No Agenda: Golden Goddesses by Jill C. Nelson (2012)

Hi folks! An exciting book review for you today: Golden Goddesses: 25 Legendary Women of Classic Erotic Cinema 1968-1985 by Jill C. Nelson, who previously co-wrote the John Holmes biography, Inches. This book is a real labor of love; a collection of lengthy interviews and background stories behind 25 women of the golden age. Each chapter is effectively a mini-biography, with intimate interview responses from the women themselves and occasionally their loved ones (as in the case of those no longer living, such as Marilyn Chambers and Ann Perry), as well as brief analyses of significant works by the women in question and a plethora of photos. At nearly 1000 pages, this is no fluff piece, and Nelson's (and her publisher's) willingness to allow the space necessary for these women to voice their experiences - diverse, unexpected, often inspirational, sometimes sad, occasionally unsettling - should be applauded.

Sex work usually polarizes people, as evidenced by the simplistic "pro" and "anti" porn binary, a binary that affects not only writers on the subject, but sex workers themselves when representing their work and themselves. The lack of agenda behind Nelson's project naturally leads to a diversity of stories, some of which are not positive. This, to me, is one of the strengths of the book. When considering the ways in which people write and talk about sex work, I often think about a comment I read from Dutch sex worker Jo Doezema in Wendy Chapkis's fantastic book, Live Sex Acts: Women Performing Erotic Labor. Reflecting on her work Doezema writes,

"I think for almost everybody I make it more positive than it is, because everybody has such a negative idea about it already. So you tend to only talk about the good things or the funny things. With most jobs, if you have a shitty day or a bad client or something, people don't immediately say that it's because of the kind of work you do and that you must stop right away. But with prostitution, I've always felt that if I didn't convince everybody that this work was fantastic for me and that I really loved it that they would all be on my back to quit. Anytime something negative happens in your work, it just confirms peoples' worst suspicions" (120-121). 

This insightful perspective can, I think, be applied to all types of sex work, and Nelson's agenda-free approach is refreshing in that it allows for the full spectrum of experiences: good, bad, and in between. For this reason, the book is not always a comfortable read. The project prompts questions, provokes critical thinking, and opens up a space for these women to truly voice themselves and their experiences rather than functioning as a "ventriloquist's dummy," to borrow Anne McClintock's phrase, for whichever agenda-driven group needs them. Through careful structuring, Nelson manages to narrate these women's stories while at the same time never overshadowing or undermining their voices.

Ginger Lynn

What piqued my interest about this project, aside from the opportunity to read about the lives of such incredible women who are too often overlooked or dismissed (at best) by mainstream culture, is the fact that Nelson is not a long-time porn fan. For this reason, there is a refreshing degree of subjectivity throughout the book - a lack of agenda, as Nelson puts it - which leads to interviews that are thorough, yet also intimate and often surprising. Nelson explains in her introduction, "Occasionally, family and friends have been puzzled and queried as to why I have chosen to dedicate much time and energy developing two books centering on this unusual group often misunderstood and even persecuted by society. I smile, and answer, 'I'm not interested in writing a book about Julia Roberts'" (16). Indeed, Nelson seems drawn to these women for the same reasons I am, and her goals for the book are made clear from the outset: "My intention is to escort readers toward a clearer understanding of the beautiful and intrepid females who favored an alternative profession in adult cinema that was cultivated at the apex of the 1960s sexual revolution" (17). What sets the book apart is the diversity of women included. While superstars of the screen such as Seka, Amber Lynn, and Marilyn Chambers take up the majority of the focus, women who worked behind the camera are also featured, such as screenwriter Raven Touchstone, writer/director Roberta Findlay, and writer/director/producer Ann Perry, creating a project that acknowledges a fuller spectrum of female contribution to adult film than is typical.

FYI, the 25 women included in the project are: Ann Perry, Barbara Mills, Georgina Spelvin, Marilyn Chambers, Roberta Findlay, Jody Maxwell, Candida Royalle, Gloria Leonard, Rhonda Jo Petty, Serena, Annie Sprinkle, Sex "Kitten" Natividad, Sharon Mitchell, Kay Parker, Juliet Anderson, Seka, Kelly Nichols, Veronica Hart, Julia St. Vincent, Laurie Holmes, Ginger Lynn, Amber Lynn, Christy Canyon, Raven Touchstone, and Nina Hartley, followed by honorable mentions.

Marilyn Chambers

I was naturally more drawn to some chapters than others, especially as some of the women featured have had very little written about them. I was particularly excited to see a chapter on Raven Touchstone, one of the most prolific and talented screenwriters in adult film. I have long admired her work, especially as I write extensively about one of her films in my ongoing book project, and to be able to read an extensive discussion of her life and work was a real treat.

Jody Maxwell

Another woman featured whose chapter I jumped to is Jody Maxwell, an actress who I know predominantly as the woman who climaxes after the man in Expose Me, Lovely, which I wrote about in my Subversive Money Shots blog post (though she is better known to the public as "the singing cocksucker" thanks to her unique talent). She also features in classics such as Satisfiers of Alpha Blue, Neon Nights, and Outlaw Ladies. Her filmography is shorter than some starlets of the era, though, and having not read her 2004 book, Private Calls, I knew almost nothing about her prior to reading this book. The same applies to other starlets in the book, most notably Serena and Rhonda Jo Petty, who I adore on screen, yet knew very little about in terms of their personal lives and careers. These chapters were particularly intriguing to me as a result, not only in their details of the industry, but in their wildly divergent and fascinating lives pre-, post-, and during porn. Their work in porn does not define these women, and Nelson deftly allows this truth to manifest in raw and organic narratives.

Even the chapters on women I thought I already knew well were compelling. Georgina Spelvin, for example, whose autobiography I have read did not initially seem to be a must-read section. The same goes for Veronica Hart, Nina Hartley, Sharon Mitchell, and Annie Sprinkle - all highly visible, frequently written-about stars of adult film. What more could there be to know? Yet, as with all good interviews, Nelson draws out stories and information that built on my existing knowledge and respect for these women, rather than feeling like repetitions of previously read material. The information I had heard before, was still fresh in this new context.

Book signing, Hustler Hollywood 2012

Jody Maxwell reflects at one point, "I honestly don't have what might be considered a typical porn background" (204), and indeed none of the women fit neatly into this societally-prescribed box. What Nelson's book, and others like it, can reveal is the extent to which motivations behind sex work and entering the porn industry are complex, and the women who are involved in this work are dynamic, diverse, and human. This book is recommended equally to those familiar with the stars of the golden age as well as those who are not. Golden Goddesses really is as complete an overview of the main female players in adult cinema there is. The very fact that so little material is written about these incredible women speaks to the importance of Nelson's work. I can only hope for a sequel focusing on the men. Buy it here and check out Nelson's blog, featuring coverage of the frankly once-in-a-lifetime gathering of these wonderful women at the book signing in L.A. Lord, how I wish I could have attended.

Misandry, Misogyny, and the Persecuted Male

A bit of an odd update today. First things first, the catalyst for this post was the accusations of misandry leveled at me (or, at society, feminists, what have you) in regard to my review of Evil Angel's remake of In the Realm of the Senses, Pure (2009). The first comment, in its blandness, I published. The second, with its direct threats of various forms of physical and sexual violence toward me, I did not publish and simply reported it along with the person's profile information. The first thing I need to say is that any further threats of violence directed at me will remain unpublished, and simply be forwarded to those investigating the issue.

But, the seriousness of threats of violence aside, I think the fact that the accusation of misandry has been raised twice (maybe by the same person? who knows) on the one and only blog post here that discusses and depicts graphic representations of violence against males to be quite revealing. Ponder for a moment, how many films discussed on this site have addressed and/or depicted violence against women? Off the top of my head, there's Joy, The Private Afternoons of Pamela Mann, Hard Gore, Forced Entry, Water Power, Hot Summer in the City, and many, many, many more.

My question is this: have we become so accustomed to the female body serving as victim or victim-hero (best case scenario), as physical receptacle for symbolic violence of all sorts, sexual or otherwise, as the damsel in distress around which men mobilize to either hurt or save, that one lone representation of graphic violence against men amongst a plethora of rape and violence against women can prompt such outrage? Is this outrage justified? As in, can this outrage be a way of thinking about representations of violence in general? Do those men who found the content of Pure to be so utterly offensive, and were angry at me for discussing it, ever think about what it would be like to encounter such imagery on a daily basis? Do they identify with women in this moment?

I still remember my own discomfort watching Kurt Russell get the shit kicked out of him, in spectacular fashion, at the end of Death Proof, and wondering why this was so traumatic. I think we are accustomed to seeing women in peril, women in distress, women screaming. I think, due to gender roles, we feel more comfortable exploring violence through the body of a woman, at least in graphic, spectacular fashion. There are anomalies, of course, but the shock experienced when confronting these anomalies (take Father's Day (2011) for example) speaks volumes about our levels of acceptance and expectations in connection to gender, sex, and violence.

Bright Desire: Smart Porn for Women and Men

Hi all! I recently had the pleasure of reviewing a XXX website - my very first review of this sort, and many thanks to Ms. Naughty for the opportunity! Ms. Naughty's new site is Bright Desire a porn site that describes itself as "new wave" - which I take to be a variant of what can only be described as a movement in porn. Call it queer, call it ethical, call it feminist, call it "post porn" -- clearly, porn consumers are asking for something different from mainstream fare, yet also not soft focus, not necessarily traditionally plot-driven, and (critically, in my opinion) not simply standard, mainstream porn packaged as "for couples." (Might I also add that it thrilled me to see "quality erotic fiction" listed on the welcome page?)

Lovely Adrianna Nicole in "Phone Sex"

Ms. Naughty describes her site in these terms:

This site offers a new and different kind of porn – new wave, smart porn. The aim is to move beyond the old cliches, boundaries and negativity of standard, old-style pornography and to offer something fresh, inclusive and intelligent.

Bright Desire is a celebration of sex. It’s a deliberate attempt to show all the good stuff that we love about sex – intimacy, laughter, connection and real pleasure. It’s also about enhancing and exploring fantasy – because our brains are just as important to our sex lives as our genitals. I want to make 'thinking porn' – erotic material that engages your mind as well as your heart and your libido. I also want to create 'grateful porn', sexy videos that inspire joy and happiness.

"Who's Been a Bad Girl?"

Sounds awesome to me. And honestly, it is. There is a real diversity here that offers a little bit of everything, but it all feels fresh. So, I guess if you are committed to a certain aesthetic currently provided by mainstream output you might not be interested. However, in my experience there are constantly people who watch mainstream output, and enjoy it, yet are open about settling for things that they could do without. A lot of the time, from "regular" porn fans, I hear a desire for less fakeness, less focus on hard&fast, or, if they like hard&fast to have it be more organic. I think that's the word for it: organic. At least, that's what I look for, whether it's a Hollywood-esque XXX feature film from the 70s, or a Penthouse Letter, I want to feel a fluidity, an organic quality to that product. A product that doesn't seem to be adhering to a stale, predictable mould. I felt like I got that at Bright Desire.

Ms. Naughty explains in her blog post about the site launch, "Bright Desire currently features scenes with real life heterosexual couples as well as male and female solo masturbation scenes. I’m going to expand this as I go along and include all orientations and genders, although I do want to focus on hetero sex because that’s where I’m personally at. And it’s also an area that’s still neglected, despite the explosion of queer and feminist porn. Straight sex is still stuck in the realm of porny cliche and I want to go beyond that." She goes on to explain, "I’ve taken a risk by including male solo scenes amid the couples and solo women. Porn dogma insists that this sort of content should be segregated, labelled as 'gay' and kept safely away from straight men lest they somehow 'catch the gay' or turn into zombies or something like that. I’m not buying into that." I don't buy into that either. The inclusion of male solo scenes is a pleasing deviation from the typical refusal to focus on the male body as sexually desirable. Whenever this happens, it's called "gay" even when there is no male-male contact. This is rather telling of who we presume to be doing the gazing...

"Fucking is the Only Prayer"

The categories available are: Movies, Stories, Reviews, and Columns. You can also add content to your "Likes" page making it simple to access your favourites. The movies are divided into a few sub-sections: Couples, Solo Men, Solo Women, Extended Scenes, Short Films, Extras, Interviews, and Film Festival, but they have many more tags to click on besides, including animation, BDSM, real life couples, pegging, and more. (I *love* the fact they have a tag for "laughter" - there really needs to be more laughter and joy in sex media). This gives a pretty good idea of the range of content available on the site, as well as the degree to which Bright Desire presumes you to be interested in the erotic arts in general; a presumption I find to be gratifying.

At the moment, Ms. Naughty is still adding content (it is brand spanking new), but from the looks of it the site is going to be really exciting and dynamic. I'm excited to see where it goes. Recommended.

“I Want to Get to Know You”: Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle (1982)

I'm continuing my foray into the representation of female sexual agency in porn, this time by looking at the Platinum Elite edition of 1982's Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle. The "docu-porn" is rapidly becoming the most popular genre of gonzo today thanks mostly to the output of Elegant Angel, particularly their contracted director Mason who has created the popular eponymous porn series, Asa Akira is Insatiable, Buttwoman, Slutwoman, and individual spotlight features such as Dani, Celeste, and Remy. All of these films involve extensive narrative segments between sex scenes that touch on the performers life and sexuality, and the sex scenes themselves are created collaboratively between Mason and the performer. The format goes back to the early 1970s, with the various Inside and Deep Inside films, establishing the porn film that claims to go behind the scenes and reveal the woman behind the porn star. (Interestingly, I read an article recently that stated Linda Lovelace established the trend of using pornography to represent authentic female desire through the many interviews and writings she did claiming lack of distance between herself and her porn star persona. In reality, while Linda Lovelace may have cemented the trend in film, it goes back centuries in literature). Some of these films simply recut scenes from other films, while others such as Insatiable (1980) and perhaps most notably Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle made concerted efforts to create dynamic and original feature films that blurred (or illuminated?) the lines between fantasy and reality, subject and object. 

Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle is notable because Sprinkle created the project with feminist intentions of presenting her true sexual persuasions. As Sprinkle explains, “After making about a hundred porn movies, written, produced and directed all by men, I felt like I wanted to make something of my own. Something from a woman’s point of view” (Hardcore from the Heart 51). Sprinkle wrote the script, and had a high level of creative control. The film was the second highest grossing hardcore film of 1982, and instigated, as Annie Sprinkle puts it, “the beginning of a new era, pornography made by women” (Hardcore from the Heart 51). The significance of this lies in how the most popular current gonzo format amongst male consumers reflects and is rooted in this film, which was also one of the most popular films with male consumers in its day. Evidently, female sexual pleasure, female sexual desire, and the journey from girlhood to womanhood in terms of sexuality is highly desirous as a pornographic subject, and indicates a complicated attitude toward female sexual agency, as well as a paradoxical tendency to both blur and illuminate the lines between fantasy and reality.

Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle opens with Annie speaking directly to camera – a format that has, in recent years, died out in favour of the interview format. She explains that her goal is one of mutual intimacy between performer and spectator: “I’m really glad that you came to see me because, well, I want to get to know you and I want you to get to know me and I want us to become very very close and very very intimate. Would you like that? I would.” Annie creates the illusion of mutual intimacy, when in reality it is impossible that Annie would get to know the spectator when the communication is only one way. Only the spectator can get to know Annie, and not the other way around. Yet what appears to be a one-way communication is in fact more complicated. First, it could be argued that Annie gets to know her spectators through the medium of pornography and the catering to male pornographic desires; and second, Annie’s rhetoric is suggestive of her own dictation of those male pornographic desires. A sort of re-education of desire, or at least guidance of these desires. Even as Annie asks the question, “Would you like that?” she is answering, “I would,” as if this is all the answer necessary, and she continues to use this style of question and answer throughout the film. 

Annie’s introduction of photos from her childhood is unusual, and likely would not be included in current porn due to increased self-regulation (thanks to external pressure) of content within the industry. Perhaps it is this recent context that makes the introduction of the photos feel subversive, but aside from context there is something transgressive about exposing the human being – a woman who was once a baby, a girl, a teenager; a woman who has a family; a woman who has a real name, “Ellen” – behind the porn star. In addition, the close ups that include Annie’s lacquered nails as she directs our gaze, contribute to a sense of authorship on Annie’s part. 

I love the fact that the first scene is one that privileges the heterosexual female gaze. The object? Two naked hunks arm-wrestling. Annie explains how she used to work on a construction site, and loved to watch the muscly guys and flirt with them. The subsequent scene focuses on how a woman might enjoy ravishing/being ravished by two men. This is not exactly an unfamiliar concept, but what is unfamiliar is the way the two men are positioned as sexual objects, and the homoeroticism of the arm-wrestling is represented as erotic to women. Thus, Annie's authorship of the sex scenes subtly transforms the gaze of the porn spectator. In spite of all the well-documented increase in female porn consumption, and alleged marketing to heterosexual women and couples, I cannot think of any mainstream "straight" porn today that would dare position the male body as object of lust in quite the same way, and I think that's revealing.

Annie continues to play with the lines between reality and fantasy, on screen and off screen, most particularly in the sequence where she has sex with theater-goers watching one of Annie’s films.

You know, I am a real exhibitionist. And I love to have sex in very public places. Sometimes, if I see one of my movies is playing, I’ll go in and sit down and start watching myself sucking and fucking on that big screen and that makes me very very horny. So, I get carried away and I start doing all the guys around me. It’s really nice. So don’t be surprised if you’re ever in a movie theater and I come in, and I sit right next to you.

The subsequent scene blends the film on screen in the cinema with the film on screen that we are watching, that is presented as reality. It exposes the difference between on-screen action and off-screen action through the patrons’ shock – “Oh my god! You’re Annie Sprinkles!”– and yet the “real” Annie Sprinkle is still the on-screen Annie Sprinkle, just a screen once removed. The cinema patron’s off-screen reality is our on-screen fantasy, and Annie’s knowing smile in our direction at the end of the scene reinforces this sense of playful, and pleasurable, complication of the separation of reality and fantasy. 

I understand why there is so much concern over the way pornographic representations of sexuality are received as "true" or "authentic," and why the increased blurring of reality/fantasy in the internet age is discussed as a problem (see Cindy Gallop's Make Love Not Porn). Yet, I also understand the resentment some people have toward society's scapegoating of porn; the way porn is held accountable for sex education. Addressing the complex ways in which pornography has and continues to interrogate the “truth” of female sexuality can open up new avenues of discussion that connect histories of literature and film, avoid class-based dismissal of certain mediums and genres, and encourage a more nuanced approach to current trends in porn that are too often dismissed as meaningless or even dangerous, and maligned by scholars invested in eras and mediums deemed superior to the alleged “trash” being consumed on the internet today. 

Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle is a lovely film. Annie exudes charisma and sweetness at the same time as she is authentically lusty, a combination that I personally find magnetic and inspirational. Clearly I am not alone, as her dynamic career post-porn demonstrates. The Platinum Elite edition of this film is simply beautiful, and the DVD comes with a wealth of extras, including a commentary by Annie, astoundingly awesome liner notes, and an adorable cut-out finger puppet of Annie. If you already own this film, like I did, I urge you to "double dip" on this one. If you have never seen it before, do yourself a favour and buy this edition. If you're interested in Annie's career - her art, her porn, her performance, and writings, visit her website. I heartily recommend the DVD Herstory of Porn and her dazzling book, Post Porn Modernist.

"Are You Afraid of Me?": Joy (1977)

Hi folks! Recently, I've been interested in pornography's attitude toward female sexual agency and desire. Yeah, a pretty massive topic, I know. But, more specifically, I've been interested in how pornography (the texts, the filmmakers, the consumers) reveals its conflicted attitude toward female sexual agency in its many films that focus on a female sexual journey of some kind. These films range from The Devil in Miss Jones, to Deep Inside Annie Sprinkle, to Tori Black is Pretty Filthy, to today's focus, Joy (1977). Joy is an unusual film in terms of its plot, yet it also illuminates generic patterns in pornography (film and literature), and hence is a neat little example of what I have found to be true of much pornographic film and literature: desire for active female sexuality at the same time as conflict/dis-ease regarding the nature and extent of this desire.

The popularity of female sexual protagonists in pornography suggests there is great pleasure to be had in seeing a woman transgress the sexual social norms of her gender; sexual journeys in heterosexual pornography are most typically run through the body of a woman because such sexual adventure is more transgressive for a woman. In this way, pornography’s obsessive attention to pushing female sexual limits and the female epiphany via sexual violence or exploitation can be viewed and understood in more complicated terms than simply “men get off watching women being raped.” In Joy (1977), originally titled The Female Rapists, a young woman named Joy (Sharon Mitchell) refuses to have sex with her boyfriend, who then breaks up with her. She is later raped in her home, but has an epiphany midway through her sexual assault, demanding, “I want more!” 

She then goes about New York City on a rape spree, which causes a series of copycat rapes perpetrated by women, and Joy is eventually arrested but set free. The film is a unique example of the rape-themed pornographic sexual journey, yet representative of the genre in its conflicted attitude toward female sexual agency. This attitude is conveyed through three key moments in the film: 1) Joy’s initial rape and subsequent rape of her ex-boyfriend, 2) the police chief’s discovery of his wife’s adultery and subsequent crackdown on the female rapists, and 3) the final police action against Joy, where she is raped into submission by order of the angry and hypocritical Lt. Handcock (Jake Teague), arrested, and eventually released thanks to the sexual favours she performs on him.

In the initial scene, when Joy asks for “more” from her rapist, he leaves in bewildered fear, and Joy immediately departs and breaks into her ex-boyfriend Ricky’s apartment, where he is showering, and rapes him. This first sequence is significant in that the male aggressors are sexually turned off by Joy’s sexual aggression, and her ex-boyfriend Ricky is essentially in the same victim role as Joy: his private space is invaded while he is vulnerable and flaccid. His initial reaction is shock and disapproval. Joy has already stripped naked, and pulls the shower curtain back, prompting Ricky to cover his soft penis. “Joy! What are you doing here?” Ricky says, startled. There is a pause, in which Ricky looks at Joy carefully, shifts into indignation and disapproval, and points his finger at her: “You’re naked!”

"You're naked!"

The fellatio scene that follows tracks Ricky’s transition from disapproval of Joy’s unfeminine desire for sex to bewildered ecstasy and climax. His disapproval, in spite of his earlier cajoling of Joy, exposes the double standard held to women in terms of their sexual activity. Earlier, Ricky had tried to pressure Joy into sex, noting his primary concern is that he is “the laughing stock of the whole basketball team,” and yet in this scenario he is put off by Joy’s brazen sexual assertiveness. Not only does Ricky want Joy to be sexually desirous on his terms (in other words, in traditionally gendered terms), but also his desire for sex is entwined with his desire to please his homosocial community of the basketball team. In this way, this opening sequence demonstrates a tension on the part of male pornographic producer and consumer regarding the transgression of gender norms. This tension is further exposed when, after Ricky has ejaculated and his penis gone limp, Joy looks up at Ricky disappointed, asking, “what happened, it’s gone away!” “I need more, Ricky,” Joy explains hurriedly, “Right now. I – I can’t wait.” Joy’s disappointment is rooted in a naiveté regarding the male penis. Specifically, the penis’s inability to live up to the perpetually hard pornographic penis. Joy must have multiple penises in place of an individual penis that cannot fulfill pornographic expectations. Joy demands of men what men are traditionally supposed to demand of the pornographic woman.

Joy’s rape victims express pleasure and relief, yet nevertheless report the crime to police. This confusing plot move, and resulting contradictory impulses to celebrate the female rape spree but also investigate it as a crime, reveals an uneasiness regarding Joy and her copycat rapists. While men are indeed relieved, and violent crime rates go down, there is concern connected to the fact that women now roam the streets like zombies, and people are copulating all over the sidewalks and on peoples’ lawns.

A major turning point occurs in the film when Lt. Handcock comes home to discover his wife having sex with Phil the plumber on the kitchen table. Staring in horror, he mutters, “Oh Joy, you’re gonna get yours.” Women putting out is all well and good – up until this point, Handcock had been criticizing the rape victims for not getting Joy’s number – but when it comes to wives cheating on their husbands a line must be drawn. The female rapist spree is a positive experience until the shake-up of traditional gender roles and sexual activity becomes too transgressive. In other words, when the women start to stray from institutionalized, patriarchal, heteronormative couplings, something needs to be done. As a side note, I realized the significance of this scene – in fact, this line of dialogue – when I missed it the first time I watched the film, and came away with quite a different idea of who we as viewers were supposed to identify with. The second time I watched the film, I heard this low-spoken line of dialogue quite clearly, and instantly understood that we are meant to identify with Joy and regard Lt. Handcock as a hypocritical, sexist, and spiteful old man.

The solution to the “problems” caused by Joy, confusingly, is to rape Joy. How can the woman who wants “more, more, more” be raped? The film’s answer to this perplexing question is to invoke race. The police chief selects the black police officer, who dutifully exposes his “weapon” for the police chief to inspect and promises, “I’ll put that cunt in her place.” In a disturbing scene, he rapes Joy in a rage, calling her “Freak!...Fucking slut!,” and then arrests her. Joy avoids being charged, however, as, she seduces the hypocritical police chief while at gunpoint, asking him provocatively, “Are you afraid of me?” 

"Are you afraid of me?"

It is a question that could be asked of all the men in regard to all the women of pornography; perhaps all women in general. The film ends with Joy, banished from NYC, standing uncertainly in an airport, gazing at two sailors. Her facial expression transforms from uncertain to determined, and her pursuit of these sailors (and the other men in the bathroom) provides a sense of Joy’s intention to pursue her desires unabashed. Yet the narrative is not entirely coherent. Joy as a character is pushed and pulled in different directions throughout the film, the film unable to settle on a coherent desire between on-screen female sexuality and off-screen male visual desire. For me, this final scene was a sort of triumph for Joy; a “fuck you” to the man/men who tried to hold her down. Yet, it is still a form of defiance quite palatable to those men involved, and thus does not quite eradicate the sense that Joy has been unable to truly exercise sexual agency outside of gender norms.

All in all, if it were not immediately obvious, I found this film to be fascinating, unique, and beautifully shot. Highly recommended.

Find a copy of Joy.

Porno Runway: My Favourite XXX Fashions

To celebrate the return of my favourite television show, Project Runway, I present to you my favourite fashion statements in XXX cinema. This is not some kind of ironic, "laugh at the silly 70s porno fashions" celebration, but a sincere nod to the many "wow moments," as Tim Gunn would put it, that I have discovered in my porn watching career. True fashion statements, often worn by performers (such as Eric Edwards and Jesie St. James) who seem to have made an x-rated career out of making it work. I must note, however, that one of my very favourites is absent from the list below: Wade Nichols' wonderful shirt and slacks in Take Off (1978). The person I loaned my DVD to has not yet returned it. :( I can picture it though, and trust me, it is magnificent.

First up, perhaps the most iconic outfit in porn history, Johnnie Keyes' white peephole jump suit. First worn in the 1972 classic, Behind the Green Door, this costume is homaged in 1977's Sex World (pictured), 1981's The Seven Seductions (worn by Annette Haven no less), and to an extent in 1973's Resurrection of Eve (Keyes wears the necklace in one of the scenes - see below). Legendary and awesome.

Speaking of Resurrection of Eve, Keyes can't hold a candle to the many, many gob-smacking fashions worn by Matthew Armon, as DJ Frank Paradise. It's this Davy Crockett coat (yes, it has a raccoon tail hanging off the back of the collar!) that lingers in the memory, yet I really could have plucked any of the several epic outfits he dons. However, Frank has a habit of overdoing it, and some of these looks border on horror.

 

Like this shirt and pants combo he wears while musing over his white male anxiety...

...an outfit that really needs to be seen from the back.

 Marilyn Chambers also starred in Resurrection and while her clothes are awesome in that film, it's Insatiable (1980) that stands out in my mind thanks to this knotted yellow Ferrari shirt and ultra-skint-tight black pants (with a chain, naturally) which she wears while taking advantage of Richard Pacheco during her kick-ass drive around the countryside. Damn cool.

 I mentioned Eric Edwards above, and I want to make a claim: Eric Edwards is the best tailored porn star ever. Really. Every movie, he is just so sharp, so charming and dapper. This blue suit, with lavender shirt and tie from The Private Afternoons of Pamela Mann, is a particular favourite of mine.

Jesie St. James is the female fashion counterpart to Edwards, in my humble opinion. She mixes sportswear and gowns like it's nothing, and carries off both looks with her muscular, yet elegant, figure. She's a true class act. Like Edwards, I could have picked from many movies, but it's this jogging outfit, with red striped tube socks, from the opening scene of Anthony Spinelli's Easy that goes down as my very favourite.

Finally, of course there is Jack Wrangler, the man who made a deal to have someone provide his clothing in return for a film credit. Without a doubt, my favourite of his looks is this audacious yet somehow slick pairing of black leather pants and half-unzipped yellow/black leather jacket with no shirt from A Night at the Adonis. This outfit features in the trailer, and this may sound like hyperbole, but it sealed the deal on my buying the film. I kid you not.

Porn on the Fourth of July

For this year's celebration of the United States day of independence from my homeland, why not delve into some XXX that provides a taste of Americana? Now, I could simply list all the "4th of July" themed/named porno flicks out there, but instead I'm providing a list of movies that offer up a complex cross-section of American culture, through the lens of one of its most defining media forms.

Enjoy! And feel free to name your own suggestions in the comments.

Taboo: American Style 1-4 (1985)

Henri Pachard's four part XXX miniseries provides a glimpse into the perversions of the upper middle class American psyche, revealing a rather large quantity of family troubles, incest, and blackmail/emotional manipulation. Sparkling dialogue and performances, this series belongs squarely to the magnificent Raven, who is so fantastically evil and conniving, you cannot look away (not that you'd want to). 

Operation Desert Stormy (2007)

Perhaps the most recent American wars are not as glamorous or popular as the nostalgia for the American Revolution, but American Sweetheart, writer, director, star Stormy Daniels' satirical take on the Gulf War(s) is a blast, and easily Daniels' crowning achievement (so far). Daniels is an administrative assistant who, along with her husband (Steven St Croix) and a couple of buffoonish British agents, must defeat evil terrorist Hussein and save the world. Shenanigans ensue.

Honorable Discharge (1993) 

Commemorate our LGBTQ military history with this award-winning flick, in which director Jerry Douglas explores straight guys who fuck men in the Marines, a phenomenon he himself could not understand and thus made a movie about it. As Douglas put it, "I never understood why. This is my thought on it: The Marines are the most macho American image in existence, and if you have any doubts about your sexuality, that's where you go to prove you're a man."

Debbie Does New Orleans (1999)

Forget Dallas, though that is undoubtedly the most iconic city Debbie has done. The Big Easy is the great American city, representative of so much that is unique and special about U.S. culture. In this kooky installment, Debbie heads off to Saints territory, but is kidnapped by sex fiends and is carted off to a swamp-set sex club where she must perform on stage in order to save her fiancee from being raped. Yes, you read that right. An odd movie, well worth watching, especially if you are a New Orleanian.

The Spirit of Seventy-Sex (1976)

I couldn't not list this: a Revolution era porn flick, made in 1976? It's hard to resist. Essentially a vignette film, Seventy-Sex takes you through a series of fully-costumed historical sequences, telling the real story of the founding fathers. Spoiler alert: they were perverts.