistic images of healthy, natural women. What is wrong with that? They are revolutionizing the concept of what sexy is. That’s how it improves the lot of women in the world. It inspires people to see the sex appeal in the real, everyday woman, not just the surgically enhanced porn star. It inspires normal women to see the beauty and sexiness inside themselves instead of trying to relate to the unrealistic standards set by the mainstream sex industry.

“A man watching the Abbywinters.com sex display said that he loved the site for a simple reason: “No fake boobs and more pubic hair.” A man who had just gotten a signed photo from a performer at the Hustler booth said he loved porn women for a simple reason: “They are like a fucking sculpture.” The slightly different preferences were trivial; more important was the fact that both men had bags full of pictures and DVDs that would mostly likely be wanking material that evening.”

Slightly different? That’s like saying the nutritional differences between home grown organic produce and fast food from McDonalds are “slightly different”. One genre of pornography promotes plastic surgery, makeup and misogyny whereas the other promotes healthy, natural and real women. There is a vast difference. Why denote the value of something by how someone feels inspired by it, sexually? Masturbation is a healthy practice, this not unknown, many medical studies support this.

Why do we as a people still view sexuality as such a low, dirty subject? Its apart of everyday life, its apart of the human experience at its core. I think the more we try and push it down and hide it, the more trash bad porno companies get to produce.

The solution here is not to censor the mainstream porno industry because we don’t agree with their standard of sexuality, but to open it up to more genres (as AW, ISM, IFM and BA have started) and make it more accessible for people. Talk about it, create discussions for it. Censorship has never been a good solution to any problem, the only way to truly solve issues is to face them and start getting answers to questions like: Why does misogynistic porn sell? Why is the porno industry a multi-trillion dollar industry? Why does almost every porn flick on the market today end in a semen facial? Does it fall back on primitive, cave man behavior? What is it about a woman getting pounded and slapped by a penis that really turns men on? Is it their insecurities about sexuality? Does it metaphorically weaken the woman, therefore making her less of a threat to the man? Does a video which displays what is seen as a sexy women getting sexually humiliated, berated and abused make the man watching feel more powerful? Is it a result of a mass scarification on Western society by a misogynistic religious upbringing?

I think that if sexuality was more of an open subject, we wouldn’t have such overtly misogynistic material in the adult film industry. But because today’s society is still very much run by Christian morals and beliefs, sexuality continues to be a closed subject and as such, porn and the sex industry in general is able to get away with much more because its not a topic that can be discussed in an open forum.

By exploring these issues, not censoring them, we can start to heal the damage that has been done to our psyches as a mass in this area.

I believe that sexuality is female trait. As a woman, there is no real way to escape this reality. We are, on a daily basis, reminded that most men see us as sex objects and that is a very important part of our roles as women to men.

In any job, whether it is of a sexual nature or not, as a woman you will be sexually harassed. As a mass generalization some women try to avoid this by dressing or acting more masculine, whereas some of us learn to use our sexuality as a tool.

I believe that a woman’s sexuality is the one potent weapon we have over the reigning white patriarchal leaders. Sex is almost every man’s one major weakness.

The same way that men use aggression to manipulate and dominate other men and women, women can use their sexuality to manipulate and dominate men.

Healthy sexuality empowers women. Period.

I think most men know and realize this. I think its another major reason why misogyny rules the mainstream porno market. They are scared and they are trying to beat us at our own game in our own arena.

It hasn’t always been this way. Before Christianity, monotheism and patriarchy there was goddess worship, sacred harlots and temples dedicated to sex. The planet was a much different place back then; sexuality and hedonistic practices were used to honor the divine, you could learn about sex at your local temple and prostitutes were considered holy. It was a much easier and safer place to get laid. Ahh the good old days…

In your article you stated that women are reducing themselves by being sexual objects for men’s masturbation. I have done a wide range of work in the sex industry. Never at one point did I feel like I reduced myself at all. My work felt like an addition to my being. I felt proud of my photos, videos and live performances. Especially of the work I did on AbbyWinters.com, IShotMyself.com, IFeelMyself.com and BeautifulAgony.com

Being an adult entertainment performer has empowered me to say the least. It has enabled me to be more open about my sexuality. It has also made me much more confident as a person. Because my sexuality is out there for anyone to see on the World Wide Web, I feel that in life I can move forward with confidence and with an attitude that I have nothing to hide. And don’t get me started on how dancing naked on stage for a crowd of people can improve your self esteem…

You also state that at the end of the day its about what the men want to watch. Is this not the basis for any business in any industry? It is always about what the consumer wants. Again, if sexuality was seen as a more serious subject, it would therefore be seen as another serious area of business. But is misogynistic imagery what most men really want to see? Or has the market been so saturated, until now, that that is all they have to watch? Or is it another issue with masculinity altogether, do our men need to be taught that power does not hold an appropriate place in the bedroom?

Again, if we held open discussions about sexuality, pornography and all of the issues that effect them, these questions could be answered and wouldn’t be such a mystery.

No AbbyWinters.com is not a fully owned and operated female company (as they project and would like the public to think), not all of their practices are completely feminist or supportive of women, and yes at the end of they day they are still producing images for men to masturbate over.

However, what they are doing, what they’ve been doing and the statement they made at the AEE is still one big step forward for women, especially in the adult film industry. They are making a huge difference.

One day I would like to see an adult film company (and maybe even strip club…) that was really female owned and operated that used feminism and matriarchal principles in its everyday practice (would anybody like to fund me?).

At the end of your article you state: “Political judgments also are not only possible but necessary -- if we are to resist male supremacy, reject the subordination of women in all its forms, and replace that corrosive conception of gender and sex with a vision of human integrity and community that can be the basis for a just and sustainable society.”

I think the subordination of women will continue to exist until sexuality is valued, revered and honored. Until we can discuss sexuality as a serious subject and something to be shown openly we will continue to have trashy, misogynistic porno as the set standard.

And who wants that?

[aggie64]

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am going to save your brilliant essay and disseminate it was widely as possible to any and all outlets that exist to explore the honest nature of the adult entertainment industry.

A million thanks, Sahara, for taking the time to write this. I hope your crusade continues.

[Nimrod2]

Ah yes, another misoginyst masquerading as a feminist. The "porn is rape" line is about twenty years out of date, innit?

And yes, mainstream porn is run by men who hate women. But to say that there is no difference between AW and Hustler? Jeebus. Talk about your cause blinders.

Sex positive feminism is a good thing, and AW is a prime example, imo. A large part of women's liberation is the liberation of women's sexuality, after all. Isn't that in large part what has been oppressed?

But to be liberated, it must be real female sexuality, not a stunted middle aged pre-adolescent's idea of female sexuality. That's the edge of AW, as well as a small handful of other sites.

In the end, it's always the same thing. The US leads the world in the production of porn (mostly crappy porn) and anti-porn advocates. It's just one of those sophomoric things that makes America a fun country. As long as your sense of irony holds up, it's good for entertainment, if nothing else.

[laktor]

First off, I want to also give my kudos to Sahara! Well done, young lady! I also wrote to Mr. Jenson and received a one line curt reply thanking me for my e-mail and agreeing that we disagree. He also gave me a link to a website, which contains a link to another site which has absolutely made my blood boil.

https://www.againstpornography.org/

Now, the person who runs this site certainly has a right to their opinion, but what upsets me so much is that it is completely one-sided and DOES NOT ALLOW ANY DEFENSE OF PORNOGRAPHY/PROSTITUTION BY ANYONE. Any e-mail to her that is defending porn will be ignored! She says that porn and prostitution are indefensible! I would like to know how anyone, EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH HER POINT OF VIEW, can respect her when you can't argue an opposing viewpoint. How can anyone expect to have someone listen to their point of view and not be respectful enough to listen to someone's opposing view? People like this with websites like this just make me sick!

Getting back to Mr. Jensen, I only made two points but they are the basics here. Masturbation is a normal and healthy activity, besides being immensely pleasurable. This is agreed upon by experts in sexual health and physicians everywhere as long as it does not interfere nor take the place of pursuing an honest relationship with another person. And secondly, it is a fact that men are extremely visual when it comes to sexual arousal. So what visions arouse them? Are you ready? Surprise! Naked women! While viewing images of naked women is not absolutely necessary for a man to enjoy masturbation, it certainly can enhance the activity and lead to better orgasms. So to infer that women who allow their images to be used for masturbatory activities by men is actually degrading them is contradictory to the known fact that masturbation is normal and healthy!

[jseas]

Really nicely done, Sahara. Tremendous. Thanks...and Laktor, you've also made a point about how men are "visual" creatures that I had thought about but not written here. Thanks too.

[jseas]

Any response from Jensen, Sahara? There's a lot for him to chew over.

[memrosie]

The US leads the world in the production of porn (mostly crappy porn) and anti-porn advocates. It's just one of those sophomoric things that makes America a fun country. As long as your sense of irony holds up, it's good for entertainment, if nothing else.

Mem.

Great letter, Sahara. Keep us posted if he replies.

You are the one who works in the industry, and I am the consumer and sometime amateur critic, so please take my questions in the spirit of someone who is genuinely puzzled, rather than one of those obnoxious people - one comes across them in every public debate - whose "questions" are simply imperatives in drag. Anyway, I have spent ages trying to explain properly what I mean, I am sorry if it comes out as a muddle.

I have always been a little troubled by the assumption that 'normal' porn - we'll call it "Hustleresque" - is bad in and of itself. Because of what it is, rather than the way it was produced. As you say, that it is the McDonald's of the porn industry, compared to Abbywinters' organic carrots. My discomfort is that we do not treat the taste for Hustleresque porn in the way that we might, say, a kink or a fetish. If people need to spanked silly in order to get off - or to spank silly, for that matter, or have their partner pee on them, or whatever, then few liberal-minded people would object that their actions, and the taste that requires them. Nor would they say that spanking (etcetera) is inherently bad, and that those who want to do such things would be in some way better if they learned to just like cuddling, intimate sex.

I have the "good fortune", I suppose, that my preference is to look at pictures of women who are pretty in an ordinary sort of a way. But I think it would be arrogant of me to suppose that this makes me less misogynisitc than the next man, or even worse that my pro-feminism actually caused me to prefer these sort of women, shot in this sort of style.

When Rosie and I were in Turkey staying at my parents house, we stumbled upon my father's collection of computer porn (not that it was terribly well-concealed), which was full of all those Hustleresque touches - horrid nylon lingerie, peroxide hair, skin that seems as though it must glow in the dark, enormous fake breasts and so on. All of these women were referred to as "sluts". Growing up, my father was a househusband. None of his wives looked like those women, and (to my knowledge) all of them were as independent and intelligent as my mother is. I guess the purpose of all of the above was to make two points: first, that I don't think people's taste in porn reflect on their general views, and secondly that I think it is a little silly to describe one taste as better or worse than another.

You talk about how empowering you find the work that you do. That is really good, and you are really lucky, because very few people must feel the way you do about their own work. I guess the question is, do you think the majority of the women in the porn industry will only feel as you do when the content of their work changes to that of abbywinters or its ilk? If men always want to look at the sort of porn my father likes, will that always be bad? Is it necessarily disempowering to pretend to be a woman you are not? Ultimately, I suppose, do you think that women can be happy with a porn industry in which the workers have the same chance of happiness or unhappiness as any other skilled industry; that is, in which porn is just as usurious or rewarding as, say, teaching or nursing?

EDIT; interesting link, laktor. Some of the articles - although of course I disagree with them - are really quite interesting. Just like Playboy .

[alexbee]

Way to go Sahara, keep us up to date if anything else develops.

[MightySpork]

https://www.againstpornography.org/

I checked out the site, and I have to wonder again why Dines and Jensen chose to target abbywinters.com in their article, since AW eschews the sleazy tactics they use in their horror stories. With the exception of girl-girl erotica, AW does not produce any of the scenes described on this page, and if you scroll down a bit under "Checking out porn sites' ads and slogans," you will find a long list of demeaning terms of the sort that abbywinters.com specifically forbids its affiliates to use when promoting the site.

And as far as girl-girl scenes go, they offer this tortured bit of armchair psychology:

As for the "girl-girl" scenes in heterosexual pornography, there are two explanations of why they are such an appeal to porn users: (1) "Girl-girl" scenes enables men to invade the privacy of lesbians, showing to them that "lesbian sexuality is really for men after all"; (2) There is a cultural homophobic belief, which is still well-present nowadays that says that "lesbian sex is dirty"; thus "girl-girl" scenes is just another way (in the homophobic mindset) of degrading women, by making heterosexual women have sex with each other and, sometimes, hurt each other.

Just the two explanations, then? Thanks, fellas -- I'm really glad you took the time to get to know me.

[primordialman]

Sahara, your letter was brilliant. it truely is how I feel about how porn should be.
Memrosie, I agree with your statement that porn is definately an objectification of sexual objects, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that porn should create a more healthy sexual image, which doesn't distort a healthy sexual relationship.
Well at least I think that is what I am trying to say.