Preserving a moment
I'm not saying it's a good or a bad moment, it just. . . is. No enthusiasm for quoting or typing (as opposed to writing) commentary, so just a link of totally random links from which readers are free to draw what conclusions they may:
- Gender and Diversity at E3
- misbehaving.net: E3 and Women
- games.slashdot.org: E3 'Booth Babe' Interviews Reveal Comedy, Tragedy
- E3 2004 Report: Booth Babe Dialogues
Well, maybe one quote, from the first link:
There have been steps forward - but companies like Microsoft and Eidos take a great leap backward when they employ porn stars to promote their games. That is - games that don't feature the stars or their porn in any way.I get it, tho. Even just signing autographs, Tara produced quite a line...exactly what the analysts and chain store managers are looking for. At least, so far.
And maybe some typing: I haven't the slightest clue who Tara is. And had to give up reading comments in that linked Slashdot article, as is always the case when I read comments in Slashdot articles, and you'd think I would have learned better by now.
Oh, one more link, by way of Drylongso: You are what you eat: The pervasive porn industry and what it says about you and your desires, by Robert Jensen.
There are many points in the pornography debate on which reasonable people can disagree. Legal strategies raise important issues about freedom and responsibility, and definitive connections between media consumption and human behavior are always difficult to establish. More generally, sexuality is a complex phenomenon in which wide human variation makes universal claims suspect.But the feminist critique inspires an apoplectic reaction from pornography’s defenders that, to me, has always seemed over the top. The political debate that the critique set off, both within feminism and in the wider culture, seems unusually intense.
[. . .] One obvious reason for the strength of these denunciations is that pornographers make money, hence there is a profit motive in moving quickly with maximal force to marginalize or eliminate criticism of the industry. But the more important reason, I believe, is that at some level everyone knows that the feminist critique of pornography is about more than pornography. It encompasses a critique of the way “normal” men in this culture have learned to experience sexual pleasure -- and the ways in which women and children learn to accommodate that and/or suffer its consequences. That critique is not just a threat to the pornography industry or to the personal collections that men have stashed in their closets, but to everyone. The feminist critique asks a simple but devastating question of men: “Why is this sexually pleasurable to you, and what kind of person does that make you?”
I'm perilously close to using the term "hetero-normative." Sorry about that.
How, or if, any of this ties into the oft-linked Sex pros get ready for party:
With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.
"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week everyone wants to work."
Well, I'm not certain. And, clearly, I lied when I said there would just be the one additional link, and should edit that bit out.
Trying to work out something about the absurdity of accusing Republicans of being represented by John Ashcroft, he of the stern morality (and fitting in those comments Bush made in Turkey a few days back), and the head-explody contradiction of both pro- and anti-pornography feminists simultaneously peacefully coexisting within the Democratic Party, but don't see much point.
Should mention that Jensen's brief, oversimplified "pornographers make money" deserves clarification, but that could easily get all gender-y and class-based, and who wants to read that on a beautiful, if slightly overcast, Saturday afternoon?
And pity if you do, because I'm not feeling much like typing it.
Comments
I like cartoon porn. (wrote long essay, forgot all my big words, gave up) I just do. Cope, sister.
Posted by: Hanna | July 5, 2004 6:54 AM
I'd just like to know one thing.
Why is it wrong that a man can't admit he's turned on by men, but it's also wrong that another man *can* admit he's turned on by women?
Posted by: Meagen | July 5, 2004 11:38 AM
Robert Jensen is a weenie. I would go into more detail about his dopey behavior, notorious in Austin activist circles, but it seems too gossipy.
Posted by: susan | July 5, 2004 1:04 PM
Whoops! Ha ha! Fool me once... shame on... shame on... won't be fooled again. Hehe. I didn't read so well that the person who regurgitated that second-wave bullspit was a fella. It's like someone said before, about liking men who say they're feminists, but really disliking men who say they're lapsed feminists. Same thing here, but way too much overcompensation, dood. (Yes, well, that is redundant, but in this case, maybe worthy of a little redundancy.)
Still. Cope, sister. Second wavers, thank you for your massive contribution to the cause, but you got too much wrong, buh bye, thanks for your help, we'll take over from here now. No, seriously, off the stage before I get the hook.
Posted by: Hanna | July 5, 2004 3:31 PM
Susan, think you're mistaking this place for somewhere with, like, journalistic ethics or some junk. Gossip away. :-)
Meagan, um, no entiendo su pregunta. . . or at least, I don't see where the question comes out of what's in the entry.
Hanna, instead of trying to explain an actual, nuanced position on me first cup of coffee, can I just say I think pornography (as an abstract concept) just is, but specific examples of it, especially those put out by the mainstream/industry in the US, tend towards some hetero-normative (warned ya), misogynist, objectifyin' ickiness?
Nah, too long. Some if it really doesn't do a thing for me at best, kind'a disgusts me at worst. Does that work?
Posted by: Aaron | July 6, 2004 9:04 AM
No, I just wouldn't put it past him to google himself and read however many pages worth of stuff he's have to before eventually getting here...email, of course, is a much better place for gossip, hint hint, if you're into that sort of thing.
Posted by: susan | July 6, 2004 3:36 PM
One of the biggest problem I have with his essay is that comment that pornography is a male problem much as racism is a white problem. Both seem wrong to me, anyone can be a racist, the color doesnt matter and porn is both good and bad for both males and females. First thing, I know more women than men who like porn, which flat out makes my friends abnormal, and second the "gag on cock" thing is so disgusting that i can;t even deal with it. Anyways...i was more upset about the racism thing than i was with the porn thing. I've read worse about porn, including that porn will drive all men to rape.
Posted by: RudeBoy | July 8, 2004 5:04 AM
RudeBoy, there's some horribly pseudo-intellectual thing I could write about producers vs. consumers (of porn, with some totally arbitrary distinction drawn between mainstream and independent), or about social power and the damage one's prejudices can do to the targets thereof, but meh.
"There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." How's that for a short version?
Also, an inaccurate one.
And does anyone else think porn and pornography, rather than the former just being a shorter version of the latter, think the two refer to different things? Or at least that the shorter version carries a slightly different connotative value?
Yeah, just me. Thought so. I shut up now.
Posted by: Aaron | July 8, 2004 8:02 AM