Charity Porn
By Sokari Ekine | 11 December 2008, 19:10
Just when I thought it was safe to go outside I discover that a Japanese porn company is making “charity porn. I don’t want to subject readers to my raving rant on NGOs and charities so I’ll just quote the blogger at Wronging rights
They’ve sent some porn actresses to Kenya, and filmed them having sex with impoverished local Africans for their Naked Continent series. The production company, Natural High, has proudly proclaimed that the director made an $11,000 donation to a local charity, and will donate another $10 for the purchase of every DVD of that particular film.
It’s not the porn aspect that I find offensive but traveling all the way to Africa and then exploiting impoverished people in this way then using the money to donate to local charities. It’s like the whole debt / aid thing where countries are impoverished with debt and then given aid money for not all but a great deal of useless dependency creating projects. This is one example of a fucked up world along with demonising single mothers for staying at home looking after (WORKING) their children. Woman after woman are phoning local radio stations in support of the proposed Bill with the usual rant about my tax payers money etc etc. Where were all these people a month ago when the banks were being bailed out with £billions of tax payers money? Why aren’t they phoning and complaining about the $billions being spent on Iraq and Afghanistan instead of picking on the poorest most vulnerable people in England?
Meanwhile back at the farm you can engage yourself in ending hunger through a Heifer gift - that is a chick, goat, cow whatever. On the front is a smiling photo of a woman and a cow in a field just in case you miss the point of the happiness you will be creating with this gift of chicks, cow goat…and of course you get to forget the trees cut down in the Amazon to feed the cows you eat everyday that lead to the impoverishment of the people who you now give a gift of a chick, cow, goat………………
Have your say
In order to keep this blog as a feminist and friendly space, comments will be subject to some rules. We do not seek to censor debate: the beauty of the internet is that anyone can set up their own blog or website to express their views.
- This blog is a safe and friendly space for feminists and feminist allies. Debate and critique are welcome where it is constructive and deepens analysis or understanding. Anti-feminist comments will not be approved. We get to decide what's anti-feminist.
- All comments must be approved by one of the bloggers. For this reason, there may be a delay before your comment appears.
- No sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, classist, ablist comments, comments which make personal attacks on any blogger or commenter, or comments that are otherwise deemed offensive by us will be posted.
- Trolls will be banned from commenting. We get to decide who is a troll.
- No anonymous comments - please feel free to use your real name or make one up, though.
- Be nice.
Feeds
Anne Onne said:
WTF? Seriously, going all the way to another country to use its impoverished people in a porn film just so you can specifically fetishise their poverty?
I don't have a problem with porn created by consenting adults, people who are not pressured into the industry, nor people who are pressured into a particular act. If the industry was regulated well and openly, and consent enshrined in law and respected, I can theoretically see it not being exploitative, but this is nothing like that.
For me, using people who are very poor is a type of coersion, because it exploits those who are most vulnerable to do a job that they would probably never do if they could afford not to. They probably don't have all the information at their hands, or legal advice, or viable alternatives. It's sick to use the poor as a gimmick to sell your porn, no matter how much you think you're helping them, because you're fetishising their poverty and otherness.
And I don't suppose they gave the proceeds of the film to you know, the actual actors who gave them their material. I wonder what they get for being in films they might have no further control over. It just feels so exploitative for all the parties. Truly, there are some things best NOT to do, no matter how charitable you think it is.
And I hope that they did health screening on all the actors/actresses involved. It's always an issue for me that porn stars need regular screening, but particularly when this one's giving me the image of them plucking some poor random men out of the middle of wherever for these actresses to have sex with, I'm really worried by what they might have caught, or passed on, even.
Posted on 11 December 2008 at 7:59 PM
maggie said:
Charidy stinks.
Posted on 11 December 2008 at 8:31 PM
Claris said:
Well I do have a problem with pornography as it is not created within a vacuum. It is but a thread in the warp and weft of the very fabric of - all that is at the base of *modern* sexism. How can we challenge violence against women or discrimination against women when we refuse to acknowledge porn as violence against women?
Oh WOW, now Japan has exported it to far off lands in order to 'enlighten' them "how to make fast bucks"
Capitalism gone mad but preaching the new religion.
Sexism rules and women loose.
Posted on 11 December 2008 at 9:27 PM
JENNIFER DREW said:
Charity porn! Another gimmick to increase sales of porn to men who have an insatiable need to view images of women being sexually degraded by men.
The Japanese porn company is simultaneously exploiting the female porn actors being sent to Kenya in order to engage in sexual acts with black Kenyan men and women. Make no mistake these porn films will be edited to reinforce yet again misogyny and racism because we all know the white male-centered myths concerning non-white men's sexual body parts.
Sexual exploitation all round and the only ones benefiting are the pornography producers and directors making a huge profit literally off the backs of women and non-whites.
But then profit is the name of the game and who cares if women and non-white groups are sexually exploited - look a charitable donation will be made a to charity but ignore the fact $10,000 is peanuts compared to the massive profits this degrading dvd will earn. It is all about charity - so who cares if women and the Kenyans are exploited.
Posted on 11 December 2008 at 9:42 PM
SnowdropExplodes said:
Jeez, that is just gross. As you say, pure exploitation, and I don't think anyone - not even pro-porn activists - could excuse the way this looks.
I mean - why not just make the porn at home with professional porn performers, and then donate all the profits to the charities?
Posted on 11 December 2008 at 9:51 PM
Lauren O said:
They’ve sent some porn actresses to Kenya, and filmed them having sex with impoverished local Africans for their Naked Continent series.
I am literally speechless. There are just no words to describe how fucked up this is.
Posted on 12 December 2008 at 3:46 AM
Sabre said:
Totally disgusting. The whole idea seems to be that a woman is 'savaged' by a bunch of 'natives', (i.e degraded doubly by 1. being f***ed and 2. by black men) and a bunch of mostly white men get off on it. That equals racism and misogyny all round.
And what happens to the women of those Kenyan communities? Will their hubbies now expect them to do it porn-style? Will this influence the occurrence of rape? Will the women get any of the proceeds of this porn film? Did Natural High consider the wider impact on the community other than financial?
By doing a tiny bit of good they have probably created a much larger bit of evil. The ends do not justify the means!
Posted on 12 December 2008 at 9:59 AM
JenniferRuth said:
That has to be one of the most shockingly fucked up things I have read in a long time. That is literally *abusive*
Wow. Just...how can you be so unaware of your privilege?
Racism, misogyny and wealth privilege all wrapped up in one package.
Posted on 12 December 2008 at 12:19 PM
Ruth Moss said:
My word, this is one of the most fucked up things I've heard in a long time.
Posted on 13 December 2008 at 11:42 AM
Yunus Yakoub Islam said:
Horrible
Posted on 13 December 2008 at 8:26 PM
Sparks said:
"Racism, misogyny and wealth privilege all wrapped up in one package."
Indeed, even at the best of times pornography is hardly known for its ethics. However, it's just surpassed its self this time. If that's possible?
Posted on 13 December 2008 at 8:59 PM
Siany said:
This seems to be the opposite of Bill Bailey's comedy song about an average American man giving up porn for a year and spending his porn dollars on international aid. It's a very funny song inspired by the jaw dropping amount of money spent on porn in comparison with charity.
It never occured to me that someone would think to combine both activities in such a bizarre and exploitative way. I suppose you can't put anything past a porn director.
Posted on 14 December 2008 at 1:01 AM
Pers_e said:
This could be the prime example of just how exploiting of human beings the porn industry can be.
I dont think an $11,000 dontation justifies it. In fact, I find that a rather tight-fisted donation to charity from such a profit driven industry. $10 from every DVD sold might sound generous on first glance, but when you realise that porn DVD sales make less than 1% of all DVD sales it actually sounds insignificant.
How much capital will these DVD sales generate for charity? And is there a price that can possibly make up for the exploitation of "impoverished people" anyway?
Posted on 14 December 2008 at 10:18 AM
shazandra said:
Are you all serious? Not one of you mentioned whether you think the local tribesmen they went around too actually enjoyed the whole thing. My guess is it was one of the best experiences of their lives. Just a guess.
You guys throw around the exploitation as if every single thing in our economy doesn't exploit some greed/desire of the world. I would hope you actually have shades of gray on exploitation, and if you do this would be bridal white compared to the sort of human trafficking and slavery that must still be rampant within the horrid industry.
WPWJW?
Posted on 15 December 2008 at 3:42 PM
Kath said:
Agree with all the anti-porn comments above.
What's the link with Heifer? Or is that a separate thing about how you don't like these charities that appeal to people to 'buy' an animal for someone? I don't particularly either, but it's just another way of getting people to give. They probably pool the money and buy the animals they were going to anyway. Telling someone they've bought a 'chick' or whatever is just a convenient way of quantifying the money. It's not fair to suggest that people give to charity so they can forget about the ways they are involved in hurting the third world. A lot of people (especially those who give to charity I would have thought) want to change their ways but don't know where to start to make a difference. Many of us have cut down or stopped eating meat. I doubt there are many people who donate to development charities who eat beef every day.
Posted on 15 December 2008 at 11:23 PM
Sabre said:
@ shazandra
So what if the men enjoyed the whole thing? The whole point is that the men would enjoy it; the men who take part and the men who watch. Perhaps you're failing to see the wider impacts; the ethical implications relating to the women of the Kenyan community, the inherent racism, misogyny, nasty whiff of colonialism etc. And all the things mentioned above.
Of course there are shades of gray in exploitation, however this would certainly not be bridal white; there is no such thing if exploitation is occuring. There is no good exploitation. And just because this is less bad than trafficking doesn't mean we don't have the right to be pissed off about it.
Finally please don't call us 'you guys' as some of us are not guys and resent being termed with the male default.
Posted on 16 December 2008 at 9:43 AM
sokari said:
Kath @ my referring to Heifer is to point out that giving is so easy but not without first understanding why there is a need to give in the first place and their role and their community's / country's role in creating that need. Band aids are for surface wounds!!! and there are way too many band aid solutions floating around.
Posted on 16 December 2008 at 10:47 AM
Kath said:
Hi sokari, I totally agree with you. But I think these charities can do a lot of good, even though they're not the solution to the world's problems. Also, for many charities it's just a kind of gimmick to get the money in (although they mightn't admit it because people feel 'cheated'). Oxfam have a 'give a goat' scheme and yet they are are also committed to long term development and and applying political pressure when it comes to eg third world debt.
Posted on 16 December 2008 at 12:30 PM
Lord CAG said:
here are the problems with this
1.they could have been kidnapped
2.raped
3.aids
4.its just stupid!
also to the person who said that they will edit it so that it doesn't look like the black men have big dicks have you ever watched porn? they make everyones dick look big its what they do.
Posted on 22 December 2008 at 7:50 PM