MakeLoveNotPorn: the difference between porn and real sex?

// 21 October 2012

Tags: , , , ,

Chrissy D argues that Cindy Gallop’s sex education venture is well intentioned but doesn’t really make a dent in the issue it seeks to address.

Distant shot of Cindy Gallop speaking on a large black stage with a purple, pink and white projection (top) and TED in large red letters (underneath) behind her. The projection is a screenshot from the MakeLoveNotPorn website. 'Have an idea of your own? Send it to us!' is written in white at the top. Left: 'Porn world: Men love coming on women's faces, and women love having men come on their faces.' Middle: a pink stick person with outstretched arms. Right: 'Real world: Some women like this, and some women don't. Some guys like to do this, some guys don't. Entirely up to personal choice. Bottom: 'Post a comment'

Noam Chomsky, talking about his accidental interview with Hustler magazine, called porn “the humiliation and degradation of women”. Simple. He went on, “if (some people) get enjoyment out of the humiliation of women, they have a problem”, a perspective so shared and experienced by Cindy Gallop that she has, through MakeLoveNotPorn.com, launched the most mainstream-media friendly challenge to the hardcore porn industry to date.

Gallop, whose porn-critical (though not anti-porn) venture began in 2009, wants more people to talk about sex more often. As Erika Lust recently suggested on her Facebook page, there’s nothing more erotic than a good conversation so that’s at least one thing that makes writing about talking about sex seem worthwhile.

Gallop first caught my eye when she drew the attention of sdgeek’s at TED in 2009, her four minute talk being the first time either of us had ever heard a woman in her fifties talk about hardcore porn. She was at the conference launching her post-advertising-career venture, MakeLoveNotPorn.com, constructed to highlight the myths created and sustained by porn-sex vs the reality of real-sex, as well as generally making the world a less pornified place through depictions of actual sexual encounters.

From the interface of MLNP, it’s clear just how hard it is to make sex education anything more than extremely patronising. Despite using all Cindy Gallop’s advertising-genius-type knowhow to attempt to make the venture not like a sex ed lesson in prep school, it inevitably comes across like one. In her media relations, Gallop also takes the angle that real life sex is more complex than hardcore-porn sex and I’m not sure this does her cause many favours, since hardcore-porn sex is really little but a repeated formula with the same outcome, sold as fantasy and erotica.

Another reason why I find it hard to endorse MLNP is that I sympathise with Cindy Gallop. I am more than endeared by her actions, taking a step in demystifiying online representations of sex for the younger generation, but the reality is that for every hit on MLNP, a hardcore porn site will welcome thousands. The only solution I can see to this is an overhaul of the regulations that allow abuse of women to be documented, posted and searched for in the first place.

It also seems dangerous to me to set up a polarity between porn sex and sex proper. The heteronormativity of the MLNP site is problematic (though Gallop does address this in her book) and harks of the rhetoric employed by the virginity/abstinence movement in the US (i.e. ‘this is how sex should be, however much you may be inclined otherwise’). I’m certain this is not what Gallop envisioned.

And the launch platform needs to be bigger than TED.

Albert K Cohen, a functionalist whose theoretical angle I absolutely don’t buy, would tell us that pornography (and prostitution) acts in a society’s favour, by providing a safety valve that serves to control the level of sex crime. How this plays out in real life is pretty impossible to measure. For a start, statistics reveal nothing about the teenage boy or girl so desensitised to the images they are assailed with in the hardcore porn they will almost certainly have consumed by the time they hit puberty that a precisely-marketed sex-education website will seem alien to them. It’s also almost impossible to measure sex crimes within existing relationships.

But leaving aside the soft-focus porn with which I assume Cohen is concerned, Gallop is referring to hardcore porn, which can be a particularly unpalatable thing to stumble on; as she describes, “something resembling open-heart surgery”. It’s reminiscent of all the PETA videos I can’t bear to watch. And for those familiar with PETA campaigns, the irony in that analogy is deliberate. Gallop wants her site to facilitate a “healthy, open conversation around sex” but how can this even begin to happen when the audience for such a site is so niche?

Nevertheless, Gallop’s address fills me with the same warm and hopeful sensation that seeped from pages to fingers to big sigh of relief as when I picked up The Purity Myth. Liking sex doesn’t make a girl or woman immoral or worthy of abuse. We know this, whether or not mainstream society does, but we also know women don’t all like it in the same way. I am left feeling slightly uncomfortable, partly by the magnitude of the task taken on by MLNP, but also because it takes more than the colour-scheme of the tampon aisle to change the physical and mental abuse of women in the porn industry. And abuse is what this is really all about.

Gallop’s work could be helpful to the anti-porn movement in showing how it may depart from affiliations with religion and academia (as much as I dig Chomsky’s endorsement of my views), before it can even begin to work on the hardcore porn generation. But the directive to ‘Make Love Not Porn’ simply isn’t enough.

Picture of Cindy gallop speaking at TED 2009 by PhOtOnQuAnTiQuE, shared under a creative commons licence. See details embedded in picture by right-clicking it and selecting “View Image Info” for full description.

Comments From You

Cindy Gallop // Posted 21 October 2012 at 7:48 pm

Thank you for this coverage! I should explain that I put makelovenotporn.com up on no money back in 2009, which it is such a basic, clunky, minimal site. I did it because I’d come across an issue that would never have crossed my mind if I had not encountered it very directly and personally. I had no idea at the time of the extraordinary response makelovenotporn.com would engender, how far it would reach, and that every single day for the next three and half years up to the present day, thousands of people would email me – male and female, young and old, straight and gay, from every single country in the world – to thank me for it, pour their hearts out to me on email, tell me things about their sex lives and their pornwatching habits they had never told anyone else before, and essentially make me feel I had a personal responsibility to take MLNP forwards in a way that would make it much more far-reaching, helpful and effective.

You can read about that response in my short TED e-book, ‘Make Love Not Porn: Technology’s Hardcore Impact On Human Behavior’:

http://itunes.apple.com/us/book/make-love-not-porn/id452296228?mt=11

Nine weeks ago, after three very long, very hard years battling every obstacle society could throw at us to prevent this happening, my team and I took https://makelovenotporn.tv/ live. This is the background:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/fashion/cindy-gallops-online-effort-to-promote-real-not-porn-fed-sex.html

Anyone interested can read in more detail about what we are building on our blog: http://talkabout.makelovenotporn.tv/

We are at the start of a very long journey with a monumental goal – to make real world sex socially acceptable and therefore as socially shareable and discussable as anything else we currently share on Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram; to build a platform and tools to be sexual social currency. We have no idea how this will play out, but I’m happy to say that at 9 weeks old in private invitation-only beta (so we can real world test as we continue building) we have just under 100,000 people signed up for the beta from all around the world, and people are joining, paying and renting videos, and watching each video an average of 2-3 times.

One of our goals is also to help the porn industry think differently about its own future, as porn blogger LynseyG writes here:

lynseyg.com/cindy-gallop-will-make-you-think-and-bring-you-hot-sex-videos-all-at-the-same-time/

We’ll see how this all plays out :)

All the best,

Cindy

Mr. Rude Word // Posted 23 October 2012 at 1:10 am

I think Chomsky’s view of pornography is as naive as Gallop’s. The sexual presentation of women & men in what we choose to collectively call “pornography” is as varied as it is consistent. What is consistent is that both men & women are sexually exploited.

The “endgame” of ALL pornography is to provide masturbatory entertainment…that is it, that is porn’s raison d’etre. How this is showcased is less of an issue than WHY it is being showcased. Why do we live in a society that finds room for people to allow themselves to be photographed & filmed engaged in sexual acts that ought, if we value ourselves as human beings, to be conducted in a safe & private environment 100% of the time?

The real issue is the conditions that have made this dubious practice ( the recording of sex acts solely for the titillation of others ) not only possible, but mainstream. No amount of intellectual debate will ever alter the fact that, in a civilised society that values & respects human beings, sexual activity should remain private…not because we are “prudes”, but because we acknowledge our worth as individuals who refuse to be bound by patriarchal conventions that are irrevocably tied to the sexual objectification of women.

Mr. Rude Word // Posted 23 October 2012 at 1:25 am

“We are at the start of a very long journey with a monumental goal – to make real world sex socially acceptable”…..what you describe as “real world” sex IS socially acceptable. It takes place between consenting adults, hopefully on mutually agreed terms in a safe & loving environment. Why make an entertainment out of it? Why turn it into a spectator sport? To titillate…to titillate and nothing more than that. Your version of pornography is built on the very same foundations as ALL pornography…that sex is something “other” than what it actually is. What it actually is is what it was BEFORE pornography, before sex was subject to exploitation.

Have Your say

To comment, you must be registered with The F-Word. Not a member? Register. Already a member? Use the sign in button below

Sign in to the F-Word

Further Reading

Has The F-Word whet your appetite? Check out our Resources section, for listings of feminist blogs, campaigns, feminist networks in the UK, mailing lists, international and national websites and charities of interest.

Write for us!

Got something to say? Something to review? News to discuss? Well we want to hear from you! Click here for more info

  • The F-Word on Twitter
  • The F-Word on Facebook
  • Our XML Feeds