…tonight. I’ll be a call-in guest on a Canadian feminist program called “Broadly Speaking”. The show airs on CHRW, London, Ontario. You can listen live here. The show will also be audio-archived.
It should air between 4:30-5:00PM Pacific time, 7:30-8 Eastern.
I’l be talking about the Suicide Girls, alt. porn, and feminism. My original post on the subject somehow didn’t get transferred over from my old blog, so I’m reposting it here:
The Suicide Girls site (I won’t link to it, but you can figure it out yourself -it is not “work safe”) is the pioneer “alt-porn” center on the web. Begun in 2001, the idea of Suicide Girls was to provide women-friendly erotica with a counter-cultural sensibility. Many “Suicide Girls” were tattooed and pierced, relatively few had bodies that matched the surgically-enhanced proportions of women in mainstream porn. The “girls” had their own photos on the sites, and kept journals as well — often including cultural and political commentary that went far beyond what might be found in, say, Playboy. The attitude was one of a certain kind of youthful, feminist edginess.
It turns out that Suicide Girls is controlled by a man, Sean Suhl. Apparently, he’s accused of underpaying some of his models (the site now has over 800 young women on it); here’s an insider’s account (quite work safe and non-pornographic). He’s also tied Suicide Girls to Playboy (paying members of the latter’s site have access to the SG women); it would be nearly impossible to make the case that Playboy is advancing a feminist agenda!
I’ve made it clear that I am deeply troubled by pornography. The fact that I insist on making the unfashionable claim that visual erotica has a corrosive and destructive influence on society does not mean, however, that I can’t make distinctions! Different kinds of porn trouble me for different reasons. Obviously, pornography/erotica that emphasizes the humanity and the agency of the people depicted in it is preferable to porn that treats women or men as disposable objects. By the same token, porn that has a broader and more inclusive range of body types is, in some sense, less objectionable than porn that provides examples of only one unattainable ideal. But “less objectionable” is thin praise indeed, at least as far as I’m concerned.
On the other hand, one of the things that I find even more objectionable about sites like the Suicide Girls is that they’ve dressed up porn in the language of rebellion and female empowerment. In a sense, this is where I find the likes of Larry Flynt (publisher of Hustler) to be less offensive than men like Sean Suhl of Suicide Girls. Flynt doesn’t pretend he’s empowering his models; he embraces raunch with a bracingly candid enthusiasm that even his detractors often find to be — almost — winsome. Fellas like Suhl are out to make money off women’s bodies in much the same way Flynt is, but in Suhl’s case, greed seems hidden behind the rhetoric of edginess, alternative culture, and a rather shallow feminism. It’s hard to respect that. And if many of the women of Suicide Girls have caught on to what’s going on, then I can’t say I’m not pleased.
I’ve had three students in the past few years tell me, through journals in my women’s studies classes, that they were among the hundreds of Suicide Girls. (No, I didn’t verify their claims by visiting the site.) As I’ve written before, I’ve had a number of both current and former sex workers of one kind or another in my classes. Some have described their experiences as horrific; others as exciting and empowering; others as “just a job.” Of course, I’ve probably had far more than I know of, as it’s not the sort of thing everyone feels comfortable disclosing. I’m respectful of those whose experiences in the “industry” have been positive. There are few things more absurd than a pro-feminist man trying to convince an adult woman that she’s being exploited when she’s quite convinced she’s not! I won’t try and play that game.
But to be a feminist is about more than individual empowerment. Young women who defend certain niches of the porn industry as woman-friendly must be willing to ask hard questions about who really controls sites like the Suicide Girls. They also have to be willing to consider not just the impact on the individual models/performers, but on the broader culture. The fact that doing a shoot for Suicide Girls makes you feel empowered doesn’t mean that the audience masturbating to your pictures is going to recognize you as any more of a human being than if you had done a shoot for, say, Hustler! Authentic feminism asks us to consider how others might interpret our actions. Our good intentions are not enough. We have to be mindful of the broader context, of the repercussions, of everything we do. I’ve posted often on porn and accountability; the main archive is here, and recommend this post in particular. And though I recognize that many women turn to sex work out of financial necessity, others (like many of the Suicide Girls) seem to have a wider range of motives. I’m hopeful that the fallout from this latest controversy will cause at least some of them to think more deeply about porn and feminism.
This sounds an awful lot like victim-blaming. Women aren’t responsible for being dehumanized. Being naked and tattoed isn’t an invitation to be dehumanized. Working for SG isn’t an invitation to be dehumanized. Suicide Girls isn’t a beacon of feminist progress, but that doesn’t mean it’s irresponsible to show someone your clit piercing.
It’s not victim-blaming to ask those who pose to consider the feminist ramifications of what they do, and to consider the motives of those who pay to view their pictures.
It is very ironically nonfeminist to scold the models because some man may jack off to what they do, regardless of their intent. You really sound no different than cultural conservatives who insist women cover up to avoid tempting men.
There’s a colossal difference between posing nude on a website and wearing revealing clothing on the street, mythago — or at least, there is in my view. I may be mistaken, of course, but that’s the point I am going to make.
There’s a colossal difference between posing nude on a website and wearing revealing clothing on the street, mythago — or at least, there is in my view. I may be mistaken, of course, but that’s the point I am going to make.
I remain confident that you will eventually learn that people like Sara and “mythago” are not your friends or allies. Surely you must be noticing that the moment you deviate from the standard feminist viewpoint, they begin to twist your words into unreasonable interpretations and begin to quarrel with you.
Well, I’m not clear on what the feminist ramifications are. Why should a woman be held responsible for the bad behavior of men?
bravo hugo.
it is a shame that you ran out of time, because you were just getting to the very interesting political and economic roots of the whole problematic of pornography. i mean, isn’t porn just capitalism pushed to its logical conclusion? or at least it’s a wonderful metaphor for how capitalism works — reducing all people to their objective minimum productivity (whether that productivity is sexual or just how many toboggans i can produce in the toboggan factory).
was it hard for you to hear one of the cohosts?
Sara, SG is owned and run by men. Posing for money is different from walking down the street; it is a conscious choice to represent yourself as an object, and to do so for male gratification. If women are forced into doing this by financial necessity, that’s one thing — but claiming that feeding male masturbatory fantasy is somehow feminist (which SG does) doesn’t fly with me.
Tom, newsflash: feminists are not monolithic. Allies can disagree, and frequently do. And please note that blanket attacks on feminists are subject to deletion at any time.
Yes, I had a hard time hearing Jackie. Sorry if that came across on the radio. But it was a good discussion, Jeff, and I am glad you caught it. The archived show will be up soon, and I’ll have a link to it!
Tom, newsflash: feminists are not monolithic. Allies can disagree, and frequently do.
Once you get your life ripped to shreds in divorce court, you’ll change your tune. Trust me, dude: these people are not your allies.
And please note that blanket attacks on feminists are subject to deletion at any time.
Delete what you will. Your blog will be the worse for the reduced diversity in the opinions expressed here.
Posing for money is different from walking down the street; it is a conscious choice to represent yourself as an object, and to do so for male gratification.
So if a male-owned company makes porn for lesbians, that’s OK, even if men also buy the porn?
How about if I deliberately dress in a sexually provocative manner because I enjoy getting whistles and stares when I walk down the street–is that wrong because it’s for male gratification? Is it OK if I dress that way at the dyke bar?
Posing for money is, indeed, different, Hugo: it’s posing FOR MONEY. How nice that you never have to worry about money, and were never taught that your naked body has a price, so that you can happily scold women who pose nude to pay their tuition or to buy clothes for their kids.
Mythago, if you read through my posts about porn, my rage is directed entirely towards the industry that exploits the desperate and the vulnerable. I want to end the exploitation of women for money,and I want to do that by going after the “demand” side of the equation. I have tremendous compassion for the women who find themselves forced to turn to the sex industry to survive financially.
I missed the part of Hugo’s post where he was scolding the women themselves as opposed to the operator of the site.
I missed the part of Hugo’s post where he was scolding the women themselves as opposed to the operator of the site.
That’s probably because it isn’t there.
Mythago, if you read through my posts about porn, my rage is directed entirely towards the industry that exploits the desperate and the vulnerable.
Sorry, I’ve also missed something in the article – the bit where it says the women working as “Suicide Girls” had absolutely zero alternatives to earning an income – perhaps you could point this out to me Hugo.
Andrew, read my other posts on porn. See the sidebar.
I actually saw the Suicide Girls a few years ago, when they did a show in Northampton, Mass., where I was living at the time. I could pretend that I went out of political interest, but of course I didn’t. I went to see the naked women. I can’t say, for certain, why everyone else was there, but it seemed to me that it was for the same reason. It was a lot of liberal hipster types (like me) who probably would have been embarrassed to go to a strip club but felt okay going to a rock club to see a “burlesque†show.
Honestly, I found the whole thing annoying. It seemed phony, all the way down. The audience wanted porn without the guilt and the sleazy atmosphere, and the Suicide Girls wanted to make money from stripping (which is fine as far as I’m concerned, as long as they’re not being mis-treated), but they also wanted to use all the artsy/edgy/feminist/retro trappings to distance themselves, conceptually, from the sex industry.
I don’t have a problem, in the abstract, with stripping, but I didn’t like the hypocrisy. It just seemed like a money-making scheme posing as a feminist performance. If they donated the proceeds to feminist organizations, I’d change my mind, but as far as I know they haven’t.
Also, just for the record, the Suicide Girls may not look like the Barbie Doll-types who fill the pages of Playboy, but the ones I saw were exceptionally hot, and they weren’t taking any risks by avoiding male fantasies — they were just catering to somewhat more sophisticated, or upper class, male fantasies. It was just the punk girl rather than the girl next door. It was all done for the male gaze, though.
It is sad that people have little or no hope and have to resort to the sex trade to support themselves.
How can someone present themself as an object? We are all objects in space, but we’re obviously a lot more than that. Objectification is tossing aside the inherent humanity of a person – in the case of porn (often, even usually) it is something that a man does to a woman. What “broader context” and “repercussions” does a feminist have a responsibility to explore for taking her shirt off? I readily agree that Suicide Girls is not blazing any significant feminist trails – though I do think the existence of alt-porn and other porn that is sold as female-friendly (even when the reality of its production may not be especially so) demonstrates that there’s an audience for such a thing. This just strikes me as an echo of the argument that one woman’s capitulation to patriarchy is keeping all the rest down, all leaning heavily on doubtful assumptions of male lust being inherently demeaning. So what if porn is produced to please men? What’s wrong with pleasing men?
Hugo, I looked at some of your other porn articles on the side bar (actually I read a couple before).
They didn’t tell me that the Suicide Girls had absolutely no alternative means to support themselves.
So is it true: do these women have absolutely no alternative way to earn money? Have they been banned from working in a factory, or an office?
I don’t get it. Seems like these women have made a choice, but Hugo is saying they had no choice.
Darn – this thing about being responsible for your actions raises its head in almost every thread.
Andrew, you’re trolling.
That may be your intrepretation Hugo, but it is a genuine question I ask. I’m sorry if you think it isn’t genuine, but it really is. It would seem that that these women have no choice about their employment, and must work as strippers. This is the strong impression that’s being given here. If they had a choice, and the work was so unappealing to them and so degrading, surely they would exercise that choice and gain employment with more agreeable conditions?
Is it that this question simply cannot be answered?
Andrew, do you have any idea what the mammoth pay discrepancy is between sex work and, say, retail? If you’ve got kids to support, student loans to pay? There is no other field where young women can make so much so fast; to say to a 19 year-old, “Why don’t you work at Wal-Mart?” isn’t helpful, when she can make more in a day in porn than she can in two months at Wal-Mart.
Hugo, whatever your other posts say, you did above just say that you’d admonish the Suicide Girls. Compassionately, of course. And I’m still waiting to hear what you have to say about porn made by or for women.
Exploitation in the porn industry is just like in any other industry where the workers are ‘unskilled’–i.e. there’s a large labor pool and you don’t need a degree or special credentials to enter. There’s also the fact that the consumers of the porn don’t, as a group, seem to give a shit how the workers are treated or how much of the money flows to the workers vs. the person at the top. Add to that those consumers of porn who think that sex workers are actually deserving of abuse or ill-treatment.
In addition to the money, I’d note that the poor working conditions in the retail industry aren’t so attractive either.
I’m writing just such a post now, and hope to have it up later today.
Hugo said: “Mythago, if you read through my posts about porn, my rage is directed entirely towards the industry that exploits the desperate and the vulnerable. I want to end the exploitation of women for money,and I want to do that by going after the “demand†side of the equation. I have tremendous compassion for the women who find themselves forced to turn to the sex industry to survive financially.”
What about the fact that the industry exploits men as well? Where’s your rage for that aspect? I’ll tell you: Conspicuously missing.
Further, when you talk about “going after the “demand†side of the equation” you’re no better than Nancy Reagan and the other right-wingers who base their so-called ‘war on drugs’ on taking out the demand-side of the equation. You know: “Just say no.” The same thing was tried with the failed experiment known as Prohibition, with the same results. My guess is – and I’ll bet I’m right here – is that you’re against the so-called ‘war on drugs’ because it doesn’t work and it targets the vulnerable persons, i.e., the people who are addicted to drugs. You’ve discussed your addiction to porn before, so IMO the comparison is apt, however, you still insist on going after ‘the demand side’ of porn IMO because it holds men responsible and lets women off the hook. And therefore IMO your take on this purely and nothing more than sexist, specifically misandrist.
You know, when people insist on doing the same thing time and time again, even when it’s proven to be futile, they’re usually considered at least somewhat mentally-unstable. Think about it.
Uh, I am not in favor of criminalizing porn. (And where did I say I was “addicted” to porn? Addiction is a strong word. As one who was addicted to alcohol, I don’t like to use the term “addiction” lightly, even though in casual speech I will joke about being “addicted” to everything from diet soda to exercise to reruns of Law and Order SVU. I certainly used porn, found it compelling, and grieve what I allowed it to become in my life.)
I am in favor of working to change hearts and minds, with both drugs and pornography. (Look at how well we’ve done reducing smoking, without criminalizing it — yet.) I am in favor of confronting and challenging all of those involved in porn, but I do draw a distinction between the manufacturer of the product (usually male, like Sean Suhl or Hugh Hefner), the consumer of the product (usually male), and the performer or laborer who IS the product (usually female). There’s a different level of culpability for each, and the person with the fewest economic resources is invariably the least culpable. More often than not, that’s the woman.
to say to a 19 year-old, “Why don’t you work at Wal-Mart?†isn’t helpful, when she can make more in a day in porn than she can in two months at Wal-Mart.
To be fair to Andrew, he did not mention Wal-Mart, so it’s misleading to drag in a rather extreme example of low pay in the retail job market. There is a lot more to retail than Wal-Mart and many other opportunities that pay better than working at Wal-Mart.
So Hugo, what you’re saying is that the consumer is ultimately the most culpable in these situations. Therefore you no doubt hold the smoker primarily culpable for the outcomes, e.g., lung cancer, due to their smoking addictions (vs. the tobacco companies), the women who received breast implants for their disease (vs. Dow-Corning), etc. It sure would be nice if you were consistent, but alas, I believe that only in the case of porn to you hold the consumer to the highest level of culpability, and IMO it is because the majority of them are men. Thus, IMO you’re being shamelessly sexist here.
Also, you said: “There’s a different level of culpability for each, and the person with the fewest economic resources is invariably the least culpable. More often than not, that’s the woman.” I don’t believe you on this score; in fact, most porn ‘stars’ make a tremendous amount of money and I suspect that most consumers of porn are mostly middle class. Me thinks you pulled this out of thin air in order to bolster your argument, but I’m not buying it.
There is a lot more to retail than Wal-Mart and many other opportunities that pay better than working at Wal-Mart.
Name one legally available to an unskilled nineteen year old, one that pays anything like what porn pays.
Hugo,
I’m not following your argument here. You seem to think it a major revelation that SG is run by (gasp) a man. Is that really relevant? Does the fact that he is a man automatically invalidate the 3rd Wave feminist agenda of SG?
I was disappointed to read the post you linked to about SG. But still, I think learning that Suhl is a captialist pig (like most businessmen) in no way invalidates the ideology of SG/neo burlesque. SG is an attempt to reconcile porn with feminism, something that is vital for the future of feminism. Porn will always be with us, the question is, what form will it take.
Pingback: Change and disclaimers at Hugo Schwyzer