XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography (26 page)

In speculating on how the Religious Right (who view porn as sin) and the Radical Left (who view it as violence) are linking hands in a push for censorship, Brenda concluded with a question that has occurred to many of us, "Isn't it kind of bizarre to see the Left meeting up with the Right?"

KAT SUNLOVE

Kat Sunlove is the publisher and owner of the
Spectator:
California's Original Sex Newsmagazine. She describes herself as "a little Texas missionary." She adds, "When I was thirteen, I wanted to be a missionary to Russia and save the communists." Now she is a missionary for sexual freedom, especially for S/M, which "is so misunderstood."

I approached Kat through a mutual acquaintance in the industry, who vouched for me.

Nevertheless, Kat wanted to know more about me. I immediately sent her several articles I had written on porn, scheduling our interview so that she would have time to look them over beforehand. Kat later explained her caution. Years ago, when she had a phone line as "Mistress Kat" her persona in a column that advised S/M practitioners-she used to get threatening calls about how sick she was and how they were going to "get her." She has been cautious ever since.

I began by asking about an issue of the
Spectator
that I'd read. The July 22-28 issue featured "Samantha Strong Live at Kit Kat Club," the "Free Speech Coalition Awards," and "Stonewall 25 Snapshots." Clustered at the bottom and to the side of articles and personal ads were boxes that hawked a wide variety of phonesex services-Chicks with Dicks, Slut Talk, Sexy SheMales, Clit-Lickin' Lesbians, to name a few. On page 7, respected feminist Pat Califia had a column 103

called "Topping the News," which monitored efforts to suppress sexual information worldwide.

On page 8, a "Public Services" section provided readers with phone numbers for suicide prevention and shelters for battered women.

"The
Spectator,"
Kat informed me, "is an adult news magazine in tabloid format. It is an outgrowth of the old Berkeley
Barb,
which in the sixties was the mouthpiece for the free-speech movement on campus." The Barb-because it did not censor expression-tended to attract the fringes, the people whose lifestyles and opinions could find few other forums. Soon, the ad section was dominated by massage parlors, vendors of sex toys, and just ordinary people who were sexually adventurous. The
Barb
developed an extensive ad base of people with unusual sexual preferences.

Kat described the crisis this caused among the politically correct staff of the
Barb.
"As the MacKinnon philosophy started to take hold of the feminist circles-the flawed concept that somehow sexually oriented material led directly to violence toward women-the staff split and the
Barb
tried to find a comfortable place for everyone. They first put all the adult material into a center section. So you had this little irony of people riding on BART [San Francisco's transit system] supposedly reading the politic Berkeley
Barb
and really reading adult ads in the center section. Even that was not sufficient separation for the staff, so in '78 the two sections divided into two papers. The center section became the
Spectator.
In so doing, the
Barb
gave away its ad base and died within a year and a half."

The early
Spectator
tended to be a bit fluffy in its content: readers' fantasies and such. Kat was aware of this problem because, at the time, she was "Mistress Kat" writing an S/M advice'

column-"The Kat Box"-through which she became known as the Dear Abby of S/M. With a masters degree in political science, she brought a political orientation to her writing from the start. Then, in '87, the employees had a chance to buy the paper. As the
Spectator
changed hands, it became more political and unmistakably committed to free sexual expression.

I inquired into the political background Kat brought to the
Spectator.
"A strong sixties feminist background," she replied. She was one of the early members of NOW as well as of the Coalition of Labor Union Women. But now "I have a very hard time even using the term
feminist. I
really prefer the term
humanist. I
have been persuaded by the argument that if men went around calling themselves
masculists,
we would probably all be somewhat offended.

"If by
feminist
we mean someone who is devoted to the idea that the sexes should be equal in society, institutionally and every other way you can imagine, then I can wear that mantle very comfortably. But if there is another agenda underlying it, then I have some discomfort. I really believe that men have been-in quite different ways-equally oppressed by our society. They need as much help in getting to a state of equality.... Their inequalities come in the form of being the ones who get killed in war, who shoulder the financial burden.... The social expectations on them have been unkind in exactly mirror opposites."

How does she react to current feminist attacks on men, and on periodicals like the
Spectator?

"Well, I react first of all emotionally. Anger and irritation and sadness, because I feel they are so misled and so confused. Primarily, I'm insulted, because I'm an intelligent, independent, self-determined human being. And it is one of the reasons feminism originally appealed to me. It defined for me exactly what was in my heart and soul. I am insulted by the suggestion that I am incapable of making a choice around my life, lifestyle, sexuality, career, avocation, and entertainment. I can define these things for myself and have been doing so for a very long time, thank you very much."

104

Has she ever confronted such feminists? In the early eighties, when talk shows and other forums seemed to want to get information out, discussions were still possible. In the more recent years, however, debates tend to become circuses. Talk shows are now geared to controversy, not to understanding. As an example, Kat recalled a recent stint on the Jerry Springer show, where both she and antiporn feminist Judith Reisman appeared as guests. Kat groaned, "The woman called me an adulteress on TV. I thought-'Get a grip, lady, I'm not even married."' During a break, Judith pointedly informed Kat, who was trying to open a conversation, "I'm not here to have a dialogue with you."

Any real discussions she's had on porn have occurred at meetings, such as NOW conferences.

Recently, however, Kat has felt alienated from those NOW members, who seem determined to identify as victims. At a recent San Francisco NOW conference, Kat got so irate at a panel on sexual harassment that she almost walked out. Remember that, in '94, NOW joined in accusing a L.A. fireman of sexual harassment because he read a
Playboy
on his own time. At the panel, women in the audience kept standing up to say how intimidated or degraded they would have felt by the fireman's reading habits. "I can't cope with that." Kat recoiled from the women who seemed to be embracing weakness. `Women have a lot of power sexually. It's supply and demand. We definitely have something that men want very badly."

Had she ever experienced the sort of intimidation the panel discussed? Had she ever been coerced into a pornographic act? `Most certainly not. Quite the contrary. My persona as `Mistress Kat' allows me courtesies from producers and theater owners."

Did she know of anyone who was coerced? "People approach things with different baggage and strengths. I would say that most of what I witnessed that struck me as `coerced' was because of a weak personality. You know, a lack of self-esteem that came much earlier, not something you could track to the industry. This is not a good industry for some people to be in, just as stockbrokering may not be a good job for those with weak nerves." I made it clear that by
coercion I
meant "physical force." "I have never even heard a report that someone was physically abused." Nor had she ever seen a snuff movie, or known anyone who had.

What about the mock violence in porn? How realistic is it? Although a lot of videos in seventies had mock rape scenes, when the line that "porn leads to violence" started to gain acceptance, the industry said, "We won't mix anything remotely like that with hardcore porn."

Like most other aspects of porn, the
Spectator is
caught up in self-censorship. Some of the self-restraint comes from Kat's personal values-for example, there are no children or animals represented because "they are unable to consent." Most of the censorship, however, comes from the need to comply with antiporn laws, such as AB 17. This California law requires news racks on the street that contain "harmful" material to be constantly supervised by an adult to assure that minors have no access to it. Since such monitoring would be prohibitively expensive, the law essentially bars "harmful" material from distribution. The
Spectator
avoids being so labeled by eschewing hardcore material, such as vaginal penetration or fully erect cocks. Even if the sex is simulated, but
looks
real, Kat asks for an alternative shot. She is trying to be what she calls "a good neighbor."

Nevertheless, the
Spectator
experiences ongoing harassment from legal challenges to its right to distribute. For example, as we spoke, Kat received a note telling her to call the San Carlos planning commission about a local ordinance on news racks.

The
Spectator
is particularly vulnerable to such ordinances, because it is one of the last accessible forums for the discussion of S/M, which has few defenders. Why? "If you haven't had the experience of enjoying S/M, it may look silly or like violence. If you have had the 105

enjoyment, it looks like erotica because you know what is happening, what the people are feeling and thinking. It has its own rules." If you take S/M at face value, as though the behavior was taking place spontaneously in your own living room, then the scene might well be degrading and frightening. The point is that S/M is game playing. Far from being spontaneous, everything is discussed and agreed-upon in advance.

So, how did a self-described "little Texas missionary" get to be the Dear Abby of sadomasochism? She was lovingly seduced to it by a male friend she had known for four years and, so, trusted. She started by being submissive to her partner and then, "I turned the tables on him a few months later and became the dominant one." Both experiences were valuable. "During my submissive period, I reowned a part of myself that is precious and that through my upbringing in this society and my adoption of feminism, I had abandoned, I had disowned. A loving, submissive person.... On the other hand, being a dominant and getting comfortable with power has helped me become a good publisher who makes the company grow."

As a woman to whom S/M has seemed very strange, I wanted to know what attracted her to it.

"The joy of S/M is to trust your partner and relax, to flow like a leaf on a sexual river. You know you are basically safe, but there is the thrill of danger, as on a roller coaster or in sky diving.

There is an energy exchange ... almost a telepathic connection takes place. It is a magical thing.

S/M has to do with the side of human nature that we do not like to look at."

Is real pain involved? Yes and no. "If you burn your tongue on a cup of coffee, it hurts. If your lover threatens you with a match close to your lips, you are going to feel a thrill in your tongue, I guarantee it. The erotic component changes it from violence to something that is exciting."

She just wishes it were possible to talk more freely about S/M and to have a real dialogue with its critics. But they have made it clear that discussion with women like her is not welcome.

CONCLUSION

As a feminist who has taken the trouble to do empirical research -to look the porn industry in the eye-I have come to several conclusions:

1. Although amateur porn may contain scenes of real violence, I have not found even convincing scenes of mock violence in the pornography put out by the industry today.

2. To the extent that sex workers are battered, it seems to result from being denied the protection of law and legitimacy. Whenever porn is allowed to emerge from the underground, even into the shadows, the working conditions of the women improve tremendously. And they are safer.

3. I like the women. As in every industry, some women in porn are undoubtedly damaged by the choices they are making. But the women I encountered were not victims. They were rebellious, a bit raunchy, shrewd at business, and they didn't take shit from anyone.

4. All of the willingness to openly discuss women's sexuality seems to come from the pro-pornography side. The women in porn seem unwilling to denounce the sexual attitudes of others, even of feminists who were trying to silence them.

5. The most interesting work on women's sexuality is coming from the women in porn who are pushing through all the barriers to produce, direct, and own their own companies.

6. On a strictly personal level-the porn I viewed and the women I interviewed provoked some strange reactions in me, uncomfortable reactions. For example, I felt threatened by a prostitute's fervid arguments that no man-not a single one was capable of monogamy. It would have been easy for me to translate my discomfort into a dislike of the woman who was "causing" it. It would have been easier to blame her than to dwell on my own insecurities.

Perhaps this is why society reviles sex workers. Perhaps they show us things we don't want to see.

106

A main theme of this book is that pornography is a business like any other. It offers women rewards and insults, profits and losses. As an industry, pornography may be rawer and less self-regulating than many others. This is probably because-unlike insurance or advertising-it has only been legal for some twenty years.

Pornography needs to catch up with the changes in attitude that have swept the "outside" world.