[Marxism] On HST, Nina, and Susie: My Response to Carlos

["Anthony J. Kennerson" <anthonyk_6319@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Well..I seem to have touched a bit of a nerve here...allow me to respond to
some of the remarks...mainly to Carlos's response.

First off, on Carlos's statement about Nina supposedly denying the darker,
more exploitative side of porn and sex work:

[Carlos]
For example, Nina is loud to proclaim that she has never allowed herself to
be exploited (in a sense, blaiming the victim, like many "post-feminists"
like to do). She does this even to the point of self-denial, selling the
porn business as if it were
[...]
Not even the common-sense proposition that many people in any industry hate
their jobs crosses Nina's disingeneous representation of the porn business
as a happy, liberating, sexually stimulating experience, save for a few
rotten apples that ruin it all. Such disingeneousness is enough to make one
question her motives.
[/Carlos]

Disingenuousness, Carlos??  Really???  Have you actually READ any of Nina's
essays to various anthologies like "Sex Work" or "Whores and Other
Feminists"..or seen any one of her seminars??  If you did, you would be
quickly and unambiguously shorn of those mistaken beliefs that Nina ever
denies that some sex workers or erotic entertainers do not like their work
and would rather be elsewhere.  I would say that Nina's motives are quite
clear: to use the hardcore erotic medium to promote a more progressive,
humane, and liberatory thought about sexuality and women, and to better the
social conditions for those within the sex industry within the context of an
larger social revolution.  Only those who would dismiss her craft and art
form as innately "exploitive" and "degrading" would so dismiss her motives.
Nowhere does Nina ever claim that her personal experiences as a professional
sex performer are anything than her own, and nowhere does she ever dismiss
the more negative experiences of others. I guess that her only sin is that
she chooses to use her appeal and noteriety as a popular and prolific porn
actress and sex radical to incalcutrate progressive values into the overall
sex industry.

And very nice, Carlos, with the "post-feminist" jab..as if only those who
agree with 'second-wave feminism' can be seen as "real feminists".  In my
mind, Nina Hartley is indeed a true and legitimate feminist in every form of
the word; simply because you disagree with her choice of profession doesn't
make her less so.

Now..on to Carlos's dismissal of Nina's husband Ernest Greene's response to
Stan Goff's antiporn missive:

[Carlos]
I must say this piece by Goff is one of his less stellar arguments, although
I understand his moral outrage, and Greene's is a pathetic answer.
[/Carlos]

OK...so you think that a husband who responds to his wife being slammed and
smeared as a virtual child-rapist, an apologist (if not an outright agent)
to "sexual slavery", and a self-indulgent "adolescent" who promotes "hate
speech" against women, is nothing more than "pathetic"???  And how
"pathetic" is it really for someone with Greene's history of anti-war
activism and involvement in radical politics to call out Goff for his own
participation in the very crimes that he blasts "sex radicals" like Nina or
Susie Bright (who. BTW, has never even been a porn actress or a sex worker;
only an politically active lesbian and sex educator) for causing???  Rather
than relying on other sources, Carlos, why not go right to the source..like
the actual thread at Nina's forum where Greene made his remarks:

http://nina.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2664

[Carlos]
My main problem with Goff's argument is that it is moral, and that it sees
in the sex business a form of "special"  exploitation. The sex business is
exploitative because it IS a business.
[/Carlos]

That's funny...considering that Goff goes off on all kinds of pseudo-Marxist
theory of "consumerism" as based on 1950's style "commodification" as a root
for his belief that porn simply represents the "commodification of
degradation" of women.  And I would guess that the reason that Goff
supposedly sees the sex industry as a especially gross form of degradation
has less to do with Marxist theory and more to do with his attempt to cut
and paste Left theory to his patron's  fundamentalist MacDworkiniite
"radicalfeminist" beliefs. (Goff posted his missive against Nina in a
website promoting an antiporn anthology "Not For Sale", the link follows: )

http://www.notforsale-book.org/Articles/Goff_Hartley.html

And considering that Goff's blast did not touch upon any other business
other than the sex industry, it is kind of superfluous to go to the "all
businesses are innately exploitative" card...especially since the main
motive og Goff's essay is to indict, convict, and execute the sex iindusrty
alone as the main source of "capitalist patriarchy" and its complete
criminalization and abolition under socialism the only cure for its
shortcomings.

[Carlos]
Nina, Susie, and their co-thinkers, for the most part are exploiters
themselves, the pornographics equivalents of Oprah Winfrey, who began as a
humble actress and host, to become a prodution powerhouse and major boss.

Their perspective have a certain "rebel" tinge, and some of them are
interesting and valid. But while their views are informed by a liberal take
on economic relationships and exploitation, and while they continue reduce
as the single criteria of exploitation if a person is doing something out of
"free will" or not, the fact remains that moral views aside, porno is a form
of commodification, and hence exploitative by definition.
[/Carlos]

Putting aside the basic fact that Nina is merely a performer, and has never
(aside from her "Nina Hartley Sex Guide" series of sexual education videos
and her website) owned a production studio of any kind, let alone made
anywhere near the salary and nothing close to the social power of an Oprah
Winfrey, this whole section reeks of chauvinsim.  Are you implying, Carlos,
that free will and self agency are qualities that shouldn't count within the
present system of capitalism?? Or are you merely saying that it shouldn't
count when it comes solely to sexual choices???  Yes, capitalism and the
maldistribution of wealth and resources do indeed affect one's life choices
in everything..but how in the hell does that invalidate the fact that some
women (and men) may choose to do sex work and/or porn out of sincere desire
to explore their own sexuality?  Merely because they use sex work as a means
of making a living and paying their bills doesn't neccessarily mean that
they will not have at least take some personal pleasure out of the job.
Funny, Carlos, that you say that you are against commodification of all
things, but you focus your attention on explicit sexual expression (which is
what porn amounts to, in essence) as inheritantly "exploitative".  Can't
have it both ways, my friend.

And what would you say about the millions of fans of porn who attempt to
beat the odds of "commodification" by downloading their material for free
using peer-to-peer software or simply pilfering it from websites  through
"free password" sites?  You wouldn't say that traditional workers should
simply do their labor for free, why should sex workers be forced to do the
same?

The appeal of sexually explicit material has less to do with
"commodification" or with "capitalist patriarchy", than it has to do with
the simple human emotion of sexual desire and enjoyment of mutual sexual
pleasure amongst consenting adults.  That desire has always been there
before capitalism or Christianity or organized religion, and it will be
there even in any utopian or real-life socialist society that may come
forth. That some people may use it to less than noble ends won't change that
basic fact.

[Carlos]
Don't get me wrong: alienation from one's sexuality is one more sad thing
that capitalism puts on top of us. But this alienation is no different, or
"special" than others.
[/Carlos]

I don't know if Louis will allow this, but I recently came upon one of his
essays from his personal website in which he makes a decent argument that
much ot the negative attitudes about sex are more the product of the
development of Christianity and organized religion which superceded
capitalism.  I believe that the link is here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~lnp3/mydocs/sex_gender/homosexuals_and_capitalism.htm

To condemn sexually explicit media without ever laying a finger on the
development of far greater institutions of antisexual thought which seek to
control and repress sexuality for the sake of capitalism is nothing less
than scapegoating..not to mention some really screwed up analysis.

To conclude this:  I have no quarry to anyone who wants to criticize
misogyny in our culture overall; the sex industry certainly has its share of
it and is certainly should be held accountable for its part.  But Nina
Hartley and Susie Bright are people who are attempting in their own way as
sex radical activists of the Left to reverse that trend; to condemn them
rather than those who directly perpetuate the abuse is not only morally
wrong, but a direct sellout to the Right, who are already using a great deal
of antiporn rhetoric as a wedge to condemn ALL forms of sexual expression
not deemed suitable for their narrow standards. If you don't happen to like
what they do with their bodies, then that's fine..but please, for
Aphrodite's sake, please give them their credit and respect as progressive
and Leftist activists.  They deserve that much.

Anthony


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism