The saga of Zoey Zane.
posted by Leila in contemplation, current events, questions, sarcasmThe ever-proverbial “they” say that one of the ways to keep your blog “interesting” and “relevant” and “relatable” (for which Firefox suggests “palatable” and “inflatable” as spelling suggestions, I might add) is write about “current events,” because back in the day when there was no Internet and the radio just came out, people used to talk about the news all the time and thus American culture evolved from the disjointed perspectives of the cosmopolites and the hicks to something truly American, where everybody can discuss the going-ons of Jerry Springer and Tyra Banks and Tila Tequila and what-have-you, because honestly, it sure as hell wasn’t presidential elections that kept this country together — but American Idol and America’s Next Top Model are just small steps that bring us ten giant leaps forward to the unity of mankind!
Now that you’ve gotten past my rambling run-on sentence turned paragraph, I…can’t remember what I meant to write about in the first place, except that’s a lie, because now I do remember. I was going to blog about a “current event” (and possibly get arrested for using too many “double quotes”). But I think the point I was trying to make was that this won’t be a political current event or anything weighty like that, because frankly I think “they” are full of “bullshit” (I mean, look, “they” always resort to blogging about blogging, which speaks volumes about what “they” consider “interesting”), and entries about weighty things don’t make people happy because…it gives their brains hernias or something, I don’t know. But that’s a rant for another day. What I’d like to focus your attention upon now is Exhibit A2, Miss Zoey Zane.
For those of you who haven’t heard, all the more power to you Zoey Zane is the porn alias of 18-year-old Emily Sander, who disappeared for almost a week before being discovered, ah, dead…yeah. Her old site has been revised in the wake of this tragedy, however, and would much rather cast a different impression of the now-deceased Emily Sander upon you now than it would have back when she was still alive. I quote this directly from her defunct main site linked above, where after some perfunctory information about the case and the search for her suspected killer, this text is presented under the heading “To the Media.”
It truly saddens us to see, in this day and age, that we still live in a society that ridicules a women for doing something that is completely legal. There was some incorrect information leaked to the press on Wensday by a unknown individual named “David Thomas” claiming to have information about Emily’s huge “Porn” career. He has nothing to do with our company or do we know any individual by that name. Now to due to irresponsible journalism and not checking your facts before sending out this info over the news wire you have turned this into a pr feeding frenzy for the sole purpose of creating drama to draw in viewers We want to set the record straight. Emily was a solo nude model whose site went live September,25 2007. She was exactly that - a solo girl. Soon as these false fact were released YOU the media from your “Porn” story you ran has sent more traffic to Emilys adult site in 2 hours then the site has received in 2 months since the site has gone live. We ask all media outlets please show some class and respect for once on a very sad and misfortunate situation and get back to the main focus now of capturing Isreal Mireles.
Well. It is a nice bit of drama, isn’t it? PR feeding frenzy, I like that. But…”solo nude model”? I didn’t know that the porn industry was into euphemisms like that. When I hear that, I think…artistic, like erotica. I want to give her the benefit of the doubt. But then I see the Google cache of her on-site blog (NSFW — hello, we’re talking softcore porn), and my opinion…slowly…deflates. The main branch of her old site is already gone, but I managed to see it before Google updated its cache yesterday, and it was…also quite porny, what with the “cum inside 4 more pix” and other enticing taglines. This isn’t “”Porn”" (quoting the quotes, folks) to me — this is porn, unquoted and in all its pornalicious pornitude. Wikipedia says that “Pornography or porn is, in its broadest state, the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief,” and that’s what Zoey Zane’s website was about — so I don’t see why the folks who run it are bothering with denying it in all their misspelled glory. Way to “show some class and respect,” guyz. In my opinion, Miss Sander didn’t show herself enough “class and respect” for her website to live ad memoriam. Why cover all that up if she was such a lovely person, anyway?
But arguing over who or what she was isn’t the tangent I meant to go off on — that’s obvious already. What I wonder is: did she get what was coming to her? Some will claim that about rape victims all the time, and others will fire back by saying that a grandma in a bathrobe is most certainly not inviting sexual misconduct to her wrinkled old — yeah. But this isn’t an old grandma…this is an aspiring porn actress. Was she asking for it?
I’ve watched a little porn out of curiosity more than anything, but I’ve always found it more amusing and/or terrifying than arousing. I’ve never met an actual porn actress and I don’t feel as if I’m in a good position to judge them, but at the same time…it’s very easy to forget that this is a career for some people. What they’re displaying is not their genuine personality, but on the other hand, what kind of person has the type of personality that does fit that career choice — other than the slut/hobag stereotypes?
I’m a feminist to a certain extent; sexual liberation is great and wonderful and hooray for vibrators, but porn…is just plain demeaning. Nobody asks for rape or murder, but if a prostitute or porn actress or stripper or any kind of seller of sex or something like it ends up getting fucked over for life (pardon the pun), I think we can at least admit that those professions lend themselves to that sort of danger. Evil as it may be to point it out, a good slice of their audience is going to be comprised of sex-deprived creeps.
Was this the tragic case of a pretty young woman who happened to have a second life as a “solo nude model” getting taken advantage of, or a foolish girl who led somebody on a little too much and ended up wandering into a dangerous situation she’d never walk out of? I don’t know enough to judge, but something tells me that it was a little bit of both. Emily Sander may not have been a provocative person, but Zoey Zane was more than ready to let you explore her many wonders…dual personalities, and the problems that occur when they merge. I don’t know how to articulate it any better than that.
Your thoughts?
ETA: Belinda left a fascinating comment below that caused me to take a step back and truly analyze what I had said here rather than leaving a bunch of questions for everybody else to answer; if anybody feels like this entry wandered onto a cliff and then stood there admiring the view for a while instead of reaching an actual conclusion, see my response to her comment below, which is probably loads better than this entry was anyway.
Nobody deserves rape or assault in any case, regardless of what they do and what profession they’re in. I’m highly against the idea of blaming the victim.
Pornography and prostitution to me is just selling one’s body for money. It’s a job. It’s not that different from any other service where people work for money. Being a waiter is where you have to do things for money as well, for example. Prostitution and pornography is selling consenting sex, which is very different from rape. The difference is how society currently views sex and pornography and especially prostitution. It gets associated with all kinds of notions such as immorality, that these women are disgusting, sinful and basically not warrant the basic protections that workers of other professions get because, I dunno, sex is bad or something.
And that’s really sad. In many places, prostitution (and probably pornography) is still illegal and that places the women (and men) in a very vulnerable position. Customers who themselves have absorbed these ideals of how these workers are somehow subhuman, subsequently might get the idea that they’re ENTITLED to do what they like to these people. A sickeningly large number of prostitutes have gotten raped before, and in many cases, can’t complain to the authorities because what they’re doing is not allowed in the first place.
Prostitution and pornography is legal here. There are groups that try to raise awareness that what these people do is just a job and they deserve the same human rights and legal protection as everyone else. I’m going to hazard a guess but I imagine sex workers here ultimately are safer, that their customers would think twice about harming them for legal and social reasons and if they do, these sex workers would have less of problem reporting such crimes. And I say, good for them and I wish more could be done.
Belinda on November 30th, 2007 @ 10:09 pm #
Seth and I have just spent the last half-hour or so discussing your comment, which mostly consisted of me trying figure out how to say why I disagree with you half as well as you presented your argument. I don’t know if I’ve gotten anywhere with it, but I’ll give it a shot.
We’re in agreement for the first sentence of your comment — a good thing, because I’d look like an asshole if I tried to argue that. But I think ideological differences come about in the next paragraph where you say porn/prostitution “isn’t that different from any other service where people work for money.” Perhaps this is just the view that culture/religion (that I grew up around, for I’m an atheist myself)/society have instilled in me, but to me, selling sex is strikingly different than working at McDonald’s. Seth said most of our disagreement probably comes down our views on sex, since I’m relatively conservative about it in certain ways.
I believe there’s a difference between commodifying a service and commodifying oneself. In selling sex, one ends up commodifying one’s own body, implying to their customers — their consumers — that they themselves are a commodity, to be used and thrown away, and this may be part of the subhuman stigma you refer to later on. It’s all in how they present themselves.
I’ve never met a prostitute or walked into a brothel so I can’t speak for the way they present themselves, but so much of pornography is completely demeaning to women in — yes, I’m about to say it — a disgusting sort of way. I don’t know non-synonymous adjectives to describe the feeling I get when I see a porno featuring two women screaming and getting gangbanged in three holes at once. This is an extreme, but honestly, most porn is made for men and therefore most porn depicts women as the sex-takers and men as the sex-havers. Perhaps there are women who enjoy it when men slap them in the face with their private parts and come up their noses, but I’m not one of them and I find it just as disgusting as giggling when somebody spits in somebody else’s eye — it’s plain disrespectful and it’s just not right.
While Seth and I were talking, I mentioned that I don’t respect contestants who go on Fear Factor to eat giant slugs, and in the same vein, I don’t respect people who sell themselves for sex; he noted it as “putting a price on human dignity.” That’s what it comes down to, for me. Sex isn’t bad per se, and even sex for money isn’t bad, but fake sex for money that helps perpetuate lame stereotypes of women in the meantime is bad.
On one hand, worker protection is a nice thing; on the other, women who go into a sex profession should know what they’re in for. There would be too much of an uproar if sex work was banned outright, and it would just go underground anyway making it even worse, but…I feel there ought to be limits, but since there aren’t limits…well, I don’t approve of what they’re doing, and I think that in the 21st century there are plenty of viable career options that don’t involve sex that these girls can expand their horizons a little. For now, let them do as they please — but although it might be evil and politically incorrect, I’m going to judge them negatively for doing so, because as a woman myself…my personality is different, I guess. This is the part I had trouble grappling with — my prejudices — and yet it still seems as though some of the blame lies upon them for choosing that life, just as some of the blame lies upon a reckless teenage driver for turning up the radio, speeding around that turn, and not realizing that they were suddenly in the wrong lane.
Once again, the best I can put it for now, and maybe I should go to sleep.
Leila on November 30th, 2007 @ 11:59 pm #
Like Belinda, I’m adamantly against blaming the victim. Even if a young woman’s audience consisted completely of “sex-deprived creeps,” if any of those idiots dared to cross the line and sexually assaulted her, all of the blame should be placed on him. She asked for it = men cannot control themselves; if someone looks sexy, and delights in dirty fantasies, men must have them, because they’re aroused and can’t tell the different between what’s real and what’s not… But, in reality, men can control themselves, and the logic behind “she asked for it” is absurd and it demeans both men and women.
Also, imagine how much more difficult rape cases would be to prosecute if a “she asked for it” defense was legitimate. It’d be like giving a free-pass to any pervert who happened upon a beautiful but barely covered woman.
Chantelle on December 1st, 2007 @ 12:23 am #
Sorry, to comment twice, but somehow I missed your comment. My views on sex, as it relates to me, are extraordinarily conservative. But, unlike you, I can’t be said to have much against people who work in the sex industry. If anything, I feel bad for them… I’ve read one too many stories and done too much research on human trafficking, and just on people who are forced to work in sex, in general - I can’t snub my nose at any of them. Even if they do it willing, and even if they eat someone else’s poo. I don’t care. Just don’t ask me to watch.
And so when you say something like, “Women who go into a sex profession should know what they’re in for.” It makes me think, “Well, what does that mean? What are they in for?” I don’t that they should be treated like crap or attacked because they put themselves out there in a sexual way… Porn, to me, is far too silly to be taken seriously. It’s ridiculous. It’s not real and I have a hard time picturing people transferring porn-tastic fantasies to real life. People can’t go around slapping others private parts and talking dirty to women (something seen in pornos) any more than they can go around driving like a freak on the opposite side of the street (something done in video games) so I don’t really get your analogy. Also, people don’t attack the actors who play the HP villains when they see them on the street because they’re “evil wizards,” so I don’t see why a porno star should expect to be treated like a slut when she just plays one on TV.
Chantelle on December 1st, 2007 @ 12:54 am #
@Leila
Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I think what must be emphasised (and which was emphasised in Chantelle’s reply) is the idea what sex workers do should not reflect on what their customers should do. Their customers are autonomous beings and have no excuse to rape women just because they’re paying for sex. There is a disturbingly common thought that women are to blame for how they act and “cause” men to behave. Whether it be as a sex worker, or as just a provocatively dressed woman on a night out, at any time before or during sexual intercourse, should have the authority to say “no” to sex. Men are human beings with thinking brains, they should not have the excuse that it is somehow unable control their own bodies. Therefore, IMO the speeding teen analogy doesn’t really fit unless you somehow personify the road as forcing the car into a wrong turn, without the teen’s consent. In the case of sex workers though, I believe if she does not consent to sex that is paid for, she is obliged to give a refund.
As for our other differences, it does seem to come down to our differing perspectives on sex, which might be going off tangent to this topic. I have a fairly liberal view on sex. Some women just enjoy sex, and they may have no qualms about making money while having sex. Some might like being filmed while doing so. Not my cup of tea, but hey whatever floats their boats. If these women are comfortable with doing this, more so than other potential jobs, then why would it be undignified than any other job? Is dignity a concept arising from the woman’s view of herself or something ascribed to her by society to what she does with her body?
As for lame stereotypes… well I hate to think that sex workers are representatives of women. If we’re going to talk about lame stereotypes, I would say a much worse prevalence of crappy stereotypes are seen everyday in advertisement, TV, magazines and other media pertaining to what women are/should be like. At least sex workers aren’t in your face all the time.
There’s a lot of pornography out there that makes me wince just watching them, where they seem to be very demeaning to the women involved (examples such as the ones you described). How much is that duress on these women with financial problems and how much is that these women actually wanting to participate is a question I don’t have an answer for. In any case there should definitely be enough legal protection for these women like any other industry, especially with safety standards.
I’m sleepy too. =_=
Belinda on December 1st, 2007 @ 2:52 pm #