Sorry, radfems, it really isn't...

A piece by someone calling herself "factcheckme" claims that "All porn is rape, all the time". When Ren made a simple rebuttal of the conclusions (well worth reading in its own right) I thought, "ho, hum - same-old-same-old, not getting involved with all that AGAIN for the umpteenth time, cos, like, I have better things to do with my time and energy" (e.g. I still have posts to do about communism, and about the Bible, and about fun things). Besides, Ren did a pretty good job on her own (as I said, well worth reading!). But then Renee @ Womanist Musings allowed factcheckme to put the same article as a guest post over there and since I really respect Renee, I could not really ignore the proddings at the back of my mind any longer. Now, I should point out here that Renee added an editor's note at the end that explains that she does not agree with all the points that FCM made (and flagging up that the focus on het porn is Not Cool), and that her aim is to provoke discussion (which, I guess, she has since I've been provoked to post about it!) so none of this is criticising Renee, whom (as I said) I respect.

So anyway, on with the dissection of FCM's "logic" and "objective analysis" of all things porn:

When analyzing the consent “problem,” straight-away, porn-consent and real-life consent are at odds. firstly, and problematically, in porn, consent is a non-issue. If its considered at all, its presumed. for the porn-consumer, the question of consent never even comes up: a woman’s very presence on film acts as her consent as far as he's concerned. But in real life, a woman’s mere voluntary presence does not equal her consent to anything except being there. And for the male porn-performer, the contractual nature of the transaction–and the industry–acts as the woman’s consent to whatever comes next. Except that, it doesn't.

Premise 1: "For the porn consumer, the question of consent never comes up: a woman's very presence on film acts as her consent as far as he's concerned".

There is one monumental flaw to this statement, and I'll give you a few moments to see if you can work out what it is.

...

No?

The flaw is this: a man (or woman, for that matter) watching porn is not engaged in any kind of sexual act with any of the performers on the screen. In that sense, consent really is a non-issue, because there is no interaction between the two. Alright, I know some weirdos believe that they actually know personally the characters in their favourite soap operas and the like, but seriously - you're saying what? That the porn performer must consent to have sex with the person watching the porn?

"And for the male porn-performer, the contractual nature of the transaction–and the industry–acts as the woman’s consent to whatever comes next."

The problem with this passage is the phrase "whatever comes next". Such a beautiful way to imply that the performer herself (or himself) has no idea what's going to happen! But of course, there is no "whatever comes next", there is a "negotiated scene carefully planned out by a director, a producer, a cameraman and the performers themselves".

Although porn presents the opposite picture, just because a woman initially says “yes” does not mean you get to do whatever the fuck you want to her. The “free-for-all” nature of even mainstream porn is especially problematic, when it escalates, always, to include acts that most people would not willingly participate in, such as gang-bangs, and “rage-in-the-cage” styled death-matches where the woman is presented as being “versus” the man.

Actually, I don't think porn does present a picture whereby "[if] a woman initially says “yes”, [it] mean[s] you get to do whatever the fuck you want to her." And the reason is because what a man sees on the screen when he watches most porn is a situation in which (to use FCM's words from later in the piece) "communications ... take the form either verbal cues (“yes”) or are evidenced by the woman’s enthusiastic engagement with her partner". What most mainstream porn looks like that I've seen is a woman getting as much or more pleasure from fucking as her male partner. And that goes even when it leads to the gangbang, rage-in-the-cage stuff. One might suggest that the fact that "most people would not willingly participate in" such things is precisely why watching women (or men) who do willingly participate in them is such a draw?

Because porn is not sex education, one never sees in porn what happens when one partner says "no" to something because that's not what porn is there for. It's like asking a James Bond film to have long, moving scenes where the families of the bad guys mourn at the graveside. You have different types of movie for that. I think, honestly, having highly explicit sex ed movies where halfway through fucking, the woman goes "sorry, I'm not happy with this", and they stop (it would, of course, also promote safer sex practices). But porn is not supposed to be that movie and should not be judged as if it is.

So, what a guy sees is a woman saying "yes", and continuing to say "yes", until at some point she's saying, "Oh yes, yes, God, YES!!!" (He usually comes a bit later, and goes "gnh hngh grunt!") You might not like that porn doesn't show any other result of negotiation and re-negotiation, but as I said that's not what porn is for. But it definitely DOES show to the viewer at home "constant negotiation and re-negotiation".

Both ethically and legally, without a constant negotiation and re-negotiation of consent, there is no consent. This renegotiation occurs when each party, always, has the option of ending, altering, or decelerating the action, at any time. Consent, by definition, is a living, breathing, thing, and cannot be given prospectively.

As a practitioner of consensual BDSM, I agree. But you know, we have ways and means of doing it so that even though "no" might not mean "no", "RED" can mean "no", and "amber" might mean "slow down" (i.e. "decelerate the action"). Altering what happens is also possible because two people in intimate bodily contact with one another often are aware of what's working and what's not.

the constant renegotiation required in consensual sexual encounters simply doesn't occur when deals are struck, and contracts are signed beforehand.

As a practitioner of BDSM, I have to call BS. In BDSM, these contracts and deals appear in the form of lists of hard-limits, soft-limits, definitely enjoy and so on; sometimes we even have (not legally enforceable) "slave contracts" and suchlike. Sexual sessions, and even whole lifestyle choices, can be and are negotiated in advance, just like a "deal" or "contract". But implicit (or sometimes explicit) in those contracts and deals is the ability to withdraw consent to the contracted session or lifestyle. As noted above, the use of safewords (or safe signals, where verbal communication is impossible) is one very effective way of communicating consent or lack of. In comments on her own thread, FCM says, "i would love to see a legal challenge, not for a breach of contract, but a rape charge in any of these instances where someone claims to have received prospective consent, and thats the extent of the consent given, and see how far that piece of paper gets them in a criminal court." Obviously, not very far, we may imagine. So consent or not to the contract may be re-negotiated and withdrawn, and that is implicit in contract law (since otherwise it would be an "immoral contract" and not enforceable).

[Therefore] consent does not occur, in porn. therefore, porn is rape.

As demonstrated, this conclusion is unsupported by the premises presented, but instead can be shown to be false. Consent can be, and is, constantly communicated throughout a porn shoot, and therefore conforms even with the stringent definition of consent that FCM uses (a definition to which I agree, see above re: BDSM practice).

Furthermore, if the male performer is legitimately to know whether a certain sex act is wanted, that understanding can only occur through constant communication with his partner. In real life, these communications are spontaneous, and can take the form either verbal cues (“yes”) or are evidenced by the woman’s enthusiastic engagement with her partner. but in porn, the woman is acting. That is, her communications to him are inauthentic. He should know better than to engage in this act, then, if he doesn't know whether its wanted, or not. is he no longer legally or morally culpable for rape, just because he is getting paid to do it? In real life, you have to be sure its wanted. In porn, what, you don't? or, it doesn't matter? Bullshit.

In porn, you know it's wanted because the moment it's not wanted there are signals, safewords, etc. in place by which consent can be withdrawn. There will be clear standards by which signals can be made, by which porn companies determine whether or not it even looks consensual enough (e.g. Kink.com will not continue filming if a performer starts to cry, even if she promises she is happy and able to continue). Get this: consent matters in making porn. In legally-produced porn (that is, produced in countries or US States where porn making is legal) it is easier and safer and all the rest of it to make porn with real checks that consent continues to matter. Consnet matters in porn. Continuous consent matters in making porn, and therefore the ability to communicate withdrawal of consent matters in making porn.

Take a step back, and consider: do you believe that stuntmen in movies (often risking their lives if something goes wrong) have the ability to withdraw consent at any moment if they are unhappy with it? Even if they signed a contract to say they would perform that particular stunt? Of course they do. And they have signals and all the rest of it, because very often verbal communication is not possible. Why is it so hard to believe that porn is different, unless it's because you believe that wherever sex is involved, men automatically become teh ev0l?

What we have in porn, then, on both sides of the screen, are men who don't give a shit whether the sex acts being performed on a woman are wanted. We have “consent” that was given prospectively, which means quite literally that it wasn't given at all.

No, we don't. As demonstrated by my dissection of the arguments above.

In other words, we have rapists raping women, and men watching episodes of rape, thousands in a lifetime, but convincing themselves each time that they are watching ”sex.” Somehow, consent has been entirely removed from the equation

Again, no we don't, and no it hasn't. The only people trying to remove consent from the equation (last time I looked, anyway) were the radfems.

The other problem is in bringing porn-behaviours and porn-mentalities and porn-desires into your real life, and most of us acknowledge that men (including men who are advertisers…and fashion designers….and law enforcement) tend to do exactly that. But porn-consumers appropriating rape-mentalities and behaviours are not the only problem with porn. Men who watch porn are indulging rape-fantasies, and can become rapists if they bring these behaviours into the bedroom.

I don't acknowledge the premise. But inasmuch as it is true that some men tend to, then we can take a quick look at the normal ways in which this is done. It's done most often by discussing things with a partner, talking about fantasies, and things you'd like to try. And then the partner either says "okay, we'll give it a go" or else "yuck, I don't fancy that!" Oh, look, it's that whole negotiation thing again!

As for "Men who watch porn are indulging rape-fantasies, and can become rapists if they bring these behaviours into the bedroom" - well, regular readers will know of the infamous post on "And You Thought I Was Sweet" and will know that I have a certain rather unusual and darkly influenced perspective on that particular statement. Suffice to say that I don't believe "factcheckme" has any facts to back this up.

That said, I will make one concession on this point. In one way bringing porn-behaviour into the bedroom can lead to rape, and that's when there isn't negotiation beforehand of "I'd like to try this". It's true: porn generally does not show what it takes to have sex like they do in porn. Porn isn't intended as sex education. So there are problems with the way that porn gets used in society and the way that some people can perceive it as a result. The answer, however, isn't to blame porn for that but rather to blame the fact that (again, to quote FCM herself) "at the same time we live in a porn- and rape-culture, we also live in a puritanical and slut-shaming one." Because that fact means that we don't have proper sex education that teaches how to have consensual sex (with the whole philosophy of "constant negotiation and re-negotiation of consent. this renegotiation occurs when each party, always, has the option of ending, altering, or decelerating the action, at any time. consent, by definition, is a living, breathing, thing"). If anyone were to suggest openly in political debate (as I suggest openly on this blog every so often) that young teenagers be taught about porn and how it's made, and why it is absolutely NOT how to have sex properly, then they would be shot down from all sides. But that's what would answer the problems of porn.

radfems will end up endlessly having to explain ourselves, in the face of self-proclaimed liberal men and the fun-fems who want need their acceptance.

LMFAO

Sorry, honeybean, but really your acceptance or otherwise is of absolutely no importance to me at all (then again, not a "liberal" anything, so maybe that's not about me). To the people whose blogs I read regularly, I imagine the interest in your "acceptance" is equally low. Your relevance is much less than you think.