« $pread #4 Reading and Party | Main | WBAI loves $pread two times »

Gaps in perception

January 10, 2006

Oftentimes when I watch porn I wonder about the ways that performers are managed and treated off screen, and how that is connected to the way they appear on screen. A lot of talk about porn, exploitation and objectification of women focuses on the image, the public end result, though some of it also focuses on the behind the scenes treatment of women, such as in the many tales of Linda Lovelace’s treatment by her husband/manager Chuck Traynor. Sometimes there’s a pretty strong connection between how a performer is treated off screen and how she appears on screen – especially if the off screen treatment is wretched, claims of exploitation all around are pretty valid.

But of course this can be really complicated. A great example is Bang Bus – a “reality porn” concept in which dudes drive around in a bus, pick up a girl, offer her cash money for fucking, fuck the hell out of her and then toss her out of the bus without paying her. These flicks are all fantasy – the scenes are pre-arranged with hired performers who then act out their roles. There is definitely a creepy and exploitative overtone to these videos, but from what I’ve heard from various performers, the shoots are pretty comfortable and fun.

This is kind of the flipside to the first paragraph – what happens when the end result is supposed to embody various yucky misogynistic fantasies, but the company is not misogynistic, deceptive or evil in its dealings with its performers (note that I’m not necessarily bestowing all of that on BangBus)? There is definitely something creepy about responding to a market (or perceived market) for movies that feature girls getting fucked over in ways that imply lack of consent – but if the performers consent to the films and porn is the enactment of people’s fantasies, is it all bad? Fantasies are often detached from what people really want to do to each other, but porn messes a bit of that up because it involves real people doing real things to each other, even if it’s technically in a fantasy realm.

I think it’s impossible to talk about the ways in which images may or may be not exploitative without talking about the conditions (working and cultural) under which people are expected to create/perform in them. Unfortunately, this isn’t always known – but its one of the things that I find really interesting, not just in the porn world but in other visual culture as well, especially in art. It’s easier just to read the image and think about the auteur, the vision of the person holding the camera or the paintbrush, but what about the person being depicted and their input?

Posted by Dacia at January 10, 2006 05:05 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wakingvixen.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/441

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gaps in perception:

» discount ink cartridges from discount ink cartridges
discount ink cartridges printer ink printer ink ink cartridges ink cartridges [Read More]

Tracked on April 24, 2006 05:47 PM

» discount ink cartridges from discount ink cartridges
discount ink cartridges inkjet cartridges inkjet cartridges inkjet inkjet [Read More]

Tracked on April 24, 2006 05:47 PM

» discount ink cartridges from discount ink cartridges
discount ink cartridges epson inkjet cartridge epson inkjet cartridge epson ink cartridge epson in... [Read More]

Tracked on April 24, 2006 05:48 PM

» poker casino869 from poker casino869
poker casino poker 132 [Read More]

Tracked on April 26, 2006 05:01 PM

Comments

Awesome blog! I look forward to reading more of it. I <3 your approach to sexuality in general, and specifically regarding safe sex education!

Posted by: StripGoddess at January 11, 2006 03:05 AM

I think it’s easy to assume that whatever action is taking place on screen is what happens off screen. In porn, that is part of the fantasy really. Take BangBus, or MILF productions. We all want to believe that those girls are really a next door Mom, or a random girl on the side of the street. But that is not the case. I don’t think it is the goal of these films to depict the “person” behind the face on the screen. Perhaps that is a different genere.

Posted by: Mark at January 11, 2006 11:22 AM

Upon a time, there was no need to put “no animals were harmed in the making of this picture” notices at the end of movies. Audiences assumed that whatever mayhem was depicted on the screen was a product of movie-magic.

At its core, porn is not movie magic. Implicit in every porn movie is a notification “These performers are really having sex. Nothing is simulated”. In fact, some porn fans become outraged if they suspect that some aspect of the sex act has been faked.

But matter how well or poorly performers are treated by producers; no matter how wholesome or unsavory the narrative context of the sex act; there’s no getting away from the fact that porn is, at its core, the depiction of real people having real sex, and real sex – no matter how cautiously, cavelierly, or callously undertaken – has real consequences.

Posted by: Tony Comstock at January 11, 2006 11:39 AM

Even knowing those Bangbus scenes are faked for “fantasy” purposes, it still bothers me to watch them. I just feel better about my enjoyment of porn if the M/F roles are equal or the woman takes dominance. If my wife ever gets around to watching porn with me, it’s gotta be that or nothing at all… :)

Posted by: Brian at January 11, 2006 12:52 PM

Am I shallow because I don’t think about the performers in a porn flick as people beyond the characters they portray? Neither do I, though, consider mainstream actors or actresses apart from their on screen personas. I sort of pride myself on not allowing performers to be larger than life. They’re people serving my needs and wants, in many ways not terribly unlike the persons who bring my meals at restaurants. Do I think about my waitress at The Ground Round being exploited in working an often thankless job, taking the abuse of sometimes snotty, unappreciative, demanding guests, and hurting her feet with hours of walking around? Nope.

All of us, in whatever jobs we take on for monetary compensation are used to a degree. Granted, in the sex trade being used gets about as personal as it can be dished out if you’re not into the role you’re playing and enjoying it, but is it really that much different from working at any job and being compensated for less that you think you’re worth?

I’ve seen trailers for the BangBus sorts of videos. If I were to plunk down some change to buy one of their offerings it wouldn’t be because of the perceived exploitative nature of the predictable story line; it would be because they use wide angle lenses to make genitalia look larger than life, and they seem to show a lot of the juicy action up close and personal. They feature some awesome cocks to start with, and some really lovely ladies. I’d enjoy of the experience what I can appreciate, and ignore the rest.

Posted by: Joe at January 11, 2006 04:08 PM

“Am I shallow because I… enjoy of the experience what I can appreciate, and ignore the rest[?]”

That depends entirely on what you are ignoring, no?

Posted by: Tony Comstock at January 11, 2006 05:14 PM

Funny, I was just talking about BangBus yesterday, trying to explain the concept to my boyfriend. I’ve always been a bit concerned with how much the whole thing turned me on, even though I knew that it shouldn’t. I had no idea, until rreading your post today, that BangBus used hired performers and that it was, basically, scripted…Now, I have to say, I feel a hell of a lot better about enjoying it so much. Thanks for enlightening me…

Posted by: Jane at January 11, 2006 11:38 PM

“Am I shallow because I… enjoy of the experience what I can appreciate, and ignore the rest[?]”

Well, as an alternate perspective, I’ve taken a personal vow not to “enjoy” porn unless I’m sure that it’s humanely produced. In other words, that the performers aren’t being exploited. Yes, that means I consume only a small fraction of what’s out there. But it doesn’t make sense to me to pay a company to exploit people—no matter how much I may or may not enjoy it.

Posted by: The Old Doctor at January 12, 2006 12:21 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)