How Does the Sex-Positive Justify Pornography? Rebecca Whisnant on Feminist Pornography Producer Tristan Taormino

Tristan Taormino is a pornography producer who claims her actors have agency and are authentic in their productions. Radical feminist Rebecca Whisnant examines her work, and while giving her a balanced review, pays her compliments — calling her intelligent and reflective.

Whisnant doesn't argue that feminist pornography is impossible; rather, she argues Taormino's work "falls far short of the mark." Whisnant doesn't hold back in her critique of Taormino's idea of "authenticity."

Performers may be authentic, but only if they're still performing "consistent with getting paid, maintaining your reputation and marketability in the industry, and ensuring enough viewers for the film to make it commercially viable."

In other words, these aren't choices made in a vacuum. They are choices shaped by an industry that rewards certain behaviors. Performers have agents with financial interests based on how many times they perform — they make more on the performers' willingness to perform "what are widely considered more unpleasant, dangerous, and/or degrading acts, since those acts pay more" "because you reach a wider audience" "if you do things like… kink, taboo, fetish…." Agencies don't allow girls to have a "no-go" list.

Although feminist porn changes who is behind the camera and improves labor conditions, Whisnant argues that Taormino's films often still include domination, humiliation, pain, and rough features, and feature female submission.

"Female directors have the advantage" — "they still get their performers to push their limits" — "how could anything upsetting happen here" — when a "self-described feminist" who makes her sets "ethical" and "fun" — "we're all safe and professional and here to get empowered?"

Whisnant discusses how Taormino frames the conversation — framing, or presenting, is a part of the justification. She points out that audiences will be surprised to find out that her work does not "represent egalitarian sex," does not at least abstain from using misogynistic name-calling, nor does it avoid violence against women. Her feminist production does all of these things — and here's how she justifies it according to Whisnant's analysis.

Taormino says that "some" viewers might find it disturbing while "others" don't — suggesting that all of these things, the wish for egalitarian sex, the absence of derogatory name-calling, or violence, are somehow a matter of subjectivity and not of material consequence.

Taormino describes that she embraces the idea that sex is "unruly" and that there is an inevitable power hierarchy in sexual exchanges. She also says that everything she does is a way of "resisting puritanical or oppressively judgemental sexual attitudes." While I can appreciate the disdain for purity culture — I despise purity culture myself — the rationale becomes that anything goes, everything is fair game, no limits necessary.

Whisnant describes Taormino as believing "all forms of sex were an exchange of power." So I ask: how will she ever produce feminist pornography if her perspective is based on power rather than erotic exchange? I remember thinking this myself — understanding sex to be a way to get my power back — but then I realized that is the manifestation of the patriarchy operating in my own psyche.

I argue there is a difference between an energetic erotic exchange and a hierarchy of power. The first is a symbiosis of union; the latter is about taking power from another and "othering," enforcing dominance rather than sharing an energetic life force. I ask myself — is this just semantics? But I conclude that it's just a defensive strategy to trip up criticism, or a smoke screen to address the fact that she, as a feminist, is perpetuating harms against humanity.

It's hard for me to criticize other feminists because I don't want to tear people down, but it is also important for me as a feminist to point out incongruence in rationalization.