Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

Liberal Denial: The Link Between Porno and War

By Riane Eisler, AlterNet. Posted September 25, 2007.


It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor.
Advertisement

Liberals often defend images of men chaining, whipping, torturing, and even killing women in the name of sexual pleasure as harmless exercises of free speech. At the same time, they strenuously object to war propaganda.

But if war propaganda is effective in dehumanizing members of "enemy" nations to make it possible for men to hurt, kill, and degrade other human beings -- as it clearly is -- why would images of women as merely body parts for male sexual use and abuse not have similar effects? Why, like other propaganda, would stories and images that dehumanize women not blind people to the reality of women's suffering? If linking sex with violence had no effect on behavior, why would savvy media professionals link sex with whatever they are trying to sell -- from cars to Coca-Cola -- to influence peoples' behavior?

Books such as Robert Jensen's recent Getting Off show that porno is really propaganda in an undeclared war against women. Many studies show that images linking sexual arousal with cruelty and violence desensitize men to rape and other gender violence. Even beyond this, porno dehumanizes women and perpetuates the notion that half our species is put on earth to be used, and abused, by the other half.

But the damage done by porno goes further. As Jensen points out, porno reflects cultural acceptance of cruelty. But porno itself makes cruelty acceptable.

Now what we're talking about here is pornography, not erotica. Erotica is about giving and receiving sexual pleasure. Pornography is about linking sexual arousal with the infliction or suffering of pain -- be it psychological or physical. Erotica (from Eros, the Greek god of love) is about sexual love. Pornography is about male control over women -- and even beyond this, about domination and violence as normal and fun.

Images that link sexual arousal with causing physical or psychological pain perpetuate repression and injustice across the board. They condition people to accept, and even want, relations of domination and submission enforced by violence.

It's time liberals come out of denial about pornography. It's time to stop kidding ourselves that linking sex with cruelty and violence has no real effect.

Chaining, whipping and even killing people in the name of sexual pleasure is sadism. But liberal groups like the ACLU still go to court to protect violent and degrading porno on the grounds of free speech. Of course, we want free speech. But there have always been legal limits to speech. The basis of libel and slander suits, for example, is that you can't use speech to vilify and harm others. Porno vilifies and harms women. And it harms us all. It's not accidental that the period leading up to the Iraq war coincided with the proliferation of degrading and violent porno. Social scientists have shown that a rise in images of sexual conquest and domination historically presage periods of repression and war.

What we're dealing with are old patterns. The fact is that the view that women are put on earth to service men is our inheritance from times when the "natural order" was the ranking of man over woman, man over man, race over race, religion over religion, and nation over nation.

Let's not fall for the fundamentalist Christian charge that pornography is part of the modern drift away from religion. We can see in Christian religious art the almost identical images of sexual sadism as in modern pornography. For example, we find these same images in the Church-commissioned religious art showing women accused of being witches sadistically tormented by Christian inquisitors.

It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women. It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK. It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: liberal, pornography, feminism, women, violence, repression

Riane Eisler is author of Sacred Pleasure: Sex, Myth, and the Politics of the Body. She is best known for her international bestseller The Chalice and The Blade and her just published The Real Wealth of Nations. For more information, see rianeeisler.com.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
It's time to admit
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Sep 25, 2007 12:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that countries with liberal attitudes toward porn and sexual education have lower rates of sexual violence against women. Even in the US, the states with the most restrictive laws always end up with the highest rates of sexual violence...

So...If you want to unionize sex workers and work towards giving them equal rights and fair and equitable working conditions...great! Good stuff...Everything else is bullshit.

Lumping all porn together is disingenuous. Claiming you speak for all women is disingenuous, when clearly feminists are becoming more involved in sex work, and you marginalize their voices and perpetuate the Madonna/whore myth like Christian conservatives.

Stop with the whiny porn articles...statistically, morally and theoretically you are wrong. We know you are white, female and privileged, but quit telling people what to do with their lives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» resort to shame Posted by: Eat Politicians
» RE: The Pill Posted by: sunspot
» Faulty logic Posted by: Libertine
» Too simplistic a thesis Posted by: Kym525
» RE: Too simplistic a thesis Posted by: EvilMessiah
» RE: Too simplistic a thesis Posted by: turtlesturtlesturtles
» RE: Too simplistic a thesis Posted by: Kym525
» RE: It's time to admit Posted by: screwjack2000
» RE: It's time to admit Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: It's time to admit Posted by: screwjack2000
» Porn prevents rape. Posted by: Kryptman40k
» RE: Porn prevents rape. Posted by: axjxhx
» RE: It's time to admit Posted by: realmuzik
Buuuuuuulsh*t
Posted by: footman on Sep 25, 2007 12:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What the heck is with the recent spate of anti-porn articles on alternet? If you believed the last three, the only porn to be found on the net involves "Gonzo" porn and degradation.

As a self-confessed porn addict, I can safely say that out of the thousands and thousands of images and videos I've stumbled upon, I have only once or twice found ones that border on what these authors have described. I found them abhorrent and repulsive. Nonetheless, if the net was so awash with this stuff, don't you think it would be a tad easier for a porn junkie trawling the web to stumble upon?

And finally, if you think that a society that allows free access to create or view porn is somehow more violent, then perhaps you should use some actual statistics, because I think you'll find that more often than not the most repressed, hellhole dictatorships have -much- higher levels of violence, particularly against women. So there's some "questionable" porn out there. BIG DEAL. In parts of Africa, women forcibly have their labia cut off with a dirty razor when they reach puberty, and in parts of the Middle East women who get raped are rewarded with "Honor Killing" by members of their own family.

Can we get an order of perspective over here at table "feminazi"?

Consensual sex on camera may encourage the viewers to f*ck more people, but to suggest it would encourage them to violence is ridiculous.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: ankhet
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: footman
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: LindaB
» RE: Denial speaks so loudly Posted by: greentime
» neither do you... nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: dmaciewski
» RE: Buuuuuuulsh*t Posted by: footman
It's play acting
Posted by: ssegallmd on Sep 25, 2007 12:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Too bad the author didn't include anything but her opinion. Had she spoken to some of those women, she might have understood that they were acting or role playing, and that none were there against their will or regretted it after the fact.

"why would images of women as merely body parts for male sexual use and abuse not have similar effects"

For the same reason that the images of men subordinated to women on the next page of the same web site or magazine don't lead to violence against men.

"It's high time to stand up against images sexualizing the degradation, humiliation, domination, torture, and even killing of women."

I wonder why the author isn't equally worried for the men undergoing the same "deradation". And nice one, suddenly conflating role playing with snuff films.

"It's time to ask why liberals who would run to court to ban images degrading members of a different race still think degrading members of a different sex is OK."

What? Who's doing that? What degrading racial pictures? Photos of Bu'wheat? Nobody's going to court over racist imagery. Yeah, if people are running to court to ban degrading racial pictures, it is time to ask why. Is there a problem there? Is there a market there for degrading racial pictures? Where are they? Or is this an imaginary problem, too?

"It's time to admit that the subordination of women perpetuates the very conditions of repression and violence liberals abhor."

No, it's time to recognize that BDSM pornography, just like the BDSM life style, is fantasy, and doesn't involve any more degradation or subordination than the participants enjoy.

And why is this men doing something to women, good or bad. Men (and a few women) are soliciting actors - other men and women - to play a part for the camera. I don't get this as a battle of the sexes for domination.

I basically support the feminists just as I support PETA. But both groups occasionally, with good intentions, go too far, and in so doing, hurt the cause. I believe that this is one of those occasions. It seems like the author just assumes her point. She certainly doesn't even try to make a case for it.

My guess is that pornography actually leads to less horny men walking the streets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's play acting Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: It's play acting Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: It's play acting Posted by: naryaquid
» RE: It's play acting Posted by: CandianBear
w00t! Out of the woodwork they come!
Posted by: polyquat50 on Sep 25, 2007 1:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The great male bastion emerges to defend it's position. Heaven forbid that they should have to listen to a woman's voice!

They love their porn, and they're alright aren't they? So we must be imagining the degradation, and the rape, and the abuse, and the harasment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: w00t! Out of the woodwork they come! Posted by: Eat Politicians
» SO TRUE Posted by: deborama
» RE: SO TRUE Posted by: footman
» RE: SO TRUE Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: SO TRUE Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: I TOTALLY agree! Posted by: greentime
» RE: I TOTALLY agree! Posted by: footman
» Of course you do. Posted by: ssegallmd
Eisler
Posted by: Donna_Darko on Sep 25, 2007 1:36 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Her books, Sacred Pleasure, The Chalice and the Blade and The Partnership Way are great.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Library Posted by: greentime
» Fetish Fair Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Oh, and also.. Library... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Huh? Posted by: Donna_Darko
» I wasn't speaking to you. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» I wasn't speaking to you either Posted by: Donna_Darko
Puritan panflet
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Sep 25, 2007 1:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article makes the usual (wrong) assumption of mistaking rough sex (BDSM even) with degradation or objetification. And as usual too, it only looks at women beign "degraded" and objetified. What's new is the attempt to link it to War, maybe to capitalize on the war opposition inertia.

But the author makes a few mistakes and overassumptions;

-There are already laws in your country that require for the participants of adult films that mix sex and violence, bondage or domination to activelly express their agreement with what's happening in the film. Characters (not just the actors, altough in the case of gonzo porn there is no difference) must vervally agree in a manner that leaves no doubt all is consensual. The idea behind these regulations is that while some (many) people enjoy that kind of sex, it should never be forced onto anyone. Thats the key: consensual sex between adults is never wrong, even if it disturbs you.

-For every film depicting women beign abused by men, there is at least one where it is a woman who holds the reins (sometimes literally). I have heard neo-puritans say those Mistresses or Dominatrix are alo victims of abject objetification to please men ego... failing to see that women have ego too, and a personal idiosincracy that can include a desire for that kind of relationship. both ends of the rope.

-Gay porn has a long depicted that kind of sex and relationships... do we infer gay men degrade and abuse each other? Are they more pro-war than other colectives? Or is it simply that gay porn cater to the fetishes and likings of its public?

While I agree there must be a greater control on the kind of porn that reach our markets (certain countries offer little or no legal guarantees), it is paternalistic to deprive women from their right to appear in porn films in whatever way they choose to. because, ultimatelly, it is only themselves they are representing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: hilarious if it weren't so sad Posted by: Eat Politicians
» RE: hilarious if it weren't so sad Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» Pig? Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Pig? Posted by: True2Blue
» RE: Pig? Posted by: ssegallmd
And...
Posted by: El Hombre Malo on Sep 25, 2007 1:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, we find these same images in the Church-commissioned religious art showing women accused of being witches sadistically tormented by Christian inquisitors.


Beign from a country that had a stablished Inquistorial Office well into XIX century and having formal education in arts, I am curious. Where can I find such art? It is certainly not in Spain so I guess it must have been stolen.

Or imagined.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And... Posted by: naryaquid
» Spelling nazi, too Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: Spelling nazi, too Posted by: naryaquid
» Assuming average intelligence... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» ESL Posted by: suprmark
» RE: And... Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» RE: And... Posted by: ssegallmd
» I'll second that... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'll second that... Posted by: kiel
» RE: I'll second that... Posted by: El Hombre Malo
» Very true. nm Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: I'll second that... Posted by: angryyoungwoman
I'm a PORNO-SEXUAL
Posted by: strahlungsamt on Sep 25, 2007 3:04 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dear Alternet,

Can you please stick to the Iraq War, Globalization and the Environment. These sexual topics really really make you look stupid. They remind me of when I was taking the "requirements" in college (Women's studies, Black studies, History, Art etc) where every lecturer had an agenda and was more interested in forcing their agenda on us than actually exploring different ideas. I believe this is called "liberalism". If we're going to complain that the Right is shoving nonsense down our throats, let's not stoop to their level please.

It seems like all the porn articles decide that it's the "End of Masculinity" or that little kids are suddenly being sexualized (like they never were before - watch the Brady Bunch sometime). Or that porn leads to war.. One word BULLSHIT!!! I think I'll get my news from Fox from now on.

Anyway, what I want to add to this is that porn saved my life. That's right. I have 11 gigabytes of p40n on my "hard" drive, all downloaded for free via p2p, newsgroups and free sites. I never paid a penny for porn since the Internet. Some of it is BDSM and I quite enjoy it. A lot of it is weird stuff that I know I will never be able to do in real life. All of it is fantasy. (sorry - no kiddy porn so don't ask)

Thanks to my porn collection, I don't waste time anymore hanging out in bars trying to pick up women. I don't have any STDs, illegitimate kids or unnecessary soap operas in my life. Also, I was able to keep my mind focussed on my career when I was in college (as against getting drunk and smoking pot just for the hot babes). Do I objectify women as sex objects? Hell No! If anything, I now can look at a woman's character and personality and make a decision with my "big head" and not the "small head" so to speak. I am not ruled by my penis anymore. I think women should feel safer with guys like me.

I think the key word is FANTASY. Too many guys can't tell fantasy from reality. Too many guys thing that women want to suck their d**ks or be peed on on the first date. (also too many guys are still virgins at 30, 40, 50, 60) I think that's what we need to work on, distinguishing fantasy from reality not saying every image of female flesh is causing guys to go to war.

Look at Afghanistan or Pakistan. Those countries allow no female flesh to be viewed at all and look how peaceful they are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm a PORNO-SEXUAL Posted by: richholland
» Some data! Posted by: ssegallmd
» RE: I'm a PORNO-SEXUAL Posted by: jmooney
» RE: I'm a PORNO-SEXUAL Posted by: angryyoungwoman
This article distorts 90 per cent of porn
Posted by: Frankstank on Sep 25, 2007 3:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The vast majority of porn does not fit the description in the article. Most of it is concenting adults doing what concenting adults do. Societies that are cool about that always have a freer and healthier attitude to women and their roles.

The way you address economic exploitation in porn, or in any industry, is the same way: encourage unions and legal rights. Marginalising women, or suppressing this stuff doesn't make it go away. You can find plenty of sexploitation in repressive societies, even the rigid Islamic ones.

When empowered women are left to follow their passions and desires free of the head trips this author has, then women behave pretty well the same as men. They like to get off and they like to have sex and see naked images. That's the real story. As for blaming porn for war is deeply offensive. As Lenny Bruce pointed out, the real pornography is war, not guy-guy, guy-girl, guy-girl-guy, etc.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Only one kind of porn?
Posted by: Annarisse on Sep 25, 2007 3:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So all that domme porn I've been seeing is just a figment of my imagination? Or maybe it's there, but unimportant because it doesn't support the hypothesis that women are being subjugated?

A few points:

1) Men and women alike have sexual fantasies about submission and domination, in pretty much equal numbers each way.
2) There's porn out there for all of those fantasies.
3) Submission, even extreme "slave" submission, is voluntary in BDSM parlance. That is, people submit to another person sexually because they want to.
4) Slippery slope arguments are almost always ridiculous. They depend on a set of assumptions that generally don't hold water. The assumptions here - that all or even most porn depicting women in sexually submissive roles is inherently degrading - doesn't hold water in the face of actual practices in the BDSM community.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Only one kind of lonely? Posted by: greentime
» RE: Only one kind of lonely? Posted by: JoshuaLudd
I would find it very difficult to respect a porn-addicted man
Posted by: Suzon on Sep 25, 2007 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because I would like to think any man worthy of respect would feel some concern for the human beings--male and female--involved.

Sure sex is amazingly powerful and human beings are curious by nature, but we also have the ability to be analytical and empathetic.

Porn addiction requires you to block those last two attributes. I think it was Eric Berne who said that maturity is being able to accept that other people are as real as you are.

The link then between war and porn (however poorly the author makes the point) is dehumanisation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Curiosity != Sexuality Posted by: theracerace
Objectification of women=objectification of earth
Posted by: greentime on Sep 25, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is why the planet is dying.
Neglect, disconnect, abuse, selfish use of the planet for the aggrandizement of the aggressive and selfish males at the top. This is so obvious.

Want to know the future of the human species? Look no further than the status of women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» BALLS Posted by: footman
» Ok, greentime... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» the Link is DRIVEL Posted by: jingles
» Your response is drivel friend Posted by: messedup
» test Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Holy Shit
Posted by: lenox on Sep 25, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article barely skimmed the topic; she could have said so much more. Like the methods we used at Abu Graib prison, putting women's panties on the prisoner's heads, etc., to humiliate them. The responses are frightening. Men don't even recognize pornography when they see it. Does it have to be a snuff film before it's distasteful?
No, women are not whores when left to follow their natural "urges". Women have much more to lose from casual sex than a man ever will.
Sensuality is wonderful. Erotica is awesome. Pornography is insulting, reinforces a hierarchical world view that benefits only the men who project their sorry selves into the scene and feel empowered.
Out of the woodwork, indeed. It's a wonder we (women) give you the time of day.
Let me tell you our little secret. We know you. We understand you and your motivations. In the same way that Black people know and understand Whites. Silly White men, with all the power don't think they have to know or understand anyone but themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Holy Shit Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Misunderstanding
Posted by: argyle on Sep 25, 2007 4:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sex and its expressions in fantasy and roleplay are not moral problems. They are deep rooted, ultra personal and universal. You will not ever change them by suppressing them, by telling people they are wrong and morally deficient if they acquire pleasure in still seeing their sexuality in terms of power and domination.

You can however explain that although the role of power and our animal past will never be fully removed from an act that will always be at its heart a primal expression of nothing but the absolute necessity of procreation, we are not just animals anymore.

You can argue for a position in which the dark side of human sexuality is seen as a crucial yet somewhat unpleasant relic of who we were as a species, a reminder of why we choose not to live that way, yet not suppressed as wrong, only understood that a heavy infatuation with it (like anything) might be a sign of personal problems that need to be worked out.

You cannot change fundamental parts of human sexuality by an "ought" argument any more than you can change the shape of the heart or liver.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Its sick to you... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Its sick to you... Posted by: footman
» Hmm... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Damn. Posted by: footman
» Oh well... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
Return of the Chuchlady
Posted by: True2Blue on Sep 25, 2007 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The above article has so many glaring flasehoods, it's hard to know where to start, or where to stop. But let's not waste too much time with it.

First, I'd like either the author or one of her supporters on this site to explain why "porno" movies are degrading to women, but the very same sexual activities, done by millions of women (and men) across the world, are not? Obviously, humans have been having sex for a long, long time, and only the truly loony ever try to label it as degrading in itself. Yet because two people do it on film for money, the act itself suddenly becomes degrading? Sorry, but no.

And if the author and supporters still cling to their argument, should all women who enjoy sex and bdsm kink behind closed doors now be rounded up and "re-educated" out of their shameful ways?

News flash for the author -- It might be hard for you to swallow, but there are lots ands lots of women in the world who enjoy sex, bondage, fantasy rape, and all sorts of assorted kink, and who find it not one bit degrading. In fact, I'm sure most would call it fun and empowering, at least with the right partner. And when those actions are put on film, nothing changes.

Also, as has been pointed out by others, the author has redefined "porn" in her own unique and specious way. The rest of the world considers porn to be pretty much anything truly sexual put in media form, not just the brutal.

And it's also interesting that the author focuses solely on the degradation of women through porn, and ignores the men. Firstly, males in porn usually earn far, far less than women do, if they are paid at all, which many would call degarding right there. And secondly, the vast majority of money generated from the sales of porn comes from men. The producers make money of course (many of whom are now women), but the female stars make a killing. Take a look at the recent articles on pornstar Jenna Jameson and her multi-million dollar empire. If she ever felt degraded, it was by the years of drug use, made easy by the loads of cash she was making.

Like others, I'm surprised to see articles like this in Alternet. Please stick to important, fact-based news and opinions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: lots and lots? Posted by: greentime
» And those.... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
blah blah blah
Posted by: schnoggi on Sep 25, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
don't like it? don't buy it. you want to legislate intelligence by making stupidity illegal. if you want to help women, then educate them not to become involved in this industry, educate them not to dress and act like strippers, teach them to reach deeper for their strength and power than fashioning some stock way to attract the male gaze. but whining and pratting on about how porn degrades women? piss off.

the definition of feminism i learned in college says it is the opposite of imperialism: nobody gets to judge my personal meaning or interpretation of things, period. enough