Feminist Studies

The Feminist Porn Book is the !rst collection to bring together writ-ings by feminist porn producers and feminist porn scholars to engage, challenge, and re-imagine pornography. As collaborating editors of this volume, we are three porn professors and one porn direc- tor who have had an energetic dialogue about feminist politics and por- nography for years. In their criticism, feminist opponents of porn cast pornography as a monolithic medium and industry and make sweep- ing generalizations about its production, its workers, its consumers, and its e"ects on society. #ese antiporn feminists respond to feminist por- nographers and feminist porn professors in several ways. #ey accuse us of deceiving ourselves and others about the nature of pornography; they claim we fail to look critically at any porn and hold up all porn as empowering. More typically, they simply dismiss out of hand our abil- ity or authority to make it or study it. But !e Feminist Porn Book o"ers arguments, facts, and histories that cannot be summarily rejected, by providing on-the-ground and well-researched accounts of the politics of producing pleasure. Our agenda is twofold: to explore the emergence and signi!cance of a thriving feminist porn movement, and to gather some of the best new feminist scholarship on pornography. By putting our voices into conversation, this book sparks new thinking about the richness and complexity of porn as a genre and an industry in a way that helps us to appreciate the work that feminists in the porn industry are doing, both in the mainstream and on its countercultural edges.

So to begin, we o"er a broad de!nition of feminist porn, which will be $eshed out, debated, and examined in the pieces that follow. As both an established and emerging genre of pornography, feminist porn uses sexually explicit imagery to contest and complicate dominant represen- tations of gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, ability, age, body type, and other identity markers. It explores concepts of desire, agency, power, beauty, and pleasure at their most confounding and di%cult, including pleasure within and across inequality, in the face of injustice, and against the limits of gender hierarchy and both heteronormativity and homo-

Introduction: The Politics of Producing Pleasure

CONSTANCE PENLEY, CELINE PARREÑAS SHIMIZU, MIREILLE MILLER!YOUNG, and TRISTAN TAORMINO

normativity. It seeks to unsettle conventional de!nitions of sex, and expand the language of sex as an erotic activity, an expression of identity, a power exchange, a cultural commodity, and even a new politics.

Feminist porn creates alternative images and develops its own aes- thetics and iconography to expand established sexual norms and dis- courses. It evolved out of and incorporates elements from the genres of “porn for women,” “couples porn,” and lesbian porn as well as feminist photography, performance art, and experimental !lmmaking. It does not assume a singular female viewer, but acknowledges multiple female (and other) viewers with many di"erent preferences. Feminist porn makers emphasize the importance of their labor practices in production and their treatment of performers/sex workers; in contrast to norms in the mainstream sectors of the adult entertainment industry, they strive to create a fair, safe, ethical, consensual work environment and o&en cre- ate imagery through collaboration with their subjects. Ultimately, femi- nist porn considers sexual representation—and its production—a site for resistance, intervention, and change.

#e concept of feminist porn is rooted in the 1980s—the height of the feminist porn wars in the United States. #e porn wars (also known as the sex wars) emerged out of a debate between feminists about the role of sexualized representation in society and grew into a full-scale divide that has lasted over three decades. In the heyday of the women’s movement in the United States, a broad-based, grassroots activist struggle over the proliferation of misogynistic and violent representations in corporate media was superceded by an e"ort focused speci!cally on legally ban- ning the most explicit, and seemingly most sexist, media: pornography. Employing Robin Morgan’s slogan, “Porn is the theory, rape is the prac- tice,” antipornography feminists argued that pornography amounted to the commodi!cation of rape. As a group called Women Against Pornog- raphy (WAP) began to organize in earnest to ban obscenity across the nation, other feminists, such as Lisa Duggan, Nan D. Hunter, Kate Ellis, and Carol Vance became vocal critics of what they viewed as WAP’s ill- conceived collusion with a sexually conservative Reagan administration and Christian Right, and their warping of feminist activism into a moral hygiene or public decency movement. Regarding antiporn feminism as a huge setback for the feminist struggle to empower women and sexual minorities, an energetic community of sex worker and sex-radical activ- ists joined anticensorship and sex-positive feminists to build the founda- tion for the feminist porn movement.1

#e years that led up to the feminist porn wars are o&en referred to as the “golden age of porn,” a period from the early 1970s to the early 1980s,

INTRODUCTION10

marked by large budget, high-production-value feature !lms that were theatrically released. A group of female porn performers who worked during the golden age—including Annie Sprinkle, Veronica Vera, Can- dida Royalle, Gloria Leonard, and Veronica Hart—formed a support group (the !rst of its kind) called Club 90 in New York City. In 1984, the feminist arts collective Carnival Knowledge asked Club 90 to participate in a festival called #e Second Coming, and explore the question, “Is there a feminist pornography?”2 It is one of the !rst documented times when feminists publicly posed and examined this critical query.

#at same year, Club 90 member Candida Royalle founded Femme Productions to create a new genre: porn from a woman’s point of view.3 Her !lms focused on storylines, high production values, female plea- sure, and romance. In San Francisco, publishers Myrna Elana and Debo- rah Sundahl, along with Nan Kinney and Susie Bright, co-founded On Our Backs, the !rst porn magazine by and for lesbians. A year later, Kin- ney and Sundahl started Fatale Video to produce and distribute lesbian porn movies that expanded the mission that On Our Backs began.4 In the mainstream adult industry, performer and registered nurse Nina Hartley began producing and starring in a line of sex education videos for Adam and Eve, with her !rst two titles released in 1984. A parallel movement began to emerge throughout Europe in the 1980s and 90s.5

By the 1990s, Royalle and Hartley’s success had made an impact on the mainstream adult industry. Major studios, including Vivid, VCA, and Wicked, began producing their own lines of couples porn that re$ected Royalle’s vision and generally followed a formula of so&er, gentler, more romantic porn with storylines and high production values. #e growth of the “couples porn” genre signi!ed a shi& in the industry: female desire and viewership were !nally acknowledged, if narrowly de!ned. #is provided more selection for female viewers and more opportunities for women to direct mainstream heterosexual !lms, including Veronica Hart and Kelly Holland (a.k.a. Toni English). Independent, lesbian- produced lesbian porn grew at a slower pace, but Fatale Video (which continued to produce new !lms until the mid-1990s) !nally had some company in its micro-genre with work by Annie Sprinkle, Maria Beatty, and Shar Rednour and Jackie Strano. Sprinkle also made the !rst porn !lm to feature a trans man, and Christopher Lee followed with a !lm starring an entire cast of trans men.6

In the early 2000s, feminist porn began to take hold in the United States with the emergence of !lmmakers who speci!cally identi!ed themselves and/or their work as feminist including Buck Angel, Dana Dane, Shine Louise Houston, Courtney Trouble, Madison Young, and

11INTRODUCTION

Tristan Taormino. Simultaneously, feminist !lmmakers in Europe began to gain notoriety for their porn and sexually explicit independent !lms, including Erika Lust in Spain; Anna Span and Petra Joy in the UK; Emi- lie Jouvet, Virginie Despentes, and Taiwan-born Shu Lea Cheang in France; and Mia Engberg, who created a compilation of feminist porn shorts that was famously funded by the Swedish government.

#e modern feminist porn movement gained tremendous ground in 2006 with the creation of #e Feminist Porn Awards (FPAs). Chanelle Gallant and other sta"ers at sex-positive sex toy shop Good for Her in Toronto created the awards, which were open to !lms that met one or more of the following criteria:

(1) A woman had a hand in the production, writing, direction, etc. of the work; (2) It depicts genuine female pleasure; and/or (3) It expands the boundaries of sexual representation on !lm and chal- lenges stereotypes that are o&en found in mainstream porn. And of course, it has to be hot! Overall, Feminist Porn Award winners tend to show movies that consider a female viewer from start to !nish. #is means that you are more likely to see active desire and consent, real orgasms, and women taking control of their own fantasies (even when that fantasy is to hand over that control).7

#ese criteria simultaneously assumed and announced a viewership, an authorship, an industry, and a collective consciousness. Embedded in the description is a female viewer and what she likely wants to see—active desire, consent, real orgasms, power, and agency—and doesn’t want to see: passivity, stereotypes, coercion, or fake orgasms. #e language is broad enough so as not to be prescriptive, yet it places value on agency and authenticity, with a parenthetical nod to the possibility that not every woman’s fantasy is to be “in control.” While the guidelines nota- bly focus on a woman’s involvement in production, honored !lmmakers run the gamut from self-identi!ed feminist pornographers to indepen- dent female directors to mainstream porn producers; the broad criteria achieve a certain level of inclusiveness and acknowledge that a range of work can be read by audiences, critics, and academics as feminist. #e FPA ceremony attracts and honors !lmmakers from around the world, and each year since its inception, every aspect of the event has grown, from the number of !lms submitted to the number of attendees. #e FPAs have raised awareness about feminist porn among a wider audi- ence and helped coalesce a community of !lmmakers, performers, and fans; they highlight an industry within an industry, and, in the process, nurture this growing movement. In 2009, Dr. Laura Méritt (Berlin) cre-

INTRODUCTION12

ated the PorYes campaign and the European Feminist Porn Award mod- eled on the FPAs. Because the movement has had the most momentum in Europe and North America, this volume concentrates on the scholar- ship and !lms of Western nations. We acknowledge this limitation: for feminist porn to be a global project, more would need to be done to include non-Western scholars and pornographers in the conversation.

#e work we do now, as scholars and producers, could not exist without early examinations of the history and context of pornogra- phy, including Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography and Censorship by FACT, the Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force. Linda Williams’s groundbreaking 1989 Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of the Visible” opened the door for feminist scholars to productively examine pornography as !lm and popular culture, as a genre and industry, tex- tually, historically, and sociologically. Laura Kipnis’s 1996 Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America made the strongest possible case that “the di"erences between pornography and other forms of culture are less meaningful than their similarities.”8 Jane Ju"er’s 1996 At Home with Pornography: Women, Sex, and Everyday Life urged us to pay close attention not just to the hardcore porn typi- cally consumed by men but to the uses of pornography in the daily lives of ordinary women. Since 1974 the !lm magazine Jump Cut has pub- lished more original scholarship on porn from a pro-sex, anticensorship perspective than any other media journal and by leading !gures in the !eld, including Chuck Kleinhans, Linda Williams, Laura Kipnis, Rich- ard Dyer, #omas Waugh, Eithne Johnson, Eric Schaefer, Peter Lehman, Robert Eberwein, and Joanna Russ. More recently, Drucilla Cornell’s Feminism and Pornography, Linda Williams’s Porn Studies, and Pamela Church Gibson’s More Dirty Looks: Gender, Pornography and Power cemented the value of porn scholarship.9 !e Feminist Porn Book seeks to further that scholarship by adding a signi!cant, valuable component: feminists creating pornography.

In this book, we identify a forty-year-long movement of thinkers, viewers, and makers, grounded in their desire to use pornography to explore new sexualities in representation. #e work we have collected here de!es other feminist conceptions of sexuality on screen as forever marked by a threat. #at threat is the specter of violence against women, which is the primary way that pornography has come to be seen. Claim- ing that explicit sexual representations are nothing but gender oppres- sion means that pornography’s portrayal of explicit sex acts is a form of absolute discipline and subjugation for women. Within this frame, women who watch, study, or work in pornography bear the mark of

13INTRODUCTION

false consciousness—as if they dabble in !re while ignoring the risk of burning.

#e overwhelming popularity of women’s erotic literature, illustrated by the recent worldwide best seller, Fi"y Shades of Grey by EL James, and the $ourishing women’s fan !ction community from which it emerged, proves that there is great demand among women for explicit sexual rep- resentations. Millions of female readers embraced the Fi"y Shades of Grey trilogy—which follows a young woman who becomes the submis- sive sexual partner to a dominant man—not for its depiction of oppres- sion, but for its exploration of erotic freedom. Women-authored erotica and pornography speaks to fantasies women actually have, fantasies that are located in a world where women must negotiate power constantly, including in their imaginations and desires. As with the criteria for win- ning a Feminist Porn Award, these books and the feminist porn move- ment show that “women are taking control of their own fantasies (even when that fantasy is to hand over control).”

With the emergence of new technologies that allow more people than ever to both create and consume pornography, the moral panic-driven fears of porn are ratcheted up once again. Society’s dread of women who own their desire, and use it in ways that confound expectations of proper female sexuality, persists. As Gayle Rubin shows, “Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value.”10 Rubin maps this system as one where “the charmed circle” is perpetually threatened by the “outer limits” or those who fall out of the bounds of the acceptable. On the bottom of this hierarchy are sexual acts and identities outside heterosexuality, marriage, monogamy, and repro- duction. She argues that this hierarchy exists so as to justify the privi- leging of normative and constricted sexualities and the denigration and punishment of the “sexual rabble.”11 !e Feminist Porn Book showcases precisely these punishable sex acts and identities that are outside of the charmed circle and proudly sides with the sexual rabble. Spotlighting the numerous ways people confront the power of sexuality, this book paves the way for exploring the varieties of what were previously dismissed as perversities. At the same time, feminist porn can also expose what passes for “normal” sexuality at the center of that charmed circle.

One of the unfortunate results of the porn wars was the !xing of an antiporn camp versus a sex-positive/pro-porn camp. On one side, a capital P “Pornography” was a visual embodiment of the patriarchy and violence against women. On the other, Porn was defended as “speech,” or as a form that should not be foreclosed because it might some day be transformed into a vehicle for women’s erotic expression. #e nuances

INTRODUCTION14

and complexities of actual lowercase “pornographies” were lost in the middle. For example, sex-positive thinking does not always accom- modate the ways in which women are constrained by sexuality. But the problem with antipornography’s assumption that sex is inherently oppressive to women—that women are debased when they have sex on camera—ignores and represses the sexuality of women. Hence, for us, sex-positive feminist porn does not mean that sex is always a ribbon-tied box of happiness and joy. Instead, feminist porn captures the struggle to de!ne, understand, and locate one’s sexuality. It recognizes the impor- tance of deferring judgment about the signi!cance of sex in intimate and social relations, and of not presuming what sex means for speci!c peo- ple. Feminist porn explores sexual ideas and acts that may be fraught, confounding, and deeply disturbing to some, and liberating and empow- ering to others. What we see at work here are competing de!nitions of sexuality that expose the power of sexuality in all of its unruliness.

Because feminist porn acknowledges that identities are socially situ- ated and that sexuality has the power to discipline, punish, and subju- gate, that unruliness may involve producing images that seem oppressive, degrading, or violent. Feminist porn does not shy away from the darker shades of women’s fantasies. It creates a space for realizing the contradic- tory ways in which our fantasies do not always line up with our politics or ideas of who we think we are. As Tom Waugh argues, participation in pornography, in his case as spectator, can be a “process of social identity formation.”12 Indeed, social identities and ideas are formed in the act of viewing porn, but also in making and writing about it.

Strongly in$uenced by other social movements in the realm of sexu- ality, like the sex-positive, LGBT rights, and sex workers’ rights move- ments, feminist porn aims to build community, to expand liberal views on gender and sexuality, and to educate and empower performers and audiences. It favors fair, ethical working conditions for sex workers and the inclusion of underrepresented identities and practices. Feminist porn vigorously challenges the hegemonic depictions of gender, sex roles, and the pleasure and power of mainstream porn. It also challenges the anti- porn feminist interpretive framework for pornography as bankrupt of progressive sexual politics. As a budding movement, it promotes aes- thetic and ethical practices that intervene in dominant sexual represen- tation and mobilize a collective vision for change. #is erotic activism, while in no way homogeneous or consistent, works within and against the marketplace to imagine new ways to envision gender and sexuality in our culture.

But feminist porn is not only an emergent social movement and an

15INTRODUCTION

alternative cultural production: it is a genre of media made for pro!t. Part of a multibillion dollar business in adult entertainment media, feminist porn is an industry within an industry. Some feminist porn is produced independently, o&en created and marketed by and for underrepresented minorities like lesbians, transgender folks, and people of color. But femi- nist porn is also produced within the mainstream adult industry by fem- inists whose work is funded and distributed by large companies such as Vivid Entertainment, Adam and Eve, and Evil Angel Productions. As outliers or insiders (or both) to the mainstream industry, feminists have adapted di"erent strategies for subverting dominant pornographic norms and tropes. Some reject nearly all elements of a typical adult !lm, from structure to aesthetics, while others tweak the standard formula (from “foreplay” to “cum shot”) to reposition and prioritize female sex- ual agency. Although feminist porn makers de!ne their work as distinct from mainstream porn, it is nonetheless viewed by a range of people, including people who identify as feminist and speci!cally seek it out, as well as other viewers who don’t. Feminist porn is gaining momentum and visibility as a market and a movement. #is movement is made up of performers turned directors, independent queer producers, politicized sex workers, porn geeks and bloggers, and radical sex educators. #ese are the voices found here. #is is the perfect time for !e Feminist Porn Book.

In this book, we place academics alongside and in conversation with sex industry workers to bridge the divide between rigorous research and critique, and real world challenges and interventions. In Jill Nagle’s semi- nal work Whores and Other Feminists, she announced, “#is time .' .' . sex worker feminists speak not as guests, nor as disgruntled exiles, but as insiders to feminism.”13 As in Nagle’s collection, here those working in the porn industry speak for themselves, and their narratives illuminate their complicated experiences, contradict one another, and expose the damaging one-dimensional rhetoric of the antiporn feminist resurgence. Like feminist porn itself, the diverse voices in this collection challenge entrenched, divisive dichotomies of academic and popular, scholar and sex worker, pornographer and feminist.

In the !rst section of the book, Making Porn, Debating Porn, feminist porn pioneers Betty Dodson, Candida Royalle, and Susie Bright give a grounded history of feminist porn as it emerged in the 1980s in response to the limiting sexual imagination of both mainstream porn and anti- porn feminism. Providing a window into the generative and deeply con- tested period of the sex wars, these feminist pornographers highlight the stakes and energies surrounding the birth of feminist porn activism in

INTRODUCTION16

the face of an antiporn feminism that ignored, misunderstood, or vili!ed them and their e"orts. Bright’s account of watching her !rst porn !lm, sitting among suspicious men in a dark adult theater, sets the stage for how the invention of the VHS player shi&ed women’s consumption of porn and dramatically changed the marketplace.

In the last decade, a new war on porn has been resurrected and rede- !ned by Gail Dines, Sheila Je"ries, Karen Boyle, Pamela Paul, Robert Jensen, and others. Feona Attwood and Clarissa Smith show how this resurgent antiporn movement resists theory and evidence, and tenden- tiously reframes the production and consumption of porn as a mode of sex tra%cking, a form of addiction, or a public health problem of epi- demic proportions. Attwood and Smith’s work powerfully exposes how feminist porn remains challenged and o&en censored in contemporary popular discourse. Lynn Comella focuses on the consequences of por- nography going public. She examines one of the most signi!cant ele- ments of the emergence of feminist porn: the growth of sex-positive, women-owned-and-run sex shops and a grassroots sex education move- ment that create space for women to produce, !nd, and consume new kinds of pornography.

Watching and Being Watched examines how desire and agency inform pornographic performance, representation, and spectatorship. Sinnamon Love and Mireille Miller-Young explore the complex position of African American women as they watch, critique, and create repre- sentations of black women’s sexuality. Dylan Ryan and Jane Ward take up the concept of authenticity in porn: what it means, how it’s read, and why it is (or is not) crucial to feminist porn performance and spectatorship. Ingrid Ryberg looks at how public screenings of queer, feminist, and les- bian porn can create spaces for sexual empowerment. Tobi Hill-Meyer complicates Ryberg’s analysis by documenting who, until very recently, was le& out of these spaces: trans women. Keiko Lane echoes Ryberg’s argument of the radical potential of queer and feminist porn and o"ers it as a tool for understanding and expressing desire among marginalized communities.

#e intersection of feminist porn as pedagogy and feminist pedago- gies of porn is highlighted in Doing It In School. As porn scholars, Con- stance Penley and Ariane Cruz grapple with teaching and studying porn from two very di"erent perspectives. Kevin He"ernan o"ers a history of sex instruction in !lm and contrasts it with work from Nina Hartley and Tristan Taormino in educational porn movies. Hartley discusses how she has used porn to teach throughout her twenty-!ve-plus years in the industry, and Taormino outlines her practice as a feminist pornographer

17INTRODUCTION

o"ering organic, fair-trade porn that takes into account the labor of its workers. Performer Danny Wylde documents his personal experiences with power, consent, and exploitation against a backdrop of antiporn rhetoric. Lorelei Lee o"ers a powerful manifesto that demands we all become better students in order to achieve a more nuanced, discerning, and thoughtful discourse about porn and sex.

Now Playing: Feminist Porn takes up questions of hyper- corporeality, genderqueerness, transfemininity, feminized masculin- ity, transgressive racial performance, and disability. Jiz Lee discusses how they (Lee’s favored gender-neutral pronoun) use their transgres- sive female body and genderqueer identity to defy categories. April Flores describes herself as “a fat Latina with pale skin, tattoos, and !re engine red hair,” and gives her unique take on being (and not being) a Big Beautiful Woman (BBW) performer. Bobby Noble explores the role of trans men and the interrogation of masculinities in feminist porn, while renowned trans male performer Buck Angel explodes sex/gender dichotomies by embodying his identity of a man with a vagina. Also concerned with the complex representation and performance of man- hood in feminist pornography, Celine Parreñas Shimizu asks how race shapes the work of straight Asian male performer Keni Styles. Loree Erickson, a feminist pornographer and PhD candidate, represents not only a convergence of scholarship and sex work, but one of the most overlooked subjects in pornography and one de-eroticized in society: “queer femmegimp.” Emerging to speak from group identities previously missing or misnamed, the pieces in this section are by people who show the beauty of their desires, give shape to their realities, reject and reclaim attributions made by others, and describe how they create sexual worlds that denounce inequality.

#roughout the book, we explore the multiple de!nitions of feminist porn, but we refuse to !x its boundaries. Feminist porn is a genre and a political vision. And like other genres of !lm and media, feminist porn shares common themes, aesthetics, and goals even though its parameters are not clearly demarcated. Because it is born out of a feminism that is not one thing but a living, breathing, moving creation, it is necessar- ily contested—an argument, a polemic, and a debate. Because it is both genre and practice, we must engage it as both: by reading and analyzing its cultural texts and examining the ideals, intentions, and experiences of its producers. In doing so, we o"er an alternative to unsubstantiated oversimpli!cations and patronizing rhetoric. We acknowledge the com- plexities of watching, creating, and analyzing pornographies. And we believe in the radical potential of feminist porn to transform sexual rep- resentation and the way we live our sexualities.

INTRODUCTION18

Notes 1. Robin Morgan, “#eory and Practice: Pornography and Rape,” in Take Back the

Night, ed. Laura Lederer (New York: William Morrow, 1980), 139. On the porn wars or sex wars, see Carolyn Bronstein, Battling Pornography: !e American Feminist Antipornography Movement, 1976–1986 (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2011); Lisa Duggan and Nan D. Hunter, Sex Wars: Sexual Dissent and Politi- cal Culture (New York: Routledge, 1995); Carole Vance, ed. Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality (Boston and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984); Pamela Church Gibson and Roma Gibson, eds., Dirty Looks: Women, Pornography and Power (London: British Film Institute, 1993); and the documentary !lm by Har- riet Kosko", Patently O#ensive: Porn Under Siege (1991).

2. Annie Sprinkle, Post-Porn Modernist: My 25 Years as a Multimedia Whore (San Francisco: Cleis Press, 1998), 149–51.

3. Annette Fuentes and Margaret Schrage, “Deep Inside Porn Stars,” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 32 (1987): 41–43, http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/ onlinessays/JC32folder/PornWomenInt.html.

4. Susie Bright, Big Sex, Little Death: A Memoir (Berkeley: Seal Press, 2011) and Susie Bright, “A History Of On Our Backs: Entertainment for the Adventurous Les- bian, #e Original: 1984–1990,” http://susiebright.blogs.com/History_of_OOB.pdf. See also, “About Fatale Media,” accessed September 5, 2011, http://www.fatalemedia. com/about.html.

5. Feminists in Europe who used sexually explicit photography and !lm to explore themes like female pleasure, S/M, bondage, gender roles, and queer desire include Monika Treut (Germany), Cleo Uebelmann (Switzerland), Krista Beinstein (Germany and Austria), and Della Grace (England). In 1998, Danish !lm produc- tion company Zentropa wrote the Puzzy Power Manifesto that outlined its guide- lines for a new line of porn for women, which echoed Royalle’s vision: their !lms included plot-driven narratives that depicted foreplay and emotional connection, women’s pleasure and desire, and male and female bodies beyond just their genitals. See Laura Merrit, “PorYes! #e European Feminist Porn Movement,” [unpublished manuscript] and Zentropa, “#e Manifesto,” accessed January 29, 2012, http://www. puzzypower.dk/UK/index.php/om-os/manifest.

6. In addition, we must acknowledge the early work of Sachi Hamano, the !rst woman to direct “pink !lms” (Japanese so&core porn). Hamano directed more than three hundred in the 1980s and 90s in order to portray women’s sexual power and agency, and challenge the representation of women as sex objects only present to ful!ll men’s fantasies. See Virginie Sélavy, “Interview with Sachi Hamano,” December 1, 2009, http://www.electricsheepmagazine.co.uk/features/2009/12/01/interview- with-sachi-hamano/.

7. Feminist Porn Awards, accessed September 5, 2011, http://goodforher.com/ feminist_porn_awards.

8. Laura Kipnis, Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy in America (New York: Grove Press, 1996), viii.

9. See Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force, Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornog- raphy and Censorship, 3rd ed. (New Haven, CT: LongRiver Books, [1986] 1992); Linda Williams, Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the “Frenzy of the Visible” (Berke- ley: University of California Press, 1989); Jane Ju"er, At Home with Pornography: Women, Sex, and Everyday Life (New York: NYU Press, 1998); Jump Cut: A Review

19INTRODUCTION

of Contemporary Media, eds. Julia Lesage, Chuck Kleinhans, John Hess (http://www. ejumpcut.org); Drucilla Cornell, ed., Feminism and Pornography (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000); Linda Williams, ed., Porn Studies (Durham, NC: Duke Uni- versity Press, 2004); and Pamela Church Gibson, ed., More Dirty Looks: Gender, Por- nography and Power (London: British Film Institute, 2004).

10. Gayle Rubin, “#inking Sex: Notes for a Radical #eory of the Politics of Sexu- ality,” in Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed. Carole S. Vance (Bos- ton and London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984), 279.

11. Rubin, “#inking Sex,” 280. 12. Tom Waugh, “ Homoerotic Representation in the Stag Film 1920–1940: Imag-

ining An Audience,” Wide Angle 14, no. 2 (1992): 4. 13. Jill Nagle, ed., Whores and Other Feminists (New York and London: Routledge,

1997), 3. Emphasis in original text.

INTRODUCTION20