By Chauntelle Anne Tibbals, PhD

YNOT – Myriad interesting, frustrating, and often downright irritating adult-related (obliquely and otherwise) things have been happening lately.

These sorts of things put me in a bit of a pickle. Do I mention, discuss, critique, debunk and/or smack down uninformed and wholly biased, agenda-laden news bites? Is this sort of crap even worth engaging?

Yes, it is.

Ok, fine … but if I choose to engage happenings that really just amount to varying degrees of silliness (which, granted, can range from ridiculous to downright dangerous), what message does that send? Does engaging some instance of whacked-out wackiness reify it, fuel it and give it more power? In other words, does talking about something send the message that the something is somehow relevant? That it has some measure of credence because it’s worth bringing up?

I think about this sort of thing on a daily basis, and it’s somewhat exhausting.
So a bunch of things have been happening lately — silly things that range from ridiculous to downright dangerous. With each, I wrestle: talk about this, or not?

Oftentimes, after several deep breaths, I take a step back. It’s the sociologist in me.
However, so many things seem to be peppering in lately that I feel like I must engage them … but collectively. Because one bee by herself is no big deal, but a swarm can be scary.
So here are a bunch of things that have been happening lately. As a group, they give me pause.

June 30, 2011: Naomi Wolf asks “Is pornography driving men crazy?“

Porn is this evil specter seeking out men and making … them … go … crraaaazy! So, a “political activist and social critic” offers readers an assessment of “pornography addiction” on CNN. Huh?

Aside from all the presumptuous (“ordinary sexual images”) and problematic claims Wolf espoused, and aside from the fact that none of these claims are substantiated*… and aside from the horrifically classist (“balanced mental state”), heterosexist, and sexist (yes, sexist) stance included in the piece, why the heck was it posted on CNN World? Some people read that CNN stuff as “fact,” presumably offering positions from folks who have at least some understanding of and/or expertise in whatever area they’re addressing (in this case, adult content production and consumption, physiology, psychology and addiction, among other things … not English literature**).

Incidentally, here is some discussion of “eroto-toxins”: “PVV – Women, Girls, Virtual Coke, & Eroto-Toxins, oh my!!” I think this is what Naomi is trying to invoke.

* Sorry to be such a stickler, but simply stating “There is an increasing body of scientific evidence to support this idea” without references from reputable, peer-reviewed scholarly research does not a substantiated point make. And FYI: dropping one name, also without citation, doesn’t count either.

** Wolf has a bachelor of arts degree in English literature. She was a Rhodes Scholar.

June 22, 2011: Footage from Cambridge Union Society’s “porn debate” finally is made available.

Speaking of unsubstantiated claims…. On February 17, the debate pitted porn producer Anna Span (also known as Anna Arrowsmith), current adult performer and former teacher Johnny Anglais and sex and sexuality educator Jessi Fischer against anti-porn academic Dr. Gail Dines, child psychologist Dr. Richard Woolfson and current anti-porn activist and former, fleeting ’90s-era porn performer Shelley Lubben. Porn won.

I’ve already written some about this debate (here), so I was super-excited to see the recorded footage and get more of an idea about what actually happened.

I was spellbound by Anglais (minutes :55-1:05), impressed by Span (minutes 1-12) and Fischer (minutes 22-35), confused Woolfson (Why exactly were you there? minutes 35-47), moderately disgusted and strangely overcome with pity and concern for Lubben (minutes 1:06-end), and downright pissed by Dines (minutes 12-22).
Unlike Wolf, who does not claim to be an expert (she’s just treated like one), Dines touts herself as knowledgeable and informed. What’s more, she’s a “real doctor” — not an MD real doctor, but a “real doctor” as in a real and true PhD. That’s supposed to mean something. We PhD folk are supposed to uphold a level of professionalism, rigor and methodological soundness, and we’re not supposed to get so emotionally invested in our work that it clouds our judgment and shapes our findings.

Dines? Not so much.

Aside from offering no substantiation for her claims about and against adult anywhere (not just during this debate), Dines has been critiqued widely for her “research” by all sorts of folks — including, fairly recently, by well-respected sociologist and fellow PhD Ron Weitzer. Among the many other things he does, Weitzer researches prostitution and sex trafficking (which are not the same thing, by the way). In “Pornography’s Effects: The Need for Solid Evidence – A Review Essay of Everyday Pornography, edited by Karen Boyle (New York: Routledge, 2010) and Pornland: How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality, by Gail Dines (Boston: Beacon, 2010),” recently published in Violence Against Women (2011; peer-reviewed, Sage), Weitzer explains the many problems embedded in Pornland.

Truth be told, he rips the supposed pornography “exposé” to sheds. (Read Weitzer’s review in full here.)

The issues Weitzer and many others have with Dines’ work make me wonder: Like Wolf (but for different reasons), why the heck are people taking so seriously what this character has to say? Why is she given credence via so many high-profile platforms? I just don’t get it.

July 6, 2011: Speaking of “meh” on a very public platform…. Really, Steve Hirsch? Really? Come on….

According to AVN, “…Vivid co-founder Steve Hirsch called Casey [“acquitted of child-murdering”] Anthony’s victorious attorney, Jose Baez, hours after the Tuesday [July 5] jury verdict that cleared his client of the most serious criminal charges facing her, ‘to discuss the possibility of a business relationship.’”

In other words, Hirsch offered Anthony an opportunity to perform for Vivid. I mean, I assume it was for Vivid.

Hirsch likes to do this kind of thing. Vivid Entertainment has its own line of celebrity sex tapes, which generally consists of “before they were ‘famous'” sex footage from somewhere and “after their 15 minutes are up”-type solicitations. Hirsch has been known to push pretty hard in some of these “solicitation” cases, and his downright uncomfortable pursuit/harassment of Nadya “Octomom” Suleman is well-documented. The point is, his offer to the mostly-acquitted Anthony is not all that surprising … nor is it out of character.

But really Steve? Reeeeaally?

Public outrage, both outside of and within the industry, was swift, and it prompted Vivid to retract the offer on the very same day. My favorite snark-king and America’s Beloved Porn Journalist Gram Ponante got the rationale behind this stunt/epic fail from Hirsch himself on July 8:

We were originally influenced by the many emails from fans throughout the trial asking if we were going to make an offer to Casey Anthony to make a movie with us if she was found not guilty. We contacted her attorney Jose Baez to explore an offer to her. In less than 24 hours it became clear that there was an overwhelmingly negative response to her verdict and people did not want to see her in a movie. We contacted Mr. Baez again and told him that we were no longer interested in discussing a movie with Ms. Anthony.

Sigh.

That’s a neat and lovely excuse you have there, but really Steve…. You are one of the most significant and prominent voices in the adult industry. You’ve run a successful business in a highly stigmatized space for decades. You and Vivid have weathered many upheavals and changes. What you have to say is important, and it impacts the entire industry. It also shapes the way those outside the business perceive it – if you look like a sleazy ass … well, so does everyone else.

And it’s not like you’re new to the whole celebrity sex tape thing either. You should know by now what sorts of folks people may be interested in seeing in a Vivid production, and you should at least have a concept of those they most certainly are not interested in seeing.

A little common sense, please?

July 8, 2011: Congresswoman and 2012 Presidential Candidate Michele Bachmann signs some sort of anti-porn pledge put forth by Iowa’s The FAMiLY LEADER.

Speaking of no common sense….

To say this pledge is simply anti-porn would be too dramatic. It also says all kinds of other stuff (click to enlarge images):

[CENTER][/CENTER]

Eeesh.

I don’t know how much attention people really pay this Bachmann lady, but it’s obviously at least “some.” The Family Leader already has dropped some of the pledge’s more controversial bits, but none of that is my point, really.

Although Bachmann and The Family Ethnocentric Intolerant may be nothing more than a Saturday Night Live skit to some folks, there are plenty of other people who take this lady seriously. There also are plenty of people who take The Family Leader seriously. And some people — just a few — even take CNN and Naomi Wolf seriously.

And now we’ve come full circle. Each of these points falls somewhere between ridiculous and dangerous on the silliness scale, but taken collectively, there is a heightened hum that makes me somewhat apprehensive. Maybe I’m just afraid of bees?

Popularly known as “Dr. Chauntelle,” Chauntelle Anne Tibbals is a critical social commentator who holds a PhD in sociology from the University of Texas at Austin. Unlike other scholars who study the adult film industry, Tibbals spends quite a bit of time in and around her subject. For more of her perspective, visit the website PornValleyVantage.com, “friend” Tibbals on Facebook or follow her on Twitter.