XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (2 page)

4. A sense of how pornography benefits women and is essential to the health of feminism.

This book fills the gap.

It argues from the perspective of a much-neglected tradition within the movement: individualist feminism. Since the nineteenth century, this rich tradition has argued for women's rights on the basis of self-ownership: that is, it is a woman's body, it is a woman's right. Individualist feminism consistently applies this principle to all issues affecting women, including sexual ones.

6

Radical feminists argue that women all have the same collective interest, and only one sexually proper choice. Individualist feminists celebrate the diverse sexuality of individual women.

This book provides pornography with an ideology. It gives back to women what antiporn feminism has taken away: the right to pursue their own sexuality without shame or apology, without guilt or censure.

Chapter One introduces the reader to the real world of pornography. Most of the accusations leveled at this industry are empirical. For example, the claim that women are coerced into performing in front of the camera. Since the only way to check out an empirical claim is to do research in the real world, I investigated the porn industry "up close." I talked directly to the men and women who
are
the industry.

In doing so, I adopted the strategy of dealing specifically with hardcore porn-the XXX variety.

If the women who made bondage videos were not mistreated, then the women involved in soft-core productions were not likely to be victims of violence either.

Chapter Two asks: What is pornography? How can pornography be defined? And, without such a definition, how can we pass laws-or even judgments-regarding this issue?

Chapter Three presents an historical perspective on pornography, and is divided into two sections. The first section provides insight into how antipornography legislation in the nineteenth century damaged the women's rights movement. This is especially true in the area of birth control. The second section examines the rise and fall of modern feminism. It argues that radical feminism is destroying the principle "A woman's body, a woman's choice." It is also killing the joy in women's sexuality.

Chapter Four assaults the ideology of antiporn feminism. It strips away the rhetoric of rage and reveals their attack for what it is. It is not a quest for truth or justice, but an attempt to impose an ideology I call "sexual correctness."

Chapter Five provides an overview of both the anticensorship and the pro-pornography arguments presented by liberal feminists.

Chapter Six is an all-out defense of pornography. It argues from an individualist feminist perspective and provides the intellectual underpinning for the book's opening statement: Pornography benefits women, both personally and politically.

Chapter Seven introduces some of the women who work in pornography: actresses, publishers, political activists, and producers. They paint a picture of what the industry is like, and how they feel about the stigma attached to their work. This chapter provides something antiporn feminists attempt to suppress: a forum for women in pornography.

Chapter Eight suggests how the porn industry could be changed to provide greater respect and protection for the women who work in it. For those readers who want to pursue pornography-whether on a personal or political level-I have provided a brief indication of where to write or phone for more information.

Chapter Nine reports on a meeting of COYOTE, the only national sex workers' advocacy group, with a membership of women in the business.

The Appendix consists of a survey I conducted of sex workers. It presents a real-world profile, rather than a caricature, of these women.

THE NEW THREAT TO PORNOGRAPHY

Many people who work in pornography breathed a sigh of relief when George Bush lost the 1992

election. "At last!" they exclaimed, "the censorship-happy Moral Majority won't have the ear of 7

those in power." But the administration of President Clinton poses a unique threat to freedom of speech.

Political correctness now censors the workplace to prevent sexual harassment. At universities, scholars can no longer discuss gender differences without being punished or denied tenure. The Federal Communications Commission imposes huge fines on erring sexual views, like those of Howard Stern. Television nervously censors cartoons for fear of Janet Reno's doing so. In short, freedom of speech is under attack by a liberal government.

Pornography requires a tolerant society, and ours is running short on tolerance. It does not matter whether the intolerance comes from the right or the left, from the moral majority or the politically correct. Both are a death knell for pornography.

The majority of people are not fully committed to either the right or the left. Nor either to censorship or to absolute freedom of speech. People are too caught up in the daily struggle for survival to pour a lot of energy into ideology.

If intolerance is growing, it is not because most people share radical feminism's ideological objection to graphic sexual expression. It is because something about pornography frightens them. Antiporn feminists feed on their fear.

The message of this book is: There's nothing to be afraid of. Pornography is part of a healthy free flow of information about sex. This is information our society badly needs. It is a freedom women need.

8

MY BACKGROUND ON PORNOGRAPHY

Like everyone else, I thought I knew what pornography was. I first glimpsed it as a child, from the magazines my older brother hid in his dresser drawer, under his socks. I was seven or eight and the excitement of doing something forbidden was far more thrilling than any of the images in the magazines.

By the time I was an adult, I had lost that sense of mischief and innocence. It was replaced by genuine sexual stirring, and a painful inner suspicion that something was wrong with my reactions. Something was wrong with me. My childhood-in a rural and conservative family-had instilled a vague belief that sex was unsavory. Surely my fascination with it must be unsavory as well.

I embraced feminism as a teenager, but the movement did not relieve my confusion about sex and pornography. At that time, the feminist movement was developing the cracks that have now broken into an open schism over sex. One faction of the movement joyfully celebrated the wide range of women's sexuality, from motherhood to lesbianism, from masturbation to oral sex.

Another faction vociferously condemned certain choices. Marriage and the family were oppression, heterosexual sex was rape, and pornography was violence.

Ideologically speaking, the latter faction won out. It won so decisively that, during the eighties, few feminists were willing to stand up and defend the graphic depiction of sex. Women were not willing to expose themselves to the backlash of contempt that would follow a confession of enjoyment.

For over a decade, I have defended the right of women to consume pornography and to be involved in its production. In 1984, when the Los Angeles City Council first debated whether or not to pass an antipornography ordinance, I was one of two people -and the only woman-who stood up and went on record against the measure. I argued that the right to work in pornography was a direct extension of the principle "A woman's body, a woman's right."

My defense was purely ideological. I knew little about the realities of the industry or about the women I was defending. Over the last decade, the antiporn voices in feminism have grown louder and more shrill. An assortment of accusations is routinely hurled at the porn industry.

Perhaps the most common charges are that women involved in porn are coerced into performing; porn videos are actually documentaries of rape and torture; and pornography inspires men to rape women.

But the business of pornography exists quite apart from any ideological attack or defense of it. It is a fact, not a theory. As I read and reread the onslaught against pornography, I realized I knew next to nothing about the industry. It was time to do some fieldwork. It was time to check out whether radical feminism's accusations were accurate. And whether my position was naive.

Specifically, I wanted to know:

1. Were the women coerced into performing pornographic acts?

2. How were the women treated otherwise?

9

The only way to have these questions answered was to ask them. To ask them of the flesh-and-blood people who produce pornography: the actresses who are said to be coerced, the producers who are said to be the beating heart of white male oppression.

THE CONSUMER ELECTRONICS SHOW

The Winter '94 Consumer Electronics Show (CES) was scheduled for early January in Las Vegas. CES is huge. The total number of exhibitors at the show I attended was 1,056. Exhibits occupied more than one million square feet of space.

I was drawn to CES by the Adult Video Section, where most of the hardcore pornographers in America had booths advertising their wares. Soft-core producers, such as Playboy, would not be well represented. Their more respectable status allowed them to network and advertise elsewhere with ease. Moreover, the soft-core and hardcore industries tend to put distance between themselves, much as rich and poor cousins often do.

Pornography was once an important aspect of CES because it pioneered the popularity of videotape. In the early eighties, the few major studio releases that were available on videotape cost about eighty dollars. The more reasonably priced pornography attracted a huge audience of men and couples who had a taste for adult entertainment, especially within the comfort of their own homes.

Today, major studio releases run about twenty dollars and they quickly become available on videotape, for purchase or rental. Cable channels such as Playboy, Spice, and Adam and Eve offer high quality pornography that people can tape off TV for themselves. Pornography has lost its edge in both the video marketplace and at CES.

Accordingly, the Adult Video Section of CES was housed in the Sahara Hotel, far from the main convention center.

I had prepared for CES in two ways: emotionally and intellectually. As an intensely private person, I quickly resolved the emotional side. I was going to stay with the intellectual side.

I drew up two lists of questions: one for women, the other for men. The questions for women focused on whether they were coerced into "performing pornographic acts." If not, how were they treated? My questions included: Have you ever heard of women being threatened into performing in pornography? How much are you paid for a sex act or for a video? Do you negotiate your own contracts?

The questions for men focused on how pornography functions as a business, with particular emphasis on how women were treated. These questions included: How long does it take you to shoot a video? How many women work for you in a technical capacity, e.g., behind the camera?

I wondered how the women would react to my being a feminist. I wondered if the men would be dismissive. I was more than a little nervous about appearing ridiculous.

I began to make "guerrilla feminist preparations." I carefully chose a wardrobe of "feminist drag": Reeboks, blue jeans, and oversized sweaters ... and an ultra-conservative dress for the AVN Awards ceremony. I decided to wear little makeup, less perfume, and no jewelry. When I looked in the mirror, I looked like I was going to give a lecture on sex rather than investigate the real thing.

DINING WITH PORNOGRAPHERS

My first dinner in Las Vegas was a headlong dive into the hardcore industry. My husband and I waited at the reception desk of the Bally Hotel to link up with John Stagliano, who is arguably the most successful XXX pornographer in America. His nickname is "Buttman" due to the specific XXX niche his videos, such as
Face Dance I
and
II
, fill. After a telephone interview, 10

Stagliano had invited me to dine with him. Another pornographer, John Leslie, was included as well. I was told that Leslie was of the "old school."

I had never met Stagliano, but I made a point of watching several of the videos he'd produced.

Since John had a tendency to appear in his own work, I thought I'd recognize him. I did. My first impression of the porn producer: youngish, amiable, streetwise, and a bit on the L.A. trendy side.

John Leslie
(Talk Dirty to Me)
was waiting for us in a nearby Italian restaurant. Although Leslie is well known as a porn actor, I hadn't seen any of his work. I would have recognized him immediately if I had. The man made an impression: immaculately attired in black, with pure white hair, a face of stone, and ice-gray eyes. Leslie looked more like a mafia don than a porn star. He stood in stark contrast to Stagliano's comparatively boyish enthusiasm.

While Stagliano answered the first of my questions-What makes something soft-core rather than hardcore? Leslie ordered two bottles of wine, one white, one red. As a connoisseur, Leslie sent one bottle back for a replacement; the other he liked well enough to have the waiter soak off the label to take home for future reference.

At first, Stagliano and I chatted about what constituted fetish porn, while my husband and Leslie discussed the growing importance of Canada's Niagara peninsula as a wine-producing region. In short, everyone felt each other out. Then, in a neutral manner, I steered the conversation toward the possibility that women were coerced into pornography. I asked whether the violence in hardcore porn, like the sex, was real, rather than simulated.

The response was electric. Both producers vigorously insisted:
All
of the violence was simulated.

In fact, there were strict restrictions on
which
acts could be simulated. Stagliano explained that the hardcore industry was regulated, not by law, but by the threat of law. In 1978, the police had made it clear they would prosecute any hardcore sex video that went past certain unofficial, but well-known, limits. These limits included: no more than three fingers in a vagina or anus (no fist fucking); and, no urination or defecation. Although mild images of violence were still tolerated, the slapping of breasts and faces was in a legal gray zone.