(Untitled)

[easilyirritable]

From the Department of the Blindingly Obvious:

1. What, you mean the Suicide Girls are being exploited? By a man? You don't say. All this time, I thought it was possible to take your clothes off on the internet for little to no money so guys could jerk off while looking at your naked cooter without being exploited even a little bit. I figured

Comments

[lizallium]

don't you hate it when you try to point something out over & over, and it gets ignored, and then months or years later, people try and tell you the same thing you told them, like it's news?

they did a good job of covering their asses for a while, though; like when people complained that the site was primarily thin white women, and they posted a few girls who didn't fit that bill. or when people first started saying "how much money do you make off these girls compared to how much you pay them?" and the response was "they knew what they were getting in to!"

[easilyirritable]

Yeah, I remember when they first came out a few years back and everyone was like, you guys are full of shit! And the SGs were just like, you all are jellus haterz! Yes, we are all jealous of the privilege of being underpaid for nudie shots on a lame porn site that tries to peddle itself as 'feminist'. How did you ever figure it out?

[iheartlibraries]

exactly. i remember the arguments on the strap-on.org boards 2-3 years ago with various models and the owners. most of the arguments were about the racism, fatphobia, and the not very hardcore-ness of the site, but some people did mention the crappy pay the models were getting, which some of the models defended.

i never understood why the site was called suicide girls either. stupidest title.

[easilyirritable]

Because mental illness is kEwL!!!1 Didn't you know? Like, all the cool girls commit suicide! Excuse me, I need to go cut myself now. I'm feeling a little uncool and need to fix that right away.

[_ex_cowboy]

so glad to see sg being held accountable for their stupidity. i hope the site owner goes bankrupt or is put in jail.

[easilyirritable]

I say bankruptcy. Maybe he and Dov Charney can go hang out together and discuss 'alterna-capitalism' and how edgy they are while being fellated by underage employees.

[_ex_cowboy]

not to mention that ass that runs vice magazine.

[easilyirritable]

Does he really? He's got the market cornered on supposedly hip crap that is really just the same old bullshit dressed up in black hair dye and Pabst Blue Ribbon.

[luna_k]

Re: #1 - that was my thought exactly. Like, come on, y'all.

Personally I always rolled my eyes at the SG.com, especially after I found out the site was run by a man while using Missy as the PR rep front. There's nothing wrong with the idea of "alt porn" girls - whatever gets you off and all - but don't go acting like you're pushing "porn even feminists like!". That's just insulting my intelligence.

[easilyirritable]

but don't go acting like you're pushing "porn even feminists like!"

Heh. If by "feminists" you mean "horny teenage boys".

[push_loud_pens]

so do you think that porn can be done in a feminist way?

[hawkward]

I can't say whether the videos sold on Good Vibrations would be acceptable to feminists, as I've never watched any of them, but there's a whole section of videos made by women. Some of the descriptions sound like the videos are both educational and stimulating for women just as much as for men, without the misogyny or violence (other than consensual light BDSM -- Good Vibes doesn't really get into the hardcore stuff, although they do have educational videos on how to be a domme and a sub).

What exactly would constitute feminist-worthy porn, anyway? Total equality -- i.e., both parties give AND receive?

[easilyirritable]

I'm sure it could be (although I have to question if it's really possible in such a patriarchal society), but I just know that Suicide Girls ain't it.