Professor MacJake

I need to preface this by saying that I'm a huge fan of Matt Basser not only for this podcast, which I adore, but also as far back as the old Upright Citizens Brigade show on Comedy Central. Back in '98 or so when we finally got cable out in the rural Midwest I distinctly remember seeing South Park and the UCB in one glorious hour of counter cultural television and having my mind blown. Being only 13 I technically wasn't allowed by my parents to watch CC so there was a lot of groggy late night viewings that sort of blended with the Kids in the Hall reruns which lead me to mistakenly believe that Besser and Kevin McDonald were the same person for the longest time. At any rate, I have been listening to the podcast for over a year now, and I realize that the host and performers and fairly left-leaning and derive great humor from questioning traditional morality, which I even as a practicing Christian find funny. But I have to admit that I was surprised that Matt would have a site that sells pornographic material as a sponsor. I know that the show needs financial support, and it doesn't upset me like that guy who was offended by the head shop ads to where I won't recommend the show to my friends, but I had assumed that liberals (in the American sense) tend to be critical of the exploitation of women. I know Matt has espoused very forceful left-wing principles in the past, and I thought (perhaps I'm imagining this) he had described himself as a feminist. Even if all the production companies that Adam & Eve sell DVDs on behalf of are above board and all their performers are freely consenting parties doing what's within their rights to do with their own bodies, doesn't shilling this material still contribute to a culture that demeans and objectifies women? - as well as encouraging other women who may not be in the San Fernando valley to seek fame and fortune in pornography and end up horrifically abused by a less than ideal production company? Perhaps I'm off base and imposing my own morality where it shouldn't be. But I figured this show is open to exchanges of ideas like this and thought I would share. I still love the show, I'll still listen every week - Thursday is literally my best day at work because of the great comedy being served. Regardless of how you feel, Matt, thank you for putting this passion project out there for the sheltered kids in the heartland like me. I don't agree 100% with you but my laughter is genuine. Thanks.

Fair enough, thanks for your time.

How are sex toys inherently exploitative? There’s nothing about a dildo in and of itself that leads to patriarchical tyranny. My only problem with a sex toy is when it becomes, like, a murder weapon or something. Since we’re making wild generalizations: Michelle Bachman believes that women should totally submit to their husbands in all matters and enshrine the male sex as the fount of God’s wisdom on earth through the Lutheran Church she is a member of. She has also made a shit ton of money and political influence peddling this garbage to men and women across the country. Just because someone is empowered by an injustice against their own identity group doesn’t make it right? Yes, Jenna Jameson is as bad as Michelle Bachman. Violence, especially against women, both physically and economically, has certainly always been with us. Perhaps we’re no better or no worse than cavemen clubbing people over the head and having our way with them. But as I said in my above reply, I perceive, however subjectively, a growing acceptance of this dehumanization among people my age. But this doesn’t mean that I think sexuality is bad, or that pornographers will be punished by God or the state should forcibly ban it or whatever, I just question the ambivalence people have to the effects of the proliferation of pornography. If you don’t see any negatives – good for you. Nothing some guy on the internet will say will probably convince you. Just please think about it the next time you see someone double penetrated and creampied.

Thank you for taking the time to reply. Immediately I should clarify that I don’t necessarily have a “problem”, which in my mind implies that I’m angered or upset. Just interested enough to bother to ask about it, particularly after remembering you mentioning another listener complaining about an advertiser on the forums. I’m not advocating for any action to be taken with the ad. I’m not even going to claim I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m just curious about the ambivalence a lot of people who normally object to mistreatment of women have to an industry which, in my opinion, is an active participant in that mistreatment – if not for the 1% of actresses that the media loves to talk about, then for the thousands of others who are caught in the physical, psychological and economic coercion underpinning the industry. They do have quite an extensive collection of mail-order pornography on their website, but yes, their primary business seems to be sex toys. I have no problem with them either. The questions you post are important, because they’re part of the daily struggle of attempting to live ethically in a modern society like ours. Yes, I have masturbated to porn in the past, and yes, I realize that I am in the extreme minority of Americans both in deciding to refrain from it as well as questioning the societal benefits of the industry as it currently exists. I could completely cut myself off from the world and never listen or read any material that is created by people who disagree with me, but how does that help anyone? It’s impossible at any rate - I know form firsthand experience that it is extremely fucking boring and unfunny to live in that world. And at my core I am, like everyone on the planet, a self-interested animal who hypocritically thinks of his own personal safety first – for example I don’t approve of American war & imperialism abroad, yet I still use American currency and pay American taxes which directly contribute to those injustices to avoid imprisonment. Looking past that, though, I think it is the critical (and respectful!) engagement with ideas and people who challenge my own that I can learn and grow and hopefully articulate what I believe to be a way of living that is more just for everyone in a society. When I am wrong, I should learn from it and adapt. Basically, I am particularly struck by a growing indifference, not only among policymakers of all parties who simply don’t care about the plight of people not in their socio-economic circumstances, but also my generation of men and women who are, at impressionable ages, conditioned to view human sexuality as a receptacle solely for personal gratification without any consequences for themselves, the performers, or society as a whole. Jerking off to a porno may feel victimless, but buying that DVD or clicking that link tells advertisers there’s a market for those videos, and there’s money to be made the more they’re churned out, and women (& men) who can’t find jobs resort to selling a part of themselves to producers who may not be operating as ethically as those in California and have no problem exerting control through drugs or violence, to feed an audience that views such a system as a commodity they have no responsibility for. I think that means there’s a smidgen of bad ju-ju from accepting money from those people, but again, I am not the end all authority on the issue. I’m curious as to your thoughts on the matter. Thanks again.

I don't see anything wrong with sex toys either! Manufacturing, selling, buying and/or using them, there's nothing objectionable in and of itself. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of Adam & Eve's business is done in that trade, because who really buys porn DVDs? What I'm asking about, because I'm keen to understand and not because I'm looking to damn anyone to hell, is the disconnect between very forcefully progressive on sexual issues and accepting money from businesses that are profiting from the exploitation of sexuality. You mentioned the Bible - yes, there are very horrific stories in it about the mistreatment of women, who were considered not much better than livestock. Powerful Judeo-Christian elites have used those stories to foster a patriarchal mindset and to create coercive systems where women were forced to submit to the male sexual needs in all aspects of life as an effective tool to enrich themselves and entrench their social control. Some women, even today among fundamentalists, are active collaborators with that kind of system, but it doesn't change the abusive nature of it. The pornography industry, while not operating on nearly that scale, uses that same oppressive culture for its own ends. This is a broad generalization, but one I think is accurate: Middle to upper class producers, overwhelmingly male, relentlessly farm women that have been physically or psychologically abused, or had little access to education, or simply have no other economic opportunities, and have them perform in activities that glorify sexual domination and humiliation, which not only potentially harms the performers themselves but also the millions of impressionable viewers who interpret those images as validating at best viewing women as objects always ready for a sexual encounter, and at worst distorting sexuality into violence aggression -- all in the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Of course, not every performer is a runaway from drug addict abusive parents, not every person who watches a DVD will go out and rape someone, but to say that this booming industry hasn't had some negative effect on the deteriorating sexual life of this country is naive. It is for this reason that I found is odd that Matt, who I remember denouncing angrily those insane Senators in the last election who had bizarre views on rape and abortion and other women's issues, would turn a blind eye on this issue, which I think is part of the same spectrum. I'm not saying he's a 'bad' person for doing so, I'm just curious what the rationale is.