Which Side Are You On? Pro-Porn and Anti-Porn Arguments

Greta Christina17 Comments

Note to family members and others who don’t want to read about my personal sex life: This post talks about my personal sex life, including a few details you may not want to know about. If you don’t want to read that stuff, please don’t read this post.

This post was originally published on the Blowfish Blog.

Three_kinds_of_asking_for_it
You’d think this would be a no-brainer. I’ve performed in porn. I’ve produced porn. I’ve sold porn. I’ve written porn. I’ve reviewed porn. And I’ve read and looked at porn, many many times, purely for my own libidinous pleasure. And whenever I read someone reflexively attacking porn, railing about how horrible it is and how it’s degrading and ruinous to all that is good and wonderful about sex, I get very cranky and argumentative.

But here’s the kicker. When I read people reflexively defending porn, raving about how wonderful and uplifting it is and how all criticisms of it are absurd and unfair, I get cranky and argumentative as well.

You might conclude from this behavior that I am a cranky, argumentative person.

You might be right.

But there’s more to it than that. (She said, crankily and argumentatively.)

The core problem, I think, is this. Critics of porn often focus exclusively on the specifics of how porn commonly plays out in contemporary culture. They see the body fascism, the rigidly narrow and male-oriented vision of sexuality, the sexism (and yes, there is sexism in porn, just like there’s sexism in every other part of popular culture). And they conclude that the particular is the same as the general. They conclude that because that’s how porn commonly plays out in contemporary culture, therefore that’s what porn is always like, de facto and by its very definition.

(They also focus on video porn to the exclusion of all other forms. Not entirely unfairly, as that is the lion’s share of the porn market… but somewhat narrow-mindedly as well. And there’s an unfortunate confirmation bias when feminist critiques of porn focus on video, since written fiction is a far more woman-driven form of erotica than video has ever been. Especially when you look at the vanishing line between the erotica and romance genres.)

Revelations
By the same token, though, defenders of porn often focus exclusively on the ideal of what porn could be, while ignoring the ugly realities of what it very often is. And I’ll include myself in that critique. I’ve definitely been guilty of saying, “But what about Candida Royalle? What about Libido Productions? What about the dozens of other wonderful indie porn productions I could name?”… while ignoring the over 10,000 pieces of formula-driven, factory-made, tedious pieces of sex in a box that come out every single year, and that porn customers snap up like candy.

I’m not going to say that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I think the idea that the truth of two opposing extremes usually lies somewhere in the middle is total bullshit. I am, on the whole, very much pro-porn, if for no other reasons than (a) I think there’s no way to stop the fucked-up kinds of porn without stopping healthy sex information and expression, and (b) I like to get off on it.

And I think anti-porn writers have a very bad habit of ignoring Sturgeon’s Law. They fail to recognize that, yes, 90% of porn is crap… but 90% of everything is crap. And in a sexist society, 90% of everything is sexist crap. I’ve seen some very good arguments on how most porn is sexist and patriarchal with rigid and misleading images of women… but I’ve never seen a good argument for why, in a world of sexist TV and movies and pop music and video games, porn should be singled out for special condemnation — to the point of trying to eliminate the genre altogether.

But I also think that pro-porn advocates — myself included — need to stop pretending that there isn’t a problem. We need to recognize that the overwhelming majority of porn — or rather, the overwhelming majority of video porn, which is the overwhelming majority of porn — is sexist, is patriarchal, does perpetuate body fascism, does create unrealistic sexual expectations for both women and men, does depict sex in ways that are not only overwhelmingly focused on male pleasure, but are rigid and formulaic and mind-numbingly tedious to boot. And we need to be trying to do something about it.

What I think is often missing, from both sides of this debate, is nuance. I think anti-porn writers need to acknowledge that the crappy realities of average porn don’t automatically prove that all porn is evil by definition. And I think pro-porn advocates need to acknowledge… well, the crappy realities of average porn.

And goddamn it, this cranky and argumentative sex writer wants nuance. If I have to scream myself blue in the face to get it.

Which Side Are You On? Pro-Porn and Anti-Porn Arguments
{advertisement}

Are You Smarter Than A Celebrity Psychic?

Greta Christina24 Comments

Skeptico did this neat thing last year, where he made predictions about events of the year 2007… and then compared his results to that of several famous professional “psychics.” (Surprise, surprise — Skeptico did as well or better.)

2008_crystal_ball_2
Rebecca suggested that we steal this idea and turn it into a contest. And I’m all for stealing other people’s good ideas, as long as I give due credit as I run off with the loot. So I hereby present the 2008 “Are You Smarter Than A Celebrity Psychic?” contest, with due credit to Skeptico.

The rules: Make five predictions about world events in 2008: political events, natural disasters, celebrity gossip, etc. Post them in the comments here, no later than January 15, 2008. Predictions should be things that reasonably might or might not happen; totally obvious predictions such as “The sun will continue to rise in the East” and “Saturn will not crash into Jupiter” will not be accepted. However, credit will be given for partially correct answers, since the celebrity psychics do that when they score themselves. Credit will also be given if events can be interpreted to fit the prediction — ditto.

The winner will be announced on January 1, 2009. The winner will be told, “That’s amazing! You must actually be psychic and not be aware of it!” in this blog.

The_crystal_ball
My predictions, to get the crystal ball rolling:

1. John Edwards will get the Democratic nomination for President, and will go on to win the election in November.

2. At least one new atheist book will make the New York Times bestseller list.

3. A new drug will be released treating female sexual dysfunction.

4. Hal Holbrook will be nominated for Best Supporting Actor for his role in “Into the Wild.” He will not win.

5. Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and Lindsay Lohan will get into legal trouble for out-of-control behavior related to drugs or alcohol.

So what are your guesses — excuse me, psychic predictions?

*****

Addendum to the rules, inspired by the first round of predictions:

You have to score your own predictions. I am not bloody well going to try to stay up on German politics, scandals in the Australian cabinet, or tech industry lawsuits, solely to keep track of this silly game. And besides, scoring your own predictions is much more in keeping with the spirit of the game.

Are You Smarter Than A Celebrity Psychic?

900!

Greta Christina5 Comments

Computer_keyboard
Atheists and Anger now has over 900 comments!

Comments have been continuing to trickle in on this post ever since the original surge when I wrote it in October; it’s been getting at least one comment a day on most days ever since it was published. But special thanks are due to Friendly Atheist and to Memoirs of a Skepchick for the recent links that put it over the top. Thanks! And thanks to everyone who linked to the piece on their blog or forum or discussion group. This thing really has turned into the blog post that ate the Internet. I am still completely blown away by how many people were touched by it… and I’m very touched that so many people were moved to spread the word about it. Thanks, y’all. If it hits 1000, I think I’ll throw a party.

900!

The Meaning of Death, Part 2 of Many: Motivation and Mid-Life Crises

Greta Christina6 Comments

Part 2 of an ongoing series on the meaning of death in a godless world. The basic idea: In a world with no God and no afterlife, death — like life — doesn’t have any purpose or meaning except the meaning we create. So what meaning can we create for it?

Sports_car
When I was forty, I went through a classic mid-life crisis. No, I didn’t buy a sports car or have an affair with a much younger woman. Instead, I quit a high-ranking position in a lucrative career that demanded an enormous amount of my time and energy… and took a lower-paying job, with less stress and shorter, more flexible hours, so I could concentrate on my writing.

The only thing that wasn’t classic about my midlife crisis (apart from the lack of sports cars and younger women) was how conscious it was. I wasn’t deluded about it; I wasn’t trying to fool myself into thinking it wasn’t happening. I knew exactly what was happening. In fact, I ran with it.

Clock
What happened was that I hit 40 — and realized that I didn’t have an infinite amount of time to get my writing career off the ground. Of course I’d known before this that I was going to die — I’m not an idiot — but there’s a difference between knowing something intellectually and feeling it viscerally, having it shoved in your face. I hit 40, and I became aware — vividly, unignorably aware — that I was going to die someday… and that I didn’t want to be on my deathbed at 70 or 80, wondering if I could have had a serious writing career, and regretting that I’d never really tried to make it happen.

I’ve been doing professional freelance writing, mostly as a sideline, since I was in my twenties. I’ve known for a long time that writing was what I wanted to do with my life. But it wasn’t until I turned 40 that I got serious about making it a priority. Not just in theory; not just the kind of “making it a priority” that involves telling everyone you know what a high priority something is for you. It became an actual priority.

Empty_change_purse
It became the kind of priority that involves making sacrifices. The kind of priority that means missing parties and movies and concerts because you have to spend that time working. The kind of priority that involves staying up until four in the morning to meet your deadlines, sometimes for several days in a row. The kind of priority that involves taking a job for less than half your previous pay… with all the sacrifices of comfort and pleasure and security that go along with that.

And I never would have done it if I hadn’t had my mid-life crisis wake-up call. I never would have done it if I hadn’t started to get panicked about how little time I had left to do it in.

In other words, I never would have done it without death.

Remote_control
I’d love to think that I’m the kind of person who would spend immortality doing marvelous things: writing novels and learning Latin, working in soup kitchens and becoming a championship ballroom dancer, reading all of Dickens and traveling to Madagascar. But I know that’s bullshit. I’m the kind of person who would spend immortality sitting on the sofa eating chocolate chips and watching “Project Runway” marathons.

Heck, I’m immortal. I’ve got all the time in the world. I can do all that Dickens and Madagascar stuff next week. Next year. Next decade.

I’m a very deadline-driven person. And death is a deadline.

I won’t lie. If I could magically be given immortality, I’d take it. I’d know without a doubt that it would be a terrible, unwise decision… and I’d take it anyway. The instinct to survive is too strong, too deeply-ingrained, for me to pretend otherwise. So I’m not saying that, given a choice, I’d choose death.

Gravestone
What I’m saying is this: Given that I don’t have a choice, given that death is an unavoidable and final reality, I’m finding ways, not just to accept it, but to use it to give my life meaning. The finality of death is giving my life motivation and focus. It’s driving me to accomplish things that I’d put off indefinitely without it. Death has turned me from a happy-go-lucky slacker chick with some vague creative goals but no real plans for reaching them, into an ambitious, determined woman with a clear sense of what she wants to do with her life and what she needs to do to make it happen.

And for that, I’m grateful.

The Meaning of Death, Part 2 of Many: Motivation and Mid-Life Crises

Willing

Greta Christina3 Comments

This piece originally appeared on the Blowfish Blog. It doesn’t talk about my personal sex life very much, but it does reference it a little bit. Family members and others who don’t want to read that stuff, use your own judgment.

I’ve been kicked by the wind, robbed by the sleet
Had my head stoved in, but I’m still on my feet
And I’m still.
Willin’.
-Lowell George, “Willin'”

Rebekah’s column in the Blowfish Blog on the F-word — frequency of sex, and couples negotiating same — reminded me of something I’ve been wanting to write about for a while. It’s one of the best pieces of sex advice I ever read, and I wanted to pass it along.

Lesbian_erotic_dance
It’s from lesbian sex adviser JoAnn Loulan. Now normally, I’m not a big fan of Loulan; she’s a bit too fixated on slotting people into sexual categories for my taste, she’s insisted that butch/femme is a universal concept that applies to all lesbians whether they like it or not; and she’s said some outrageously harsh and stupid things about bisexuals. But this piece of advice has always stuck with me. It’s one of the most useful ideas about sex that I’ve ever heard… and as my sex life has changed and shifted with the years, it’s only gotten more useful.

The idea is this: To have a sexual encounter that’s pleasurable for both (or all) partners, you don’t need to start out being aroused or excited or in the mood.

You just need to start out being willing

You need to start out willing to be aroused and excited and turned on. You need to start out willing to have sex, and to have a good time doing it. You need to be willing to be seduced… and to seduce. You don’t have to start out in the mood; you just have to be in the mood to be in the mood. If that makes sense.

Still_doing_it
I think this is good advice for anybody. But I think it’s especially good advice for those of us who are getting older and whose bodies aren’t as quick on the draw as they used to be. It’s especially good advice for long-term couples who have been together a while, and who aren’t as instantly excited by the mere presence of a sexually available person in their bed as they once were. And it’s especially good advice for busy, stressed-out couples who are scheduling and planning sex to make sure they make room for it in their lives.

Calendar_2
Let’s take a closer look at that last one. Scheduling sex in advance is advice that’s often given to couples whose sex life is flagging. But it also gets a bad rap. It’s seen as unsexy, unspontaneous, clinical even, to have sex, not because you’re “in the mood,” but because it’s in your datebook.

Rose_on_calendar
But when you let go of the idea that you have to be “in the mood” to get things started, then scheduling sex suddenly gets a whole lot easier. When you start reframing a willingness to be in the mood as a version of being in the mood itself, a pre-scheduled sex date seems less like a cold duty and more like a tingly, long-anticipated treat. Like sitting down to dinner at a fabulous restaurant that you’ve had reservations for for weeks.

To make this work, though, there’s something you have to let go of.

Balllet
You have to let go of the idea that sex should be perfect at all times, a splendid erotic ballet between perfectly harmonized bodies and souls. Specifically, you have to let go of the idea that the transition from not-sex to sex should always be fluid and graceful, the idea striking both parties like lightning at the exact same moment, the way it does in the movies.

Car_motor
A scheduled sexual encounter, between people who aren’t yet aroused but are willing to be, will sometimes start out a bit awkwardly. When one or both of you doesn’t quite have your motor revving at full throttle yet, there’ll sometimes be a few jerks and hiccups before you get going. You have to be willing to let that awkwardness happen, and trust that once things get going, it’ll pass.

So the thing to remember is this: Even if you’re not in the mood when you start, starting to have sex can get you in the mood. And like most things, this gets better and easier with practice. The more you let yourself be willing to be excited even though you’re not quite excited yet, the more natural and graceful it feels  and with the Pavlovian self-training of time and experience, your willingness to get excited feels more and more like the actual excitement itself.

Willing

Untested by Definition: A Rant on Alternative Medicine

Jason Thibeault31 Comments

I blogged about this a little while back, but I made the mistake of burying it in a carnival announcement, and it kind of got lost in the shuffle. So I’m re-posting it as its very own post.

Skeptico’s piece on the lack of testing in alternative medicine really hit it out of the park, I thought. And it reminded me of something I’ve been wanting to say for a while about conventional versus alternative medicine.

Meditation
In her never-ending attempt to be fair, Ingrid has pointed out that alternative medicine is untested somewhat by definition. Once an alternative treatment gets some good, placebo-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed, replicable studies showing that it works, it’s no longer “alternative” — it’s conventional medicine by definition. (The use of meditation to reduce stress is a good example.)

Manusingmicroscope
But in fact, I think that’s the whole point. The dividing line between conventional and alternative medicine isn’t any particular opinion or theory about treatment. The dividing line is whether or not it’s been carefully tested, using the scientific method, to minimize the effects of human error and bias as much as is humanly possible.

What I don’t understand is why practitioners and promoters of alternative medicine think that’s a bad thing.

Sieve
Alternative medicine boosters often accuse conventional Western doctors and medical researchers of being close-minded, biased against any theories and opinions other than their own. But the whole point of science (including medical science) and the scientific method is that it acts as a screen against bias and preconception: an imperfect screen, to be a sure, but a screen nonetheless. It’s an extremely humbling, often disappointing process.

Lancet
Of course doctors will sometimes have initial skepticism about new ideas. Medical providers are human, with the universal human attachment to being right. And initial skepticism about new ideas — not close-mindedness, but skepticism — is appropriate in medicine, and indeed in any scientific field. But medicine does change and move forward, quite rapidly these days… and it couldn’t do that if medical researchers and providers were consistently mulish and intractable about considering new theories and treatments. Medical journals are loaded with new ideas — some of them radically new.

Homeopathy
And of course doctors can be biased and even arrogant. But how is that not true of alternative practitioners? They’re every bit as biased to believe in their theories as conventional practitioners, every bit as likely to succumb to confirmation bias and cherrypick positive results while ignoring negative ones. And they don’t have the advantage of having placebo-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed, replicable studies to back up their arrogance and show that their results aren’t just confirmation bias at work.

Galileo_2
Which, again, is kind of the whole point. If the only difference between conventional and alternative medicine is that conventional medicine has, by definition, been carefully tested using the scientific method… then how is alternative medicine the better choice? How is it anything other than the Galileo fallacy in action?

Holywaterjug
And as Ingrid has also pointed out: Doctors and medical researchers, probably even more than other scientists, could give a rat’s ass about being personally proven wrong if it means getting at the truth. Because the truth is what’s going to help them treat their sick, suffering, and dying patients. Ingrid is an HIV nurse, and if it could be conclusively shown that homeopathy, or Reiki, or acupuncture, or even for Pete’s sake prayer, could cure HIV or even alleviate it, she’d be all over it like white on rice. The reason she uses the treatments that she uses is that they’ve been through the trial by fire: they’ve been carefully tested and shown to be effective. If there were a set of placebo-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed, replicable studies showing that HIV could be cured or effectively treated by sprinkling holy water on goat entrails, she’d be right there on the Catholic goat farm with the sacrificial knife.

Domestic_goat_003
But again, if there were a set of placebo-controlled, double-blind, peer-reviewed, replicable studies showing that HIV could be cured by sprinkling holy water on goat entrails, then it wouldn’t be alternative medicine. It’d be conventional medicine, by definition.

Because conventional medicine, by definition, is medicine that’s been shown to work.

Untested by Definition: A Rant on Alternative Medicine

Friday Cat Blogging: Violet’s Blue Eye

Greta Christina4 Comments

And now, two unbelievably cute pictures of our cat.

Violet_1

Violet_2

At last, at long last, we have photos of Violet that do her justice. Violet, as you can see, is a strikingly beautiful cat; but she’s very hard for us to photograph. Our apartment doesn’t get much natural light, and when we use the flash, (a) it makes her just look like a big black lump, and (b) she closes her eyes against the flash, thus obscuring her most distinctive feature — the heterochromia (different-colored eyes).

But Ingrid found her sitting in the back windows, and got these two stunning pictures of her. I asks ya. Is that a beautiful cat, or what? The second one with the heterochromia is obviously spectacular; but I actually like the profile a little better. It makes her look so noble.

And once again, I need to share with you our Violet’s Blue Eye song:

Why don’t you scritch me like you used to do?
Why do you treat me like a worn-out shoe?
My fur is still furry and my eye is still blue
So why don’t you scritch me like you used to do?

That is all. Thank you for your patience.

Friday Cat Blogging: Violet’s Blue Eye

Hypocrisy or Bigotry — Which Is Worse? Huckabee and Guiliani on Gay Rights

Greta Christina12 Comments

Via the HRC:

Huckabee2
“Unless Moses comes down with two stone tablets from Brokeback Mountain to tell us something different, we need to keep that understanding of marriage.”
–Mike Huckabee

Giulianiportrait
“It’s the acts, it’s the various acts that people perform that are sinful.”
–Rudolph Giuliani on homosexuality

There are so many different ways I could go with this.

I could go with Huckabee’s snarky, smirky Brokeback Mountain reference. I could gas on about how “Brokeback Mountain” has become the new “Adam and Steve,” the default catch-phrase for when people want to make bigoted jokes about gays.

Brokebackmountainposter
I could also point out how wildly inappropriate the Brokeback Mountain reference is. I mean, did he see the movie? Did he think it was a ringing endorsement for gay people denying their sexuality and getting into heterosexual marriages? The whole point of that damn movie was that gay people staying in the closet ruins lives — not just their own lives, but the lives of their wives and their families and everyone around them. To make a “Brokeback Mountain” joke in support of a “traditional marriage” position is clueless to the point of delusion.

And of course, I could go the “laughably hypocritical” route on Guiliani’s comment. The twice-divorced, thrice-married, adulterous Giuliani, lecturing gay people on their sinful sex lives? Please.

But that’s not where I want to go with this. Instead I want to pose a question that kept me and Ingrid entertained for hours:

Which do you think is worse — craven hypocrisy, or close-minded bigotry?

Giuliani_in_drag
Here’s the thing. I don’t believe for a moment that Giuliani actually thinks homosexuality is a sin. He supported civil unions and domestic partnerships when was mayor of New York. Hell, when his second marriage was breaking up, he moved into the apartment of two gay friends. He did a Victor/Victoria drag show with Julie Andrews. He’s far from the most enlightened person on the planet when it comes to LGBT issues; but I doubt that he has anything against us personally.

I think his move to the right on LGBT issues is purely pragmatic. He wants to be President. He thinks he has to suck up to the far right to accomplish this goal. Gay-bashing is the quickest, easiest way to do that.

Huckabee, on the other hand:

Huckabee
I am quite sure that Huckabee means every word of it. His entire record speaks of passionate homophobic bigotry, fueled by a particularly virulent form of close-minded religious fundamentalism. When he said that “homosexuality is an aberrant, unnatural, and sinful lifestyle,” I have no doubt whatsoever that he meant every word.

So here’s my question:

Which is worse?

The close-minded, true-believing bigot — or the craven, self-serving hypocrite?

My thoughts:

From a purely ethical standpoint, I think the true believer has the stronger position. Their bigotry is evil, it’s harmful — but at least it’s sincere. It’s not held simply for selfish gain. It’s internally consistent.

But from a purely practical standpoint, I think I’d rather have the hypocrite in public office.

Because you can change a hypocrite’s mind.

Scales
If someone is taking a bigoted position purely to advance their self-interest, all you have to do to change their mind is shift the political scales. Mobilize your forces. Make alliances. Get better organized. Convince the hypocrite that their self-interest would be better served by sucking up to you instead of your opponents, and they’ll be your new best friend.

True_believer
It’s much, much harder to change the mind of a true-believing bigot. If their bigotry is a consistent, integral, fundamental part of their view of the world and themselves, changing their mind about their bigotry requires them to rewrite their entire life story. Very few people are up to that.

And while internal consistency can be an admirable trait, it’s not so admirable when it comes at the cost of shutting out the world around you. Prioritizing your own belief system over human reality is really just another way of being self-serving.

Then again, as Ingrid points out:

Pflag
If you do succeed in changing a true believer’s mind, chances are that you’ll have them for good. The ranks of LGBT supporters are filled with former bigots who changed their minds when their friends, their colleagues, their children or grandchildren, came out as gay. And their newfound tolerance is as strong — and as sincere — as their old bigotry.

Trash_bin_full
Whereas the craven hypocrite who makes nice with you today will toss you like last week’s leftovers the minute you become inconvenient.

Just ask Giuliani. And the gay friends who took him in when he needed help. The friends who he’s now calling “sinful” — because he wants to be President.

Hypocrisy or Bigotry — Which Is Worse? Huckabee and Guiliani on Gay Rights