Re: Citations
@AC
Gail Dines and Renate Klein? Both of whom self-identify not just as feminists (which I have no problem with) but as radical feminists? (Which I do have a problem with.)
Now, Klein I actually have some respect for but not Dines - she is a wowser of the highest order whose MO is to attempt to engender moral panic and her rhetoric is ENTIRELY one-sided because she is a professional feminist first and foremost.
Yes, she is an academic, but her studies and work are born from and driven by her feminist agenda, in the same way that you can say that some religious fundamentalist academics are driven by their beliefs. That doesn't mean their conclusions are necessarily incorrect but and so seek out only the data that support their conviction and ignore or discredit or marginalise or shout down any that contradicts them.
She is an "anti-pornography" campaigner and her strident, black-and-white message admits of no nuance or accommodation: all of it must be banned.
Of course she talks about what she asserts to be damage to children but this is almost always in the context of damage to women following from this and so it's not about a filter that one could opt-in or opt-out of because it's not about simply restricting access to material designed for adults; her line is that, for the sake of women, pornography must be banned full-stop.
The overblown moral panic she packs into every statement is well evident in her claim that bondage/BDSM is "torture" and thus companies creating such content are engaged in "torture porn" and so are in violation of the UN conventions against torture. Really - that's what she believes and that particular bit of mouth-foaming came in response to a Cosmpolitan article that apparently listed one such site in its list of "best porn sites for women". She of course then called out Cosmo as "selling torture porn" and being "shills for the porn industry". (Which she calls "Big Porn".)
One of the prongs of very message is that women are the victims of violence in pornography (not just because of it) and thus this is clearly a problem. If that is the case, then yes, it needs to be addressed. But is it? How often? Is it the 'big porn' studios that produce all this 'mainstream' content or smaller groups and operations? Not that that would likely matter that much to her because she clearly see any sexual acts rougher than a tickle to be violence in and of itself and thus ANY (female, of course) porn actress involved in a bondage shoot is, ipso facto, the victim of violence in the porn industry.
But wait - aren't the actresses willing participants? Don't they choose to be in the industry and choose what to do? Don't they explicitly consent and discuss what will be done? Don't the laws require that consent to be recorded?
Irrelevant, we are told, because one can't consent to torture and, as we have just decreed that bondage is torture, our case is now air-tight.
Gail Dines? No thanks.
* - Through the group she setup to publicise her books and speaking engagements: Culture Reframed, which itself came from the previous group she setup for the same purpose earlier: 'Stop Porn Culture'.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
