The Dr. Chauntelle Show (4/23/12)

Woohoo, it’s the The Dr. Chauntelle Show!!

This week, I’m in full teacher mode. In Random News, we have a troubling update on the ongoing Stacie Halas saga. I saw some Sweet Content this week from Digital Playground – their Escaladies series, which Vittoria Buzza engages for you on PVV – and Burning Angel – two homage-style films, Kung Fu Pussy and Fuckenstein. Finally, I talk at length about university students, their changing relationship with professors and higher education, capitalism and consumption, and porn.

Enjoy!!

 

To get this and other fantastic PVV podcasts on iTunes, go here. For a downloadable version of this episode on Podbean, go here.

Go here for more on Stacie Halas.

For a review of Digital Playground’s Escaladies series, got here.

For reviews of Burning Angel Entertainment’s Kung Fu Pussy and Fuckenstein, go here.

“Tenured Professor Is Placed on Leave After Showing a Film About Pornography” in The Chronicle of Higher Education here.

Gail Dines in Counterpunch here.

* * *

Like what you see? Follow PVV on Facebook and Twitter and/or follow Dr. Chauntelle at @DrChauntelle!!

You may quote anything herein with the following attribution: “Reprinted from Porn Valley Vantage/PVVOnline, copyright © Chauntelle Anne Tibbals, PhD (www.PVVOnline.com).”

PVVOnline – Critical Commentary on Adult Production

2 thoughts on “The Dr. Chauntelle Show (4/23/12)

  1. This is a fascinating podcast, Dr. Chauntelle, on so many levels. Thank you! What struck me after listening to this episode is that here we are in the 21st-century, and people are still reducing porn into a tool to further their own political beliefs. For me, that’s the saddest thing about these university controversies and Gail Dines’ essay.

    But there’s something about Dines’ Counterpunch essay and the knee-jerk reactions from those students that feels very 1980’s-ish to me, as if it’s the last gasp from a generation that is slowly seeing its way of thinking fade into the sunset. Gail Dines may want to write about Joanna Angel to further Dines’ own anti-capitalist message, but anyone aware of Angel’s incredible creativity and work-ethic will know that the essay has nothing to do with Joanna Angel as a person. Dines is just using her to make a political point, and that’s a shame.

    I think that kind of manipulation would have been tougher to recognize 20 years ago, since those with political agendas seemed to be talking the loudest (and had the most access to the media). But because of writers and thinkers like you who now tell the stories of people in this industry with respect for their individuality, I believe that tide is slowly turning.

    So in other words … keep up the great work Dr. Chauntelle! Your podcasts are truly wonderful.

  2. Dr. Chauntelle, this is one of the few times that I disagree with you. While I agree that pornography is probably only possible in a capitalist society, I don’t agree that the university’s willingness to suspend Dr. Price was motivated by capitalist interests (namely, the desire to make sure that the consumers, i.e., the students, are happy). Reading the university’s letter to Dr. Price (available on her website, http://jammieprice.com/) it doesn’t appear that the university’s interest is necessarily making the customers happy.

    Rather, the tired old bromides about ensuring a non-hostile environment as a way of justifying censorship are trotted out. The University seems to consider a professor’s going off the syllabus (like that never happens) and criticizing the university to be unacceptable conduct for a professor. Obviously, all of this is ridiculous. But none of it suggests that Dr. Price’s critics are motivated by a bottom-line analysis. Equally plausible based on the specific evidence at hand (and much more consistent with the record of censorship in recent decades at American universities) is the possibility that the Appalachian State was acting out of adherence to a left-wing (indeed, Marxist-inspired and certainly not anti-Marxist) standard of political correctness which insists that protected groups must never be offended or made to feel unwelcome. If so, it’s a little bewildering that the University would include groups like student athletes and the administration in the list of protected groups. But that only indicates that they’re applying the ideology in a screwy way, not that it isn’t the core of their analysis.

Comments are closed.