KINK.COM in SAN FRANCISCO: Women and Gay Men’s Abu Ghraib

WARNING If you open the red torture photo link directly below this paragraph, you will see two photographs of people being tortured. One is the widely-circulated photograph of a hooded figure with electrical wires of man being tortured at Abu Ghraib. At the same link, you will also see a photograph of a woman being tortured. This photograph of torture is from the website kink.com. The woman’s face is masked and unrecognizable and she has on a thong that covers her genitals. Her breasts are concealed here. She is shackled by the ankles and hung with her arms tied to the wall over her head. The woman is being electrically tortured by someone off-camera with what looks like a cattle prod. All you can see is his arm with the cattle prod. There is also what appears to be an electrical outlet or battery in front of her.Click here to view torture photo

kink.com is a torture pornography production company. In January 2007 kink.com purchased a large building in San Francisco, in the Mission District, a community that is in need of affordable housing, that has many at-risk youth, and that for many years has been identified as the Latino heart of San Francisco. In February 2007, the Mission Armory Community Collective demonstrated against kink.com’s use of a large and valuable piece of San Francisco real estate – for torture pornography production. Instead of using the block-long building for torture pornography, the Mission Armory Community Collective has proposed that we use of the Mission Armory for affordable housing, a community center, and a space for community nonprofits.

Torture and humiliation are commonplace in pornography. Kink.com is where women and some men are filmed for pornography named Men in Pain, Wired Pussy, Hogtied, Water Bondage, Ultimate Surrender, Fucking Machines, Sex and Submission, and Whipped Ass. Pornography like that on kink.com is real action taken against real women. Observing the making of torture pornography at kink.com, author Stephen Elliott commented: ” This is not fake. Satine and Donna are truly in role. Satine is feeling submissive and Donna is definitely on top. Donna is hurting Satine; Satine is being hurt.”

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/02/07/kink/

kink.com advertises filmed prostitution. Prostitution is advertised online on sites like kink.com where it is indistinguishable from pornography. Pornography is a specific type of prostitution, in which prostitution occurs and, among other things, is documented. The women whose prostitution appears in pornography are prostituted women. The Internet is one way that women are trafficked into prostitution.

Another reader of Elliott’s Salon.com article said the site was reminiscent of African women’s genital mutilation. Why is there such a great silence regarding the torture of women in prostitution during the making of pornography? Here in San Francisco some embrace torture pornography as hip, sexy, liberal. Lots of folks are afraid to criticize pornography for fear of being labelled fundamentalist, antisex, or homophobic. “Yet when we criticize McDonald’s for its unhealthy food, environmentally destructive business practices, and targeting of children through manipulative advertising, does anyone ask whether we are “anti-food”? Of course not, because no one conflates McDonald’s with food; we recognize that there are many ways to prepare food, and it’s appropriate to critique the more toxic varieties. The same holds for pornography; pursuing a healthy sexuality does not mean we have to support toxic pornography.” Bob Jensen and Gail Dines http://www.alternet.org/story/47677

The existence of state-sponsored torture is decried by social critics on the Left, yet the identical treatment of women in prostitution is ignored by those same analysts. Many view torture by the United States of prisoners at Abu Ghraib with shock and horror, yet at the same time consider the identical acts perpetrated (and photographed) against prostituted women to be sexual entertainment. Condemning the Bush administration’s tolerance for torture in the war on terror, one journalist noted the gleeful sadism of guards at Abu Ghraib. Yet political pundits maintain silence regarding the same gleeful sadism of men toward women and gay men like that seen at kink.com.

Specific acts commonly perpetrated against women in prostitution and pornography are the same as the acts defining what torture is according to international conventions: verbal sexual harassment, unwanted sex acts, sexual mocking, physical sexual harassment such as groping.


The sex industry is driven by pornography. Men learn how to use women by looking at and masturbating to pornography, developing a taste for prostitution. In the case of kink.com, men are conditioned to sexual arousal by torture. Pornographers are indistinguishable from other pimps. Both exploit women and girls’ economic and psychological vulnerabilities and coerce them to get into and stay in the industry. Both take pictures to advertise their products, suggest specific abuses for johns to perpetrate against women, and minimize the resulting harms. Pornography is a documentary of specific women’s abuses in prostitution, and its consumers obtain pornography as a document of humiliation. Yet in order to conceal the harms that are documented in the picture, the pornographer disconnects the picture from the person. The pornographer and his allies then name what is happening to her in the picture, “speech” or “adult entertainment,” rather than torture or sexual abuse.

For example, the filming of 251 men’s prostitution of Grace Quek (called Annabel Chong) was sold as “The World’s Biggest Gang Bang.” After being edited down to 4 hours, the film became hardcore pornography. The filming of johns assaulting Quek was stopped after 10 hours because she was bleeding internally. For Quek, the film was not an idea, it was not a narrative, it was not a representation. Real johns perpetrated real sexual assaults on her resulting in real physical and psychological injuries.

(Melissa Farley, 2006, Prostitution, Trafficking, and Cultural Amnesia: What We Must Not Know in Order To Keep the Business of Sexual Exploitation Running Smoothly. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 18:109-144)

63 Responses to KINK.COM in SAN FRANCISCO: Women and Gay Men’s Abu Ghraib

  1. I’d be interested to see interviews with the man and women involved in Kink.com.
    The degree of consciousness of the power roles might account for both the heavy fetishism and the explicit discussions with the participants.
    Consent isn’t the issue, or perhaps it is if consent is enough. Not only are the people involved in this willing — they universally appear to be enthusiastic participants beyond simple renumeration.
    It’s not all that cash nexus that Marx talked about here.
    I am a subscriber to one of kink.com’s sub-sites, and have viewed videos from a number of the others. I am a politically active left-winger (not a Democrat) and happen to like BDSM. Admitting complicated feelings about the ethics of it, I still have the desires I do. I’ve also had many sexual partners who loved it. It’s not abuse, it’s a kind of sex that’s aware of power play, negotiation and eros.
    This is not the degrading porn. This appears to be an ethical company that serves a sexual subculture that’s perverted.
    These are perverted times and to me it seems like singling out the perverts is missing the fucking horrorshow of Vogue and the page 3 advertisements in the New York Times.

  2. A country that tolerates this is finished. Either we take the fight right to these people or we better start island shopping. WHere do I sign up?

  3. Sexual violence perpetrated against women and men is an abomination and all efforts must be made to stop it. However, for those who choose prostitution and pornography as a career, how do activists draw the line between intervention and interference?

  4. Another excercise in hypocracy.
    You claim to be against censorship, yet your attempts to stop this from happening in ‘your back yard’ is just another form of censorship.
    Unlike Abhu Ghraib, those being tortured at Kink.com choose to be there.
    If you have evidence that they are coerced or in are any way forced to do anything that they do not want to do, then go to the police with it.
    If you believe that they need counseling and help to escape self-destructive behaviour or are trapped in a situation they are unable to escape, then got to them and offer them counseling and other help.
    To simply state that they are ‘victims’ and imply that they ‘need to be rescued’ is patronising and unhelpful in the extreme.

  5. Everything Melissa Farley says in this article is totally true and right on point.
    The hypocrisy and cruelty of those who say they are against torture but ignore pornography knows no bounds.
    Those who even have the gall to negatively criticize anti-pornography activists
    should try being the “fuckee” in one of the porn
    films mentioned above and then have others view it as “entertainment”. I think their viewpoint might then change. In lieu of that, perhaps those who are pro-pornography or neutral could work on gaining some intellectual honesty, compassion and integrity.

  6. I guess if I were a prostituted person at Kink.com being subjected to these things I would not take comfort from someone assuming that I was there because I had “chosen” to be there, and not knowing under what conditions my “choice” had been exercised.
    People used to valiantly defend what George Will called “the precious freedom of children to contract to work 12 hour days in the coal mines”. THere is choice and there is a “choice” that is a legal fiction.

  7. Ah, the good old “pornography exploits women” argument. I note that there seems to be considerably less outrage about the men who star in such videos. And I refer to the ones who take a submissive role. For some reason, no one seems to care about them.
    Now, I’ll always be the first to say that if someone isn’t consenting, then it is sexual assault, but if everyone involved consents, why is there a problem? The comparison to Abu Ghraib is completely unfair. The participants at kink.com can leave anytime they want.
    And, speaking from personal experience on this, I like being tied up and whipped. And I’m not referring to one of those little whips your kid wins at the carnival, I’m talking about a bullwhip, the kind that leaves welts and can cause bleeding. If someone does this to me without my consent, it’s assault, plain and simple. If I agree to it, it’s ok.
    For those not convinced, allow me to use another example.
    If people who are willing participants at kink.com or other sites, or simply in their personal life are being assaulted, then all sex is assault. Sexaul intercourse with your spouse? That’s rape, go to jail, do not pass go. It doesn’t matter if they consent.
    So, what’s different with the “torture?” Is it just that people are being hurt? Is it that pain is being caused? By that logic, sports where the competitors engage in direct physical contact should be banned. After all, someone could get hurt. Nevermind that they accept that, and choose to play because they enjoy the game. No, they could get hurt, and we can’t have that. Did you watch the superbowl? You’re a sick pervert because you watched something where someone could get hurt.
    Now, I realize that there is a difference between pornography depicting torture and the superbowl, so don’t think I actually believe that they are the same.
    I also realize that many of the people who appear in pornographic videos have little choice, in that they are desperate for the money. The solution to that is not banning pornography, but educating people. Perhaps if these people made a livable wage they wouldn’t turn to pornography get money for rent.

  8. Kink.com commodifies human beings. For example, Aubrey Addams. Addams is sold into a slave auction where three international multi-millionaire buyers have secured the opportunity to bid and to purchase Aubrey Addams for use as a personal sex slave. Hogtied holds the auction as the bidders watch from around the world and bid in real time.
    Regardless of Aubbrey’s “choice”, the reality is that when Africans arrived in the U.S. as slave, they did not choose to be auctioned off. Today, every year millions of women and girls are sold into human slavery in the world. More specifically, 14,500-17,000 are trafficked into the U.S.

  9. kink.com teaches people to get excited by watching torture. Over and over and over. For $25 a month. People who get off on torture need help, not encouragement. How many more raped and tortured people do we need in this world? When you train people to get off on torture, you get things like Abu Gharaib. kind.com is a sick factory that takes advantange of poor people by paying them to do things that are humiliating to them and horrifying to others.

  10. First off, I do care about the men who are abused in this porn, as I care about men who are raped and men who are prostituted. However, they are a pretty small part of the overall problem. Rape and prostitution are still largely experiences for females. So When I refer to these things, while it is principally of women that I speak, I don’t exclude men ( and neither did Melissa in her post), but it is just another way of diverting attention from the real issue to have to bring this up all the time. THere are different levels of consent, just as there are different types of coercion, not all of which involve physical force or the threat of physical force.
    I, for one, would want to see some hard evidence that the subjects of Kink.com are all freely consenting to be there and are free to leave at any time. THis is far too serious a matter to be playing semantic games with. We still see serious people going into print saying that prostitutes choose to do what they do, and if they didn’t want to do it, they are free to stop. Well, what kind of choice can you make, how well can you function when you are on the street night after night, in danger from a pimp, in danger from your pay as you go rapists called johns, getting fucked by 10-14 revolting individuals in revolting ways every night, addicted to dope, medicating for who knows what disease, perhaps having a child that some pimp has a legal claim on as the “father” ad infinitum, but,hey, they are free to leave at any time. Knowing what we do abotu how people are brought into making pornography, we don’t dare make these kind of assumptions.
    It seems that there are people who will do nearly anything for money, as reality TV seems bent on demonstrating. Should every degree of human humiliation be staged and presented for the titillation of whoever wants to pay to watch? WHen do we reap the results of this ever-growing cheapening and coarsening of the human experience?
    If someone needs a real job, it is the bottom feeders that make this kind of trash.
    And I did not address the issue of what you do in the privacy of your home, so there is no need to bring it up.

  11. I was shaken by the photo’s on your site. Years ago I use to work in the sex industry.
    Kinko’s is hardly a legitmate business “serving a subculture”. Promoting a taste for enjoying torture is twisted and perverse.
    I have ran into many men who liked to hurt me. They justified it by paying for the right to torture, humiliate, and hurt me. No person has the right to hurt someone else for kicks. I am so glad that someone is doing something about this!

  12. Not only are the people involved in this willing — they universally appear to be enthusiastic participants
    And you know this..how?
    If you have evidence that they are coerced or in are any way forced to do anything that they do not want to do, then go to the police with it.
    Yeah, because the police are just so understanding of women who work in the sex industry. [sarcasm]
    Now, I realize that there is a difference between pornography depicting torture and the superbowl, so don’t think I actually believe that they are the same.
    *Sigh*
    Then why did you make the analogy in the first place?
    There’s no multi-billion dollar enterprise that sees Superbowl players tricked
    & trafficked and working in shitass conditions while denied their basic human rights.
    Unlike Abhu Ghraib, those being tortured at Kink.com choose to be there.
    Yeah, yeah. Whatever helps you sleep at night.
    And it doesn’t matter how much you like being flagellated in the bedroom, guys: You can walk away any time you like. The women at Kink.com and other places often can’t. Unless you can prove to me that they did in fact consent–which none of you have been able to do so far.
    At least the article above contains evidence and links to other articles with stats, instead of relying on personal anecdotes about how bdsm play engaged in for fun and for free (not out of desperation for money) is the totally same thing. Which it isn’t.

  13. well if they can talarate the folsom smut fest the city that has guys wacking off in public for tourists atractions theres nothing left

  14. Every Girl on Kink.com is a porn star, as in they have managers and/or security that come with them to every shoot they do. Just look them up you will find they are all pretty famous porn stars.
    They can leave anytime and can also decide not to even film the scene or make the money.
    There is plenty of normal porn to do and make money so it seems to me the girls are deciding to do this on their own. and they get paid by a third party.
    Prostitution is money exchanged between 2 people – one who wants sex and one who gives sex.
    Pornography does not fall into that category

  15. Just a quick comment till later.
    I fail to grasp the distinction Mie makes between pornography and prostitution. BY the definition given, they sound the same to me.
    Re Kink.com: first we are told that these are fetishists engaging in their own pleasures; now, we are told that these are famous porn stars, who might not want to do this, so they have the choice to leave. Which is it? or neither?

  16. March 19th, 2007:
    A SADIST WHO RAN THE WEBSITE SLAVESPACE.COM WAS CONVICTED OF FEDERAL CHARGES OF SEX TRAFFICKING AND FORCED LABOR. SEX TRAFFICKING IS COERCING OR SELLING A PERSON INTO A SITUATION OF SEXUAL EXPLOITATION, LIKE PROSTITUTION OR PORNOGRAPHY.
    Shortly after Glenn Marcus and Jodi started their master/slave relationship, he began photographing her and other women during BDSM scenes for a website he created called Slavespace.com. In 2001, Jodi left the relationship and asked Marcus to take her photos off the site, but he refused. Two and a half years later, she told the FBI she endured intense sadism at the hands of her master, was forced to work on his website, and felt like she couldn’t leave him.
    Much of Jodi’s testimony was about being subjected to pain, punishment, and humiliation
    What is clear is that the relationship began as consensual but, for Jodi, at some point this changed. It’s possible that she regretted her participation and re-wrote her role into an unwilling victim, but it’s equally likely that Marcus lost touch with reality, believed he actually owned her, and behaved accordingly. The relationship was even thornier because it was entwined with a for-profit business.
    Because these are federal charges, Marcus faces life in prison, a fact that has sent a chill down the spines of some BDSM community members.
    The foregoing are excerpts. For the full article see:
    http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0712,taormino,76097,24.html

  17. yes , interesting debate .my viewpoint is personnal and esoteric .subtle and legal violence are absolutely everywhere , diluted or more concentrated .that is the real philosophical standpoint .sm is not a kinky activity but our daily basis if we dare to scratch words and appearances .my feeling

  18. Hello,
    An interesting thread. I have a few comments. As a woman and as a feminist, I support consenting sex between adults, whatever style it happens to be in. So, I support fully the womens RIGHTS to be in kink.com productions. I know that posing for pictures can be liberating and empowering (I was on Glenn Marcus’s website, had a fullfilling relationship with the guy) I know also that pornography helps women explore safely their own sexuality and desires…within the privacy of their own home.
    Many women enjoy masochism and sadism. To say their wishes are “perverted” and shouldnt be allowed goes a long way in saying that women cant choose anything but what YOU feel they can. And thats as oppressive as any male domination.

  19. Has anyone ever thought that just because -you- aren’t into BDSM/kink that maybe someone else is?
    Maybe your partner is and they are afraid to tell you…
    Maybe your best friend is a professional domonatrix but thinks you will judge her…
    Maybe your child is super kinky…
    As long as the sex is consual and wanted, nobody has any right to tell anyone else what they should and shouldn’t be doing…it is their body. And kinky stuff gets some people off…
    I’m not into kink myself but know people that are and they aren’t freaks nor are they being tortured.
    For that article to compare Abu Gharaib to kink.com is absurd.
    Maybe if as a society we made sexuality more acceptable in all its forms , people would be less likely to attack diversity.

  20. We’re brainwashed to think that women enjoy rape and sexual violence (and judging by the popularity of brutal degrading porn this is only going to get worse) so it does not surprise me there are women who’ve convinced themselves to like it. People who get off on this shit are damaged – no matter how much they like to lie to themselves and deny it.
    It’s very telling that the people who are so against the torture at Aru Gharib – the torture of men, btw – are very against it. But the torture of women, well that’s sexxxxxy, and therefore perfectly acceptable.
    Hypocrites.

  21. The concept of “consent” is an expression of patriarchy (liberalism)for the purpose of freely oppressing those forced to serve it. This is how a victim gets blamed for her own victimization–as the MAN and his SYSTEM go free.

  22. With reference to, ‘no one is worried about the menz’
    No, I am not and why should anyone else be? Try reading Marilyn Frye’s essay “Oppression” where she explains very logically, why men are not oppressed as men. Men benefit and receive unearned privileges because of their gender. Claiming that men somehow are all forgotten in this “lets torture women for fun” are trying to silence us – as per usual – when there is any mention of the portrayal of women as objects to de-humanize – out comes the “but men are oppressed too and harmed and hurt.” Bollocks!
    This is woman hatred – noting more and nothing less. Men who detest the female – wanking themselves stupid about women’s pain. Get over it! In addition, grow a spine – anything – just keep your fucking misogyny locked away in your fetid little heads. To fetishize torture is in-humane it “others” people and it is dangerous both to the victim and on a message in the greater scheme of things. Remember everyone – the world does not revolve around your orgasm. As much as you would like to believe in your tiny narcissistic fucked up tiny realm – where YOU rule – clue hon. – it’s not true – now start taking some responsibility for you and humanity on this lonely planet of ours.

  23. In addition to the direct suffering of actors in torture pornography, there are consequences to others as well.
    In April 2007, neighbors reported hearing screams from the kink.com torture pornography production site at the Old Armory. As a result, a nearby battered women’s shelter, La Casa de las Madres, plans to move.

  24. Completely agree that the torture pornography at kink.com is completely wrong, inexcusable, and needs to be stopped.
    Because kink.com (pornography in general) is happening in an already misogynist patriarchal society, a woman’s “choice” to participate is a fixed “choice” from a very limited amount of options.
    And regardless of whether or not the women being sexually tortured on film consent to it or not, there are countless other women who DO NOT CONSENT to being objectified, assaulted, and degraded by the men who have consumed such pornography and are compelled to live out their fantasies on the women (US) in their everyday lives, since the women on their TV/computer screens aren’t available.
    And I’m curious – even if a woman consents to participating in torture pornography… how would she be able to call it off in the middle, if she’s gagged and cannot talk, and tied so tightly she cannot move? If she seems at all unhappy and in pain, doesn’t that count as “success” because that’s the point of torture pornography? How do you know her distress signals don’t mean STOP?
    I looked at enough of the photos to see that those women literally have no way to say “STOP” if they decide in the middle of an “act” to withdraw consent. That’s not okay, ever, at all.

  25. You make some really important points in this article, Melissa. Torture is torture, and as others have said, we have no evidence of the supposed ‘consent’ of the women being abused on film for / by kink.com
    You said:
    The sex industry is driven by pornography. Men learn how to use women by looking at and masturbating to pornography, developing a taste for prostitution. In the case of kink.com, men are conditioned to sexual arousal by torture. Pornographers are indistinguishable from other pimps. Both exploit women and girls’ economic and psychological vulnerabilities and coerce them to get into and stay in the industry.
    So, so true. You got it right there.

  26. Well, Im not a american during the years I have a lot of contacts with the women who work in our local sex industry. An there is a bit of everythink, some women like what they are doing. Most HATE what they are doing, and would like to be someplace else.
    Reading USA pornographers forums and some former mostly christian sexworkers forums, I have came to the conclusion that a large group of the women involved in pornography are mentally ill. Their so called consent is not solid. Let me see, paranoid schizofrenic women, bipolar disorder women, histerical personality disorder, postraumatic stress personality disorder from rape or chid abuse, 90% of them are heavy drug users, mentally retarded women, autistic women. Almost all well known US porn stars fall in one or more of those cathegories. Many are also in codependent relatioships, sometimes abusive. So much for consenting adults.
    My opinion is than rather censoring porn, if the feminist left and/or the christian right want to hurt the porn industry in the US they only have to accept the pornographers claims than theirs is a legitimate entertaiment business. And start suing. They violate almost every law in California on workers health and safety, performers control over their image, health insurance, agent (a pimp really) and talent representation, sexual harassment of workers. You name it. And if having sex with a mentally ill women or a drugged up women is legally rape, why is legal on film? Is their release document really valid?
    The problem is that you got a group of troubled, postadolecent women that dont want to be blacklisted if they like what they do or dont want the notoriety if the hate what they do, that are to poor to retain a good lawyer without having to sleep with him, to sue. That won’t happend. The left or the right must need to get the lawyers probono. Many pornographers recognize in private that if you apply legitimate entertaiment industry laws to porn there will only two or three companies left. Regarding to kink I would love to see the health insurance and filmmaker liability if something goes wrong.

  27. We can’t just accept the pornography industry as an entertainment industry any more than we can accept prostitution as work – those words lose us the battle.
    I don’t think that women in porngraphy are more frequently mentally ill than Iraq combat vets. Yes both groups are harmed but let’s always connect the harm directly to its emotional consequences.
    Why not sue the pornography pimps and their distributors for the actual harm caused to the actors? Know anyone who wants to sue? Know anyone who wants to raise funds for this? I know some good lawyers.

  28. “Reading USA pornographers forums and some former mostly christian sexworkers forums, I have came to the conclusion that a large group of the women involved in pornography are mentally ill. Their so called consent is not solid. Let me see, paranoid schizofrenic women, bipolar disorder women, histerical personality disorder, postraumatic stress personality disorder from rape or chid abuse, 90% of them are heavy drug users, mentally retarded women, autistic women. Almost all well known US porn stars fall in one or more of those cathegories. Many are also in codependent relatioships, sometimes abusive. So much for consenting adults.”
    I’d like to see proof of that. Names of the actresses and actors who suffer these conditions, names of the porn production companies who hire them, especially any performers known to be autistic or mentally retarded? Such claims mean nothing without solid proof, and trends and the norm require more than an isolated case.
    I work in the sex industry, I’ve made BDSM porn. I have yet to do anything that I’ve not done by choice or consented to, and I’ve been involved in this business, many aspects of it, for roughly ten years.
    I am all for helping the women in this industry who want out to get out. It’s a nobel goal. However, there are those of us who want to be here, are sick of being stereotyped as damaged, unconsenting, or unintelligent, as well as telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies for profit.

  29. I think that the comparison of real torture to BDSM play minimizes the real torture of prisoners of war– this is just like comparing the meat industry to the Holocaust.

  30. First, let me say that I’m a largely to entirely anti-porn feminist so this statement is not an attack on what you are doing as a whole. I only wish to comment on the picture in this post…
    First, there is no trigger warning, or even any warning that you are going to be displaying pornographic content. For the survivors of sexual violence and even those who simply don’t wish to see pornographic images this could be quite problematic.
    Second, I’m curious as to why you did not black out her face or her genitals. Don’t you believe that in the interest of not exploiting her yourself and in the interest of not subjecting viewers to blatantly pornographic images you might wish to do that?

  31. I find it stupifying how some have defended this on the basis of freedom of choice. Ummm… we are not saying women shouldn’t be able to do this, we’re saying we should create a world were women wouldn’t need to prostitute themselves to feed themselves, or have Mr. Pimp beat the shit out of them if they don’t. For the love of dogs, folks, get your heads out the sand–what about things like ethics, justice, fairness instead of choice, freedom, and agency. The latter do not mean anything if the first do not exist for everyone.

  32. we’re saying we should create a world were women wouldn’t need to prostitute themselves to feed themselves, or have Mr. Pimp beat the shit out of them if they don’t.
    Terrific. And you’re planning to do that–how? By demonizing and/or infantilizing the women who don’t fit into your worldview? By sitting around and staring at the awful, awful, AWFUL porn until you can convince yourselves and everyone -just how bad- it -really- is? (“and such small portions”) By playing “Ain’t it Awful” till the cows come home? By continually refusing to listen to people? Listen: right now, you should know, there are a number of sex workers, friends of sex workers, BDSM practioners and other kinky folk, who’ve read this and find it absolute and utter crap, and yes I include myself among them. Let’s just start with this:
    Let me see, paranoid schizofrenic women, bipolar disorder women, histerical personality disorder, postraumatic stress personality disorder from rape or chid abuse, 90% of them are heavy drug users, mentally retarded women, autistic women. Almost all well known US porn stars fall in one or more of those cathegories. Many are also in codependent relatioships, sometimes abusive. So much for consenting adults.
    So much indeed.
    Here’s my question: any of y’all fit any of those descriptors? Diagnosed mentally ill? Suffered abuse? -Autistic?- (are you fucking kidding?) Do you enjoy it when people mock you (that is how this reads) for that, basically tell you you’re not an adult and can’t think or act for yourself? You do realize that that pretty much invalidates the point of view of -anyone- who fits any of that, right?
    And! And. If you don’t accept someone else’s “yes,” how in the fuck do you accept her “no?” Oh, right. You might not, at that. Christ knows a lot of the women whose images and names and stories y’all use as -examples- never consented to this shit.
    You find us disgusting? The feeling’s heartily mutual.
    Fuck you.

  33. Demonista;
    Some women might still choose to participate in sex work or pornography. Most of us are ALL for helping women who want out to get out. But for those who enjoy the work? Who gets to tell them they need saving and what they can or cannot do with their bodies? Even in a perfect world where sexism did not exist and all were viewed as equal, erotica and sex would still exist, because most humans are sexual beings. What then?
    And as Faith mentioned, I have a HUGE problem with anti porn activists using pornographic images to make statements. I would ask, was the permission or consent of the model in the Kink.com photo obtained before using her image? How about the permission or consent of the man in the Abu Ghraib photo? Did anyone bother to ask if they cared if their images were used? Were they compensated for this use? Were their opinions on the topic for which their images would be used asked, learned, or even though about? I find it odd to employ exploitive tactics when one is fighting exploitation. Is there a real concern about the Kink model, her feelings, her consent, do you even know her name, or does she merely make a nice poster girl for the cause? I can say this with certainty- I make porn, and if I saw some anti-porn person or group using my image to prove their point, without my consent, or even bothering to ask how I felt about it, I would feel pissed, and far more objectified and exploited than I’ve ever felt in any sort of sex work. Porn? I sign a contract and consent form…did the Kink model do that to appear here?

  34. FLAMES
    These are the last flaming insults from anyone that will be posted From now on posts with personal insults and curses will be deleted.

  35. Even the most humble creature, a mouse, a worm, has the instinctive urge to recoil, shrink from pain. It’s a deeply embedded physiological survival reflex. When this breaks down it’s a sign of physical dysfunction. When this death-courting impairment is embraced it signifies an emotional disconnect from our life force, our instinct for survival. When the impaired vulnerability of one person is justified to serve the predatory instincts of another it demonstrates a social and political breakdown. While this justification works beautifully for the perpetrators, abusers and predators, it’s disastrous for the victims who, stripped of their survival instinct, are often unable to act in their own best interests.
    Having worked with battered women for several decades, I’ve seen that those who have been abused sometimes self-injure as a result of these experiences. Nearly all recognize it as a frightening symptom and want to be freed from such impulses. Even when they’ve been conditioned to find sexual release in abuse, pain or degradation they long to reestablish a healthy relationship between their minds and bodies.
    What’s really contemptible about alleged women like “Chain” (the pseudonym of the person claiming to be a woman who likes being abused) is that while expounding on their love of freedom and choice, they studiously ignore the pain and suffering of the millions of women and children being trafficked around the globe and disregard how this misuse of humans feeds the poison flowing into the body politic which drugs cultural consciousness into acquiescence. Even the pseudo-leftists must see the class dynamic here, the cash nexus where it’s always a buyers market even where there’s no cash exchange involved. Of course you don’t have to go abroad to find victims of sexual trafficking and other abuse, there are plenty in this country — as well as the twisted sociopaths who find happiness in physically torturing and emotionally annihilating them.
    That there are a few women who are committed supporting these deeply reactionary sociopaths comes as no surprise. There are always those who would betray the common good and the vulnerable for the price of the approval of those in power; in this case, men in a system of male supremacy. Those few women who would champion even the most debased male interests whether in war, sexual abuse or hate speech are lionized by men, given generous forums (note Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia, et al), dredged from any pool to defend and advance the interests of men who resent the feminist challenge to their inhumanity. (I use the term “man” as a generalization, but recognize that there are many men who are disgusted and opposed to the degradation of women and the destruction of children through pornography. Unfortunately, they are not those in charge or with the power to stop it; though their added opposition to it helps to contain its virulent impact.)
    While women defending porn may claim to be feminist, they never have been. Not only are these women anti-feminist, but more deeply, they’re anti-woman. I personally know such women making bogus claims to feminism whose first contact with the women’s movement resulted from the prompting of their male colleagues to attend feminist meetings and report back to them or to go to meetings to disrupt them with fraudulent, divisive or diversionary issues and accusations in order to block women from organizing in their own interest and from developing cohesive analyses and theory. These women were also encouraged to slander the women’s movement to create divisions and discourage other women from joining. Others only joined the women’s movement reluctantly and resentfully when it became a force that couldn’t be denied. One need only see documents like the Communique of the Prairie Fire Organizing Committee (quite a pompous mouthful for a handful of pretentious thugs who were basically groupies of the Weathermen), or the SWP/YSA Trotskyites schemes for takeovers of women’s groups or see some of the C.I.A.’s documented interventions into the women’s movement revealed by the Freedom of Information Act to realize that all these actors have a common thread, which is to protect male interests when they’re threatened by feminist/humanitarian opposition.
    Having been in groups targeted by of all these covert subterfuges at one time or another, their pattern of hostility towards truly progressive politics is obvious. In addition to this, there are the opportunists and individualists who in the past few decades have become parasites on women’s movement initiatives for a meal ticket and a line on their resumes. They drain our resources, betray and divert our politics to the right – all in the cause of advancing their own personal careers under the guise carrying out progressive goals.
    As a person supporting what is considered “left” ideals I find that the “male left” is a sham because even to say it’s the “male left” confines its interests to one half of the human race; the one half that is oppressing the other. So the “male left” is really a covert right tenaciously defending its male privileges under the guise of liberalism and progress. (John Stuart Mill must be turning over in his grave). How can one be an advocate of liberation when maintaining male privilege — allowing the oppression of half the human race? The overt right espouses more “traditional” modes of female exploitation than the covert right. Each has their ladies axillaries and female acolytes championing their distinctive styles of oppression. One male supremacist tendency calls it “tradition” while the other calls it “progress.” As George Bernard Shaw once observed, “Decadence can find agents only when it wears the mask of progress.”
    Although these female acolytes are rewarded for their loyalty with the approval of their male counterparts, the rewards usually prove to be of such trivial worth that some of the women ultimately espy an advantage to joining the women’s movement — at least ostensibly. Despite previously outspoken attacks on the women’s movement they may be welcomed as reformed converts. Still, they may never be able to give up their ingrained thirst for male approval — at least the approval of men who have an aversion to the advancement of women. Although these women are no longer anchored primarily in men’s groups, with the exception of some women who find their primary identity in gay men’s groups, they’re still anchored to securing male interests where they conflict with women’s interests. I find these women are often the ones promoting sado-masochism while trying to masquerade as feminists. They are simply recycling their former roles as provocateurs and saboteurs — agents of male supremacist interests within the movement. Though their numbers may be few, their voices are loud when aided by the megaphones men hold up for them to drown out progressive women’s voices. The gulf between these male identified women and feminists is a wide one — as wide as it was when feminists were first organizing and getting ferociously attacked by them. Not only is the gulf wide, but also their aims may be opposite.
    There is a great difference between feminism and opportunism. Feminists strive for the good of the many. Opportunists strive for their own good. So while feminists work for the advancement of all women as women, opportunists sell out the common good for their own advantage. While feminists fought for the right to vote, for reproductive rights, freedom from sexual harassment, battering, rape and porn, for equal wages, credit and so forth, opportunists don’t bother to, but will take advantage of any gains, and in doing so, call themselves “feminists.” They dilute the politics of feminism and divert it into issues equally effecting men or supporting right-wing policies. We’ve all seen this phenomenon.
    I don’t know if there’s any point in arguing with people like “Consent isn’t Implied”, Steven M. Dorif and Jared who uses football (because people playing football risk getting hurt) to discount the harm of “sadistic” (redundant) pornography. Their arguments employ such superficial thinking and lack of rational analysis that it seems a waste of effort to knock down their straw dogs. Their response to any threat to their porn is anger and resentment that their right to oppress women may be challenged. In sadistic porn the pain is an end in itself — does Jared think the point of football is likewise watching men have pain inflicted on them? What does football, where men get paid millions of dollars for their skills, have to do with sadistic porn where the victims portrayed are paid small amounts to get hurt? He sarcastically suggests that watching the Superbowl, by anti-porn reasoning, would make one a pervert. By extrapolation he implies that we’d ban all his “harmless” entertainment. Maybe a more apt analogy for his entertainment examples would be cock-fighting and pit bull fighting where the point of the exercise is, more frequently, seeing the animals get hurt. These “sports” unlike football, have been banned. There is a powerful enough sentiment against watching animals get hurt to make it illegal; not so for women apparently. Once, setting slaves to fight each other was “sporting” and throwing them to lions and other wild animals to be mauled was considered an entertaining spectacle. Now, there would be very discouraging penalties for such practices. Still, there are guys who enjoy seeing gags and whips used on women — without any consequences for them. What stage of social development do they represent?
    Then there’s the proud “leftist” (Consent Isn’t Implied) who rationalizes his own fondness for sadism, bondage and the like, while admitting to being unsure of the ethics of it. Still, he claims Kink.com appears to be an “ethical” company that profits from sadism and other approving portrayals of victimization. So, if I get pleasure from smoking cigarettes does that make it good? If I’m addicted I could claim it’s only hurting me, not anyone else. But what of the second-hand smoke? Doesn’t porn also have fallout; especially when young teens get their sex education from it? By his own admission, this leftist’s sexual appetite is whetted by violence- so is the BTK serial killer and a host of others like Ted Bundy. Any of them may rationalize the sexual stimulation they get from violence because it gives them pleasure. Pedophiles can rationalize their predilections as well. Does that make the craving good? Wouldn’t it be more honest and ethical to locate the source of the liking and address it; though, it might be incurable? Potentially, such practices might be prevented in others in the future. Even “leftists” like Ira Einhorn have their defenders and admirers despite their violence against women. Anything can be rationalized for personal, selfish reasons.
    Steven M. Dorif self-righteously cites censorship, without mentioning hate speech, to defend his fondness for pornography. Still, we don’t see him deploring the censoring of other harmful uses of speech like child-pornography, restrictions on tobacco advertisements and the like. Would he also protect radio broadcasts like the ones in Rwanda, which helped whip up the genocide? Or is he only in favor of “enthusiastic” and profitable portrayals of women getting hurt and degraded because it serves to sexually gratify him? And what of the person who, as a result of abuse, reacts with an urge to self-mutilate, to court being humiliated? Should we profit from their symptoms, use them for entertainment? Such victims certainly don’t look coerced or forced, and it may be a long and complicated process to restore them to a healthy control over their lives. S. M. Dorif self-serving simplistic explanation ignores the forces that would bring a person to such a point. It’s like saying anorexics just aren’t hungry and leaving it at that – instead of acknowledging that self-destructive, injurious behavior is a symptom of something more deeply amiss; conditions that need to be remedied.
    When S. M. Dorif ridicules the idea of Abu Ghraib reflecting the influence of pornography he’s either showing his ignorance of the event or assuming that the rest of us are ignorant of the particulars of the actions at Abu Ghraib. It was well documented that the ringleader at the local level, Charles Graner, was an avid consumer of pornography. So much so that he put up signs on prisoners doors naming them after some of his favorite porn stars like Harry Reams. Graner had a previous history of abusing prisoners in the U. S. and was brought up on charges before, but exonerated. After all, prisoners here have few rights either. Graner’s appetite for sadism was stoked by porn and power over people occupying a lower rung on the power scale than he — just as women invariably occupy a lower status than do males everywhere.
    Still, that being said, we must realize that all these porn-loving men and their loyalists are not swayed by reason, rational argument or shame at the damage and social degradation being inflicted on the body politic. Their emotions trump all else when they fear their short-term pleasure or profit may be stymied. They disregard the long-term damage and grasp at male privilege reflexively, bellowing out defensive denials. Only consequences, not reason, will make them change. – Betsy Warrior

  36. I am so glad to see this kind of torture porn finally being discussed somewhere. This is not about sex, this is about human dignity and human rights.
    What if a video company bought a big building in San Francisco to make videos that showed the lynching of black people as a sexual act. All the production values, the “story lines”, the camera angles were created to sexualize the act of hanging black people. And the “actors” were local people, mostly poor, who were desperate for the money and were convinced it was “art” or “entertainment” or “freedom of speech”.
    And what if that company then posted those videos on the Internet and made huge amounts of money from people who were watching them over and over, getting more and more excited by the prospect of hanging (or pretending to hang) black people?
    I ask you, what would be the reaction to that?

  37. Lucy:
    Do you know the economic condition of the Kink.com models?
    And most people cannot and do not consent to being lynched, or find any pleasure in the experience.
    Some people can and do consent and find pleasure in BDSM.

  38. Faith says:
    First, let me say that I’m a largely to entirely anti-porn feminist so this statement is not an attack on what you are doing as a whole. I only wish to comment on the picture in this post…
    First, there is no trigger warning, or even any warning that you are going to be displaying pornographic content. For the survivors of sexual violence and even those who simply don’t wish to see pornographic images this could be quite problematic.
    Second, I’m curious as to why you did not black out her face or her genitals. Don’t you believe that in the interest of not exploiting her yourself and in the interest of not subjecting viewers to blatantly pornographic images you might wish to do that?
    Posted by: Faith | April 11, 2007 10:14 AM
    Hi Faith
    I think a reasonably intelligent person would expect triggering information at a website named “prostitution research”. I have been a prostituted women. The very words “prostitute” or “prostitution” is triggering for me. But more triggering are the facile and insincere queries made by people who do so not to find any true information, but to pay their dues.
    In the photograph in question, the women’s face is clearly obscured.
    Did you raise your voice anywhere about these images used in the original context, or any similar? If so, I must have missed you.
    Please note Faith, you don’t get to play both sides in any game but especially not in one that involves women’s lives.

  39. Do you know the economic condition of the Kink.com models?
    Yes, most are local women. Some but not all are strippers or women being otherwise prostituted. Some are not. Occasionally kink.com brings in a semi-famous porn actress to bump up their profile in the porn press.
    And most people cannot and do not consent to being lynched, or find any pleasure in the experience.
    Most people cannot and do not consent to what is in the kink.com videos…being tied up, suffocated, shocked, and whipped, not do they find any pleasure in it.
    Some people can and do consent and find pleasure in BDSM.
    Well bully for you. But this is not about you – unless you are knowingly participating in the kink.com and helping them get people excited about the prostpect of torturing women for sexual gratification, then you are part of the problem. Kink.com pays a little lip service to the concept of consent, but the videos they actually sell simply show women being tortured. Period. There’s not a lot of nuance about how evolved the women are to really be in touch with how the pain frees them to be in touch with their feelings or whatever.
    Kink.com is not selling sophisticated conversations about the glory of limits. They are encouraging men to think that torturing women is thrilling and the more women scream and cry the more thrilling it is. And “hey these women really seem to like it in the end! So if I do this to my neighbor and she screams and crys, she probably secretly likes it too”!
    Wake up.

  40. Yes, it would seem that we use the very objectification that we then go on to criticize. We inevitably use atrocities against women and children as educational material, sometimes drawing uncomfortably close to the very reduced to objects that we castigate. Many teaching methods use the same format – how do you propose that we academically review pornography if we do not use pornography which lets face it is pretty mainstream?
    It is in fact very close to using pictures of humans to teach nurses and doctors the workings and conditions of the human body. The patients consent is not sought for every slide show or educational seminar or as on here for important analysis of an industry, which affects millions of people – some with great harm.

  41. “Did you raise your voice anywhere about these images used in the original context, or any similar? If so, I must have missed you.
    Please note Faith, you don’t get to play both sides in any game but especially not in one that involves women’s lives.”
    Ah, yea, Pony apparently you DID miss it. I’ve stated repeatedly in other arenas that I’m anti-porn.

  42. “The very words “prostitute” or “prostitution” is triggering for me. But more triggering are the facile and insincere queries made by people who do so not to find any true information, but to pay their dues.”
    And explain to me exactly how you know my intentions for asking?
    I can’t recall ever having any real contact with you, Pony. You’d do quite well to not make accusations about me without having a clue who I am or what I support.

  43. A thousand blessings on your head, Betsy Warrior, from whatever source you may believe in!
    Retrograde Evolution, you seem to ignore that Lucy said (pretending to hang). Pretending to suffer abuse or actually suffering it and claiming to enjoy it is one topic. THe other is people enjoying watching other people being so used. People did enjoy watching people being lyched, beaucoups photos to back that up. I also saw an honest-to-gosh photo from Columbus Mississippi of a black man with a noose around his neck, smiling. But I’d never try to say that he enjoyed his lynching. And I read from former porn stars that they habitually lied through their teeth when they used to say they enjoyed it. Well, maybe some do. People enjoy all sorts of things that aren’t allowed because of the damage or potential damage to others. Porn is in that class.

  44. Andrew:
    Thanks for the childish insult. Speaks highly of you. Now, why, again, should I consider what you think is best for anyone if you cannot even handle the common respect and decency of refering to be by my chosen login name and refrain from such attacks when I’ve not attacked anyone, merely asked questions? None of which have been answered, I might add, including the rather valid one of why it is okay in anti-porn circles to use the nude/sexual images of women (or in this case, the images of tortured men) without their consent and with little regard to their own thoughts on the matter?

  45. Frankly, I don’t see anything sexual about the photo of the woman. No one is having sex. These are two photos of people being tortured. When a man suffers torture it is a national tragedy. But somehow when a woman suffers torture it is a sexual event. Suddenly the same activity is hot. And we are supposed to believe she really loves it.
    Stop the torture. Stop equating torture with orgasms. Stop it now.

  46. Lucy:
    “Most people cannot and do not consent to what is in the kink.com videos…being tied up, suffocated, shocked, and whipped, not do they find any pleasure in it.”
    Have you asked the models, themselves, this question?
    JessiAnn:
    a lot of time is spent on the issue of consent and taking into account the feelings of women in feminist circles. Rape, for instance, big HUGE deal due to lack of consent. “The Male Gaze”, big deal, due to how it can make women feel…so do not pretend that USING THESE WOMEN’S IMAGES FOR A PURPOSE THEY MIGHT TOTALLY OBJECT TO WITHOUT GAINING THEIR CONSENT, INFORMING OR ASKING THEM, or even BOTHERING to ask their opinion is not, simply put, WRONG and ultra inconsiderate?
    Generally, showing the nude/sex photos of an unconsenting party is JUST the sort of thing MOST rad fems would be outraged about. However, it seems the rules are different for doing so for the anti-porn cause, and if the women are porn performers…after all, they get naked and fuck anyway, right?
    Nice to care about their consent when it suits you…

  47. I apologize for not using the right log-in name, Renegade Evolution. I don’t intend to make this discussion personal. It seems that your questions have been addressed; if not, please restate them or comment because this thread is getting rather lengthy.

  48. The question is simple, really. Considering the huge concern amonst anti porn advocates in regards to the consent and exploitation of women in pornography, why do we so often see anti-porn adovcates using porngraphic images of women, like the one featured above, used to illustrate the anti-porn argument, yet without the consent of the women whose images are used, without knowing their feelings about their work, without knowing how they feel about having their images used in this manner…basically without caring what they, the women in the images used, think or feel about any of it.
    Pretty exploitive I think, and rather ironic.

  49. Sorry that you object to tried and tested methods of teaching renegade evolution. We aim to educate about pornography and as I have already stated it does seem ironic and flys close to what we actually object to. However, there is no other way in which we can teach the harm of pornography without showing exactly what pornography is. As I also mentioned it is little different than using human beings for medical education. Is this exploitative? How do people learn about an industry without even looking at its product? Pornography isn’t so special that it is exempt from recognised educational methods
    I am amused how radical feminists who recognise the countless damage made by porn are suddenly transformed into the abuser. Honestly renegade are you concerned for the woman in the image or for the mighty porn baron.
    Good try with the blame switch.

  50. Diana Russell provides an excellent response to the idea that it is improper to show porn in order to fight it. She writes in Against Pornography:
    I have found that showing pornography is an effective and rapid consciousness-raiser about misogyny and male views of women. It helps to enhance women’s understanding of many males’ dangerous notions of what it is to be a man. It often also succeeds in arousing women viewers’ anger (and some men’s) at the contempt and hatred of women they see in the pictures and captions. [File 1, p.16]
    The context and intention with which something is shown matters. Unlike the pornographers, activists don’t show examples of porn in order to help people masturbate. Porn needs to be examined as it is in order to understand how it works and how it should be countered.
    If people aren’t shown the reality of what most porn is today, they might take at face value pornographers’ attempts to equate porn with erotica and fine art.
    See more from Against Pornography at:
    http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/01/25/free-book-download-diana-russell-against-pornography-explicit.aspx

  51. Gruesome images of the Vietnam War being broadcast into houses via the new invention of television are often credited as the main impetus behind the mass demonstrations against that war. I doubt the thousands of men in body bags shown on TV would all have given consent to their dead bodies being used by antiwar protestors, and the 9-year-old screaming girl burned with napalm couldn’t possibly give consent due to her young age.
    Are you seriously saying that none of these images or those of Abu Graib or Kink.com should be allowed to be used by journalists, educators and activists for the purpose of showing the large-scale social evils occurring on the spurious basis that a few individuals in the pictures might not agree to have their photo used thusly? Such reasoning behind supressing the free speech of antiwar activists and antipornography activists like Dr. Farley is one of capitalist-libertarian bullies pushing their selfish and profitable wants ahead of public education and the right to collectively organize against men’s sexualized violence towards women.
    Not even antiabortion folks were so shameless as to try this unbelievably myopic argument of ” feminists re-exploiting women by showing the ugly photographed truth” when MS Magazine printed the picture of Gerri Twerdy Santoro in a hotel room floor naked, dead, and unconsenting to being photographed after an illegal abortion.

  52. Sam, JessiAnn, NPNH:
    What I am saying is I find it inconsiderate and ironic. There are other ways to make your point, no? If there are all these countless women in porn who want out, and have been helped out by folks like yourself, I think them standing up and talking about their experiences and, if they so choose, allowing you to use images of them in pornography would serve the same cause, yes? I just do not get in any way how using the images of women who have not consented to the use of their images, perhaps for purposes they do not support in the least, is at all, in any way, considerate or respectful of those women…whom you are supposedly trying to help. And yes, I happen to do pornography, and I know how I would feel if my image, without my consent, and without any consideration whatsoever about how I feel on the matter would make me very, very angry, and yes, far more exploited that porn itself does.
    JessiAnn- yes, doctors use medical photos and films to further education in medicine…something that benefits everyone, and I do believe that 95% of the human population would agree that medicine and doctors help people. Now, I can see how from your point of view the use of images of women in porn, consented to or not, helps in the education of people about the unsavory nature and possible dangers of porn. However, I do not think 95% of humanity would agree that porn is dangerous and on par with medical research and education.
    I don’t expect you all to agree with me, I never did. I am just asking, for a change, that you consider the opinions and feelings of those women whose images you are using, really consider them, and maybe make an effort to gain consent from them in the future and find out their opinions on the matter? Yes, fair use is on your side, but these women in these images are people, and agree with you or not, their feelings and opinions matter too.

  53. Kink.com was using that woman’s image on a public web site to advertise their product.
    Are we supposed to pretend they did not do that? Are we supposed to just discuss these images in only abstract words? That is absurd.
    These two images are in the public sphere whether you like it or not and whether they like it or not and whether I like it or not.
    I would also point out that neither of the people in those photos are recognizable.
    The focus should be on the people who took this photo in the first place to make a profit off this woman’s torture and humiliation.
    The focus should also be on the people who are paying $25 a month to watch this woman and others get tortured over and over for sexual gratification. What is the effect on those viewers? Are they being trained to equate torture with sex? Is that good thing?

  54. To the pornographer who posts without using her name:
    Since you seem to be (rightly) concerned with the consent of those in pornography, I wonder if you can tell us of cases where women have been under intense pressure (economic urgency, threat of pimp/pornographer violence, lack of alternative well paying jobs, etc) to permit pornography to be made of their prostitution – AND THEN later desired to withdraw that consent. Women who have been haunted for years by the porn loops or the web cam footage and clearly withdrew their consent. I would like to know of any such cases.
    I know many women who have attempted to withdraw consent via lawsuits and other means, but none who have been able to get a pornographer to understand non consent in that way.
    Unfortunately I think the sadists love to hear that women are in pain behind this continued nonconsenting use of photos of their past prostitution.

  55. I have a great deal of compassion for the woman in the photo and I am glad her face is obscured.
    But I also have compassion for the people who subscribe to kink.com and get their sexual wiring all screwed up by what they see there.
    This isn’t just about the woman in the photo. It’s about the effect of this crap on the rest of us.

  56. “I think them standing up and talking about their experiences and, if they so choose, allowing you to use images of them in pornography would serve the same cause, yes?
    No. Linda Boreman proved your assumption is wrong the hard way.
    Once millions of people saw her naked and with dicks jammed down her throat, everything she had to say about her lack of consent fell on deaf ears because she was branded a whore and people don’t believe whores (hello Duke Lacrosse team supporters). To this day almost everyone employed by the porn industry (including you?) insists Linda was lying about being raped to make Deep Throat, so many in fact that they came up with the term “Linda Syndrome” to discredit her and threaten disbelief to any other women who dared go public about being raped and sexually abused to make pornography.
    Director Brian DePalma claimed he believed Vanessa Williams when she said the infamous Penthouse photos were intended for private use only, that is until he saw the pictures. Then he thought she was a lying whore. Have you or any of your friends in the sex industry announced that you would boycott Penthouse Inc. for using the photos of a very unwilling black woman named Vanessa Williams?

  57. With respect to reproducing examples of porn for examination, RenegadeEvolution said: “I find it inconsiderate and ironic. There are other ways to make your point, no?”
    The point is in fact this is the best way to make our point. Today’s porn is much more about images and films than about words, so confining our study to words is inadequate.
    One of the main goals of the anti-porn critique is to stimulate compassion for porn performers. That’s how we show our consideration. We are giving witness to their suffering, making it known so it can’t be ignored.

  58. Sam:
    I don’t know if you’ll see this or not, as my last comment did not make it through moderation apparently.
    But…Linda said she was raped, I believe her. I also think what happened to Vanessa Williams was horrible, and I do not read/look at penthouse.
    And no one needs to tell me how people are treated once branded a whore. I know. Your feelings cease to exist in the eyes of other people…and not just men.

  59. Maybe I missed something, but it looks like the woman who agrees to be used in the production of abuse-positive and rape-positive porn in which women are made to look as if they enjoy being tortured is trying to claim some kind of moral high ground over feminists working against sexually violent misogynist media by sanctimoniously telling feminists to be more mindful of how the use of images can hurt women.

  60. If your picture is taken in the act of porn or prostitution, there is no way to control who sees it or to “take it back.”
    The deed is done. The act has happened. All that is left are the consequences.
    One of the consequences is that the pornographer will make money off your image however they can.
    Another consequence is that people will see it and talk about it.
    These are just basic facts.
    Pornographers try to make people feel guilty for talking about or showing porn. Now why would they do that? Perhaps to derail the conversation so that anti-porn folks are on the defensive? Perhaps the pornographers don’t want us talking about how to organize to SHUT THEM DOWN. Hmmm.