source: shalom life
On February 27th, porn actor, James Deen, gave a talk on pornography at his alma mater, Pasadena City College, in Pasadena, California. The event was organized by gender studies professor, Hugo Schwyzer. Although Schwyzer teaches history courses, I think it's fair to say that his main passion is feminism. One of the classes he teaches is a Humanities course which he has titled, Navigating Pornography. On the day of Deen's talk, Schwyzer posted on this website:
I teach “Navigating Pornography” because I want to equip students with tools to think critically about a pornified culture. I want them to step into a safe space that is neither sexualized nor prudish, that is neither blithely celebratory of porn nor puritanically condemnatory. I want them to wrestle with a wide variety of texts, images, and persons so that they can better understand the role of porn in on our culture. I want them to become advocates for intelligent conversation. Speakers like James Deen, himself an immensely articulate and thoughtful speaker whom I’ve enjoyed interviewing in the past, bring a valuable perspective to both students and the general community.
Schwyzer is a man I respect highly. A kind person, an intelligent figure in academia, and a great writer who does good work. Whenever I read one of his pieces I am always impressed by his critiques and his even-handed delivery. Whenever I've brought up concerns about pornography he has always responded with grace. Grace is actually a perfect word to describe his way of interaction.
Schwyzer will tell you that his views on porn have changed over the last several years. When I began following his work in 2004, he held the views of an anti-porn feminist. I did feel deflated when he became more accepting of pornography but he did so without a cemented foot on either side of the argument.
Before I get into the nitty gritty, I think it's important to make mention that PCC made a big hub-bub of Deen's arrival. Absurd. Despite the fact that I push against pornography and pornographic culture, I see no reason why the school created such a fuss. The event was meant to be a public one in which non-students and sources of media were allowed to attend. At the last minute Schwyzer was informed that he had to limit the audience to that of his students and the talk had to take place in his own classroom. Some news reporters and paparazzi were in attendance.
PCC released a statement which insists that Schwyzer did not jump through the appropriate hoops to hold the event. The school feared controversy and protests which may affect the safety of the students. In the end there were no protests. Schwyzer has had other porn actors and antiporn figures speak in his classroom, without complaint. Schwyzer did point out that the fact that so many women were invested in this talk, proves that it is not just men who are interested in porn, and women too have libidos.
Schwyzer says that there is a lot of shame surrounding porn use. I would say that there is shame and praise. I wouldn't want individuals to experience either. I don't want porn users to feel shamed, but I do want them to have some insight into what they are doing. Porn users and porn stars are not bad people simply because they use or star.
The NY Daily News quotes Schwyzer as saying, In this country, pornography is held responsible for sex education,
and that's unfair, Schwyzer said. No one goes to see ‘Die Hard’ to
learn about police work. Similarly, porn should not be held up as being
responsible for teaching people about how to behave during sex.
The point Schwyzer is trying to make is clear, however, he doesn't quite make it. Sex Ed certainly needs to improve and Schwyzer does good in utilizing his skills as an educator to conduct healthy discussions about sexuality. Deen himself made a good point when he said that sex education doesn't go beyond the mechanics of it and the mechanics are meant to describe how children come into the world. This may be appropriate for youths who are witness to this in elementary school, but as children become young adults, there is no open dialogue about what sex can be and not be for people -- what it might mean to have sex for the first time, to discovering one's own sexual orientation, to understanding boundaries of safety.
I feel that Schwyzer's statement misses the mark in that we view police work and sex in very different terms. Within the first quote at the top of this post, Schwyzer acknowledges that we live in a pornified culture. Sex is on our minds more often than police work and it affects in incredibly complex ways. Most people think about sex, daily and often several times throughout the day. We are bashed over the head with images via the media, which depicts women as figures that are only meant to cater to a heterosexual man's desire:this is amplified in pornography.
Sex is a huge part of many of our lives and because it is so significant, corporations world wide, capitalize on it. We know this. Basic. So, although we shouldn't learn from pornography, so many do. I don't believe in censorship so I am not suggesting we remove the porn from a legal standpoint, but we can cease to utilize it as a tool and as a point of reference.
Mainstream porn aka straight porn, insists that a woman's sexuality is reserved for men. When a woman screams with pleasure, that scream is meant to inflate the ego of a man who believes that his prowess is so great. This line of thinking travels into our bedrooms. Porn may or may not be at the source, but the idea did come from some form of patriarchy.
Porn teaches us that a man inflicts something onto a woman rather than exploring an act of sharing. Man gives, woman receives. Man is dominant because he penetrates and woman receives simply because her body envelops. Within porn and within our world outside of it, this is what we are taught to think.
Although, many have applauded Deen's appearance at PCC, there have been some public push back. I knew with all certainty that one particular feminist figure would jump at this immediately. Gail Dines is a sociology professor at Boston's Wheelock College. She is an antiporn feminist, author, speaker and activist, and she is also the founder of the feminist organization, Stop Porn Culture.
Although Dines and I agree on many points, I often do not appreciate her delivery. Via facebook, Dines instructed her followers to;
Email the president of the college (mwrocka@pasadena.edu) to complain that they are subjecting their students (a captive audience) to the ideas and messages of pornography. Porn is linked to sexual violence so Hugo Schwyzer is creating an unsafe space for women college students at Pasadena College. Ask the president how he is going to make his college safe for women. Do it NOW!!!
Dines' official letter to the president of the school is as follows.
Dear President,
Email the president of the college (mwrocka@pasadena.edu) to complain that they are subjecting their students (a captive audience) to the ideas and messages of pornography. Porn is linked to sexual violence so Hugo Schwyzer is creating an unsafe space for women college students at Pasadena College. Ask the president how he is going to make his college safe for women. Do it NOW!!!
Dines' official letter to the president of the school is as follows.
Dear President,
My name is Dr. Gail Dines and I am a professor of sociology and women's studies at Wheelock College in Boston. As an academic who studies the effects of pornography on young adult sexality, I must express my disappointment at Dr. Hugo Schwyzer's promotion of the porn industry in his class. Over thirty years of empirical studies have linked pornography to an increase in sexual harassment, assault and verbal and physical abuse of women. That a college provides a forum for such predatory speech is irresponsible and shows contempt for well being of female students. Dr. Schwyzer is a well know promoter of porn and is considered a very problematic person in scholarly circles.
Best,
Promoter? That word doesn't sit right. He doesn't tell others to view porn or not. In his 2011 post, Are You a Controlling Shrew if You Don't Want Your Partner Using Porn, he says, I’m agnostic — really, I am — about pornography.
Although I am not a student of Schwyzer's (just as Dines is not) and I do not have access to a syllabus, I know that Schwyzer understands that it would be unethical for him to sway his students one way or the other. Schwyzer is very active within the feminist community and very present within feminist internet communities. He is vocal about his views; an excellent confessional writer.
In his own life, Schwyzer does not use pornography. His students know this, and he spoke openly about it in 2011 when he engaged in a civil debates with Feminist Current podcast host, Meghan Murphy.
I don’t use pornography as part of my sexual life, and I don’t employ sex workers. Sex work is deeply problematic. At the same time, I’m confronted with the reality that a growing number of young women use pornography, and that there has been a concerted effort to create a genuinely feminist pornography – though the degree to which that’s a viable project remains a subject of contention. I reject porn use personally because it is incompatible with how I want to live my sexual life. I want my sexuality to be radically relational, where my arousal is inextricably linked to intimacy and partnership. I also want my sexuality to be congruent with my feminism, and for me personally, that means rejecting porn.
Schwyzer went on to say;
But I work with allies, overwhelmingly female, who are sex workers or advocates for sex workers. Some are the stereotypically privileged few who are outside the norm, but some who claim enthusiasm about sex work are from working-class backgrounds where financial necessity was the driving reason behind why they entered the industry. Nothing could be less feminist than for me to tell them, "No, you don't like what you're doing. Actually, you hate it and you're being exploited." The sine qua non of male feminism is the capacity to hear women's lived experiences. And when it comes to porn (both in terms of production and consumption) and other forms of sex works, women don't speak with one voice. I am committed to being an advocate for sex worker rights, committed to avoiding participating in sex work as a consumer, and committed to listening.
Schwyzer takes a seemingly fair stance and I am on board with some of it. As an antiporn feminist, I would not take it upon myself to tell an a sex worker that they hate what they do. I imagine that may be the case for some, but I think there are overwhelming numbers of participants who indeed love what they do. Strippers, actors, pinups, escorts and more. My issue is with the whys behind their motivation.
I have not had conversations with sex workers, and Schwyzer has. Even so, I can speak as a woman who exists within patriarchy. Porn caters to men -- women in porn cater to men. Porn tells us that women can only enjoy sex when they look the way women in porn do (alternative porn, that has become more mainstream, doesn't push the envelope much), make the same noises, respond the same way, and please men in the same way. Porn features women who are always willing, and always wanting more -- women who will affirm anything a man does and says. Women will never say no unless of course no means yes. If a woman says no, she will certainly change her mind, as the man's penis is almighty.
Porn tells us that anything else is prudish. Many pro-porn feminists refer to themselves as sex positive feminists which leaves the rest of us out. I don't subscribe to the belief that all sex workers were abused in some way, and I think it unfair to suggest that all antiporn feminists adhere to hyper-religious views or are capable of only vanilla sex.
If I had the chance, I would have attended Deen's talk. I think it is important to listen to both sides and this is what I have always done. I'd be curious to know what it must be like for Deen or any porn actor to have a job that consists of sex sex sex. How does that affect one's world view on a day to day basis? I imagine Deen's talk was informative. There are a few clips swimming around the internet.
Dines and I differ in that, I feel it is not harmful for PCC's young people to listen to an actual porn star. I know many students were giddy to see Deen but I imagine not all of Schwyzer's students are pro-porn. Deen's talk may provide insight tacks on some weight, reaffirming either side of the argument. I imagine this exploration will (hopefully) be an on-going journey for Schwyzer's students that will not come to a halt after they have completed his course.
Promoter? That word doesn't sit right. He doesn't tell others to view porn or not. In his 2011 post, Are You a Controlling Shrew if You Don't Want Your Partner Using Porn, he says, I’m agnostic — really, I am — about pornography.
Although I am not a student of Schwyzer's (just as Dines is not) and I do not have access to a syllabus, I know that Schwyzer understands that it would be unethical for him to sway his students one way or the other. Schwyzer is very active within the feminist community and very present within feminist internet communities. He is vocal about his views; an excellent confessional writer.
In his own life, Schwyzer does not use pornography. His students know this, and he spoke openly about it in 2011 when he engaged in a civil debates with Feminist Current podcast host, Meghan Murphy.
I don’t use pornography as part of my sexual life, and I don’t employ sex workers. Sex work is deeply problematic. At the same time, I’m confronted with the reality that a growing number of young women use pornography, and that there has been a concerted effort to create a genuinely feminist pornography – though the degree to which that’s a viable project remains a subject of contention. I reject porn use personally because it is incompatible with how I want to live my sexual life. I want my sexuality to be radically relational, where my arousal is inextricably linked to intimacy and partnership. I also want my sexuality to be congruent with my feminism, and for me personally, that means rejecting porn.
Schwyzer went on to say;
But I work with allies, overwhelmingly female, who are sex workers or advocates for sex workers. Some are the stereotypically privileged few who are outside the norm, but some who claim enthusiasm about sex work are from working-class backgrounds where financial necessity was the driving reason behind why they entered the industry. Nothing could be less feminist than for me to tell them, "No, you don't like what you're doing. Actually, you hate it and you're being exploited." The sine qua non of male feminism is the capacity to hear women's lived experiences. And when it comes to porn (both in terms of production and consumption) and other forms of sex works, women don't speak with one voice. I am committed to being an advocate for sex worker rights, committed to avoiding participating in sex work as a consumer, and committed to listening.
Schwyzer takes a seemingly fair stance and I am on board with some of it. As an antiporn feminist, I would not take it upon myself to tell an a sex worker that they hate what they do. I imagine that may be the case for some, but I think there are overwhelming numbers of participants who indeed love what they do. Strippers, actors, pinups, escorts and more. My issue is with the whys behind their motivation.
I have not had conversations with sex workers, and Schwyzer has. Even so, I can speak as a woman who exists within patriarchy. Porn caters to men -- women in porn cater to men. Porn tells us that women can only enjoy sex when they look the way women in porn do (alternative porn, that has become more mainstream, doesn't push the envelope much), make the same noises, respond the same way, and please men in the same way. Porn features women who are always willing, and always wanting more -- women who will affirm anything a man does and says. Women will never say no unless of course no means yes. If a woman says no, she will certainly change her mind, as the man's penis is almighty.
Porn tells us that anything else is prudish. Many pro-porn feminists refer to themselves as sex positive feminists which leaves the rest of us out. I don't subscribe to the belief that all sex workers were abused in some way, and I think it unfair to suggest that all antiporn feminists adhere to hyper-religious views or are capable of only vanilla sex.
If I had the chance, I would have attended Deen's talk. I think it is important to listen to both sides and this is what I have always done. I'd be curious to know what it must be like for Deen or any porn actor to have a job that consists of sex sex sex. How does that affect one's world view on a day to day basis? I imagine Deen's talk was informative. There are a few clips swimming around the internet.
Dines and I differ in that, I feel it is not harmful for PCC's young people to listen to an actual porn star. I know many students were giddy to see Deen but I imagine not all of Schwyzer's students are pro-porn. Deen's talk may provide insight tacks on some weight, reaffirming either side of the argument. I imagine this exploration will (hopefully) be an on-going journey for Schwyzer's students that will not come to a halt after they have completed his course.
I was beyond shocked when Dines stated that Schwyzer is a very problematic person is scholarly circles. Dines has not specified what she meant by this and she did not provide examples. I have a hunch as to what she's speaking of, and if I'm right, I don't agree with Dines at all. I wince at Dines letter but she has every right to voice her view.
From the images and comments about the event via social media, no doubt James Deen Day, was an enjoyable one for the majority of those who attended. If Schwyzer intends to rope in more porn stars to his classroom, I have no qualms about it. As long as he continues to fairly invite antiporn feminist folks; I think it's great. Although Schwyzer and I have split from our once shared views on porn, we are like-minded in that we are both committed to listening.
No comments:
Post a Comment