Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Good Letters

Home
Catholic
You Tell ’Em, Duke Porn Star

You Tell ’Em, Duke Porn Star

Last updated on: May 28, 2014 at 1:00 am by D. G. Myers

You Tell ’Em, Duke Porn Star 2014-05-27T21:11:03-07:00 D. G. Myers

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Like everyone else with a lick of moral sense, I was shamed and saddened by the news out of Duke University last February that a freshman student was paying her tuition bills by doing porn. Belle Knox, as she called herself in print, felt no shame when she was publicly exposed by a male classmate, who recognized her while—you guessed it—watching porn. (He wasn’t ashamed either.) Doing porn, Knox told the Duke student newspaper, is “liberating. It’s probably the most empowered I have ever felt.”

The expected moral outrage never developed. If sermons were preached against the degradation of pornography, they did not penetrate the church walls; if a scarlet letter appeared in the night sky, no one reported it. Instead, Knox very quickly became a victim. The sin against her? An outrage called “slut-shaming.” Facebook postings and Twitter messages ridiculed her; girls on campus glared at her, boys yelled, “You’re the porn star!” “There were stares and whispers in the dining hall,” Knox complained to the Huffington Post. “After I was outed, every single day waking up was like a nightmare.”

Defenders leaped to her side. “This country is in a trillion dollar student loan debt,” the website College Candy reasoned, “Duke is $60,000 a year, so if someone has to make a few porno movies to get a good education, who is anyone to judge?”

We must be non-judgmental toward one another, because moral judgment is so yesterday. “To suggest—as many Duke students have on various message boards—that [Knox] is somehow deserving of harassment or abuse because she works in adult films sets us back about five decades, if not five centuries,” a libertarian blogger explained.

Even conservatives joined in to decry the “mob” that had “circled” Knox to bury her “in a shower of condemnation.” “It’s not surprising that many students have been quick to show such hatred and disrespect to Belle,” a young writer concluded in the conservative journal The Federalist. “Respect for women, in general, seems to be in short supply at Duke.”

For her part, Knox was unrepentant. “I’ve never felt degraded in porn,” she wrote in Cosmopolitan. “I feel degraded by them, these people telling me I’m stupid and naïve and not able to make decisions for myself.”

True, she accepted money for appearing on film in scenes of “rough and dirty, nasty and filthy, saliva-dripping and name-calling-filled sex,” she acknowledged in XoJane. But the important thing is “the agency behind the decision to do.” As long as the decision was hers, she was “not being shamed but rather being empowered.”

“You tell ’em, Duke porn star,” Charlotte Alter cheered in Time. “Empowered women can also enjoy kink.” Like everyone else who wrote about the story, though, Alter withheld the exact details of the kink. Here is what neither she nor anyone else would say. Belle Knox is featured on a porn site devoted exclusively to videos in which men, sometimes several men, ejaculate on women’s faces.

In the silence over what was actually happening in Belle Knox’s porn videos, it was easy to talk about shaming and empowerment instead of asking a moral question or two—if anyone, at this outlying point in American cultural history, still knows how to ask a moral question.

The French-Jewish philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995) might have provided a moral vocabulary especially appropriate for Belle Knox’s story. For Levinas, the genesis of personhood is the human face. “The face is not the mere assemblage of a nose, a forehead, eyes, etc.,” he says; “it is all that, of course, but takes on the meaning of a face through the new dimension it opens up in the perception of a being.”

Another person is always a Thou, because she has a face; she foredooms every effort to reduce her to an It, because objects do not have faces. Her face establishes her uniqueness, her irreducibility to interests or explanatory context, her being-in-herself. You may perhaps account for her behavior, but you can never account for her face.

Moreover, a person’s presence in the world, as revealed by her face, is a summons to respond, to bestir and thus to identify myself: “here I am.” The I–Thou relation is constitutive of the self, not the other (she exists independently of me). I construct myself as a person by how I respond to her. Morality can be summed up in a single word—responsibility.

One way to evade responsibility to another human being, I guess, is to deface her face. Or to pay male porn actors to do it for you. No one involved in Belle Knox’s story—not even the father of this teenaged girl—seems to have asked himself his responsibility to her. Nor in her many online self-defenses has Belle Knox ever once considered her own responsibility to the other people in her life (including parents, siblings, friends, teachers). The appeal of empowerment routs the call to responsibility.

In our time the moral relation of I to Thou is no longer a face-to-face relationship, but a power struggle: I (“the agency behind the decision to do”) versus Thou (the appetite to judge, that is, to shame, harass, or abuse).

The only moral vocabulary available to us belongs not to Levinas, but to his great rival in French philosophy, Michel Foucault (1926–1984). An entire generation, drilled in the Foucauldian apothegm in nearly every humanities course taught over the past three-and-a-half decades, has learned its lesson well: there is no distinction between knowledge and power, there is but power: “the deployment of force and the establishment of truth” (those are the same thing).

And what then is responsibility but the voluntary surrender of power? Why would anyone want to do that? You’ll only get yourself abused for your pains.

Better to say or do nothing at all. It’s not much of a choice, but when the alternative is tribute to power, who can blame those who prefer a mute unresponsiveness toward sadness and shame?

D. G. Myers is a critic and literary historian who taught for nearly a quarter of a century at Texas A&M and Ohio State universities. He is the author of The Elephants Teach and ex-fiction critic for Commentary. He has also written for the New York Times Book Review, the Weekly Standard, Philosophy and Literature, the Sewanee Review, First Things, Jewish Ideas Daily, the Daily Beast, the Barnes & Noble Review, the Journal of the History of Ideas, American Literary History, and other journals.

Previous Post

May 27, 2014

Mystery and (Southern) Manners

Next Post

May 29, 2014 At a Loss for Words

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category A. G. Harmon Alissa Wilkinson Allison Backous Art Authors Brad Fruhauff Bradford Winters Bryan Bliss Caroline Langston Chad Thomas Johnston Chris Hoke Christiana N. Peterson Culture D.G. Myers D.L. Mayfield Daniel Bowman Jr. David Griffith Elizabeth Duffy Faith Film Greg Wolfe Guest Contributor Interview Jan Vallone Jeffrey Overstreet Jessica Eddings-Roeser Jessica Mesman Griffith Kelly Foster Lindsey Crittenden Morgan Meis music Natalie Vestin Nick Olson Peggy Rosenthal Personal Reflection Poetry Friday Reflection Relationships Review Richard Chess Richard Cole Sara Zarr Shannon Huffman Polson Sonya Bilocerkowycz Tania Runyan Tony Woodlief Topical Categories Uncategorized Vic Sizemore Writing

Select a Month October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 February 2008

Follow Us!

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who said, "He must increase, but I must decrease"?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Elijah John the Baptist Paul Peter

Related posts from Good Letters

Poetry Friday: “The Anxiety Offices”

Poetry Friday: “Prayer”

I Am an American

Poetry Friday: “The Last Supper”

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Catholic

The Parable Of The Sower And The Word...

One of Christ’s most famous parables is that of the sower who...

Rejecting Doom: Christian Hope And Human Action

Christianity is a religion of hope. We are to have hope and...

Why I Choose the Eucharist Over the Sermon

Choose the Eucharist, Not the Sermon What are we supposed to get...

5 Design Elements Found in Spiritually Rooted Homes

Putting Spirituality Into Home Decor Our homes are more than our living...

Credo: A Story of God Told with the...

About 10 years ago, I began to imagine a personal "Credo" that...

The Anatomy of Divine Revelation in Catholic Thought

The claim that God has made Himself known to human beings is...

view all Catholic blogs

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos