Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

robert jensen is he a pest?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    robert jensen is he a pest?

    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.

    #2
    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.

    Comment


      #3
      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.

      Comment


        #4
        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.)
        Last edited by Frans; 26 January 2008, 12:03 AM. Reason: spelling:)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by jseas View Post
          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.

          Originally posted by jseas View Post
          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

          Comment


            #6
            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.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by heckelphon View Post
              because he thrives on the disagreement.
              Yes, that's the opinion I formed. Disagreement for disagreement's sake.

              Comment


                #8
                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!

                Comment


                  #9
                  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!)

                  Comment


                    #10
                    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.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      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.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by MightySpork View Post
                        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

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Abby View Post
                          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?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            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.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              journalistic techniques...

                              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

                              Comment


                                #16
                                Originally posted by Frans View Post
                                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.

                                Comment


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Abby View Post
                                  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.

                                  Comment


                                    #18
                                    It just occured to me that the correct word for mr. Jensen would be 'party-crasher'. Attempting to spoil other people's fun.

                                    Comment


                                      #19
                                      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...

                                      Comment


                                        #20
                                        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.

                                        Comment


                                          #21
                                          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....

                                          Comment


                                            #22
                                            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.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              The ideology of porn

                                              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.

                                              zcommunications.org is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, zcommunications.org has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!


                                              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.

                                              Comment


                                                #24
                                                I have merged these two threads because they have the same topic.

                                                Lxm

                                                Comment


                                                  #25
                                                  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.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    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?

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by memrosie View Post
                                                      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.

                                                      Originally posted by memrosie View Post
                                                      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.

                                                      Comment


                                                        #28
                                                        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.
                                                        Last edited by Frans; 5 February 2008, 07:36 AM. Reason: let's not go there

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by MightySpork View Post
                                                          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.

                                                          Originally posted by MightySpork View Post
                                                          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.


                                                          Originally posted by MightySpork View Post
                                                          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?

                                                          Comment


                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by memrosie View Post
                                                            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.

                                                            Originally posted by memrosie View Post
                                                            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.
                                                            Last edited by MightySpork; 5 February 2008, 02:33 PM. Reason: Update

                                                            Comment

                                                            Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                                                             
                                                            Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                                                            Working...
                                                            X