J. Wesley Boyd manages to pack nearly every bad argument in defense of the King Street porn shop into his 10/4 Gazette guest column, “The sexism of porn critics”. He declines to engage with the evidence of secondary effects presented at NoPornNorthampton. He absurdly equates a porn shop with a supermarket. He ignores the actual conditions of porn workers in favor of idle speculation about these workers’ state of mind. He ignores the growing body of feminist criticism of porn. He claims to be anti-porn is to be anti-sex, dismisses anti-porn arguments as mere “fundamentalist conviction”, and hints that those who oppose porn are anti-gay.
We’ve heard these bad arguments recycled again and again, so we answer them in a Frequently Asked Questions section on the home page of NoPornNorthampton.org. We invite Mr. Boyd to consider this and the other information on our site, over 55,000 words of content. An adult business is not just speech. It has physical impacts on real neighborhoods. Tolerance is an important value, but after a certain point, tolerance for suffering is callousness.
A word about gender. The porn industry exploits men and women both. Capital Video appears to exploit women more, so we highlight that, but that doesn’t mean we don’t care about men.
5 thoughts on “A Response to J. Wesley Boyd, “The sexism of porn critics””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Good comeback. Your case is air-tight.
I’d be a lot more inclined to follow your cause if you weren’t so hypocritical. In my eyes, there is no line between the new porn store and “Oh My!”. You can wave the “erotica is not porn” message all you want, but it’s a poor semantic argument. If you lobby to close down “Oh My!” as well as block the proposed video store, your argument would come off stronger.
Why is it that you don’t oppose “Oh My!”? Is it because of the “healing intent” of the owner? That’s bull. Just like you seek to characterize Capital Video’s owner by his choice of video titles, “Oh My!”‘s owner is a smut peddler, and just as justifiably stopped. “Oh My” is even more central than King Street, is even more accessible by children, and is just as likely to draw pedophiles and perverts into a RESIDENTIAL area.
Stop being hypocritical.
Your average person can easily distinguish between Oh My and Capital Video. One is small, local, engaged with the public, with a good attitude and track record. The other is large, out-of-state, unresponsive to media inquiries, and has to be compelled by court order to address public concerns.
If Oh My is selling films that encourage bad attitudes towards women and relationships, I hope they will reconsider. Is that a lot to ask?
This person talks about being a hypocrit as if they have the “right” answer and people who view this site should come along over to their vision. This sounds like someone who’s bitter about their idea not getting as much attention at the moment. They do a good job of alienating themselves in my view. Perhaps if they tried using some detail in their line-drawing I wouldn’t be so quick to lump them into a different group. But anyway . . .
I think this whole issue should be debated in an open public forum that is well mentioned to as many people as possible. You know democracy in action. We could make sure the police are present (if people feel that would be necessary). We could have a moderator or chair to — as equally as possible — take questions from each side (or multiple sides) and see who’s argument is more solidly reasoned. Then a vote could be set for a special date. The key is to get as many people into the discussion who may be affected by the issue, especially those who would live near the proposed site of business.
With such a controversial issue. . . these things ought to have as much input from as many people as possible. I’m not comfortable with a business person or so-called “free speech” advocate or some “authority” making a judgment that affects people who haven’t had the opportunity to share their thoughts.
I think there are bigger psychological reasons at play for not desiring a porn store that sells the type of content Capital Video sells. For one, sex is not talked about in a real manner. It’s only used to sell things. Sex should not be stigmatized, it is a completely natural human experience. But I don’t think a sex shop with this content is something that helps put sex in a positive light. I think it brings up social issues that have evolved into better things back. Mocking slavery and involunatry bondage, or –being sarcastic, is not when it elicits emotions based on real historical events that still weigh heavy on people.
I’m hypocritical in the sense that I’ve often let my emotions get the best of me. However, I try as best I can (and with the help of others) to be aware of the words I use.
I wonder what people’s responses would be if someone tried to promote Capital Video’s selection of magazines on the street — in public.
I imigine that there wouldn’t be much support for it. The landlords of the proposed location of Capital Video and those “authorities” who make law ought to consider that. What differences would exist if the products were sold by a business or sold by individuals on the street? They actually might get more people involved in the discussion? Or not.
I don’t actually want to see any porn of this type in Northampton or anywhere else, but I applaud those who actively attempt to promote a reasoned argument. I don’t respond well to SLOGAN ONLY ideas. I like content. The content of Capital Video does nothing positive to outway the negative.
We would be thrilled to see public debates about these issues. Perhaps the colleges can host some?