Knowing that I hadn’t explored feminist porn to its full potential, I was skeptical and hesitant to learn more about it. I expected to be either turned-off or offended by the porn that claimed to be “feminist,” but my exploration into the area changed my mind. I enjoyed aspects of some of the clips and directors we viewed on Friday. My favorite was the Comstock film, I never thought porn could really capture the potential for emotional connection, but the Xana and Dax (along with a short preview of Comstock’s film Ashley and Kisha) proved me wrong.
The blogs assigned mainly centered on some of the debates surrounding the porn industry. Because of the amount of arguments made, and the complexity of many of them, I am going to avoid trying to summarize the readings and focus more on responding to how many of the arguments fit into third-wave feminism and our class.
Reading the blogs on the web was, at times, extremely irritating. The complexities of the porn industry are exhausting, especially when many of the feminist porn makers seem to have the same goals. Similarly, was the frustrating idea that many of our allies for sexual freedom and feminist ideals are often split on “little” things (with recognizable larger implications), like, for example, whether or not it is “feminist” to have a man come in a woman’s face….I know the intricacy’s of porn-making, especially in trying to produce a porn that is feminist and non-misogynistic, but to what extent can arguments, not unlike the ones we saw in CAKE versus Levy, distract us from the real goals of third-wave feminism?
First and second-wave feminism have been largely criticized for being racists, classists, and ethnocentric. I do not in any way refute these claims. Instead, I find it interesting to think about the porn-debate in the context of these waves. How much has the feminist- porn industry been criticized for being theses things? Not much discussion about class and race came up in the blogs. Comstock was the only one to speak to race and gender directly, and I am confused about my reaction to his response.
Ashley and Kisha, Comstock’s newest film, features two lesbian identified, black women. He seems to struggle sales of the movie at first, and wants to initially blame the lack of sales on some larger societal racial trend. Then he steps back for moment, and reflects:
I think there ways to depict sex that can transcend race, gender, or sexuality, and Jessica, Linda, JAG [people who’ve said generous things about A&K] and the others are helping to sustain me in my belief that by focusing on the subjective aspects of the sexual experience, I can reach across boundaries of race, or gender, or sexual taste.
The part I disagree with is the lack of acknowledgement of class. In my opinion, a dialogue surrounding who has access to feminist porn, who is making it, who is starring in it, etc. is lacking in Comstock’s analysis, and also in the current feminist-porn movement. Similarly, I don’t know how I feel about these comments, as well:
Of course our differences still matter… but those aren’t the only things that matter, and they’re not always the thing that matters the most. You don’t have to be African-American to be inspired by the story of the Tuskegee Airmen; you don’t have to be Jewish to feel the horror of The Holocaust; you don’t have to be young, black, or a lesbian to know when you’re watching Kisha ride Ashley’s face, you’re seeing something that’s as right as rain.
Do you think what unites as sexual beings is more important than our other differences?
1 comment:
Laura, I was very interested in your question at the end of your blog. I agree that attention to race, class and socioeconomic status is not addressed by the feminist porn industry and more problematically, the porn is not accessible to all women. I embrace the idea that to be human includes being a sexual being but it is important not to universalize the sexuality of all women, which has been a common trend in earlier feminist movements.
To universalize the experience of women as whole does not focus on other institution that affect the issues of women at different levels. I think an overarching focus of the third wave is this idea of feminisms, a pluralized movement paying close attention to the social constraints inflicted on women due to their multifaceted identities. I think this theme was present in several of the blogs that argued that there was diversity in sexual pleasure and experiences among women. There is no way to clearly define what feminist porn should and should not include. Instead the focus needs to be on establishing democratic interaction between the couple and focusing on the female perspective and experience of pleasure. In the post, “Feminist Porn Wars”, a quote by Erika Lust is used to reiterate the fact that if feminist porn discriminates against sexual experiences that it fines degrading to women, many women’s sexuality will be repressed. Erika does not want someone to dictate what she can and cannot do in her bedroom. I think the main issue with acts such as "cum-shots" that many feminists find degrading is that often they are portrayed as the only option, where the woman is not in control. The idea of consent is so important in these arguments because if that is what the woman wants, it needs to be expressed verbally in the films.
To return to the question you posed at the end of your post, I think there is always danger to solely focus on how we are all connected as sexual beings. This does not delve deep enough into all the diversity that experienced by women sexually. And yes, sexuality, especially women’s sexuality cannot stand-alone; it has been influenced by many societal institutions, which create diversity in sexual knowledge and sexual experience among women. Institutions such as class, race and socioeconomic status ultimately will influence women’s sexual experiences.
Post a Comment