By Christopher Baum
Even a superficial perusal of recent discussions in the media about pornography would have us believe that porn is, in many regards, a risky business. Some argue that the consumption of porn is reaching “epidemic” proportions, that viewers are at risk of becoming addicted, or that it may encourage dangerous proclivities and the imitation of “unsafe” sexual behavior. Most recently, a referendum in Los Angeles made condom use mandatory for all pornography produced within the city, a move that has been both lauded as a progressive step for performer safety, and critiqued as ploy to evacuate the porn industry from California. Others have regarded the production of pornography as coercive, and it’s meaning inherently misogynistic.
In sum: the forms and formats of pornography are rapidly changing, the industry itself is undergoing major infrastructural changes, and the ubiquity of porn is taking on new meanings in American culture. So where do we begin when considering the many sides to these issues? What kinds of risks does pornography introduce, and for whom? For the inaugural posting of Bodies on the Line, I was thrilled to sit down with close friend, pornstar, and author Lorelei Lee to think through some of these issues. An articulate and talented veteran of the industry, Lee offered her first-hand insights into important questions of risk, consent, and testing within the adult film industry. Here’s to many more thought-provoking and critical engagements on these issues!
***
Christopher Baum: So Lorelei! What have you been doing?! Perhaps for people who aren’t familiar with your work, why don’t you talk a bit about your career, and some of your recent projects both porn-related and not-porn-related?
Lorelei Lee: Yes! So, I’ve been in the adult industry since 1999 when I shot my first porn, which was for “The Internet.” [Laughs] At the time it was just still photographs and audio. I still find it hilarious that they did audio – that’s never really been a thing, right?
CB: Wait, back up. They had audio linked up to still images!? Hilarious!
LL: Yeah! [Laughs] It was me telling a dirty story, which of course they fed to me! [Laughs] But I’ve been making porn for about thirteen years; a really long time…and I also have worked as a stripper. But is that part of your research, or this website?
CB: Well, my hope is to have contributors involved in all kinds of sex work. Performers like you, but also people doing research in public health or anthropology who work with sex workers (on a global scale).
LL: Oh great! So very briefly, I’ve been making porn for thirteen years and I’ve worked in San Francisco, New York, Las Vegas, and L.A. – but mostly L.A. and San Francisco. I’ve done a lot of BDSM porn [an overlapping acronym for Bondage and Discipline (BD), Dominance and Submission (DS), Sadism and Masochism (SM)], and I’ve also done a lot of mainstream so-called “straight” porn. I’ve also made a lot of queer porn, and have written a lot about being a third-wave feminist pornographer. I’ve done a little bit of directing of pornography and I’ve also worked as a stripper at bachelor parties and that kind of thing.
In addition to that I just got my MFA from New York University and a lot of my writing deals with the adult industry; I’ve written some articles, some essays talking about feminism and pornography and also talking about health and pornography. I guess I’m a little bit of an activist in that capacity.
CB: Amazing!
LL: Another thing that is kind of interesting is that I was going to testify in an obscenity trial for John Stagliano in 2010 regarding some videos that I was in. These were indicted as “obscene” and I was going to testify about them…partly about the health and safety requirements around making those images, as well as talking about the aesthetics of porn, and why they’re not “obscene.”
CB: Can you mention what the case was about for people who don’t know what happened with Stagliano?
LL: So…the federal government indicted John Stagliano’s company for distributing videos made by a few different directors. Some of them were fetish videos, and some of them were enema videos and that kind of thing. But they were very mainstream compared to other porn videos that have been indicted as “obscene” in the past. Under Bush the FBI created a Task Force on Obscenity and this was one of the last cases before Bush left office. I think they’ve de-prioritized it since then. If they had won their case it would have been very significant and set a precedent that would have obstructed many, many things that are freely looked at by consenting adults.
CB: Interesting. There have been a lot of these moments like that. The 1986 Meese Commission, and the debates with Dworkin and MacKinnon.
LL: Yeah, where the government really starts to focus on porn and thinks that it’s a giant problem. I think a lot of people don’t realize that imagery made by consenting adults is still indicted. The government is still trying to make rules about what you can look at. We are not talking about child pornography; we’re not talking about snuff films [i.e. when an individuals is killed on-camera during a sexual act]; we’re not talking about anything that is non-consensual. We’re talking about consenting adults.