Also composited into this already persuasive mix are the cunning and manipulative bodies of thought posed by the moral-absolutist who is conveniently packaged in God-endowed organized religion. These folk are obsessed with male sexuality, the nebulous ‘slippery slope’, and social control mechanisms.

And to top it off we have the inclusion of highly-educated, passive-aggressive and internally-seething females who are male-intolerant and female-centric.

Most men and women who utilize porn responsibly feel little impetus to go out into a world seemingly packed with pathology and encourage other adults to access the various forms of adult entertainment for the occasional temporal pleasure.

Unfortunately, this lack of sharing by the moderate crowd creates a tremendous disparity concerning adult vice:

On one hand we have the porn-producers who will state exactly what is expected, which lends zero credence to the support of adult entertainment. On the other hand, we have a concerted and emotionally-charged anti-porn cartel so ridden with extremity (some of it understandable) that the intelligent man or woman views them with a practical distaste.

Many folk should avoid interacting with adult entertainment and many folk should NEVER own a gun, start a business, drive a car, drink or bear children.

If we allow those who are predisposed to addiction or grapple with deep-seated psychological issues to determine adult behavior across the ‘entire collective’ we will slide slowly back into reliance on social repression schemes that impose a ready dictatorship on personal responsibilty and independence.

**I don’t disrespect those who’ve suffered with porn addiction.
**I don’t disrespect those who desire to improve the lives of woman.
**I don’t disrespect religious abhorrence of the base pleasures.

I DO avidly disrespect and reject the propensity of these groups to dispense their ‘wisdom’ without little, if any, acknowledgement or respect for those that do, indeed, engage happily, comfortably and responsibly with various forms of adult entertainment.

There are too many of us out here that actually have a working brain in our heads and are perfectly capable of making decisions relating to our sexuality without the pointless disctraction of projected guilt and fear from the anti-porn cabal.

These discussions need more balance. Hopefully this will improve over time.

The film did show at Fuller.

Jensen showed to defend it.

About ten people also showed up, the majority of them from the porn community.

In the Q&A afterwards, no minds were changed.

The producers, who might actually have been called to account for their underhanded tactics in making this odious thing, did not show.

Do not bite at the bait of pleasure till you know there is no hook beneath it.
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

When Bonnie Sher Klein made a film about pornography, she titled it “Not a Love Story“. Klein allowed us to hear the voices of sex workers loud and clear, whether they agreed with her, or came to agree with her, or not. And Klein’s work quite possibly had a genuinely liberating effect on her subjects. From what Ren and Amber write here, it does not seem that “The Price of Pleasure” will have a similar effect, and why should anyone expect it to? If you define pleasure as the problem, you can hardly escape the fear that some of the performers may enjoy what the film makers ask of them. And if pleasure constitutes the gravamen of the offense, than how can we avoid judging the performers?

“-Is it okay to use women for a purpose or ends with which they do not agree?

“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes”

But they did not use the words of active female performers. Fewer than seven minutes of the film’s one hour running time are given to active performers speaking (and no this does not include ex-stripers who did a couple of solo webcam shoots before retiring to write their memoirs). No interview with a working performer, male or female, gets more than three minutes screen time, and there are exactly two of those – Joanna Angel and Annie Cruz. And they were interviewed for hours.

Their images, however, are used repeatedly,

Anti-porn “experts” drone on and on uninterrupted for long sequences of this movie, but women in porn: seven minutes.

I think it would have been just lovely if they had used these women’s words instead of visually presenting them as degraded victims and giving them no voice in the picture of any significance.

As I’m sure the producers found to their dismay, many of these women are intelligent, articulate and perfectly capable of explaining what they do, how and why.

But those voices are all but completely silenced in this movie because what they would say, and undoubtedly did say in their interviews, runs counter to the producers’ opinions.

As for the pestering v. reporting question, I have been a newspaper reporter and while reporters can certainly be annoying without violating basic journalistic ethics, it is never okay to lie about who you are and what you are interviewing someone for.

To claim, as these interviewers did, that you are making a documentary about porn that will “not show it in a bad light,” as several of those questioned were told, when you know full well that the end result will be a hatchet job, is unethical under any circumstances.

And how, exactly, does someone who admits to not having viewed this picture make a credible claim to having “seen no exploitation” in it?

Perhaps a better-informed opinion, such as those of virtually every one of its interview subjects who have seen it, might carry more weight.

First, thank you for answering. I appreciate it.

“No, and I’m not convinced that what has taken place here is actual exploitation”

Exploit:

–verb (used with object)
1. To utilize, esp. for profit; turn to practical account: to exploit a business opportunity.
2. To use selfishly for one’s own ends: employers who exploit their workers.
3. To advance or further through exploitation; promote: He exploited his new movie through a series of guest appearances.

I would argue that exploit is exactly the word to use here, especially definition two. The images in this film are used, selfishly I would argue, for anti-porn’s ends. I would say the same of the interviews (which lasted for hours, then were edited down to mere moments for choice effect.) of various people in pornography. Joanna Angel gave a lengthy interview to these people- in the final cut the only actual words of hers from the interview are pretty much “how can you turn a woman into an object” and “I think this can be feminist if it is their choice” (or something real similar) slipped amid some of her most shockingly rough porn footage and their version of her biography. Hours of footage of these folk cut down to a few select sound bites and mixed in with the roughest of their work (or work that isn’t even theirs) and certainly not representative of, as the film claims, the top grossing/rented porn films of 2005…and then passed off as a fair and honest film? I’d say that is pretty exploitive and selfish.

“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes. As I’ve stated before in this thread, this is the nature of the beast when it comes to making political arguments. You do this all the time yourself on your blog. You link to other women’s posts, quote them, and then say what -you- think that means. You don’t have to like it or agree with it. You are fully within your right to get infuriated. But legally and even ethically, all sides involved have a right to make their case. I detest MRAs. I quite sincerely believe that over half of those assholes are rapists, child molesters, batterers, or any combination of the three. I really wish that MRAs would just shut the fuck up and crawl back into the hole from which they came. That being said, MRAs have the right to make their case as disgusting as I find their case to be. “
Use their heavily edited words utterly out of context and their images without consent or notification? That’s a whole different beast. Yes, I do quote people…but I LINK THEM FOR CONTEXT so people can go and read everything they’ve actually said, and I have never, ever stopped anyone or deleted anyone from then speaking their peace on the matter and making clarifications. I’ve also apologized when I’ve fucked up on that. I am not saying these folks do not have a right to do this. I am saying it’s a sloppy hatchet job and this movie is in no way what it claims to be: Which is a fair and non judgmental look at the top selling/rented porn movies of 2005. I’m saying it is exploitive and unethical and not at all what it claims to be, and it’s not just me. Obviously.
“Misleading tactics? No. Pestering tactics? I say it depends on what exactly is being defined as pestering tactics. It’s my understanding that it’s quite “normal” for reporters, researchers, etc. to do basically whatever it takes to get their story. Is this acceptable? Again, I say it depends on exactly how far they go. As for dwindling down the interview, I would assume that they would only have a select time frame to air the interviews. Obviously they are going to choose the parts of the interview that best show what they intend to show. That’s the nature of the beast when doing a documentary. As long as they haven’t portrayed them as saying something that they didn’t actually say then I don’t see an actual problem.”

I’d say having to be thrown out of industry events because you are annoying / upsetting the people there so much that they are yelling/crying at you is a good sign of “pestering”. I’d say telling a performer you were working on a neutral film about porn and say you will let them have their say, when you yourself are legendarily anti porn is misleading. And sure, some reporters to that…paparazzi comes to mind. However, these are university academics complaining about how women are forced or coerced into porn quite often. I find the whole thing hypocritical in the extreme- as they have engaged in everything they accuse pornographers of, from yes, exploitation to lying to pestering to make their film. And sure, there are time constraints for any film, things end up on the cutting room floor- but is it fair or honest to see that everything that makes it is the shocking stuff that suits your real agenda? No, its not.

“No. The only reasonable excuse for such behavior I can see would be a fear that the people attending might cause a disruption.”

Right, and thus, moving it from USC, a location where many of the people in the film- those interviewed and those who had their images used without consent or notification could and might attend is quite telling. It is pretty evident some anti porn people do not like dissent or the people they use for their agenda getting to speak their peace or clarify their side of the story. Fair and honest, right? Ethical. As is implying, via moving the event, that these folk might be “disruptive” or whatnot…which I’ve seen that tactic used before, and worse, in order to keep ones point of view unchallenged and pass it off as truth free of dissent or question.

And I have to say, even as a person who only has BA degrees, for a group of academics with impressive university creds, this whole thing is sloppy school work and to me, seriously puts those academic creds in question. The true test of any academic work is its ability to withstand critique and remain, well, standing. It’s apparent to me now that TPoP cannot do that, in any way…it is not fair and honest, it is not a selection of the top selling/renting/most popular porn films of 2005*, it is not representative of the current trends in pornography, or in sexuality. The fact that the makers and supports of this film seem so hesitant to face any sort of thought out criticism of their “educational film” says a whole lot really, none of it very good, and not of it speaking too highly of their academic credibility.

If the makers and supporters of this film are so assured of its truth and necessity, why the fear of facing those who would challenge them…most specifically the people whose words (edited in the extreme for effect) and images (without consent, consultation, or notification) they’ve, why yes, used? Why fear the people in such a horrible industry speaking truly fully and unedited for themselves?

It’s grimly curious, amusing, and very, very telling, really.

And my attitude towards the whole thing, that there is sick double standard about exploitation and use and abuse and silencing for profit and gain and what not? Stronger than steel at the moment, and with good reason. These people are no “experts on pornography”, they are experts on anti-pornography spin.

And yep, I am entitled to that opinion. I find it a shame that other people cannot see that I’m right here…but then again, most folk who disagree with me? They don’t do porn and don’t see how people in porn are treated by this lot. That, I’m afraid, remains typical.

* Please see this for more information and thoughts on that: http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2008/09/price-of-pleasure-i-am-skeptical-of.html

Hugo, I really do want to respect your right to disagree and your willingness to engage. But on the topic of Jensen, I admit my patience is wearing VERY thin. Women – sex workers and non-sex workers – are saying Jensen does not speak for them; that he uses harassing techniques to try to strongarm them into giving him interviews/answers which he feels entitled to; he is dismissive of women who don’t sing the tune he wants them to sing; all around, he is DISTURBING and an example of some of the worst ways a man in feminist spaces can act. So, why the continued defense of him? I really want to know. And “he means well” or something like that will not cut it. It’s not enough to mean well – he has to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk.

He gives me the creeps and he most certainly does NOT speak for this woman.

I’ve responded to your questions. The response is currently in moderation.

Sorry, Ren, this is the first time I’ve been back to this thread since I made my last post.

Please keep in mind, I’m saying all of this without having seen TPOP. Without having seen TPOP, I’m hesitant to answer some of these questions. I don’t mind discussing the legal aspects of 2257 and fair use for TPOP or using pornographic material in general to make an anti-porn statement…But here ya’ go…

“Is it okay to exploit women?”
No, and I’m not convinced that what has taken place here is actual exploitation.

-Is it okay to exploit women without their consent?
See above.

-Is it okay to exploit women whom you know nothing about?
See above.

-Is it okay to use women for a purpose or ends with which they do not agree?

“use woman”, no. Use their words, yes. As I’ve stated before in this thread, this is the nature of the beast when it comes to making political arguments. You do this all the time yourself on your blog. You link to other women’s posts, quote them, and then say what -you- think that means. You don’t have to like it or agree with it. You are fully within your right to get infuriated. But legally and even ethically, all sides involved have a right to make their case. I detest MRAs. I quite sincerely believe that over half of those assholes are rapists, child molesters, batterers, or any combination of the three. I really wish that MRAs would just shut the fuck up and crawl back into the hole from which they came. That being said, MRAs have the right to make their case as disgusting as I find their case to be.

“-Is it morally okay to use misleading information and pestering tactics to get a woman (or man) to do an interview, then edit that interview down from a few hours to a few minutes, selecting only the most useful footage to your agenda, then go on using it when the person interviewed objects strongly to this final product, and even gets so upset about it they are shaking, shocked, and crying?”

Misleading tactics? No. Pestering tactics? I say it depends on what exactly is being defined as pestering tactics. It’s my understanding that it’s quite “normal” for reporters, researchers, etc. to do basically whatever it takes to get their story. Is this acceptable? Again, I say it depends on exactly how far they go. As for dwindling down the interview, I would assume that they would only have a select time frame to air the interviews. Obviously they are going to choose the parts of the interview that best show what they intend to show. That’s the nature of the beast when doing a documentary. As long as they haven’t portrayed them as saying something that they didn’t actually say then I don’t see an actual problem.

““-Is it okay to set up a screening of a film, then when you realize some of the people who you used in this flim who object to it and have legal questions for you plan on attending, to change the venue at the last moment?”

No. The only reasonable excuse for such behavior I can see would be a fear that the people attending might cause a disruption.