The female gaze, Zoey Holloway style, by Anna B. Volk

Posted on May 6, 2012 by annabvolk

Back in January, I was in the middle of writing an article on pornography and the sexualization of the gaze, and for that I watched around 20 or more scenes. Suddenly, the direction of the article changed dramatically: I was no longer writing about the gaze, but about one specific performer, and the way she uses her eyes on camera. It was too biased. Although I intend to mention her in the article, here is a little introduction, and what I had to leave out.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*

Men look at women. Women watch themselves being looked at. This determines not only most relations between men and women but also the relation of women to themselves.

[Berger, John. (1972): Ways of Seeing, p. 42]

I want to talk about the gaze, this underestimated, underrated tool which can be the most powerful sexual lure between two people. More specifically, I want to talk about the feminine gaze, which hides behind the veil in eastern civilizations, was directed to the ground in Victorian times, and still thrives to find a space into today’s society. Lacan’s appropriation of the term; the dichotomization of the gaze into male and female, perpetrated by Laura Mulvey in 1975; Teresa de Lauretis’ discussion on the adoption of the gaze by male and female spectators (1984);  Jackie Stacey’s question: ‘Do women necessarily take up a feminine and men a masculine spectator position?’ (Stacey 1992, 245); Bracha Ettinger’s Matrixial Gaze (1995): none of these theories approach a topic I am interested in, which relates not to the spectator, but rather the gazer themselves. What gender is the gaze that comes from female XXX performers? To what extent are they participants in the scene in which they perform, and to what extent are they mere spectators? How much objectification really takes place in girl/girl porn scenes, and how much of that is a response to a feminine gaze being masculinized by the demands and expectations of the industry itself?

Those are questions that are currently guiding me throughout my studies, and it is not easy answering them. Very little literature is produced academically from the perspective of porn performers by scholars who are not performers themselves, and the positioning of the eye/I which might change the outcome of a research is quite powerful here. Virtually next to nothing is written about the porn industry that does not come with latent categorization and, therefore, judgment: it is depreciative, belittling, vicious, gynophobic, phallic centered, plastic, fake.

—

In “Teach Me” (Elegant Angel, 2011), erotic performer Zoey Holloway answers the pre-scene interview the following way:

“What do I feel like I can teach a younger girl?

Maybe that whole sensuality part if they don’t already have that within them, maybe teach them to slow it down a little bit, and, and just, you know, just some little basic things sometimes can feel so good, just like kissing right under here or on the back of the knee, just places that you wouldn’t think of.

Or just a lingering look into each other’s eyes can say a lot as well.” [my emphasis]

It is Halloway herself who brings in the discussion of the gaze, whether intentionally or not. It is with no surprise, then, that Holloway stands out exactly by the use of her own gaze over her partner in a girl/girl porn scene.  Moreover, she actually verbalizes the scopic function by punctuating her actions with verbal comments that demark the territory of the gaze in her performances:

“Let me see that again. Let me see your eyes.” / “Let me see your tongue.” / “Let me see.” / “Let me see it right there.” / “Let me see your teeth.” / “Let me see you.” / “Let me look at you.” / “Look how wet you are.” / “It was either that or go blind.”

Holloway derives pleasure from watching: she is part of the scene and spectator at the same time, and this allows us to experience the scene with her eyes, in her eyes, and through her eyes. She enjoys looking at the other, looking at herself touching the other, looking at the reactions the other has, and experiencing them on a physical level: first through her eyes, then through her body. The intensity of her gaze is self-gratifying; she thrives on how much pleasure she is giving her partner by closely observing them rather than reading more “visual” clues that could easily be simulated. She is the kind of woman who understands goose bumps to be more revealing then a moan, and who notices the after sex glow as if it was a Hollywood sign (with Veronica Avluv: PMMAL2, and with Missy Martinez: WSW76).  She teases her partners, inviting them to look at themselves and at her, to share with her (or learn from her) the pleasure of looking. She lingers with her mouth open over cunts and nipples, allowing them time to feel pleasure by imagining her next move before she moves an inch. When she finally reaches for them with her tongue, they are ready.

And so are we.

 

 

Posted in Homepage-All, Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

A nation of peeping Manuels – the future of porn looks raw, by Anna B. Volk

Posted on April 15, 2012 by annabvolk

Throughout the world, there are plenty of social rules against “staring” and deep-rooted cultural taboos which forbid us from looking too closely at other people. The cinematography experience seems to be a rare exception, being one of the only spaces where it becomes both safe and acceptable to observe the lives of others. While the cinema satisfies a primordial wish for pleasurable looking, it feeds on us the hope of seeing the more base side of human nature.  More recently, the proliferation of reality TV shows proves that such quest for scopophiliac pleasure does not have to be restricted to the two-hour movie experience only: we are now able to partake on the events around someone’s life 24 hours a day, thriving on observing what unfolds before us as if a game which does not depend on our participation or opinion but, at the same time, is being played to please us as audience.

And scopophilia is not a male only pleasure. Reality TV is aimed at a female audience the same way soap operas are, and some might even argue there is no difference between them, not even in terms of fictionalization.  According to Robert Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University, reality TV represents “a new way of telling a story which [is] half fiction — the producers and creators set up a universe, they give it rules, they make a setting, they cast it according to specific guidelines as to who they think are going to provide good pyrotechnics. But then they bring in non-actors with no scripts and allow this kind of improvisation like a jazz piece to occur.”  Psychologically, the popularity of these shows is due to viewer’s identification with the ordinary people who are chosen as participants, and viewer watch tantalized by the voyeuristic thrill they get from peeking in.

Voyeuristic pleasure derives from objectifying a character, and narcissistic pleasure from identification with a character in film (HOOFD, 1996).  But what happens where there is both objectification and identification? And in a world where the cult of celebrity has already surpassed that of gods, the concept of being able to witness celebrities’ private moments shines like gold.  As a result, the once unauthored pornography might be replaced by celebrities’ sex tapes which mirror reality TV in several ways, including the level of fictionalization that is present in such videos.  Therefore, by objectifying myself through the image of the other, I am able to embody both the passive and the active agents of sex, this way subverting commonly held notions which establish a said order in what I know as the world.  Moreover, if the other in question is a celebrity, there is the possibility of overlapping narcissistic pleasure with identification, therefore creating a new paradigm in which I am aware I am not the other but, nonetheless, I am able to forge a temporary bond in which my own needs for self-assurance will take place on the same figure I refuse to leave, but cannot identify with.

When it comes to pornography, the voyeuristic fetish already so exacerbated takes an even bigger form because what is being watched resembles genuine personal footage, or reality porn.  The cinéma vérité set ups enable the audience to elaborate a new level of perception in which the boundaries between reality and fiction are blurred precisely because there is no previous agreement between the audience and the film about what is real and what is not: at the same time it all rings true and false, giving spectators room to pretend (or fantasize) that what they are watching is, in fact, lost footage which was supposed to be private but, somehow, is at that moment allowing them to observe the intimate moments of a porn star.

Manuel Ferrara’s series RAW (Evil Angel) is referred to as the director’s private collection: in one-on-one scenarios, Ferrara takes the audience into private and public places in what seems to be uncommitted documentation of real dates, which later translates into unedited scenes resembling informal home videos. Ferrara keeps the camera work to a most basic – gonzo style, his only camera sometimes is on the hands of his partner, who might be filming herself on the shower, a drive to Santa Monica beach, or even talking to the camera as if it was Manuel himself. By mixing POV and voyeur-style shooting (by placing the camera on a dresser, for example), Ferrara makes use of pornographic content and techniques in a way that makes it possible to metaficcionally interrogate porn in its own engine and machinery.  RAW does not seek to emulate the style of amateur pornography because it deliberately plays with exhibitionist awareness and gonzo basic features.

It is not “only” porn.  It is not a celebrities’ sex tape either.  What Manuel Ferrara has inaugurated here differs from the porn we are used to watching because we do not want to feel like we are part of it. On the contrary, the series eliminates entirely the relationship between watching and participating by making explicit that there is no participation of the spectator to what unveils before their eyes.  If anything, the spectator might derive pleasure from knowing that “looking itself is a source of pleasure, just as … there is pleasure in being looked at” (MULVEY, 1975, 200-201), but the commitment between Ferrara and the audience never mentioned this tacit agreement. Instead, it ignores the audience entirely to achieve a form of linguistic pornography that it able to critique the genre itself, without eliminating any of the elements we as audience expect to find in this sort of production.

Manuel Ferrara’s RAW series is initiating a new poetics of porn: one which delivers an exquisite and unique pornographic experience enclosed in a feature with lack of zoom, no anatomy lesson shoots, no forced vocalization, very little camera movement during sex. The realism Ferrara is able to conjure is unprecedent, and there is no doubt he is filming more than just his sexual encounters, but what starts to take form as the future of pornography.

Posted in Homepage-All, review, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

15 top reasons why I don’t want to be a feminist anymore, by Dr. Anna B. Volk

Posted on April 7, 2012 by annabvolk

I refuse to be a feminist anymore.

I have spent the last 20 years of my life baring this flag, but I refuse to be a feminist anymore.

When I joined the feminist movement – and this happened while I was still in high school, and started to debate on women’s rights in the (accidentally) all-girl school I attended – I believed the feminist movement was about protecting and fostering opportunities for women in order to grant everyone a better world. Twenty years later, I read a couple of articles written by feminists. I do not want to be like them anymore: they are bashful towards men, irrational about media, and their irony is acid towards their own kin. So I refuse to be a feminist anymore.

I resent having said that feminism was the answer to all the world’s maladies, and I am ashamed to have supported so many bras being burnt.  If I could, I would take back all the books I have read, the conferences I have attended, the marches I have walked. Because I refuse to be a feminist anymore.

I do not want that for me anymore, but I want to address some topics raised by those articles before I can move on. Take it as you want: I call it my 15 top reasons why I don’t want to be a feminist anymore.

 

1)      FEMINISM is not about treating other women with respect, it is about treating human beings with respect.  So stop being bashful towards people without a cunt.

2)      YOU are not supposed to feel bad for not liking all women. Some women are assholes, like some men are assholes – in fact, some people are even less than assholes, so there is no problem in hating some of them.

3)      I DO NOT care if corporate media feeds the fire of female competition; it does the same to males and they did not turn out as nasty as some women can get, specially towards each other.

4)      MEN are not enemies. So enough with looking at them suspiciously, as if they have a hidden agenda from day one: they might just really like you, and some of them might even have been brought up by a woman who does not see men as enemies and, therefore, was able to raise a nice one.

5)      MEN are not a prize, either. So enough with competing for one, most of the time reducing another woman to nothing based on (a) her intelligence (b) her looks (c) her moral standards.

6)      I CANNOT be nice to people who choose not to be enlightened, so if you belong to middle class – regardless of your ethnicity – and you choose to act like a jerk despite having access to information, I will treat you like the ass you are. This is valid for both genders – don’t think I will be lenient if you are a woman.

7)      ACTUALLY, time for leniency is over. No more excusing women’s behavior by regarding it as a result of male dominance. This was good forty years ago – not anymore.  If you are a woman and you choose to be submissive, please, do so away from me.  It was your choice.

8)      NOBODY over the age of 20 in America – or in the majority of Western countries – is allowed to be ignorant anymore. Hiding behind dated excuses from the 60s which exempted women from responsibility is a coward act, to say the least.

9)      BE a woman. Don’t expect the world to be nice to you just because you were born with a cunt between your legs. If you want respect, demand it by acting in ways that would assure you some.

10)   DO NOT act like a fake plastic being concatenated by masculine minds. If you are overzealous of your body but not protective of your mind do not complain when men treat you like the dumb thing you are.  And, if you are reading this, chances are you had a lot of opportunities in life – you know how to read, to start with – so there are no excuses.

11)   IF YOU are ok with being labeled a man-hater because it means to you that “feminism can better serve those it is meant for”, think again. Feminism should not exist to serve women, but to make the world a better place for everybody.

12)   IF YOU are a lesbian, stop acting like you are better than me because you do not have sex with men. As you yourself advocate, it is not a choice – and if I like dick, there is nothing wrong with me, just like there is nothing wrong with you liking pussy. Some might even like both – equally. That doesn’t place you in a higher sorority in the echelon of life.

13)   STOP thinking everything a man does carries a deep, heavy anti-female meaning. Sometimes they are just being people. It is up to you to be one too, and that means being able to perceive human beings as isolate instances instead of a collective of jerks defined only by their gender. Or would you like me to do the same to you?

14)   IF “men interrupt women more than they interrupt men”, it is because women digress more and are not as objective as men are. Learn to be straight forward or quit whining.

15)   BEING called a “bitch”, a “whore” or a “slut” is not detrimental to women, but to anyone who gets called that. This is convention and will not change. Stop taking it personally. Actually, stop taking everything so personally. Language is only oppressive if you let it oppress you.

 

Just a final note: as a feminist, I do not have to like you because you are a woman. I have to like you despite of the fact you are one.

 

 

 

Posted in essay, Homepage-All, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

An open letter – and calling to arms – to Amanda Marcotte by Anna B. Volk

Posted on March 28, 2012 by annabvolk

An open letter in response to Slate’s magazine article “Lady Problems – If Larry Flynt, Hugh Hefner, and Bob Guccione hadn’t had personal issues with women, would today’s porn be less awful?” by Amanda Marcotte.

 

Peter Driben - Flirt Magazine, Feb. 1949

Dear Ms. Marcotte,

I have just finished reading your article, and I felt the need to write back to you with my views to try to establish a debate over a topic which, it seems, both of us hold close to our hearts and write passionately about: the pornographic industry and its portrayal of female sexuality.

First, however, let me just separate porn performers from actors. These are different categories. To perform sexually in front of camera requires different skills from those who take up acting classes in order to deliver lines and convey emotions in a mainstream, non-sexual film or in a theater. To a certain extent, it might even be said that pornographic performance demands more, for there has to be such a deep physical commitment to the work that it is hard to parallel that to conventional acting. That is not to say that porn performers cannot act; on the contrary, most often than not they are so good on “faking” emotions that we do not even acknowledge that they are not really feeling all that.  But to mix these two categories – performer and actor – is to inhibit any possibility one might have to explore different aspects of the adult entertainment industry, and to belittle performers who are not exemplary in “acting” but, nonetheless, deliver exquisite performances in pornographic film.

Second, anyone who claims that all pornography is degrading to women is looking only at one part of pornography. There are actually films, directors, studios, producers, and performers nowadays worried about empowering the female persona on camera in porn films.  To beat over the deadest of horses, meaning the misogynist side of pornography, is to draw attention to a corpse that should not even be rotting here anymore, but yet remains unburied precisely because we fail to ignore it. It might be that for some people the degrading of women work as an aphrodisiac, and for those I am sure the industry will always carry special features.  What concerns me is not that these films are being made, but that the line between female degradation and female abuse might be crossed at any time. What I mean is that female degradation CAN and SHOULD be staged to please those who are sexually turned on by it, an audience which not necessarily only includes men. I personally do not find that attractive, and politically I can even oppose to it, but that would be restricting sexual fantasies when, in reality, I would rather see men and women acting on their private fantasies aware that those must be staged and consensual.  It is the non-consensual part of female degradation that concerns me, not the degradation per se.

Third, the idea that violent sex is degrading to women is, at the same time, a way to put them under the sex-less category AND a way to perpetrate female submission. Some women like it rough, and there is nothing wrong with it. Yes, there has been an increase on the number of more “violent” acts on pornography, at the same time that old/young roleplaying seems to be what motivates the market now, but that has to do more with the new economic position of porn than on the degrading of the female body itself. Examples can be found on girl/girl movies which explore bondage, spanking, or emphasis on certain body parts without any male participation.  To say, in 2012, that porn is degrading because it is still being ruled and shaped by men is to ignore that a great quantity of films are in the hands of women, and they are the ones who are making the decisions today. Pornography is no longer a man-only realm, it is actually being thought up by women right under our noses.

What you have failed to understand is that if we regard pornography as women degradation we are exempting women from taking part in it when, in reality, they should be active in how their sexuality is portrayed and perceived by any audience. Yes, there are women who are still mimicking what we used to know as “porn”, meaning a world where the female participation is static and submissive and her presence is not really pivotal. It is all about men popping and the female orgasm being faked. That kind of porn still exists and will continue to exist, since it is hard to change not only the male attitude towards women, but also women’s attitude towards themselves.  However, what can be seen in the porn industry nowadays is a change towards a more female encompassing aesthetics; one which observes male and female as equal and is able to free sexualities from pre-concepts, such as that all porn is degrading to women.

I am sorry if I sound too harsh, but the idea of looking at porn as a tool to degrade women sounds just too passé for me, like sitting around burning bras or dissing men – men which we, as women, raise.  I belong to a new generation which has chosen to wear a bra, and who considers men allied and not enemies.  It is time we prove bell hooks wrong, and show the world the master’s tool will, too, dismantle the master’s house… if only we choose to take it in our hands.

Some of us have already taken up the fight. As a woman, what are you doing?

 

Here is the link to the article: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/11/larry_flynt_hugh_hefner_and_bob_guccione_would_modern_porn_be_less_awful_if_its_founders_hadn_t_hated_women_.html

Posted in Homepage-All, open letters | 2 Comments

She does not fake sexy: she embodies it! – an interview with Ari Dee

Posted on March 18, 2012 by annabvolk

I really wish I could cam today, but I feel awful. I know most cam girls would probably tell me to suck it up and make that $ but there is NOTHING worse than faking it, to me.

I do not fake sexy.

I either feel it, or I don’t. I’m a tease, not an actress.

-          AriDee on Twitter, March 12th 2012

 

She finished our interview by quoting Whitman. During the first time I saw her on camera, she mentioned Modigliani, and scolded those who could not understand that Viva la vie bohème, tattooed across her chest, was a reference to Picasso: “Next time, I will get a tattoo in English. You guys are too lazy to find out.”  By then, I was already mesmerized by her: a 24 year old (this month) devilish beauty, who kept me in front of the computer for over eight hours in one week, anonymously observing her interaction with fans. I know how seductive she can be: she has completely glamoured me, and she is going to do the same to you. Believe me.

 

How long have you been in the industry? I’ve been doing adult modeling for almost 6 years, and have been a cam girl for over a year and a half.

How long do you intend to continue camming? Until it drives me utterly insane.

Why did you enter the cam business? I started normal, mainstream modeling when I was 12. The older I got, I started to realize that the adult modeling industry seemed to have a broader idea of what’s beautiful. Girls with little boobs like mine, were found sexy by TONS of people? This blew my mind, honestly! Seeing girls with small boobs, or some extra meat on their bones, or tattoos, or just – people who were different in general. So I knew, as soon as I turned 18, that I wanted to start “alt” modeling, pin-up modeling, and adult modeling in general. The longer I shot adult photos, the more my boundaries and comfort limit grew and expanded. I came across a video of one of my fellow adult models – Evelyn Cates – that she had made for a cam site. It was so mesmerizing and hot that all I could think was, “I want to do that!!”. So I started shooting videos and working at a cam site. It seemed so awesome to be able to make my own schedule, and get to be a hot tease for a living! Plus, it makes it where I can afford to take creative modeling jobs, without being concerned about how much I’m being paid all the time.

How did it happen? The creator of GodsGirls.com, Annaliese, told a bunch of us girls about camming at OnHerCam. I started there and LOVED how attentive, helpful & trustworthy the staff was. Eventually they offered me my own solo site that I’m working on, and I’ve also started camming at MyFreeCams.

What are your goals in the industry? To inspire photographers as a muse! And simply to be happy and love what I do, as long as I do it! Recognition is great, sure, but it’s not my motive.

What are the top three positive aspects of this profession? Living the bohemian life! Getting to do something freeing, creative, and sexy for a living on MY time, MY way. Money, obviously. I rarely take paid modeling work, but having the opportunity to pay my bills and take good care of myself and some, is a pretty great perk to camming. The fans. Whether you’re having the worst day, or the best day – there are always people willing to share it with you.

What are the top three negative aspects of this profession? People who devalue your self worth as a human being, based solely on adult work, instead of the content of character. That gets REALLY old. Fans of porn can be just as bad as porn bashers, because they can be equally capable of reducing you to your sexuality alone. People always expect too much. No matter how much you do in your career or what you do to please your fans, there will always be people who will complain. People always want more. This industry can be full of shady people. Both as far as business associates AND fans. In this industry, you have to be that much more careful about people’s motives and your own personal safety. I’m a very open person, but I have to have more boundaries about my personal life than I’d even like to, just because people are crazy.

If there were three things you could change about the adult industry what would they be? That people would respect personal boundaries. I’d love to not have to worry about keeping my location a secret. But the respecting personal boundaries thing can also apply to plenty of photographers or fans who constantly and consistently try to push performers to do things they aren’t comfortable with. Less social stigma. I don’t fear labels and sure, I’d love to say I don’t care about judgmental people either. But the reality is, life would be easier for adult workers if we weren’t compared to pedophiles or fucked up people in general. Instead of acting like sexual acts are immoral, we should as a society focus on acts of cruelty or bigotry, as what makes a person immoral. Less freebie beggars? Haha, I can’t blame people for wanting free porn. I can however, blame people who come up with the lamest attempts ever, to get it. I also loathe people who pay for content only to spread it over the internet for free. I hope you feel awesome with your internet street cred, haha!

Do you think about yourself as someone different from the performer? No. I think I’m the same person on and off camera, in front of the lens or not. Sometimes I wish I had more of an “alter ego” as some other girls do. The days when you get stressed or deal with one too many assholes, I feel like it would be easier to sort of flip a switch and forget about it, if I sort of had a character for myself. But at the same time, I think I’m successful precisely because I’m a real, genuine girl.

In which ways are you similar to the performer the public knows? I’d say the only difference between myself and my performer persona, is that I’m more of a pushover in real life. I’m too nice and too forgiving, but in the adult industry, I simply can NOT be like that, or I’d have advantage taken of me quite regularly.

How do you think you are perceived by the people who watch your scenes? I’m not so sure it matters. But I think they see me as a dorky nerd, who loves to laugh but can get serious when the occasion calls… serious in a sexy way.

How would you like to be perceived? As a genuine girl who puts it out on the line, but still has a little mystery to her. I want people to see something extra in me, something they can’t quite put their finger on. Something that permanently intrigues.

Did you “build” a new personality for your stage name, or did it happen naturally, without giving it much thought? I didn’t build a personality or persona, but it did take a long time to fully decide on a stage name that I felt embodied who I feel I am. It’s kind of a blast to get to name yourself! People who aren’t performers should be kind of jealous of that, everyone should be able to!

What are some of the limitations you feel come with you being an adult performer, be it in terms of your personal life and/or your social life? When adult modeling was just a passion, and not my profession, I had to deal with constant social stigmas relating to children. I taught at a developmental center for kids (glorified daycare where the kids actually learn) and even had to risk losing my job when corporate found out about my nude modeling. They never did fire me, because they knew I was a great teacher, but they told me point blank they would if parents found out and complained. I understood where they were coming from as a business standpoint of making money, but it always really HURTS when people imply that adult workers are somehow dangerous to be around, or like we’ll corrupt your youth! Honestly, I would strongly consider becoming an art teacher for young kids someday upon retirement, if I didn’t feel it would be wasted schooling because they’d just inevitably fire me for doing adult work in the past.

How do you see your work in a bigger scale of economic value in the US nowadays? I know the recession affected the porn industry as well, but when it comes to camming… think about it… we get customers from all over the world, giving money to US cam girls. So my money comes from all over the world, but only gets spent in the US. That can’t hurt!

Do you think there are any politics behind what you do, as in your work as political statement? If so, how does this work for you? We’re kind of a weird country, because I believe the economy is hugely supported by porn, and as a society we promote sexuality EVERYWHERE, yet at the same time, as a society, we socially condemn porn stars and adult workers. It’s like media hypes up everyone on sex, and then punishes anyone who actually fearlessly loves it. I suppose I hope that the more people that keep doing what they love openly, and the more people who openly support the industry in general, the more socially acceptable it will become. We deserve human rights just as much as anyone else. Also, I’ll gladly scare off ANY fan that disagrees with LGBTQ rights, haha.

When thinking about the future, how do you see yourself in five years? Hopefully my solo site is a smashing success by then! I’d love to have expanded my career, & be more outgoing in general.

 

Curious about which Whitman quote that was? Ask her on Twitter (@TheAriDee ) and stay tuned for her solo site at http://theAriDee.com.

 

Posted in Homepage-All, interviews, PHOTOS | Tagged , , | 12 Comments

On the reasons why Virginia Woolf would be a cam girl if she was alive – Part I

Posted on March 10, 2012 by annabvolk


 

But, you may say, we asked you to write about porn and art — what, has that got to do with Virginia Woolf becoming a camgirl?  I will try to explain…

 

They are everywhere, broadcasting themselves from their living rooms, dancing in front of the camera, quoting Nietzsche and declaring undying love for Modigliani while stripping and simulating masturbatory acts to a ghost audience that slips them tokens for the chance to observe.  A self-presentation that requires nothing but a webcam and time: protected by the boundaries of cyber world, they simulate a space in which their performer’s identity can be easily dissolved. When it takes only a click of the mouse for the show to end, it is easy to surround yourself with mystery and fans.

Camgirls are placed in what Arlie Hochschild dubbed “emotional labor” (1984) because their work revolves around inducing an audience into specific emotional states. However, to a camgirl, such emotional states are not restricted exclusively to the sexual realm. Often these women interact with their audience in non-sexual ways. It is an audience that might be as loyal as any other: the performers seem to know some of the viewers, and to a very large extent, witnessing their “daily routine” on camera makes viewers believe they share some sort of connection to the model that goes beyond the virtual world. In the end, the social product a camgirl delivers acts in two distinct levels: at the same time that it implies a trade mode transaction – 200 tokens for topless, 2500 for full anal – it masquerades such exchange by forging a connection between the performer and the audience who follows them in daily shows and, sometimes, seem to partake on the performer’s routine in true fashion. Working under the two different modes of acting also proposed by Hochschild, camgirls are able to “surface act” – acting as a character without necessarily identifying with the role – and “deep act” – by identifying with the feelings they need to project into the audience. This ‘commoditization of feelings’ makes camgirls a new mode of economic trade: no longer is the audience buying her image, but also her self as merchandise. All this in cyber world. And, in a technological post-Bauhaus era, when we can commercialize ourselves as copies through the use of digital technologies, this seems to be opposite to McLuhan’s proposal that “the medium is the message”.  For camgirls, the message is the medium.

The structure in which it all happens, however, oozes reality: often camgirls broadcast from their homes, their personal objects in the background attesting to their individuality, their musical selection coming from their Ipods: it is all decided by the model, with no influence that might alter her identity when posing to the camera but that of the audience she wants to reach.  While some camgirls might chose to present themselves free from specifics, others might create an entire environment and persona that aims at a specific audience: fetish, role playing, fantasies. And this is a key concept in camming: to be able to promote yourself as unique not based on what you do, but on who you are, on who you present yourself as.  Therefore, it is exactly the idiosyncrasies that separate one performer from another that translates into “success” or “failure”: in an environment where everybody is doing the selling the same way, it is what you sell that guarantees your buyers.

And camgirls have noticed long before their audience that what gather fans are not their bodies or moves, but what they offer to the audience in those interstitial spaces between a topless request and stripping. If the way is to make yourself interesting without resorting to visual appeals, they have nailed it: be it through open discussion on historic periods, high art, or the legalization of marijuana, these women have been able to promote themselves as entities independent from their bodies. That is to say a camgirl can easily become famous more for their interaction with the public than for her physical attributes – a paradigm shift from what we conventionally recognize as the exchange between strippers and audience.  No longer are they stripping, but exposing their own identity – even if forged –to the eyes of those willing to observe their bodies, but also interested in their minds.  What the audience is buying, therefore, is not nudity, but intellect. Thoughts.  Ideas these women alone present as part of themselves, be it wrapped on some sort of fetish or not, but nonetheless by their own volition and, most importantly, by subjects of their own story. Even if sometimes they chose to mimic what is conventionally expected from women, even if they chose to spice their bedrooms up to cater for a more fetishist audience, even if they fictionalize their own identity in order to expose themselves to the camera. It is all their choice.

But where does Virginia Woolf enter in this story? Well, wasn’t she who said that “a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction”? Are there still any doubts camgirls have found a way to have both?

 

 

PS: A couple of weeks ago, I was mesmerized by the performance of one camgirl – AriDee. Her profile will be part II of this series.

Posted in Homepage-All, Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Keep your porn in art: I want art in my porn by Anna B. Volk

Posted on March 4, 2012 by annabvolk

 

Fernando Leite | Andy Warhol goes porn

I do not know who raised the flag first, but it has been around for a while: the idea that art can contain pornography and, yet, not fall under any kind of questionable category. I am not talking about nudity. Nor am I talking about erotic depiction which is often justified as connected with fertility cults and rites. Many temples in India, built between 900-1300 AD, blatantly exhibit erotic art, but I doubt there was any pornographic intent.  Paleolithic cave paintings and carvings, the Turin Erotic Papyrus, sexually explicit paintings and sculptures in Pompeii: all these are going to be interpreted simply as depictions of daily life with some erotic but not pornographic intent, since the concept of pornography as we know it did not appear until late Victorian times.

The Webster Dictionary defines pornography as ‘a depiction of licentiousness or lewdness: a portrayal of erotic behaviour designed to cause sexual excitement’. It seems like there are a lot of carefully worded attempts of separating pornography from erotica, placing the first as having as its primary purpose the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes, while that erotic displays sexually explicit scenes in a more realistic and equal fashion. Some even claim that eroticism is the exploration of the feelings and emotions inspired by sex and sexuality, while pornography focuses exclusively on the physical act, and by creating this difference they ignore the physical effects eroticism – or even art itself – might have on someone. I am not going to debate over the level of sexual arousing that erotica can generate in contrast to pornography for a great amount of people, mostly women; this has been extensively done, and it is old news.  My demand is that art should be included on pornography to cater the needs of an audience who gets off out of art expression. Like me.

What I want to talk about is pornography in its essence, and how much art can be applied to it without removing it from its primordial intention (for I am a firm believer that nothing – not even art – is born out of unintentionality, even if unconsciously). The notion that pornography has no space to host art comes from the idea that art is something more elevated than and superior to regular living. To a certain extent, that is true – to a society which dwelled exclusively on basal modes of reality, to which art and imagination were too expensive to be bought, and to whom struggling to survive meant hours of physical labor that bordered slavery; to that society, which disappeared centuries ago when the borders between classes became something less distinguishable exclusively as a result of social rights and economic revolutions that promoted a less animalistic way of living to less privileged spheres of social life; to that society I can understand that art would be an unattainable reality. However, since even the most “simple” artistic representation, that which holds not only an aesthetic proposal but also a functional one, like the designs on pottery found in underprivileged groups located in remote places in Brazil, for example – is considered art, I can no longer accept the idea that art belongs to a separate category from that of living, nor that it holds a superior or more sublime character.

Therefore, it is no longer acceptable that artistic intention might not be found inside pornography. However, there seems to be a refusal in the placing of art inside porn, be it for market reasons or for the mechanic repetition of the format under which pornography has existed in the past centuries. As a result, while everybody seemed to be worried about the amount of sex and skin inside museums, pornography was excluded to a second position one more time, being left out of discussions which surrounded art or being even degraded to a position of object, and not subject. The subjectification of porn, and the idea that it can contain different façades and, in them, to find art included – that is what I propose as discussion. The discussion on the separation between art and pornography is old. The debate about to which extent art can contain pornography is outdated. By the time you finish reading this article, even my request for the inclusion of art in porn films will have been outgrown. But I am still waiting for something new to show up on my screen.

 

 

Posted in Homepage-All, Uncategorized | 20 Comments

Let’s talk about sex, honey – plot and dialog take their turn

Posted on February 25, 2012 by annabvolk

I personally like the direction the industry is taking, that is to breach the gap between “mainstream” cinematic productions and porn movies through a more attentive look towards technical aspects of movie making which have always separated porn production and non-porn production. Here are some of my reasons:

 1) As someone who works with it in an academic level I cannot be naive enough and believe pornographic films exist only for my pleasure – all puns intended. It is a political tool, an economic trade, a virtual space for the questioning of so many aspects of society that it would take me hours to name them all. Therefore, in order to get a more approachable mode for discussion, I need to embrace all formats, contents, functions.

2) I can perceive how such change will enable the porn industry to be dealt with in a less “hidden and ashamed” manner, meaning this can facilitate in terms of sex workers rights, on-set health safety, decriminalization of sex workers and their empowerment face an economy that highly relies on them and, yet, denies them a voice. I am not sure of figures, but I ballpark it in very high numbers the amount of revenue the pornographic industry generates for a state like California, so I can only imagine it on a world wide scale. Yet, workers are not able to count with basic workers’ rights, and once porn is no more a “hidden” industry it will be easier for them to demand to be treated like other entertainment industry workers.  If a way to diminish – if not to eliminate entirely – the distance between both sides of the industry is by a less “amateur” production of porn movies (meaning to mimic the expected levels of pre-production, on-set production and post-production, not to mention the qualification of performers in terms of acting – something to be considered on a second moment, I propose) then so be it.

3) A “plot and dialog porn” might go along better with the narrativization of sex which is characteristic of the feminine desire in comparison to the masturbatory fantasies of sex performed by men – a great name for this discussion is Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, in his film “The Pervert’s Guide to Cinema”. So a “plot and dialog porn” (and this will totally become a genre to me) might foster better the feminine sexual desire, therefore enabling them to explore this façade of their sexuality without feeling oppressed and compelled to comply for their male partner’s pleasure only.  I have recently come in contact with some movies from New Sensations’ Romance series, which presents a very “basic” and “romantic” story line not as a background for sexual plays, but having the same value and weight in the cinematic experience. I am yet to study the reaction of females (in market terms) towards these films, but I have friends who have served as “guinea pigs” for me and, as heterosexual married women who are not into porn, they confessed to be much more attracted to “plot and dialog porn” than to “regular porn”. Maybe this new genre will be able to restore female sexuality not as an extension of the masculine ideological woman, but as an entity which stands for itself.

4) The industry has already noticed there is space for the marketing of scenes and not full features, meaning, there is an audience who prefers a 30 minute sex scene in detriment of a 2 hour porn movie. The old joke that says that a porn film is never watched until the credits is about to change not because the format will disappear, but because the industry is making available shorter versions as well and longer versions: audience can now purchase whatever caters their own needs. The intention is what shapes the format and not the other way around. Form follows function. Again.

5) On a personal note, I like both shorter objective scenes and long, “plot and dialogue” films. It all depends on my mood.  Strange… isn’t this what sex is all about?

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

A semi-academic review of Nica Noelle’s “My Sister Celine” (Sweetheart Video, 2012)

Posted on February 24, 2012 by annabvolk

For somebody who is proposing an academic analysis of porn films, this review might sound a little off-track, but there is a reason: I have just finished watching “My Sister Celine” and I wanted to register my impressions before any sort of academicism permeated my opinion on the film. 

Since writing this first draft, I have chosen an approach through which I want to further – and more academically – analyse “My Sister Celine”. Stay tuned.

 

I approached “My Sister Celine” with some caution: for the past couple of weeks I have been dealing with the topic of incest and family related issues being overly explored in the adult film industry, and I am tired of it, to be honest. But Noelle hints at the very title that this is not the usual incest fantasy movie: it is actually Liam (well played by Richie) who is introducing the film to the audience: Celine is his sister, it is her we have to follow.

Like in all Nica Noelle’s movies, technical aspects which would normally go unnoticed by the public are impeccable.  There is obvious attention being paid to features of film making in a way only Noelle is able to pull: the setting is flawless, dialogs are delivered in a spontaneous manner, and the incidental music is precise and descriptive of the scene it is covering, even though in some moments it disappears when it could go on playing – in some transitional fade outs and in Sovereign Syre and Jasmine Jem’s first scene, for example.  Camera wise, Noelle is able to innovate once again by filming with cameras which are more static than normally one would find in a contemporary adult movie and, yet, her film is more dynamic than the vast majority out there.

The plot is round, and although it lacks some tying (such as the sudden disappearance of Dylan Ryan, Katie St. Ives, and Kate Kastle, for instance), it is an accurate portrait of a family which fosters a “problematic” adult, with both the mother (Veronica Hart, who delivers the most sublime interpretation in the film) and the brother coming to constantly justify any odd aspects of the “problem” child. At certain moments, the camera even seems to partake in their embarrassment, moving from one face to another as our eyes would do in such situation. Hart’s constant reassurance to Julia that Celine is a good person makes explicit her awareness that there is something extremely “wrong” with her daughter, an aspect which must be turned into mere “eccentricity” not to scare the future daughter in law away.  Liam seems naïve, oblivious, “dependable”, as Celine herself poses: however, we can trust him when he points out the movie is not about his fiancée, but about his sister.

Jasmine Jem’s character is shy, fragile, distant, cold. From the very beginning of the movie we notice a certain instability in her, as if she was recovering from something. It is exactly this frailty in Julia that generates such extreme contrast to Sovereign Syre’s Celine, who seems to be solid, centered, and who dominates the camera from the first time she appears. Mystery, danger, madness, seduction: Sovereign’s gaze corner Julia without subjugating her but, rather, carrying a defiant tone which is going to appear in the garden scene (one of the most erotic scenes of the movie) and be sustained throughout the party hosted later that night.

Although at first the transition from the garden to a bedroom made me feel uncomfortable, in what I consider to be one of the boldest moments of her career, Noelle films the first sex scene in this movie in a two-dimensional setting: Dylan Ryan and Sovereign Syre have an intimate, less cinematographic, much more realistic sexual encounter on a single bed propped against a wall.  The impossibility of getting the amount of different angles a centered bed would provide is made redundant by the positioning of three cameras which capture brilliant frames, perfectly balanced zooms, textures, flavors: for we are able to even forgive a less active Syre (when compared to the masterly Dylan Ryan) so dynamic is the cinematography in this scene.  The only aspect I do not like is the amount of light over the performers, something which is redeemed later by an exquisite lighting throughout the rest of the movie, mainly in the scenes with Katsuni and Sinn Sage (an award winning scene by itself, definitely solidifying them as two of the most important performers in the business nowadays) and Jasmine Jem and Sovereign Syre.

The atmosphere created during the party evokes a certain late 70s/early 80s era which goes together with the role the party plays in Julia’s storyline: to expose her to new sexual situations. Katie St. Ives and Kate Kastle appear briefly to please our eyes with one of the most delicious kisses on screen, but disappear short after, being given only brief seconds in the middle of Katsuni and Sage’s scene.  I do understand that to avert the cameras from Katsuni and Sinn Sage would be outrageous, but it could have been done in a way that allowed the viewer to have as background the other participants at the party, either watching or engaged on activities themselves. At first, it seemed to me this was the intention: however, it soon was dropped, and St. Ives and Kastle simply vanish in midair, leaving me wondering why their scene did not continue.

Sovereign Syre has such intensity in her that watching her is like we have never watched her before, while always having watched her.  She is dubious, dangerous, seductive, deadly gorgeous, and terrifying, when she needs to be.  Her finals scenes are excruciatingly beautiful and beautifully painful, and when the camera leaves Jasmine Jem standing still in the kitchen we are all feeling as lost as she is.

“My Sister Celine” can become a classic like other films with unsimulated sex scenes – such as Baise-Moi (2000), Intimacy (2001), and 9 Songs (2004).  It is groundbreaking because it does so leaving no doubt its intention revolves around pornography, whilst not relegating plot to a second position.  Yes, there are flaws. Yes, there are untied knots. But it compensates by being interesting, well filmed, visually appealing.  If I did not know how, I could learn lesbian sex with Nica Noelle’s “My Sister Celine”. For me, however, it is still a great lesson on film making, and on how to end a partnership on g/g features in the most superb and glorifying way.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | 11 Comments

Just on time for silliness:

Posted on February 21, 2012 by annabvolk

@ElaDarling posted something on Twitter which proves she is special: her own rendition of the “What people think I do”, porn star version.

 

 

I just HAD to create a “porn scholar” version.  And it is so, so true:

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment