Comments on: Porn again

By: Crystal

Crystal — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:43:52 +0000

oh, and I just have to say that I LOVE this website and have spent the last two nights staying up late into the morning reading your blogs since discovering it.

By: Crystal

Crystal — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:41:53 +0000

I hope that I’m not just repeateing what others have already said – I didn;t read all of the comments.
I’ve always hated SG even more than Playboy just because it pretends to be subversive when it isn’t in ANY way.
While some people have posted here about the positive aspects of SG, i.e. the community, the informed and opinionated members, etc. I personally think that this the most objectionable part of SG; the way that even more supposedly “independent” and “free-thinking” groups have been co-opted by the corporate exploiters. I just have to restate that there is NOTHING subversive going on in SG, the only difference is that the mainstream (or relatively mainstream) has changed so that something that was once somewhat subversive (tattoos, piercings, blue hair) is now commodifiable on a larger, big-business scale.
I don’t know much about Bitch PhD, but from what people have said here it sounds like maybe she is genuinely progressive, I don’t know. But it occurs to me that perhaps it is the very aim of institutions like SG to recruit such people specifically so that they can use their material and have control over it. I’m not explaining myself well, but I guess what I’m trying to say is that I feel that SG is not so much an example of genuinely alternative and independent viewpoints gaining a place in the corporate porn empire as it is of the corporate porn empire taking over virgin territory (I’m sure you’ll appreciate the use of that term).

One final (kind of unrelated to this website) aspect of SG that I take offense to is that, as a person who has been clinically depressed, I hate the fact that it’s called SUICIDE Girls, like contemplating suicide is really just some trendy fashion statement instead of a hellish pit of intense all-consuming self-loathing that no one should have to go through. (Wait a minute, maybe this is appropriate, now that I think about it.) Anyway, I’ll finish with a quote from my sister’s livejournal on the topic of SG:

Let’s see the REAL suicide girls. Yeah, the fat ones with real scars (stretchamrks) on their blemished, moley skin. The ones with saggy although small boobs and dark circles under their eyes. The ones with gap teeth and frizzy hair. The ones who pick at their skin until it scabs and never brush their teeth because it takes too much energy. The ones without betty page haircuts and colorful tattoos. I mean, good old Playboy never pretended to be “real girls.”

By: Clidna

Clidna — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:05:41 +0000

“Sorry to butt in, but why would your boss want photos of you in lingerie if there are nude ones on the internet? And why would you be dismayed?”

Are you serious? So in other words, because she posed nude, she no longer has the right to be treated professionally by her employer? And she should just hand out naked or near naked photos of herself whenever someone asks?

I suppose those women who dress provocatively deserve to be raped, too…

Besides, I know a great number of models from the site that are gainfully employed, and I don’t believe any of them went running to their bosses to tell them that they pose nude on the Internet.

That being said, for the people who keep comparing SG to any other porn site – how many other porn sites have people who pay money to be a member and never even look at the nude pictures? A large number of the people I know from the site go on to rant in their journals, talk to their friends, and participate in groups and discussions that concern things they are interested in. I am one of those people. The reason I joined the site was because a friend of mine showed me some of the discussions and groups, as well as some of the threads and pictures about tattoos and piercing, which I happen to be interested in. 90% of my time on the site is spent in either a Parenting group, or a Literature group. The only time I have looked at nude pictures on the site is when an SG friend of mine had her set put up, and she asked me to check it out. And of all the people I have had contact with from the site, NONE of them were “teenagers”. All were over the age of 20. It sickens me how the words “teen porn site” were used to try and force readers to imagine a bunch of schoolkids looking at porn. Talk about misinformation.

By: NotaLodge

NotaLodge — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 06:12:42 +0000

â€œI would rather have my [male] partner reading a site like Suicide Girls where there is a wide range of colors, sizes, etc than some â€œbig-busted-blonde-bimbos-onlyâ€ photos-only site without any context or additional content (like the newswire, the discussion groups, etc)â€¦Of course that still begs the question â€œwhy should anyone look at these sites at allâ€? Iâ€™m not my partnerâ€™s mother. I donâ€™t restrict what he reads or looks at, nor should I. And despite what you might think about him from this tiny window into his reading list, heâ€™s actually one of the most women-positive, feminist men I know.â€-Shannon
—-Hugh Hefner considers himself a feminist as well, obviously his actions speak differently, and so do your partnerâ€™s. Just because the beauty standard on this web site has changed does not mean its principles and purposes have- there is no difference with â€œSorrowâ€ girl as Pamela Anderson.
Would you get mad at your partner for looking at her site? It has a blog and â€œsexyâ€ pictures just the same? Maybe it just bothers you less because the individuals he would be objectifying (and yes this would be their purpose, like it or not) didnâ€™t fit with the society-structured standard of beauty? -Any kind of exploitation of a woman is still exploitation and by visiting these kinds of sites you only support them. Does a feminist, â€œWoman-positiveâ€, person really support the exploitation of women? I didnâ€™t get this memo. Obviously you are not your partnerâ€™s mother, because that would be incest- I am not my partnerâ€™s mother either, but if they ever supported that kind of web site, I would not be with them- how can I support someone who is supporting the oppression of women? And how can you?
It must be difficult for the select group of males wishing to transcend the patriarchal society and be free of its many toxic agents, but I have no sympathy for those deliberately watching the exploitation and oppression of women (porn).
—- Also- not only is this site including the â€œGothâ€ aesthetic â€œvalueâ€ of these young girls as a means of sexual appeal, but those getting off to it are also pleasuring in sad, and unhappy, femalesâ€”if that doesnâ€™t scream oppressed and perverted, I donâ€™t want to know what does.

By: zofia

zofia — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:51:00 +0000

Sorry to butt in, but why would your boss want photos of you in lingerie if there are nude ones on the internet? And why would you be dismayed?

By: kiki

kiki — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:38:35 +0000

Let me add that although I do find it ‘depressing’ I was not blaming you. I’ve been in a similar position. Ibtp.

By: kiki

kiki — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:31:59 +0000

I should have realized that you were just seeking a venue for your rant when you chose to resurrect this older thread. My mistake.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:20:44 +0000

Please tell me how what I posted here was depressing. Being sexually harassed by my boss is not at all the same thing as posing on SG. SG staff and photographers have never been anything but professional and courteous to me. In fact, the Feminist group on SG gave me support and advice on how to deal with a situation that had left me feeling rather alone.
Most of the members of the Feminist group on SG have declined to post here because they don’t think they’ll make any headway talking to rigid, doctrinaire anti-porn feminists. I don’t know that much about this particular group, and I always give everyone the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I’m wrong to do so.

By: kiki

kiki — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:50:13 +0000

I followed the link to Hunter’s blog and her Thursday June 7 post was particularly depressing especially in relation to what she posted here. As someone who struggled with similar things back in the day, I really hope that she sticks around and reads some more.

By: Hunter

Hunter — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 16:30:24 +0000

I’m pretty insulted whenever an anti-porn feminist tells me that what I’m doing is not a choice I’ve got the agency to make. Being condescending towards other women is not very feminist. I’m so sick of having this conversation with people. It seems pretty obvious to me.
In a capitalist society, everyone’s labor is exploited to some degree. But I’d rather sell my labor doing something I like (like taking creative nude photos!) than something I don’t like so much (like packing boxes). And in terms of the sex part–if enjoying one’s nudity and sure, vanity, gives pleasure to me, why do you insist on labeling that pleasure as BAD FOR WOMEN?
I also dislike the cheap shot at “honkies,” which in addition to being racist, ignores all of the different ethnicities (and countries) that are a part of SG. I don’t know if Twisty is simplifying things on purpose, or simply ignorant.
It’s also not very nice to diss on the community aspect of the site. I’ve met some of my best friends there, both members and models, and that means a lot to me. To put this awesome community in quotation marks is to piss all over a shitload of meaningful friendships.