PRINCETON, N.J.—Last month, a decision by Princeton University’s student government body (USG) to grant $1,500 to a student group called Let’s Talk Sex (LeTS), to be used for an event that would include the screening of clips from porn films, instigated a retaliatory effort by school feminists to stop the screening—even though it had not even been scheduled yet.
Among the efforts was a petition that garnered several hundred signatures and an editorial by The Daily Princetonian, arguing against using school funds to screen “immoral” porn.
Allison Vivas, president of Pink Visual, wrote an editorial in reaction to the campus controversy that was posted Friday to the school paper’s website. Needless to say, she took a position contrary to those expressed by the editorial writers.
The editorial—'A porn executive and a feminist'—is reprinted here in its entirety:
In reading The Daily Princetonian’s coverage of the event organized by the student group Let’s Talk Sex last month, I was struck by the fact that many of the students and alumni expressing opposition to the screening of pornography at the event have voiced their resistance with assertions that are built upon faulty assumptions and flawed axioms.
In explaining her opposition to the screening portion of the event, Shivani Radhakrishnan ’11, president of the Anscombe Society and a member of the ‘Prince’ Editorial Board, asserted that “pornography portrays women as objects of sexual desire and normalizes this objectification,” and that “there are health costs [like] addiction.” Setting aside for the moment that the concept of “porn addiction” is a highly contested notion in scientific and medical circles, and that its validity as a bona fide addiction is far from a given, it is simply false to assert that all pornography portrays women as “objects of sexual desire.” The area in which this tired cliche is most obviously false is in the realm of gay pornography. Many gay pornographic films do not depict any women at all, much less depict them as objects of sexual desire.
Limiting the scope of her claim to pornography that does depict women, this position still begs many questions: How do the works of lesbian pornographers who produce erotica featuring women and intended for viewing by other women fit into this axiom? Are these lesbian producers, directors and performers subject to the same bevy of demonizing assumptions as their male counterparts? Are they even worse in their exploitative wiles, given that they are targeting fellow females both in their visual exploitation and as the consumer audience for their films? Does the genre of “fem dom” pornography — in which a female figure is in control — fit into this maxim regarding objectification?
As both a woman and president of an adult entertainment company, Pink Visual, I strongly object to feminists presuming to speak on my behalf when they rail against pornography. The very point of feminism is to affirm that women are fully formed human beings, capable of independent thought and action, and entitled to every bit as much diversity in their thinking and actions as are their male counterparts. I would love to see women who are anti-porn show greater consideration for the opinions and actions of women who are not anti-porn, and for those of us who work in the adult entertainment business, in particular.
Women who are comfortable with pornography’s existence are not all damaged, mentally feeble victims of some male oppressor who sits behind the curtains, clandestinely pulling our strings. Some of us working in adult entertainment are doing precisely what we want to do — and doing it quite well!
Furthermore, at Pink Visual, women occupy the majority of the seats on our executive staff. Apart from me, our marketing director, chief financial officer, corporate counsel, brand and product manager, customer service director, and sales manager are all women. Have we all been co-opted by male oppressors? No. Is there any reason we should not be offended by that implication on the part of anti-porn feminists? I cannot think of a single one, frankly.
Our company is not unique among adult entertainment companies in this regard: We are really just the tip of the iceberg. Take a look at this year’s nominees for the “Feminist Porn Awards.” I submit to you that the women represented on that list would, as I do, take umbrage with the suggestion that we are all exploiters of the female performers we employ. That assertion is not only unfair and ill-informed, but it is also deeply offensive to women on both sides of the camera.
In fact, consumption of pornography by women is reportedly on the rise. While data obtained through surveys must always be taken with a grain of salt, the results of a survey conducted by Netmums and reported on by various media outlets indicating a marked increase in porn viewing among women in recent years is supported by data we’ve collected here at Pink Visual from our own customer base. More and more, we are seeing women joining our websites and buying our DVDs. Men still greatly outnumber women among our customers, but that margin is thinning decisively over time.
The central thrust of my point is that it simply isn’t the place of anti-porn feminists, or any type of feminists, to speak on behalf of all women everywhere. To attempt to do so is equal parts presumptuous, egotistical and ignorant.
I hope my perspective benefits your ongoing debate about the Let’s Talk Sex event and lends credence to the idea that not all women condemn any and all pornography as exploitative, ruinous and corrupting.
