genderberg.com

I have received this email from Chyng Sun at my 'Against Pornography' site's address. I've been told to spread the word. -MH :

"We are excited to announce the completion of our film, The Price of Pleasure: Pornography, Sexuality and Relationships.

The film is being distributed to the educational & non-profit market by Media Education Foundation, and is included in their current catalog (http://www.mediaed.org). We’re also pleased to announce that The Price of Pleasure was recently selected as an official entry to the Montreal World Film Festival, to be held August 21st through September 1st (for more information, please visit http://www.ffm-montreal.org/en_index.html), followed by a commercial run at Cinema du Parc in Montreal from September 5th – 12th.

Our website – http://www.thepriceofpleasure.com/ -- is now live! The site contains information about the film, selected clips, a calendar of upcoming screenings, and a new discussion forum. We hope that you will take a moment to visit the site, and spread the word.

Thank you all so much for your longstanding support of this project, and we look forward to hearing from you all."

http://www.thepriceofpleasure.com/


Chyng Sun
Producer, Director and Co-Writer
chyng.sun@nyu.edu

Miguel Picker
Producer, Director, Editor and Original Composition
mpicker@mac.com

Robert Wosnitzer
Associate Producer and Co-Writer
robert.wosnitzer@nyu.edu

I started posting on The Price of Pleasure forum, but now I'm kind of regretting it. A religious pastor posted on it and I automatically perceived his presence negatively and I posted back. I guess I'm annoyed with the people who accuse antiporn feminists of "being in bed with the religious right" and I see religious-people's involvement as hurting our arguments. I don't want him to taint the discussion on that forum with religion. Maybe I should just let the forum take it's course without me interfering. I think I need to relax a little, and not be so defensive. I think I should stay away from that forum. Observing it is OK, but people might get uncomfortable posting there if I'm all, "Hey this is my feminist perspective on it!" The movie was *not* mainly focused on the porn industry's violence against women and I think that's OKAY for starters (heh, there was actually an interesting conversation about this at the Media Madness institute). The movie does hit home for porn consumers who are uncomfortable w/ their consumption, or former porn consumers, and maybe that's where the conversation has to start.

bluecoat28 wrote:A religious pastor posted on it and I automatically perceived his presence negatively and I posted back. I guess I'm annoyed with the people who accuse antiporn feminists of "being in bed with the religious right" and I see religious-people's involvement as hurting our arguments. I don't want him to taint the discussion on that forum with religion.

Exactly, I hate when these religious zealots get involved. I'd feel tempted to say to him, "Fuck off with your misogynist Bible and your patriarchal "god" that doesn't exist!"

Also, FTR, the Bible is pornographic, and so was the Malleus Maleficarum..

As I wrote on my blog:

... talking about herstory, prostitution and contemporary society, here is an excellent quote from Sherry Lee Short:

". . . the arguments of pro-sex industry advocates and proponents have a common theme: the industry springs from a liberal mindset and frees women and men, sexually, politically, and spiritually. Part of this logic is that sexuality -- particularly women's sexuality -- has been oppressed historically and that the sex industry offers women and men the liberating possibility of unbridled sexual expression. This logic ignores the fact that the use of women in prostitution as well as other forms of sexual commodification has existed for as least as long as there has been an historical record. Thus, if sexual commodification were freeing, then sexual oppression would be uncommon or, more likely, exist only as some curious historical fact. This logic also ignores the reality that the sex industry thrives where the political, social, and religious milieu is fundamentally conservative. It thrives where beliefs about women and children and their roles are the most traditional. . ."

-- Sherry Lee Short in Not For Sale, Stark & Whisnant Eds., p.309.

In this patriarchy we're living in, pro-pornstitution folks are just as reactionary as religious zealots. Both groups uphold patriarchy and perpetuate age-old woman-hating lies. They merely do it in different ways...

Reactionary, really. I also talked about the witch-hunt in medieval Europe. Patriarchal religion orchestrated the killing of nine million women as witches. The Malleus Maleficarum was a form of (Christian) pornography.

bluecoat28 wrote:Maybe I should just let the forum take it's course without me interfering. I think I need to relax a little, and not be so defensive. I think I should stay away from that forum. Observing it is OK, but people might get uncomfortable posting there if I'm all, "Hey this is my feminist perspective on it!" The movie was *not* mainly focused on the porn industry's violence against women and I think that's OKAY for starters (heh, there was actually an interesting conversation about this at the Media Madness institute). The movie does hit home for porn consumers who are uncomfortable w/ their consumption, or former porn consumers, and maybe that's where the conversation has to start.

Bluecoat28, you might wanna use some of my arguments I brought up in this thread here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3272 when a *man* tries to bring his patriarchal religion into anti-porn activism, what do you think?

MaggieH wrote:Exactly, I hate when these religious zealots get involved. I'd feel tempted to say to him, "Fuck off with your misogynist Bible and your patriarchal "god" that doesn't exist!"

Now, please don't take this the wrong way. I only said "tempted". I do realize that I wouldn't actually say that (I would put it in a more polite way), that type of language is too dismissive.

And I do realize that Shelley Lubben, for instance, is a great woman.

I was mainly talking about the *men* trying to bring their patriarchal religion into anti-porn activism and antiporn groups I would never side with.

I don't think I'm gonna argue with him about religion, as long as he doesn't impose it on me. He's not doing that, so it's alright so far. All I wanted to make clear on the board is that I'm not antiporn through religion and I think anyone who reads my post can establish that. If more religious types start posting on the board, I will start up my own thread critiquing religion's involvement with it then I will ask for your help Maggie, lol. Porn is a difficult topic and I don't want to hurt people who use religion to cope with it, even though I disagree with that method. I guess I'm subtle with my dissent. I wish people uncomfortable with porn culture did research on who is involved w/ this movement so they can find the articles by Dines, Jensen, Whisnant, and they could have stronger arguments instead of resorting to religion. These 12 step things don't make sense to me... same goes for alcoholics anonymous and all that... I don't think being a good person has to involve some omnipotent He.

bluecoat28 wrote:If more religious types start posting on the board, I will start up my own thread critiquing religion's involvement with it then I will ask for your help Maggie, lol.

Sure, I will help you if it happens, Bluecoat28.

I think most religious men who address the issue are simply concern trolls.
It seems to me that in essence all they are saying is, Hey! You are doing it wrong. Women are supposed to be oppressed this way, not that way.
It is hard to argue against the boot on our necks when you are constantly interrupted by someone who thinks the dispute is over the positioning of the boot.

thebewilderness wrote:It is hard to argue against the boot on our necks when you are constantly interrupted by someone who thinks the dispute is over the positioning of the boot.

I find you to be one of the most quotable women on the internet.

Criminy! I thought I was too old to blush.
You are very kind.

I watched this last night. After hearing about it, reading quotes from it etc it was interesting to see it. I thought it very well done and a valuable resource to help people "get it". Apart from getting through the horrific scenes, it was great to see some of those names put to faces and voices.

thebewilderness wrote:I think most religious men who address the issue are simply concern trolls.
It seems to me that in essence all they are saying is, Hey! You are doing it wrong. Women are supposed to be oppressed this way, not that way.
It is hard to argue against the boot on our necks when you are constantly interrupted by someone who thinks the dispute is over the positioning of the boot.

I'm with sam--I would love to quote you on this!

You are most welcome to any and all of the words I use, AmazonLaur. Anyone here is welcome to reframe, rephrase, or repeat, anything I say. It is little enough to contribute to your great efforts.