The problem with pornography has little to do with ‘consent’

The image above, while enormously misogynistic, is not particularly out of the ordinary — not for female politicians, not for female females. Pornographic imagery is rampant in our culture today, impacting the way young women engage with the boys they like in high school, the expectations men have of their girlfriends, the images girls post of themselves on Instagram, advertising, the performances of pop stars, movies, and, of course, the way men and women alike understand “sexuality.”

Like teen girls targeted with revenge porn and women who are catcalled or groped on the street, female politicians are pornified — shamed through the derogatory, sexualized imagery (whether real or doctored) that men create to ensure women know their place. It exists to remind us that no matter what we do, no matter how successful or powerful we become, we are still to-be-fucked. We are still just things that exist for male pleasure (pleasure that is connected to mockery, because men have learned to get off by humiliating and hurting women) — still rapeable, never really capable of being treated as equal to men because we, alas, were born with vaginas.

Women who achieve positions of power in the political arena are particularly targeted because they’ve stepped out of line — men feel it’s important to remind them they are in male territory. But it’s critical that we remember that this specific kind of attack serves as a reminder to all women — not just Hillary Clinton, not just Australia’s first female prime minister, Julia Gillard — of our position in society.

In a recent article at The Establishment*, Soraya Chemaly points out the various ways “non-consensual porn” is used to punish and dehumanize women in politics, saying that “sexually objectified womenbut not men, are evaluated by viewers as less moral, less warm (read: less human), less intelligent, and less competent.” She goes on to note that, “after watching mainstream porn, people are more likely to express adversarial beliefs about sex and gender, hold more negative beliefs about sexual harassment, have higher rates of acceptance for interpersonal violence, and are measurably less likely to support policies and programs designed to meet women’s needs.” In other words, pornography encourages misogynist beliefs and behaviours.

So if that’s true, what does any of this have to do with “consent?” The term, “non-consensual pornography” is inserted throughout the piece and Shira Tarrant, author of The Pornography Industry: What Everyone Needs to Know, is quoted as saying, “We need to understand that posting sexual images of women online without their agreement is a form of attack intended to degrade and silence women… Especially women with authority, opinions, and a strong public voice.”

While I agree that consent is imperative when it comes to sex (otherwise the word you’re looking for is “rape”), the pornification and sexualization of women isn’t about “sex,” it’s about reminding men and women alike that women are fuckable things — objects that exist for male use. It’s about maintaining the very system of dominance that allows and encourages men to turn powerful women into degrading memes in order to knock them down a peg.

It’s important, too, that we remember that marginalized women are subjected to the very same forms of degradation powerful women are, as women of colour are sexualized and brutalized in a particularly racist way and as poor women are forced into the sex industry as a way to pay the rent or feed their children. Where does “consent” come into play in those situations? Are we prepared to defend those forms of objectification if a woman “agrees” to them and/or is financially compensated?

Women are degraded through pornography regardless of whether or not they “agree” to that degradation. In fact, men use “consent” (by which I mean “payment”) as an excuse to further debase the women they pay for sex, subjecting them to the humiliating, violent acts they won’t or feel they cannot subject their wives or girlfriends to.

It’s unsurprising that a pro-objectification, liberal site like The Establishment, would demand “non-consensual” as a precursor to words like “sexualization” and “pornography,” but the result is to poke holes in an otherwise solid and important argument. We simply cannot divide women into categories in this way and we cannot excuse the sexualization that happens to less powerful women than Hillary Clinton on account of a decontextualized notion of “consent.” We know that objectification hurts all women — even when we “choose” it for ourselves, so let’s just say that, and move forward on that basis. The fashionable aversion to criticizing objectification and pornography outright only allows men to continue using these tools as a means to hurt women and provides women with the false message that they should accept it.

Meghan Murphy
Meghan Murphy

Founder & Editor

Meghan Murphy is a freelance writer and journalist. She has been podcasting and writing about feminism since 2010 and has published work in numerous national and international publications, including New Statesman, Vice, Al Jazeera, The Globe and Mail, I-D, Truthdig, and more. Meghan completed a Masters degree in the department of Gender, Sexuality and Women’s Studies at Simon Fraser University in 2012 and lives in Vancouver, B.C. with her dog.

Like this article? Tip Feminist Current!

$
Personal Info

Donation Total: $1

  • therealcie

    I think the image is demeaning to both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. However, she is put in the submissive position, which is demeaning on a further level.
    I agree with what you have said. Most mainstream pornography at this point shows participants as consenting. Fine and good, but there is still the issue of objectification and the other negative aspects of porn in the everyday lives of even women who do not watch porn.

    • oneclickboedicea

      Whether the participants agree or don’t to the use of hate speech to reference them, or the messages that women or children enjoy or entrap men into raping them, pornography is problematic as propoganda against women. The use of degrading, dehumanising language against a defined group of people via the media is banned as hate speech in the case of every other group of people except women and female children in which case it suddenly stops being a catalyst for social violence and becomes benign – despite the fact that half million gendered hate attacks occur annually against women in the UK alone. Oxygen doesn’t have different properties depending on whether you’re breathing it in France or the UK and nor does hate media. Pornography is anti equality, anti humanity and pro rape hiding behind the naked bodies that draw people in to gawp and wank in equal measure. Anyone with O level Media Studies know there is a direct link between widespread media hate speech and the occurence of huge levels of violence against the dehumanised group of people.

    • lagattamontral

      It is demeaning and frankly, weird. And not just because older people like them (I’m not so much younger)… are not seen as sexual any more. Who came up with such an idiotic collage?

  • Theo Slater

    Blanket anti-porn messages don’t really serve much of a purpose IMO. Few statements apply to all porn, there is feminist sex positive porn just as there is misogynistic slut shaming porn. I also see making porn better as more achievable than getting rid of it (less misogynistic etc.). After all depictions of folks having sex are not inherently misogynistic, it is how they are depicted that makes them so. With Millennials porn is also become less of a male centric thing, and I think that will also help it become less misogynistic. That said, we are certainly not there yet, and plenty of porn is misogynistic, harmful, and slut shaming at this point in time.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Porn exists in order to objectify and degrade women, to satisfy male desire. It also exists for male profit. Why defend the industry? What is the point?

      • Samantha Eyler

        Certain types of porn exist as a function of certain types of desire. I spent almost an hour yesterday digging through the world of futanari hentai, thrilled with the possibilities that fantasy can provide. I have spent hours over the past month looking for quality preggo and breastfeeding porn. You’re wiping away an entire world with a single crusading sweep. The reality of mainstream porn is often crushing and gross, but the possibilities of the medium are as diverse as the sexualities of the people who watch it.

        • Zuzanna Smith

          “Quality preggo and breastfeeding porn, possibilities of the medium”, if you think this is sexy I have no problem telling you that you are disgusting.

        • Si Llage

          All porn exists because of desire, that’s why it’s a multibillion dollar industry and not just a “medium”.

          You have no way of knowing if the participants in the videotaped scenes you masturbate yourself with have consented to your voyeurism. You can’t ask for their consent and their real names aren’t provided (intentionally) so you can’t investigate the conditions under which they were filmed.

          • Sara Marie

            Yes, though even women who “consented” (ie signed a legal contract) at the time of the shooting may wish the porn does not exist now, but have little to no recourse to get it taken down. Personally, I know numerous women who badly wish the porn they were once in, taken with their “consent,” did not exist. Some women in porn develop agoraphobia, because they fear anyone they meet could recognize them from porn.

            The vast majority of what men, the overwhelming ones PAYING for pornography and thus keeping the industry going, is not porn showing mutual pleasure and consent. It has no storyline and is wall-to-wall banging. Porn with mutuality is NOT what sells, not by a long shot.

            Would you defend capitalism by pointing to a couple businesses that are local, sustainable, co-op run, and pay their workers decently? No, because that’s not what people are talking about when they refer to capitalism. Just because the exception exists only means that: that it is the exception.

        • Melissa Cutler

          “quality preggo and breastfeeding porn?” Are you kidding us with this? Do you not see the inherent degradation and objectification of women (and mothers) in that particular kink? Does that not bother you in the least?

          • Samantha Eyler

            You have no idea whom the women who create that porn are doing it for, or under what conditions. You simply can’t know. The porn I appear in ON MY OWN BLOG (as a pregnant woman myself) to share with other people is about creating a space to share sexualities that some people find marginal. That is a powerful mechanism for inclusion. Of course your argument could be used to justify greater labelling on issues of consent on pornographic images (and I would not have a problem with that, although I have never felt the express need to so label images of myself in that way, but perhaps I could start to do so) but it does not justify repression of porn full stop. People have psychological needs to express themselves that you may not feel yourself or even understand, but that does not mean you should vilify those needs or the medium.

          • Melissa Cutler

            You’re right; when we see porn we have no idea under what conditions it was created, and because of that, we cannot assume that the performer is “choosing” her self-objectification or if we’re watching a rape. How could anyone be okay with watching something that may or may not be a rape (and, statistically, probably is)? Beyond that, though, even for people like you who operate from a privileged position to feel “empowered” by their self-objectification, you see your choice as happening in a vacuum, with no affect on others. You are prioritizing your own personal expression over the lives and well-being of millions of women and children who do not have a choice in their objectification through porn. Whatever your own personal motives are, your actions to self-objectify feed the patriarchal porn machine and directly contribute to the oppression of women through our objectification as “to be fucked” objects. I, for one, value the lives of millions of women and children over the “artistic expression” of a privileged few.

          • Tangelo

            Porn has nothing to do with sex and everything to do with the public humiliation and subordination of women and girls. The images you create and publish contribute to promoting the idea, already held by so many men, that women are people whose naked bodies are available, for a price, to be masturbated over by men. That sex and specifically, women’s sexuality, is about displaying ourselves for men to wank off to. That male access to my body, and my daughter’s body can be purchased. I don’t really care about your “psychological needs” if the way you express these needs helps support the misogyny that women and girls have to manoeuvre through every day of our lives. Figure out some other way to express your “needs”.

          • Morag999

            “You have no idea whom the women who create that porn are doing it for, or under what conditions. You simply can’t know.”

            Right. We simply can’t know whether a woman in pornography had a gun pointed at her head, or if she was facing hunger/eviction, or if she was happily exercising her agency. Therefore, we should always err on the side of the porn consumer-masturbator. Priorities.

            “The porn I appear in ON MY OWN BLOG (as a pregnant woman myself) to share with other people is about creating a space to share sexualities that some people find marginal. That is a powerful mechanism for inclusion.”

            That’s some powerfully inclusive stuff, there. You’ve come a long way, baby! When the bodies of pregnant and breastfeeding women are (at blessed last!) objectified as fuckable and for sale — which is to say, included — in the pornography-prostitution business, we know that feminism is really working.

            Also, pluralizing “sexuality” is a nice touch. Fancy.

    • Si Llage

      Counter to your lazy free market theory, the pornography industry as a whole has grown increasingly more violent and misogynistic in the past 30 years as women have been pressured to be more vocally supportive of it.

      You’re forgetting the “No means yes, Yes means anal!” rule of men’s misogyny. That rule says anything women accept is shit BECAUSE women accept it. We also see this in employment; when women start to become a majority in a career, the value of that career drops precipitously.

      The more women tolerate anal sex, the more men desire ass-to-mouth.

      The more women tolerate Lolita porn, the more men desire toddler porn.

      The more women tolerate “money shots”, the more men desire bitches choking on dicks until they puke.

      The more careeristing liberal feminists betray women by publicly approving men’s consumption of the canned prostitutes in porn, the meaner and more humiliating men make porn to keep their violation thrill ‘edgy’, because nothing women approve of is ever edgy or sexy.

      Liberal feminists are responsible for driving the porn industry into misogynistic extremes by vomiting their girly pink bitchstink all over men’s beloved mainstream pornography. This is why Playboy Magazine is now out of business.

      • Taai Grace

        THIS WAS SPOT ON. I’ve come to realize that there’s absolutely no limit to the expectations placed on women. This is such a perfect summary I’d like to reuse it.

        • Meghan Murphy

          Thanks Taai

        • Si Llage

          Thank you. You have my permission to bring it anywhere you think it needs to go.

    • Melissa Cutler

      There is no such thing as “feminist sex positive porn.”

      • Sine FourEx

        I just drank a cup of feminist sex positive tea
        “Feminist” because a man made it. “Sex positive” because the caffeine is a physical stimulant. And “tea” because although “coffee” was written on the tin, I identify as a tea drinker.
        Literally anything can be feminist and sex positive because neither concept has a defined meaning.

      • Zuzanna Smith

        Exactly, there isn’t even such a thing as sex positive porn, especially if the word positive has to be inserted between sex and porn.

    • Bleep

      “With Millennials porn is also become less of a male centric thing, and I think that will also help it become less misogynistic.

      Why? How does more people watching a misogynistic shit-show decrease misogynistic attitudes and beliefs?

      Was 50 Shades of Grey an example of the new and society-bettering influence of the feminist porn consumer, since it was women who liked it?

  • Meghan Murphy

    Thanks Melissa! And yes, I agree that the way liberals frame ‘consent’ is not at all helpful in terms of addressing the power dynamic that exists between men and women, in society as a whole, of course, but particularly in the bedroom….

  • pdk

    Agree, long before we teach our college freshman about consent, we need to be teaching our K-12 students empathy: teachable not as an occasional lecture or a day session, but as consistent year in, year out, age appropriate guidance during development. Consent is framed as another aspect of empathy.

    • Melissa Cutler

      Teaching empathy in school won’t help either. As long we live in a patriarchy, nothing will save our girls and women from rape.
      From: “The Tired Old Question of Male Children,” Anna Lee in Lesbian Ethics, 1985. http://www.feminist-reprise.org/docs/leeboys1.htm

      “The belief that we are responsible for the behavior of male children avoids the reality that wimmin do not hold power in the boys’ world. By inviting them into our spaces we perpetuate the historical, sexist pattern of assuming wimmin are responsible for something we have no power over, that thing being the attitudes which male children absorb from a society that discredits and undermines wimmin of all ages. Further, we assume that non-sexism and sensitivity will be perceived by male children as a reasonable trade-off for power. For it is power that any boy is offered upon reaching manhood. Some get more than others but all get to join the old boys club, and in case you didn’t notice that is what runs this world. What we as wimmin can offer little boys is not power. If you were a little boy which would you choose—power or sensitivity? Be honest.”

    • I think developing a sense of empathy for other people is the natural default for humanity. Capitalism and masculinity stamp it out of people. Instead of just having school teach it theoretically, we need an entirely new culture and economic system that teaches it in practice. Yes, I am talking about revolutionary socialism and, even more shockingly, films, television shows and video games that don’t revolve around murdering people (*gasp*).

    • pdk

      Thank you for these comments. I agree that the overwhelming influence of our patriarchy leads to attitudes of objectification and dehumanization of women, leading to increased incidences of sexual violence. I do not agree that it is a waste of time to teach empathy join c=schools, and that it as zero effect: I think we can move the needle, some, not enough, but better than not trying at all. Two links, one a school I am familiar with that incorporates empathy into their educational programs. My experience is this helps. A second that shows empathy education can help with attitudes on sexual assault among male frat members and male athlete. Obviously, one film, one day of lectures and lessons as a college freshman, are not going to have a big effect, but the lifelong lessons during primary and secondary education I believe are effective…
      http://www.harleyschool.org/academics/centers-of-excellence/center-for-mindfulness-and-empathy-education/#.Vv7fkseZ5ig
      http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/13/1/70.long

      • Melissa Cutler

        I’ve been pondering your comment and I see where you’re coming from. I can’t access the second link, but I’m intrigued to read the findings of an actual study on this because I’m so skeptical. I agree that teaching empathy isn’t a waste of time, in general. What’s scary to me is that the consent/empathy instruction is being viewed on a mass cultural scale as a solution. It reminds me of the “say no to drugs” campaign in the 80s. Was and/or is drug use less prevalent among people who went through that training in school? Will empathy training for boys and young men help enough of them to choose sensitivity over power, (to borrow a line from my quote in another comment)? I’m highly skeptical and can’t imagine that moving the needle in any measurable way.

        • pdk

          Sorry I did not see a notification of your reply. Teaching empathy is not something that there are good numbers for since it is a long experiment, years long. The second link was to an article that tries to do this in a short term basis with a film and discussions, I’ll attach a screen grab of the first page. My own experience is anecdotal, but has convinced me that getting kids from prepuberty on dies instill a sense of more humanity and less objectification in their interpersonal interactions. I argue that the needle is movable if enough of us reignite the problem and bring these kinds of currucula into public education. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a39e9d24db03b0f7cb0f3e0a902c02cfc72e18b0e62e0c5e1eef50310bd5cb13.jpg

  • Sally Hansen

    Great analysis. Also worth nothing, the original clip art in itself, sans Clinton and Sanders, implies that sexual subordination should be conflated with romantic love (their bodies together form a heart shape in the center). Utterly despicable propaganda on more than one level. Bernie is fucking Hilary to deny her humanity while simultaneously sending the message that this is what real love for women looks like: brutalization and dehumanization. Hate speech in essence. Notice how uncomfortably unrealistic the position in itself looks. The woman would have to be in extreme pain to continue in this contorted intercourse while the man sits back and relaxes as he uses her body to his personal satisfaction. It is not a mutually satisfying positioning, and no rational male would agree to be put in a similar contortion, regarding it as simple torture. But if it’s a woman doing it, well… That’s okay…

  • Lucia Lola

    Well written, as usual. Thank you.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Thanks Lucia!

  • Meghan Murphy

    I don’t think the point is always the conditions under which porn is being produced — it’s also about what is conveyed to the viewer and the larger impact on society/how we view sex/sexuality/gender roles, etc.

  • Melissa Cutler

    Well done, will. Thank you.

  • Morag999

    If you’re making pornography, you’re making it for consumption. Why would I give a shit if you and other women get off on it? Why would I care that you find the feminist anti-pornography position “disempowering”? That’s quite pathetic, but the fact that you, personally, need to objectify yourself for an audience to feel sexually empowered — whatever the hell that even means — is your problem, not mine.

    • Samantha Eyler

      If you post something on Facebook, you’re posting it for consumption. If you write me a message on Disqus, you’re doing it for consumption. You’re also saying a thing that you have to say in a way that you hope makes a point. That is the power of perspective, taking a female gaze. I really am sorry that you believe I am pathetic and that you think I have a problem, but I believe that a deploying the female gaze on EVERYTHING, including sexuality at all stages of a woman’s life, is one of the most important contributions of feminist photographers, artists, and writers.

  • Samantha Eyler

    Being pregnant while appearing naked in a photo is no more sexually abusive to my fetus than actually HAVING SEX while being pregnant. All parties involved are consenting adults who are doing literally nothing illegal. And being ‘validated by strangers on the Internet’ has nothing to do with it, my blog has about 10 followers, most of whom are friends, several of whom also have their own blogs on similar topics. It’s a collection where I try to explore what makes ME tick. How in the world can I possibly be offending you?

    • Melanie

      Appearing naked in a photo or having sex while pregnant are not the same thing as ‘preggo porn’, ie. fetishizing pregnancy and making pornography out of it for other people’s sexual gratification. It’s disturbing to me how people can’t seem to separate sex and sexuality from pornography anymore.

  • Samantha Eyler

    I think you make some interesting points, considering I wasn’t much around in the 80s. I myself had thought your own position had reached its zenith with Dworkin and McKinnon and maybe was on its way out. But with respect, don’t you think one reason many young(er) feminists are swinging back around to a re-examination of these issues is that your conclusions are unsatisfactory to them?

  • Samantha Eyler

    P.S. I would argue too that a great deal of outrage about breastfeeding in public is that it RUNS AGAINST men’s preconceptions that breasts are solely for sexual purposes and the idea of them having a utilitarian use for hungry babies disgusts people. The only reason I have an (admittedly weird-ass) thing about adult breastfeeding is because nipple stimulation is one of the main ways I can come and I have been a bit worried about orgasms after the milk comes. I’m being TMI here just to make the point that my linkage of pregnant milky boobs and sex puts me into a VERY SMALL minority of people. Hence why I started digging around on the Internet to find out if anybody else has this (apparently, a few people do). But this is a separate issue from that of the main thread and I have probably freaked you out enough…

  • Morag999

    Yeah, you’re right. I keep forgetting that all the exploited women and children in the world don’t hold a candle to the Internet Sexual Agents who bring to us, for instance, the power of preggo-porn. And not just any old pregnancy and lactation pornography, but the QUALITY stuff. It’s what the world needs right now.

  • Meghan Murphy

    “I wish you would TALK to sex workers.”

    Who on earth do you think I learned about prostitution from?? The fact that you assume that anyone who is critical of the sex industry MUST simply not understand the reality of the sex industry is backwards af and wholly a result of this ridiculous Twitter Feminism, wherein young women and men believe everything they read on Twitter must be true, but who REFUSE to look beyond those 140 character mantras.

    I know many, many women who were in prostitution and am very familiar with the reality of the industry. You might try speaking to them yourself before resorting to embarrasing and ignorant condescension.

    Beyond that, I am a socialist, and my sisters and I advocate for universal daycare, free tuition, a viable welfare system, affordable housing, etc etc as a part of ALL the work we do. You would know this if you paid any attention at all to those you claim to oppose.

    Like, know thy enemy, I guess. Or, at very least, listen to what they are saying and make an effort to understand their arguments before jumping into the debate.

    • Samantha Eyler

      Whoa whoa whoa, what are you talking about “embarrasing and ignorant condescension”? Why do you think I’m being condescending? And I DON’T think you’re the enemy—I just think you’re really wrong. Do you expect everyone who comments on your articles to read everything you have ever written? Great that you’re a social democrat, I have no idea why you’re talking about Twitter, and perhaps you know the reality of the Los Angeles porn world, but you can’t make generalizations like you’re doing about sex workers worldwide BECAUSE THEY WOULDN’T BE TRUE.

      • Meghan Murphy

        The truth, whether you like it or not, is that the sex industry exists on a foundation of inequality and props up racism, misogyny, and capitalism. You can argue about how some individual women may or may not feel till the cows come up, but we are fighting against something bigger than a few individuals’ feelings.

        • Samantha Eyler

          And so you want to outlaw it? Just like it has always been, almost everywhere. That’s been GREAT for women, GREAT for sex workers. Excellent strategy.

          I think the persecution of sex workers by middle- and upper-class women is in fact about trying to police a “respectable sex cartel” in which the only legal and socially legitimate way for men or anyone else to access sex is through (or on the way toward) the pro-capitalist institution of marriage, which was INVENTED to privatize the wellbeing of women and children and position men as their primary venue to access both social status and money.

          For every feminist who wants to “help” a sex worker by getting her a new job, there is another woman who is afraid of the potential threat to their social position represented by “loose” women.

          • Meghan Murphy

            “And so you want to outlaw it? Just like it has always been, almost everywhere. That’s been GREAT for women, GREAT for sex workers. Excellent strategy.”

            What on earth are you talking about? What is the ‘strategy’ you believe we are working towards that is or has been bad for women?

            I mean, it’s clear that patriarchy and the sex industry has been bad for women — what are YOU talking about?

            “I think the persecution of sex workers by middle- and upper-class women is in fact about trying to police a ‘respectable sex cartel’ in which the only legal and socially legitimate way for men or anyone else to access sex is through (or on the way toward) the pro-capitalist institution of marriage, which was INVENTED to privatize the wellbeing of women and children and position men as their primary venue to access both social status and money.”

            Again, what are you talking about? In what feminist movement has any woman advocated to ‘persecute’ women in the sex trade?

            Surely you are aware am a staunch opponent of marriage/the institution of marriage?

  • Meghan Murphy

    It makes me really sad that you believe challenges to sexualized violence against women, a male-centered vision of ‘sexuality’, and objectification = ‘sex negativity.’

    Your adamant refusal to discuss the harms of the industry — and where those harms actually comes from — in favour of pretending as though feminists are responsible for hurting women in the sex trade is telling and, in your words, reactionary. I really think you need to think this through further and recommend you read up on the issues. If you’d like some suggestions for reading materials, I and other women here can surely suggest some stuff.

    • Samantha Eyler

      Please do that, I would appreciate it.

      • Meghan Murphy

        I’d recommend Pornography – Andrea Dworkin, Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism (particularly MacKinnon’s essay there about liberalism and the death of feminism) http://radfem.org/the-sexual-liberals/, Kasja Ekis Ekman’s Being and Being Bought, and Female Chauvinist Pigs – Ariel Levy. I’m sure I’ve left out lots of good stuff if others would like to contribute suggestions?

        • Samantha Eyler

          I have read up on the Dworkin/MacKinnon position and would invite you to read Nussbaum’s reply in Sex and Social Justice if you’d like a more eloquent reasoning of a position that’s very close to my own. I haven’t heard of Ekman but I will check it out. Other suggestions are welcome. Feel free to read my own writings at Role Reboot and elsewhere if you’re interested as well, and I will follow you on my social networks so hopefully this exchange can end up being a useful one in both directions.

  • Tess Richer

    Brilliant analysis! Thank you. Now we have some women pornographers, such as Anna Span who is a deluded hypocrite. She would not perform herself because she would not want to upset her parents, but it’s ok for others to be brave to do so. And since she met her husband, it was lucky that she saved herself, otherwise, he may not have been too keen. If she had a daughter, I don’t think she would want to see her in that position either. She is no different from other pornographers, just exploiting others for a lucrative depressing business, a Madame Claude of pornography, portraying herself as a so-called feminist liberal.Often porn performers are more mentally vulnerable than what people would want to think. Sex should be a private special intimate part of life. Many female hard-core porn performers came to regret later in life, because they were then too young and often with issues and therefore easier targets for psychological manipulation. Sadly, they remain exposed for the rest of their lives and beyond. At least, prostitutes who sell their body for money behind closed doors, would not be haunted in the same way as there are no records of being humiliated in front of a camera. Sociopaths trying to justify themselves and convince others…Using others for their own benefits, whether being money or any other sick ends.Following that logic, virtually anything could be legitimised. So where does it stop? This is the danger of this ill society. It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society (Jiddu Krishnamurti).