So where in the world is Nina Hartley ...?

[Daniel Harper]

There are a couple of separate issues here. One is why P doesn't respond to
his niece. I was really just throwing the issue out and hoping for some
response, and it appears that I've gotten that. My apologies if I've ruffled
any feathers or hit a nerve.

The second is a non-P issue of the respectability of porn in general. Since
it's not-P, I'm going to limit my discussion of this issue to this post,
unless there is wider discussion afterwards.

On 5/19/07, Bryan Snyder <wilsonistrey at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Hmmm… lol we just disagree on a lot.
>
>
>
> Ok. First off… I'm not revolted by porn, but I also don't fool myself into
> anything other than what it is: a medium to prompt masturbation, mainly for
> men and if you continue to break it down, those with high porn habits don't
> normally date, have intimacy issues etc.
>

I don't think that's true. Porn consumers look like, well, they look like
all of us, because they _are_ us. Most of the web-savvy people I know are
fairly avid consumers of some type of pornography, and they have a wide
variety of success with relationships. Porn can be a negative aspect on a
relationship or a positive one -- in and of itself it exists as a morally
neutral item.


 Studies are starting to show (since the real porn explosion on the
> internet) that men's sex drives are decreasing because of the fantasy porn
> implants into male minds (and female minds too, with different effects).
>

I googled a bit for this info and couldn't find anything. I've not seen
reputable data to his effect; are you in possession of a link or other type
of reference?


  Above all, it's just not art in my book.  Eroticism is artistic and is
> hard to do well, porn is not hard to accomplish.
>

In other words, you don't like porn. And since you don't elucidate a
substantive difference between porn and erotica, I'm guessing you hold the
definition the way most people do, either erotica is "porn with good
lighting," or it's, "porn that I personally like." I don't deny that there's
a lot of really bad porn out there, but that's just Sturgeon's Law for you.


I was more arguing against, and I can't figure out a better way to say it,
> Taormino being praised in that article as some sort of porn genius… they
> referred to her as an auteur, and I have a serious problem with that because
> personally I think anyone (and I mean *anyone*) can shoot, write, direct,
> light, edit and soundtrack a porn film.  The porn criticism just seems like
> the industry's own creation to provide a veneer of legitimacy to its "Art"
> and what I think about that I probably clear; I don't think there's anything
> artistic to it.  Nude photography is not porn, though… totally different.
>

It sounds like you've defined porn as, "stuff that gets the other guy off,"
that by definition doesn't have artistic merit. I'd argue that making a porn
video that is well-received and of generally high-quality is about as
difficult as making any other kind of artistic statement. If porn doesn't
have any Pynchons or even Quentin Tarantinos working in the industry that's
because it's a different kind of medium -- Belladonna is as good at what she
does as Tarantino is at what he does, and why should we negate any idea of
quality from the former just because it has different goals from the latter?


>   I could go on and on about the suicide of feminism that lies in the
> center of modern porn too, obviously all opinion, but I think the idea that
> women are empowered by showcasing their sexuality and therefore porn is
> acceptable as a career is a total joke.  It's the Frankenstein's monster of
> the women's movement.  All those porn actress empowering themselves are
> still serving male domination.
>

I'm not interested in arguing the feminist issues involved with porn right
now, as it would make this message way overlong and would take us wildly
off-topic. I will make two points only: 1) most of those who make the
argument that porn is intrinsically demeaning to women have little to no
experience with modern porn and 2) it's funny how images of a man and a
woman both nude having intercourse is only seen as being demeaning to the
woman -- isn't the man doing much the same thing she is?

There's erotica and porn… one is hard to do and its most certainly NOT the
> latter.  I would be more just as harsh with her if she were a sitcom actress
> IF SHE WERE BAD, but my point would be that then at least she's got a chance
> to not be.
>

You can be a basically good person who's bad at what you do, and you can
have a career that's basically meaningless in the sense of affecting the
world around you. Assuming that porn is intrinsically bad and that there's
no way of being good at it, would it be any better if she was a bad
accountant or a surly cashier at Wal-Mart?

So with that saying, I see or rather consider TRP to be a fairly moral,
> intelligent and most importantly probably very secure person and people who
> are somewhat moral (nobody's perfect), intelligent and, again most
> importantly, secure are the kind of people who are not "into" porn.  Again…
> this is all opinion, no studies have been consulted or anything, except for
> the sex drive and porn one, which I've seen on CNN, Slate, NY Times … a
> bunch of places.
>

I think your opinion is not based on facts. I've seen no such reputable
study, although conservative think-tanks like to throw lots of numbers
around about how dirty pictures are ruining the family and America and such.
I'd love to look at your data if you have a link for me.

I don't think someone so committed to seclusion would appreciate the
> connection to his niece's work, I just don't – no proof or anything.  I also
> don't think TRP is ok with scenes like the Anibus from GR… or the Yash, Reef
> and Cyp stuff in AtD… I think he's mocking the human sexual weirdness… not
> banging a podium against it but I don't read those scenes as him being "Ok"
> with such debauchery.
>

Haven't read those sequences yet. (SPOILER FOR ATD) He treats the three-way
sexual experimentation of Yashmeen, Reef, and Cyprian towards the end of ATD
with a great tenderness, though. (END SPOILER FOR ATD.)


As far as the CNN thing… I just would have considered that a no-brainer, but
> I have a very high level of respect for TRP and what he's given us, so I
> would not be so adamant about someone whom I don't feel so strongly about…
> so lucky to have stumbled over his work… cross paths, etc.
>


Fair enough.

But I am certainly not revolted by porn, I'm a human… watching sex is
> certainly a turn on, but I do have a habit of feeling bad for the ladies.
>

Again, why only the ladies? There's a lot of porn out there, and I'm sure
some of it is made in less-than-benign circumstances, but the majority of
"mainstream" and even "alt" porn is made by people who are consummate
professionals who are paid quite well for their efforts. (If I had the kind
of physique that people would pay me that kind of money to get naked a have
sex on camera, I wouldn't have a problem with it necessarily -- except that
there are plenty of people who would look down on my decision to do so and
who might have enough power to keep me out of places where I might want to
someday be.)

Here's a real question to ponder – how long does one continue watching porn
> after orgasm?  Answer: not very.
>

How long does one continue to eat a gourmet meal after feeling full? Answer:
not very.

Good questions though Dan.
>
> B
>

I am sorry if I've come across as a bit arrogant or short-tempered in this
message, as that really wasn't my intent. I have enormous respect for your
point of view, and hope that this exchange will not effect our ability to
discuss P on this list in the future. We do have wildly divergent points of
view, though, and I think it's interesting to compare them.

Thanks for the conversation, and for being reasonable in allowing me to have
my say.

--Daniel
<snip old message>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20070519/0ba8207f/attachment.html>