Tag Archives: capitalism

One Radfem’s Experience with Gynecology

This is just an experience babble, because I feel like I have to get it out.  Not much political in here, so if you dun like personal stuff feel free to skip this.  Or if you do, feel free to share your experiences with gynos.   I literally have hundreds of drafts to publish, so expect a real(ish) post sometime this week.

I knew things were going to be bad from the get-go.  I was prepared to be lectured on how I just needed to try a different pill, and find the one that’s “right for me.”  Still, I hoped that maybe, at least, she had women who were going off the pill (probably to try and conceive) and came in because their periods were way off or their body started freaking out.

Just the nurse asking the basic questions confirmed that my pessimism was well-earned.

“Are you sexually active?”

“Yes, but I don’t have intercourse.”

She looked at me like I had grown a second head. “…Do you have oral sex?”

“Well, I don’t go down on him.”

“So, ‘no,’ you aren’t then.”

“…”

Can you say, erasure of my lived orgasms experience?  Cunnilingus, of course, does not count as sex, unlike blowjobs.  So, apparently, I’m abstinent.  This isn’t news to me, since men like Hugo and Glen had been telling me I am.  It should make me more upset than it does, to know that the love making I have doesn’t count for anything at all, just because a dick doesn’t get shoved somewhere.  The implications for lesbians are obvious.   I swear, if I’m ever forced to go to a gyno again, I’m going to ask if having anal sex makes me as sexually active…when it’s with a strap-on and my male partner receiving.

I explained why I came in to the nurse: My last period before I came to the doctor that had taken around 50 days to come, and the one before that just 30 days- what scared me was it seemed to be getting worse, not better.  At the time of the appointment, I hadn’t had a period in over 80 days, and I knew stressing about it would only make it worse, so I decided get a doctor’s opinion.   I said I suspected it was due to me coming off the pill,  since the first few weeks off it threw my body into chaos.   She responded noncommittally, telling me the doctor would be in soon.  The urine test came back negative for pregnancy,  which wasn’t a huge surprise since I hadn’t had intercourse.

I repeated my suspicions to the doctor.  Unsurprisingly, she promptly dismissed them.  I should have no problems going off the pill, it wouldn’t throw my body off at all and my periods should be back to normal immediately.  To try and convince her that coming off the pill had a huge impact on my body, I told her about the month long depression after the withdrawal period and about my breast-yup, just one-lactating and becoming sore and inflamed.  (I now think this was a plugged duct, since after I “expressed” some of whatever the hell was coming out, it started to heal and feel better.)

She proceeded to explain to me, as if I had never had a period, that some women suffer from “premenstrual syndrome,” aka PMS, which could cause those things.   (Who the hell goes through a PMS-induced funk for four weeks?)

And of course, the pill had probably been covering up my extreme PMS, and the best thing to do would be for me to go back on the pill to avoid it again.  I tried to explain that I had never lactated or had sore breasts even before I went on the pill, or before my latest period.   Of course, that was ignored, and she suggested instead that maybe I had PMDD, which, of course, would be treated by the pill.

She then went on to tell me I should go back on it, to regulate my periods.  I told her that I didn’t want to “regulate” my periods, I wasn’t going to take hormones and raise my risk of stroke for such a small reason, and reemphasized that I did not want to be on the pill.

As a doctor, she should know and explain to the patient there is a difference between a period and the withdrawal bleeding experienced when stopping hormonal contraceptives.

When I told her about going off the pill, she asked why I would do such a thing.  I said my partner and I weren’t going to have intercourse anymore, so there wasn’t much of a point.  I had health reasons, too: , having migraine headaches makes one four times more likely to suffer a stroke, and I have those probably once or twice a month.  The pill also increases the risk of stroke significantly, and I don’t want to up my risks of stroke for no reason.

Her response?

You’re more likely to have a stroke due to pregnancy than from being on the pill.

…dfjsdlfj.  Hey, doc, you remember where I told you I’m not having intercourse?  And even if I was, you heard of condoms?  Aren’t doctors supposed to look out for our health, and weigh the risks and benefits of the drugs they prescribe?  Oh sorry, I forgot this was women’s health, which means the goal is to make it as non-consequential as possible for a man to stick his dick in you, or deal with the consequences of him doing that.

When the “regulate your [unruly] periods/PMS/avoid pregnacy” approach didn’t work, she shifted gears.

It was “dangerous” for me to have irregular periods, because it could mean I have an estrogen deficiency, which would mean I could suffer from osteoporosis sooner in life.  And guess what I might do, to ensure that I wouldn’t suffer from osteoporosis early in life?   I should be on the pill to ensure I would develop “healthily.”  (No, she didn’t say anything about testing my hormones before recommending I get on the pill).

Eventually, she gave up on converting me to pillitute, and said I could change now for the exam.  I told her I didn’t want a pap smear.  She told me they were needed just to check for STDs.  Well, I wasn’t “sexually active” so that wasn’t a problem-the issue seemed settled to me.

So, after our one-on-one, I changed into the paper thing, took off my pants, got on the table, and laid down.  The doctor and nurse came in. I’m not sure why the nurse was there, she didn’t do anything the whole time.  Now I think she was there to hold me down in case I fought back.

She springs it on me we’re going to do the pap smear.  I said I don’t want to (again).  Couldn’t we not do it.  She said we had to, to see if anything was “wrong.”  She didn’t explain what she might find that way, or what STD might cause a missed period.  Just that I “had to” have one.

I don’t think I said anything, so she started examining my vulva.   At least she warned me before she inserted the speculum, I guess.  I started crying at this point.

She told me if I relaxed it wouldn’t hurt.  Relax, relax, relax.  It’s going to hurt if you’re tense.  She just kept saying to relax.

I cried and screamed the whole time.  I honestly wish I had flashbacked, or dissociated, but I didn’t.

The  finger exam was next.  I had done that before with no problem, because my last gynecologist had been really kind.  I told her I would be okay with that, as long as she just used one finger.

Less than a minute in, she told me she was inserting a second.  It wasn’t a question.

After being allowed to dress myself, she tells me I have to go get blood drawn to test my TSH, LH, estrogen and prolactin levels, which makes perfect sense to me the.  I go the checkout and get the prescreiption for getting the testing done.

Apparently she thinks I’m too dumb to know what the word “hirsutism” means or just too dumb to google it, becuase she put that as a symptom on the sheet, next to amenhorea.   It actually is a legit condition, and a sign of problems-I’m not denying that.

What pisses me off is that she didn’t bring it up to me during the exam-if you think there’s something wrong with me or a symptom that something is off, I have the right to know.  It’s my goddamn body.  But I guess she thought I might get uppity.

I feel like I was raped all over again, but now it’s almost worse.  Because of who I am now, I can’t just write it off as what sex is normally like.  I enjoyed sex so much, and now I can’t.  I feel like everything people say about radical feminists is true: I’m a prude, that I just need to be “taught” how to have sex, I’m sexually dysfunctional and just plain fucked up.

*Do lesbians even really go to gynos?  STDs, cervical cancer, pregnancy, and birth control are pretty much straight-women exclusive.  I suggest they just rename gynos to “birth control dealers” and be done with it.

Advertisements

By Any Other Name: Mail-Order Brides and Sex Trafficking

I’m sorry for disappearing again.  The influx of trolls wasn’t that bad-only one comment really hurt, because it said I deserved it in a certain way.   I always felt that the only thing that would pull me away again would be being hurt again, and guess what?  That happened in a way.

My period hadn’t come for 80-something days, so I went the gynecologist to try to figure out if this was normal for someone coming off of the pill and maybe check my hormone levels.  I made it clear from the start I didn’t want a pap smear, and she didn’t say I had to have one, until I was already on the exam table.  I still said I didn’t want to but she said I had to, and I guess I froze up from there.  I haven’t felt that violated in years.  It feels stupid because it’s just an exam and they all say it doesn’t/shouldn’t hurt, but it did.  I felt, and still feel, like I was raped again. 

I’m not sure how to label it or anything-that word feels too extreme, maybe.  Just feels like it shouldn’t have happened, because I thought I wasn’t as “weak” as I was before, when I didn’t fight back.  But I still froze up, and didn’t fight really. 

I avoided radical feminist stuff for months-I didn’t read a single book or article.  I didn’t even talk about radfem issues, unless it was blatantly shoved in my face.  I can’t really explain why, I guess, but I think it maybe just felt pointless in a way, since I thought I was stronger for it and, look what happened?  I still let myself get hurt.  I knew the medical establishment was shit, yet I still let it win.  It’s not really the same, but I imagine it might be how Dworkin felt after she was raped the last time.  Knowing so much about the issues makes it worse for me.

Anyways, I figured I’d share the one thing I did write during this space: my term paper for Global Feminism.  It isn’t as radical or angry as I felt about the issue, because college (and liberal feminism) discourages that sort of thinking, but the approach I think couldn’t come from anywhere but radical feminism.  I started with the idea that marriage is basically prostitution, and you can see where it goes from there.    Warning: It’s loooong.  And by the way, I got an A.

        The “mail-order bride” industry, as it is known, has grown significantly since the advent of the internet and represents many of the forces of globalization.  Estimates on the number of marriages orchestrated by mail-order bride agencies vary and many suffer from methodological problems, but generally report around a few thousand marriages a year in the United States.   Concerns have frequently been raised about the exploitation involved in mail-order marriages, resulting in media and scholarly attention to the issue.  Reading the literature, it becomes apparent that there are connections between the mail-order bride industry and human trafficking.  Some of these connections are concrete, such as the use of mail-order bride services for recruiting victims, while other connections lie in the forces behind the trades and the people involved with it.

Continue reading

Some “Sex Workers” Aren’t Just That…

So, someone got to my blog recently by searching for “terri bradford” + prostitute.  If I see a search term where I don’t understand how the hell someone could get to my blog by googling something, I google it myself to see what’s up.  (Unless they’re looking for porn-then I’m happy and sad at the same time.)

I had no idea why that search combination would lead someone here.  So, as per my usual habit explained above, I copy and pasted what they searched and put it in google.  And oh my, I think I found a slight conflict of interest regarding at least two of the plaintiffs on this case.

I would like to warn everyone reading this that this post is super long, so much so that I’m getting lost in it myself, trying to edit and everything.  I’m not sure if that’s because of all the citations I’m making, how long this post is, or if it’s simply poor writing on my part.   Apologies if it’s the latter.

According to the article I posted, “Ms Bedford said she hoped to work as a dominatrix.” According to a few BDSM sites and the official court document, however, she already was a dominatrix, as far back as 1993.   The court documents confirm this, as well as that she’s been charged on various prostitution-related offenses (more on that later).  The articles make it sound as if she is currently a street prostitute-which is not true, and it hasn’t been true since the early eighties.  She hasn’t even been in “sex work” since 2000, and maintains that this is due to illness.  [52]

Interestingly, the BBC article (or any other I could find) makes no mention that the exact portions of the anti-prostitution laws challenged by the plaintiffs are those same ones for which she stood trial for breaking.  More than once.  There was no mention that she had been convicted of operating a “bawdy house” in 1998 had been mentioned in any of the news articles covering the ruling that I found.  [30] This is the arrest and prosecution for which she claims was the “financial and emotional toll” was “devastating.”  Interestingly, she doesn’t mentioned being similarly devastated by her several arrests for being an inmate at a bawdy house.  This is one of many things that suggest to me she doesn’t wish to merely return to working indoors as a dominatrix, but to run an brothel or an agency herself.

On the “bawdy house” Bedford operated, she contested that the acts performed were not sexual, despite the testimony of “Princess” in that trial which suggested that they were.  In the case of where acts were sexual, her defense argued that the men were “guests,” not clients, and thus did not constitute prostitution.

When it was suggested that the activities were limited to personal guests (rather than clients) Princess was clear: They were clients.  It was a business.  Whatever they wanted , if they wanted something like that, it was done.

I found it interesting that one who claims to stand for “sex workers” went against the testimony of her own “employee” to try and save her skin in court-but that’s a bit irrelevant to the present.  Princess’ testimony, as well as the presence of a “training video,” provide evidence  that she trained the dominatrices there on how to perform in this bawdy-house.  Which obviously to me that she was more than simply a protector of “sex workers,” and was the person who ran the joint.  Most importantly, she never did contest that the “bawdy house” existed for profit and under her ownership:

It is obvious from the testimony of Princess, which the trial judge accepted, that the pain and humiliation resulted, and was intended to result, in sexual arousal culminating in orgasm.  That the operation was commercial and the keeper of the house was the appellant was uncontested.

Speaking of commercial operations-reporters have also failed to mention she ran an escort agency in the mid-80s, and had even served time in jail for doing so.  Although, it is important to note that in this case she only served the time upon returning to face the charges-she had fled and avoided prosecution for two years.  [28]

There’s something else I find especially odd, considering she claims to want to protect “sex workers” and people who make a living off of the industry.  If as she contests, the “work environment [at her agency] provided the escorts with a sense of security, dignity, and self-respect”, then she would likely know of other women in the industry who support her effort and be close to those she met.  Yet, none of her former “employees” who worked as escorts, or in the bawdy-house she ran, appear to give any testimony for her case or even as evidence that the house she ran was safe.

Ms Scott also wishes to “reenter the sex industry,” as the court phrases it.  However, her wishes are:

If this challenge is successful, Ms. Scott would like to operate an indoor prostitution business. While she recognizes that clients may be dangerous in both outdoor and indoor locations, she would institute safety precautions such as checking identification of clients, making sure other people are close by during appointments to intervene if needed, and hiring a bodyguard.

Oh goodie, how kind of you to implement some precautions!  Does anyone ask why the hell so many precautions are required in order to reduce the vulnerability of prostitutes to violence?  Maybe that kinda shows that the men who do the buying are violent?  Or that the trade itself is violent, if these precautions are that necessary to people ont being murdered?  You don’t see mailpersons or hot dog vendors having to hire bouncers to protect them on the streets, do ya?

Both Bedford and Scott claim to have quit “sex work” due to illness, and express an interest in returning to the trade only if it is allowed indoors and the provisions against pimping removed.  Because it seems that both of them have a chronic illness (from 2000 for Bedford, the 1990s for Scott)-an illness that’s lasted this long likely will not recover.  Because of this, Bedford’s history of pimping, and the stated intentions of the women, I feel that they aren’t likely to return to the prostitute-level of the sex industry.   Instead, they are most likely to establish (or return to owning, in Bedford’s case) a brothel or escort agency.

To me, it seems as if the plaintiffs involved in this case used their pasts as street workers to gain credibility on the issue, simply because they wish to make money.  I believe I’ve heard of similar things happening in other countries, where prostitutes will sort of “rise in the ranks” and become madams themselves.  Although the press does not report this, let’s call it like it is: two of the three plaintiffs in the case are not currently prostitutes. They want to be pimps.

C’mon, journalism.  There’s more in depth coverage in an article from a 19 year old girl who’s never read a real newspaper or taken a journalism class in her life.  That’s just pathetic.  Hopefully this article doesn’t totally suck, despite my inexperience with this sort of thing-I’ve been working on it on and off since yesterday afternoon, and I’m fucking exhausted.   Phew.

——

A little aside for those interested in what other prostitutes were heard by the court:

The applicants submitted affidavits from eight witnesses who described their perceptions and experiences of working as prostitutes….to provide “corroborative voices” to demonstrate that the applicants’ experiences are shared with many other women…..The affiants recounted that they entered into prostitution without coercion (although financial constraints were a large factor) and most reported being addiction-free and working without a pimp.[7]

The respondent tendered nine affidavits from prostitutes and former prostitutes, whose stories painted a much different picture. The respondent’s witnesses gave detailed accounts of horrific violence in indoor locations and on the street, controlling and abusive pimps, and the rampant use of drugs and alcohol.

What a convenient sample for the sex industry, eh?

Court case: From the Canadian Legal Information Institute

Some details on Bedford’s bawdy-house: Same place

Sex-Positive Bingo

Until I finish the posts I’m working on, I figure I might as well share a “bingo card” I made quite a while ago modeled after similar cards for racism, sexism, rape-apologism, et cetera.   (Don’t look forward to new posts-the one I finish will most likely be the one on fanfiction, pffft.)

It would be more aptly called “sex-industry apologism bingo,” but that’s too fucking long of a title so I just went with “sex-positive,” although the term is problematic.  Suggestions on what to change or anything else are welcome, of course.  Click for full size!  Sorry the preview is so blurry.

Ignore the man behind the curtain (NSFW Image for point)

from some post on how burlesque can save the world (and stop rape and misogyny too I assume)

The sex-positive rallying cry, at its most basic, is that our culture is profoundly sex-negative.  The evidence?  Abstinence education, the slut shaming of women, and overly religious values.  If you look at only these things, it becomes easy to prove and condemn the “sex negative” attitude of our culture, and outline the harms it does: increased amounts of unwanted pregnancy, the spread of STDs, the crushing of young women’s reputation and self-esteem.  But you know what else causes those things?  Rape and sexual harassment.  Mandatory intercourse.  Unsafe intercourse.  Pornography and the sexualization of young girls.  The fashion and beauty industeries.  Yet somehow, these are all ignored so that “sex-positives” can cry about abstinence education, despite the fact that STDs cannot be directly caused by ignorance–they are caused by intercourse and especially intercourse without a condom (which is demanded of most females).  The idea that education will solve this problems is laughable, just as the idea that education will stop men from raping is.  Men want to rape and men like dangerous fucks.

While related, that was a tangent on a single problem with the “sex-positive” approach.  Lets look at the evidence in our culture and see how “sex negative” most things are.  The simple act of looking at a magazine rack, however, will prove the situation is more complex than it seems.  Maxim.  Playboy.  Cosmo.  Celebrity magazines.  What do all of these focus on?  Looking at and talking about women men would like to fuck, becoming the women men want to fuck, how to fuck (for women), how to get a woman to fuck (for men), who’s fucking who, what to wear when you fuck, when to fuck, how often to fuck to not be a prude but not be a slut (for women), and so on and so forth.  You could not honestly tell me that sexuality is taboo in America.  It would be just as ridiculous as saying rape is taboo, that racist jokes are taboo, or that drinking is taboo.  Whenever someone says that our culture is anti-sex, I laugh.  In their face.

Is it publically condemned?  Of course it is, but again, only in certain ways.  I remember D.A.R.E. and the other stupid shit attempting to keep us out of drugs.   Yet, somehow, people do drugs anyway.  Tobacco and alcohol, along with illegal drugs, are widely consumed and glamorized.   To think that official programs advocating abstinence makes our culture sex-negative is just as ridiculous as saying the US is anti-alcohol and anti-drug.   As always, it’s only anti-badthings in the case that the nonwhite, nonrich, nonmen use them for their own benefit and pleasure.  Its ok for a woman to have sex, so long as its for a man and under his conditions, whether those are marriage, kinks, or anal.  Just as with drugs, sex is a billion dollar industry with a lobby.  The only difference is that the advertising for the sex industry (porn) is also one of its products, making it self-perpetuating.

Maintaining the belief that America is sex-negative, however, is vital for “sex-positives” to have a point.  It obscures the real power and the real system, under which hetero sex is mandatory, enjoyable or not; women’s submission is mandatory, willing or not.   The politicians who condemn prostitution use and abuse escorts; the anti-gay crusaders have sex with men; the Church which condemns lust while molesting children and protecting their rapists.  Does that sound “anti-sex” or “prudish” to you?  To believe the words that come out of men’s mouths-that they are against “sexual liberation” as its taken place- is ridiculously fucking stupid.  Our culture is not anti-sex: it’s pro-fucking, pro-rape, and pro-misogyny.  “Feminist” porn is still status quo, lesbian porn is male-centered, and lesbian BDSM is even more so.   Our culture is only “prudish” about sex outside of how males conceive it. That is, without domination and submission, without hate, without intercourse or penetration, with emotion and mutual desire.

Not that I advocate violence or anything…buuuuuut

South Africa strip club owner ‘Lolly’ Jackson shot dead

Fuck yeah.   I dunno who did it, although I’m pretty sure it wasn’t some radical feminist vigilante, but they still deserve some props for taking the guy out.  Made me quite happy, till I read one part of the article.

He has been sued by several former employees, including a Bulgarian woman who said Mr Jackson had confiscated her passport while she worked for him.

He said he kept foreign employees’ passports to stop them “running away with a rich farmer” or losing their documents.

Can you say TRAFFICKING?   For fucks sake, traffickers are known to take women’s papers in order to keep them under control and make them fear speaking to law enforcement, since they could be deported.   And it’s not like he’s just “alleged” to do this by one woman (and we all know women are lying bitches who make shit up all the time)-he fucking ADMITS it!  How the fuck was this man not in fucking jail, let alone a wealthy businessman.  Of course, the BBC fails to mention that this what TRAFFICKERS do.  You know, what they do when they are TRAFFICKING women.  Holy shit.  The fucking nerve.

Where the fuck were the “sex-positives” decrying his patronizing attitude? They call radical feminists “patronizing” all the goddamn time and then famous, big-name white dudes with actual power like this asshole aren’t decried?   How does that make any fucking sense?  You’d either have to 1) not give a rat’s ass about nonwhite and nonwestern women 2) be ignorant of the bad sides of the sex industry (tho they say they’re experts and radfems don’t know anything) or 3) only care about yourself.   Personally, from the “sex-positive” bullshit I’ve seen, I say it’s all three.

God, I was seeing red when I realized that.  Hopefully the women are able to get their papers back now that he’s dead.

Pornography: White Women’s Liberation

Now, us white women have always been really slow at picking up the intersections of race and gender-many of the most prominent feminist works focus only the white heterosexual middle-class woman’s perspective (i.e. The Feminine Mystique, any critique of beauty standards, suffragettes, burlesque).  Mainstream and academic feminists have begun to “pay attention to” nonwhite women* only after numerous criticisms, and now at least feature them occasionally as commentators on race as another layer of oppression.  They couldn’t possibly still be racist, as the coverage proves they care. (Pffft.)

Pro-sex industry feminists, on the other hand…wow, they haven’t even gotten to the “I-need-to-talk-about-race-issues-sometimes-so-I-can’t-be-called-racist” stage. Maybe because they hang out with white liberal dudes? But seriously.  Look ’em up, if you don’t believe me (or just check out the examples): they’re invariably white, even though most data gathered on the sex industry says that “sex” workers are disproportionately nonwhite women or formally colonized peoples. I always try and look at the source of a perspective and the privileges they benefit from, because I don’t want to be blissfully unaware of my privileges (although I have that ability) and be a self-centered douche.  All of us have a responsibility to do this with each of our privileges before we speak, since we benefit from the systems of oppression and were raised to see our privilege as natural and our experiences as universal.

When reading debates on the empowerment of pornography, many of the pro-sex industry feminists would cite “feminist pornographers” such as Susie Bright, Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, and others as examples of “good” pornography.  Because I always have that lingering doubt that I could be wrong (thanks gender conditioning), I generally will at least consider that whatever the person says could be true, no matter how much it goes against my reasoning, my instinct or common sense. This doubt of my reality is the same kind that was invoked when someone would tell me I “consented” with my ex-boyfriends, glenn and david, or I was only “imagining” the problem.  I feel out of my body, confused and stupid, so I try to look at their argument and their references in depth, to see how I was/could be wrong.

So, taking them at their word, I researched these pro-pornography “feminists,” and (not surprisingly) it confirmed many of the ideas I had about the “sex-positive” school of thought: the perspective of “sex” work, pornography, and promiscuity as liberation depends upon the patriarchy-imposed expectation of virginity and chastity given to middle-to-upper class white girls.  Black men and women are considered exotic and animalistic; they always want sex.  Latina women are also considered exotic and perpetually aroused; they always want sex.  Asian women are exotic and always willing to please.  Only white (and some Asian) women can qualify for the virgin/purity, side of the patriarchy’s dichotomy, because nonwhite skin itself is seen as a sign of sexual deviance; and thus, declaring that you want sex or have a high sex drive can only seem liberating when the chastity and purity are assumed, expected, or valued.  The construction of nonwhite women as always wanting sex, or at least having a high desire for it, is what makes them “unrapeable” in our culture.  To say that promiscuity, “sex” work, and enjoying all of the above is liberating for women, then, would ignore the reality of most of womankind.**

And as always, history is being repeated.  When white women decided the “solution” to their oppression would be entry into the workforce and self-reliance, nonwhite women had been in the workforce already and were still not free.  They complained about the exclusion of their experience from the women’s movement, but were ignored.   Even earlier, when white women were complaining about being seen as delicate, being patronized and wanting the vote, Black women were forced to plow, plant, do housework and make it on their own. (see Sojourner Truth)   White women insisting that “sex” work is empowering or will make us free is repeating that same damn mistake.  We throw any women under the bus, and the patriarchy wins.  We commodify ourselves and capitalism smiles.  There will be no women’s liberation if it does not free the most hated of us.  And as we should know, the most hated of us is going to be the darkest, poorest, and least employable of us.

Note that these examples are only some examples from what I came across in searches of the “feminist pornographers” sites or their links, not references to some distant financial or political associations with other “more” blatantly racist and sexist pornographers***, though I will discuss that in some time.  All information was gathered from their sites and/or links.

(Canadian-based) Commercial Sex Information Service, Whore Heroines and Heros
According to government reports, however, Aboriginal  women are disproportionately represented in all estimates of the  racial distribution of prostitutes…yet all the whore heroines/heros are white. (Link)  This site also hosts several “sex worker” organizations, such as PONY and COYOTE.

Candida Royalle, according to her site,

“[leads] the way in women’s seuxal empowerment and pleasure” and created the idea of “couples erotica.  “Royalle recently created a new line of “ethnic erotica for couples” called Femme Chocolat in order to provide high quality intelligent erotica for the largely underserved market of ethnic women and couples.”

She reinforces the racist paradigm of white as default by describing this line that includes nonwhite women as “ethnic,” while proclaiming a progressive idea.  ‘Cause white people don’t “have” an ethnicity.  And to top it off, it’s called Femme Chocolat?  You’ve gotta be shitting me.

BIG FUCKING TRIGGER WARNING: Notable “Feminist” Nina Hartley in Little Red Rides The Hood #4.  No link here, just google it if you doubt it exists.    Because white ladies = innocent who are going to get fucked by Scary Black People.

* I use this term, because I found this post on the idea of “women of color” and Black women very enlightening. So I’m now going to use the term for women who aren’t white that was used by its author/the commentators since their obviously more knowledgeable about the subject than I would be.   And their argument makes a fuckton of sense.

**Most women are not white, and I hope you knew that.  The fact that I have to say that disgusts me, but it was pointed out in a post on AROOO (which one, I cannot recall) that when people hear “women” or “woman,” especially in a feminist context, they think “white ladies.”

*** The quotes are necessary, as many of these examples are so incredibly racist I can’t help but gag and wonder how the fuck anyone “progressive” could tolerate, defend, or let alone publish these.