As a self-proclaimed radical, i hear the phrase ‘riot porn’ quite frequently. I recently found my way onto the Riot Porn blog by following a link from Bombs and Shields. Now, i enjoy a good riot and you know i love me some porn, but something irks me about the idea of riot porn.
I’m not a blind follower of riots, mind you. Too often they are misdirected anger. But they are a release of anger, and that i am a fan of. I’m also not a blind follower of porn (i haven’t masturbated that much). The fucked-up dynamics of a lot of mainstream porn disgust and enfuriate me, but i do have an appreciation for sex positivity, consensual sexual release, kink and so forth.
What i don’t like about a lot of mainstream porn is the eroticization of violence. I’m not talking about cock-slapping or BDSM, per se (i enjoy pain and bondage and i’m not going to denounce my friend who has a certain affinity for being cock-slapped). I’m talking about the socialized roles of violence that are so often carried out. The systemic objectification and subjugation of wimmin and gender-variant people.
What i can’t seem to get over is how riot porn seems to reflect what it is that i hate about a lot of porn - the eroticization of violence. Granted, the pictures on the Riot Porn blog are those of people in resistance. And i am consistently one to argue that those that use physical means to fight repressive systems of violence cannot be defined as violent. But something just doesn’t feel right. Not sure. I’ll think about it some more and come back. In the meantime, let me know your thoughts.
Share This
One queer male ex-lover of mine pointed out the ways that sexualized language is often used and tied to violence and harm. Like: “she got her ass fucked” meaning her agendas and safety were fucked with. Or: “they were screwed” meaning they were in deep trouble. Or: “they can just suck my cock” meaning I look down on them and don’t care what they think.
I’ve used this kind of language often and need to again ground in the fact that the very language we use is sex negative and oppressive of those who fuck espcially on the margins.
In terms of activists and the whole idea of riot porn…
I didn’t get why they called it that. Were the images supposed to be sexually thrilling in some sort of voyeuristic way? How do their minds work, if this is what they’re calling porn?
I’d like to stage an internal culture jam and take riot porn, reinfusing it with a consensual, intelligent sexuality and shift the meaning of the phrase around them. That’s always so much fun.
ha! That plays into the response i just left to your comment on ‘gender is required’. You’re so very right about the sex negativity of the language we use. That’s a conversation that i think needs to happen a bit more often.
I think, too, that the idea of riot porn assumes that what is hot and sexy is limited to throwing bricks, starting fires, and beating the crap out of cops. The unsexy, ungratifying, and unpleasureable, yet so much more effective, aspect of dissent is the parallel acts of creating positive change. The everyday acts of resistance that life on the margins assumes.
It would be fun to culture jam riot porn with sex positivity and consensual sexuality.
You’re right to feel uneasy b/c it is unsettling–the site eroticizes violence to the hilt b/c there is only violence. It also forces those who support some of the aims of the protesters to “agree” with the burning, rock-throwing and attacking without being attacked in concrete terms. It’s like snuff porn, not about the sex but the violence, the wild rush of released anger, the thrill and “freedom” of abandon.
Creepy site…….