Interracial Porn: Holding Us Back While Getting Us Off? (Pt. 2)
by Racialicious special correspondent Wendi Muse
(. . . Continued from Part 1)
The hypothetical situation I posed above is clearly as far-fetched as Jensen’s advocacy of ending masculinity, but in the long run, especially with so many supporters of the eradication of race and the installation of colorblind institutions, could an erasure of race as we know it lead to an altering of our fantasies and their portrayal on screen?
My answer is a definite yes.
Without a doubt, the use of race in fantasy scenarios aids the process of arousal. Taboo elements in porn assist in the option of living vicariously through the actors/performers on-screen. Particularly with regard to race, as one’s race is basically immutable, certain attributes assigned to the actors’ respective sexual prowess or lack thereof are also seen as immutable, rendering porn actors/actresses of color mere props in a fantasy, just like whips, chains, or clamps would be in an S&M flick. Their race, as set by the film’s theme or as interpreted by the viewer, becomes a vehicle for the fantasy, used solely for the sake of helping the viewer achieve orgasm. Race becomes a fetish element, if you will, and porn writers, producers, and the actors involved use essentialization as a key part—without it, the fantasy of interracial sex dissolves.
The very fact that interracial porn is a genre in itself is telling. With porn categories often catered to the specifics needs (or assumed needs) of its viewers, sex between a black man and an Asian-American woman, as an example, becomes comparable to sex between a dom and a sub, simply another image to fulfill the sexual desires of the audience, though through considerably dehumanizing means. For example, just as women in straight porn films are often degraded, usually supplying self-deprecating speeches to mirror the verbal abuse of her male partner, interracial porn performers must do the same, often spouting out racist rhetoric that would make a Neo-Nazi blush, solely to bolster the element of fantasy.
Stereotypes replace basic dialogue, with the characters often addressing each other in race-based sexual terms, most particularly those which employ synecdoche (i.e. a black man may be referred to simply as “big black d*ck” or, as commonly seen in films featuring American men with Brazilian female sex partners, a Latina may be referred to solely by the size and shape of her bottom). And just as in “mono-racial” porn, third person becomes the most common form of address, with the actors often self-narrating, giving some of the actions a more disturbing meaning if the dialogue is racist (i.e. lines like “watch me make this Asian b*tch my little Geisha whore”). Violence is often combined with sex in hardcore interracial porn, closely correlating with mono-racial porn, yet when added with racism and verbal abuse, interracial sex in porn takes on a unique meaning, that being mainly that in order to have proper sex with someone of a different race, or to enjoy that fantasy, defilement is essential. And again much like its mono-racial counterpart, interracial porn employs exaggeration as a device to enhance scenarios further, though in a racial context, often with stereotypes, race-based monikers, and objectification at a heightened level. Even the racial differences themselves are greatly exaggerated and, many times, inaccurate (much like mainstream Hollywood films), with people of color fitting a specific and predictable description physically (Latinas tend to have dark hair, olive skin tones, and physical proportions that weigh heavily on the lower half, black actors/actresses usually have dark skin as to provide a color contrast with their non-black sex partner, etc), transforming race into not only a prop, as mentioned previously, but also as a costume and a landscape upon which the cinematographic foundation relies for stability.
By way of actions, words, and appearances, interracial porn feeds the viewer exactly what he or she wants by way of appeasing the need to see what he or she expects. Even though interracial porn relies on the taboo element for its very existence as a genre, the scenarios are rarely jaw-dropping in suspense. The viewer knows exactly what he or she will see without watching at all—mainly because porn happens to be a mirror of society.
Mainstream, mono-racial porn often parodies current events in order to place a fantastical twist on reality, and interracial porn frequently follows suit, though it leaves a more critical audience to wonder whether or not the exaggerated nature of most interracial porn is done as social commentary, exploiting the fact that interracial sex is such a taboo despite it being 2008, or possibly even to ridicule the audience that continues to reach a climax by way of almost comedic routines of cross-cultural interaction.
But in the end, it’s quite difficult to separate the fantasy from reality in relation to porn, especially as so many porn scenarios, whether we like or not, end up coming full circle in our own bedrooms—even if we don’t gain inspiration directly from porn. Porn imagery is all around us, but the issue surrounding interracial porn boils down to the age-old art vs. life argument. Has interracial porn taken on such a racist tone due to our society being racist? Or, consequently, is the taboo surrounding interracial sex only perpetuated by such films, through which the average American, more likely than not, completely uneducated on issues of race, may see his or her first person of color in a sexual context and/or first interracial sex scene?
It’s a question that I continue to ask myself as I reflect on all the porn I had to digest over a series of months. Bearing this in mind, I return to my refashioning of Jensen’s thesis to pertain to race:
Race, at least in the terms that we define it presently, supports a system of hatred toward people of color, as demonstrated in (interracial) pornography, and the only way to progress beyond this conveyance of hatred toward people of color is to eradicate the use of race in its entirety.
I have to say I agree. Race as a category, much like masculinity (and gender as a whole) in Jensen’s eyes, is the result of centuries of pseudo-scientific tests rooted in blatant racism, hatred, and xenophobia. Whether we realize it or not, when we discuss race now, even in a considerably progressive way, we must use those terms that are undeniably linked to America’s problematic past. Much like the excellent analyses of language that I have read over the course of the last few years in which the authors pinpoint elements of our speech that reflect the sexism, racism, classism, and heteronormativity of our society that remain, even as such –isms, at least on the surface, have drastically leveled off (at least in comparison to say, the antebellum period), my analysis here of racial terminology is also relevant. Racism remains in our racial classifications, and until those categories are destroyed and our society receives a complete overhaul insofar as how we consider phenotypic difference (i.e. if we were to discuss race without the terms so heavily relying upon stereotypes and hatred upon which many were initially based), we will continue to exist in a static position.
With regard to interracial porn, as it is, in many ways, a sexualized reflection of the state of race relations, I believe that the stereotypes will remain until we make the aforementioned (and long overdue, I might add) social revisions. Porn, though trivial in the eyes of some, makes us analyze our own perspective on others who are different from ourselves. Could there ever be a day upon which seeing a couple of different ethnic, racial, or national backgrounds in a sexual context does not evoke specific images from our damaged history? Could one ever view interracial sex objectively, and even then, without thinking about the interracial element at all, and instead, simply seeing it for what it is: two (or more) people having sex? If one can derive pleasure from watching two people who appear to be of the same racial, ethnic, or national background in heterosexual porn without any additional bells and whistles (albeit through a highly sexist lens), why can’t the same be said of interracial sex? Why must it always be packaged as a spectacle or a pornographic sideshow, an abnormal act that requires additional dialogue and themes to remind us that this is something different and borderline perverse?
I’m not at all advocating the PC-ification of one’s bedroom activities, but suffice it to say, I grow concerned when I can rarely find a person of color in interracial porn (even if the sex act is between people whom one would consider “minorities” and/or “of color”) who is not rendered an object by way of fetishism or exotification, or a person of color in porn, period, who does not end up playing a role that is considered reflective of a stereotype. While the removal of these stereotypes, subjugation, etc, from porn may result in the dampening of a fantasy for many, I have to wonder what that even means for the viewer who relies upon such devices in order to enjoy what they see on the screen or the society that has created them. Can people of color only be truly enjoyed if being ridiculed or degraded? It’s a tough question, but much like Jensen and his take on gender, I find myself coming back to it over and over again.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of 
Keisha wrote:
NSFW, NSFW! my co-worker just gave me a look after that picture popped up on my screen…anyway that can be moved down after the cut?
nice post anyway
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 12:27 pm ¶
Mireille wrote:
Wendi, you are a much braver soul than I research this. I had a plan to write a novel about a white 20 something porn addict who falls in love with the black women across the hall in his building for NaNoWriMo, but I found the research component so disturbing and disheartening I abandoned the project two chapters in.
I agree completely with everything you’ve said and it bothers me that this aspect of porn isn’t ever addressed in the mainstream debate. I also find it particularly unfortunate (I’m not sure if that’s the right word) that there isn’t a clear way to reform racist pornography.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 12:32 pm ¶
Fatemeh wrote:
“…in order to have proper sex with someone of a different race, or to enjoy that fantasy, defilement is essential”
Ooooooooooh. You are SO good. Great post!!
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 1:17 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
“Can people of color only be truly enjoyed if being ridiculed or degraded?”
That’s a question I’m still grappling with in terms of the mainstream media, not just porn.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 1:41 pm ¶
G. D. wrote:
Very thoughtful and penetrating article, Wendi.
I think it’s pathetic that in the early 21st century,we’re STILL even talking about race PERIOD (particularly in the current political debates with Obama). I find it ridiculous that interracial porn is even a catagory unto itself, as if a sex act between two people of different skin colors is supposed to be some kind of kinky freakshow far removed from nature. I don’t particularly care for porn,even though I do understand the need for it, but I don’t think it should be used as a yardstick to measure one’s own sex life by, since it’s just based on stereotypes/fantasies and not anything approaching a realistic,positive view of the possibilities within whatever one would define (depending on one’s own view) a “normal” relationship.
BTW, if anyone’s interested in a black perspective on porn, check out this new book titled MONEY SHOT: THE WILD DAYS AND LONELY NIGHTS INSIDE THE BLACK PORN INDUSTRY, by Lawrence C. Ross Jr. I read most of it and it was pretty eye-opening to read about how the black porn actors/actresses viewed themselves in relation to the rols they had to play and the audiences tey have to play to stay in the business, as well as the racism they have to deal with within the porn industry itself—this is the first time I’ve read a book where they spoke so openly about it. Definitely worth checking out in relation to this subject.
Sadly, I don’t think the objectification of POC in porn is going away anytime soon–not as long as racism determines that that is the only slot they can feel (being the freak objects of white male/female fantasies) in porn, and also because the interacial sex genre is obviously making too much money to stop anytime soon.
Anyway, I love this site, and visit all the time—I ALWAYS get more than enough food for thought here—thank you, Carmen and all the writers on this site—you always make everything on here worthwhile reading—-the site is simply the bomb,pure & simple!
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 6:39 pm ¶
Trenched Down wrote:
Well if it wa*ks like a d*ck… oh wrong post, sorry :-u
Yes, it is possible. Interracial porn that has at least one of these elements: (a) directed by women, (b) w/o male leads, (c) not made in America.
As for language/phenotypes/etc it’s not the words or the symbols or even the fetishes, but (a) the concept of the fetish out of its context as a commodity coded as public ritualized language or symbol and (b) conduits other than porn that give them currency. Consider the notion of “the oldest profession” exists across gender, culture, and industry…
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 7:18 pm ¶
OW wrote:
Wendi,
Not that you don’t have enough on your book list but you might want to check out the chapters on Asian/Asian American porn discussed in this book:
http://www.dukeupress.edu/books.php3?isbn=978-0-8223-4033-1
It’s an interesting counter-read and addresses some of the key points you’re making above.
Also:
“I grow concerned when I can rarely find a person of color in interracial porn (even if the sex act is between people whom one would consider “minorities” and/or “of color”) who is not rendered an object by way of fetishism or exotification, or a person of color in porn, period, who does not end up playing a role that is considered reflective of a stereotype”
The same could be said of just race in mainstream media, writ large, no?
I’m prepping some notes on minstrelsy and to me, porn is similar in the ways both performances have to do with distilling the complexities of identities down to base caricatures as a way to help simplify the world and more to the point: social relations within it. With porn in particular, I think the lack of subtleties goes back to the market forces that drive the bulk of its production: producers assume consumers don’t want anything smacking of subtlety, complexity, contradiction, etc. and so they recycle lowest common denominator themes/tropes and gestures.
As you note, one fundamental mystery that lies underneath this is the question of whether people’s instincts are so base b/c they’ve been influenced by porn or vice versa. There’s no way to answer that cleanly but at the very least, porn does nothing to interrupt the cycle.
Posted 01 Feb 2008 at 7:28 pm ¶
Globalistgirl wrote:
“Has interracial porn taken on such a racist tone due to our society being racist?”
I’m pretty sure it’s at least a major part of it. Although I can’t say that I’ve researched porn in the thorough way you have, I can’t recall having seen interracial porn in newsstands in those countries that carry porn widely in stores. Those are countries with essentially no racial history, and certainly nothing like the history of the US. I don’t know any racial terms like there are in the US for people of different colors in those languages. Rather, people refer to culture or area of origin. Racial stereotypes don’t really exist independently of national or culture stereotypes. I wasn’t even aware until I read this post that interracial sex was taboo in the US.
I think this is an American cultural phenomenon, based on American cultural ideas and sterotypes. It’s possible other countries with settler racism have similar-ish ideas around, but the black-white history in the US is pretty unique from what I can tell. It may be a reinforcing loop, like you said. However, I don’t think the dynamics you describe here that are what make interracial porn “interesting” to people and that give birth to the genre as described here would exist if there wasn’t a racism problem to begin with. Perhaps an obvious point, but I think you can make the point not just with reason alone but by comparing to interracial porn (or the lack of it) elsewhere.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:06 am ¶
mark wrote:
Something I don’t understand in the body:
“Race, at least in the terms that we define it presently, supports a system of hatred toward people of color, as demonstrated in (interracial) pornography, and the only way to progress beyond this conveyance of hatred toward people of color is to eradicate the use of race in its entirety.”
Am I correct in assuming that by people of color you mean to exclude whites? That whites have no color, or aren’t people of color? If so, this seems a serious flaw.
It seems that if you excise ‘of color’, the definition reads just fine and makes good sense.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:35 am ¶
JustMe wrote:
The argument, while understandable lacks merit. Porn is what it is-just a masturbatory tool for people who want visual sexual fantasies. There’s no malice behind it, but rather a bunch of people who see a demand, provide the supply, and ring up the cash register. The motivation for porn, like drugs, is money-there are folks out there who want to see it, so it’s out there.
The props vary-I mean, would you call a porn flick about foot fetish the objectification of feet, or the one about squirting a degradation of some women’s orgasms?
Taking pornography seriously serves no purpose, other than another vehicle through which some of us express our cynicism about the ills of our society. It’s something that isn’t forced on you, so naturally, if you don’t like it, you never have to come in contact with it. Live and let live, right?
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 8:30 am ¶
Josh wrote:
JustMe is pretty much right.
this article is once again totally mssing the point. black-asian sex is made to be a dom-sub relationship. the dom-sub relationship is established because its a black male on a asian female. its not black vs asian it male vs female. its really only that. and al that talk about dialogues, political references etc…its porn! its graphic sex made to please the male eye youre making a bigger deal out of porn than necessary.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 10:12 am ¶
mark wrote:
Josh says:
“black-asian sex is made to be a dom-sub relationship. the dom-sub relationship is established because its a black male on a asian female. its not black vs asian it male vs female. its really only that. ”
But Josh, aren’t you undermining yourself here? It IS black vs asian, male vs female. What is isn’t, is one or the other, either/or; It’s BOTH at the same time, it’s (Black and Male) vs (Asian and Female), right? That’s the whole point.
If race didn’t matter, why is the box advertising it that way? The company itself sees race as the key to its allure. If race didn’t matter, then only gender would matter and the box would say something like “S&M! Domination/Sub sex!” (with the picture implying a dominant male and submissive female). Because the picture would have to spell out the gender of the dom, because there are certainly female doms as a niche, too, with male subs.
So in this example, the porn is playing with dom/sub taboos with two variables (sex, race), not just one (sex).
Josh continues:
“and al that talk about dialogues, political references etc…its porn! its graphic sex made to please the male eye youre making a bigger deal out of porn than necessary.”
Well, I’d disagree. Eating a sandwich is a simple act, but out of our awareness is a million biochemical steps each exquisitely coordinated toward a precise biological goal, digestion. But to us, the Eater, it’s no big deal, it just happens. Sex is also a biological (and cultural) act. Nature wants it to be easy for us to do it and feel it. If it was as big a pain as reading this article, we’d never do it!
It needs to be easy and fun and pleasurable. But make no mistake, there are millions of physiological and cultural interactions occurring all the while. What I mean is, sorry, porn ain’t that simple either.
Why is dom/sub appealing in the first place? Why are rape fantasies appealing, or not? Why do women like powerful men, or not? etc etc Why is power an aphrodisiac? or fame?
There’s a lot to study in what is typically unthought-of during the experience of porn.
What I want to know is why the definition of race seems to exclude people who aren’t ‘of color.’ What does THAT mean. Freudian slip?
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 11:59 am ¶
gabbo wrote:
globalistgirl -
That is RIDICULOUS that America is uniquely racist. I’ve been to Hawaii and there are all kinds of non-white racism of Samoans to Hawaiins. Or in Japan, of Koreans to Chinese to Japanese. It’s endless. Mexicans are racist toward the Indians to their south, etc.
It’s another version of American exceptionalism that Americans are again so special - this time, so uniquely racist. Please!
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
OW wrote:
Mark,
The term “people of color,” may have a literal meaning but like all words, it also has a history. I suggest you learn it first and then reconsider your point. Sure, white is a color but we’re not talking Crayola here.
JustMe,
“Taking pornography seriously serves no purpose.”
Considering the amount of money it generates, considering its pervasiveness in society and considering what it has to say about - and influence upon - social sexual mores, I think “taking it seriously” serves many purposes, just as taking music or film or books seriously does. None of those things are forced upon us either yet they are worthy of contemplation, no? Why not pornography?
As for the idea that “there’s no malice behind it,” - at the very least, this is open to debate. If, as you say, porn = fantasy, fantasy is not inherently innocent (nor evil). But it certainly holds the potential for being malicious simply because it is fantasy - it’s a realm where imagination is allowed or encouraged to be freed from social norms/mores.
Just to be clear: I don’t have an inherent problem with porn. But I do think treating it as insubstantial is a problem.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶
OW wrote:
“the dom-sub relationship is established because its a black male on a asian female”
Could you explain this better? It’s not clear what you’re trying to say.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:07 pm ¶
alfish wrote:
this whole piece reeks of fascism. you say you not “all advocating the PC-ification of one’s bedroom activities.” Uhhhh…sure seems like it to me. If not, then what are you doing? What are you advocating, if anything?
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶
Kareem wrote:
Colin -
This piece brought up a similar question in my mind. That is, isn’t porn just a microcosm of trends we are witnessing across all forms of media?
The “roles”, “acts”, and “themes” are nothing new, and have always been present – now access has only given rise to what was once masked.
These themes are, and have been, present in network television, basic cable, and premium cable – with the latter forms tearing down censorship walls and showing the same “roles” “acts” and “themes” in a more graphic fashion.
Porn is the “hyper-extreme”, and only further amplifies what has already been culturally present, but in the most graphic of fashions possible.
If we equate the race/porn argument the author presents here to the changes we’ve seen with the portrayal of violence particularly race/violence aren’t we witnessing the same “cultural shift” – and that cultural shift being the more fascinating aspect of it all. The breaking down of walls and how graphic acts are portrayed in general.
Our tolerance for various forms of content as a whole has turned towards “the more realistic, the better.” It’s something almost primal and voyeuristic, no different from the fascination with ritual sacrifice in man’s early history.
Slightly off topic, but still related; Japanese filmmaker Takeshi Miike, and England’s Clive Barker have always toyed with this concept – their works combining the hyperrealism of “sex” in porn, with a “hyper-violent” compliment, arguing that there is no difference between sex and violence – our perceptions of it, or the acts themselves. The exoticness of race, enhances the thrill of both.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 4:20 pm ¶
mark wrote:
Ow-
I wasn’t using white literally, as in Crayola. I was using it as a racial term, exactly as black or yellow is used racially.
White is a skin color, and I am afraid that you didn’t even realize you were excluding whites from being the victims of racism.
That’s a powerful example of racism right there, I’m afraid. A bit of a shocker, too; linguistic racism, the power of language to omit and elide whole groups from mainstream legitimacy. You might see the movie Malcom X to familiarize yourself with the idea, see the dictionary scene in jail.
So once more, I suggest you rethink your definition of racism. Because whites are typically not thought of as people ‘of color,’ that definition has a big problem. It makes no sense to arbitrarily exclude a race from the effects of racism.
It is a serious lapse in one’s perspective to not realize that racism can be directed at all races. I think most people in America tend to think of racism as a distorting lens that is assumed by a white person towards a non-white minority. This, of course, happens.
But innate inferiority can be presumed by a minority towards other minorities as well as towards whites themselves.
This is why the definition excerpted above in my original post is flawed and incomplete. It doesn’t cover all possibilities. That’s a poor definition.
It’s a common mistake, Ow, no big deal.
Posted 02 Feb 2008 at 4:29 pm ¶
ow wrote:
Whites can certainly be victims of racism but a language of racism that fails to acknowledge the historical power and privilege afforded whiteness ceases to have any use in a society left systemically altered by said history. To presume that whiteness - writ large - places one at the same structural disadvatage as non-whites (aka, ahem, people of color) does little to do justice to social reality, to say nothing of linguistic accuracy.
You might as well argue that the term “women” excludes men and therefore is sexist.
But look, rather than trade barbs over vocab, let me ask - sincerely - what term do you think can more accurately and responsibly refer to non-white Americans who have historically been “affected” (to put it mildly) by White Supremacy?
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 4:09 am ¶
Justin wrote:
Wendi,
These two posts have been thought-provoking. I’m a fan/friend of Jensen & his work, and it’s heartening to see he’s not pissing in the wind.
I will leave Mark’s post to braver souls.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 5:24 am ¶
OW wrote:
I just noticed this line the second time:
“It makes no sense to arbitrarily exclude a race from the effects of racism.”
It’s not arbitrary. That was the point I was making in discussing the term’s etymology. “People of color,” among other purposes, came into fashion as a way to replace “non-white,” partially because “non-white” is an identity category by negation: it defines what you are not. Whites are excluded primarily because these terms all point to what I was saying before: the language of race and racism needs to reflect racial realities and in this country, that means acknowledging 400+ years of a racial (not to mention patriarchal) dictatorship in which people of color, colored people, non-whites, whateveryouwanttocallit, were summarily and systemically denied political representation within a “democracy.”
In other words, if “people of color” feels exclusionary it’s only because the term’s necessity to begin with was based on exclusion. And repression. And oppression. White Supremacy has exploited the labor and lives of people of color for most of this nation’s history; demanding an “equal share” of this particular form of racialized language only serves to hide the very thing its meant to make apparent: White privilege.*
To bring this back on topic though - one could say that Wendi’s post on interracial porn shows how porn goes at it in the other direction. IRP doesn’t erase racial difference under the banner of liberalized love and passion - it depends, instead, on playing up historical inequalities and taboos between groups. Whether IRP reflects social reality or molds it isn’t a binary choice; it does both. How could it not?
However, the difference between the language of porn and the language of racial politics is precisely that porn is not necessarily meant to - pardon the pun - lay bare the guilt-inducing, libido-killing realities of racial inequality. If that were the case, after scenes of Black men cuckcolding White men by sleeping with their wives, you’d expect to see a lynching/castration scene.
Nor does IRP seek to do much to empower those not already empowered in our sexual economy. Hence, why Asian men don’t exist in American straight porn and why they’re mostly bottoms in gay porn.
Nope: IRP’s attraction depends instead on sublimating those issues through stereotype and caricature, hyper-accentuating racial difference as a way to fulfill people’s fantasies of a more simplified racial order (compared to the uncomfortable complexities of reality). As I wrote in Wendi’s other post on this topic - it’s very similar to minstrelsy in that respect, especially as a performance.
All this said: while I don’t have a problem with problematizing porn for this (or other reasons), I also don’t know if going after porn is ultimately an effective strategy. Its pervasive power depends -in my opinion - on how it does tap into these deep-seeded fantasies and I think it’s very hard to shake people out of their fantasies, especially in a mercantile democracy where images and ideas of all stripes are so easily and freely bought and sold. The more people feel like those fantasies are being threatened, the more likely they will be strengthened and given how unlikely it is that IRP would ever be made illegal, the more you intensify the desire for these fantasies, you can guarantee that producers will gladly create content to satisfy that need.
Ultimately, the long term way of undermining IRP is the elimination of racism in a society. In that future reality, I think you’d still see IRP but I think it’d take on a very different set of meanings and scenarios.
*Note: There is a school of thought, especially popular before the 1990s, that suggested that whites couldn’t be the victim of racism since, according to those who promoted that line of thought, “racism = prejudice + power.” Personally, I think that lines of thinking is dangerous for all the reasons Mark lays out. However, I think “people of color” is a very different linguistic animal.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 12:10 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
wow,so many things to say
mark-
i agree with OW’s definition of people of color. on this site, we use people of color as it applies to historically oppressed racial and ethnic minority groups, most of whom do not consider themselves “white,” at least in an american context. i think you would be hard-pressed to find a white person who considers him/herself a “person of color.”
and OW-
i appreciate your response on these, and also your pulling the discussion back around to be relevant to the piece. with regard to your statement, i agree wholeheartedly that IRP is a form of minstrelsy in that it involves race-based role playing by all parties involved, white or otherwise. i also think your statement on racism is salient, and it would go along well with my refashioning of jensen’s thesis. once racism is gone (ha!), or at least the way in which race functions in present society, then IRP would fail to have a target audience. it’s exactly the racist element of IRP that makes it so powerful and even arousing for its viewers.
to justme & josh-
it’s odd to me to see that one would come to a site on pop culture and race and argue that porn is irrelevant and not worthy of discussion or analysis…that’s what this site is about: analyzing the intersection between race and the quotidian aspect of pop culture. it’s all around us, and we absorb what we see, whether subliminal or blatant, in ways that can be reflected in our daily interactions with others and vice versa. if anything porn is all the more worthy of discussion in that it is often seen as an extreme form of contemporary society, its characters often playing out real scenarios, or at least, the subconscious version of such scenarios, in its sex-based plots. in my mind, on racialicious, anything that we see on our televisions, in films, on the internet, hear on the radio, or witness in the news is up for discussion.
colin-
i have to agree with kareem here. the fact of the matter is yes, there are tons of racist elements in mainstream media, not just porn. but as porn is practically a part of the mainstream now, it can’t be ignored in the discussion. i wanted to go beyond what we see on a daily basis and discuss something that is more of an elective form of entertainment.
allfish-
i initially thought not to respond to your comment at all, especially considering that you thought my piece was fascist, despite your not providing evidence to back that assertion, however, i felt that it was necessary to say something in order to defend my point. no, i am not advocating political correctness in the bedroom. if that were the case, a lot of the fantasies in which i engage would be off limits, deemed sexist, for example, but at the end of the day, i can’t help but wonder whether my own fantasies are a reflection of an internalization of self hatred (i.e. in terms of misogyny) that i have gained from porn or even pop culture during my own sexual development. i think that humans are undeniably a product of their environment, and why not examine the sexual examples of this, as porn is a visual version of what goes on in some of our heads. but i think it’s completely possible to have interracial sex without considering stereotypes, or at least, not engaging in it in a way that is racist towards one’s partner unless he or she initiates it as an element of his or her own fantasy (much like my election to engage in somewhat sexist acts during sex). i mean i have done it lol, as have many people i know, who see their partner(s) solely as that, and not as some special or subhuman being on account of his/her/their racial background. i think that it’s hard to draw the line between fantasy and reality, but it’s very much worth discussing where the thoughts come from to begin with and why they are an element of fantasy at all.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 1:02 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
also, globalistgirl-
racism exists everywhere, not just in the united states. it manifests itself in very different ways, but i think that, and my research has proven this, porn on a global scale can exhibit similar forms of racism to that of american porn films, though sometimes in ways in which an american audience may not be familar because that racist narrative may not be common in the US due to our histories. uk-based IRP was very similar to that of the US, though with more of an emphasis on sex with people of south asian descent, and the stereotypes ascribed therein.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶
mark wrote:
The first step in clear thinking is to define one’s terms clearly. The definition Ow is defending was and is incomplete and therefore leads inescapably to sloppy thinking and sloppy politics. It needs updating. To deliberately omit whites at the start of one’s analysis is to rig the game before one gets going and taint any later results.
This is not serious thinking, this is partisan politics masquerading as social science. This is why people mistrust discussions of race in the academy, for exactly this kind of gameplaying with words.
It is telling that Ow thinks the way to proceed is to build into the very definition of racism that it excludes whites as victims and then go on to business as usual. I would say the better way would be to define it like any other legitimate term in social science, and THEN define the subset of racists that are uniquely white (the group Ow is interested in).
I had rebutted, saying that her definition had omitted whites. She had admitted:
“Whites can certainly be victims of racism…”
Uh, then why does your DEFINITION of racism exclude whites as potential victims? We can see the conceptual muddle that Ow is already knee-deep in when thinking about race. Which is it? Can whites be whites be victims of racism or not? Ow, UPDATE YOUR DEFINITION! Sharpen your writing.
Ow then challenges me in good faith to come up with a term for the victims of white supremacy. I don’t have one handy, but I know that lumping this very specific historical group under the catch-all of racism ain’t gonna cut it. I’ve never heard of one, so feel free to invent a new category yourself, but ‘victims of white supremacy’ is a pretty good start.
WendiMuse writes in a similar vein that whites don’t consider themselves people of color. That is true but misses the point. It is often the case that when a point is so simple, many have trouble seeing it. For example, Justin above seems to think that it actually takes courage to notice a simple flaw in logic and to take note of it. Justin, just read the gray block of text in the article above. It’s not that wordy. Remove the ‘of color,’ and you’ll see that the definition of racism that results is perfectly coherent and sensible and contains no contradictions.
My point is NOT that whites are equal victims of racism as are non-whites. I do NOT challenge the idea that white supremacy has dominated US history and its treatment of native Americans and African Americans.
My point is that the definition of racism excerpted above is wrong, period. It is wrong because well meaning but sloppy-language using people think that racism is DEFINED as something that whites can’t be subjected to. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Blacks are often racist right back to whites. Minorities can be racist too in their perception of their racist masters. It’s a complex, vicious world out there.
The reason I am persisting on this point is that if we don’t start on clear grounds, then we end up in knots, conceptually. For example, while blacks use the word ni****r freely and all other races are irredeemably racist for doing so - this kind of toxic double standard is self-defeating.
Contradictions like this later on down the road result from well-intentioned but deeply flawed premises such as ‘whites can’t be the victims of racism, so we’ll just exclude them from our definition of race.’
Having said all of THAT - in a later post I will actually comment on the article itself! It’s just that I have found that if you can’t get clear on your language you can’t find your common language with people, either. I despise the sloppiness and deliberate murk of political correctness and I think it actually it hinders thinking much of the time.
(Right now I just finished Race and Reunion by David Blight. It’s about the Lost Cause Mythology of the Civil War. Terrific. And now I’m reading Upon the Altar of the Nation, by Harry Stout. I am fascinated with pro-slavery apologetics and am dumbfounded at how Christianity overwhelmingly supported slavery in the 19th century. I am intrigued with John Brown and find it very hard not to identify with him. But that’s for another time…)
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 6:09 pm ¶
dnA wrote:
I just want to note that half of the posts on here attempting to debunk Wendi’s point end up making it for her.
I also have a friend who refers to interracial sex as “The Olympics” because you’re “representing your people.” I don’t know if that’s relevant, I just wanted to share it.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 6:15 pm ¶
OW wrote:
Still waiting to hear what term Mark would prefer.
b/w
It’s funny but I think the Feministing post that was a partial inspiration for this one also got bogged down in an argument over semantics.
I don’t agree with Mark’s argument about the limitations in the term “people of color.” It’s not directly used as a description of racism, at least not in the way I think he assumes it is. As I was trying to suggest, its etymology traces back to race/racism but I don’t see how it equates to suggesting, “white people don’t suffer from racism.”
As for the ideological bent of language, I would think a more liberal humanist term like “colorblind” is actually more insidious, especially when you look at its actual deployment in mainstream dialogues around race/racism. “People of color” = “toxic” is - pun intended - a minority opinion but Mark is certainly welcome to it.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 8:56 pm ¶
OW wrote:
I wish one could edit their comments. Oh well. I missed this point earlier:
” ‘victims of white supremacy’ is a pretty good start.”
One could say “people of color” implicitly suggests this already. Of course, from one could also argue that Whites are victims of White Supremacy as well (cue James Baldwin).
That said, I go back to the original point: “people of color” isn’t “muddled” in its meaning, nor exclusionary.
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 9:01 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Moderator’s Note:
1. Trolling will not be tolerated. Your IP address remains the same, even if you change your email and screen name. You are not fooling anyone.
2. We have discussed the definition of both “poc” and “racism” here before - please go review the comments to 4th Generation Racist to get a sense of the debate surrounding terms. I believe there was another post surrounding this as well, but it doesn’t come to mind immediately.
3. My two cents on the conversation surrounding the use of PoC is that language changes. That is why the same word can have multiple meanings. Just like “liberal,” “libertarian,” “feminist,” “Christian,”or “black” there are literal definitions and generally accepted ones. One could quibble for days about being more precise in language, but in reality, there is a generally accepted meaning for all of these terms.
/mod
Posted 03 Feb 2008 at 11:28 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
ok, posting my own opinions now…
@ Keshia: Haha, I thought the same thing. Luckily, I was at home when I opened this one.
@ JustMe/Josh: I second Wendi. As porn has crept more and more into pop culture, we need to discuss it. After all, if porn takes itself seriously enough to have historians, sexperts, and the AVNs, I am sure they can handle an analysis of race in porn.
@Alfish: I fail to see what is fascist about having a discussion or even advocating a viewpoint. While I am fairly wary of Jensen’s work, I don’t disagree with his right to have his views or to advocate them. If he and his followers were moved to legislative action, I would be moved to act. Until then, it’s just an exchange of ideas.
@ Wendi - nicely done. I do have one minor quibble though.
“Once racism is gone (ha!), or at least the way in which race functions in present society, then IRP would fail to have a target audience. it’s exactly the racist element of IRP that makes it so powerful and even arousing for its viewers.”
I disagree. IRP definitely trades in racist language and stereotyping, but that isn’t the whole appeal. Porn is very, very white, with most minorities relegated to subgenres. If I am watching interracial porn it is normally because I want to see an actress who is African-American, Asian, or Latina. (There is a some desi porn, but it is few and far between.) If I want to see a man of color (and not a “Blacks on Blondes/Savages on Blonds” kind of gangbang), many times I have to watch either the “ebony” subgenre or a foreign import. I think a lot of people skip past the annoying descriptions just to see the kind of lead character they want.
I have no doubt there are some people who like seeing the vulgar monikers assigned to different ethnic groups, but I think a lot of us are just attracted to different races of people sexually.
Also, the sub/dom dynamics aren’t always there - it depends on what kind of porn you are watching. So, interracial lesbian porn may not have the dynamic of a dominant/submissive coupling.
So, a little segue there. Your points overall are excellent, and I am not sure what you were watching on xtube because I don’t go there.
Also of interest: I’ve watched HBO’s Pornucopia series a few times now and it isn’t until I read your piece that it occurred to me - they never really got around to an in-depth discussion of race in porn. Considering they discussed all kind of kink and devoted an episode to gay & lesbian, I am now wondering about this omission…
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 12:01 am ¶
Michelle wrote:
It seems the majority of us seem to agree that porn is incredible relevant in any conversation about the intersection of race and popular culture.
I would just like to add that in Los Angeles and to a certain extent Vegas, things related to the porn industry are tourist spots. The Hustler store on Sunset is open all day and night, and a visit to the store will uncover tourists (mostly young) taking pics and buying up Porn Star t-shirts by the boatload.
That said, when porn is becoming mainstream, is it yet another tool teaching young people how to view (and value) people who have been the historically most direct and most vocal victims of America’s white supremacist socioeconomic policies (i.e. “people of color”)?
Also, I wonder, is it teaching young women how to behave, despite what their own individual sexual desire may be? Does interracial porn actually dampen our sexual appetites by only feeding us one version of what interracial/cultural sex can be?
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 1:36 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
ok just to clarify the dom/sub bit, i wasn’t saying that black man and asian woman were comparable to dom and sub, respectively:
The very fact that interracial porn is a genre in itself is telling. With porn categories often catered to the specifics needs (or assumed needs) of its viewers, sex between a black man and an Asian-American woman, as an example, becomes comparable to sex between a dom and a sub, simply another image to fulfill the sexual desires of the audience, though through considerably dehumanizing means
black and asian could be replaced by any other interracial pairing here. what i mean is that interracial sex in porn films is rendered simply another fetish point, just like dom/sub films, except it’s not the accessories or acts that feed the fetish, it’s the people themselves, acting AS accessories or props.
and i still say most IRP relies on racism as its main selling point. it wouldn’t contain such racism if it didn’t. how the viewer chooses to interpret or ignore certain aspects of it is out of the producer’s/actors’ control, but i would still argue that the intent is to arouse, but often through means that are less than subtle with regard to racism. it’s kind of like the fact that i love Sex and the City, despite its classist and sometimes racist undertones. i ignore those elements in order to enjoy the show.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 5:02 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
oh and w/ re: to the NSFW-ness of the pic, to be honest, it took quite an effort to find something as PC as this. i had to turn off my google filter and search through way worse just to find something relatively safe for this post, BOTH TIMES (as there are two parts). i also felt it necessary to show a different IR pairing, as in the other post, i featured a white woman and black male in the photo. i wanted to stear clear of the readers/commenters focusing solely on the B/W element of IRP as there is clearly more than just that theme in the genre. also, honestly, if you go to any victoria’s secret page or swimsuit buying website, you’ll see woman in thongs. funny how posing or the company you keep changes the pic’s entire tone!
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 5:06 am ¶
Colin wrote:
Latoya,
Have you given a thought to that new discussion on anti-white prejudice vs. anti-white racism?
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 2:17 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:
Colin -
Yes, I’ve given it a lot of thought, particularly in reference to some of the more recent comments on that thread.
I think the next posts on that topic will be around perceptions of racism and the idea of racist systems versus racist acts. But those still need more development…
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 3:06 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
I would agree more with this if for every genre of porn you’ve mentioned there’s also one that shows the exact opposite. I could probably find 50+ sites right now that have tiny Asian women featured on it beating the crap out of some dude while calling him a maggot and a worm.
Porn is FULL of genres and subgenres inside of genres because people’s “kink” factors are all different. Porn is big business. I don’t like the race roles stuff either, but if you don’t want to see it you don’t have to watch it, either…there’s plenty of kink out there for all. If you want to see porn where interracial relationships are depicted in a less fetishy more positive way, all you have to do is look for it.
No matter what you are into, I guarantee you that someone has a website on it. Porn is pretty much an equal opportunity free for all from what I’ve seen. Wanna see a one-eyed Black midget have sex with an White amputee in a broom closet with a Asian woman peeping thru the keyhole? It’s out there.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 8:24 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
kaonashi-
again, i am not saying that asian women are submissive in all porn. i clarified my dom/sub comparison above in my response to latoya
also, are you saying then, that due the prevalence of one form of art, we are not supposed to discuss or think about it critically? b/c that’s what it sounds like.
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 11:45 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
or rather, that we shouldn’t discuss things that we can opt out of viewing?
if that is the case, why discuss anything at all? if that reasoning holds true, that we simply ignore what we “don’t like,” then we would lead completely insular lives, always with our blinders on, and never use our brains…
Posted 04 Feb 2008 at 11:47 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
No, that’s not what I was trying to imply at all. It’s really interesting to see different points of view on this.
Never once did I say that it shouldn’t be discussed; I just pointed out that there ARE different options out there for people to watch if they choose to do so.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 11:52 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:
gotcha
my response was mainly focus on this line from yours:
“I don’t like the race roles stuff either, but if you don’t want to see it you don’t have to watch it, either”
hence my reply addressing more the idea of viewing things for the sake of analysis and the resulting impact on the audience
but yeah, you’re definitely right
there is enough porn to suit the tastes of everyone and his mother. it’s a wildly broad aspect of the media.
Posted 06 Feb 2008 at 12:44 pm ¶
Jim D. wrote:
How much of the squeemishness about interracial porn over the interracial aspect vs. sheer prudishness about sex?
And don’t tell me you’re “fine” with sex, because imho Americans are generally not “fine”, they are always a little hung up about it. (I’ve often thought that the only reason feminists, to use one example, were so concerned about women being “degraded” in porn was because they secretly thought sex was dirty. Otherwise, how would having sex “degrade” a person, a why only the women ends up “degraded” when both partners have it??) In reality, people like being “degraded” sometimes and they like dirty, naughty, taboo sex. Some people, probably most, do like that. Sex almost seems to operate in the opposite direction of our rational, moral selves.
I think the racial aspect is interesting and problematic, but I suggest that you will find it very, very difficult to discuss the topic of race in porn without getting hung up on the porn itself and imposing all sorts of value judgments just because you don’t really like porn.
Posted 29 Jul 2008 at 10:51 pm ¶