Pseudopod 230: Girls Gone Insane

[eytanz]

I like how the story does not dwell on the pornography, but on the damage that it does to those involved.  Pornography as the expression of free speech is the biggest crock sold to the public today.

Or, if one were so inclined politically, one could argue that the true damage was done here by the cultural stigmas that made the victims of being drugged and sexually exploited unable to function properly in society afterwards.

I am also very wary of generalizing from the non-consensual sexual acts that are in the root of this story to all pornography. There's a lot of terrible exploitation going on in the world that needs to be eliminated, but I am very firmly of the opinion that if two (or more) adults want to engage in consensual sexual activity on camera and profit from it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

[Scattercat]

EP has me covered on this one.  Still, I'm willing to read it as Maenads rather than yet-another-male-exploitation; it seems like that was a lot closer to what the author would have intended it to mean, within the context of the story. 

The title made me expect something more like this.  (Warning: Ad for Tim and Eric autoplays first.)  (Son of Warning: It's Robot Chicken, so, y'know, plastic dolls doing horrible things, in case you're squicked easily.)

[JohnJasperOwens]

I'd like to thank everyone for listening and commenting. My podcast at Cast Macabre seems to be unavailable, but I'm proud of my humor at Yankee Pot Roast, the story I have archived at TQR, and my stories at 10Flash. People seem to like the story mentioned above, in the Day Terrors antho, although I don't consider it one of my best. Thank y'all again for y'all's consideration.

[kibitzer]

EP has me covered on this one.  Still, I'm willing to read it as Maenads rather than yet-another-male-exploitation; it seems like that was a lot closer to what the author would have intended it to mean, within the context of the story. 

The title made me expect something more like this.  (Warning: Ad for Tim and Eric autoplays first.)  (Son of Warning: It's Robot Chicken, so, y'know, plastic dolls doing horrible things, in case you're squicked easily.)

Further warning: it doesn't play outside the US. Coz y'know teh Internets is about global access. :-(

[Unblinking]

My podcast at Cast Macabre seems to be unavailable

Your Cast Macabre episode seems to be working fine for me, both for streaming and downloading:
http://www.castmacabre.org/2010/08/cm-ep-14-nice-guy-by-john-jasper-owens.html

[Balu]

I like how the story does not dwell on the pornography, but on the damage that it does to those involved.  Pornography as the expression of free speech is the biggest crock sold to the public today.

Or, if one were so inclined politically, one could argue that the true damage was done here by the cultural stigmas that made the victims of being drugged and sexually exploited unable to function properly in society afterwards.
 

One could, but one would be unwise to do so. Women are poor, delicate flowers that us big strong men have to protect by deciding what they can and cannot (especially cannot) do with their reproductive organs.

Whether the men doing the deciding are horrid hairy arabs with shares in a burkha factory or lovely enlightened liberals who shudder every time they log on to xhamster, the core value remains the same. Culture after culture, age after age. It's almost as though there's some sort of biological hardwiring going on.

[Balu]

Somehow I doubt the larger body of "Girls Gone Wild" participants have ever demonstrated a concern for long term repercussions.

Yeah, that's why it was such a great story. It is fucked up that young women who are often vulnerable (if only because they're shitfaced) can have their lives put out to ransom by the assholes who produce these things.

As an afficianado of porn I must admit that I'd never really thought about this before. Now that I have I think that there should be some sort of ongoing consent clause that would allow the girls gone wild, or even insane, to pull the plug on the commercial production and distribution of their performances.

I love it when fiction makes me think.

[deflective]

there's a little dissonance between your last two posts.

you believe women are being fully capable of deciding what to do without the direction (or protection) of men.  why would these performers need the law to protect them above and beyond the rights given to other actors?

[Scattercat]

there's a little dissonance between your last two posts.

you believe women are being fully capable of deciding what to do without the direction (or protection) of men.  why would these performers need the law to protect them above and beyond the rights given to other actors?

Because right now the social stigma is such that a pornographer in possession of 'compromising' images can 'ruin' the women by releasing them.  Until that changes, extra protections may be necessary to help keep the balance of power more equal.

[deflective]

a decision a woman is able comprehend and make on her own.  the reason why the pictures are valuable, and why people are pursuing her to make them, is exactly because there's social stigma attached to them.

certainly, if this existed, we'd want to extend this protection to men as well.  whatever stigma there is for women, it's an order of magnitude worse for men in gay pornography.

and if we extend it that far, why restrict it to pornography?  how about bumfights or jackass type videos?  that kind of stuff attached to your name also comes with a stigma.

heck, there's some reality show where the guy who was Vanilla Ice was all torn up about the laughing stock he'd become.  i doubt many people believe he should be able to tear up his contract.

[Scattercat]

Vanilla Ice became a laughingstock because he was a lip-synching loser with no actual talent.  That's not a case of one bad decision.

Who said anything about limiting the hypothetical increased-protection clause in performance contracts to only female pornography stars?  You're drawing several false equivalencies here.  Slippery slope and strawman, too, for that matter.

[deflective]

Who said anything about limiting the hypothetical increased-protection clause in performance contracts to only female pornography stars?

both you and Balu specifically & exclusively mentioned women when talking about this special actor protection.

You're drawing several false equivalencies here.  Slippery slope and strawman, too, for that matter.

i was trying to speed the process along by showing the inevitable result of trying to introduce a legal structure like this, but if you prefer to do it step by step: who do you think it should cover (ie, what degree of pornography should get this protection)?  x rated?  soft core?  people flashing the camera for mardi gras b-roll?

[Hafwit]

The way I understood it, the women had inhibitions and needed to lose them, in order to exact a fitting revenge. They choose to take the drug, so I don't see them as being without agency. The story could have worked without the brother though. If he'd have been a participant in the carnage it might've been a teensy bit better (but they'd needed another person for the cam).

If I may be personal for a sec, I'd like to thank the Pseudopod people for a generally excellent podcast. I'm going through some seriously tough times, and I'm glad to have something good to listen to. Thank you.

[Balu]

there's a little dissonance between your last two posts.

you believe women are being fully capable of deciding what to do without the direction (or protection) of men.  why would these performers need the law to protect them above and beyond the rights given to other actors?

That wasn't dissonance, it was rum.

Anyhoo you're right that porn stars of all genders should be treated equally, but my point still stands. Given the potentially destructive consequences that appearing in this sort of film can have on their future lives the performers should retain the legal right to refuse permission for it to be distributed.

[Balu]

I was trying to speed the process along by showing the inevitable result of trying to introduce a legal structure like this, but if you prefer to do it step by step: who do you think it should cover (ie, what degree of pornography should get this protection)?  x rated?  soft core?  people flashing the camera for mardi gras b-roll?

Good question.

Perhaps the best answer is, anything that it would be illegal to show a minor doing.

[Millenium_King]

I think it was an interesting idea to tackle this sort of socio-political issue via horror fiction, but I found the execution a little lackluster.  I also found the commentary fairly heavy handed.  The drug was clearly a stand in for alchohol, "Girls Gone Insane" an obvious stand in for "Girls Gone Wild" etc.  I felt the story lacked in the sort of metaphor that makes for good social criticism (cf. "People are the Same All Over" from Twilight Zone or "Let that be your Last Battlefield" from ST:TOS or "Dawn of the Dead" etc.).  I also felt the story lacked any sense of nuance or subtlety: it was a straight revenge fantasy.  The girls were 2D and Marco was 2D as well.  The writing was good, very transparent and well paced.  The narration good.

The subject is one I haven't seen tackled in horror, so I just really felt this one missed a good opportunity to make a strong, original commentary on modern society (cf. "The Disconnected" for a good example).

[deflective]

Given the potentially destructive consequences that appearing in this sort of film can have on their future lives the performers should retain the legal right to refuse permission for it to be distributed.

this was the point i was trying to drive towards.  laws like this are exactly the kind of thing those enlightened liberals shuddering at xhamster use.

we're specifically pointing and saying that this, this, is so bad that we need to make a law so that people who make the mistake of doing it have a chance to recover.  it reinforces the culture that shames people who choose to do it.

there are laws of this type in existence but it's important that they aren't directed at specific lifestyle choices.  buyer's remorse clauses allow people back out within a day or two after they've bought a major purchase (car, house, boat, etc).  but if it only covered sports cars then it would be an implicit condemnation of sports cars.

this law would need to cover a broad base in order to avoid doing more damage than good to the very people you want to help.

[JohnJasperOwens]

re: the larger discussion, I'm genuinely conflicted about laws against prostitution and pornography. Philosophically they're paternalistic in nature, leading down the road toward women-as-chattel. "We will be the judge of what you can do with your body, young lady." In the real world, however, there's no denying that both prostitution and pornography generate a lot of societal problems, most horribly forced prostitution. I do believe the current patchwork of laws/selective enforcement we live under is insufficient, but I have no idea what should be done about it.

[Balu]

re: the larger discussion, I'm genuinely conflicted about laws against prostitution and pornography. Philosophically they're paternalistic in nature, leading down the road toward women-as-chattel. "We will be the judge of what you can do with your body, young lady." In the real world, however, there's no denying that both prostitution and pornography generate a lot of societal problems, most horribly forced prostitution. I do believe the current patchwork of laws/selective enforcement we live under is insufficient, but I have no idea what should be done about it.

Yeah, that patchwork enforcement is a problem in and of itself. You either have the rule of law or not.

As for the details of this debate I would say that if you perform exhibitionist sexual acts for love, money or any other reason then its your right to do so. The problem is that, after those exhibitionist acts are recorded, you lose the power to say 'no' even if you later decide that you want to.

This story makes me think that this is something that should be changed. 

[Millenium_King]

As for the details of this debate I would say that if you perform exhibitionist sexual acts for love, money or any other reason then its your right to do so. The problem is that, after those exhibitionist acts are recorded, you lose the power to say 'no' even if you later decide that you want to.

This story makes me think that this is something that should be changed. 

How would you do that?  Once a video hits the internet, all bets are off.

And then we get into the tricky part about where to draw the line.  Do our new laws protect only lewd conduct in public (which is already illegal, by the way)?  Or can a video of a man tripping in a funny manner become illegal to distribute?  Or what about a politician's gaffe?  Or a celebrity's misstep?

[Balu]

As for the details of this debate I would say that if you perform exhibitionist sexual acts for love, money or any other reason then its your right to do so. The problem is that, after those exhibitionist acts are recorded, you lose the power to say 'no' even if you later decide that you want to.

This story makes me think that this is something that should be changed.  

How would you do that?  Once a video hits the internet, all bets are off.

No, the internet isn't really that free. Think about what happens to people who deal in images of rape or child molestation. Sure they're out there, but they're frightened and hunted.

Forced exhibitionism could be put into a similar category.

[matweller]

Part of being an adult is taking responsibility for your choices and the consequences. All of the consequences. That's not to say that consequences can't bounce back too. In the story, the girls put themselves in a high-risk situation, that led to getting drugged and getting uncomfortable video shot of them. On the flip side, the G.G.I. guy chose to take advantage of people which after a time led to them turning on him and him having a gristly death. The unspoken aftermath is flipped back on the girls who chose to take revenge and will now have to face legal repercussions. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vX07j9SDFcc

[eytanz]

In the story, the girls put themselves in a high-risk situation, that led to getting drugged and getting uncomfortable video shot of them.

What high risk situation? The girls in the story went on holiday and were having fun in holiday resorts. Are you proposing that young women should not travel on their own and engage in recreational activities?

[ElectricPaladin]

In the story, the girls put themselves in a high-risk situation, that led to getting drugged and getting uncomfortable video shot of them.

What high risk situation? The girls in the story went on holiday and were having fun in holiday resorts. Are you proposing that young women should not travel on their own and engage in recreational activities?

Of course. I mean, women just need to be prepared for these sorts of possibilities. It's also why they should pay for extra insurance to cover aborting rape babies - I have a spare tired for my car!

</extremely bitter sarcasm that might get me banned or at least reprimanded>

[Unblinking]

In the story, the girls put themselves in a high-risk situation, that led to getting drugged and getting uncomfortable video shot of them.

What high risk situation? The girls in the story went on holiday and were having fun in holiday resorts. Are you proposing that young women should not travel on their own and engage in recreational activities?

This was my reaction.  There was no indication that these women were doing anything more than going out for a drink (I assume they were out for a drink, anyway, as that's the most likely place to get roofied).