Note: Before I start, let me note that for some reason WordPress is refusing to let me put in hyperlinks; the HTML function is all screwy. So I'll write out links in full at the bottom to be cut and pasted.
Telewest has recently been showing the pornographic film Deep Throat and its accompanying documentary Inside Deep Throat. I heard about this from Witchy-woo and Laura at I'm Not A Feminist, But's Protest Now group. Many of us emailed/ phoned/ wrote to Telewest to tell them that it was innapropriate to show a film in which the leading actress was coerced into her role through physical violence and rape, even at gun point, by her abusive pimp-'husband'. From watching the documentary, you wouldn't know that, as the actress Linda Marchiano (Lovelace) said, if you watch Deep Throat, you are watching her being raped.
We got an insulting and patronising stock reply from Telewest. Here it is in all its glory, for your enjoyment. My notes are in bold.
Dear [my name], nice touch of the personal!
Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the availability of
the films Inside Deep Throat and Deep Throat on our Teleport Movie
service, provided by FilmFlex. Get to the point.
As a responsible [saying so doesn't make it so!] communications service provider our aim is to provide as wide a variety of viewing as possible to our broad customer base.
All content services carried on the Telewest distribution platform must
comply with relevant legislative and regulatory obligations.
Having relayed your complaint to FilmFlex, which is editorially
responsible for the service, it has made the following points.
-We regret that you have been offended by the availability of this
particular film and its accompanying documentary. In today [sic] plural
society, however, it is inevitable that what offends one person deeply
may be entirely acceptable to another. Rape and torture are NOT matters of personal taste. Don't suggest that those who object to this film are just prudes who have a thing against nudity, it simply won't wash. This is about human rights abuse and degrading treatment, NOT about what we do and do not find a turn-on. Do not insult my intelligence, nor the memory of Linda Marchiano with such bullshit.
We started showing the films on December 12th 2005 and the decision to
show these films was based on the following considerations:
-Inside Deep Throat was theatrically released and garnered largely
favourable reviews. If people like rape and torture then its okay?
-The release of the film prompted a great deal of debate on how society
and the media views pornography now, compared to when Deep Throat was
made in the seventies. Inside Deep Throat is essentially an art-house
documentary, which raises some important questions and will educate
many
who might be unaware of the Deep Throat controversy. It does not say a syllable about the real issue- the coercion of a defenceless woman into degrading and painful acts. In this context,
it
was felt that viewers of the documentary should also be given the
chance
to see the original film if they so wished. Of course. People who want to jack off to other people's torment should be given that chance, rather than an education about human decency and women's rights. Call it 'art' and it's justified, no matter that a woman is tortured to make it.
Both movies have been awarded an 18 Certificate by the British Board of
Film Classification (BBFC), and have been widely available on video and
DVD. So that frees you of moral responsibility? Explain please.
Anyone purchasing the films on Teleport Movies requires a pin number to
view before 10.00pm. So long as rape is not shown to anyone without a pin number, that's okay.
As we accept that these movies are for adult viewing only, the trailers
advertising the films are not shown before 10.00pm on our informational
channel. The issue is not who is allowed to watch, but that the film depicts actual torture and rape.
We have received only a small number of complaints about these films,
despite the fact that they have been available for over three months in
almost two million homes. So that's why you're sending out a standard reply without reading the damn emails?
Consequently, although we do not plan to remove from the service before
the scheduled license period ends, we do appreciate your feedback. You'd better appreciate my feedback if you read it and respond to what I actually wrote.
If you have further queries regarding this matter or any other issue,
please use the link provided below:
www.telewest.co.uk/forms/servicefeedback
Please note if you reply directly to this e-mail your response will not
be received. Don't worry, I'll find another way. This conversation ain't over.
Yours insincerely
[his name]
Telewest Broadband
Relevant links
Protest Now http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/protestnow/
Witchy-woo http://witchy-woo.blogspot.com/
Yep, I got the exact same crap. I told them that, thanks to their dismissive response, I will never use Telewest and will also be urging everyone I know to do the same.
Comment by Kat — March 29, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
Telewest’s response defers all responsibility for choosing the film in the first place. Instead – as you point out – it argues that the film is worthy because a) other people said it was when it was released b) knowing now that the film shows sexual abuse is countered by the value of sexual abuse as ‘art’.
The short version of this form letter seems to be ‘we spent money on it and we’re going to make it back whether you give a flying feck or not.’ Bastards.
Comment by bookdrunk — March 29, 2006 @ 3:01 pm
They’ve been showing it for three months? They’re getting high ratings then. Who are the advertisers? Who is on the board of directors? Is there a public sidewak in front of their building?
In solidarity
Pony
Comment by Pony — March 29, 2006 @ 8:18 pm
I like you, Pony.
Comment by Andrea — March 29, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
Ugh. Another rad fem blogged about this a little bit ago to. I think Pony has a good point. Between that and people cancelling their service and telling the company exactly why they are cancelling I think you may be able to affect change.
Comment by Burrow — March 30, 2006 @ 12:48 am
They couldn’t understand that it would be better to not reply at all then to send that condescending crap?
It’s so tired-dismissing women’s complaints over violence and exploitation. I agree-hit ‘em in the pocketbook. Bastards.
Comment by spotted elephant — March 30, 2006 @ 7:17 pm
Public sidewalk…now there’s a plan….
Comment by laura — March 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
love how they throw every logical phallacy (i spell it that way on purpose) in the book into their dumb statement. just because it’s “popular” doesn’t mean it’s morally right.
Comment by Txfeminist — March 30, 2006 @ 9:47 pm
As an academic with both undergraduate and higher degrees in film & media theory, and a TW customer, I feel compelled to offer an alternate view of this issue.
The original article on this page, and further comments, seem to implicitly support the type of corporate censorship perhaps best described by Chomsky in ‘Manufacturing Consent’.
In the wider context, to suggest that Telewest, as a mass media provider, should conduct such censorship,is in my view, a very dangerous, and indeed irresponsible, perspective to present.
Consider not only the effect to feminism, but also to other issues affected by unfair representation (race, sexuality, disability etc) if such censorship is supported. In brief, who decides what viewing is morally supportable, if not the BBFC; how is this authority designated and engendered, and who will ‘guard the guards’ so to speak.
Marchiano herself expressed, in several interviews and articles, that she did not agree with censorship in any form, and was alternately in favour of public awareness. I would suggest that when she stated that any viewer of Deep Throat was effectively watching her being raped, this was not to say the text should not be viewed, but rather that it should be viewed in this context, hence raising awareness of the wider issues regarding the treatment of women in pornography.
Many respected critics have suggested that Marchiano was easily led (evidenced perhaps by her participation in pornographic movies depicting her coupling with a German shepherd [dog] prior to meeting her first husband), and that the lie detector tests she undertook before publishing ‘Ordeal’ do not conclusively establish coercion, but only a feeling of coercion on Marchiano’s part.
(Allow me to add here that I personally consider it a great injustice that MacKinnon and Dworkin could not bring Marchiano’s case to court.)
However, I would suggest that a more relevant and supportable arguement surrounding this issue, and in view of the above, is that of the involvement of potentially vulnerable individuals, both female and male, in pornography, and the porn industry’s dubious associations. This is an arguement to be had with the porn industry, government, and bodies such as the BBFC, rather than individual providers such as TW.
Whilst the documentary ‘Inside Deep Throat’ is sadly lacking in comment on the potential coercion of Marchiano in the making of ‘Deep Throat’ (no doubt due to libel issues resulting from their unproven status) it does highlight more general concerns regarding the association of the porn industry with dubious partners, such as organised crime.
As such, I would suggest that if awareness amongst even 1% of the more conscientious of TW viewers is raised, leading them to undertake their own further research, this is infinitely better that the 0% which would have been raised had Deep Throat and Inside Deep Throat not been available.
I would further suggest that, in line with Marchiano’s view, the best way in which to honour the memory of Linda Marchiano (and Dworkin) is to ensure that her experiences, her beliefs and opinions founded on those experiences, and the associated feminist critique of the porn industry, are not forgotten whilst the porn industry persists.
By the very nature of criticism, such concerns can only be raised and maintained by in turn maintaining the contemporaneity of controversial texts, in that, as I am sure you will agree, informed and free discussion is a vital driver of cultural and political progress. As such, I would suggest the availability of Deep Throat and Inside Deep Throat on the TW service does contribute toward this, as evidenced by our own discussion, and influenced by the input of conscientious viewers such as yourself.
I would, of course, welcome any considered critism or reponse to this view.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 12:18 am
I would be interested to know if you work for TW? Your comment sounds very similar to an email reply I received from them.
Comment by laurelin — May 16, 2006 @ 7:27 am
No, I don’t. I recently completed an MA (mainly in film history) and will be beginning FE PGCE study shortly. However, some of the above in support of my argument is lifted more or less, and to varying degrees, directly from various relavant web based articles on the Marchiano issue and associated stuff, which probably explains this? Should have perhaps provided references whilst I had them, to avoid blatent plagiarism, but it was late, I was tired and couldn’t really be bothered and the above already seemed overly long compared to other comments(hope I’m not legally liable-not really my area!). Looking at it again should have probably spell-checked too, but nevermind.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 11:49 am
How does promoting more sexualized violence by showing “Deep Throat” and the like, lead to less violence of that nature? Would you show pictures of beaten blacks to whites in the hopes they would become more compassionate, explaining they were only coerced? (And have many whites get off to this material, as well?!).
As far as Marchiano’s response that she was against censorship in any form–that was probably true, but we often have to say what others want and expect us to say. The Ordinance was not about censorship but about the end to subordination. Linda knew that. Censorship and the end of subordination are two very different things.
—Laurel
Comment by Laurel — May 16, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
As I recall, the purpose of the Ordinance was to allow those who had been harmed by pornography to seek legal redress. Usually, those victimised by pornstitution are the most powerless and vulnerable women in society, and pornographers among the wealthiest and most protected.
I believe I have tackled most of the issues you addressed here elsewhere on my blog. But anyway, here’s a quick rundown of the arguments and where to find my responses.
Consider not only the effect to feminism, but also to other issues affected by unfair representation (race, sexuality, disability etc) if such censorship is supported. In brief, who decides what viewing is morally supportable, if not the BBFC; how is this authority designated and engendered, and who will ‘guard the guards’ so to speak.
My position on pornography/censorship and all that is here: http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2006/03/06/heres-my-freedom-of-speech-now-ive-heard-yours/ (or under March 2006 on the side bar).
On the subject of who is the authority to decide, I believe that we as individuals have the duty to oppose the glorification of rape and torture in our culture. I believe that the individuals at Telewest are responsible for choosing to show a film of rape for men to get off on, when they could have refused to, and that they bear moral responsibility. So does the BBFC, of course. So does the viewer of pornography.
Many respected critics have suggested that Marchiano was easily led (evidenced perhaps by her participation in pornographic movies depicting her coupling with a German shepherd [dog] prior to meeting her first husband), and that the lie detector tests she undertook before publishing ‘Ordeal’ do not conclusively establish coercion, but only a feeling of coercion on Marchiano’s part.
Being ‘easily led’ is not a crime. Lie detector test results are not even admissible as evidence in the US (that’s what I’ve been told, but please correct me if I’m wrong), and are not hard evidence or even reliable. A feeling of coercion is coercion. And Marchiano’s past is irrelevent, just as the past of any rape survivor is irrelevent to their abuse.
I covered this type of argument here: http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2006/01/11/this-fuss-about-rape/ (or January 2006 on the side bar).
Comment by laurelin — May 16, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
Ian, if you’d been raped and throat-raped how would you feel if someone made a film of your ordeal and then showed it on Telewest for men to masturbate over? Would you call that “freedom of speech” or a gross breach of your human rights?
Did you “enjoy” watching Deep Throat or did you keep in mind that you were watching a film of a woman being raped?
“As such, I would suggest that if awareness amongst even 1% of the more conscientious of TW viewers is raised, leading them to undertake their own further research, this is infinitely better that the 0% which would have been raised had Deep Throat and Inside Deep Throat not been available.”
And the other 99% go off to coerce their girlfriends into deep=throating them. Terrfic.
Comment by delphyne — May 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
With regard to whether promotion of sexual violence raises awareness, I would suggest that the central issue is in reference to whether the availability of a text automatically represents ‘promotion’ of the acts depicted therein. Where would this leave films like ‘Natural Born Killers’, ‘Basic Instinct’, ‘FightClub’, ‘Saw’, ‘Hannibal’, ‘Trainspotting’, ‘Lord of War’, for example. Should we ban them all on the basis of this arguement?
Or even ‘Will and Grace’ with depictions of homosexuality – if texts were regarded on this basis do you think this would be made in a predominantly conservative US. How about ‘Mash’ and ‘Easy Rider’ with their anti-American standpoint? How about ‘The Graduate’ protesting against the conservative family structure, suburban lifestyle and consumerism?
This is by no means a black and white area, but rather a greyer issue of where to draw the line. And to remove the power of censorship from independent bodies, and place it in the hands of business (who will always cater to the majority, guided as they are by profits), individuals, and pressure groups, you effectively place the power of censorship in the hands of the dominant (ideological) majority, which theoretically means that hegemony is destroyed and perspectives never change.
Historically, what would this have meant to the ’suffragette’ movement, to the abolition of slavery, to gay rights? Do you think homosexual intimacy would be seen on television if organisations reacted to pressure, rather than following independent censorial guidelines?
With regard to depicting acts of violence as a ‘trigger’ for people to react against them, where does your supposition that this does not have any affect leave recreations of crime on ‘Crimewatch’ intended mainly to engender an emotional response to encourage potential witnesses to come forward? How about depictions of the Holocaust and concentration camps in Holocaust museums around the world?
I would suggest this issue is by no means as straightforward as you present, although I can appreciate you speak from your own persepctive, which I accept is as valid as any other.
I agree fully that censorship and the end of coercion are two entirely seperate issues, as indeed was the point of my original subordination. Whilst I am all in favour of the end of subordination, as I hope was clear, I am not personally in favour of censorship.
I would agre that being ‘easily led’ is not a crime, which I did not mean to suggest. I also apologise for bad wording regarding coercion – what I meant was that a feeling of coercion does not only result from physical coercion or abuse.
The responsibilty of being coerced, being ‘easily led’, and having formal and legal measures in place to avoid this in porn, should lie with the producer. Unfortunately, it does not, except in the rather narrow persepctive of physical age.
I suspect that there are many individuals working in the porn industry who have been psycologically coerced, and beleive this should be the focus, rather than unproven physical coercion, which I would suggest has the unintended effect of implicitly undermining arguments against this.
In effect, to say that one text should be banned because the individual was allegedly physically abused and coerced, implies that texts where this is not the case are, by exclusion, acceptable.
Whilst Marchiano’s past is irrelevant to a legal trial, in terms of the wider coercion of women (and men) in porn, it is therefore potentially very relevant, as I suspect ‘Deep Throat’ only represents the focal point (due to its commercial impact) of a much wider issue, both in the case of Marchiano and generally.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 1:50 pm
Sorry, Paragraph 7 end of line one – meant to type ‘my original submission’ – not subordination.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 1:53 pm
Delphyne,
I would stress that no abuse or rape in the making of ‘Deep Throat’ has been proven. If it had, it would certainly be automatically banned by the BBFC. As per my above submission, it is not my intent to speak for such depictions, but only to suggest that, in doing so, you may be missing the wider issues to their detriment.
I must admit that I have not viewed ‘Deep Throat’ since my undergraduate days, when I did so as research. It was a rather unpleasant experience that I am not in any hurry to repeat, as I was aware of the issues concerned here at the time.
I find the suggestion that, being aware of these issues, I would derive any enjoyement from this, and your other supposition that the individuals not positively affected (in terms of feminist and general humanist issues) by viewing this, would be negatively influenced to be frankly insulting, not only to myself but to men as a whole.
I would remind you that, to date, there is no evidence to suggest that mass media forms have this type of direct influence on individuals. Indeed there is ample circumstantial evidence to the contrary. Consider that the Netherlands, undoubtedly one of the most liberal countries in Europe regarding pronography, also has one of the lowest sex crime rates.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
Basic Intinct and Saw do not depict real murders, Trainspotting does not depict the real use of heroin. I’m surprised that fundamental diference passed you by.
Comment by Andrea — May 16, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
I’ll rephrase Ian. How would you feel if you were raped and throat-raped and a film was made of that vile abuse which was shown on Telewest? Not only that but then finding that assholes were trying to defend the broadcast of your ordeal to a bunch of scumbag masturbators with the claim that the crimes against you had never been “proven” despite knowing that rape and sexual abuse are crimes with one of the lowest conviction rates and rapists get away with it *all the time*?
“there is no evidence to suggest that mass media forms have this type of direct influence on individuals”
That’s advertsing out the window then. They don’t teach you much on these media studies courses do they, Ian?
Comment by delphyne — May 16, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
Ian,
Your introducing yourself as someone who is ‘an academic with both undergraduate and higher degrees in film & media theory’ tells my that you consider yourself better qualified than any other person commenting here to speak on the issue of rape as entertainment.
You may have noticed that nobody else is making reference to their qualifications.
Most of us commenting here are feminists and we know that the only people qualified to speak on the issue of rape as entertainment are those of use who have been sexually abused or raped, or who live in fear of being raped.
I am sickened to read that you are considering a career in teaching and sincerely hope you are weeded out at some point in your training.
Comment by Feminist First — May 16, 2006 @ 8:40 pm
Ok then, in order:
Andrea, I appreciate you point and it is a valid one which is important to consider. However, in response I would suggest firstly that, in theoretical terms regarding audience effect, and the raising of awareness and condoning of abuse and other issues which is what I was addressing there is little difference between factual and fictional. I would also restress (again) that there is no proof of factual abuse in this case.
Secondly, if you are going to draw this distiction, it is to suggest by logical extension that the depiction of sexual abuse and violence toward women in pornography is acceptable as long as it is fictional in that has the permission of the performers, who may or may not be unknowingly psycologically coerced despite their tacit acceptance. Is this really the position you want to hold? I doubt it.
Or alternately do you wish to ban all instances with potential for publicly viewable and ‘real’ masochistic self-accepted pain, abuse or violence imparted by another? Boxing? All contact sport? Jackass? I’m a celebrity…? Cosmetic surgery documentaries? And how about psychological pain? Jerry Springer? Trisha?
Again, its a question of where you draw the line, which is entirely subjective, because all the above are not seperate forms, but are located at various points of the same continuum.
Also you seem to have ignored the depictions of factual violence and real crimes also mentioned.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 11:42 pm
Delphyne
Was hoping to avoid any in depth discussion of basic media theory, but hey, what the hell….
The direct influencing of audiences which you describe is known in the field of Media Theory as ‘The Hypodermic Syringe Model’ or ‘Magic Bullet Theory’ of media effect, in that it supposes audiences to be ‘injected’ with ideas and desires by viewing a mass media artefact.
This model was proposed by the ‘Frankfurt School’ in the 1920’s in response to concerns regarding the effect of mass media forms. However, it has subsequently (since the 50’s) been largely discredited due to various factors.
1) The Model presupposes the homogeneity of an audience, rather the recognising the heterogeneous amalgamation of individuals that most audiences represent.
2) Most theorists now recognise that the media has a relatively weak effect in influencing individuals, when compared to other social factors, such as religion, education, family and cultural upbringing.
3) The Model assumes an entirely passive audience, and does not allow for any audience participation or input in the translation of texts and their meanings, whilst it is now generally accepted that meaning is constructed between the text and the audience.
(For example, heroes only have impact because audiences subconsciously identify with them and wish them to succeed. Without such audience involvement viewing has no emotional enjoyment or cathartic response. For further details I recommend ‘The Pleasure of the Text’ by Roland Barthes. )
This model is, however, still often utilised by non-academics to displace the blame for increased violence in society onto the mass media.
An interesting example is that of Jeffrey Dahmer, who was widely, and correctly, reported to get himself excited before a murder by watching a scene from his favourite movie………..
It was somewhat less widely reported that this movie was, in fact, Star Wars, which to my knowledge has never been accused of causing violent actions or been the subject of a request to be banned on this basis.
Which brings us to the ‘Uses and Gratifications Model’, which has largely replaced the above model as one of the accepted forms of audience effect. This is based on the work of various theorists, who found that the suppositions of ‘The Hypodermic Syringe Model’ were simply not borne out by investigation.
Katz and Lazarsfeld suggested the ‘two-step flow model’ of audience participation, suggesting that the flow of media influence was not direct, but was mediated by social structure and culture. (If you live in a culture where rape is morally taboo, the media cannot effect a belief in, or desire of, such abuse, as the cultural effect is much more powerful.) This view was evidenced by a huge volume of research conducted by these theorists.
Carl Hovland, a respected Yale professor, also proposed a range of factors influencing media effect, ranging from audience group membership to the audience’s interest and acceptance of the subject of the message (formed by moral and cultural beliefs). Hovland’s research leading to this view is noted particularly for its carefully controlled and objective nature.
The ‘Uses and Gratifications Model’ essentially suggests that whilst part of a media message is absorbed, this is defined by the individuals pre-existing aims and desires, normatively embedded in cultural norms and morality, and that the media does not have the ability to form new desires in the subject.
This brings us to the comparison of advertising provided. At a theoretical level, advertising is determined to succeed only because of the audience’s location within a consumerist, capitalist society. i.e the cultural norms and moral support necessary for the audience to absorb meaning via the ‘Uses and Gratifications Model’ are pre-existing (see Jean Baudrillard on how uses, wants, needs, and sign values of commodities are all socially constructed, as part of a system of production and consumption).
This is, needless to say, not the case in regard to violence, abuse or rape, at least in regard of family, government, education and law, which Althusser lists as the dominant ideological forces in modern society.
From a practical view, advertising is widely accepted, in the vast majority of cases, not to influence a persons decision as to whether or not to buy a product per se, but only to influence a persons choice regarding which specific brand of a product to buy.
This is similar to political advertising and Party Political Broadcasts, which do not, by and large, influence people to vote, but only who they will vote for. Even in this aspect, research has shown that around 80% of voters are not affected by political advertising, and that only the central 20% swing vote is affected. And even in this instance, this 20% are the group with no cultural or traditional party affiliation, who base their decision on individual manifestos, generally after their own further research.
In short then, modern media theory (for the last 50 years or so) generally accepts that an individuals use of a text is determined by their pre-existing beliefs and desires, and moreover, that the meaning of a text is individually created through complex psychological processes in the individual viewer ( see Jacques Lacan on the cinematic mirror and the gaze).
As such, in the case of cinematic depictions creating real-life violence this is just as likely to be instigated in such viewers by a text such as Eastenders, The Wizard of Oz, Romeo and Juliet, or indeed Star Wars, bringing us back to the question of where you draw the line of censorship to ensure such impact is avoided.
Indeed, whilst this does not in my view constitute a defence, there is a school of thought that explicit sexual content, and violent content allows a cathartic dissipation of the pre-existing inclination to violence in specific individuals. As opposed to more subtle content (as in romance films) which can act to exaggerate this inclination due to encouraging the subject to disavow normative relations, which by and large they feel unable to create.
Hence increasing emotional discontent and anger – bringing us back to the case of the Netherlands, on which I note, along with many other facets of this issue, you appear disinclined to comment.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
Feminist First.
Just to establish that at no point have I condoned rape as entertainment, depiction of rape as entertainment, violence toward women (sexual or otherwise), the subordination of women, pornography in any form, or any similar activity.
I apologise for any offence inadvertently caused, but you appear to have somewhat missed the point.
The issue I am arguing is whether the subordination of women in pornography is most effectively addressed or ended (which I heavily support) by censorship or by the raising of public awareness. It is my belief, shared by many liberal feminists, that the advocation of censorship on moral grounds sets a dangerous precedent with regard to the potential restriction of human rights and freedoms (in which category I obviously do not include rape or abuse).
As, through my academic studies, I have an appreciable level of knowledge regarding issues of censorship etc, I do feel able, and indeed entitled, to comment. To suggest that I cannot comment on this issue because I do not have personal experience or fear of rape is, in my view, an insulting, blinkered and obstructionist view of the worst kind, which does not take account of basic human compassion and empathy.
Do you not believe in these attributes?
Would you consider yourself unable to comment on the addressing and future prevention of racial abuse, the Holocaust, or third-world poverty because you weren’t black, Jewish, or a third-world citizen? I suspect not!
My point here is not to suggest that my view regarding this issue is any more valid than anyone elses, but merely to establish that there are many perspectives from which the issue of the current availability of Deep Throat and pornography in general can be viewed, and the issue is not as black and white as previously presented (from one viewpoint only.)
Whilst I do not necessarily expect anyone here to agree with my own view, I would at least expect these to be considered and if argued against, to be done so constructively (as is the case with Laurelin’s response) rather than having my comments twisted in order that a response can be delivered at the level of a personal slur or insult.
I do appreciate such comments constructively delivered, and the right of individuals to their own view, as I have gone out of my way to stress on several occasions.
Anyhoo, I believe I have gone some way to establish the alternate viewpoint intended, despite the response received. I consider it disappointing that some participants do not appear able to share my acceptance of an individuals right to a different view from their own, which, at least in my dictionary, is defined as bigotry.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?search=bigotry
It was not my intent in doing so to cause any offence, insult or upset, but as that appears to be the case, and seems unavoidable from here on in, I’ll choose to politely withdraw from the discussion and leave you to it.
However I do appreciate that this issue is, due to its very nature, unavoidably highly emotionally charged and contentious, so no lasting umbrage taken on my part, and all apologies if any comments were misconstrued as insensitive or uncaring.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 11:46 pm
PS.
Sorry, Andrea, my comment re drawing the line re ‘real’ violence is not meant to intend that abuse of any kind should be acceptable, only that arbitrary distinctions are not supportable from an objective perspective. Personally, I could quite happily live without any of the mentioned ‘reality shows being available, on the basis that I don’t find it acceptable to derive amusement from any ‘real’ suffering or discomfort of any kind. I just don’t beleive that the way to address this is through censorship.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 16, 2006 @ 11:56 pm
Blahdeblah, Ian. Let’s go back to your statement -
“there is no evidence to suggest that mass media forms have this type of direct influence on individuals”
How about the fact that most men who watch these films get an erection and often are inspired to masturbate furiously? An extremely direct influence, no? Many women have reported that their male partners will see something in porn and then be inspired to act it out on them. Perhaps that doesn’t happen in the little bubble you live in, but most feminists prefer to deal with reality.
You should read Maxim or any of the other disgusting “lads mags” which actually give instructions on how men can get their girlfriends to act out what they’ve seen in porn. I don’t know what Lacan has to do with any of this, apart from the fact that he was another man obsessed by his penis. Or maybe you just like name-dropping.
Comment by delphyne — May 17, 2006 @ 11:43 pm
Delphyne,
Ok, I know I said I wouldn’t be submitting again, but I think one final submission will be useful, as your latest comments indicate some common ground on which we can agree.
My previous submission was to the effect that the violent and violent sexual content of the media cannot directly or solely influence or cause similarly behaviour in viewers, as your previous comments indicated. I still hold to this view.
I do not disagree with your comment that SOME viewers will watch pornography purely for this purpose, and that this contributes toward the subordination of women in the ‘real world’.
However, I suggest that this is a result of pre-existing socially and culturally constructed views regarding ‘the place’ of women in society and the subordination of women, as would be proposed by the ‘Uses and Gratifications’ model described. I believe that it is these views which need to be addressed, rather than their merely their more obvious manifestations, such as pornography.
If it is the case that Maxim and similar carry such articles (not being my favoured ‘reading’, I honestly wouldn’t know, as I have little interest in publications or media products which pander to the lowest common denominator) I would obviously personally find this unacceptable. Just as I find articles in some so-called womens’ magazines on ‘How to please your man’ etc similarly puerile and offensive not only to women, but to my own intelligence(like this should be a woman’s biggest worry in contemporary society???).
Just as in certain cosmetic surgery ‘documentaries’ where post-surgery, I have personally witnessed husbands of the women who underwent surgery making comments such as ‘My wife is so attractive NOW’ (I paraphrase but you get the idea), I am concerned not only about the impact on women, but also on the moronic representation of men being broadcast.
Just as in Friends, I am concerned that the professional occupations of female characters are essentialy cooking, clothing and massage (further represented as primarily for the gratification of men). Just as in 24, powerful women are largely ultimately seen as ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ influences, whilst the remainder are perpetually suggested to be in dire need of male assistance.
This list (as I am sure you are aware) could go on and on.
(Sorry, I’m going to repeat myself here a bit, but just to summarise:)
Whilst I do not personally find such representations acceptable, I do not believe that censorship is the way to address this, for several reasons:
1) Because of the dangerous precedent set by advocating censorship on moral grounds. This opens the door to a variety of misuse, such as religious groups objecting to representations of gay relationships, Darwin’s theory (as is currently the case in the Southern US), and so on. Essentially, who is to decide which versions of moralilty are correct? There is no possible objective way to regulate this, as morality is entirely subjective.
2) Through censorship, you can only address the tip of a vast iceberg, entirely ignoring the more subtle forms which, from a theoretical view, are much more pervasive and powerful in forming the very views which allow pronography to flourish. (Kind of a cart before the horse thing.)
3) Because by doing so, you are in effect, treating only the symptom, rather than the cause. In this case, whilst subordination of women may be less obvious, it will still be present, and would be much more difficult to systematically demonstrate or express as a concern.
4) Because such content will unavoidably still be available, via the internet and other sources, whilst the relavent authorities will effectively have the excuse ‘Well, we’ve banned it – what else do you expect us to do?’ Maybe, in not so many words, but this would be used – I have no doubt.
5) Because such content would still be available, it would still be accessible to the very individuals you describe who deliberately seek to use it for their direct gratification, and nothing would have been done to address their views of women. Essentially, you would only be sweeping these individuals under the carpet, rather than addressing the cultural and social aspects leading to their ignorant views.
The only thing acheived by removal from more general ‘public’ view is to remove it from the people who don’t really have that kind of motivation in the first place, whilst also removing it as a topic of discussion in a more public forum (a kind of ‘See no evil’ arguement), which is essential for pressure groups of any kind. Is this really very productive?
Essentially, whilst I completely agree with the aims of most submissions to this website, I do not agree with the methods proposed, for the above reasons. I think it much more important to address the social and cultural aspects of female subjugation rather than their media representations, which are merely a direct and logical, albeit rather unsavoury, outcome of these.
I also personally beleive this is a better and more productive way to respect the memory of feminists, and women in general, who have fought against these issues, in many cases as a result of their own experiences, than merely removing their experiences from the cultural and public view, although I accept this is unavoidably painful in some instances.
Also, I would point out that Lacan’s theories regarding the formation of consciousness, and his related media theories, are essentially a direct response to Freud, whose theories Lacan regards as being overtly patriarchal, penis-centric and as hence devaluing the place of women in society and in psychological processes.
Lacan instead supposes the central place of the female (M)other, via the primordial mirror, in psychological development and hence in all subsequent relations and interations between the conscious and the unconscious in the individual.
This is obviously greatly simplified as the full theoretical basis is too lengthy to describe here, but perhaps you should give it a more in depth look, you may enjoy it and perhaps even agree (although I admit there are still some patrio-centric views, it is at least a vast leap in terms of equality from Freud).
Either way I would respectfully suggest you perhaps owe Lacan a small apology.
Ian
Comment by Ian Moore — May 18, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
The thing is all your other examples that are as “bad” as porn Ian, don’t actually require the degradation and humiliation and sexual use of real human females for men’s sexual pleasure. So your comparison doesn’t work. You keep trying to remove this discussion to the realms of theory (fantasy) but women’s experiences of what porn is and how it affects our lives are real. Just because a man hasn’t written a book on the subject doesn’t mean you shouldn’t pay attention to this.
I’m really not interested in reading sexist theories (Lacan, Barthes) et al. In fact I think it’s you who needs to be doing a bit more reading before pronouncing on this subject – try Dworkin, MacKinnon and Daly for starters. Diana Russell also has a very good website. I don’t owe Lacan any apologies, the guy was a prick and no friend of women. You keep trying to make out that I’m offending men and that I should be apologetic for it, it’s a silly tactic and you should stop it.
I notice your incredibly long-winded and pompous replies all centre on avoiding this question – if you come back again, try to answer it -
“I’ll rephrase Ian. How would you feel if you were raped and throat-raped and a film was made of that vile abuse which was shown on Telewest? Not only that but then finding that assholes were trying to defend the broadcast of your ordeal to a bunch of scumbag masturbators with the claim that the crimes against you had never been “proven” despite knowing that rape and sexual abuse are crimes with one of the lowest conviction rates and rapists get away with it *all the time*?”
Comment by delphyne — May 18, 2006 @ 1:59 pm
Delphyne
Ok, Short and sweet then (My apologies for trying to provide as full a response as possible!)
“Porn requires the degradation and humiliation and sexual use of real human females for men’s sexual pleasure”. Point accepted, but the other examples mentioned support the perpetuation of the views and inequality that allow porn to exist and flourish, which I do see as part of the same issue and similarly unacceptable on that basis.
I appreciate your view is probably ‘you have to start somewhere’, and agree. I just think you’re starting from the wrong place. I don’t have any personal experience obviously, but I suspect and would argue the impact of the ‘other examples’ on women’s lives is more prevalent than that of porn, and worringly regarded, by the general public and even by feminists such as yourself as more acceptable and less damaging.
If you aren’t interested in reading ’sexist’ (merely your own view) theories, even where these are genuinely sexist, you can have no real idea of what you’re arguing against. I’m not suggesting that you’re being offesive only to men, but being offensive to and consequently undermining any considered view, from any perspective, on these issues.
Your replies suggest you have little comprehension of what you’re actually arguing about, due to your admitted and wilful ignorance of views which do not support your own view. Its pretty easy to argue a point if, when confronted by any counter-view, you basically say ‘”BlahdeBlah” I’m not listening’. It’s also childish and unproductive.
Finally, your ‘how would I feel’ question. You’re right, I have been avoiding this as this is a question which I do not feel qualified to answer. However, I would hope, although painful, I would be courageous enough to try to use my experience for the benefit of others – as did Marchiano herself, and as others have in relation to seperate issues, such as the parents of Damilola Taylor, for example. By suggesting this has no value, you insult not only them, but all activists, even yourself – you just don’t seem to realise this.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 18, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
You keep trying to say I’m insulting different people, now I’ve managed to insult Damilola Taylor’s parents and Linda Marchiano (without even trying!). You really are very manipulative. Is this what you are like to your girlfriend? I bet she hates you.
I didn’t ask if you would “use your expirience” you sanctimonious twit (although Linda Marciano tried very hard to sue the pornographers who hurt her in order that Deep Throat wouldn’t be shown again) I asked you HOW YOU WOULD FEEL. You know feelings – like humiliation, powerlessness, anger, degradation. That’s how women every day feel about what has been done to them and to other women in porn. When men are made to feel this way someone usually gets outraged but when it happens to women it’s just more shit we have to put with in order that men’s “free speech” should not be allowed to suffer.
I’m not interested in your theories because they are bollocks. You argue that porn has no direct effect – I show you it does and instead of taking that on board you go on some other tedious riff about Lacan or whatever. Those theories are worthless if they don’t actually reflect the real world or what women experience.
“Your replies suggest you have little comprehension of what you’re actually arguing about, due to your admitted and wilful ignorance of views which do not support your own view.”
Actually this would be more true of you. Come back when you’ve actually done the reading I suggested. Until then shut up.
Comment by delphyne — May 18, 2006 @ 3:18 pm
Delphyne
Firstly, I may have got a bit overheated back there and made some ill advised comments.I appreciate this is an issue you obviously feel very strongly about and didn’t mean to disparage that. So, I apologise for any offence caused.
I have read the feminist authors to which you refer, and quite a few more besides. Even in regard of the very reference points you yourself have suggested, however, you seem to have missed a few details.
So lets start with Russell, and the issue of ‘all my other examples’ and the way in which my “comparison doesn’t work” shall we?:
Russell – QUOTE
“Femicide is on the extreme end of a continuum of anti-female terror that includes….cosmetic surgery, and other mutilations in the name of beautification.” Caputi and Russell, 1992. P. 15.
(Tell me if I’m wrong, but I beleive I mentioned ‘points along a continuum’ up there somewhere.)
On whether pornography causes rape, or if pornography itself is a symptom of a wider social issue:
Dworkin – QUOTE
“Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women.” (Right-Wing Women. “The Coming Gynocide.” 1983.)
(My comment on the causing of sexual abuse by pornograhy, “I suggest that this is a result of pre-existing socially and culturally constructed views regarding ‘the place’ of women in society and the subordination of women.”)
On fictional forms of media, and culture itself, contributing strongly to womens subjugation:
Daly
“Authors Mary Daly and Emily Culpepper expand the intellectual concepts of “rapism,” and help to expose the overwhelming support for rapist behavior in our culture. Nowhere is the relationship between rape and our culture’s sexual fantasy better illustrated than in “Rape Culture’s” examination of popular films and media.” (Review of ‘Rape Culture’ 1975)
On how stronger social and cultural issues than media need to be addressed as a priority:
Daly
“Daly’s main focus is to explore the symbolism of womenhood created by the theology and ethics of religion. She particularily focuses on Christianity and its impacts on a women’s place in a sexist society. Daly feels that women urgently need to express their refusal of a male-dominated culture and fight the causes that led to this culture.”
(Review of “Beyond God The Father:Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation. Boston: Beacon Press, 1973.)
Could go on (and on) but I know you don’t like long replies, and I think I’ve made my point.
With regard to how ny theories are ‘bollocks’, firstly, as much as I’d like to claim credit they’re not my theories, but the theories of respected academics based on thorough research.
Secondly, its all very well to state that they are ‘bollocks’, but a vaguely coherent argument as to why might be helpful. To draw your attention to Laurelin’s own website rules
“If you wish to disagree with me, there are polite and respectful ways to do it. I suggest ‘Laurelin, I do not agree with you about X because of Reason Y’. Saying ‘you are delusional/ WRONG/ hate-filled/ stupid/ evil’ just won’t cut it.”
But then maybe this only counts from side of the argument.
In respect of your argument that pornography itself is, in general, a sole cause of rape – (bearing in mind that I’ve agreed this may be the case in a small percentage isolated instances, and aside from Dworkin’s own assertion above to the contrary) – yes, you’ve said it. Yes, I’ve heard it. Proof?, evidence?, research? studies? Saying it doesn’t necessarily make it so.
Also, if you weren’t so averse to any challenge to your own views, I’d suggest you may want to take a look at studies by Goldstein et al (1974) (but then, despite being a respected sociologist, he’s probably just another, how did you put it,’another man obsessed by his penis’.)
Yes, before you mention, I know there are also studies which show porn has an effect on sex crime statistics, but I believe this proves that social context is as, if not more, important than the text itself.
You see, I am willing to research take into account different and opposite views, weigh all views of an issue, and make up my own decision based on knowledge of both sides of the arguement. I don’t only consider views that are comfortably in line with my own and hence don’t present a challenge.
Call me stupid but I just think thats the best way to come up with a valid perspective and arguement. You might try it by checking the sites below (all women, all feminists – no ‘men obsessed with penises’ here).
http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/facfaq.htm
http://www.slais.ubc.ca/courses/libr500/fall1999/www_presentations/c_hogg/argue2.htm
As it turns out I’m kind of in the middle – I’m anti-pornography but also anti-censorship, for reasons given. Whilst you may think its bollocks, I’ve at least gone to the trouble of sorting my beliefs out for myself and having valid arguements to support them, and gone to the trouble of addressing peoples challenges to them conscientiously, rather than following a highly selective body of critics writing from only one view (and even ignoring their thoughts when I don’t happen to agree).
Oh and by the way, seeing as you feel free to comment on behalf of all women on “women’s experiences of what porn is and how it affects their lives”, “how women every day feel about what has been done to them and to other women in porn” and so on you may also wish to bear in mind the following, again Dworkin:
“feminists propose that women are not their sex; nor their sex plus some other little thing—a liberal additive of personality, for instance; but that each life—including each woman’s life—must be a person’s own, not predetermined before her birth by totalitarian ideas about her nature and her function, not subject to guardianship by some more powerful class, not determined in the aggregate but worked out by herself, for herself.” (Right-Wing Women. “The Coming Gynocide.” 1983.)
Thats it. I really have finished now. Rest assured I will shut up, go away and read more (its kind of my hobby and profession so no danger there), including views with which I don’t necessarily agree (I’m just kinda weird and objective like that). In regard of the above, I suspect that if you want to accurately represent the views of the feminists you claim to support, you should do the same.
Comment by Ian Moore — May 19, 2006 @ 1:15 am
You’re an idiot, Ian. I’ve never argued that pornography is a sole cause of rape. You’ve created that little straw man in your mind because you can’t actually counter any of the arguments I’ve made. I said pornography leads men to be abusive to women and I’ll stand by that. There are many accounts of women, like I said, whose partners have seen porn and then got ideas about what they would like to do with the woman nearest to them. The rise in popularity of anal sex is another example of this.
“Secondly, its all very well to state that they are ‘bollocks’, but a vaguely coherent argument as to why might be helpful.”
I’ve made a “vaguely coherent” argument. I said all this in response to your assertion that pornography has no “direct effect”- firstly that women report that porn does indeed have an effect when their partners watch it, in terms of sexual abuse, secondly that the erections and masturbation that accompany watching pornography are about as direct an effect as you can get, thirdly that mass media does indeed affect behaviour, as we see in the case of advertising.
You haven’t countered any of those facts. You don’t have a case. You only have long-winded (worthless) “theories” to drop in, as if the mere mention of Lacan, Barthes or whoever could trump the real experiences of real women.
As for being polite to you – I’m not going to be polite to a man who calls a woman raped by a dog, “easily led”. If someone threatens to kill you and beats you into senslessness you’ll probably have sex with that dog too, Ian. It’s called fear and the survival instinct, but you’re too tied up in your high sense of yourself to actually feel any empathy for someone who has been through that. I’m quite embarassed for you, actually.
Also, for all your bullshit about censorship, I’ve not actually stated my position on that. I’m actually in favour of a civil-rights approach to pornography which would allow people who had been harmed by porn to sue pornographers. I’m also in favour of prosecution for people who pay other people to have sex (i.e. pimps and johns) which would have a direct effect on prostitution and as a side effect, make producing commercial pornography illegal.
Not wanting Telewest to show Deep Throat isn’t censorship, unless you think that the fact that the BBC, or ITV or Channel 4 showing Deep Throat every night of the year is also censorship. Your whole argument was crappy from beginning to end.
As for your quoting Dworkin back at me as if what she says undermines any of my arguments, it appears you may have read her (doubtful) but not understood her.
Comment by delphyne — May 19, 2006 @ 9:15 am
“and objective like that”
BTW, don’t kid yourself that you’re objective. You’re just another man using rationalisations to justify shitty treatment of women. The fact you do in a pseudo-academic way doesn’t detract from it one tiny bit.
Comment by delphyne — May 19, 2006 @ 9:36 am
“the erections and masturbation that accompany watching pornography are about as direct an effect as you can get”
Don’t you think you might have gotten this a little backward? I personally have NEVER heard anyone suggest that people watch porn for the witty dialogue, intelligent plot, and quality acting and then, oh no, find themselves unexpectedly caused to masturbate.
Don’t viewers (men) watch porn purely for the purpose of sexual gratification, and approach it with this ‘use’ in mind, and doesn’t this exactly fit the ‘uses and gratifications’ model suggested by Ian?
Also, hasn’t he already answered your point about advertising? For which you haven’t offered any counter-argument AT ALL. Didn’t you get it the first time around?
Secondly, unless I’ve misread, Ian didn’t personally say Marchiano was ‘easily led’, but said that many critics have suggested this (difference between 1st and 3rd person anyone?)
Three, you’re right, now wanting Telewest to show Deepthroat isn’t censorship; it’s a personal point of view.
Trying to stop any distributor from showing anything, IS, by definition, censorship – (Definition 1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security.)
What else did you think it was, exactly?
Lastly, can you actually mention ANY point where Ian has even tried “to justify shitty treatment of women”, has said at any point ‘I think the treatment of women in porn (or anywhere else) is ok because…..
Actually, his view seems to be exactly opposite to this!
Do you actually understand ANY of your own arguments, never mind anyone else’s?
Comment by Jacob Steele — May 19, 2006 @ 12:58 pm
Oh my god another porn-lovin’ asshole.
How many of you are there?
Comment by delphyne — May 19, 2006 @ 2:34 pm
My name is Danny, I am 24 year old, and doing research on wordpress. I would like to show my stuff I have been here. Is that ok? I like your blog.
Comment by bbfhj — September 23, 2006 @ 11:57 am