(I am so surprised that no one has responded to this article yet.)

As a female, I understand the argument that sex, in itself, can be empowering for women who “enjoy and embrace it.” Maybe, if we all had sex whenever we wanted to, we could eradicate the gendered double standard concerning promiscuity, i.e. guys that have a lot of sex are studs, while females who sleep around are “sluts.” While I’m personally uncomfortable with this approach and would rather we just even the playing field by also calling promiscuous guys “sluts,” I guess I can see the reasoning behind Swimmer’s final statement that “sex is an empowering thing.”

HOWEVER, I do not understand how this argument helped Rachel Swimmer make the transition to adult film. It seems to be a nonsensical leap, for pornography directly enables what the Santa Monica women’s studies teacher was protesting: “the popular societal view that it’s all about the guy getting off.” Who recognizes Rachel? The males on campus, the males who use her videos and photos as instruments for their own sexual gratification; therein, pornography is ALL about the guy getting off. It reduces women, who may be intelligent and hardworking (i.e. who go to UCLA and juggle different responsibilities), to mere sex objects who are only acknowledged for their bodies and never for their minds. I think it is safe to assume the young man was “a fan” of the former. What is most disturbing in all this is that our culture has made the transition from objectifying women without their consent to encouraging women to objectify themselves, an argument made by feminist Ariel Levy who examined the “Girls Gone Wild” phenomenon in “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture.” The porn industry, in its demand for female caricatures (plastic boobs, plastic lips, plastic bodies), encourages women to alter their physical experience in order to conform to traditional male desires. How can female empowerment be achieved through a medium largely sustained by male expectations? As I said before, I suppose sex itself can be manipulated to symbolize female strength, if the woman fancies herself the initiator and believes she is using the male for her own pleasure (although I heartily object to this, since it does not accomplish gender equality but strives to reverse the roles of oppressor and oppressed). Yet, when sex is put on camera for others to watch, women should realize that they are most definitely being used.

All that being said, I am not a women’s study expert. Since Swimmer aligns her views with this field, I’m very interested in what her fellow majors have to say about the subject.

For lack of a better word, what a whore. And I cant believe the Daily Bruin is writing about this whore. I mean what the hell?

We call this crap “WOMAN LOGIC”

Responding to Alex’s post and specifically, “How can female empowerment be achieved through a medium largely sustained by male expectations?”. Its definitely not a simple answer. Rachel chooses to embrace society’s archetypal view of a woman such that she physically embodies a more traditional view of a woman (think of Geishas). Yes, this is a f*cked up view of a person, which is why this concept of the “female” is very flawed as it does not allow for her (or any “female” in the traditional sense of the word) to be an individual to a large extent (i.e. she is just like every other porn star out there). This is not strictly a male perspective for the reason that this is how we, as people, have traditionally defined (and objectified) women. This, however, was a bad move for society (results in physical and psychological abuse), which is why people like Rachel challenge how we think females should behave by being promiscuous and enjoying sex. This is a very artistic move in the sense that, through her pornography, we are forced to reexamine what a female should be. Ethically, however, I think she is definitely in the wrong, but that is a different story…p.s. Travis Barker is a tool. I mean, insult a woman as an individual or insult women and general, you idiot. You can’t have it both ways.

Taken in isolation, this woman’s story is a success story. And she’s making lots of money – our culture’s true idol. Her story is not the norm, however, and it is a very short term success story, with a too narrow focus on only her, as opposed to the negative ripple effect set in motion affecting potentially so many in a destructive way down the line, and even herself, when she gets old and used up.

It’s a twisted mind that promotes someone, in any way, to be gangbanged. This also serves to desensitize and normalize brutality. many a victim of actual gang rape are finding it harder and harder to receive justice. I remember a case in TX, in which an 11 year old girl was gang raped by a group of 14 – 15 year olds, and a female legislator held the 11 year responsible for her own rape, because she was dressed like a slut. This 11 year old’s life is now irreparable changed.

Why was she dressed like a slut and hanging out with much older boys? My guess is that her home life was not the most stable, loving, and protective of her childhood. (Which would be the case for the teenaged rapists too.)

Why do children’s homes become unstable and unprotective? A variety of surface reasons, but boiling it down, divorce / the break up of a loving and stable two parent home.

Why do unions which produce children break up? In large part, abuse and adultery. (The two are highly correlated, per World Health Organization studies.)

What contributes greatly to both abuse and adultery? Porn.

Now that the TX 11 year old has been irreparably affected by gang sexual abuse, she is more likely to end up in the sex trade herself. However, maybe she’ll even be able to make big money at it, while she contributes to the viewership’s brain changes which make them less able to bond deeply in a stable and loving relationship.

And that is a small example of the slippery slope, the ripple effect, and the compounding problem of one woman’s short term success story as a porn actress.

It may be good for her now, but at what cost to so many others (including herself) now and in the future?

On Ted.com today:

‘What do you think each and every one of us can do to counter the impact and influence of porn as default sex education, everywhere?’

Today hardcore porn is more freely and widely available online than ever before, thus accessible by kids at earlier and earlier ages (the average age at which porn is first viewed online is 11; a friend of mine recently found her 9-year-old son watching hardcore porn on her iPhone). At the same time, we do not as a society talk about sex openly; the majority of parents are too embarrassed to teach their kids about sex, and sex education is generally not taught in schools in a realistic and directly relevant way. As a result, and I can testify to this through my direct personal experience of dating younger men, an entire generation (guys and girls alike – girls watch and are as influenced by porn as guys are) is growing up believing that what you see in hardcore porn is the way that you have sex, with some very fundamental, ingrained negative impacts. As someone working to counter this with my venture http://makelovenotporn.com, I would love all thoughts and ideas from the TED community as to how we can collectively address what is, quite frankly, the single biggest impact technology is currently having on the most fundamental aspect of huma behavior – our sexuality, which informs everything to do with how we feel about ourselves, other people, our relationships, our lives and our happiness.

This is a global issue that is currently impacting everywhere.

We’ll start this conversation at 1pm EST on Wednesday December 7. I am very much looking forward to conversing with all of you!

Read an article today on the rise in women having elective cosmetic surgery on their labias and vaginas to make them prettier. The pornification of beauty has led to this. Ironic. Female genital mutilation used to be thought of as barbaric. Porn creates so much more bad than good.

This is total bullshit. Rachel became a porn star because she was so desperate for fame, when all her friends from Laguna because reality stars on Laguna Beach and the Hills. She didn’t make the cut, so she nipped, tucked, bleached and poofed whatever was necessary, and fucked her way to fame.
I can’t believe her mother Claudia is “okay” with this, and I KNOW her father Jules would have been appalled. I also know Rachel didn’t become a porn star until after her father died, and I assume, didn’t leave her much money, if any. I feel bad for her, and in no way do I believe the claptrap she is spouting in the article above. It was simply the desire for fame.
What is really kind of sick is how much her “boyfriend” Ben English looks like her father. Blech.