The tyranny of consent

Emily Witt’s recent essay, in which she describes traveling to San Fransisco, where she watches a BDSM porn shoot for a series called Public Disgrace, which depicts “women bound, stripped, and punished in public,” inspired a number of responses.

Despite my, probably obvious, criticisms of both porn and the BDSM genre, in particular, the piece is a very good read (by which I mean, it is engaging and complex and thoughtful); although very, very graphic (by which I mean, don’t read it unless you wish to read very detailed descriptions of sadomachochism).

There’s no real way to defend the production of this kind of film, the scene for this particular production is described by for The Atlantic, as one in which “… a group of San Franciscans crowded into a basement to watch and participate as a diminutive female porn actress (who consented very specifically to all that followed) is bound with rope, gagged, slapped, mildly electrocuted, and sexually penetrated in most every way.”

He adds, accurately, that “the tenor and intensity of the event can’t be conveyed without reading the full rendering.” Granted, the scene sounds rather terrifying and one might ask, on what basis was “consent” given by this young performer. But interviewed after the shoot, the woman expressed genuine pleasure and enthusiasm about the experience. Believably, I might add.

The question that came up for me, and for some others, was this: regardless of there being “consent” and even pleasure, is the production and distribution of this kind of film ethically defensible? While I have no real interest in exploring the responses that argue this kind of porn is ethically wrong because it’s “uncivilized” or “barbaric” or whatever writers for The American Conservative think about sex that happens outside of marriage and have decided is the kind of Godly God-sex God would have, I am interested in the issue of consent and how “consent” is so consistently twisted to mean “ethical.”

In feminism, as well as in other liberal-type circles, we talk about consent a lot. “Anything that happens between consenting adults…” is the mantra. Those who have formed critiques of the sex industry, of course, are well aware of the ways in which this “consent is magic” ethos oversimplifies the concept of consent and removes relevant contexts and larger social (as well as individual) impacts from the conversation.

Consent is, without a doubt, very important and this drilling of “non-consensual sex isn’t sex” into our brains has changed the way many people engage in sex and communicate with their sexual partners. Consent is also, obviously, still not a given, as demonstrated by the incredibly high rates with which rape occurs as well as by conversations about “grey areas,” so it’s clear we’ve got a long way to go on this one.

Though the consent conversation is imperative, I think, in many ways, we’re doing it wrong.

“You might think we are doing things to the model that are mean or humiliating, but don’t,” said Princess Donna Dolore (the director of the Kink shoot). “She’s signed an agreement.”

She signed an agreement. In other words, she “consented.” She even enjoyed the scene. And I believe she enjoyed the scene. I believe people connect pleasure and pain. I understand how playing with power and subordination and domination and fantasy turns people on. I’ve experienced this. So many of us have and do. I know.

When it comes to the ethics of shooting a video that explicitly depicts violence and degradation and the humiliation of women, though, the issue of consent that’s become so black and white in conversations that happen in the self-described “sex-positive” sphere of feminist discourse, distorts the issue.

Ethically, of course, there has to be consent. But also, consider that ethics aren’t only about individuals. Ethics are about the ways in which our actions and behaviours affect and impact those around us. Ethics are about society. To say “she signed an agreement” — meaning “there was consent,” says nothing about society or the ways in which the production of this kind of pornography impacts women and men everywhere and social relations. So, in this case, this one individual is ok. Maybe. Sure. The performers in this particular film enjoyed themselves this time. Great. But a conversation about ethics doesn’t end there.

To be completely honest, which is something I do try to be, Witt’s descriptions of the scene didn’t upset or disgust me. The scene, as described by Witt, was titillating in many ways. I have, after all, been socialized here in this world, along with the rest of you. But I’m certain that, to watch the finished video or even perhaps to have watched the scene in real life, would have inspired a different reaction in me. I contemplated, for some time, actually watching the video, just so I could know for sure and, therefore be better able to describe exactly what it was that changes when we see this kind of imagery on screen. In the end, after talking about it with a friend, I decided against it. I’ve seen enough porn in my life to know how watching women being degraded or abused on screen makes me feel. I don’t particularly want my sexual fantasies to involve electrocution or fisting or being hit with a belt. I’m not convinced I need to watch a woman wearing a sign that reads “worthless cunt” be groped and prodded and hit by strangers in a bar in order to understand the imagery. Maybe I’m wrong.

Rape fantasies exist for a reason and I’m certainly not shaming women who have them or who even play out these kinds of scenarios in the bedroom (but men who play out rape fantasies on women in the bedroom? Sure, go right ahead and feel ashamed). Power is sexualized in our culture. It’s why we think Don Draper is hot. Sexual violence is all twisted up in our lives and psyches. We see images of sexualized violence on TV and in movies all the time. Not in porn. Just on regular old crime dramas and in horror films. It’s part of our history. It’s hard to escape history, culture, and socialization.

So while the issue of why many of us are turned on by sadomasochistic fantasies or experiences should certainly be explored (and has been by many), when we talk about profiting off of the production and distribution of imagery depicting sexualized violence, there is much more to the conversation, in terms of ethics, than simply “consent.”

Witt makes this distinction after talking with Rain, a self-described “24–7 lifestyle kinkster” who works for Kink. Speaking about Princess Donna with reverence, Rain describes the burning, blinding pain brought on by getting cum in your eyes, saying:

“Do you realize the dedication that takes?” asked Rain. “That’s how committed she is.”

Witt asks herself: “Committed to what? To getting guys sitting in their studio apartments to jerk off to you for $30 a month? Not an insignificant accomplishment, but enacting a fantasy of violence for personal reasons was one thing; doing so for money was another.”

Consent is messier than we often pretend it is. It isn’t black and white, though I think we’d like to think it is. “Consensual” or “nonconsensual” are the two choices we’re offered when it comes to ethics around sex and sexuality. And those two choices, as well as our efforts to create straightforward guidelines with regard to sexual ethics, are being used against us. If signing a contract is all we need to determine whether or not Kink is producing pornography under ethical circumstances (which, for the record, they are not), then we need to re-think the ways in which we’re having conversations about “consent.”

“Anything that happens between consenting adults…” can only be the mantra of feminists and liberals so long as we don’t mind our work against rape culture and exploitation being usurped by the sex industry, for profit.

Ethics are neither limited to capital or individuals because how we conduct ourselves would never come into question if not for the “society” factor. It stands to reason that, if we aren’t considering the impact on society, as a whole, with regard to our ethical quandaries, we aren’t really talking about ethics at all. We’re either talking about profit or pleasure from a place of self-interest, in which case “consent” becomes something you get, not because it’s necessarily “ethical” or “right” or “good”, but in order to fulfill the interests of a certain faction of individuals, regardless of social context.

“Consent” is a necessary starting point, but is far from the end of the conversation.

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

  • vouchsafer

    It’s the imagery that I have a problem with. It’s fine for this individual to consent to this treatment behind closed doors, to consent to her own body being used in this manner.
    But this is happening on film to be distributed to mass audiences. if you take away that context, that she is a paid actress, what you’re left with is imagery of a woman being degraded and humiliated. Any naked human body in a film is an archetypal image. In this case*, the archetypal figure of woman is being degraded. That’s what’s unethical about it. The ‘message’ of the film isn’t “these are all equally consenting adults.” the message is “females are subhuman and treating them cruelly is erotic.”
    Its unethical because denigration of the female archetype on film correlates to an actual erosion of perceived ‘worth value’ of females in society. That’s why it’s called an archetype, its a symbolic representation of a subset of humanity, in this case, female.
    *note. I think it’s worth mentioning that i also think the male archetype is eroded in porn as well. Maybe not this particular film, but naked male bodies are being used, and while they aren’t being portrayed as subservient like females are, they’re still being portrayed as something they’re not, or most aren’t, which is violaters of women.

    • Meghan Murphy

      I agree that it’s the imagery and the distribution of the imagery, for profit, that is most problematic. Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t explore or question where our fantasies and ideas about sex and sexuality come from — we should, of course — but when we’re talking about mass distribution, as you say, the question of ethics and larger impacts grows significantly.

      • Consenting Objector

        Having not seen the film and the entire contexts in which the content was presented, I am hesitant to say that its ‘message’ is that “females are subhuman….”

        The consent of the participants is really what matters here: the consent of the actresses and actors, the various entities involved in publication and ultimately the viewer’s consent. How is profit at all of the participants’ consent the real ethical challenge in this sort of production? Especially since all involved parties profit except for the viewers who consent to finance the activity instead. What is so abhorrent about the profit in particular? After all, the profit is the reason that this is being produced professionally instead of as an amateur home video. Safety standards that may or may not be observed in the privacy of a bedroom broadcasting a stream of the activity or otherwise recording it will be observed in a professional environment. As a consequence, the participants have medical professionals close at hand if not on site in the event of an accident, which presumably they are also provided with insurance against. But I digress. The profit is what makes all of the above possible and ensures the safety as well as the physical and financial well being of the participants; it is naive to think of it as the problem.

        The impact on the image of men and women as a result of these productions is another matter. Pornography undoubtedly degrades the actresses, actors and the viewers along with society as a whole, but what of it? The advertisement for many if not most products in all forms (internet, TV, print, etc) and the content that they bankroll have an even more deleterious effect on the human image in society. Why is this so? Mass exposure. Nobody in their right mind would argue that the severe degradation of women portrayed in the tiny portion of porn where it exists has a greater societal impact than a slightly negative portrayal of a woman in a major motion picture. The sizes of the audiences are too different. A few thousand, perhaps tens of thousands, might see the video described in the author’s article. But more than 90% of Hollywood productions have no strong female character, or if they do, that/those characters are presented very negatively. Such films are seen by hundreds of millions each year and generate tens or hundreds of billions in revenue. Which does the greater disservice to the public? Hollywood, plain and simple. The moral impact on society of porn is minuscule compared to mainstream entertainment. Don’t even get me started on music and the negative portrayal of women found there.

        Even benign content uses the same tropes and stereotypes to describe the characters, thus limiting the viewers perceptions of what humans of all stripes are capable of. Female characters are often meek or sarcastically resigned to their roles as homemakers. While there are exceptions (and I don’t watch that much TV), the rare female lead often has things that are terribly wrong with her psyche or past. Movies without central female characters abound, with nearly two thirds of movies failing to pass the Bechdel Test*. Men are portrayed as stupid or otherwise dull-witted. Most male TV may also or instead be perverts or predators of various stripes. This is particularly so among my fellow conservative men. While having perfect characters would make for boring television, the degree of imperfection found in most is cause for alarm because it normalizes the characteristics that are portrayed. Where is the real damage to the imagery of men and women being done, vouchsafer? Porn, really? The degradation of women/humanity in porn pales in comparison to the media that we and particularly our children are exposed to every day. As comments state below, there is a “ripple” or chain of mostly negative impact on all of our images when porn actors and actresses allow themselves to be portrayed in this fashion. The difference in size between the porn industry and Hollywood are akin to a pebble and a mountainside. Whereas a pebble thrown into the ocean makes an imperceptible ripple, a mountainside sliding into the ocean causes a tsunami.

        The widespread negative portrayal of humans in the media is both degrading to the human persona and limiting of human potential. Although mythology and other ancient stories often portrayed similar gender roles, ultimately they were meant to teach a lesson about the shortcomings of those individuals or to emphasize the triumph of the hero over his or her adversaries and struggles. While trite, these epics are largely wholesome and pay homage the infinity of human potential that so escapes the media driven rat race we find ourselves in today. The only persons we are able to rescue from this toxic cycle are ourselves. If you have a problem with porn, don’t watch it and discourage your friends, family and colleagues from doing the same. Ditto for movies, music, TV, websites, books, etc. The only to eliminate the deleterious effect of these productions on our lives is to marginalize their audiences and demand more appropriate substitutes. While I don’t necessarily agree with the Bechdel test, it does give a high water mark for the marginalization of women in film. If we want to see real change in these arenas, we have to vote with our wallets.

        *Bechdel test reference comes from a brief article and stats study from 538.

        For more information about Bechdel’s Test, visit

        Full disclosure: I am an agnostic libertarian-leaning conservative white heterosexual 28 year old male who does not watch porn, if that has any bearing on my opinion or its validity.

        • “The consent of the participants is really what matters here: the consent of the actresses and actors, the various entities involved in publication and ultimately the viewer’s consent. ”


          • Consenting Objector

            I thought in a free society that statement should speak for itself, but clearly I was wrong. The skinny version:

            Because our society has its foundation in fundamental rights. The most integral to a free republic of these is the right to freedom of expression. The rights of the actors, producers, distributors and viewers to produce and view the content supersedes your right to be outraged by it. That is to say, while you have the right to be outraged that the content exists and the right to say that it is degrading to women/men/etc, that right does not extend so far that you can deny the rights of production and viewership to the parties involved with the pornographic film without a law limiting that expression. Since no such law exists except perhaps to limit the work’s exposure to unsuitable groups (e.g. minors), the consent of those involved with its production is the only justification required for its publication. Conversely, if any one of the involved parties did not consent to its publication it would cease to be. For example, the actors might refuse to participate in the film; or the producer/director might be unsatisfied with their performance; or the public might find it objectionable and refuse to buy it (of course by this latest example the work has already been produced, but the producers shall have been dissuaded from producing another work like it).

            Since this notion didn’t seem self-evident to you, I am curious to hear what you think is more important than consent in these matters.

          • “Because our society has its foundation in fundamental rights. The most integral to a free republic of these is the right to freedom of expression.”

            No. No it’s not.

            Sorry. You fail spectacularly.

            “The rights of the actors, producers, distributors and viewers to produce and view the content supersedes your right to be outraged by it. ”

            That’s not my argument, or anyone’s argument except some hysterical Christian fundamentalists. The rights of women to live free from sexual threat and to work in a healthy environment trumps the invalid and anti-human “rights” of capitalist production.

            You lose, [don’t] come again.

          • pbutterfly2000

            “That is to say, while you have the right to be outraged that the content exists and the right to say that it is degrading to women/men/etc, that right does not extend so far that you can deny the rights of production and viewership to the parties involved with the pornographic film without a law limiting that expression. Since no such law exists except perhaps to limit the work’s exposure to unsuitable groups (e.g. minors), the consent of those involved with its production is the only justification required for its publication.”

            This is not actually true. Hate speech is not protected, nor is obscenity. In fact, nearly all pornography made today is already illegal according to standing obscenity laws, which prohibit anything considered by the average person to be obscene and without artistic merit. If the existing obscenity laws were enforced, we only type of pornography that would be legal would be character-driven, psychological eroticism or erotic art films, stuff like that. Most slasher films might also be banned.

          • stephen m

            @pbutterfly2000: Totally correct!

            R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on pornography and state censorship.

            Framework for Analysis

            To simplify the analysis Justice John Sopinka divided obscene materials into three categories:

            1. Explicit sex with violence;

            2. Explicit sex without violence, but which subjects participants to treatment that is degrading or dehumanizing; and

            3. Explicit sex without violence that is neither degrading nor dehumanizing.

            Violence in this context was considered to include “both actual physical violence and threats of physical violence.”

          • Derrington

            My bodily integrity aged 13 and again at 14 when I was gang raped by four boys and then in the next incident raped by a 32 year old porn user. Each rape was significant in that none of the rapists took any notice of my human rights, my objections, my fear or my tears. They were completely inhuman towards me – and it became obvious that they simply did not regard me as their equal. They were indifferent due to the fact they had grown up with the psychopathic messaging prevalent in male culture that women and children are born liars, particularly around male sexual abuse, that they trick men into sex which they then pretend they haven’t agreed to etc. Pornography as an industry dwarfs Hollywood by a long margin and is one of the primary tools for distribution of what is commonly called rape myths but which are in fact lies, since this media has free access to all the government and NGO data on false rape accusations by women and children where it can be comprehensibly proved that by far the biggest number of liars in and around rape are men.

        • “I am an agnostic libertarian-leaning conservative white heterosexual 28 year old male who does not watch porn, if that has any bearing on my opinion or its validity.”

          It sure does.

    • gxm

      The ‘message’ of the film isn’t “these are all equally consenting adults.” the message is “females are subhuman and treating them cruelly is erotic.”

      Further, the message is also that we subhuman females enjoy being treated cruelly. The initial “consent” has a devastating ripple effect as the archetypal woman represents all of us whether we have given consent or not.

    • stephen m

      @Meghan: Excellent analysis, thank you!

      @vouchsafer: Your comment is right on. The message presented by this sort of porn will negatively affect future generations of women and girls.

  • Komal

    Many people who use ‘consent’ as a defense for such things as BDSM and hardcore porn implicitly assume that consent is sufficient for ethical rightness, not merely necessary. We all (i.e. you, me, and the pro-porn and pro-BDSM people) agree that consent is necessary, but it doesn’t follow that it’s sufficient.

    There are many ways in which things can be unethical. They can be unethical because they involve coercion, but they can also be unethical because they involve violence and destructiveness, because they undermine the notion of equality or threaten the position of certain groups in society, and yes, because they’re ‘ungodly’ or express dark, destructive or base urges rather than harmonious, luminous and Divine aspirations. Even if you disagree with some item in that list, if there is even one way other than direct coercion in which something can be unethical, then the ‘it’s consensual’ defense just doesn’t work.

  • gxm

    What is meant by “a diminutive female”? Does the presumably adult actress look underage? If so, that adds a whole ‘nother layer of unethical, IMO.

    • Meghan Murphy

      She wasn’t underage, no. I think he just meant ‘small’…

  • Jane wlash

    Great piece, thank you.

  • Laur

    Thank you so much for posting this. When women actually used to have CR groups, they would explore where these fantasies came from. Sometimes women would even laugh at them. Now we just say “all sex is feminist” and go with it.

    Personally, I don’t believe anyone can be healed from abuse by more abuse. And the promotion of sadomasochism promotes this very ideas.

    • Mistress Rachel

      BDSM sex isn’t abuse. It’s the performance of it. As a woman who was abused I take issue with your comment. Not all women can be healed by recreating the circumstances under which they were hurt but sometimes they can. It’s just self directed desensitization therapy. They regain their power by reliving the experience and knowing how it will play out and end. By setting the stage.

  • copleycat

    Thank you for this article Meghan, it must have been difficult to research and vouchsafer I think you’re totally on the money about the primary message of the scene.

    Again I’m noticing that if you compare drug addicts with masochists there aren’t too many people who are going to rally for the addicts’ rights to destroy themselves or deny that as the addict destroys themselves a serious toll is levied against everyone around them and society as well. I’m not just talking about problems that could be fixed with socialized health care or the de-criminalization of drugs, I’m talking about the way the addict’s entire existence becomes focused on the next high, how everything that should mean something is meaningless next to getting high. I can believe the model in that film got off – it’s how she gets high, but that doesn’t make it right. This is a public health problem.

    As far masochism goes, there’s no shortage of reasons why people might feel any degree of self loathing and shame but for the most part these reasons can be classified as either valid or invalid. If they’re invalid it would be best to see how and why you shouldn’t be feeling bad about yourself – in most of these instances someones trying to manipulate you and the sooner you see this and stop it the better. If you’ve got real valid reasons to feel ashamed about something you’ve done or are doing then stop doing it and / or do what you can to make amends – most importantly don’t keep doing it.

    I know this is much said than done and that the way the world is set up right now lots of us are complicit in things we deeply oppose and therefore we end up baring a constant level of shame so there’s a huge motivation to transform this shame since it seems we can’t get rid of it – but associating shame with orgasm is wrong thing to do with shame. If you do this shame ceases to be a deterrent to bad behavior. There really are impulses for which people should feel bad, as in ashamed of, and through experiencing this shame and how bad it feels they are suppose to decide to not act on those impulses. However, if shame is felt to be a pre-cursor to orgasm how likely is it that people will decide against shameful behavior? I do agree that this is an undoing of civilization. Discussions of ethics are urgently over-due.

  • Laur

    Also, instead of asking why some women want to be abused, why not ask why some men WANT to abuse? And see nothing wrong with acting out these “fantasies” on women?!

    • Meghan Murphy

      I would like that question to be asked more often, too. What draws MEN to want to perform degrading acts on women??

      • vouchsafer

        One possible explanation:we are all marketed this image of women as complacent and pliable sperm receptacles, but real women aren’t like that.
        So then you have men buying into that line, only it clashes with their actual experience of women because we aren’t like that.
        Instead of questioning the faulty logic they were originally fed by the corporate media, which is that if they behave like the male stars of the American pie movies women will hand themselves over to men, maybe men blame women for not living up to the role they’ve been typecast in.
        perhaps, frustrated by the absence of sexy women falling into their laps for little to no effort on their parts, (which is what they have been marketed to expect by the media, some men want to punish women by degrading them?
        And the porn industry is only too happy to step in and encourage it…

      • Me

        I like that question for turning the focus on men and our behavior, because that’s where the stopping needs to happen. I think first and foremost what draws men into this is the material reality that provides opportunities for it.

      • Me

        Other than that it’s a contagious form of insanity.

      • Max

        On the flipside, what draws women into becoming dommes and men into being subs? Would you see that as more subversive: a woman grabbing the ability to hurt and humiliate and a man being hurt and humiliated? Does that make it okay?

        Hell…I dunno. On an intellectual level, I get the whole BDSM thing; but on every other level…WTF?

        • Laur

          Max—women become dommes because that is what men desire out of us. It is a MALE fantasy. It is often about the male taking on the woman’s gender role (e.g, being “sissified”).

          It’s not hard to think why women become dommes. It’s something men want from us. Some women make good money doing this as well.

        • Me

          I think the whole discussion of what constitutes “subversion” needs to be taken to another level entirely. Serious, organized political resistance would be subversive. A serious, effective anti-pornography movement could be subversive. The pornographers take their power and destructiveness seriously. They seem single-minded about it down to an obsession. We shouldn’t expect to be able to win with anything less.

      • Missfit

        I think it is Dworkin who said that porn tells lies about women but it tells the truth about men. And what this truth tells is scary.

        Everybody knows that women are not the targeted audience for porn. And we women are constantly being told that ‘all men watch porn’ (and there is no doubt that porn is being massively consumed). The acts now depicted in mainstream porn are not being consumed by a marginal class of deviant men (women dominatrix who take pleasure in torturing/degrading men are, on the other hand, marginal). Considering this, I can’t help but think that most men I encounter hold a desire to abuse and degrade women. And I have a lot of difficulty reconciling that with the idea that these same men do in fact respect women.

        Porn has a huge impact on our contemporary sex lives. It affects the way men and women see each other. Because porn is a marketed and massively distributed product, it generates concerns beyond what the two or more adults featuring in it might have consented to. To not address its sexist messages on the basis of consent is nonsense. We are able to discuss the effects the use of ultra thin models have on women’s self-image, their weight perception/obsession and eating disorders without bringing the argument of the models’ consent. I don’t see why when it comes to porn the notion of consent should somehow signals the end of the discussion. Are we afraid to look further and of what it might reveals about us?

        • Me

          “I don’t see why when it comes to porn the notion of consent should somehow signals the end of the discussion. Are we afraid to look further and of what it might reveals about us?”

          I think this might have a fair bit to do with keeping evil at bay as well. I don’t mean so much for feminists as for people more generally. That somehow by not speaking evil’s name out loud and calling it what it is we personally will be spared its ravages and our lives will not be consumed by it. So we say they consented, we say they were dirty, we other them to maintain our false sense of safety. Which is of course deluded, but still something people very much turn to.

    • stephen m

      @laur: A very interesting question. One very uncomfortable parallel that comes to mind are the studies which link the lynching of blacks in the deep south and the price of cotton.

      “We conclude that mob violence against southern blacks responded to economic conditions affecting the financial fortunes of southern whites–especially marginal white farmers.”

      The Killing Fields of the Deep South: The Market for Cotton and the Lynching of Blacks, 1882-1930
      E. M. Beck and Stewart E. Tolnay
      American Sociological Review
      Vol. 55, No. 4 (Aug., 1990), pp. 526-539
      Published by: American Sociological Association

      • stephen m

        Beyond the obvious privilege, othering, etc of the lynching above. I have been spending some today to see if the academics have any ideas to help answer the question that @laur posed and came up with this interesting 2 page review of:

        A Quick and Dirty Tour of Misogynist Bro Culture
        The Bro Code: How Contemporary Culture Creates Sexist Men. Written, Produced, and Directed by Thomas Keith, Northampton, MA, Media Education Foundation, 2011. 58 min. $250 (University price). ISBN: 1-932869-55-7.

        2 pages, 1st page available here: *

        bit from page 2:
        “the national problem with sexual assault on campus (and off), it is disturbing to learn that gonzo porn is the most commonly downloaded type of pornography and that many male college students think nothing of admitting that they enjoy it .
        Pornography is not the only type of popular culture that legitimizes rape. The film shows that jokes about sexual assault and harassment are frequent in stand-up comedy, as well as in sitcoms such as
        Family Guy that are commonly watched by young people. Remarks about assault that are followed by laughter (whether real or recorded) normalize abusive behaviors, suggest that assault and harassment are
        no big deal, and make light of the suffering of victims. Sitcom laugh tracks tell the audience what is funny, and often people laugh along without hinking about what they are doing. Repeated exposure to jokes of this type desensitizes viewers to the seriousness of violence against women, and, for those already immersed in Bro culture, further legitimizes the degradation of women.”


        Dr. Tom Keith Filmmaker, Anti-Sexist Activist, Author and Lecturer

        *Unfortunately if you want to read the whole 2 pages you will have to make a trip to the library unless you have pay access at home through a university etc. I looked but I couldn’t find it complete for free anywhere.

        • vouchsafer

          @stephen m
          I read the portion of the Keith piece you linked to above. That’s kind of what I was talking about above. Meghan alluded to it too, in her piece, saying we’ve all been socialized the same way. The bro culture is in hip hop, its in movies, its in video games, its in ads for things like beer and axe deodorant, and without question, its in porn.
          What it all comes down to is that misogyny is being marketed for profit by corporations. We’ve run up against it here, in comments, where regulars are left scratching their heads reading comments from girls who claim they love to be treated in that kind of gonzo fashion, and of course we all know guys that act that way.
          The question for me has now become: how do we break through that conditioning?
          @max, you might not agree with Kate about the Cleveland thing, but she’s hardly tilting at windmills. Violent porn has time and time again been found on the computers of violent sexual predators. Corporal Russell Williams comes to mind, and the same with Michael Rafferty. This kind of material does have consequences.
          The only way its going to change is if this generation rejects this swill they’re being marketed, which, again, is why this site is so important. The first step to rejecting it is recognizing that we’ve got a problem, and as we’re coming to realize more and more, so many of the discussions here come down to the same bottom line, which is that this whole bro culture is a construct sold to us by capitalism.
          Wouldn’t it be awesome if the radfems were the ones to bring it down? 🙂

          • stephen m

            @vouchsafer: Yes, your point: “The question for me has now become: how do we break through that conditioning?” is an important direction to take.

            @laur’s question does not seem to be clearly explored either. It seems that the only way to examine it is by nibbling around the edges with some redundancy. My reading of what Meghan and you have been expressing so elegantly is the explanation of the *mechanism*. I am trying to nibble at the edges to try to fully understand the *motive* with the established materials available. MacKinnon’s answer is “The sexualization of power”. I would like to flesh that out a bit to understand it before I accept it fully. I an emotional way I don’t think that the lynching of blacks in the deep south is as far off as it might initially seem.

          • vouchsafer

            Mackinnon’s also calling it a “profit center for capitalist global media”.

            she’s saying that this model of sexualization is a *construct* and she’s right.

          • stephen m

            @vouchsafer: I was thinking about the question you posed:

            “The question for me has now become: how do we break through that conditioning?”

            The following is not quick and dirty and only for the tenacious.

            Earlier I bumped into a model of violence where violence is modeled as a disease and I think that this disease model might be useful in helping to answer your question. I assume that what we are discussing is sexualized *violence*, direct and media, and I hope that those who explore this model are not disappointed by the fact that it has not been used in application directly to the problem we are discussing in this tread.

            This model is not tied strictly to sexual issues, and they tend to use what we are examining as a factor in their larger scope, but I don’t see why one cannot look at the model being used in a more confined violence. Rather than paraphrase I will quote from:
            _Contagion of Violence: Workshop Summary_ , Introduction:

            “The past 25 years have seen a major paradigm shift in the field of violence prevention, from the assumption that violence is inevitable to the recognition that violence is preventable. Part of this shift has occurred in thinking about why violence occurs, and where intervention points might lie. In exploring the occurrence of violence, researchers have recognized the tendency for violent acts to cluster, to spread from place to place, and to mutate from one type to another. Furthermore, violent acts are often preceded or followed by other violent acts. Contextual and social factors play a role in increasing or reducing the risk of violence; such factors might exist at community or individual levels.

            In the field of public health, such a process has also been seen in the infectious disease model, in which an agent or vector initiates a specific biological pathway leading to symptoms of disease and infectivity. The agent transmits from individual to individual, and levels of the disease in the population above the baseline constitute an epidemic. Although violence does not have a readily observable biological agent as initiator, it can follow similar epidemiological pathways. Just as with those infected by microbial agents, those exposed to violence have varying levels of resilience and susceptibility. In addition, the influence of the environment can play a major role not only in symptomology, but also in transmission.”

            Some interesting teaser headings:
            Dose-Response Effect
            Youth Factors
            Socioeconomic Factors
            Processes and Mechanisms of the Contagion of Violence

            Contagion of Violence
            Workshop Summary
            Deepali M. Patel, Melissa A. Simon, and Rachel M. Taylor, Rapporteurs

            The PDF is free here:

          • Vouchsafer

            @ Stephen M

            We are not at cross purposes, I just lost interest in this thread. sorry!

      • stephen m

        Material is really thin on the ground,mostly it is asked what porn does to people. More academic insight to help answer @laur’s question of:

        “Also, instead of asking why some women want to be abused, why not ask why some men WANT to abuse? And see nothing wrong with acting out these “fantasies” on women?!”

        Gender – The Future
        Catharine A. MacKinnon
        (unfortunately has restricted access)

        A couple of quotes from it:

        “Power is even more sexualized all around the world than it was thirty years ago. The sexualization of power – this drug of male supremacy, this third rail of social life, this profit center for capitalist global media, legal and illegal – is particularly visible in prostitution and pornography, which increasingly are setting the terms of popular culture around us.”

        “Sexuality is the perfect vector for male supremacy. It gives everyone an identity stake in
        their socially-designated position of power, or lack of power, together with a visceral sense
        that this arrangement is not only right but natural and their very own. As my client Linda
        Boreman, forced as “Linda Lovelace” to perform sex to make the pornography film Deep Throat put it: “You do it, you do it, and you do it. Then you become it.” What is oppression feels like freedom. This is gender feminine.
        When one’s fundamental sexual experiences are imposed in a context of inequality of power, sex itself becomes imposition on those with less power. This sexuality is necessarily unequal. This hierarchical dynamic fundamental to male supremacy defines girls as for sexual use, boys as sexual users. What these boys were subjected to gives them a strong incentive to despise girls and the powerlessness they stand for and to opt for the alternative society gives them: masculinity, their way out, that is, siding with the abusers. This is gender masculine. The sexual politics of this process, superimposed on conventional lines, divides between left and right: the right repressing any sexuality of equality, the left liberating the sexuality of inequality.”

        Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory; Dec2010, Vol. 17 Issue 4, p504-511, 8p

        • Sally

          Great comment. I remember watching a documentary about the first Deep Throat staring Linda Lovelace and the documentary basically demonized her after she came out as being against the porn industry. The justification was basically along the lines of oh, she’s a religious loony now, so why would anything she has to say about the industry be relevant? clearly she’s just part of a puritanical narrative and has no worth in terms of critiquing her own actions, right? And these documentaries are being sold as perfectly valid commentaries to university students. I was subjected to it in my Sexual Politics class when I was majoring in Sociology, sadly.

  • Rye

    Based on what I’ve read, there seems to be a link between exposure to extreme porn and decreased empathy for women in general (please correct me if I’m wrong). Which makes perfect sense to me. I mean, how can these guys enjoy watching another person be physically punished unless they have been desensitized?

    If true, then I agree with copleycat that it is absolutely a public health problem. Empathy plays a major role in ethical behavior, and if extreme porn is desensitizing men to women who are suffering, then that is obviously not a good thing.

  • Kate

    When I read Witt’s piece I immediately thought about the three women who recently escaped the house in Cleveland in which they had been imprisoned, raped and tortured for ten years. I have no doubt in my mind that the man who did that to them watched porn like this. I also have no doubt in my mind that would never take responsibility for what work like theirs has done to the men of the world.

    • Max

      Kate – it’s a little glib drawing a direct line from Kink’s products to Cleveland. Horrors of the sort that were done to those poor women happened long before Kink and its ilk were even thought of.

      Don’t for a moment think I’m endorsing Kink et al; but let’s not go tilting at windmills.

      • “Horrors of the sort that were done to those poor women happened long before Kink and its ilk were even thought of.”

        What do we call this sort of statement? Oxymoronic?

        Whenever activities like the Cleveland horrors happened, then by definition, Kink and its ilk WERE being thought of. I am sick to death of the inevitable “now now!” that someone chimes in with anytime someone draws a parallel between porn content and social behaviour.

        Are you saying you think Ariel Castro was not a porn user or “if” he was (ha ha – who’s putting money on this P.O.S. NOT being a porn user?? Takers?) that it might not have had sadistic content or if he was watching sadistic, women-loathing content like Kink, the two are disconnected?

        “let’s not go tilting at windmills” is patronizing and inappropriate. Drawing parallels between the, Gonzo, etc and crimes such as the one Kate refers to is unsurprising, legitimate and deserves to be on the table.

      • Meghan Murphy

        I agree that there is a correlation. Misogyny, torture porn, etc. CANNOT be disconnected from incidences like the one in Cleveland. This isn’t to say that everyone who’d into porn/kink is a violent, sociopathic, misogynist — but I don’t think it’s useful to compartmentalize these things.

    • Laur

      No, I’m sure he was watching “feminist” porn.

      *Rolls eyes*

      In all seriousness, porn is ONE source from the cult(ure) that tells men women want and desire any and all sexualized abuse. Even men who don’t go to the lengths of ariel castro think children and women desire any and all abuse. We need to focus on where they are getting this message from TODAY.

      • Vouchsafer

        @Laur, you’re so right. They’re getting it from EVERYwhere. I saw a list outside a grade two classroom recently that showed the class’s favorite tv shows, and the number one was Family Guy, which is full of jokes about sexual assault and woman beating and paves the way for the porn mentality and consumption.
        What I honestly think we need to do is get a bunch of us together from this site and collaborate on a document that calls for a ban on mainstream porn distribution based on a human rights approach, that it’s harmful to women and children.
        Nobody’s even trying to slow it down, to my knowledge, let alone stop it.

  • Henke

    If someone enjoy pain and degredation so much, then by all means, do it in your own living room. It doesn’t gives you any right to film and exploit the hell out of it.
    What kind of men watches this kind of degrading porn ? What signals does such a movie give to a viewer ?
    I have a hard time thinking that its “how cute she is… I wish I could take her out on a date” that is most surly NOT the kind of thoughts that runs thru the viewers head. A film takes away personality, what do we know about this woman ? Nothing more than that she seems to enjoy to be degraded by men, tortured by men and made fun out of in any possible way.

    I’ve written it on this page before, and I write it again: Porn Industry ruins our sexuality and I personally have no doubt that it also help foster rape.

  • ““You might think we are doing things to the model that are mean or humiliating, but don’t,” said Princess Donna Dolore (the director of the Kink shoot). “She’s signed an agreement.””

    So… she really doesn’t listen to herself talk, does she? Because that’s the stupidest and least self-conscious thing I’ve heard in a very long time. Such a high level of willful illogic requires quite a lot of practice.

    • Sally

      I was thinking the same thing too.. I dunno I think that if a kink website were really that into the idea of consent they would actually film the consent and make it part of the kink porn…because that seems like a more realistic scene to me (or at least what the BDSM community wants us to believe is a realistic scene… I never really experienced it myself). And just because someone signs a paper doesn’t mean consent can’t be revoked at any time for any reason. “She signed a paper”… and?

  • Candy

    Let’s think about this. What’s the difference between a woman being raped and degraded by one man and a woman being filmed being faux-raped and degraded by one man in a porno?

    One man gets to gloat in the humiliation of his victim in the first case. Millions of men get off to the perceived victimization and debasement in the second. Are people truly trying to justify the mentality it requires to find this sexy?

    The psychology of this isn’t pretty.

    “Witt makes this distinction after talking with Rain, a self-described “24–7 lifestyle kinkster” who works for Kink. Speaking about Princess Donna with reverence, Rain describes the burning, blinding pain brought on by getting cum in your eyes, saying:

    “Do you realize the dedication that takes?” asked Rain. “That’s how committed she is.”

    That is simply ridiculous. How far can you take that logic? If that takes dedication, surely cutting yourself for someone takes further dedication. Ad infinitum faulty logic.

    • That reverence for dedication is a very thinly veiled form of celebrating female martyrdom. Female martyrdom, of course, is quintessential for upholding patriarchy.

  • Hecuba

    Proves how easy it is to dehumanise women. Have we forgotten the Holocaust wherein male dominant Nazi ideology successfully promoted the lie that all women and certain male groups were ‘dehumanised disposable objects?’

    The Nazis did not create systemic dehumanisation of women and certain male groups because this deliberate male-created belief that white men are the default human species whereas all women and non-white men are not human has been around for centuries. Furthermore Nazi dehumanisation of certain groups of males did not entail dehumanising these men because they were male but it was their political ideology which was dismissed as ‘dangerous to the Nazi regime.’

    So what does this have to do with the group of baying men and some women too eagerly viewing and enjoying the systemic male sexual degradation and sexualised torture of yet another ‘disposable female?’ Why it proves how successful male created pornstitution industry is in successfully promoting its lie that ‘provided a woman/girl “consents” this means the male prepetrator(s) can inflict whatever sexual violence they wish upon the woman/girl.

    ‘Consent’ means to submit to what the initiator demands – it is not free agreement wherein both parties hold equal socio-economic power. Furthermore just because one woman has internalised mens’ lie that all women are dehumanised/disposable/interchangeable sexualised commodities’ this does not alter fact men collectively continue to demand their pseudo male sex right to inflict sadistic male sexual violence upon women and girls.

    Men have always eroticised male sexual violence against women and girls because not only does the male perpetrator experience sexual pleasure whilst subjecting a woman/girl to sadistic male sexual violence; he also experiences sexual power and reinforces his belief he is default human not that dehumanised female.

    Perhaps slavery should be re-introduced and accepted as a ‘choice’ because many, many female and male slaves internalised white men’s lies that slavery was acceptable for them and they couldn’t imagine life free from male ownership or control. Same applies to women who believe mens’ lies that their sole reason for existence is to be subjected to sadistic male sexual violence because they have internalised mens’ lies.

    The issue is not ‘about consent’ because that is another male created libertarian excuse used to justify male sex right to subject innumerable women and girls to male sexual violence, including filming and distributing said male sexual violence against women and girls. ‘Consent’ means what men want it to mean and that is ‘women consenting to whatever men demand – or rather women submitting to male sexual demands because only men are accorded sexual autonomy and ownership of their bodies.’ Men never ‘consent’ rather they initiate sexual interaction and believe the woman is always ‘consenting to their sexual demands.’

    Men have always recognised when their rights have been violated which is why the so-called scandal of Abu Ghraib was sensationalised. Reason is because it was male prisoners who were the ones being subjected to male sexual violence not female prisoners.

    There have always been female handmaidens of the male supremacist system publicly proclaiming ‘their right to be reduced to males’ disposable sexual service stations’ and these female handmaidens are lauded by men as ‘enacting their sexual agency and choice.’ Strange is it not that this ‘sexual agency and choice’ is precisely the same misogynistic lies men have always claimed about women. Men have always claimed women are innately masochistic and enjoy being subjected to sadistic male sexual violence and torture.

    Rape fantasies exist for a reason and that is innumerable women have internalised mens’ lies that women are innately masochistic and enjoy being subjected to systemic male sexual domination and humiliation. Given no critical analysis is allowed to be published within malestream media it is not surprising therefore that so many women have internalised mens’ lies they are ‘sex’and nothing else.

    Read Anti-Climax by Sheila Jeffries for a succinct analysis of how and why so many women experience rape fantasies and why it is so hard to eliminate these male created misogynistic lies. Male propaganda concerning women not supposedly being human has proven to be very successful as evidenced by the pornstitution industry.

    Read Catharine A. MacKinnon’s article ‘On Torture’ which is published in her latest book ‘Are Women Human? MacKinnon analyses how and why the dominant view that male political prisoners who have been imprisoned and subjected to sadistic sexualised torture are rightly viewed as having their male rights violated.

    Mens’ systemic sexualised torture of women is not viewed as ‘torture’ but merely mens’ sex right to subject innumerable women to sadistic male sexual violence and sexualised torture. Men are human whereas women are what? Dehumanised disposable; interchangeable sexualised commodities.

    Systemic male sexual violence against women continues not to be viewed as political acts of male domination over women whereas male imprisonment and torture of males who hold differing political views is deemed to be ‘torture!’ Read Catharine MacKinnon’s article and then claim ‘but consent is the only issue and when a woman/women consents miraculously this justifies systemic male sexual violence against women and girls. After all one woman’s supposed ‘consent’ supercedes womens’ right as a group not to be routinely subjected to male sexual degradation and male inflicted sexualised torture. One can’t harm something which isn’t human and women aren’t human according to men.

  • womynbornwomyn

    ‘In feminism, as well as in other liberal-type circles’ what gives you the impression that liberalism and feminism are synonymous. Liberalism is mostly about being dick pleasing. It can be just as sexist sometimes more than the right wing. What happened to radical analysis of the power dynamics of het sex? How it is an act of violation, mutilation of her inner organs? I thought this was a radical site but you are no better than those you call funfems. It should be obvious s/m is woman hating bullshit, the ultimate conformity to the very model of patriarchy which is dom/sub. It bugs me these fetlife freaks think they are so damn unique when they are really they are pathetic and the ultimate conformists.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Hmm, no… I certainly don’t think liberalism and feminism and synonymous. I think that liberalism has infiltrated some factions of feminism in a destructive way, though, for sure. I think you may not be understanding my arguments/politics.

  • Mistress Rachel

    As one of those kinky BDSM people I found this article disturbing. I don’t think anyone who does these things should feel ashamed (whether Topping or bottoming) whether they’re being filmed or no. I find it disturbing that you think men with rape fantasies (presumably where they’re the rapist) should be ashamed but women desiring to be subjugated should not (unless of course they can take that fantasy to the bank, bad sex worker!). What of women desiring to be the rapist? Or men the victim?
    I think the problem is not that this video exists or any degradation pornography for that matter but that it is dumped into a vaccuum of our rape culture without further discussion. Every Top, Master or Daddy I know loves and cares for their submissives. It’s a game. As Dan Savage would say it’s cops and robbers with your pants off. It’s love, just different. A script. The problem is that you’re looking in from the outside.
    It’s not antifeminist to get off by being degraded. By labelling sexual desires unethical it’s a conversation ender, not a starter. If you said, ‘hey spanking your boy in public BDSM friendly enviroment is unethical’ I’d tell you something very unkind.
    This article seems to say that it isn’t women’s fault for having kinky desires to be subjugated but just don’t get paid for it. Moreover it completely skips over the fact that there are more male submissives than female submissives, more male dominants than female dominants and more male submissives than male dominants. Is our culture telling men to get on their knees? Not really. Just the opposite. Maybe some women try out kink because of the culture we’re raised in. But isn’t it just as possible that we’re wired that way? That the endorphin rush from being the victim is just tapping into the reptile brain that kept us alive as prey? Then after that high being held and taken care of by the person you love, well, I think nothing beats that high.
    Yes, there are men out there that are into kink because they see women as things. There’s a reason most kinky spaces are run by women. That doesn’t mean that all men who’re into kink look at their lover and think ‘piece of shit’ or ‘worthless’. If their brain is anything like mine then they see their partner as trusting them and giving up control. Consenting. There’s nothing unethical about that.

    • StepfordWifeRebel

      Wow, reading through all this, what you just described is the whole Honeymoon phase in a Domestic Violence Relationship, and that you’re Addicted the the Honeymoon phase. You Kniw after he beats you senseless and the shock, etc., Then the good ole sweet Romance and the I love you baby and all That nonsense. But now, let me fill you in on a little secret, aka REALITY. Over time, like with Any drug, the highs wear off sooner and you need more of the drug to get that fix, and that Period between the pain and the comfort-sex bandaid gets shorter and shorter to where one day ole Dom boy or girl, doesn’t want to hassle with that part, let’s just skip on up to the Violence and forget the Romance, after all it’s getting kind of old and it Just doesnt have the Thrill it once had. So before you know it, he’s not only beating you, now he’s Seriously trying to off your ass not the next dimension. But see by This time, it’s a tad too late to escape or in that whole BDSM way cry Stop, because even if you did, why you’re the Pavlonian dog and well trained and he’s Bored with you…so off ya go. You say stop, he says so what…and Then what? Oh but oh What about all that Honeymoon period? You Know all this crap about consent in this occult bondage garbage and it IS OCCULT, is nothing more than good ole BRAINWASHING. of Course they give consent, they are BRAINWASHED “Monarchs”, Oldest Sorcery trick in the book. Groomed and all, and why the Religious priests used it, Nazis used it, Soviets used it and Corporate owned Fascists use it, good ole Behavior Mod. Prisons etc use it too. So, really the consent etc is laughable, those knowledgable about the occult, etc., Know how these mind games work. I would bet majority of those in BDSM culture have religious issues or child abuse issues. Porn uses it because it’s part if the globalist fascist Agenda. Operation Paperclip at its finest.

      • StepfordWifeRebel

        One sorry bout the typos, this keyboard not the greatest, not using a desktop, Anyhooo…this analysis on the Ethics is so needed, but I wanted to add that the agenda, and there IS AN AGENDA behind the CULTURE of BONDAGE, which is militarized globalist corporatist in nature, meaning the think tank elite Umbrella ENGINEERS that I referred to above, Know damn well the lack of “ethics” and it is not just by mere “accident”. Hardly, the depiction of Bondage IMAGES is meant to one Normalize as well as Brainwash the masses into believing this is the Normacy role that all females and subserviants they deem should be, should modify their thinking and behavior to be exactly like the submissive, and any who DEVIATE from this norm would be considered anti-social or anti-Hive. It is nihilism taken to a Transhumanist extreme. Look into the Transhumanist agenda and theories, you’ll soon see the operative agenda, which makes Orwellian look tame in comparison, there can be no autonomous “female” empowered to build this beast. No way, nor individuals or individualism, minorities, etc. we are talking something much bigger than just a few fetishes. This has been the research I’ve been doing, from a woman’s human rights lens, and children’s rights. Sad to say, some of the feminist theories have been hijacked, quite cleverly by these transhumanists, I say this from a radical feminist lens. It also has to do with genetic engineering, which is Extremely anti female and anti feminist with a misogyny that is fiercely intent on complete erasure of anything female, a colonization if sorts like from an alien type of takeover, metaphorically speaking. Eugenics but on a whole other level…now how does the whole porn and BDSM culture tie into all this? The behavior mod methodologies used, what is applied to women will apply to all of society. That us the ultimate goal. A good analysis of how these agendas work, is Camus “Algeria unveiled”. The Soviets worked on these types if experimentation, Romania is a good example, with the forced births and orphanages…these same orphanages were in numerous Soviet bloc Countries, many of these same programs are used in militarized backed sex trafficking. These sub cultures, of influence, such as KINK, etc., run by a former Jesuit, are not just by coincidence. if you study the history/development of occult/sex behavior controls in psychiatry aka elites in Europe, eugenics, as well as in USA, you see the connections. You Really see them in the agendas running the family courts, psychiatrics and child welfare there, why SO MANY PEDOPHILES are being handed custody in spite of mega amount of evidence. It’s not just a few bad judges, this is a planned agenda by DESIGN. It’s much more complex and lots of evidence/data one has to sort through to put the puzzle together, so to speak, but the ethics, as the author mentions, nails it. The intent of the culture of Bondage is to eventually normalize the bondage Pavlonian slave human into a Normalacy where to question that would immediately be considered Abnormal. The targets are children, in the end goal…whole generations. While this may sound like crazy conspiracy, the evidence cannot be dismissed. Mary Daly was beginning to hit on it a lot I think before she passed, religion is a huge part of the social controls and it IS political, kid you not. And it’s global…my suggestion, is don’t take my word for it, do the research yourself. Look into population control genetics forced sterilization of women in Bangladesh, start there, and then a research into eugenics, mental health, children and women and the abuses, behavior mod, then the genetics behavior mod university studies and criminal studies, brain mapping etc., sexual abuses of women and children IN those fields and why these abuses are increasing and the Rationale used to justify pedophilia, rape, misogyny, etc.m that whole evolutionary psychology and tie that to the removal of females, super soldiers, etc by ethicists (actually no ethicists) who are EXTREME MISOGYNISTS, science elites. It is an ELITIST agenda, of Males, and kid you not, they are working on mass holocausts of women, population control will be the “good” goal they hide this sinister evil behind, and females allowed to exist, will only be allowed as sexual no free will slaves to serve their needs…the PERFECT FEMALE BORG. It’s not science fiction, they are working on it…the normalizing willing female sex slaves is just one aspect of the agenda, it gets way worse. Again, don’t take my word for it…dismiss it even RESEARCH IT YOURSELF. It is a militarized, psychiatric, eugenics agenda, you think Hitlers Mutterland was bad, thus goes Way beyond that. Also look into Transhumanist, there IS no human rights in that, it’s nihilism at its worst, NECROPHALLIC death worship at its end. Man and machine, as one…females need not apply. This is research I began, stumbled on actually, not planned, I believe it was what many Warned us about from Charlotte Perkins who saw beginning signs to Bakunin, etc., during industrialization, etc. the danger us these age DAs can mask as pro feminist, they are the flip side of the misogynist religious right…how the BDSM porn ties in, the beh mod brainwashing techniques they use, are same that military, horrific torturers use, etc., same manuals, the porn inquisitioner Types in Europe, sell them, largest publisher of main one in states is former cop/beh mod prison, etc. something to that but why you see a lot of authority types of rings, etc., it’s organized, and numerous are in government, not just a culture, but an organized structure from top to bottom. Both vertical a d horizontal…there is more but you can research into it from what I’ve said here.

  • Pingback: The sweetest revenge (porn): Joe Francis meets karma | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Sam Krop: A Radical Severing of Violence from Freedom | Deep Green Resistance News Service()

  • Anna

    Meghan, I would love to see you do an analysis of the horror films coming out in the last few years and how that ties in to the porn industry and to these types of ideas about consent. I can’t find any good feminist analysis of the misogyny in horror films, although I’ve found a few articles by women who are apologists for the sexualized violence in these films (especially Carol Clover’s essay). And I’ve noticed a disturbing trend lately of women becoming fans of horror films and enjoying scenes of the mutilation of women. I went to a screening of a vintage horror film from the ’70s a couple of years ago that was filled with men and a female leather biker crowd, all of whom were shouting and screaming in ecstatic glee when the sexy girl was mauled, tortured, raped and killed by the psychopath. Many young women are becoming increasingly enthusiastic about horror films as a way of channeling their anger, and with the thought that it empowers them to watch other women being slashed because they can identify with the villain. You also get the masochistic types of women who enjoy these films, the actresses who are proud to be semi-naked scream queens and the women that identify with them. And what’s truly hideous is that revenge-fantasy horror is now often called “feminist” because sometimes girls are the ones doing the killing.

    I agree too that the normalizing of BDSM and torture porn is extremely disturbing, and also there seems to be a trend in porn for the films to be more about torture than they are about sex. In ANTICLIMAX which was also mentioned in a comment above, Sheila Jeffreys suggests that the power and control of male supremacy had shifted from the job market to pornography, and now I think it’s shifted from regular pornography to violent pornography and the extreme sexualized violence in horror films.

    • Meghan Murphy

      Yeah totally. I hate horror movies and don’t watch them. But you are very right that so, so much of it is highly sexualized violence against women.

  • Pingback: Meghan Murphy balance… | Isabelle Alonso()

  • Pingback: Happy New Year! Here are some of our top posts from 2013 | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Witch hunt! Terry Richardson responds to sexual assault allegations. (Also, libertarians will be the death of us) | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Feminism is the new misogyny: On ‘Belle Knox feminism’ and the new backlash | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Jian Ghomeshi’s ‘consent’ defense shows why ‘consent’ isn’t good enough | Feminist Current()

  • Pingback: Objectification, pornography, and Glen Canning, Rehtaeh Parsons’ father | Feminist Current()

  • I thought this was a very interesting read on the subject

  • Rwingcannon

    She must’ve been a very well trained actor/human trafficking victim. It is rationally impossible for someone enjoy being tied up and whipped, or have sexual pleasure or orgasm during being raped. The pain would distract from arousal & arousal is a prerequisite to those things, & non aroused woman do not have the natural vaginal lubrication that causes sex not to hurt.

  • Rwingcannon

    Why doesn’t someone call the cops on kink? Torture is illegal.

  • Rwingcannon

    Holy cow don’t read past the fifteenth paragraph or you will need brain bleach. Too much detail.