Posted: October 28, 2009 in Humans, Pornography

So very, very wrong.  Now granted, I am not a man or a feminist, so this isn’t to me, it’s just about people like me…you know, cause apparently we cannot read or anything like that…

One, pretty sure this gal has never been on a porn set.  Two, where the fuck does she get off saying there is no “real” consent out of women like me, and we’re all being raped, all the time?  WOOHOO two fucking points for some fine feminist dehumanization and othering there!  Also extra bonus points for doing the Gail Dines move of assuming to know the thoughts and feelings of performers in porn without ever talking to them. 

I even said I was done with this shit, but you know, I just can’t be.  I can’t have the PERSONHOOD of people in porn erased by a bunch of fucking moral know it all crusaders who think they know best, no matter their political bent. 

So then, Femonade Gal…tell you what….why don’t you come here and tell me all about how I’ve been raped, and how many times, because I do porn….especially when I say “No, I haven’t been.  Ever.” 

People like her so piss me off.


  1. Vladimir says:

    don’tpay her any mind, her argument is specious anyway. it’s all personal about how she feels consent should be given.

  2. You know, I actually thought I was having a reasonable discussion with her, but then… well, this. No addressing how what she’s saying can be taken as taking away the ability to consent of performers. (Seriously, the structure of it makes me think of statutory rape-type laws. Say, take something like “Such other person is suffering from a mental defect or incapacity which precludes giving consent, or lacks the mental capacity to know the right and wrong of conduct in sexual matters.” and add in “or has been in porn.”) And then there’s going off on this incredibly narrow definition of rape that doesn’t even include every way in which women can be raped (and thanks to hentai, I’ve learned about far more of those than I ever wanted to). Not to mention that porn is generally *edited*, so any ‘renegotiation’ is going to be cut out, and any scenes that have to be halted entirely will simply not be released ever, and…

    I just… there’s nothing to adequately describe this.

  3. Ernest Greene says:

    Well, I do recall saying it was bullshit, and that seems an adequate description.

    If it weren’t for their incredible mean-spiritedness toward female performers, one of whom is a friend whose blog this is and another of whom happens to be married to me, I’d just dismiss it as the nonsense it is. But the degree to which this nonsense has gained traction among befuddled liberals who should know better and whose support for free speech is vital to preserving a society in which I care to live, makes casual dismissal seem unwise.

    But it is just bizarre, for someone who has spent 25 years making porn, to see the reflection of what I do in the fun-house mirror of their projections. Nothing they say about us is true and there is no resemblance whatsoever between their imagining of hte process and the reality of it whatsoever.

    Not that reality is of much interest to the parties involved. Clearly, it’s much less engaging emotionally than the fantasy world they’ve created to supplant it.

  4. Rachel S. says:

    Wow, that was a giant brain-dump. Someone needs to learn how to edit their posts before publishing them. Yikes. Anyway…

    Hey Ren (and other porn-performers), don’t you sign a model release which contains all of your conditions, etc? A legally binding document that says you consent to participating in porn? You know, like other models and performers? Cause I was under that impression when you… you know, brought it up once or twice. Having never been a porn-performer, I don’t know from personal experience; but I do know that the dancers I photographed in high school and college can’t sue me cause I have legally binding contracts that say they consented to be photographed.

      • rootietoot says:

        but do you really know what you’re doing? I mean, REALLY? If someone is so misguided as to allow themselves to be “willingly” or “with consent” raped, then they probably don’t have the mental capacity to understand what they’re signing, and really ought to find themselves a nice Radical Feminist to help ‘splain things, because…well…because.

        • Vladimir says:

          it’s the old argument about suicide, it is okay you are in your right mind, but no one in their right mind would want to commit suicide

  5. Roy Kay says:

    This sounds like “I am ambivalent since I don’t really like it, but I’m supposed to favor free speech. I know! I’ll call it rape or ‘violence against women’ and THEN I can be against it. If I concentrate REAL HARD and only listen to the voices that agree with me, I’m sure I can pull this off.”

  6. Ernest Greene says:

    The release is a bolierplate document granting the photographer or producer the right to create and sell images of your work. It does not specifically detail the nature of the worik.

    That is established in advance through negotiation and is subject to change at the performer’s discretion.

    The idiots who maintan that signing a piece of paper somehow creates a binding agreement for the performer to do anything and everything that might be asked thereafter is, of course, utter nonesense. No contract can compel createve workers, and that’s what performers are, to do things they against their will. All laws regarding consent to specific acts, and againt any form of foreced labor, remain in effect and supersede any rights granted under the release.

    As I’ve said about a million times before, performers can and do say no to things they don’t want all the time. They have the easy option of leaving and getting another gig within days or even hours (so much for the economic coercion meme) ,iand most are quick to do so if they find what’s wanted from them is something other than what they signed on for and not on their list of acts they perform willingly, a list usually posted at the web sites of the talent agencies through which they book.

    For all this bullshit about performers being forced to do this and pressured to do that. I would like for someone not affiliated with an anti-porn group to come forward with a single example of a performer being compelled to participate in an activity to which he or she specifically said no.

    And if this somehow happened, I’d like to know how said performer was prevented from getting up and leaving. If there is a single specific case of this happening that can be documented, it would be a criminal violation and the police should be called for the filing of a formal complaint, which I can assure you in the political climate of modern Los Angeles would result in a quick arrest.

    These claims, which I hear over and over again, are mysteriously never associated with an individual or specific situation. This is hardly surprising, since those making such claims have no direct contact with porn performers, other than the tiny few who have left porn, usually angrily after very short periods working the field, like Shelley Lubben, and are now actively engaged in anti-porn activism.

    I’m looking for a still-working performer with no dog in any political fight who will come forward and agree that something that happened to her on a set in any way approached any definition of rape other than the preposterously overbroad standard applied by professional pron-bashers like Gail Dines.

    Doesn’t it jsut ruin their day to even think about the fact that hundreds of sex acts are recorded in the making of pornography each week and not one single performer agrees that her signing the consent form was used as an excuse to subject her to sex acts against her will.?

    There are existing criminal laws that cover such things and they would be applied by law enforcement instantly if a complaint were made, regardless of whatever paperwork had been signed in advance. You cannot surrender a statutory right by agreement. Existing law supersedes any such agreement, which is why you can’t legally sell yourself into slavery or use the law to collect an illegal gambling debt.

    In short, this is just another shipment of viciousl lies from the lie factory.

    • You know, I was going to make a comment asking if anyone had some of the very information you just laid out. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of actual straight-from-the-horses-mouth information out there on the process of making porn as practiced by sane people. (Though I think one fiction author I know of has some sort of source, since when I hear something about it from someone who’s done the job, it tends to match up with her story.)

      I wonder if a few more people would be going off on some of these issues if they knew how things are supposed to work.

      • Ernest Greene says:

        Winter Lights,

        You give these fanatical hate-mongers far too much credit by suggesting that perhaps they speak from ignorance. They neither know nor care what actually happens on porn sets and make no effort whatsoever to ascertain that information. In fact, when presented with it repeatedly from multiple sources, they simply dismiss it as “pornstittution industry propaganda” and go back to their handful of pet experts like the odious Shelley Lubben, a right-wing fundamentalist religious crank who opposes reproductive justice and regards homosexuality as an abomination.

        This writer’s motives are clear enough. She wants someone to try and bring a pornographer to trial for rape, regardless of what actually happened during any shoot. She doesn’t care about the views of sex workers, or about the entirely legal process of ongoing consent by which pornographic images are created. She thinks porn is rape and she wants someone to go to jail for making it. Her pitiful attempts at pettifogging legal arguments to support her views wouldn’t make it past the complaint stage, much less to trial, let alone conviction.

        Consider how this would work in the real world, as opposed to the parallel universe in this person’s brain. She watches a video and concludes it’s a record of an act of rape. She calls the cops and reports it as such. They know better, but play along, for the sake of argument, and track down the individuals present when the material was created – all performers and crew members involved. All are questioned, including the female performers. All insist that they acted voluntarily throughout. Not one single person claims otherwise.

        Cops depart, wondering why they bothered. Case closed.

        While the state may bring a charge without the cooperation of an alleged victim, the absolute lack of corroboration from the claimed victim, from any witness or any physical evidence would make conviction impossible under the rules of evidence required in a court of law. Therefore, such a case would never be filed. It is both unjustified but unsustainable as well.

        Porn is not rape and Gail Dines and her followers can shout about it forever without changing the realities of the situation in any way.

        But then again, they haven’t been in touch with reality for so long they’ve lost the phone number for it.

        Arguing with people like this is an utter waste of time and effort, but I will give this individual this much:

        I make porn. I’ve been making it for years. I’ve made porn with hundreds of performers over that time. My work is widely known and easily obtained.

        So here’s my suggestion. You go right on out and buy or shoplift (so as not to contribute your money to the horrid porn business)) anything I’ve ever made, take it to your local police department, or fly on out here to Los Angeles, the venue in which the material was created, and see if you can get your charges filed. I’d really love it if you did.

        Because I’d love the sound of laughter as you exit the courtroom with your tail between your legs. My lawyer and I will be standing by with the entire cast and crew of any picture you choose to try and prosecute on the basis of your amateur exercise in legal masturbation.

        Come on and bring it. To borrow a favorite phrase of your ally ND, I double-dog dare you.

        • Ernest Greene says:

          BTW, that last part was meant for Ms. Femonade, not for WL, who I recognize as a reasonable person. Sorry for any confusion arising out of proximity.

          To WL, thanks for listening with an open mind, and for your brave if futile attempt to introduce some reason into a discussion that takes place in Wonderland.

        • I suppose I keep hoping that people can listen to reason… That, and there might be undecided people reading who might find evidence to be compelling.

          (There’s also my ulterior motive of being pretty curious myself.)

          • Ernest Greene says:

            Now that I think of it, there is a piece of physical evidence I’d look forward to showing in any courtroom, the unedited tapes from any show I ever shot. We usually leave the camera running throughout the entire scene, so the jury would actually get to watch while we pause and work out the moves from one position to the next. Particularly interesting would be the clips of me asking the female performers first how they wanted the next set-up to go.

            So, if you’re out there, Ms. Femonade, you get your lawyer and I’ll get mine. As soon as I’ve gotten my dismissal in Superior Court, which will take at least five mintues, we can just go on down to 110 Hill St. so I can have you served with a fifteen-count civil action, starting with malicious prosecution and working its way down to slander.

            I know you’re trying to incite some fool to try this thing, but if you really believe in ti, shouldn’t it be your duty to pursue justice yourself against such a heinous criminal as me?

            I particlluarly look forward to the press coverage, which I’m sure will sell me a lot more units.

            WL, I understand your motives in trying to talk to people like this, but anyone who is on the fence after reading the nonsense spewed over there might as well stay put.

            Those who can’t recognize such obvious bullshit at a glance are unlikely to be persuaded by rational argument later.

            • rootietoot says:

              I’d watch that…the proceedings thing, that is. It won’t happen tho, because those folks are all about the noise and rarely have anything to back it up with…but you know that already

          • And I see Femonade’s latest reply to winter lights is to argue that sexual consent isn’t between individuals but between individuals and the state. UGH!

            I suppose its fascinating to see someone stake out an extreme and untenable position and defend it against all comers, and then trot out ever-worse arguments to defend that position.

        • She has no legal case because her whole definition of what legally constitutes rape is so dubious. What she describes as laws about rape and consent sound an awful lot like the infamous “Antioch Rules” of the 1990s. The idea is that consent must be verbally stated, *and* must be verbally re-established at each level of progression of a sexual encounter and throughout the sexual encounter. In other words, one is required to verbally “check-in” to ask permission for a sexual act to continue, even if your partner has given no sign that they’re having anything other than a great time. This, of course, was merely the policy of a now-defunct educational institution with a tad too much enthusiasm for politically correct but empty-headed policies. Femonade, however, seems to think that this is rape law that exists on the books, and additionally seems to think that she can make this charge on behalf of other women.

          Its clear to me that Femonade has no clue about rape law, porn production, or anything else outside of her own though experiments. What’s sad, though, is that she actually gets an audience for such malarkey. Notably, Womanist Musings, a mainstream feminist blog reposted Femonade’s article in full. Renee, author of Womanist Musings, stated that she doesn’t agree with Femonade’s views but thought they raised important debate points. Which I find jaw dropping, because even if one was looking for intelligent anti-porn arguments to debate, this is most certainly is not one of them.

          • Ernest Greene says:

            See, this is exactly what pisses me off. Bullshit like this gets taken seriously enough by those who know better to become part of the legitimate public debate regarding free speech and thus has some indirect effect on public policy. For all their claims to having been silenced and marginalized, these crackpots sure do get around.

  7. Gaina says:

    ‘Femonade isn’t a real thing, i made it up’

    A certain brand of feminists are quite fond of inventing new words to make themselves sound more intelligent than they actually are, aren’t they??

  8. It seems I’ve worn out my welcome over at Femonade. I don’t really know why, but perhaps it’s just as well. Below is the reply that was rejected, and maybe Ren will be able to tell me if she actually did say what I’m pretty sure she didn’t.

    Addressing a couple things slightly out of order, because I think it’ll make more sense this way.

    “if there are ever drugs/alcohol/sleep deprivation etc involved that makes it even more problematic, but my problem isnt with intoxication.”

    I wouldn’t say that would be problematic; drugs and alcohol would probably fall under the “diminished capacity” rules, and thus immediately fall under rape. I don’t know how the law would handle sleep deprivation, but it’s contraindicated for porn; it’s apparently pretty strenuous work and people who are going to do it well need their sleep.

    ‘i think that the porn-situation blurs the line for the male performer regarding what are actual, wanted sex acts and whats unwanted; meh; or “tolerated for money.”’

    I’d think it should be pretty simple for the male performer – if the female performer says “yes”, then go, if she says “no”, then stop. It sounds like your problem is more that the women are making that decision for bad reasons, but I don’t really see that as the business of anyone but the person in question. For myself, I don’t understand “casual sex” at all, it makes far less sense than doing porn to me, but I don’t have the right to make that decision for others. That doesn’t mean not being able to think someone else is making a bad decision, or even not being able to try to convince them that they’re making a bad decision. But I can’t look at going to someone who has made their choice and telling them that you’re going to ignore it and decide for them what it means as anything but denial of agency.

    Oh, and as far as “wanted sex acts” goes, everything I’ve read on the subject has told me that making porn isn’t actually that much fun for men or women. That doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons other than money why someone might do it (and I don’t see money as a horrible reason anyway), but if one wants sex acts, making porn is not the way to go about it.

    A model release, incidentally, is legal consent to the distribution of your image. Not legal consent to engaging in specific sex acts.

    “ren thinks it does. she is telling her followers that this is, indeed, the case. her followers believe her.”

    I don’t know if I qualify as a follower or not, but I’ve been trying to follow the discussion over there, and as far as I can tell she doesn’t think it does. The only information I’ve seen about what these contracts actually are is consistent with what hexy told you. So, now I’m confused. Have you got a link to where Ren says what you’re saying she does?

    ““tearing me a new one.” thats rape-language.”

    It is? Huh. Learn something new every day.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s