PG Porn Says "No" to Nudity and "Yes" to Violence Against Women

James, Sean and Brian Gunn think they've done something sexually daring - but not too sexual and not too daring - by creating what they call "PG Porn." If its first offering is any indication of what viewers can expect from the future, male porn fans will probably call it "cock teasing," and women will just call it another example of violent misogyny self-righteously disguised as humor.

Courtesy of the PGPorn.tv website, the mainstream film world's brothers Gunn offer content that writer, director, producer James insists will provide visitors with "a place where the porn and mainstream film industries meet and get to have some understanding with each other."

While this sounds great on its surface, the reality is far less savory than even the most fluid-flecked Max Hardcore or Extreme Associates release - which is saying something, given that the former has been convicted of obscenity and the latter is facing similar charges, allegedly stemming from the company's affection for writing emotionally rattling plots that include aggressive sex and fake acts of violence.

The Gunn brothers apparently consider violence against women to be not just acceptable but sexy, so long as nobody actually gets laid or engages in any wet spot to erogenous zone contact.

At issue is "Nailing Your Wife," an on-its-face standard porn plot rehash featuring a slap bass intro, stilted acting, and the quintessential horny wife cheating on her quick-as-a-bunny husband with the classic everyman construction worker.

According to the website, the goal of the Gunn's video segments is to provide their sex-weary but strangely porn-loving visitors with all the best parts of erotic videos without having it "ruined" by "PEOPLE HAVING SEX."

Heaven forefend.

Indeed, in the site's introductory clip, beautiful Penthouse Pet Aria Giovanni never gets a chance to show her famous breasts or even catch a peek at what's tucked inside of "Firefly" actor Nathan Fillion's trousers. Instead of ruining a perfectly good sex scene with actual sex, the Gunn trio chose to make the pop shot something they think their viewing audience will find more easily digestible: a fatal nail gun spike through the heroine's head.

Shades of Michael Myers, Jason and other mainstream film punishers of sexual indulgence.

"It's pornography everyone can enjoy," the website insists, calling into question exactly what kind of pornography its founders have been watching and what they find enjoyable about it.

While the idea of explicit sex-free porn is nothing new -- within the industry it's called "soft core" -- the idea that a site featuring the accidental death of a sexually frustrated woman is an erotic improvement over sites featuring the intentional indulgence of carnal desires by sexually adventurous women seems more than a wee bit of a stretch.

Or maybe it's only a stretch for folks who enjoy watching adults act out their consensual sexual fantasies... including the sex part.

Whether the Gunns have absorbed more sex-negativity from the surrounding culture than they're willing to admit is a subject for debate and intensive therapy sessions, but their decision to premier the site with a clip celebrating deadly violence -- in the name of avoiding nudity -- is far more provocative than the clip itself.

The adult entertainment industry has long pointed out that the mainstream film world has a love affair with non-consensually expelled body fluids that's not merely sanctioned but celebrated - while the porn industry's celebration of the body fluids traditionally associated with pleasure receive condemnation and censure. The existence of the tongue-in-cheek but still sexually sanctimonious PGPorn.tv and its accidental snuff angle only adds fuel to that fire.

According to the press, James isn't surprised by the controversy swirling around his site, but his attention seems more captured by the usual anti-porn suspects than by those he and his brothers claim they want to entice and better "understand."

Of course Bob Peters, president of Morality in Media is incensed by PGPorn.tv. Peters and his fellow flesh-hating doom-sayers are like addicts unable to pass up an opportunity to claim that possessing skin leads to sin, sin, and more sin. Of course he and his Greek chorus of anti-pleasure activists are convinced that watching PGPorn.tv will lead viewers down the cum-and-tears-stained path to hardcore fare and the mythically rampant "abuse" of the "real people" who appear in it.

The idea of sexy but non-explicit scenarios is packed with potential, but it's not a new idea; not even to porn consumers. Burlesque, vaudeville, Benny Hill, Swedish erotica, and the Carol Connors "Erotic Adventures of Candy," and "Candy Goes to Hollywood" features -- to name only a few -- used and continue to use flirtatious innuendo to prime their erotic pumps.

While violence and aggression have and can play a part in what gives softcore entertainment its appeal, relying upon it for a punch line seems especially adolescent and, cowardly, uncreative, and morality tale heavy.

"We like to pretend that we're miles and miles away from pornography," James confessed to the media," but we're not."

Gunn and brothers may be geo-located near the porn heartland - and may even have watched enough porn to nurture this latest manifestation of Hollywood's desire to create pornographic material without actually becoming pornographers - but "Nailing Your Wife" is nothing to be proud of. Instead, it is just another example of Tinsel Town's wanton hypocrisy and love for claiming the moral high ground by punishing honest sexual expression with violence, however comic.

Future walks on the not-so-wild-side will feature esteemed female performers including Belladonna and Sasha Gray; neither of whom will become naked. Whether or not their characters will survive their non-sexual encounters is yet to be seen.

(Originally published on YNOT.com)

Follow Theresa Darklady Reed on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheDarklady

Comments

[PastorAgnostic]

why do they sound like a couple of Republicans?

Ahhhhh. The penny dropped.

[TGS1]

I have read most of the reader comments and Darklady's comments. Darklady--you keep asking why is this funny? It's funny because the guy doesn't get what he wants!!! It's like an old cartoon with Bugs Bunny and the Roadrunner. What are you not getting? It has nothing to do with violence..it just so happens it ends that way on ACCIDENT--that's why it's so funny. I find it hard to believe that someone of your caliber cannot get the irony.

Maybe it's this election season that has everyone's panties in a bundle. Not everything has a deeper meaning. Sit back and enjoy the simplicity of the story. It's a joke. If you don't like it, it's your choice not to watch anymore. Just like we have the choice not to read your blog anymore.

[Skytteflickan88]

I haven't seen the vid, just read the article and the responses from the brothers. But I still feel like I have the right to say;

Okay, you don't think it's funny. But I doubt there is one joke in the entire universe that would fail in offending at least one person. People find different things funny. Sometimes we get angry when we hear a joke, sometimes happy. It's the risk we take when we try to find enjoyable comedy. Get over it.

[Carageenan]

First, to the people who think that the writer doesn't know what she's talking about, I will immediately say that you are incorrect. Just a little research will show that her body of work is very much on topic -- I just felt that she had missed the point.

Second, the person who complained about the comparison of Max Hardcore and Extreme Associates with PGPorn.tv seems to have missed her point. Why is it OK that PGPorn creates a "comedy" like this while Max Hardcore gets convicted of obscenity for making films that sexualize concepts that are not even fatal? It's OK to laugh at a girl getting non-consensually shot in the head but a girl who really enjoys extreme sex is considered obscene?

I still think that Theresa's article was off-base, but I think that some of the people making comments on this topic are equally mis-guided

[GunnFanGirl]

Luckily, for us, James Gunn made PG Porn for his fans. We get the joke, we've seen his films, we've read his blog, we laughed at his stories of the everyday weirdness he entertains himself with. We "get" the joke, and we are his intended audience, so it really doesn't matter if he offends your sensabilities, "we" the fans are NOT offended, "we" the fans are excited that he just keeps creating things that entertain us. We have viewed Pg Porn over 750,000 times. We like it, we get it and we want more!

[Stranger527]

The thing that bothers me about this article is the comparison with Max Hardcore and Extreme Associates. Those entities go out of their way to simulate abuses against women. They are fringe film makers with little regard for the message they are sending. In the end, the things that happen to women are deliberate and full of malice

PGPorn.tv on the other hand are very aware that they are making a joke. The death of the leading lady is an ACCIDENT! The carpenter didn't intentionally kill her. He just forgot that the nail gun was in his hand. The carpenter was an idiot!

Yes, the humor is sophomoric and parody and wont appeal to everyone. Fine. However, the message here isn't promoting violence against women. It's be careful with the nail gun.

[YouFail]

This is why people should never write about something of which they have NO knowledge.

Doing so only succeeds in drawing out the rest of the zealots and bandwagon followers who feel the insatiable urge to put in their opinions (or, as seen here, copy the popular opinion of the day).

For the record: I am a woman, and I cannot wait to see the next installment of the sexless porn revolution. I am more offended by your blatant ignorance than the sight of a woman taking a nail to the head.

Now, to humor the misled masses. If you simply cannot fathom the concept of well-directed satire, I offer you this compromise: Satisfy your indignation and horror with the alternate theory that this video is a warning against adultery. A woman attempts to have an affair, and what happens? She dies. There now, won't that let sleep safely in your comfort zone tonight?

[Fangirly]

I think I understand how the joke was missed. PG Porn is removing the sex from porn to make a joke. It's not that they are replacing the sex with violence. It's not that violence is sexier than actual sex. The joke is removing the key element which is why people watch porn. In this case in order to make it a funny twist on what you would expect to see, they have the nail gun go off accidentally. It wasn't even as if it was done on purpose or that it continued on after that. It wasn't as if the character even reacted in a way that was anything, but surprised. I think you are taking the way the show was promoted to literally. It obviously can't spell this part of it out, otherwise the joke is ruined.

[BrianGunn]

As one of the creators and writers of PG Porn, I'd first like to thank you, Darklady, for watching our first episode, and your critique is well taken. Two points, however:

1. You write, "the Gunn brothers apparently consider violence against women to be not just acceptable but sexy." First of all, the joke here is that the MPAA will give PG ratings to movies that are hyper-violent, but slap anything sexually provocative with an R rating. What's more, there's simply zero evidence to support your claim that we consider Aria's death "sexy." It is portrayed as something thoroughly UN-sexy, and your interpretation is simply inaccurate.

2. You also write, "According to the website, the goal of the Gunn's video segments is to provide their sex-weary but strangely porn-loving visitors with all the best parts of erotic videos without having it 'ruined' by 'PEOPLE HAVING SEX.' Heaven forfend."

That's the joke of PG Porn. OF COURSE it's not as enjoyable as actual porn. The quote from our website was ironic.

Of the half-million people who have watched our first episode, you are the only one, to my knowledge, who actually took it literally. And yes, I know, you've answered your critics here by assuring us that you "get" the joke, but the entirety of your article belies that claim.

Brian Gunn

[Theresa Darklady Reed - Huffpost Blogger]

I appreciate your comments, Brian... and you're right, I can't know your minds, although I figured your metaphorical tongue was jammed into your metaphorical cheek... but I think that when you chose to tackle the topic of porn (PG or otherwise) and used a death as the punch line, you sexualized it and made it the "pop shot," if you will.

While it may be "funny" to those outside of the industry, to those of us who deal with fear of the Department of Justice constantly, it's just not as funny. I smirked when I saw it, because it seemed like a dark case of a hot fantasy gone terribly, terribly wrong... but it still seemed an odd first offering, given how little context is provided for the viewer.

You're playing with powerful archetypes and because you're eschewing nudity, you can likely get away with more than a director whose models get naked. This isn't a fault of yous or porn's, but it is a hypocrisy of the government's which you are able to take advantage of. Perhaps that's your point, but it's a bitter point for those of us on the other side of that thin veil of respectability -- and a point I felt compelled to make, since the voice of the industry is rarely heard directly and is so often distorted when filtered through the so-called "mainstream media."

I've maxed out my response word count, so hang on for Part II...

[Theresa Darklady Reed - Huffpost Blogger]

What I've noticed since I originally posted this piece is that folks outside of the adult entertainment industry tend to respond with "gosh, can't you see the joke" manner, while people who work within the adult entertainment industry tend to respond with "yeah, I noticed that too, thanks for saying what I was thinking."

I was initially going to cover PGPorn.tv as a straight news story, but read an editorial by AVN.com's senior editor Mark Kernes and decided to look deeper.

Those who think Max and Rob Black are rightly condemned or even censored, even though their scenes feature women who consent and enjoy that kind of activity, reinforce in my mind that it's folks outside of the world of porn who don't "get it."

There IS a lot of humor potential involved here and death doesn't necessarily have to be the punchline. I'd love to see that you know that, too.

I'm not interested in seeing your work stop; I just feel it's unfair for Hollywood to have a get-out-of­-jail-free card when it comes to mixing sexy situations with violence, while directors who mix graphically sexy situations with violent themes or aggressive sexual activity fear they'll lose everything they own and serve time in jail. Nobody dies in either situation, regardless of whether the scripted violence/death is "accidental" or not.

BTW - I'm impressed by the intelligence discussion of my virgin HuffPo entry. Thanks. :-)

[benn]

"I'm not interested in seeing your work stop; I just feel it's unfair for Hollywood to have a get-out-of­-jail-free card when it comes to mixing sexy situations with violence"

As Brian has clearly explained, this is the satirical target of PG-Porn. Your argument would be far better suited to a film which presents sex and violence together with no subtext of parody. Instead you have targeted and criticised something which is actually somewhat in agreement with your point.

[Meara]

I've read Ms. Reed's comment below a couple of times, and I think that it begs the question. PG-Porn is not funny because it doesn't include any graphic sex. The fact that it doesn't include any graphic sex makes it funny. However, I think that there is an interesting question about America's unthinking acceptance of violence as norm and sex as obscene. I've no idea where it comes from, and personally, I think it's bass-ackwards. It's not that I object to violence; obviously, I don't. But I do worry that some people have become inured to violence. I am not sure we can blame violent media, however. I blame it more on the lack of teaching of compassion and sympathy.

Art and entertainment hold up mirrors or windows; they reflect us or ask us to focus on one certain aspect. Arguing that the Gunn brothers are punishing free sexual expression is one interpretation, and I am not sure that it is entirely supported by the material. Yes, the woman dies at the end of the clip, but I don't think that it is being held up as a consequence of her actions, but rather as coincidence. Non-sequiter -- the preceeding event does not predict the following event. If a bird poops on me when I walk out of the house, am I being punished for walking out of my house? To say that she is being punished argues that what she is doing is wrong and deserves punishment.

[tedge1979]

I think what you are missing is the fact that this entire series is meant as a parody. No part of it is supposed to be taken seriously, from the settings to the characters, or its shocking finale.

Realistic portrayals of violence against women appear on network TV every single day, yet the creators of those shows are not condemned as narcissistic pigs. And because Gunn chose to portray the death of a female character in his skit as humorous, it makes him no worse than the creators of any number of TV shows and movies.

Why, even The Emmy and Peabody-winning family series The Simpsons has killed off a female character (Ned Flanders' wife Maude) for laughs, and no one came after its creator, Matt Groening.

I think its time to stop pointing the finger and let filmmakers do as they please without such condemning words. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution gives you the right to say what you will about Mr. Gunn, but also gives him the very same right to create the works that he does. If you don't respect his work, at least respect his right to create it.

[Meara]

I'm not sure that you can logically support the argument that the Gunn brothers see violence against women as either acceptable or sexy. The clip plays on an archetypal, if you will, porn situation. To have the woman act as anything other than a sexually frustrated housewife plays against the comedy of the piece. The other standards of porn are there as well: cheesy music, fuzzy video quality, bad acting, sparse sets, bad lighting, the splitting of the screen to better emphasize the sexy kiss... am I missing anything? The shock of the twist plays against the archetypal situation, but not in a way that suggests the violence against her is casual or sexy. It's not deliberate, but again plays with the archetypal suggestion that the guy is thinking with the little head instead of the big one, and that he may not have much to think with even if he were thinking with the big head. It's not glamorous; it's just silly. The look of utter surprise and the furtive wiping down of the nail gun again play into a standard "oh sh**" situation. The violence is neither deliberate nor an impetus for any other sex or even sexy act. I fail to see how that makes violence against women sexy.

[Theresa Darklady Reed - Huffpost Blogger]

I assure all of the commenters that I "get" the joke.

But my question remains: Why is it funny and nothing to fret about when it doesn't include graphic sex, but when graphic sex is added, its creators are hauled into court and their creation accused of being legally obscene?

[tlacook]

Seriously? The whole thing is a joke and quite amusing for those of us who haven't had their sense of humor surgically removed.

[ManifestPeace]

You can't possibly believe that this is truly serious. Honestly? PG PORN is funny, and everything on the web site is a joke. And the male/female roles could have just as easily been reversed -- and ARE, from what I understand of future episodes.