(Editor’s note, Rumpus reader Katie Ryder wrote in to complain about the sex ads on The Rumpus sex blog. Links are NSFW)
**
So, this afternoon I was taking a coffee and Internet break from my long exciting day of cover letter writing, and I made my way to the Rumpus. There I checked out the Sex column, because I’d never been there before, and because, you know, I like sex.
I did the preliminary blog scroll through and came across the most recently posted advertisement – one for Sex and Submission. Because of the placement of the ad (central with all the regular postings) and the usual content of the Rumpus, I thought I was being brought to some sort of commentary on sex advertising. But alas, no, I am an idiot. I was brought to SexandSubmission.com. The coffee stains on my tablecloth can attest.
Let me first say that while I’ve had my back and forth sways with how I really feel about the porn world, I’m not someone who is categorically opposed to pornography. I might actually have some more hard-line ideas about how porn effects us in general – as individuals and as a collective, but I have also spent some time with a manfriend browsing the work of the pros. And definitely laughing. I’m 100% pro- open discussion of porn, both in frivolity and seriousness. So while what may have spilled my coffee this afternoon was a literal knee-jerk reaction to surprise penises, what kept me from returning to my scheduled day of job applying was something else.
Like Wally Lamb, I know some things to be true: The posting of these advertisements are all a part of the fun and games of the Rumpus, the ads may or may not actually bring in some cash-money to writing we care about, and they’re straight-up valid as postings on the sex section of a site that by its simplest definition comments on culture. But I still felt straight-up discouraged after I cleaned up my coffee.
Right now the first two featured advertisements on the Sex column are for “Sex and Submission” and “Hogtied” – both sites that fetishize violence against women in a way that I can’t just laugh at, and that I don’t want to support. I don’t begrudge anyone their sexual fantasy, and I support everyone going for their gold in any of the millions of safe, consensual ways to get off, including BDSM. But when the fantasy is defined by non-consensual violence, and the fantasy of the woman depicted is that of a victim, I get worried about the blurry edges. Maybe for some people these images are so elaborate, so unusual, that they don’t seem to have anything to do with our reality at all. And maybe, if we are very lucky, there will be a time in our future when the same images in fact don’t reflect our reality, and could then be funny in their absurdity, because we will be that far past real sexual violence.
But for now, while in the US 1 in 6 women you know will be sexually assaulted in their lifetime, and 3 women will be killed each day by an “intimate partner”, I don’t support advertising for a sight called Hogtied that ties up women like animals and profits from images of them in pain and distress. While the few pictures selected from Hogtied for the Rumpus feature clothed girls smiling and wearing rope (silly!), the site itself will hit you upfront with some very different images, as will Sex and Submission.
It should be noted that both Hogtied and Sex and Submission are subsets of Kink.com, which markets itself as “progressive…porn”, and thus is unusual in its claimed adherence to a “Values Statement”, which can be found on the Kink website. This is absolutely a good thing. But these are still images of violence against women that reap a profit. While it is clearly a tricky line that I am maneuvering, wishing to remain supportive of everyone’s right to sexual fantasy, I feel strongly that such images have the power to deeply limit our understanding of each other and ourselves, and contribute to a culture in which real violence against women is so commonplace. To the real people (non-corporate) fans of BDSM out there, I do love you, I just hate rape, and I hate when we treat each other like meat (see “Little Piece of Meat” on Sex and Submission. And by that I mean DON’T).
For those of you who have no interest in being hung from ceilings by rope, but just wish it could all be hilarious absurdity, like in the good old future when we don’t even remember the association of sex and real violence, I’m right there with you. But for now. While it’s ballsy and culturally aware and self-referential to post these kinds of ads, I just can’t laugh. And I love me some Rumpus and coffee without them.
11 responses
Interesting. I hate rape too. But your argument is the rhetorical equivalent of saying that the girl who wears her skirt too short is “asking for it.”
I believe the opposite–that these images increase our understanding of each other and ourselves–and that people who desire, *consensually*, to engage in BDSM must be allowed to represent that freely. Blaming violence against women on anything other than perpetrator himself is, in my opinion, the real endorsement of that violence–it empowers the perpetrator and dilutes responsibility for such crimes.
This is a much longer and more complicated discussion, but I really appreciate your post–mostly for getting me thinking about this topic and why I think it’s important to defend the right to allow a full spectrum of sexuality to show its face in our overly biased society.
I actually think this is a great long and complicated discussion that should be had in an ongoing way on The Rumpus. On The Rumpus these ads might actually increase our understanding of each other and ourselves because it asks you to think (like posting Katie’s piece). But to compare what Katie is saying to the “asking for it” argument is dead wrong in my opinion. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to realize that these images are part of the cycle of violence against women. They aren’t the cause, but they seem to be part of a causal cycle. These images are here on The Rumpus for thoughtful, safe interpretation (three cheers for free speech), but they are also there for a fourteen year old boy who got snubbed at school today whose hormones are raging and gives him a safe outlet for rage against her, but also affirms his rage while his brain is absolutely not functioning. The image is out there, but the discussion must be loud and clear and everyone gets a word in edgewise (three more cheers for free speech). I think that many people in the BDSM community and Kink.com in particular realize there is a responsibility to not simply throw the images around without some discussion about what the intent is. Maybe the ads need something like a surgeon general’s warning about safe use. If not used properly they could cause injury.
I don’t generally write letters to the editor. In fact, I hung up my
pen some time ago. But today, it was revived, and so I’d like to write
a rebuttal to the reader Katie Ryder’s traditionally angry email
regarding ads for porn sites on the Rumpus’ blog. As is true to my
writing style, it’s all stream of consciousness with only a vague nod
toward structure.
I’ve visited Sex and Submission plenty of times on my own, but did you
really think it was going to be a thinking man’s trope on “sexual
submission”? And if so, weren’t you already setting yourself up to get
riled up about the subject? If you were truly open to a discussion
about porn, would you be parroting back lines from Feminism 101 about
the denigration of women? I minored in Women Studies, let’s move on
from the Second Wave already. It’s quite easy for someone to suggest
that Hogtied and Sex and Submission, and of course BDSM as a whole are
about the fantasized rape of women. But nothing involving sex could
ever be that simple.
Equating rough sex with domestic violence is too easy and simply too
much. It is not rape. It’s not treating each other like meat, well, no
more than any other part of human existence. I’m not quite sure where
your inability to laugh at pictures of women in bondage came from, as
no one was suggesting you do so. Different people have different
sexual interests. And if that site can help anyone realize that their
sexual interests are not creepy and icky, and don’t deserve to be
marginalized or sublimated, then I’m all for it. There should be no
guilt in sex. Unless you get off on that. I’m not sure that you like
“sex”, so much as you like the kind of sex you like. Which is only
natural. I like the kind of sex I like, and often that involves
someone, hopefully me, getting trussed up. And you may also want to
learn about the wonderful world of RSS feeds. You won’t have to deal
with all those ads.
I will say, as for warnings, you only see these ads if you click on the “sex” category. If you stay in the “books” category, where it’s safe, you will never see a sex ad.
The writer thinks she’s making a political point, not just being prudish and squeamish. She is totally wrong about that.
It’s offensive and ignorant to associate people’s fantasies with real-life rape and abuse.
The writer left out two of my favorite Kink.com sites, Whipped Ass (which is female on female) and Men in Pain (which is female on male).
Katie has some good points. Kink.com has tried to position itself as “progressive” porn and they’ve done a good job selling it. New York Times magazine articles on it and that sort of thing. But when you read the profile of Lorelei Lee here on therumpus.net you realize that porn has its adverse effects regardless of whether it is progressive or not. The thing that really makes me wonder is when you look at those videos of eastern European women. There is such a difference in attitude between them and the American models. You watch a shoot with an american model and the attitude is “I’m here because I’m making a thousand bucks and I’ll be someplace else tomorrow making more money.” With the eastern Europeans you pick up that sense of desperation that they’ll do anything for the money and kink seems to exploit it and makes its most humilating videos with them. That really makes you think porn really exploits.
Hey Rumpus-folk.
I’ve tried to keep the below pretty attack free, so I hope I’ve done an okay job with that.
To the first comment-
Saying that what I wrote is the “rhetorical equivalent” of the old “short skirt asking for it” feels a bit like the “rhetorical equivalent” of not having read what I wrote. I did not at any moment relieve perpetrators of sexual assault of any iota of blame. What I said, in the second to last paragraph was that these images “contribute to a culture in which real violence against women is so commonplace”. You didn’t address how this true or untrue. No one is born in a vacuum, no one is raised in a vacuum, and I think we can probably all agree that there are still some large cultural shifts to be made that could help to reduce violence against women. What they are and how we get there is the question. I would really like to hear what other people in this conversation think about what these shifts are and how we get there. I most certainly don’t claim to have the answer, but clearly writing this was in part me thinking about what I do and don’t want to support in the face of this question. A good part of this piece, though, was actually about these images reflecting an all too real reality, which, for me, makes them very difficult to view as pure fantasy. When I see them I do think about the violence they imitate, which is something I’m clearly concerned with. I want very clearly acknowledge that many many people have no trouble viewing them as pure fantasy.
To comment #2:
It’s a great thing to have minored in women’s studies, and it’s a great thing to be able to identify elements of the second wave when you see them, but pointing to this in my writing doesn’t actually provide any substantial criticism. We could also probably point to things in the room and name them. Chair, lamp, Stephen Elliot. Dismissing my point because of the fact that trends in scholarship change over time is just silly. Is it logical or illogical that these images could contribute to a culture that allows violence against women or could encourage us to see each other through a narrowed lens? There are plenty of great arguments against these ideas, but the fact that these ideas have existed for a while is rather irrelevant. It’s kind of the logical equivalent of saying “Don’t worry guys, my mom wrote this piece.” Which is definitely funny. Don’t get me wrong. But not so substantial.
I also never equated rough sex to domestic violence, and I never claimed that this pornography or rough sex was rape. I’m pretty sure you know that. I don’t want anyone to feel guilty about their sex either, and that’s the truth. I think it’s obvious that I was in fact trying to walk right up against a line and find that line at the same time, there is definitely still more thought to go into this. But I guess it’s also the truth that I am more concerned with physical safety than guilt. And if it ever somehow became clear that these images played a role in violence then I would want them gone. That’s the truth.
And to Mr. Alan. I’m well aware that Kink has sites in which men are dominated by women. The truth is it just doesn’t really come into my piece since men are made victims of sexual violence at such a small fraction of the rate that women are. Not that these cases should be disregarded. It is also of course different as men, in general, are better equipped to physically defend themselves, and because these sites represent such a small fraction of porn. It is also true that Kink is not at all the best example of porn that really pushes the limits of fantasy – there are many sites that are explicitly named after different types of assault, and in my opinion are very disturbing in this way. This is part of what makes Kink an interesting topic – the intentions of its depictions are not as clear (and I will not begin to claim any knowledge of their intent).
And to Mr. Alan’s other point. I know that you probably thought long and hard before giving into the impulse to attack a woman’s taste for sex and sexual material before going there, and maybe you felt genuinely attacked yourself, but it was disappointing to read. If we want to go back to commenter #3’s words and talk about “traditional” rhetoric blocking a new path, calling a woman prudish and squeamish when she doesn’t like something that is sexual in nature is an unpleasantly worn-out old card. Like OLD old. I wonder what a woman could say to convince you that her dislike of a piece of pornography was legitimate. Meaning not based on her being uptight and a prude. It seems that however the argument was framed, you could disregard it based on this turn. If you didn’t like her answer, you could just say that addressing her argument wasn’t necessary, because really she was just a prude.
I do appreciate the comments, and I’m happy to be thinking about all of this.
Hey Katie;
I doubt you are going to get much of an open minded critique here. I’ve noticed in the past that the kink.com website has promoted Stephen Eliott’s books on their web-site, so there is some connection between the two web-sites.
That is true. I’m pro-kink.com and I’ve done work for them and The Rumpus and Kink.com have co-sponsored events together.. But that’s just my position. I think this has been a good discussion so far and I’m glad we’re having it.
I tell you Stephen I respect you for putting it up and letting it be vetted.
The place that BDSM porn can have in breaking cycles of violence is in clearly accompanying the primary content (porn) with educational material on the all-important and deeply nuanced issue of consent. When the raging teenage boy sees this material and immediately takes it for confirmation of some misogynistic inklings he may already have, that needs to be followed immediately by a direct and engaging conversation on power and consent. One that doesn’t stop short at “no means no and yes means yes” since, as we all know, pre-existing and sometimes unhealthy power dynamics from the outside world can and do influence negotiated play scenes (and the negotiations themselves).
In my experience (though it may just be that I have been blessed to move in enlightened circles) most long-time BDSM practitioners have a deep respect for fundamental human rights and are more conscious that most of the power dynamics in their personal relationships and in the wider world. They have a vocabulary for many shades of force and consent and a willingness to hash out the details when a new example comes up. This, I think, makes experienced BDSM players (possibly including those who produce BDSM porn, I don’t know any personally) great potential allies of feminists, anti-racists, and other social justice activists. We are daily awash in many forms of power play both self-invited and otherwise. BDSM communities have developed a language and a practice of distinguishing actual and apparent violence, for allowing individuals to articulate very fine delineations of desire, and for the community to take action when actual harm is apparent.
A “surgeon general’s warning” that references this body of knowledge and practice in the BDSM community is an excellent idea.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.