Porn isn’t Torture
By Dr. Charlie Glickman • Apr 24th, 2009 • Category: BlogSo Matt Smith wrote a really inflammatory article in the SF Weekly about Kink.com. There’s a California state program that helps train employees and Kin.com has used funds to help their staff develop their skills in video and multi-media tech.
First off, nothing that Kink.com is illegal. They get the consent (and enthusiasm) of their models, they treat their models and staff quite well, they pay their taxes, and they were transparent about what they were going to use the training for. But Smith got all worked up because Kink.com produces porn.
Not only that, but he’s angry because he’s convinced that Kink.com shows torture. And that bugs me for two reasons. First, when we draw the comparison between something that people do willingly, consensually, and (perhaps) even enjoyably and torture, it invalidates the experiences of real victims of torture. Victims who, by definition, are unwilling, non-consenting, and aren’t enjoying it. They’re not the same thing at all and I really dislike it when people talk about them as if they are. Second, it invalidates the consent, intelligence, and decision-making ability of the people who choose to engage in BDSM, whether for the camera or in their bedrooms. By definition, if you consent, it isn’t torture and if it’s torture, you didn’t consent.
Of course, some people will argue that if someone is doing something like BDSM voluntarily, there’s something wrong with them and they can’t really consent to that. But as Kleinplatz and Moser show in their book Sadomasochism: Powerful Pleasures, the stereotype that people who engage in BDSM are damaged are wrong. So how about we let that go?
There’s a crucial difference between doing because you CHOOSE to and having something forced upon you. It’s similar, in that respect, to the difference between choosing to have sex and being sexually assaulted. It’s about the agency of the people involved. Duh.
Smith also quotes noted anti-porn propagandist, Melissa Farley:
“In this economy, this is something women would rather not do, but they feel they have to,” she said. “This is a form of economic coercion. But people would rather not think of it that way. People think of it as a matter of rights, rather than ask the question, ‘Should people have a right not to do this?’”
“Something that women would rather not do?” How about taking a look at Maggie Mayhem’s blog. By Farley’s logic, either Maggie is lying, or she’s not a woman. And I think that’s the worst part of this- the anti-porn folks disregard the actual experiences of many of the people in the biz. Yes, there are some people who have negative experiences. That’s true. But it’s not the whole story. Some people actually enjoy making porn. And some people actually enjoy BDSM (not to mention, some people like making kinky porn). Yes, I agree that people absolutely have a right to not do this. And I invite you to talk to the people who have modeled for Kink.com before you make these outlandish, inaccurate claims.
Rights go both ways. We have the right to do something, and we have the right to not do it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone suggest that we don’t have a right to not make porn. So Melissa, what in the world are you talking about?
Whether the state of California can decide to pay for training people who work at Kink.com (or other porn makers) or not, Smith’s characterization of the company and kinky porn is way off the mark. It looks to me as if it triggers him and he’d rather lash out and blame the porn than deal with that. But then, that’s nothing new when it comes to some of the anti-porn folks, is it.
Dr. Charlie Glickman >> Dr. Charlie Glickman has been working at Good Vibrations since 1996, when he joined the staff at our Berkeley store. Currently, he is our Education Program Manager and (among other things) runs our in-store After Hours workshop program, our Off-Site Sex Education Program, trains our Sex Educator-Sales Associates and writes copy for our website. In 2005, Charlie received his doctorate in Adult Sexuality Education from the Union Institute and University in Cincinnati, Ohio. In addition, he offers classes on sexuality for psychotherapists and workshops on teaching for sex educators.
All posts by Dr. Charlie Glickman
Word count for this post: 616
I just read that article last night. It is quite inflammatory and Melissa’s quote is plain incorrect. Fact is, it keeps people employed and it is something that people do as an act of free will. If you don’t like porn, then don’t watch it, your loss.
I think Melissa is talking about structural social factors that unfairly limit some’s ability to get jobs which are slightly more lucrative than porn. Surely, some people would choose porn if they could anyway, much like thousands of blacks and latinos really do want to be custodians (and there’s nothing wrong with working as a custodian, but you’re treated very poorly as one).
I mean, yes, a few thousand of the millions of black and hispanic building service workers would, if they had many more choices, still be a janitor, correct? Heck, why not all of them? They all chose to be a janitor if they are one, right?
Well, yes, porn performers are in porn by choice, but a choice which must be viewed in context to the range of choices available to them. Perhaps it’s better than unemployed, and perhaps several porn models are really making a comfortable living in a nice working environment – god bless them, we need more porn outfits treating their workers like that (And I appreciate the point I’m making here isn’t the same point as the sex-phobic Matt Smith’s point, who seems to have touched on the topic of exploitation but not really explored it on any more than an ‘eww’ level), and we need more sex-positive porn too, and this Smith guy isn’t helping.
But, but… and I’m going to stick this big butt right out there: Most jobs in porn offer meager or modest pay, (I think Sharon Abbott published something about motivations for working in the industry in the book _sex sells_, she has the data on this) and a lot of the higher paying jobs really only last a year or so. A lot of women working in porn, if they could have, might have liked to go to college, or get a higher paying job, or a job where they got health care benefits or which was reliably full time, or to be able to support their kids. Again, some port actresses may be able to do this, but the vast majority of the data suggests that most are not based on the available work. Again, perhaps this is all by choice.
But perhaps that there are so many women in the porn industry who are willing to take porn work that is really, as jobs go, not a fair job, and so many blacks and latinos willing to take janitor positions which also do not fairly compensate them for their work, should clue us in that these groups are being denied important opportunities through a variety of social and developmental factors (the school system, “cultural capital” – that is having friends and folkways which allow you to slide into the upper class (usually white male friends who make friends with other white males), having wealth to take out investments on, having two parents who can spend time with them as kids instead of one working two jobs)
You are correct in suggesting (As to the particular economic problem I’m talking about) that there is no solution in shutting down the porn industry – that would just be like removing a sweatshop from a country which has lost its farm jobs due to rapid industrialization: it wouldn’t actually provide them the good jobs they _do_ need. But it is good that we are looking at this somewhat anomolous choice of profession given the low compensation, and using it to thrust a critical eye on the assumption that all women are doing this only because they have the right to.
Indeed, many women probably have jobs they’d like to do more, and these aren’t crazy dream jobs I’m talking about, I’m talking about things like being an accountant or a teacher: things which wouldn’t really have been unrealistic jobs if these didn’t begin in a very oppressed situation because of the way work in america is organized by gender.
Now, I know some people have problem with porn on a level of gendered symbolism and the effect it has on the audience, but that’s neither here nor there.
yeah, I know, people like to write for very long times about this stuff, this is like the israel/palestein of the feminist movement.
Thanks for this – the idea that everybody involved in BDSM is either a perpetrator or victim is one of the biggest lies perpetuated against the BDSM community, and unfortunately one which certain varieties of feminist such as Melissa Farley seem to have a lot invested in perpetuating. I know there’s supposedly some nuance to the radical feminist critique of BDSM and the sex industry (I’ve seen you out there on the blogosphere debate circuit), but what does that mean in terms of real effect? The only practical effect I see is stigmatization of those who work in the porn industry or those who view its product, and occasionally attempts to punish them in some way, which is definitely how I would describe the effect that this has had vis-a-vis Kink.com technical staff.
A little background – SF Weekly has been at war with what might broadly be called sex-positive politics for the last three years. I give some background over at my blog here.
BTW, there a blog that is tracking the responses to the SF Weekly article:
http://whippedandgagged.blogspot.com/
(BTW, I think I may have posted twice while trying to fix my html – just drop the first comment if that happened.)