Posted by admin on February 8, 2007 02:10 PM|Permalink
Comments
Kink.com comments continued:
------------------
"Pretty exploitive I think, and rather ironic."
That would be the insincere efforts of one posting here, whose self-described "work" provides image and example for the lessons of abusing, degrading and harming women.
From Commenter: Pony
2007-04-13 18:12:31
------------------
You know what is IRONIC? Renegade has a picture on her blog at the top of a post bitching about Melisa Farley. That picture is of a magazine cover. Now Renegade, honey, the women on that magazine cover did not give you permission to use it on your blog. Yet you used it anyway. Did you get their permission? Ya, I didn't think so.
You're tiny little argument, originally designed to make feminists feel bad for posting pictures of porn without victim consent is now, well, kinda moot.
So before you go getting your - -DELETED - - about those mean and nasty feminists, take a look in the mirror. Sometimes you gotta use an image to make a point. Even YOU do it!
Oh the hypocracy.
Seriously.
From Commenter: well
2007-04-13 23:09:36
------------
Ren says - "And no one needs to tell me how people are treated once branded a whore. I know. Your feelings cease to exist in the eyes of other people...and not just men"
Sorry renegade but now we have the "poor little whore mememe games" you are well enough known by now for us to have seen this ---oh - how many times now. STOP trying to derail radical feminists work!
You are totally transparent - except to your little Foot Soldiers that is.
From Commenter: LauraLytlle
2007-04-14 17:29:58
------------
Hello again...
Betsy Warrior, you are mistaken when you say I am abused. I am not. I am a masochist, I am an exhibitionist. I ENJOY the sensation of pain during intimacy, and I like high intensities of pain. As it is desired, its in no way abuse. Being a model on my friends BDSM website wasnt abusive either; it was empowering and liberating. I could BE a sexual free being, in the style that was true and authentic for me.
Yes, the plight of trafficked women and forced women is terrible. That doesnt mean all porn should be banned, it means we should go after traffickers.
Chain
From Commenter: Chain
2007-04-14 20:04:54
------------
Listen, all am I asking is that you all ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using. Why is that such a horrible thing to ask?
In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked. Seen it before, I'm sure I'll see it again.
From Commenter: RenegadeEvolution
2007-04-15 00:51:12
------------
Doing just that is one of the mandates of radial feminism. At any rate, the question was answered before you ever posed it, which is why we don't believe you, and in fact, I for one am becoming embarrassed for you.
"{...ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using."
In response to comments by survivors of torture and other sexual abuse, we have placed a warning and additional link to the photograph of kink.com torture. Traffick Jamming visitors can now choose if and when they look at the photographs.
Please DO look at the photographs, which are not owned by the people depicted, but by the torturers.
As long as the only people who see these and others like them are the torturers and torture and pornography consumers, women haters, abusers and traffickers win, because ordinary people will not see what pornography is really about.
"Listen, all am I asking is that you all ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using. Why is that such a horrible thing to ask?
In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked."
Your question was answered earlier - what you did NOT do is answer why you felt justified creating such a stink against anti-porn feminists to use the images when you yourself used the exact same ones, also without asking their consent.
So in order to avoid explaining yourself for doing the exact same thing, you play 'the sympathy card'. Your tactics grow tiresome and very, very predictable.
RE says -"In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked. Seen it before, I'm sure I'll see it again."
Renegade - well we don’t even ‘ask questions’ and we get attacked post after post after post on your blog. In fact, you give a hugely disproportionate amount of energy to just doing that --- attacking radical feminists.
I looked on the site, and I agree with Lucy on one point, I believe a major one: They feature interviews with the girls, who say how much they liked being bound, gagged, and humiliated, reinforcing an already too-dominant stereotype about women liking abuse. The producers may be enlightened about the difference between real and "game" abuse, but it's a pretty safe bet that many of the consumers are not. One study on MSNBC recently showed that a large percentage of the internet porn audiences are adolescent boys. What are they taking away from their views of kink.com?
In addition, much of the world's population are victims of real abuse, and to dress up and play off the torments of the suffering as an internet party game is extremely insulting to those who have actually endured these degrading assaults in real life.
I cannot even begin to express my frustration at the comments being made in regards to the content of mel’s original post. There have been a number of arguments -with valid points being made for either side. Many of which have caused me to seriously reflect on my stance on this issue. However, ultimately I believe that the anti-kink.com argument is incomplete in its evaluation this company. As well, the attacks on companies such as this do not further your goals to prevent true abuse and help those that are repressed, exploited and are in need.
The matter in question can be separated into 2 dimensions. Firstly, whether or not the participants in the pornography are actually consenting individuals. Additionally, the perceived correlation between one viewing pornography and then carrying out such things in real life.
I am frustrated that individuals that choose to comment on this site use their supposed ‘knowledge’ about this porn website as ammunition against it. Not being frequenter of the site or possessing depth of knowledge of the reputation of the company or the subculture how can you with good conscience make your judgments about it? It is quite understandable that if you disagree with this sort of subject matter you won’t have explored this in depth. These women (and men) are interviewed extensively and there is explicit consent recorded on video on much of the site. There are many times that sessions have been cut short because of the participant discovering that this type of sexual play is not for them. A great number of the models are regulars on the site – they come back because they enjoy bdsm. They may practice it in their personal lives as well and see no problem in having photos of themselves online. To claim that they do not understand the implications of participating in such things is patronizing and frankly a bit ridiculous.
On a side note: to those who don’t know – in bdsm – when entering into a session the participants choose a verbal safe word as well as a non verbal safe gesture. At any point in the session the individual can stop it entirely by using a chosen word or gesture. That is how one differentiates between a good keeping going “no” and an actual stop. Individuals who do not respect this agreement quickly find themselves without partners to play with.
Moving on – the correlation between watching and doing. I must admit – there are some really retarded people in the world that get carried away and bring what they fantasize about into reality. There are a great number of people who enjoy bdsm material – you don’t see them all going off to rape someone. No. These people who cannot differentiate between what is essentially right and wrong in reality already do not have a firm grasp on reality and their actions should not be blamed on what media they choose to consume nor should it reflect on others who choose to view the media as well.
How can you claim that this sort of pornographic material can corrupt an individual into finding it enjoyable? Repeated exposure to something such as this may cause a person to grow accustomed just like repeated exposure to anything can. But cannot change person’s like or dislike of it! I believe that if one is so inclined already by one way or another – they will actively seek out this material.
At first when I saw the comparison between kink.com and Abu Ghraib I was horrified and angry. You manipulated information and drew a comparison between consensual sexual acts and the disgusting actions of soldiers blinded by power. They don’t have any correlation to each other – yes the physical actions themselves may seem similar in that yes it is torture. But the mentalities of the participants are entirely different. Not viewing from within the culture of bdsm I understand how it may be difficult to understand the nuances and differences between being ‘taken advantage of’ because you like it and being taken advantage of – but the difference is there.
A great deal of evidence suggests that the models are there by their own will. If that is true and pornography is not the cause of certain depravities but just a byproduct of pre-existing desires what are you doing other than just pointing the finger and trying to catalyze the emotions of certain readers which ultimately will not help the true issue of helping exploited women. If you want to create change in the world don’t go about sensationalizing things and picking on a company that has done much in its power to create a sensible outlet for individuals who enjoy this type of sexual activity. Sensationalizing something just creates strong emotional attachment to an issue which creates extremists and radicals. The world doesn’t need anymore extremists or radicals of any kind. I understand you want to create awareness that there are people being exploited and are in desperate need of help but please don’t go about it in this way.
By the way, why is there an assumption being made that the men portrayed on kink.com websites are gay? Is it because they are being shown in a submission role being dominated by women? Please re-evaluate your decision for that particular title.
Also, by the way, prostitution is a completely valid profession. It has existed in some form or another throughout the world, throughout history and pretty much comes with being human. Don’t tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
Although I am a radical feminist, and cast my lot with anti-porn and prostitution, RenegadeEvolution does raise a good question. The answer is, we are. People going to anti-porn conferences and such won't view the women they see in the pornography as "dirty sluts" or other misogynist names. Also, the question needs to be posed to people profiting off the use of the images for men to masturbate too, not those who use it to show opposition to it. I'm not saying you don't, but are radfems the big baddies here? I'd say no.
Also, I think the most important issue here is not whether an individual consents to sadism and prostitution, but what those acts mean. What does it mean when one eroticises oppression, violence, harm, inequality. What does it mean when our erotisism is modeled on the father who rapes his daughter, the jailer who beats the prisoner, the gay basher who "smears the queer," the owner who whips his slave, and so on? Why are the acts and people we are fighting against in non-sexual contexts the subjects of supposedly liberated sexuality? For example, what amount of self hatred and hatred towards "one's kind" does it take for a gay man to write, watch, etc. pornography in which a gay man is beaten and raped by men as part of a gay bashing? What kind of hatred of femininity and women does it take for a top, female or male, to call their bottom, female or male, misogynist and homophobic names? Why have we dealt with violence by assimilating it?
I'll admit, when I first saw the picture at the head of this blog, my reaction was "How awful!" not "I wonder if this woman gave her consent for her picture to be posted here?". But this is one picture, there are a million porn images all over the Internet and, aside from radical feminists, who EVER wonders if they gave their consent for their pictures to be used in this way?
I'm sure the big porn producers cover themselves with consent forms ad nauseum, but even home movies can be posted as porn online. Anybody tried to get one taken off when they argued that they haven't given their consent to its use? How far did they get?
The woman in the picture matters. That's what this is all about. Otherwise, all the feminists could go home and try to cut the best deal they can with the patriarchy.
We've heard a lot about consent and non-consent of the people in these photographs. As usual, someone is being overlooked, the one doing the torturing. We hear this all the time"I like being abused" How about some confessions of "i like abusing people, but its just my sexuality; its not like its real life or anything."
Also, there are bdsm sites all over the Net where you can find a "consenting partner"; kink.com is not a charitable institution.
Andrew raises an excellent point. What about the "top's"/"S's" responsibility? They are harming another person? What in their head makes them go "OK this woman wants me to pretend to be her rapist stepfather" or "this man wants me to call him a worthless c***. sounds fun" or whatever. just because someone wants you to hurt them doesn't mean you should. if someone wanted me to "top" them, my response would be "holy crap...what happened? i'm not going to cause further abuse." meaning, something happened (e.g. father-daughter incest, abusive relationship) to make them that way. masochists are made, not born.
has anyone read sheila jeffreys (e.g. unpacking queer politics, beauty and misogyny) or marilee strong (a bright red scream). they both argue that the desire to mutilate oneself or be mutilated by others comes from the same source--past traumas, such as illness, child sexual abuse, depression, homophobia, etc.
Lastly, M: I've read many books on sadopatriarchy ("S and m"), both for and against, and seen SM porn, so please don't assume that because we are against it, it's just because we've never seen it and don't really know what it's about. Please. For example, I've read SM porn and been driven to tears. Others have reported finding such material to be triggering of memories of past abuse.
I'm so sick of seeing kink.com described as a porn company, especially in San Francisco, home of everything naughty.
Kink.com is not about porn, it is about torture and pain. They sell pain. They make money off this woman's pain. But, we are all supposed to look away because it's "consensual" and she signed a piece of paper saying that kink.com could sell the video of her being tortured and humiliated.
Well I'm not looking away. I'm looking directly at the evidence. And if you look at it, you can't really call it harmless. It hurts everyone involved in it and it hurts everyone who sees it. It's not cute or edgy or fun or alternative or hip. It is torture.
Shana - the kink.com torture photo has not been removed. A paragraph describing the photo has been added at the top of the blog, so that before opening the photo viewers are forewarned. It's still there! Please download it, make a poster of it, and use it in your community to let people know what's out there.
The fact that using nude pictures of women (or men, frankly) to bolster diatribes against pornography is the best way to do it should never justify disregard for the women involved in the job. Even starting off from a strongly anti-porn perspective, that turns this sort of discussion into a fight with both pro and antiporn sides pulling sex workers from either direction.
Sex workers should always be at the forefront of their own liberation, not marginalised by bourgeois feminists concerned that noone will take a "whore" seriously. The wide distrust distrust of porn actors and prostitutes (particularly when they're women) shouldn't be cooperated with by feminism, and neither should the exploitation of pornographic imagery.
While it is easy to see that many are passionate about this subject, those that are condemning Kink.com and such sites seem be be doing so based on irrational argument, with no logical evidence.
We all know that people are abused in all walks of life, it is not surprising that will include some who work on such sites, but to extrapolate from that, the idea that all people on such sites are abused is nonsense and patronising to them.
If you present a harrowing story of someone abused whilest working as a dental nurse, that is not evidence that all Dentists abuse their nurses. The correlation is irrational and pointless.
The view that there is a 'dominant stereotype' of women liking abuse is absurd and a distorted view of reality.
As for dressing torture up as a 'party game', this is nothing new and we do the same with murder all the time and have done thoughout history, in all genres of entertainment, even fairytales. It is human nature to play out scenes of horror for our own entertainment. Why? Well that is a more fundamental question than we are discussing here, but the 'play acting' aspect of this, is not in itself immoral, it is normal human behaviour.
"We do the same thing with murder all the time". In a fairy tale, the real people listening don't die. In S&M people do get hurt all the time, not always intentionally. Based on the testimony of those who have been there and my own knowledge, there seems to be a dynamic to porn and sex "games" such as S&m to always be pushing to more extremes. THe thrill of the ordinary wears off and people seek the next thrill. Porn has been emancipated for over a generation and continues to push the envelope of what can be shown. THings that were available only with great diffficulty on the edge of town when I was younger are now openly displayed, and, I assume, consumed. The question is not only why, as Steven points out, but also, what is the psychological harm of being involved in these activities, over and above the physical damage. I am not advocating policing the bedroom, but encouraging us to cast a critical eye at what is being promoted by porn and where it is taking us.
Kink.com is an extreme example of the porn industry's confused thinking about consent, pain and pleasure. This thinking leads many viewers to conclude women like being coerced in sex.
"[C]onvicted rapists who [in the 1970s] expressed remorse about their acts of violence, recently [1980s] show no such remorse and often cite as a reason for their guiltlessness that 'everyone knows women want to be raped; all the porn stuff proves that.'"
What a lot of rot. The women in these pictures are well paid people who are part of the BDSM community.
To stifle this is to infringe on the basic Human Rights of individuals who are part of the very caring BDSM community. Such Human Rights violations by organisations such as The Mission Armory Community Collective (How neo nazi does that sound?) are acting in the same way as the Islamic torturers that catsrate men for being homosexual and cut off women's hands for wearing nail polish.
It's also 'old hat' to hear the inferance that, as the area in which the building was purchased hasd a large number of at-risk youth, this site will be involved in exploiting them. Again, what a load of rubbish. Why doesn't the neo nazi organisation start acting against church protected child abuse in it's own ranks instead? Dig deep you'll find the evidence.
I find it laughable, really - the straws some people will clutch at in order to avoid the obvious in their attempts to shift the focus of a discussion where the obvious is so obvious it cannot be avoided.
We started with the juxtaposed images right here and those who were made uncomfortable by the truth of the argument attempted to find an achillie's heel with the 'consent' issue.
Missing the point? Deliberately, I'd say.
And now we have Martin desperately defending the commercial sexual torture of women in terms of minority interest and patriarchal capitalism!
Missing the point?
Deliberately, I'd say.
" Why doesn't the neo nazi organisation start acting against church protected child abuse in it's own ranks instead?"
For the same reasons you defend the commercialised sexual torture of women I'd wager, Martin. Dig deep enough and you'll find them.
I don't think focusing on consent is missing the point, since consent is the key here. To give some examples, in all of the situations I give below, the physical actions of the contrasted events are identical. The only difference is the absence or presence of consent.
Situation A: a penis is inserted into a vagina
Situation B: a penis is inserted into a vagina
Situation A was rape; Situation B was making love. The difference? The owner of the vagina in Sample A did not consent to intercourse.
To give a nonsexual example: my sister takes money from my wallet. If I gave her permission, that's fine. If I didn't, that's theft. Another example: a person punches me. If I consented, that's boxing. If I didn't, that's assault.
It follows that in the photos discussed here, even if the physical acts are identical, that does not make the situations equivalent.
One comment. In Situations A & B, to understand what's going on, we also need to realize there can be a difference in intent. No one is simply a penis or a vagina.What is the intent behind the act?
I just don't see how you can put your emotions onto another person. No you cannot not read into another person's mind and tell what they are thinking.
Hell we do not think alike. I am black I watched my entire life through my white friends eyes. According to them everything was honkey dory, but through my eyes it wasn't. Even as I pointed it out and showed them the disparities. I would never say I knew what someone was going through by just watching them on screen.
If the person came to me and said I was treated bad, then I would in an all out effort try to find help. But, I do things by a case by case base. And of you are citing drugs, mental instability, bi-polarisim then you'd need to get a better look at American society. I know a lot of pretty high executive people who are all three hate and despise their job and want to get out.
Now using those as an excuse to kill an entire industry, just doesn't work.
Now if these participants want to get out but someone is stopping them, that is entirely wrong and criminal. If it is just situational and life is hard, there are many places that life is hard and people make due without going into an industry they despise. Trust me doing anything you hate, or you feel against will eat at you.
If they were forced into the industry, and I read in one of these post that some woman was a submissive who wanted out, then by all means do what she did and go to the law. Report them and if Johnny Law isn't stepping in, there is your moment to crusade on these women rights. I am right behind you picket in hand, letter to whoever I have. If they were forced into it there is you time to crusade on behalf of these women. I can't abide to any form of no consentual work.
But for the people who posted they don't want men lusting after them and that is what porn teaches, I hate to inform them that most of the boys I knew had never seen porn in the 5th grade and yet we still lusted. So did most the girls but usually after one boy in particular.
The treatment of those prisoners were wrong. It had nothing to do with porn or its rights. It has more to do with these people were in the care and trust of the United States and we did them wrong. They could neither leave or complain, and as I stated before if that is a persons situation by all means through up the signs of protest. Get the behavior modified and cut out. But since you aren't screaming for all prisons to go, the situation seems different to me.
I am all for a comparison if these women are behind something besides economics that force them into the agreements. (Meaning it wasn't consentual) I still believe that everyone should be able to say no, yes even mid-way through the set and if at anytime they can't we should bare down on those who are responsible for it. If they somehow fear for their lives if they say no then yes I believe it is wrong. The full brunt of the law should come down on those who are inprisoning them and their will.
I myself have been homeless, without house, roof, shelter, or any means to get food. The chance to get money through porn was given me. (And yes I take offense of stupid comments that belittle men in the same situation as these women you seem to be campioning, hiding behind it belittles the cause seems callous)The different was I just couldn't do it. It wasn't my bag of tea. I didn't condemn the people I knew who did it, for they helped me out a lot while I was homeless and poor. So I told jokes, I danced, I juggled, I broke down an begged for money. I keep looking for away to move out of that state of existance.
I would suggest that you stop generalizing be more direct about who you are and who you aren't trying to take the reigns of. Now if Kink.com is breaking laws take them to court.
I knew lots of girls during my homeless time that had no problem with doing porn at all. I also knew a lot of girls who had a problem with it who were doing horrible things to their bodies to cope with it. For those girls I think making sure their is always a way out is important. I also think making sure the help isn't judgemental is important, but lots of comments themselves here make it seem like these women are too dumb to do things for themselves.
For those it didn't bother, and for those who actually did love the job I think you should back off. You can only help those who want to be helped. Stop belittling people you only add to flame. Do all you can for those who want your help.
I don't believe porn is bad, like any other industry it has it good companies and bad ones. But instead of trying to regulate it and weed out the entirely bad ones you are attacking the forest to get to rot. Why not just get to rot.
I watch porn once in a while and believe in the legalization of prostitution.
But Kink.com is promoting a Violent Torture pornography that does not reflect San Francisco values or the values of the porn or Consensual BDSM community. This is real violence, not kinky play. And the girls smile after the violence and say how much they liked it.
and here's something new for those of us who have to walk or drive by Kink.com's Armory everyday: There are Christmas lights up all along the top of the armory. They are hiring, They even got an award from the Bay Guardian. They had Halloween decorations up. Why are they attracting attention to themselves and the building?
why are the people of San Francisco allowing torture and violence to be sexualized? "we don't torture people" say our elected officials, but in SF we allow people to be tortured, and we eroticize torture. and people make money off of it and the city gets tax dollars.
I’m also worried about the teenage boys I see skateboarding on the Armory steps. Of course they know what’s going on there and of course they try their best to check out the website. What is that teaching them about human sexuality?
Why is there no real opposition to this? What happened with Casa de las Madres? The battered woman's shelter that was right next door to the armory. I haven't seen a single article or news report about this. This is really an outrage.
Here are some things from the kink.com website: "forced blowjobs", "forced penetrations" and "the word NO is not in our vocabulary" how is it that they not trying to legitimize rape?
Comments
Kink.com comments continued:
------------------
"Pretty exploitive I think, and rather ironic."
That would be the insincere efforts of one posting here, whose self-described "work" provides image and example for the lessons of abusing, degrading and harming women.
From Commenter: Pony
2007-04-13 18:12:31
------------------
You know what is IRONIC? Renegade has a picture on her blog at the top of a post bitching about Melisa Farley. That picture is of a magazine cover. Now Renegade, honey, the women on that magazine cover did not give you permission to use it on your blog. Yet you used it anyway. Did you get their permission? Ya, I didn't think so.
You're tiny little argument, originally designed to make feminists feel bad for posting pictures of porn without victim consent is now, well, kinda moot.
So before you go getting your - -DELETED - - about those mean and nasty feminists, take a look in the mirror. Sometimes you gotta use an image to make a point. Even YOU do it!
Oh the hypocracy.
Seriously.
From Commenter: well
2007-04-13 23:09:36
------------
Ren says - "And no one needs to tell me how people are treated once branded a whore. I know. Your feelings cease to exist in the eyes of other people...and not just men"
Sorry renegade but now we have the "poor little whore mememe games" you are well enough known by now for us to have seen this ---oh - how many times now. STOP trying to derail radical feminists work!
You are totally transparent - except to your little Foot Soldiers that is.
From Commenter: LauraLytlle
2007-04-14 17:29:58
------------
Hello again...
Betsy Warrior, you are mistaken when you say I am abused. I am not. I am a masochist, I am an exhibitionist. I ENJOY the sensation of pain during intimacy, and I like high intensities of pain. As it is desired, its in no way abuse. Being a model on my friends BDSM website wasnt abusive either; it was empowering and liberating. I could BE a sexual free being, in the style that was true and authentic for me.
Yes, the plight of trafficked women and forced women is terrible. That doesnt mean all porn should be banned, it means we should go after traffickers.
Chain
From Commenter: Chain
2007-04-14 20:04:54
------------
Listen, all am I asking is that you all ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using. Why is that such a horrible thing to ask?
In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked. Seen it before, I'm sure I'll see it again.
From Commenter: RenegadeEvolution
2007-04-15 00:51:12
------------
Doing just that is one of the mandates of radial feminism. At any rate, the question was answered before you ever posed it, which is why we don't believe you, and in fact, I for one am becoming embarrassed for you.
"{...ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using."
Pony
2007-04-15 13:17:04
------------
Posted by: webmaster | April 15, 2007 02:00 PM
In response to comments by survivors of torture and other sexual abuse, we have placed a warning and additional link to the photograph of kink.com torture. Traffick Jamming visitors can now choose if and when they look at the photographs.
Posted by: melissa | April 15, 2007 03:59 PM
Please DO look at the photographs, which are not owned by the people depicted, but by the torturers.
As long as the only people who see these and others like them are the torturers and torture and pornography consumers, women haters, abusers and traffickers win, because ordinary people will not see what pornography is really about.
Posted by: Pony | April 15, 2007 05:22 PM
"Listen, all am I asking is that you all ponder the thoughts of the women whose images you are using. Why is that such a horrible thing to ask?
In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked."
Your question was answered earlier - what you did NOT do is answer why you felt justified creating such a stink against anti-porn feminists to use the images when you yourself used the exact same ones, also without asking their consent.
So in order to avoid explaining yourself for doing the exact same thing, you play 'the sympathy card'. Your tactics grow tiresome and very, very predictable.
Posted by: stormy | April 15, 2007 05:33 PM
RE says -"In any event, I've had enough, really. Ask a question, get attacked. Seen it before, I'm sure I'll see it again."
Renegade - well we don’t even ‘ask questions’ and we get attacked post after post after post on your blog. In fact, you give a hugely disproportionate amount of energy to just doing that --- attacking radical feminists.
Posted by: lauraLytle | April 15, 2007 05:48 PM
I looked on the site, and I agree with Lucy on one point, I believe a major one: They feature interviews with the girls, who say how much they liked being bound, gagged, and humiliated, reinforcing an already too-dominant stereotype about women liking abuse. The producers may be enlightened about the difference between real and "game" abuse, but it's a pretty safe bet that many of the consumers are not. One study on MSNBC recently showed that a large percentage of the internet porn audiences are adolescent boys. What are they taking away from their views of kink.com?
In addition, much of the world's population are victims of real abuse, and to dress up and play off the torments of the suffering as an internet party game is extremely insulting to those who have actually endured these degrading assaults in real life.
Posted by: Kevin | April 15, 2007 11:28 PM
I cannot even begin to express my frustration at the comments being made in regards to the content of mel’s original post. There have been a number of arguments -with valid points being made for either side. Many of which have caused me to seriously reflect on my stance on this issue. However, ultimately I believe that the anti-kink.com argument is incomplete in its evaluation this company. As well, the attacks on companies such as this do not further your goals to prevent true abuse and help those that are repressed, exploited and are in need.
The matter in question can be separated into 2 dimensions. Firstly, whether or not the participants in the pornography are actually consenting individuals. Additionally, the perceived correlation between one viewing pornography and then carrying out such things in real life.
I am frustrated that individuals that choose to comment on this site use their supposed ‘knowledge’ about this porn website as ammunition against it. Not being frequenter of the site or possessing depth of knowledge of the reputation of the company or the subculture how can you with good conscience make your judgments about it? It is quite understandable that if you disagree with this sort of subject matter you won’t have explored this in depth. These women (and men) are interviewed extensively and there is explicit consent recorded on video on much of the site. There are many times that sessions have been cut short because of the participant discovering that this type of sexual play is not for them. A great number of the models are regulars on the site – they come back because they enjoy bdsm. They may practice it in their personal lives as well and see no problem in having photos of themselves online. To claim that they do not understand the implications of participating in such things is patronizing and frankly a bit ridiculous.
On a side note: to those who don’t know – in bdsm – when entering into a session the participants choose a verbal safe word as well as a non verbal safe gesture. At any point in the session the individual can stop it entirely by using a chosen word or gesture. That is how one differentiates between a good keeping going “no” and an actual stop. Individuals who do not respect this agreement quickly find themselves without partners to play with.
Moving on – the correlation between watching and doing. I must admit – there are some really retarded people in the world that get carried away and bring what they fantasize about into reality. There are a great number of people who enjoy bdsm material – you don’t see them all going off to rape someone. No. These people who cannot differentiate between what is essentially right and wrong in reality already do not have a firm grasp on reality and their actions should not be blamed on what media they choose to consume nor should it reflect on others who choose to view the media as well.
How can you claim that this sort of pornographic material can corrupt an individual into finding it enjoyable? Repeated exposure to something such as this may cause a person to grow accustomed just like repeated exposure to anything can. But cannot change person’s like or dislike of it! I believe that if one is so inclined already by one way or another – they will actively seek out this material.
At first when I saw the comparison between kink.com and Abu Ghraib I was horrified and angry. You manipulated information and drew a comparison between consensual sexual acts and the disgusting actions of soldiers blinded by power. They don’t have any correlation to each other – yes the physical actions themselves may seem similar in that yes it is torture. But the mentalities of the participants are entirely different. Not viewing from within the culture of bdsm I understand how it may be difficult to understand the nuances and differences between being ‘taken advantage of’ because you like it and being taken advantage of – but the difference is there.
A great deal of evidence suggests that the models are there by their own will. If that is true and pornography is not the cause of certain depravities but just a byproduct of pre-existing desires what are you doing other than just pointing the finger and trying to catalyze the emotions of certain readers which ultimately will not help the true issue of helping exploited women. If you want to create change in the world don’t go about sensationalizing things and picking on a company that has done much in its power to create a sensible outlet for individuals who enjoy this type of sexual activity. Sensationalizing something just creates strong emotional attachment to an issue which creates extremists and radicals. The world doesn’t need anymore extremists or radicals of any kind. I understand you want to create awareness that there are people being exploited and are in desperate need of help but please don’t go about it in this way.
By the way, why is there an assumption being made that the men portrayed on kink.com websites are gay? Is it because they are being shown in a submission role being dominated by women? Please re-evaluate your decision for that particular title.
Also, by the way, prostitution is a completely valid profession. It has existed in some form or another throughout the world, throughout history and pretty much comes with being human. Don’t tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body.
Posted by: M | April 17, 2007 03:42 AM
Although I am a radical feminist, and cast my lot with anti-porn and prostitution, RenegadeEvolution does raise a good question. The answer is, we are. People going to anti-porn conferences and such won't view the women they see in the pornography as "dirty sluts" or other misogynist names. Also, the question needs to be posed to people profiting off the use of the images for men to masturbate too, not those who use it to show opposition to it. I'm not saying you don't, but are radfems the big baddies here? I'd say no.
Posted by: demonista | April 18, 2007 09:57 PM
Also, I think the most important issue here is not whether an individual consents to sadism and prostitution, but what those acts mean. What does it mean when one eroticises oppression, violence, harm, inequality. What does it mean when our erotisism is modeled on the father who rapes his daughter, the jailer who beats the prisoner, the gay basher who "smears the queer," the owner who whips his slave, and so on? Why are the acts and people we are fighting against in non-sexual contexts the subjects of supposedly liberated sexuality? For example, what amount of self hatred and hatred towards "one's kind" does it take for a gay man to write, watch, etc. pornography in which a gay man is beaten and raped by men as part of a gay bashing? What kind of hatred of femininity and women does it take for a top, female or male, to call their bottom, female or male, misogynist and homophobic names? Why have we dealt with violence by assimilating it?
Posted by: demonista | April 18, 2007 10:03 PM
So, men being abused at Aru Gharib = bad.
Women being abused = sexxxaayyy!!
Bullshit. People who defend this shit are hypocrites.
Period.
There's a reason you think it's sexy to torture a woman - porn. There's a few reasons porn that like gets made - misogyny and money.
Tell yourself whatever lies you need to sleep at night.
The truth is you're irrelevant. What you are doing is harming others. You know it. We know it.
Time to grow up and admit it.
Posted by: Sick | April 20, 2007 10:20 AM
M says: "don't tell a woman what she can or can't do with her body". Sorry, but pimps do that everyday of the week.
Posted by: Andrew | April 20, 2007 03:02 PM
I'll admit, when I first saw the picture at the head of this blog, my reaction was "How awful!" not "I wonder if this woman gave her consent for her picture to be posted here?". But this is one picture, there are a million porn images all over the Internet and, aside from radical feminists, who EVER wonders if they gave their consent for their pictures to be used in this way?
I'm sure the big porn producers cover themselves with consent forms ad nauseum, but even home movies can be posted as porn online. Anybody tried to get one taken off when they argued that they haven't given their consent to its use? How far did they get?
The woman in the picture matters. That's what this is all about. Otherwise, all the feminists could go home and try to cut the best deal they can with the patriarchy.
Posted by: Andrew | April 20, 2007 03:10 PM
We've heard a lot about consent and non-consent of the people in these photographs. As usual, someone is being overlooked, the one doing the torturing. We hear this all the time"I like being abused" How about some confessions of "i like abusing people, but its just my sexuality; its not like its real life or anything."
Also, there are bdsm sites all over the Net where you can find a "consenting partner"; kink.com is not a charitable institution.
Posted by: ANdrew | April 20, 2007 04:39 PM
Andrew raises an excellent point. What about the "top's"/"S's" responsibility? They are harming another person? What in their head makes them go "OK this woman wants me to pretend to be her rapist stepfather" or "this man wants me to call him a worthless c***. sounds fun" or whatever. just because someone wants you to hurt them doesn't mean you should. if someone wanted me to "top" them, my response would be "holy crap...what happened? i'm not going to cause further abuse." meaning, something happened (e.g. father-daughter incest, abusive relationship) to make them that way. masochists are made, not born.
has anyone read sheila jeffreys (e.g. unpacking queer politics, beauty and misogyny) or marilee strong (a bright red scream). they both argue that the desire to mutilate oneself or be mutilated by others comes from the same source--past traumas, such as illness, child sexual abuse, depression, homophobia, etc.
Lastly, M: I've read many books on sadopatriarchy ("S and m"), both for and against, and seen SM porn, so please don't assume that because we are against it, it's just because we've never seen it and don't really know what it's about. Please. For example, I've read SM porn and been driven to tears. Others have reported finding such material to be triggering of memories of past abuse.
Posted by: demonista | April 20, 2007 10:21 PM
I'm sorry to see the picture taken off this page.
I'm so sick of seeing kink.com described as a porn company, especially in San Francisco, home of everything naughty.
Kink.com is not about porn, it is about torture and pain. They sell pain. They make money off this woman's pain. But, we are all supposed to look away because it's "consensual" and she signed a piece of paper saying that kink.com could sell the video of her being tortured and humiliated.
Well I'm not looking away. I'm looking directly at the evidence. And if you look at it, you can't really call it harmless. It hurts everyone involved in it and it hurts everyone who sees it. It's not cute or edgy or fun or alternative or hip. It is torture.
Posted by: Shana | April 25, 2007 12:03 PM
Shana - the kink.com torture photo has not been removed. A paragraph describing the photo has been added at the top of the blog, so that before opening the photo viewers are forewarned. It's still there! Please download it, make a poster of it, and use it in your community to let people know what's out there.
Posted by: melissa | April 25, 2007 08:37 PM
The fact that using nude pictures of women (or men, frankly) to bolster diatribes against pornography is the best way to do it should never justify disregard for the women involved in the job. Even starting off from a strongly anti-porn perspective, that turns this sort of discussion into a fight with both pro and antiporn sides pulling sex workers from either direction.
Sex workers should always be at the forefront of their own liberation, not marginalised by bourgeois feminists concerned that noone will take a "whore" seriously. The wide distrust distrust of porn actors and prostitutes (particularly when they're women) shouldn't be cooperated with by feminism, and neither should the exploitation of pornographic imagery.
Posted by: sigh | April 30, 2007 02:27 AM
While it is easy to see that many are passionate about this subject, those that are condemning Kink.com and such sites seem be be doing so based on irrational argument, with no logical evidence.
We all know that people are abused in all walks of life, it is not surprising that will include some who work on such sites, but to extrapolate from that, the idea that all people on such sites are abused is nonsense and patronising to them.
If you present a harrowing story of someone abused whilest working as a dental nurse, that is not evidence that all Dentists abuse their nurses. The correlation is irrational and pointless.
The view that there is a 'dominant stereotype' of women liking abuse is absurd and a distorted view of reality.
As for dressing torture up as a 'party game', this is nothing new and we do the same with murder all the time and have done thoughout history, in all genres of entertainment, even fairytales. It is human nature to play out scenes of horror for our own entertainment. Why? Well that is a more fundamental question than we are discussing here, but the 'play acting' aspect of this, is not in itself immoral, it is normal human behaviour.
Posted by: Steven M. dorif | April 30, 2007 06:28 AM
"We do the same thing with murder all the time". In a fairy tale, the real people listening don't die. In S&M people do get hurt all the time, not always intentionally. Based on the testimony of those who have been there and my own knowledge, there seems to be a dynamic to porn and sex "games" such as S&m to always be pushing to more extremes. THe thrill of the ordinary wears off and people seek the next thrill. Porn has been emancipated for over a generation and continues to push the envelope of what can be shown. THings that were available only with great diffficulty on the edge of town when I was younger are now openly displayed, and, I assume, consumed. The question is not only why, as Steven points out, but also, what is the psychological harm of being involved in these activities, over and above the physical damage. I am not advocating policing the bedroom, but encouraging us to cast a critical eye at what is being promoted by porn and where it is taking us.
Posted by: Andrew | May 3, 2007 02:05 PM
NoPornNorthampton.org discusses the April 29 New York Times article about Kink.com at
http://nopornnorthampton.org/2007/05/03/kinkcom-bondage-porn-gone-chillingly-cheerfully-corporate-explicit.aspx
Kink.com is an extreme example of the porn industry's confused thinking about consent, pain and pleasure. This thinking leads many viewers to conclude women like being coerced in sex.
"[C]onvicted rapists who [in the 1970s] expressed remorse about their acts of violence, recently [1980s] show no such remorse and often cite as a reason for their guiltlessness that 'everyone knows women want to be raped; all the porn stuff proves that.'"
Posted by: Adam Cohen | May 4, 2007 07:02 AM
Thank you for that pointer to nopornnnorthampton, Adam! That article is just chock full of great research links.
Posted by: Shana | May 5, 2007 01:37 PM
What a lot of rot. The women in these pictures are well paid people who are part of the BDSM community.
To stifle this is to infringe on the basic Human Rights of individuals who are part of the very caring BDSM community. Such Human Rights violations by organisations such as The Mission Armory Community Collective (How neo nazi does that sound?) are acting in the same way as the Islamic torturers that catsrate men for being homosexual and cut off women's hands for wearing nail polish.
It's also 'old hat' to hear the inferance that, as the area in which the building was purchased hasd a large number of at-risk youth, this site will be involved in exploiting them. Again, what a load of rubbish. Why doesn't the neo nazi organisation start acting against church protected child abuse in it's own ranks instead? Dig deep you'll find the evidence.
Posted by: Martin | May 7, 2007 04:45 AM
If this is "caring", we're in bigger trouble than we thought.
Posted by: Andrew | May 10, 2007 09:08 PM
I find it laughable, really - the straws some people will clutch at in order to avoid the obvious in their attempts to shift the focus of a discussion where the obvious is so obvious it cannot be avoided.
We started with the juxtaposed images right here and those who were made uncomfortable by the truth of the argument attempted to find an achillie's heel with the 'consent' issue.
Missing the point? Deliberately, I'd say.
And now we have Martin desperately defending the commercial sexual torture of women in terms of minority interest and patriarchal capitalism!
Missing the point?
Deliberately, I'd say.
" Why doesn't the neo nazi organisation start acting against church protected child abuse in it's own ranks instead?"
For the same reasons you defend the commercialised sexual torture of women I'd wager, Martin. Dig deep enough and you'll find them.
Posted by: witchy-woo | May 11, 2007 06:14 PM
I don't think focusing on consent is missing the point, since consent is the key here. To give some examples, in all of the situations I give below, the physical actions of the contrasted events are identical. The only difference is the absence or presence of consent.
Situation A: a penis is inserted into a vagina
Situation B: a penis is inserted into a vagina
Situation A was rape; Situation B was making love. The difference? The owner of the vagina in Sample A did not consent to intercourse.
To give a nonsexual example: my sister takes money from my wallet. If I gave her permission, that's fine. If I didn't, that's theft. Another example: a person punches me. If I consented, that's boxing. If I didn't, that's assault.
It follows that in the photos discussed here, even if the physical acts are identical, that does not make the situations equivalent.
Posted by: Vinegar | May 15, 2007 11:59 AM
One comment. In Situations A & B, to understand what's going on, we also need to realize there can be a difference in intent. No one is simply a penis or a vagina.What is the intent behind the act?
Posted by: Andrew | May 17, 2007 07:52 PM
I just don't see how you can put your emotions onto another person. No you cannot not read into another person's mind and tell what they are thinking.
Hell we do not think alike. I am black I watched my entire life through my white friends eyes. According to them everything was honkey dory, but through my eyes it wasn't. Even as I pointed it out and showed them the disparities. I would never say I knew what someone was going through by just watching them on screen.
If the person came to me and said I was treated bad, then I would in an all out effort try to find help. But, I do things by a case by case base. And of you are citing drugs, mental instability, bi-polarisim then you'd need to get a better look at American society. I know a lot of pretty high executive people who are all three hate and despise their job and want to get out.
Now using those as an excuse to kill an entire industry, just doesn't work.
Now if these participants want to get out but someone is stopping them, that is entirely wrong and criminal. If it is just situational and life is hard, there are many places that life is hard and people make due without going into an industry they despise. Trust me doing anything you hate, or you feel against will eat at you.
If they were forced into the industry, and I read in one of these post that some woman was a submissive who wanted out, then by all means do what she did and go to the law. Report them and if Johnny Law isn't stepping in, there is your moment to crusade on these women rights. I am right behind you picket in hand, letter to whoever I have. If they were forced into it there is you time to crusade on behalf of these women. I can't abide to any form of no consentual work.
But for the people who posted they don't want men lusting after them and that is what porn teaches, I hate to inform them that most of the boys I knew had never seen porn in the 5th grade and yet we still lusted. So did most the girls but usually after one boy in particular.
The treatment of those prisoners were wrong. It had nothing to do with porn or its rights. It has more to do with these people were in the care and trust of the United States and we did them wrong. They could neither leave or complain, and as I stated before if that is a persons situation by all means through up the signs of protest. Get the behavior modified and cut out. But since you aren't screaming for all prisons to go, the situation seems different to me.
I am all for a comparison if these women are behind something besides economics that force them into the agreements. (Meaning it wasn't consentual) I still believe that everyone should be able to say no, yes even mid-way through the set and if at anytime they can't we should bare down on those who are responsible for it. If they somehow fear for their lives if they say no then yes I believe it is wrong. The full brunt of the law should come down on those who are inprisoning them and their will.
I myself have been homeless, without house, roof, shelter, or any means to get food. The chance to get money through porn was given me. (And yes I take offense of stupid comments that belittle men in the same situation as these women you seem to be campioning, hiding behind it belittles the cause seems callous)The different was I just couldn't do it. It wasn't my bag of tea. I didn't condemn the people I knew who did it, for they helped me out a lot while I was homeless and poor. So I told jokes, I danced, I juggled, I broke down an begged for money. I keep looking for away to move out of that state of existance.
I would suggest that you stop generalizing be more direct about who you are and who you aren't trying to take the reigns of. Now if Kink.com is breaking laws take them to court.
I knew lots of girls during my homeless time that had no problem with doing porn at all. I also knew a lot of girls who had a problem with it who were doing horrible things to their bodies to cope with it. For those girls I think making sure their is always a way out is important. I also think making sure the help isn't judgemental is important, but lots of comments themselves here make it seem like these women are too dumb to do things for themselves.
For those it didn't bother, and for those who actually did love the job I think you should back off. You can only help those who want to be helped. Stop belittling people you only add to flame. Do all you can for those who want your help.
I don't believe porn is bad, like any other industry it has it good companies and bad ones. But instead of trying to regulate it and weed out the entirely bad ones you are attacking the forest to get to rot. Why not just get to rot.
Posted by: Harrison Anderson | November 15, 2007 07:21 AM
I watch porn once in a while and believe in the legalization of prostitution.
But Kink.com is promoting a Violent Torture pornography that does not reflect San Francisco values or the values of the porn or Consensual BDSM community. This is real violence, not kinky play. And the girls smile after the violence and say how much they liked it.
and here's something new for those of us who have to walk or drive by Kink.com's Armory everyday: There are Christmas lights up all along the top of the armory. They are hiring, They even got an award from the Bay Guardian. They had Halloween decorations up. Why are they attracting attention to themselves and the building?
why are the people of San Francisco allowing torture and violence to be sexualized? "we don't torture people" say our elected officials, but in SF we allow people to be tortured, and we eroticize torture. and people make money off of it and the city gets tax dollars.
I’m also worried about the teenage boys I see skateboarding on the Armory steps. Of course they know what’s going on there and of course they try their best to check out the website. What is that teaching them about human sexuality?
Why is there no real opposition to this? What happened with Casa de las Madres? The battered woman's shelter that was right next door to the armory. I haven't seen a single article or news report about this. This is really an outrage.
Here are some things from the kink.com website: "forced blowjobs", "forced penetrations" and "the word NO is not in our vocabulary" how is it that they not trying to legitimize rape?
Posted by: tre | December 3, 2007 08:52 PM