But traumatizing people into buying your products isn’t just for anti-porn feminists. This year has also seen quite a lot of “female porn addict” hysteria. Organizations such as Dirty Girls Ministries (a female-targeted version of XXX Church profiled May 2010 in the New York Times) offer to heal so-called female porn addicts. It’s interesting to note that like Dirty Girls, the same orgs who are pushing the female porn addiction scare are simultaneously crusading against masturbation. This should raise a lot of red flags at the very least in terms of credibility, especially before such an organization gets prime endorsement in the NYT. But what caught my eye was seeing that Dirty Girls Ministries is making a tidy profit off of the sexual disorder epidemic they’ve helped to manufacture.
Each of the high-profile anti-pornography organizationsand pundits are profiteering quite conveniently off of “pornography’s victims.” It’s a never ending revenue source for shame merchants: curing masturbation has been lucrative for centuries as patients can never actually be “cured,”and porn’s so-called victims will exist as long as humans have the capacity for sexual fantasy. So when these victims are viewers that are shamedand exploited by the anti-porn messageand shock tactics, it’s worth it for everyone to take a closer look at how anti-porn organizations are profiting from fear.
Make no mistake, I’m a big fan of people making money. It’s business. But what are these FUD-based (Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt) businesses, exactly? Most interesting is to see that the sourcesanti-porn organizations cite as basis for scientific researchand proofs for porn’s harms are selling “cures”and other products as well:
Profiteer: Dirty Girls Ministries (dirtygirlsministries.com) / XXX Church (xxxchurch.com)
Products: Their own pornand masturbation curesand products. X3WATCH “accountability software,” Safe Eyes filtering software, X3PURE 30-day online porn addiction cure. Also L.I.F.E. Minsitries’ Workbooks.
FUD: Cures womenand men of “porn addiction,” masturbationand erotic fantasy.
Cost: X3WATCH app: (iPhone $1.99/Android $4.99), Safe Eyes ($49), X3PURE ($99 each course). L.I.F.E. Workbook for Women ($24.95), Workbook for Couples ($40.95), Teacher’s Workbook ($68.95).
Additional: Claim for Dirty Girls that “X3 is downloaded 500 times a day”and 100 workshops sold a month.Profiteer: Candeocan (candeocan.com)
Product: Pornand masturbation cures. Candeocan is the “brain science” websiteand porn study resource cited by “Women Against Violence in Pornographyand Media,” Christian anti-porn organization “Pink Cross Foundation” (Shelley Lubben), “Porn Harms” (Patrick Trueman),and “Stop Porn Culture” (Gail Dines).
FUD: Self-generated papers such as “The Science Behind Pornography Addiction” “The Brain Science Behind Internet Pornography Addiction” “How Adult Pornography Contributes to Sexual Exploitation of Children.” Cures for masturbationand porn addiction.
Cost: $47 a month with 6-month minimum (recommended).
Additional: This year Candeocan launched Candeocan Weight Loss(candeoweightloss.com).higher quality imitation rolex submariner rolex calibre 2813 mens 116659 hands 15mm is the best gift to give each other.choose your rolex datejust 31mm 178245rrp ladies president bracelet watch – find a store ¨c keep in touch.Profiteer: The Social Costs of Pornography (socialcostsofpornography.org)
Product: Manufactured research. Self-published book “The Social Costs of Pornography: A Statement of Findingsand Recommendations”and self-published DVD “The Social Costs of Pornography: A Consultation.”
FUD: Pornography addiction is the same as heroin addiction (actual statement). Anti-porn psychologists.
Cost: Book $5; DVD $9.95.
Additional: Sponsored by The Witherspoon Institute (seminars, coursesand publications on faith-based morality, religionand the Constitution)and The Social Trends Institute (STI is a “research center” with publications such as “Embryo: A Defense of Human Life”).Profiteer: Pink Cross Foundation (thepinkcross.org)
Product: Shelley Lubben’s 501(c)3 nonprofit to save porn performers from their work.
FUD: Premise that porn createsand actively promotes disease, sexual abuse, addiction, secondary effects such as rape.
Cost: 501(c)(3) that solicits donations.
Additional: On examination of Pink Cross’ 2009 tax return, of $125K in donations only $13K went to porn star helpand “outreach” (only non-admin category).Profiteer: Enough Is Enough / Donna Rice Hughes (enough.org)
Product: Instructional materials on saving children from pornography. Internet Safety 101 Program.
FUD: Pornography creationand use creates child rapistsand facilitates child predators.
Cost: Internet Safety 101 Program Kit ($39.95), DVD Teaching Series ($19.95), DVD Teaching Series Booklet ($24.95), Facilitator’s Edition ($69.95), Workbook & Resource Guide ($24.95), Booklet Multi-Pack ($29.95)
Additional: Solicits donations to protect the children, solicits vehicle donation, solicits donations from eBay sales.
* “Not For Sale” is listed as an anti-pornand “anti-slavery” organization endorsed by Porn Harms. Not For Sale has a “Freedom Store” where visitors can buy everything from bathand body products to Converse high-tops. Patrick Trueman’s “Porn Harms” website solicits PayPal donations. L.I.F.E. Minsitries “globalized God’s army to battle sexual addiction” with tore_cm/index.php">a complete store.
This is all very unsurprising. XXXChurch and Dirty Girls Ministries, in particular, have been making the rounds lately.
Also, I think it’s worth highlighting the fact that Julie Bindel presents her article in the Guardian with an astonishing amount of contextual omissions, which most readers, even after 400+ comments, have not noticed.
Wow Maymay, your comment is a powerful piece of writing I’d love to hand deliver to the Guardian’s editors. I am so disappointed in Guardian for this crazy-biased piece, which is now looking like little more than sensationalistic propaganda. And it’s painfully anti-male. I’ve often loved their writers (Charlie Brooker, etc) and I wanted to be a Guardian writer after leaving the Chronicle — but now I’m not so sure about their standards
Good stuff. I’ve noticed that a recent emphasis by the antis has been that if you defend porn or sex workers, you are accused of being an apologist for a “huge corporate industry”. If I’m not mistaken, that’s a framing device Dines has been emphasizing, and her followers have been picking this up big time.
So I think its perfectly OK to flip that frame on them a bit. They complain about people even peripherally involved with the sex industry being profiteers? OK, lets look at how some people are making their living being *against* porn and the sex industry. Some people make money with best-selling books. (Lookin’ at you Pamela Paul and Ariel Levy!) Some are selling recovery (and have lots to gain by making you think you’re an addict, or abused). Some are getting incredibly lucrative academic careers out of this. (Hi, Kitty MacKinnon!) One woman, Laura Lederer, managed to rise from doing feminist anti-porn organizing in San Francisco in the late ’70s to a cabinet-level position in the W. Bush administration.
In other words, a pretty lucrative gig for some.
Violet:
What do you expect from Julie Bindel, though? Of *course* anything she writes is going to be anti-male and anti-sex industry. She’s an old comrade-in-arms of Sheila Jeffreys, after all. The Guardian has a lot of columnists like this, because that’s the way British feminism leans. Cath Elliot has used her column as a pulpit to viciously attack the International Union of Sex Workers. Another columnist, Bidisha, was positively cheerful that the UK anti-extreme porn laws might be used to arrest artists (link).
To be fair, Thierry Schaffauser of the IUSW is now an occasional columnist on the online version of The Guradian, so they don’t exclude pro-sex writers as part of any overall policy.
I just saw your link to the speakers for hire page (looks like Norma Ramos of CATW is on it too):
http://www.jodisolomonspeakers.com/women5000.html
“Women Speakers $5000 and Under”
I wonder if it would be in too poor of taste to point out that I’ve seen high-end escort sites arranged exactly the same way.
The “Online Workshop for Married Men” from XXXChurch is led by one Joe Dallas, a leader in the “ex-gay” movement (see http://www.joedallas.com/about-joe-dallas.cfm). The virulently anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-trans, and heteronormative ideology these snake-oil peddlers are sneaking into your shopping bags needs to be dumped out on the shopping-room floor for all to see.
So, yes, Iamcuriousblue, but there’s a big difference between an op-ed piece such as those in The Guardian’s “Comment Is Free” section and an out-and-out “news feature” such as Julie Bindel’s just published piece. Or at least, there should be a big damn difference.
Yes, it may be 2010, and yes, this may be the Internet, but I’ll be genuinely depressed if the standards of journalism have sunk so slow that Bindel’s snake oil counts as “news” in the eyes of an otherwise reputable source like The Guardian.
Frankly, Violet, I’d love to hand-deliver it to Julie Bindel. The fact that I am who I am seems completely irreconcilable to her, to Gail Dines, and to many others who share their views. I’d like the opportunity to shake their hands and maybe make them think twice about what they say.
Somehow, though, I bet they’ll cry “false consciousness” and insist that I’m wrong about me, because surely they have such a thorough understanding about all the complexities of my reality than I do, and thus are somehow qualified to pass judgement on What It Is That We Do. That kind of agency-stealing is way more horrific and disgusting to me than any porn I’ve ever seen. And I’ve seen a lot of porn. But maybe not as much as Gail Dines has.
Well, the Dines interview was in the “Life & Style” section rather than “News”. I don’t know what that means in terms of editorial policy. I will say, a big part of The Guardian’s draw is about commentary, and they don’t always separate it from news as well as the should.
BTW, came across a couple of other articles while I was looking around The Guardian website. The first proclaims the overwhelming success of the Swedish model, based on a new Swedish-government sponsored report:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/02/prostitution-legalise-criminalise-swedish-law
And an actual story, rather than an editorial, on the .xxx domain:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/jul/03/pornography-xxx-apple-ipad
Forgot to mention. The “Swedish model” article is another Bindel piece, at least properly classified under “commentary” by The Grauniad.
Unfortunately, that story on the [dot]xxx domain controversy was preluded by owhat had to be one of the worst commentaries EVER on that subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/27/pornography-glastonbury-australia (First segment)
The original version included the genius thought that the “xxx” was supposed to replace the “www” prefix. When some of the commentators caught that error, the editors corrected and edited the piece…but that explains the depth of sheer stupidity and ignorance built into that “editorial”.
Anthony
Also, Violet, regarding Shelley Lubben and the Pink Cross Foundation….may I suggest a visit to porn starlet Julie Meadows’ blog?? She has been all over Lubben of late, even covering what she sees as some serious issues with the PCF’s recruitment tactics and their financial chicanery.
http://www.juliemeadows.com/blog
Anthony
Pingback: Interesting posts, weekend of July 4, 2010 « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction
Pingback: If Your Not Hetero Your Against Us « Fit To Be Tied
Pingback: Food for Thought: Latest Pro-Porn News and Information | Our Porn, Ourselves
Pingback: Daylight Atheism > Selling Shame: How Christians Profit from Porn
Pingback: For (belated) Lady Porn Day: What are the experts saying? « Feminists with Female Sexual Dysfunction