Us and Them

I gained a bit of retroactive respect for Nikita Krushchev when I heard that his entire entourage, from his advisors to his driver, ate the same food at the same table. At least he seems to have been an authentic egalitarian. Marxism for him was not just a convenient pose to sustain his privileged status in a totalitarian state. His behavior suggests rather that, in his idealist vision, individuals have different roles, but they are all human... all essentially the same, with the same rights and needs.

I don't know how I stumbled on Marks Cum Blog [sic], but what struck me about it was this: Nearly every posting of themed photos (in the linked posting, it's intermammary intercourse) includes some pictures of the blogger and/or his sexual partner. I appreciate the way this act subverts, or simply ignores, the presumed relationships of power, and the one-way nature of voyeurism, between the subject and object of the sexual gaze in pornography. By recognizing his own potential--and that of his beloved--to be eroticized and objectified, he is also tacitly but unambiguously acknowedging the humanity of the on-camera talent in the sexually explicit images he posts. He is saying, in effect, They are not really different than Us.

This doesn't mean that "Mark" or the viewers of his blog are responsible or ethical porn consumers, at least not yet. I assume the photos he posts are as likely as any to use exploited talent, for example. But his effort (probably unconscious, but very real and honest) to dissolve the Fourth Wall of pornography is an important step.

People who share their sexuality on camera have lives, and have rights. They want security and comfort, and they search for love and meaningful connection with the people they care about.

Once an awareness of these simple truths is present, it is more likely that the porn consumer will make choices that preserve and protect the integrity and well being of those people, whose work in pornography we enjoy.

Having said all that, I do wish this Mark guy would learn to spell.

A challenge to "Ethical Porn Consumers" from Salon.com

Here’s a link to a posting from the Salon.com blog, Broadsheet. Broadsheet is the latest incarnation of Mothers Who Think, a column from a previous decade that never really worked, but that just won't die. Salon has long struggled to find its voice for gender issues, but always ends up, on the whole, with a whiney vibe, in a privileged, coastal and fundamentally conventional feminist-mom kind of way. This is despite women who write elsewhere for Salon.com—Stephanie Zacharek, Heather Havrileski, Cintra Wilson, Camille Paglia—who simply by being themselves do more as human beings and as women every day, than the conventional bobo wisdom and tepid snark of Broadsheet will ever achieve.

The author is writing about condom use and HIV testing in the porn industry. What I appreciated about the linked post was this:

That brings me right back to the same conclusion I came to before: It's all about the audience. For those ethical porn consumers out there -- and I'm convinced they do exist, despite past reader comments to the contrary -- it's possible to vote with your dollars. (Of course, much of what gets traction online is pirated material or free teasers for for-pay content, in which case the consumer vote is less direct.) The best middle ground solution I've come across is one suggested by Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation founder Sharon Mitchell shortly after the 2004 outbreak: Why not promote a "seal of approval" that advertises a porno's ethical production values? The gold standard might be requiring rigorous two-week testing and actively defending workers' right to perform with or without a condom. It would be a disclaimer of sorts -- essentially, "no porn stars were harmed in the making of this movie."

I would favor more HIV testing, although not a legal obligation to use condoms at all times. But that’s not the point.

The point is this: The author is not calling for laws or interdiction, but expressing a faith that consumers of pornography can come to intelligent, thoughtful decisions, can be responsible and ethical. And she’s issuing a challenge that they indeed be responsible and ethical. And that’s where I agree the the author, and on a subject more fundamental than the topic of the Broadsheet entry: Treating porn like any other consumer product (rather than further judging and marginalizing it and its fans) is more likely to improve the conditions of its direct and indirect victims, than is any further campaign of censorship, persecution, and exclusion from the mainstream of culture and of law.