Vagenda, Anal Sex and Missing the Point Completely

*I am aware that Vagenda is claiming that the article on anal sex is meant to be a satire of Cosmo sex tips. The problem is that that is not how the article reads.


I have a love/ hate relationship with Vagenda. When they are on form, they are just bloody brilliant but when they miss, they do so spectacularly. Today's piece on anal sex was well past missing the point completely and into shaming people who like non-PIV and teaching women how to avoid anal rape.

Now, I self-identify as pro-radical feminist so I am highly critical of the focus on the male orgasm as the defining moment in sex as if everything up to that point, including making women cum, is just making out. The obsession with heteronormative constructions of sexuality are deeply damaging to women and make women responsible for contraception, pregnancy, STDs and making boundaries. Sex education in this country is a joke. I also think pornography is incredibly harmful and deeply destructive. I am anti-prostitution and support the criminalisation of men who purchase sex and those who profit from selling the bodies of other people. I also support the Merseyside model which labels the rape of prostitutes a hate crime. I am against the heteronormative construction of sexuality which uses and abuses the bodies of women and children for male pleasure.

I am really concerned about the normalisation of pornography in our culture and the increasing pressure on young women to have anal sex. There is increasing pressure on young women to preform sex acts which make them uncomfortable or cause them physical pain otherwise they are labeled frigid. We need to be having this discussion but Vagenda hasn't started a conversation. Instead, they seem to have published an article written by a teenage boy with boundary issues. FGS, who actually says "I’m a woman and I like what I like when it comes to the party in my pants" who isn't in a really bad hiphop video produced by Playboy? And, what type of conversation were they planning on having by calling anal sex "bum funnery" and "rump ranging" I'm not even going to go into how angry this sentence makes me: "Now, I know that a few of the ladies out there are total arse-penetration converts, I do." This basically states that women who choose to have anal sex and who do it are actually lying about both.

There are women who genuinely enjoy anal sex and there are women who feel pressured into doing so. We need to be having a conversation about the second group of women, especially young women who are being raised in a culture which sublimates their sexual desires. We need to talk about how women are expected to be the arbiters of sexual boundaries. We need to talk about living in a rape culture where the word no is apparently non-existant in the vocabulary of an ever-increasing number of young men. We need to talk about how we are raising girls to believe that their orgasms aren't really all that important as long as men have one. We need to talk about raising a generation of young boys and girls in a pornified culture and the harm that is causing them. Let's be honest here, the Vagenda article was talking specifically about heterosexual relationships as if they were the only possible kind.

We do not need more infantile articles blithering on with childish language. We do not need more articles yelling 'yay, anal sex is awesome' or more yelling 'it's disgusting'. We need to be having actual adult conversations about having sex in a positive and loving manner, by which I don't always mean within a relationship. Sex without respect, even with a partner you never plan on seeing again, is not good sex.

What really worries me about the Vagenda article is this paragraph:

I have a lovely man in my life that seems to really enjoy my pant party to which he is now the only man invited to. I want to make him happy all the time above and below the sheets, but surely playing Backdoor Buddies isn’t the answer (I’ve forever believed the answer was bacon, but apparently I’m wrong about that too.) He loves the bum: he’s so fascinated by it you would have thought he had been born sans derriere - but there’s no hiding the fact that every time a finger so much as wanders over into that forbidden territory, I suddenly turn into a bucking bronco, jumping six feet in the air like a scaled cat screaming out an appropriate rendition of Meatloaf’s ‘I would do anything for love’, emphasis on: ‘But I won’t do that.’

If you are in a long-term relationship with someone and you have to keep telling them that you do not want anal sex, either with penis, finger or object, then you aren't actually in a very respectful relationship. If your partner respects you, you talk during sex. You should not ever have to repeat that you don't want to engage in one specific sex act, whether that be anal sex, oral sex, or whatever. If you've said no once, then a partner should respect that. If they don't, well I'm sorry, but a sexual partner who repeatedly tries to transgress sexual boundaries is not someone you should be having sex with.

Telling a sexual partner that you do not want to engage in a specific act should not be difficult. If it is difficult, then you should not be having sex with that person/ persons. No one should ever have to use this line to describe their sexual relationships: "(i)n the last few years, I’ve been remarkably creative with ways to avoid posterior decorating out of sheer necessity." You should be able to say no and that word be respected. If your partner doesn't respect that word or keeps asking or keeps trying, then you aren't in a healthy sexual relationship. You aren't in a healthy relationship.

A partner who does not listen to you when you say no is a rapist. You do not need tips to avoid having anal sex if you do not want too. A good partner should respect your decision. Crotchless panties shouldn't be used as a defensive weapon against the possibility of being anally raped. If you like wearing them during sex, wear them. But, do not wear them as a way of trying to focus your partner away from doing something to your body that you dislike. If you have to bargain with other sexual acts to prevent someone doing something you dislike, you should not be having sex with them. You most certainly should not be in a relationship with them.

The entire Vagenda article was basically an instruction manual on how to avoid anal rape. It puts the onus on the female partner, instead of expecting the male partner not to be a rapist.

Women don't need a guide on how to avoid anal rape. Men need to stop raping.

Correction: It has been pointed out, via twitter, that I am implying that it is easy to just walk out of an abusive relationship. I am very sorry. I do know how hard it is to leave an abusive relationship and I should never have made that implication.

Read More

Anthony Kiedis: Moving from Sexiest Rocker to Creepy Old Man

A friend sent me a link to these images because they know I'm a fan of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Apparently, they are from the Russian version of Vogue and are supposed to be a fashion shoot. You know, if you think soft porn constitutes a fashion shoot; as most of the fashion industry seems to believe. Normally, I'd ignore the images and wonder about whether or not Anthony's considered therapy for his quite serious inability to date a woman over the age of 21 but these images are just, well, creepy.

Here we have "woman with breasts" shocker.

And, here we have "creepy old man with naked women" 

I'm really going to have to bin all of my RHCP albums, aren't I?  

(sighs)

Read More

So, Playboy, Definitely Art. And, other Dubious Statements

Hugh Hefner's 21 year old second son from his second marriage is apparently lining up to take over the company. When he finishes school. Obviously. This rather creepy article in the Independent, which is attempting to pass for news, would like everyone to know that Hef Jr definitely thinks Playboy is art and not pornography. 

I'd like to believe the article's other claim that the Playboy is only a "marginal" brand now but, let's be honest, they aren't making their money from the magazine. Instead, they have been capitalising on ole' Hugh's penchant for sexual violence in reality TV programs like The Girls Next Door. The Playboy Club TV program may have been cancelled in its first season but the Playboy clubs are coming back [and are the focus of some brilliant feminist activism]. Sales of Playboy Magazine itself are falling but Playboy brand merchandising is everywhere. For reasons I genuinely don't get, parents are buying their children Playboy branded duvet covers and notebooks. Playboy merchandise is flaming everywhere and that's without getting into the "sexy" Playboy dress-up clothes.

Ranting about Playboy merchandising on children aside [and I judge parents who buy 6 year olds jeans with Playboy bunnies on their arse or t-shirts which say 'Future Porn Star'. It's not funny or clever. It's just creepy], Cooper Hefner's attempts to rewrite Playboy's past and label their magazines 'art' rather than porn demonstrates some serious cognitive dissonance. Or, nincompoopery. Probably both. Whatever it is, Cooper is just not the brightest of sparks when he's comparing nude art with Playboy centerfolds insofar as he misses the whole freaking debate. Because, there is feminist debate about this and there is recognition that much of the art we admire is of questionable value morally and ethically. Hell, there's a whole lot of recognition that some of the artists whose work we admire are nothing more than sexual predators. Pretending that Playboy is 'art' isn't participating in that debate. It's the intellectual equivalent of running about with Darth Vader helmet back to front on one's head.

As for Cooper's discussion on the Bunny Girls and "empowerment", well, it's nice he's giving us permission to decide for ourselves but, really, when is Cooper going to participate in an activity which "empowers" him? Because, I'd really like to hear someone use that word on an activity men are required to participate in to be considered valuable.

And, honestly, how do you even unpack the following twaddle:

"There are many domestic issues in the US that bother me, such as gay rights or fighting for the legalisation of marijuana. But as we go global we need to stand for more important issues internationally. Women's rights in the Middle East and internet censorship in China are two things we can stand for and have an influence in, especially when we're coming into these emerging markets like India and we're faced with the challenge of opening up Playboy clubs where the bunnies can't even wear bunny outfits. You have these countries which are in a very similar place sexually – especially when it comes to gender roles – where the US was when my dad first started."

"Faced with the challenge" of opening in markets where women aren't allowed to wear Bunny outfits? I genuinely don't what to stay except that's a whole load of  nincompoopery which is seriously missing the point, not to mention just a teensy bit of orientalist discourse. That's without mentioning the whole issue of women's rights currently being destroyed in the US with access to abortion being curtailed everywhere and gang-rapes like that in Steubenville being a whole lot more common than many would like to believe. Or, that internet censorship isn't only in China. Why is it important for women in other countries to have the right to dress in Bunny outfits when American women wearing Bunny outfits are slut-shamed? How is expanding the Playboy empire going to help women? What has the legalisation of marijuana got to do with large swathes of the planet not having basic human rights like access to clean water? 

Being raised in the Playboy mansion [and the house next door where his mother lived] can't have been a healthy place for two young boys to grow up. I don't think its all that surprising that Cooper's brother Marston has a recent conviction for domestic violence. Whatever your opinion of porn, it isn't ever appropriate for children and the two boys would have been exposed during Playboy "parties", photo shoots and the filming of the Girls Next Door. These would not have been simply nude women. The Playboy empire is built on porn.

Christie Hefner, Cooper's older sister, ran the company until 2009 when she stepped down. She oversaw the expansion of the empire out of the magazine industry and she put an end to some of Hugh's more egregious behaviours, at least ones financially supported by the company. Cooper may not want to wear his father's pyjamas but neither he nor his brother Marsten come across as well-rounded men with a respect for women and women's sexuality. I don't agree with many of Christie Hefner's expansion policies, and I certainly find the show Girls Next Door deeply creepy, but I'm quite certain that Christie Hefner wanted to run a business. I'm not sure that's what Cooper or Marston are looking for.

Read More

The Problem is Male Violence:

We need to start naming this problem. Until we have the courage to talk about the cult of masculinity and their glorification of male violence, we will continue to grieve for innocent lives lost and families destroyed. We can attempt to obfuscate the issue by diagnosing perpetrators as "mentally ill" all we want but we all know it isn't true. The men who commit these crimes aren't "mentally ill", unless you want to define our entire culture as ill. It is a convenient lie designed to ignore the real issue: male violence.

Because that is the only thing the perpetrators of these types of crimes have in common: they are male and, in the case of mass shootings, are exclusively white men. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. 

Until we name the problem, we won't be able to address it. Gun control is only part of the solution. But, guns only make it easier for violent men to kill. Violent men kill women and children in a myriad of ways on a daily basis without guns. So, whilst gun control legislation is essential, male violence will not stop until we start holding men accountable for their violence.

We need to hold individual men accountable for domestic violence.

We need to hold individual men accountable for sexualised violence.

We need to hold individual men accountable for violence.

Then, we need to hold all men accountable for helping to perpetuate the myths that men are inherently violent or that there is always a cause for male violence.

We need to stop blaming victims for being victims of male violence.

We need to stop making excuses for male violence.

If you haven't already read it, Crates & Ribbons has written an important piece on the issue of gender in the mass murder of 27 women and children in Newtown, Connecticut. Mother Jones has written a survey on mass shootings in the US. Aviva Shen's Timeline of Mass Shootings since Columbine is a list of male perpetrators. William Hamby's Connecticut shooting, white males and Mass Murder is based on Rachel Kalish and Michael Kimmel's  Suicide by Mass Murder: Masculinity, Aggrieved Entitlement and Rampage School Shootings. All should be required reading today. Kathleen Barry's Unmaking War and Remaking Men and Susan Faludi's Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man and The Terror Dream are all searing indictments of the cult of hyper-masculinity.

We owe it to those who have lost their lives or whose families have been destroyed by male violence to name it.

We owe it to those who have lost their lives or whose families have been destroyed by male violence to hold individual men accountable for their crimes.

These are the innocent victims of the Newtown mass shooting. Lest we forget:

Children:
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana M. Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Madeleine F. Hsu, 6
Catherine V. Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Aviele Richman, 6
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison N. Wyatt, 6

Adults:
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Rachel Davino, 29
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27

Read More

Proud to be Professionally Offended, Hysterical with a Tendency to Over-Thinking

Professionally offended and hysterical being two of the most common insults hurled at feminists who think that words actually do have power and that being an arsehole isn't normal behaviour for adults who aren't arseholes; odd as that may seem to actual arseholes. As far as I can tell, over-thinking is applied to anyone who actually graduated from Kindergarten what with their emphasis on being kind to others and sharing and eating cookies with milk.

This weeks installment has come via a Mumsnet thread on the increasing nincompoopery of one Jamie Oliver. Now, I have never understood the fascination with Jamie Oliver. I don't cook and I can't think of anything more tedious than cooking shows, with the sole of exception of every sports show going. I don't think he's funny but that might be because I genuinely don't understand half of what he's wittering on about, what with the whole not cooking thing. 

Anyway, apparently, he used this particularly stupid phrase in his show yesterday to describe barbecue sauce.

"It should punch you round the face, with a little kiss after" 

I just don't see why it's necessary or funny to use phrases which imply domestic violence. Mostly, I think it makes him sound like an arsehole, regardless of whether he intended the reference or not. Because, I genuinely can't believe that people don't see the inference of domestic violence in that statement. This is part of the normalisation of male violence against women. And, I don't believe it was an off-the-cuff remark. I think it was planned, rehearsed and agreed on because it sounded "cool" and "edgy", just as kickassangel said. It will have been chosen deliberately to increase publicity, what with the whole "there's no such thing as bad publicity". 

I, for one, am sick of this bullshit. 

I am sick of men normalising male violence against women because they think it's hip. 

I'm sick of their apologists who tell survivors of domestic violence to "get over it".

I am proud to be professionally offended, hysterical with a tendency to over-think things because it means that I'm not actually an arsehole.


Turns out kickassangel has blogged about this too here. 

Read More

Reddit: Free Speech is the Privilege of Men

I promised myself I wouldn't write about this case. There is nothing I can say that a thousand other Feminists haven't been saying for years about Reddit's stance on misogyny. They are all for it. I mean, I've never used Reddit but it's a social media platform. It doesn't matter which one you mention, they all support misogyny [and racism, disablism and homophobia]. They all hide behind the construct of "free speech" to protect the right of men to say and do what they want without any thought to the harm their actions/ speech cause. It is the very essence of male entitlement and privilege. As I've said elsewhere, publishing photos, nude or otherwise sexualised, without consent is sexualised violence. This is an issue of consent and of the right to privacy. It is not something that should be covered under the construct of "free speech". Free speech is the legal protection for the right to critique the government and other political/ cultural structures. The right to free speech is not the same as the right to be a jackass. The fact that a large number of men are confused by this is their problem. We shouldn't indulge their desire to allowed to be as violent as possible just because they want to. There is no right to "Free speech" for those who are actively harmed in the perpetuation and perpetration of rape culture. We need to stop pretending that the right to free speech is more important than anything else. 

It is the issue of "creepshots" which has brought Reddit to the attention of mainstream press but not because rendering women into objects by uploading photos their sexualised bodies without consent is wrong. Nor is it because the issue of creepshots creates some serious legal implications in terms of the right to privacy and what constitutes a criminal offence. Nor is it because of questions the the construction of "sexuality, entitlement and public consumption."  That's not why men are having whiny-arsed tantrums and the media is running stories on it.* Nope, the issue has come up because Feminists have taken the step to publicly out the men perpetrating sexualised violence.

The hypocrisy of these men whining about their right to privacy having been violated by being named online when they have deliberately and maliciously participated in the sexualised violence of women by posted "creep" shots of them without consent is unbelievable. I am so very glad that someone with the computer skills tracked them down and named them. Yes, the expectation of privacy whilst in public is non-existent but that's but that's because we perceive women's bodies as public objects. Women have as much right to privacy as does the statue of Nelson in Trafalgar Square. The level of male entitlement to women's bodies of which they should have no access is unbelievable. If we complain about being objectified, then we are abused and humiliated; labelled whores and fat and ugly and stupid and frigid.

We need to hold these men accountable for their sexual predation. If the law won't support us in criminalising these forms of sexualised violence, then we too should have the right to free speech without limit. We should be legally entitled to name and shame these men as they have named and shamed us. Michael Brutsch didn't want to be publicly identified as Violentacrez because of his family. Yet, he did not care about publicly humiliating women or perpetrating rape culture. If he did not want his real life name attached to Reddit sites  publishing photos under the terms: jailbait, rapebait, incest and misogyny, then he shouldn't have put them up in the first place. His behaviour is the problem. Not the Feminist activists who are holding him publicly accountable for the sexualised violence he perpetrated. If James Silverwood and Dominic Terry were actually concerned about their right to privacy, they shouldn't have started a Facebook page called "12 year old sluts". These men need to be held accountable for the harm caused by their behaviour and we should have the right to call them on it. Otherwise, free speech is nothing more than a joke; a privilege of men denied to all others. 

So, a huge thank you to my Feminist sisters who have called these violent sexual predators out.

This is nothing less than a War on Women.

It is a war whose battlefields are women's bodies.

We have every right to fight back with every piece of technology available; after all, men are using the same technology to destroy us.

*The vast majority of news stories I've come across have been written by Feminists like Kira Cochrane. However, I do not believe the media would be running these stories in mainstream press if it weren't for the fact that Feminist activists have started outed the sexual predators involved in taking and distributing the photos. These sites have been running for years without any real comment on the level of misogyny they perpetuate. 

Read More

Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism

I think it's patently obvious to anyone who's read a single post on my blog that I am most emphatically an anti-porn feminist. I believe that Robin Morgan was correct when she said "pornography is the theory, rape is the practise."* I support Dworkin's thesis that porn isn't just the representation of VAW but that the very existence of pornography is VAW.** I believe that people who buy and/or watch porn are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture.*** I believe people who go to strip clubs, burlesque clubs and lap dancing clubs are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe men who buy "Lads Mags" are perpetuating and perpetrating rape culture. I believe that people who argue that pornography is an issue of free speech are deliberately obfuscating the violence committed on women's bodies in the porn industry and the violence to women outwith it. I do not believe that the existence of so-called feminist porn is anything but an attempt to obfuscate the hegemonic construction of porn which privileges the male orgasm at the expense of women's bodily integrity and existence. I believe the porn serves only to reinforce the hegemonic construction of heterosexuality within the capitalist-Patriarchy. I believe the language of "choice" and "empowerment" are lies perpetuated by the capitalist-patriarchy in order to deny culpability for VAW. I believe that women's liberation will only come with the complete destruction of the capitalist-Patriarchy and the eradiction of pornified rape culture.

I think it should come as no surprise that I love Julia Long's Anti-Porn: The Resurgence of Anti-Pornography Feminism. Long is a radical feminist, anti-porn activist who is an active member of the London Feminist Network and Object. It's a brilliant thesis. It's both a critical analysis of the representations of anti-porn feminism, pro-porn feminism and the pro-porn campaign within the media and culture; as well as a history of the anti-porn movement within Britain. It is an academic text full of theory but is incredibly easy to read as Long doesn't allow the jargon of academia to obfuscate her message. Long outlines the numerous factors in the ongoing pornification of society, which include but are not limited to, lads' mags, strip clubs, and the normalisation of the Playboy empire.

But, most importantly, it is a radical feminist critique of the debates surrounding pornography [and prostitution]. Far too often the "debates" on porn within the media focus on porn as an empowering tool for women [conveniently ignoring the fact that men are the ones getting rich from porn] and porn as an expression of human sexuality [and ignoring just how much porn dictates a hegemonic, heterosexual, racist sexuality which, in and of itself, is incredibly limited]. Long traces the feminist activism against pornography and illustrates some of the more successful feminist activist anti-porn campaigns: from Object's Stripping the Illusion to UK Feminista's Eff Off Hef. Long has given a voice to both the survivors of the porn industries and the grassroots activists fighting against pornographication. She has contextualised the anti-porn feminist movement in the UK within diverse factions of feminism.

It is a brilliant book and everyone should read it; especially those still trying to argue the libertarian assumptions of the total lack of harm caused by porn because some men like it.

Julia Long has a book reading  Sheffield October 15 at the Quaker Meeting House at 7:15

*Robin Morgan, (1974) Going Too Far: The Personal Chronicles of a Femininst, New York: Random House

**Andrea Dworkin, (1979) Pornography: Men Possessing Women, London: Women's Press

***Susan Brownmiller (1975) Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, New York: Simon & Schuster

Read More

So, Prince Harry Got Naked in Vegas and I'm Supposed to Care about HIs Right to Privacy

As ever, I think the media, and the all dipsticks in a frenzy over this, have got themselves mixed-up in some sort of David-Bowie-inspired-Labyrinth debacle. This isn't about the constraints on the British Press which prohibit them from invading the privacy of the Royal Family. This debate should be about everyone's right to privacy. No one should find pictures of themselves being drunk, stupid and naked on the web; even over-entitled white boys with some serious privilege issues. And, let's be honest here, the media sources making po-faced statements about not being allowed to show pictures of Harry's penis are actually whinging about not being allowed to. I doubt even channel 4 news would have managed to refrain themselves from showing all the footage of Harry's penis if they though they could get away with it.

I couldn't give a rat's arse about Harry. I think he's a buckethead and I have no time for him or the rest of the nincompoops in his family. I do, however, care about his right to privacy and that of ordinary people; especially those who are vulnerable. I think Paris Hilton is nincompoop but no one deserves to have their sex tapes available on TMZ [or whoever posted them. I'm not going to google this to double check which parasitic media outlet actually published them]. No one deserves to be sexually assaulted in this manner. And, here, I do mean sexually assaulted. Having pictures of your unclothed body posted about the net for others to sneer at or masturbate to is sexualised violence.

And, yeah, I'm sure some will read this and think I'm over-reacting; that Harry is just being a jack-the-lad and it's all a bit of a fuss over nothing. I would agree that Harry playing naked billiards with his mates is neither news-worthy or surprising [although, let's be honest here, possibly a bit unsafe playing it drunk]. But, it is sexualised violence to post pictures of his body naked without permission. Frankly, I'm not overly-fond of the issues around consent and naked pictures in general. I think far too many vulnerable people get pushed into both being photographed or filmed naked and then lose the rights to their images but are somehow led to believe they have "consented" through "choice" [and, seriously, do I loathe "choice" feminism and it's insistence on pretending to "empower" vulnerable women through their sexual exploitation].

There is also a gendered dimension to this issue which the press is conveniently obfuscating. Harry, age 27, running about naked is a bit of a laugh; Vanessa Hudgens, still pretty much a teenager, sending a man naked pictures of herself is a "slut". This is without even getting into the serious misogyny which has punished both Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan. The old slut-shaming double standard always rears it's ugly-head in these situations. As @londonfeminist tweeted this morning:

Just imagining today's headlines if Prince Harry were Princess Helen.

We all know the Daily Fail would be running headlines about a Princess Helen being disgrace to the crown, a slut, a whore and a whole passel of nincompoopery. They'd publish the photos. They wouldn't care about a Princess's right to privacy; not in their desperate attempt to label her a whore.

Publishing photos of people either naked or in other sexually compromising positions is sexualised violence. This should apply as equally to bucketheaded princes as it does to vulnerable 17 year olds. And, the media aren't the only ones responsible for perpetuating this sexualised violence. Every time ordinary people google these images, they are buying into and feeding the sexual exploitation industry and helping to increase the number of sexually exploited people.

The whole reality television and "celeb" magazines industry need to die. Today.

People need to stop financially supporting the sexualised violence of others. This serves only to feed rape culture.

Read More

Jezebel: I'm Not Sure if We Should Be Celebrating or Crying. I think I'm Going With Crying

I read Jezebel. I'm not proud of it but, really, where else can you get real feminist analysis and anti-feminist handmaiden shit all in the same place? TMZ and Perez Hilton are just facile, woman-hating shite. Jezebel has moments of genius; you know, when they're not insulting and denigrating actresses for having sex or labelling models fat or the whole breast-feeders are Nazis schtick and what have you. I'm never entirely sure how they manage to flip between feminist activism and the Official Handmaiden Cheerleading Squad. But, they do. And, I can't help myself but be amazed at their hypocrisy and their frequent tendency to completely miss the Feminist point.

This article being a case in point. It starts like this:

On Saturday, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn signed a law that will force strip clubs to pay an additional tax, which will in turn be used to fund programs aimed at preventing sexual assault as well as counseling sexual assault victims. The new tax is expected to haul in about $1 million a year for rape prevention programs, funding that even critics of the tax think is sorely needed.

Well, this is a lovely law except for the whole bit about it expecting rapes to happen. You want to stop the increased rapes which occur near strip clubs, then you ban strip clubs. You don't tax them to pay for the treatment of the rape victims who were raped because of the existence of the club. It's ridiculous. And, circular. And, stupid. But, at least, they are acknowledging the relationship between the "sex entertainment industry and increased sexual violence; even though they are solving it in the stupidest fashion possible.

This, however, is Jezebel's conclusion:

You'd have to be some kind of epic asshole to disagree with the way this additional revenue will be used, but implying a definite link between strip clubs and sexual assault carries the danger of further stigmatizing a business that already implies a certain degree of sleaze. Ultimately, this tax might not affect club owners like Ocello as much as it might affect the women who work at Ocello's clubs.

Talk about missing the freaking point. Guess what? The research does suggest that rapes and other forms of sexual violence increase in and around strip clubs and lap dancing clubs. And, this is without considering the sexualised violence that the women working in these clubs experience. That increased risk is to random women who just happen to be unlucky enough to live or work near one. And, yeah, I think the sex industry is sleazy. It harms all women whilst deliberately targeting vulnerable women for exploitation: women are poor or lack formal education or are already victims of sexualised violence (usually as a child) or women with serious drug or alcohol dependency issues. The idea that women "choose" to end up in this industry would be laughable if it weren't so harmful. The sex entertainment industry [an oxymoron if I've ever heard one] is about the objectification, abuse and torture of women's bodies. It is sleazy. And, it will always be sleazy.

A cursory search on google would have found lots of research and articles discussing the correlation between the increase risk of sexualised violence and the sex entertainment industry. Here's an article in the Telegraph about a police chief in Newquay objecting to sex entertainment establishments because they increase VAW. Object has countless resources listed here outlining the prevalence of sexualised violence near lap dancing clubs. The writer at Jezebel was either to lazy or too constrained by Patriachal discourse to even contemplate that the objectification of women's bodies does make other[ed] women unsafe. 

We need to face up to the fact that prostitution, pornography and "sex entertainment establishments" help perpetuate rape culture. It is disingenuous and unkind to suggest otherwise.

Read More

Thankfully, Misogyny Returns to Live Another Day: The Olympic Closing Ceremony

So, The Olympic Closing Ceremony has returned us to normalcy with Misogyny making it's big comeback; along with Freddie Mercury and John Lennon. I do have to state, for the record, that I went to bed during The Who and I haven't bothered to read any blogs or media reports on the Closing Ceremony yet so it's entirely possible I'm just repeating what everyone else is saying. But, I don't actually care. The Closing Ceremony was just an embarrassing celebration of nincompoopery and misogyny. Spending two weeks celebrating the talents and athletic ability of some truly incredible and inspiring women to end it with 2 women famous for wearing clothes seems a bit, well, pathetic. Not to mention, the whole Kate Moss cocaine issue and Naomi Campbell with her violence problems. Moss, at least, wasn't too out of place considering the rest of the show seemed to be a Who's Who of British Drug Addiction. Why Pete Doherty wasn't invited is anyone's guess.

I thought most of the Closing Ceremony was tedious, ill-conceived and poorly executed nincompoopery. I can't begin to imagine why anyone thought One Direction was a good idea or what dimwit was in charge of sound and hadn't planned enough music for the Athlete's Parade so that they were forced to repeat music from the first half; cleverly highlighting who had been lip-syncing. All in all, it was nowhere near as good as the Opening Ceremony lacking any sense of story-telling or political protest. I was holding out for a Pussy Riot protest art piece and the Kaiser Chiefs singing I Predict a Riot. I was sorely disappointed by the lack of both. Although, I do have to give whoever was in charge props for celebrating two charming British institutions: the traffic jam and police kettling tactics. Unfortunately, those were simply not whimsical enough to maintain any sense of fun during 3 tedious hours of bad British music: performed by some who should have been better [and I'm looking at you here Beady Eye].

But, what really fucked me off was the Ode To Misogyny which was the second half. That should have been accompanied by Soul II Soul's Back to Reality wherein men are celebrated (fully clothed) for their talents and women were running around half-naked. Then, at least, we could have pretended it was meant ironically. And, yeah, I'm fucking incensed that Moss and Campbell's images were paraded around the venue on the back of a truck: because objectifying women's bodies is just so cool and, you know, unusual. Or, something equally tedious.

That alone was just beyond fucking sexist bollocks but Eric Idle surrounded by (fake?) Victoria Secret's Models in angel gear was the final nail in a night of extreme stupidity. Monty Python aren't exactly reknown for their realistic portrayal of women but accompanying Always Look on the Bright Side of Life with a bunch of angels in their underwear is just beyond ignorant. They had a chance to do something truly spectacular and original with the Monty Python sketch and instead went with the same tedious misogyny; much like they did with the inclusion of rape apologist Russell Brand. It was disgraceful. He is disgraceful. The less said about him, the better.

The ONLY redeeming feature of the whole night was Darcey Bussell. She is just an incredible athlete and a true celebration of British talent. That sequence with the Phoenix and the brilliant dancing was the best part of the Closing Ceremony. As soon as someone with better computer skills than me puts the Phoenix sequence on youtube, I will post it because it was genius. 

The rest was a gigantic pile of shite. And, I can't even begin to work out what Annie Lennox was on about. If this Olympics was a real celebration of women athletes with Saudi Arabia sending women competitors for the first time, Lennox should have been singing her anthems of women power: Sisters are Doing it for Themselves or Sing. Oh, and George Micheal's Freedom should have been performed by women in Pussy Riot outfits. Just because. But, it wasn't. It was the same tedious misogynistic constructions of patriarchal conformity celebrating the hyper-sexualised objectification of women's bodies that Playboy peddles daily. A waste of money and time.

Read More

The Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Continuing Nincompoopery of Lynx

Now, I'm sure everyone will be as shocked as I am at Lynx having misogynistic advertising. After all, Lynx are the creative geniuses behind this: 

And then there is this gem which isn't about the objectification of women at all: 

Lynx are clearly on the forefront of the anti-misogyny advertising front. So, I was shocked, horrified and utterly perplexed by this new ad campaign: The Five Types of Women: 

Because that's all women are: objectified stereotypes whose sole purpose is to be fucktoys for men. Or, in the case of purchasers of Lynx, teenage boys and "adults" with serious psycho-sexual disorders. After all, these are the kinds of comments Lynx allows on its FB page:

Louis Small She is not a brainy girl... she is a whore with glasses... 

ris Avfc Harrison High maintenance biyatches can suck my fat one. They horrible n fake

These ads just feed our hyper-masculine, hyper-sexualised rape culture wherein women are shamed for being sluts whilst being coerced into trying to fit the requirements of the Patriarchal Fuckability Test. Lynx is just another way for the Fashion-Beauty Complex to punish women whilst capitalising on male insecurities about their sexuality. Lynx isn't selling pleasure. Its just reinforcing patriarchal conformity and rape culture by constructing and constraining sexuality. I'm not sure who Lynx thinks is their customer base but I do think that the rule: "if the man wears lynx, he's not worth dating" is a maxim to live by.

Read More

I'm In The Market For a Nuclear Bunker.

The government is privatising our nuclear submarine bases. You know, cus privatising everything else has worked so well and stuff. The railways anyone? Water? Electricity? G4S and the Olympics? Never mind, the fact that government couldn't negotiate to buy a table cloth in a market let alone a multi-billion contract with private companies. If you don't believe me, google Edinburgh city council and their trams fiasco. All privatisation has done is prove just how corrupt, inefficient and incompetent our government really is.

Basically, a consortium of private companies will be running the Trident nuclear submarine bases at Faslane and Coulport. Even, more excitingly, the consortium already run the Atomic Weapons Establishment where the warheads are built. It's definitely a who's who of the military-industrial complex who are getting rich at the expense of lives of innocent people in the UK and elsewhere.

So, I'm in the market for a nuclear bunker. Because I don't trust a bunch of private companies in it for the profit not to fuck up so extensively that they don't end up "accidentally" flogging our nuclear warheads to terrorists to pay off the inevitable fine for "accidentally" blowing another one up. I don't trust a bunch of misogynistic private companies steeped in the discourse of hyper-masculinity not to hire unqualified staff with serious psychological problems who "accidentally" cause a nuclear war. I'm not exactly happy with our military having nuclear weapons [or the militaries in most countries] but I trust, only slightly more, our military than I trust the arsewipes at Lockheed Martin.

Read More

Apparently, Evil Feminists Have Hurt Poor Wickle Mike Tyson's Feelings.

At least, according to some whiny git called Andy Foreham, one of the organisers of Tyson's "boxing hero" event in Hampshire, Tyson is feeling "very upset and very disappointed" at being held responsible for being a rapist. Is anyone else upset by this? Because, I have to say, I'm feeling quite smug about hurting the feelings of a rapist and domestic violence perpetrator: a rapist who had the gall to say this at his sentencing hearing:

I have not raped anyone, tried to rape anyone by any means," he said. "I'm sorry for Miss Washington as a person. I by no means meant to hurt her or do anything to her. I'm sure she knows that.

Yeah, I'm sure Ms Washington was really pleased to learn that Tyson didn't mean to hurt her when he didn't rape her without her consent. Or, whatever self-serving bullshit he was spouting. I'm equally sure that Ms Washington will be pleased to know that Foreman believes that feminists are just vindictive for continuing to harp on about Tyson's conviction for rape as it's just "something which happened years and years ago." and that "(t)he council are trying to be "dogooders saying they do not want this type of person in Fareham." That's us evil, vindictive Feminists: holding grudges about convicted rapists. Clearly, the world would be a much happier place if us Feminists stopped holding rapists accountable for, you know, being rapists. Or, something equally stupid.

I'm glad Portsmouth Guildhall cancelled this event due to Feminist activism and this petition. I'm equally glad that Fareham Town Football Club succumbed to Feminist activism after agreeing to host the event when Portsmouth Guildhall cancelled. But, I'm not exactly feeling the love for these two organisations. They both decided that Tyson's ability to punch people in the face whilst "boxing" was more important than Tyson's long criminal history of violence against women. His conviction for the rape of Ms Washington and his well-established domestic violence against his ex-wife Ms Givens are hardly the only examples of Tyson's misogynistic violence. This just another example of the minimising and erasure of male violence against women.

I'm beyond angry at the continuing assumption that celebrity rapists are only ever accused of the crime by gold-digging whores. I'm angry at celebrity men whose violence against women is minimised by a misogynistic media [and I'm looking at you Chris Brown and Charlie Sheen]. I'm angry at the people who buy into this discourse and who help perpetrate and perpetuate rape culture with their willful ignorance and clinical stupidity.

Mostly, I'm proud to be a Feminist. I'm proud to stand with women who hold men accountable for male violence. I'm proud to stand with Feminist activists who fight for women despite threats of violence and rape. I'm proud to stand with women who understand how harmful the Patriarchy is for women [and men]. I'm proud to stand with women who won't be silenced.

Read More

Sensationalising Male Violence for Entertainment

I've been debating writing this blogpost because I genuinely believe that the men who commit these crimes want the publicity and that that publicity is the last thing we should be giving them; as Helen Lewis points out in this article in the New Statesman. I dislike how the names of these violent men become part of the cultural landscape whilst their victims names are erased; only to be mourned by close family. At the same time, I find the media intrusion into the families of the victims to be utterly horrifying. I'm not entirely sure how we can ensure that the names of the victims become more important than remembering the name of their murderer without some intrusion into their privacy.

However, I can not believe it is legal for the media to start interviewing people who have just witnessed violence without even giving them a chance to breathe. I find the the jamming of microphones into the faces of injured people utterly hateful. I find camping on the lawns of extended family members distateful. This isn't about "reporting" a "newsworthy" story. It's about causing more hurt to an already distressed family. As long as we make violence our entertainment, we will continue to prey upon people who deserve our compassion; not our ignorance.

The numerous, daily examples of male violence are elided from the media in favour of sensationalist stories which make folk heroes of other violent men. We need to start acknowledging the systemic and endemic violence perpetrated by men against their partners, children, extended family, acquaintances and strangers. But, we need to start tackling this issue without glamourising the violence or using the pain of the victims for our collective entertainment.

The current media representations of the mass shooting in Aurora have been the same old sensationalist shite designed to cause further hurt rather than any attempt to deal with the social, political, and cultural reasons as to why mass shootings are increasing. That is the real story; not one in which the murderer becomes more important than those he hurt. We need to hold the media more accountable for sensationalising pain. However, those who consume these stories are just as guilty as those who write them.

We need to start boycotting all forms of media which sensationalise violence in society. We need to start making formal complaints to the Press Complaints Commission. We need to start getting our media coverage from sources interested in justice rather than profit.

Read More

Misogynistic Advertising Walk of Shame: The Continuing Nincompoopery of PETA [TRIGGER WARNING]

I've always thought that PETA were a bunch of misogynistic nincompoops too stupid to understand that a person can care about the abuse and torture of animals without objectifying and torturing the bodies of women. This image of Pamela Anderson exemplifies everything that is wrong with them; and it's not even the most misogynistic image they've ever come up with:

Every time I see a new PETA advertisement, I think they can't possibly be anymore misogynistic or hypocritical (see Naomi Campbell and the "I'd rather be Naked than Wear Fur campaign). I am consistently wrong. PETA gave up all pretence of humanity when they decided to launch a porn channel in order to raise awareness of animal rights. Because torturing rabbits to test eye make up is more important than the rape and torture of women's bodies. Here's a hint: no one should be testing mascara on rabbits. It's torture. Double anal penetration of a woman's body: also torture. PETA are the quintessential misogynistic hypocrites with no redeeming features.

Yet, again, I was wrong in the PETA can't get any worse stakes. I came across the link to PETA' Superbowl misogynistic bollocks on a Mumsnet thread. I genuinely can't articulate just how offensive, vile and stupid the [thankfully banned] ad was. Simulating sex with vegetables in order to make vegetarianism look cool is really just pathetic and sad. And horrible and misogynistic. What kind of person converts to vegetarianism after seeing a woman faking an orgasm on a piece of broccoli? Is the animal rights movement so devoid of intelligent members that they have to trawl for support from the clinically stupid? Or, do PETA just not care that their ads are targeted at the sexually inadequate or hypocrites like Naomi Campbell?

I do not buy any beauty products which are tested on animals, including soaps and shampoos. I believe ALL animal testing should be illegal and people who wear fur as a fashion choice are dingbats [although, I do exclude here communities like the Inuit who eat, use, and wear all products from animals they hunt]. I do not believe in any factory-farming or battery caged hens and I do believe that the European/ North American & South American diets are far too dependent on meat which is part of the cause of famines in other areas of the world. I believe everyone reducing their meat intake to no more than once a week while have the benefit of increasing sustainable food production for all. I believe in this despite PETA's best efforts to the contrary.

I believe PETA's advertising campaigns buy into the hyper-sexualised and hyper-masculinity culture in which women are treated as no more than Patriarchal fucktoys. PETA support, perpetuate and perpetrate rape culture.

I do wonder how many people PETA put off the animal rights movement with their misogyny? And, how many have joined their cause because it reinforces the construction of women as sub-human?

Read More

Brilliant Circus for Kids if it didn't have a Faux Pole Dance in the Middle

I took my youngest to see a travelling circus last week. It was, for the most part, a great kids' circus. Lots of acrobatics, no animals, and an utterly ridiculous clown who didn't feel the need to go in for any sexist jokes but rather focused on the old routines of dropping plates and throwing popcorn on people. Yes, I've seen that a million times before but it's still funny. More importantly, kids love it and circuses really are for kids. This wasn't the best circus I've ever been too but small loved it and that's what counts the most for me; although, to be fair, I quite enjoyed it too.

There were, however, two twitch-inducing acts. The first was an acrobatic act involving 3 Black men. They were fucking brilliant and the one who limboed basically bent backwards was incredible. I felt my usual spell of jealousy of people who are that athletic and flexible. I am neither. But, they were dressed in "African" prints and were doing "African" dances. Now, I have no idea of their ethnic origins since I didn't speak to them but I really do find it sad when I see incredible Black artists reduced to using stereotypical [but usually wrong] constructions of "Africa" in order to entertain white audiences. They were a great act but the reductive "othering" of it was uncomfortable to view.

The other was an act featuring a young woman in a very "sexualised" outfit performing what was basically a pole dance without the pole [since she was standing on a large disco ball rather than the pole]. Now, this is was an acrobatic circus. Most of the women were in tight or revealing clothes but weren't dressed as pole dancers. This particular act involved lots of standing on her head and doing the splits whilst stroking herself. She was an incredible athlete so the stroking was nothing more than an attempt to pander to the pornographied sections of society who can't go to an event with their children without having their cocks virtually stroked. What was a real piss-off was the climax involved this athlete [and she was an athlete] standing on her head, facing backwards and shooting an arrow at a dartboard. Now, I'm dyspraxic and couldn't shoot an arrow in a straight line whilst standing upright and facing the right way so the whole shooting whilst standing on your head and facing the wrong direction was pretty fucking amazing. It didn't need to be "sexed up". It's just so disgraceful and depressing that a circus aimed at kids feels they need to add a routine like this in order to appeal to the pornographied masses.

What happened to just being able to take our kids to the circus, pay obscene amounts of money for popcorn to watch real clowns and real athletes perform amazing acts without the need to make lions jump through hoops which are on fire or have women trussed up like sex toys?

Read More

Once Bitten: Stupid Vampire Book and I Should Have Known Better.

It's a book about vampires and werewolves. I wasn't exactly expecting a Feminist treatise. I was tired but not quiet tired enough to go to bed and wanted to read something forgettable to put my brain to sleep. That didn't happen.

Trina Lee's Once Bitten is a serious pile of misogynistic twaddle that even manages to make Twilight look not-too-evil-in-the-domestic-violence-perpetuating-stakes. The basic premise is woman born with psychic powers is turned into a werewolf in an incident which involves the slaughter of the rest of her family. Then, she has sex with a vampire who bites her. They end up with a strong psychic connection which requires them to have sex whilst she's simultaneously having sex with another werewolf who's the "good boy". So far, so stupid.

The book gets worse. Alexa joins a pack after the "alpha male" saves her from being raped; aged 17. The response of the emotionally traumatised child is to "offer" herself sexually to the man who saved her physically from rape and emotionally from the loss of her family. And, the "alpha male", an adult nearly 20 years her senior, fucks her. She is an emotionally traumatised child. That isn't consensual sex. It's sexual abuse. An adult who has "sex" with a child in this scenario is a sexual predator and rapist.

But, it gets even worse. It turns out that the werewolf who makes Alexa a werewolf is also the head of the pack that she now belongs too. The "alpha male" was involved sexually with Alexa's mother and he murdered her because he was jealous. He killed Alexa's entire family because Alexa's mother stopped having sex with him. So, he starts having "sex" with Alexa instead. And, apparently, it's Alexa's fault she was sexually abused by this predator because he couldn't control himself sexually and she "offered" herself up to him.

This book is the most heinous kind of rape-myth, victim blaming, misogynistic bullshit. I genuinely couldn't stop reading because I couldn't believe just how many rape myths the author had internalised. It's the same kind of victim-blaming shite that Gabriel Garcia Marquez tries to pass off as "romantic" in Love in the Time of Cholera except this time its a werewolf who can't "control" himself. Men who rape do so because they want to; because they are rapists. It isn't about loss of control. They know perfectly well that they are raping a woman. They just don't think that women are human.

Trina M. Lee could do with reading these rape myths before trying to write another book.

Read More

Louis Theroux Utterly Stupid View of Porn

WARNING: TRIGGERING

To be clear, I am anti-porn. I think its harmful, reductive and destructive. It destroys women's bodies through abuse and objectification. It reinforces rape culture by perpetuating the myth that women are ALWAYS in a constant state of consent. It destroys sexuality by delineating and prescribing "acceptable" sexual practises which, inevitably, privilege the male orgasm at the expense of a woman's bodily autonomy [never mind their desire to orgasm]. I agree with the radical feminist philosophy that: Porn is the Theory and Rape the Practise. I have no time for the arguments of "choice feminism" which suggest we should support the rights of individual women to "choose" to engage in any activity which then, necessarily, become feminist [with no mention the issue of poverty, abuse and substance misuse which push women into the porn industry]. Feminism is a political theory which examines structural power. It is not about individual "choices"; especially when those "choices" involve serious consequences on the physical and emotional body of the woman involved and longer-term consequences for the objectification and abuse of other women. Porn is your basic woman-hating, Patriarchy-approved establishment.

Usually, I am a fan of Louis Theroux's work. I like his ability to play the foppish Englishman and ask awkward and inappropriate questions which elicit answers that others couldn't. Twilight of the Porn Stars, a return to a 1997 documentary by Theroux, though was, simply, quite embarrassing. Theroux's failure to challenge the myth that porn is in financial difficulties is incredibly harmful. Yes, I get that he's more interested in the performers than in the money but still, his refusal to even attempt to tackle one of the most pervasive myths of the sex industry is telling. He could have challenged the myth in his conclusion without impacting on his interview technique. Theroux seems to have taken the information he received from employees in the industry without question. It just wasn't good enough as a documentary or responsible enough for a man with his reputation. It also shows a remarkable lack of research into the topic and some serious cognitive dissonance.

I would have just clenched my teeth and assumed that bad editing was responsible for the problematic documentary but the article Theroux wrote for the Guardian to advertise the documentary destroyed my optimism. The article is really quite appalling and distressing. There is so much wrong with it that I don't even know where to start. Basically, Theroux's premise that the porn industry is in decline is just wrong. He completely misunderstands how "free" porn works on the internet or how the "sex entertainment industry" uses the word "amateur". How can you produce a documentary without understanding the mechanics of the industry; especially one which operates on obfuscation? Porn is a profitable industry because it followed the rules of capitalism and has concentrated the power and the profits in the hands of a few men. Gail Dines and Dana Bialer have written an excellent critique of Theroux's failure to understand the industry in the Guardian. Frankly, ten minutes googling would have demonstrated just how fallacious the premise of a porn industry in decline really is.

Whilst Theroux's failure to understand the economics of the porn industry is interesting, I found his refusal to really question the effects of the porn industry on individual performers quite intriguing. Theroux does return again and again to the suicide of a performer called John Dough that he interviewed in the 1997 documentary but Theroux seems to have a "romantic"view of the industry. At least, his view of the industry has some seriously rose-coloured glasses involved. He does get Francine Amidour to make some seriously unpleasant comments including the fact that she wouldn't want her children to be involved because she doesn't want to be the mother of a "whore". The fact that Amidour is "whoring" out other people's children is, apparently, so insignificant that isn't even worth mentioning. Amidour also says that "fucking someone on a camera isn't as hard as working 16 hours a day in an office." I've worked in offices. It's never given me an STD, or stretched my anus so that I suffer permanent anal leakage or resulted in my gang rape. And, that's without getting into Robert Black, who actually served a prison sentence for obscenity, who says that he doesn't regret forcing women to engage in multiple anal penetration but that it seems "silly" now. The women whose bodies he tortured might feel differently about that. I know I do. It's actually quite lazy journalism.

Theroux does focus on the suicide of the one male model, 'John Dough', that he interviewed in his  original film is interesting but very odd considering the irreparable harm caused by the industry on women's bodies daily like double anal penetration, gang-bangs and men ejaculating in women's eyes. Theroux asks everyone he interviewed about Dough's suicide and tracks down Dough's wife. Monique DeMoan suggests that her husband committed suicide because of "his cocaine addiction and the instability and sense of failure that went with it, not because of the pressures of the industry". Whilst the interview with Dough's wife is definitely one of the most important parts of the documentary, interviewing her daughter on camera was a step too far for me. She is a child. She could have been interviewed without her face being shown. I know Monique could have refused the interview but it's Theroux's documentary. He could have shown some consideration for the child and chosen not to use her; especially because she is used as a foil to belittle her mother. That made me so very uncomfortable and angry. More importantly, Dough didn't commit suicide because of the "decline of a media format" as those interviewed by Theroux suggested. And, that's certainly not what the people Theroux interviewed thought. They have been saying it but its a clear case of cognitive dissonance. After all, no one working in the industry is going to admit that the industry is harmful and kills people. Theroux just didn't push hard enough on this issue.

I don't even know where Theroux was going with this bit in his Guardian article:

It's an open secret in the porn world that many female performers are supplementing their income by "hooking on the side". It's also called "doing privates", as in private bookings. The official industry line is that it's dangerous (because clients aren't tested the way performers are) and irresponsible (because the women could then infect the closed community of professional performers). But the women can make far more money having sex behind closed doors than doing it on film and, in fact, the practice is widespread. For many female performers nowadays, the movies are merely a sideline, a kind of advertising for their real business of prostitution.

Male performers do not have the same options. For a tiny subsection of top talent, there is still a regular pay cheque, albeit a shrinking one. But work has dried up for many of the journeyman-performers in the lower ranks and there is a great deal of anxiety across the board.

Because men aren't financially "compensated" in the same manner as women, we should feel sad for them? "Doing privates" is prostitution. The models, male and female, do so because they need the money. That's hardly a "free choice"; especially in an industry which has no health insurance and causes serious physical damage to bodies. Using "adult movies" to advertise your body to be prostituted is not a good thing. It just shows how strong the links are between the "sex entertainment industry" [approved by Wall street] and the prostitution and abuse of women's bodies [approved by Wall Street in all but name]. The fact that we live in a society where women and men are required to sell their bodies to pay their bills is not a society I want to live in.

And, frankly, this bit is just stupid:

Where the industry will end up is hard to predict. Clearly there is still a market for softcore movies made by companies such as Penthouse and Hustler, available on subscription channels. The parodies may continue for a while, too. But it is difficult to see how a business selling hardcore movies and even internet clips is sustainable when most people simply don't want to pay if they don't have to. To many people, when it comes to porn, not paying for content seems the more moral thing to do.

I know where I want the porn industry to end up: consigned to the rubbish bins of history and every piece of pornography destroyed so that the abuse of individuals is no longer the fodder for men to wank over. The morality of people who masturbate over the abuse of women's bodies is questionable but its not because they don't like to pay for porn. It's because they are masturbating over the rape and torture of women; vulnerable women. That is the morality issue.

And this bit just made me want to vomit:

And there is also the wider question: do those who use porn not, perhaps, owe it a little something? Should those who download it not be ready to pass on a little cash incentive to the business? And if not, why not? Does the stigma attached to porn make it OK to steal it? These questions underpin a much bigger dilemma being faced by all media: how do you sustain an industry that provides a certain standard of product – be it journalism, music, or mainstream movies, or X-rated movies – when more and more consumers are in the habit of downloading content for free? In the world of porn, the answer is: you can't.

I'd like to see the BBC do a real documentary on pornography and the real effects of it on individual performers and the larger effects on the objectification and sexual violation of women. The obfuscation in this documentary is just depressing.

Theroux is better than this. And, the women and men abused daily in the "sex entertainment industry" deserve better than this documentary.

Read More