Poles 'n holes: Working in the porn biz

Poles 'n holes: Working in the porn biz

Pornography worker Chaz Bufe on work, sexuality and censorship in America. We do not agree with all of it (for the reasons outlined by Commie Princess in the comments below) but reproduce it for reference.

I was broke. Dead busted. I needed a job—fast. And the first that came along was at the Back Door Theater, "Parking and Entrance in the Rear—for Your Privacy." My friend Russell was working there, and he got me a job after one of his fellow employees passed out on the pool table at the bar next to the theater during a shift. Calling the Back Door (BD) a "theater" was something of a misnomer. It consisted of a restroom, lobby, projection platform/cashier booth, and a seating area which the staff referred to as "the pit." It was all crammed into a 16 foot by 60 foot store-front.

My turf was the projection/cashier booth. It contained a couple of broken-down chairs, a cash register, two dilapidated 16mm projectors, "Little Roscoe" (a .38 caliber revolver so dirty it would probably have blown up had it been fired), and a TV set which was used heavily, as the entire staff— all three of us—found watching it less boring than watching the BD's films. The films were pretty crude. My first glimpse of them came the day I was hired. I stepped up to the projection platform, peered through the viewing port between projectors, and saw a "cum shot"—a man coming all over a woman's face. I was dumfounded. I couldn't believe that anyone would actually pay to see such things. But pay they did-five bucks a pop. The Back Door's patrons came in all shapes and sizes: young men, old men, chicano men, white men, black men, and above all, greasy white-shoed businessmen. Well over 90% of the Back Door's customers were male, and, of those, at least half were into the $13-haircut level of awareness.

The female customers were of two types. One consisted of denim-clad, leather-booted dykes and their ultra-femme girl friends; the other, more common, type consisted of bored housewives with hubbies in tow—people apparently willing to try anything to spice up humdrum sex lives. My friend Ralph the butcher (he was an actual butcher—he hadn't "served" in Vietnam) would drop by the theater from time to time, and when such couples walked in, he made it a point to sit behind them and listen to their conversations. Ralph reported that the most typical comment was: "He can last for ten minutes. How come you can't even last two?"

I couldn't see how the customers managed to last two minutes in the theater. It was a pit. The restroom was, arguably, the most disgusting portion of the premises. It was covered with gross, sexist graffiti such as; "Please don't jack off in this toilet, it's already had three abortions," and "The difference between toilets and women is that toilets don't follow you around after you've used them." On a couple of occasions some (literal) jerk jacked off against the wall, drew an arrow toward the gooey mess, and added the half-witticism, "Eat me." And on one occasion, my friend Joe Blues walked into the lobby and observed a crewcut, 300-pound redneck flogging his dolphin in the john blissfully unaware that the restroom door was wide open.

The lobby was another gem. Its floor was covered with cheap red shag carpet, its walls with red fake-velvet wallpaper, and its ceiling with black glitter paint. Its contents consisted of a coke machine, a cigarette machine, and a sand-filled toilet subtly labeled "asstray."

But the heart of the Back Door was the pit, the seating area. It was a 16 by 45 foot room with a screen made of two pieces of painted sheet rock at one end with seats extending from the other to about eight feet from the screen. The seats were described as "reclining airplane seats" in the theater's advertising. Sounds really comfy, doesn't it? Well, the seats probably were comfortable when they were new. By the time I started working at the Back Door they could well have been the breeding ground of black plague. They obviously hadn't been cleaned since the Back Door opened, and at least two-thirds of them had gaping holes in their upholstery. The ashtrays in their armrests were continually overflowing as we employees felt it beneath ourselves to clean them out. And the BD's customers found the cracks between the cushions and the holes in the upholstery convenient receptacles for their soggy kleenex and handkerchiefs. The floor of the pit made one's shoes go "shmuck, shluck, shlurp"; it was coated with a mixture composed of spilled coke, cigarette butts, the remnants of used kleenex, and god knows what else.

Shortly after I started working at the theater, I walked into the pit in the middle of a film. While there, I was surprised to hear a long hissssss...After closing up that night, I went back into the seating area and found the source. The owner of the Back Door had installed timing devices coupled to aerosol cans; the cans sprayed a combination deodorant/disinfectant over the seats for a few seconds every hour. It was a token gesture. True disinfection would have required use of a flamethrower.

I had another surprise the first lime I walked into the pit during the noon rush and observed the midday crowd. There they sat, white shoes gleaming in the darkness, eyes riveted to the screen, hands riveted to their pants. I was expecting that. What I wasn't expecting was that they would all be sitting neatly, row upon row, an empty seat on either side of every one of them—viewer, empty seat, viewer, empty seat, etc.—totally absorbed in the spectacle on the screen. It was one of the loneliest, most pathetic scenes I've ever witnessed.

Another feature of customer behavior which initially surprised me was the frequent visit to the restroom before leaving the theater. After I figured that one out—it took me about two hours—I began to dread my nightly janitorial duties. (Judging from customer behavior at the Back Door, the slogan "Porn is the theory, rape is the practice" is dead wrong. A more realistic slogan would be "Porn is the theory, pocket pool is the practice.")

The films which provoked such behavior were sick jokes. They were low-budget, Los Angeles- based productions of the "pole'n'hole" variety with an occasional bit of lesbian action thrown in for diversity. The plots (when they existed at all), acting, direction, lighting, photography, sound, and editing were of a quality which made the average episode of The Dukes of Hazard look like Citizen Kane in comparison. As for violence, there was very little in the films shown by the Back Door; my guess is that no more than about one in twenty showed any explicit violence.(1)

An example of the Back Door's offerings was a film titled Aberrations (2) which contained a scene depicting a gorilla fucking a woman in a vacant lot. In the middle of the scene, someone's pet German Shepherd wandered into the field of view, approached the guy in the gorilla suit, sniffed him for several seconds, and exited as casually as he had entered the scene. While atypical, this film certainly seemed to degrade women. It's true, as critics of pornography delight in pointing out, that male dominance is a common feature in pornography. Where these critics err, however, is in ascribing male dominance to pornography. This is a clear reversal of cause and effect. Pornography is a fairly recent phenomenon, having become widely available only during the last quarter century, while male dominance has its roots in antiquity, as virtually any ancient history text will show. St. Paul displayed a typical attitude when he commanded, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as unto the Lord."

Violence against women is nothing new either. In fact it was at its worst during the Middle Ages and Renaissance. During those periods hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of women were brutally tortured and murdered under the biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." As for the contention that pornography somehow causes violence against women, all the evidence points against it. After Denmark eliminated all restrictions on pornography 20 years ago, the number of reported sex crimes there dropped. The 1970 Presidential Commission on Pornography concluded that there was no link between pornography and sexual violence. And Henry Hudson, chairman of Reagan's stacked anti-pornography commission, has even admitted, "If we relied exclusively on scientific data for every one of our findings, I'm afraid all our work would be inconclusive.

Given the total lack of evidence linking pornography and violence against women, and the long history of misogynistic teaching and coercion and violence against women—most visible at present in the efforts of various religions to use the government to deprive women of their rights to birth control and abortion—one can only ask why "feminist" censorship advocates are focusing their attacks on pornography and not on misogynistic religious authoritarians.
A plausible answer to that question is that they quite understandably feel frustrated by sexism and violence against women—and they're seeking easy answers and easy targets upon which to vent their frustration. Freedom of speech, civil libertarians, and smut merchants provide much easier targets than religious figures. And those figures are only too eager to help "feminist" censors attack their scapegoat—pornography.

One also wonders why anti-porn feminists, in addition to ignoring or, at times, lending credibility to reactionary religionists, ignore depictions of violence against women in the mass media far more horrible than those occasionally encountered in pornography. For example, "splatter" flicks such as Friday the 13th and Halloween consist largely of horrifying, extremely brutal scenes of the killing of young women, and are routinely viewed by millions of young people. Yet anti-porn crusaders ignore these disgusting films and concentrate their fire on the run-of-the-mill poles'n'holes flicks shown to small audiences in porn theaters. (3)

"OBJECTIFICATION"

An interesting charge of the anti-pornography movement is that pornography "objectifies" women, that is, that it presents them as things to be "consumed" rather than as people. Neglecting the rather metaphysical, and thus vague, nature of this charge, one can only ask why "objectification" in sexually explicit materials is more objectionable than that, for example, in advertising. We live in a society where "objectification" is pervasive, where people are commonly referred to and thought of as "personnel," "human resources," and, even more grotesquely, "liveware." While the "bottom line" remains the fundamental value in society and people are considered first and foremost as productive and consumptive units, "objectification" will inevitably continue. (4)

It could easily be argued that women "objectify" men every bit as much, if not more, than men "objectify" women. If men look for appearance in women, women look for money in men. Another way of saying this is that if men regard women as "sex objects," women regard men as "money objects." Check it out. Look through the "personals" sections of tabloids such as The Village Voice or The Bay Guardian. What do women running ads want? More than anything else, money. (Their code words are "solvent," "secure, "successful," and "professional.")

The "objectification" of men by women brings up an interesting consideration: the class background of porn customers. If the customers of the Back Door were typical, as I believe they were, it's safe to say that men who consume pornography are predominantly working class men—blue collar workers, salesmen, and low-paid white collar workers. It's not difficult to figure out why. A man's ability to get laid in the present society is highly dependent upon his income. Middle and upper class men can afford to "entertain a woman in style" (vacations, weekends at country inns, etc.) or shell out $100 for a hooker if they get the urge. Working class men, on the other hand, can only afford to spend a few bucks occasionally for admission to a porn palace or for a copy of Hustler.

Even in "normal" romantic liaisons, things are bad. Most women seem drawn to money and power like buzzards are drawn to carrion. A great number—including many who bridle at the way men "objectify" women—won't even look at low-paid men because of class prejudice, because low-paid men are not desirable "money objects." Thus we have the grotesque spectacle of women complaining about a "man shortage" while they're surrounded by working class men they don't even see.

Working around such prejudiced women can be maddening for men in service industries or retail. You become a non-person. You simply don't exist. It makes you feel about as respected as a slave in the antebellum South. Such prejudice can be largely explained by the economic discrimination women face. But the prejudice persists even when its underlying cause vanishes. As an example, you'll seldom find female executives flirting with male secretaries, nor female physicians with male nurses or orderlies. Even though this class prejudice can be explained, that doesn't make it any easier to bear.

SEX FOR ITS OWN SAKE

Behind much criticism of pornography lurks the traditional judeochristian idea that there is something inherently wrong with sex, that it's somehow dirty and evil. That it's necessary "to excuse it" through marriage, or, more commonly nowadays, through "love." But I don't buy that. I don't believe that sex needs to be justified; I believe that sex is its own justification. Why? Because it feels good. Because it produces pleasure and human happiness. For me that's enough—I believe that sex is inherently a good thing simply because it leads to human pleasure and harms no one. I'd agree that sex is generally better when there is an emotional attachment between partners; but I've also had many very enjoyable sexual experiences with partners with whom I've had little or no emotional attachment. I prefer sex with love—but I'll take sex without love over no sex at all any day.

Attitudes similar to mine seem to be much more common in men than in women, which helps to explain why the vast majority of pornography consumers are male. In American society men are conditioned to believe that attempting to satisfy their sexual needs is perfectly acceptable—even in so alienated a manner as paying to sit in a room with a bunch of strangers watching images of other strangers engaging in sex acts—while women are conditioned not even to express sexual needs. A second explanatory factor is that the male dominance and occasional violence in pornography are quite probably turnoffs for most women.

A third is that it's easier in some ways for women to satisfy their sexual needs under present circumstances than it is for most men. Virtually any "decent-looking" woman, if she wants to, can go out and get laid within a few hours, any time, anywhere. The fact that relatively few women take advantage of that opportunity because of their repressive conditioning, the risks of pregnancy and VD, and the chauvinist attitudes and obnoxious behavior of many men, does not alter the fact that they do have the opportunity. The retail porn industry, as I experienced it, is a sleazy and grotesque (5), but highly profitable, business. (6) But that's all it is—a money-making monument to sexual repression. Only by the wildest stretch of the imagination could one imagine roomfuls of pathetic geeks pounding their puds while watching fuck flicks as a threat to women. It's equally farfetched to consider that a form of sexual liberation. (I find it difficult to imagine anyone with a satisfactory sex life plunking down five bucks for the privilege of jacking off in a disease pit like the Back Door.)

A further consideration, however, is the quality of that opportunity. Several women who read an earlier draft of this piece told me that most men are inconsiderate and, at best, mediocre lovers; and a woman's chances of getting off well, or really enjoying herself, in a sexual encounter, especially a one-night stand, are fairly low. If that's the case, the sexual prospects of most women are as bleak as they are for most men. It's a paradoxical situation in which both parties come out losers: women can, but generally don't want to, while men generally want to, but can't. So, you end up with millions of frustrated women sitting at home, and millions of frustrated men sitting in porn theaters.

On the other hand, lonely guys, such as I encountered at the Back Door, are not the only adults who use pornography. I recently worked at a large record store with a video counter, and at least half of the customers renting X-rated films were either women or couples, persons obviously not using pornography as a substitute for sex, but as an addition to it. That being the case, one is inescapably led to the conclusion that, at least in some instances, pornography is a good thing because it harms no one and increases human pleasure. At worst, pornography functions as a harmless, and perhaps necessary, escape valve for the sexually frustrated. At best, it serves as a means for many people to increase the pleasures of their sex lives.

Censorship of pornography would only increase the power and serve the ends of the misogynistic puritans who hate all forms of sexual expression. It must be opposed. And sex must be proposed. A hard-driving pro-sex position is an absolute necessity. It's our best and most persuasive means of protecting the freedoms we now have and of erecting others.

—by Chaz Bufe

(1) Even the militant pro-censorship group Women Against Pornography estimates that only 10-15% of pornography contains violence.

(2) Titles didn't matter much at the BD. Quite often we'd cut the titles from a film, invent a new name for it, and then advertise and rerun it under the new name a couple of weeks later.

(3) I am NOT suggesting that "splatter" films be censored. I consider the dangers of censorship far greater than any—thus far undemonstrated-dangers these films might pose.

(4) A bizarre illustration of this recently occurred at my last place of work. Two of the barracudas— female managerial variety—were inspecting a cute baby in a stroller. One turned to the other and cooed: "Oh look! A future customer!!"

(5) At times, the sleazyness or the porn bit borders on the surreal. I vividly recall a visit I made one evening around Thanksgiving to my pal Russell. who was then working at Zorba's Adult Bookstore. When I walked through the door I was floored. The dildos, autosucks, and fist fucking magazines were still in their racks and the inflatable "love" dolls were still hanging from the ceiling—but there was a difference: the entire place was covered with christmas decorations. The crowning touch was a red ornament dangling from the tip of 'The Destroyer," a two-foot-long, two-inch-thick dildo.

(6) The blimped-out, cigar-sucking, white-shoed grossero who owned the Back Door was netting at least $1000 a week from it.

Comments

NannerNannerNan...
Jan 20 2013 19:48

This article is a bit like most movies I end up watching, starts out innocuous and devolves into stupid insanity. The difference here is that it's the bad type of stupid insanity. It doesn't begin as a plodding, methodical, contemplative drama and end an ultraviolent shakycam thriller, it starts as a depressing look at terrible jobs and ends a smug dismissal of this whole "society" thing. It begins "Road to Wagon Pier" and ends "shithead whines about the last remaining pockets of 'illiberal' behavior".

His turgid little rant begins with him saying that pornography is just the latest manifestation of patriarchial behavior. I thought that this was going to be clever segue into the social effects of pornography. Since liberals don't believe in society or morality or any of that crazy shit, he instead mentions this so as to say to those drat feminists "huh see my violent rape porn is nothing special, quit botherin' me".

Around here his rant against people who don't much like that shit begins, when he concludes that pornography doesn't perpetuate violence against women. Now, someone who wasn't completely dishonest could easily conclude that the narratives of porn are a) disgusting and b) would seep into the minds of the people who watch it. If the idea that people can watch 5 hours of TV a day and walk away with thinking the same way they did before is stupid, men watching misogynistic propaganda that also gives you boners might establish misogyny where there wasnn't any or enhance misogynistic tendencies.

Liberal ideology balks at such simple ideas, however. Liberalism is predicated on a million enlightened individuals pursuing their "rational self-interest" and a better society resulting from it, it is predicated on individualism being a moral principle. If liberalism results in something less than admirable happening (poverty, inequality, etc.) it can't be liberalism's fault. It is, instead, a cultural defect or a personal failing. The third world is poor not because of capitalism, but because of cultural inferiority. Recessions happen because of some latent government interference. People are not born poor, just too stupid to be rich.

Proponets of liberal ideology are sometimes so brazen as to claim that horrible things are perfectly fine, perfectly natural. Sweatshops just happen, racism just happens, the commodification of human experience is no different than what has happened in the past. A television show telling children about the glories of conspicuous consumption is no different than Grimm telling kids not to disobey their parents or steal or whatever.

In this context, Bufe is not saying that pornography is the latest manifestation of patriarchy, it is its logical continuation. St. Paul telling wives to "submit" to their husbands' every whim is no different than pornography glorifying violence against women. It just happens, no changing it really.

But Bufe cannot say that without any sort of pushback. That's a deeply reactionary opinion, that patriarchial domination is "natural". So, in order to handwave such accusations pre-emptively, he says that Danemark's disastrous and horrific expirement in porn liberalization was, in fact, a riveting success and lowered instances of rape and sexual violence. Thus, ensuring sexual "freedom" is better than restricting it. Patriarchy is natural, Bufe says, and restricting man's violent desires will lead him to be even more misogynistic.

He then shrilly accuses "the feminists" for not paying attention to religion. The fact that organized religion is becoming completely irrelevant in the western world is ignored. He's urging feminists to attack telegraphs, davenports and Model T's and to leave the poor pornographers alone.

He openly wonders why "feminists" also, apparently, ignore extremely violent movies. Of course, he says in the footnote that we should leave them alone, too, just because.

He then goes on a disgusting, turgid and misogynistic rant about how women objectify men. It becomes clear that he values "freedom" more than any sort of principle, and will use demagogery without any reservation. The objectification of women is nothing to think much of, because those damn women do it too (according to Bufe)! He then goes on ahilarious and damningly transparent whinefest over "class prejudice" amongst women. I'm starting to think Bufe all that pornography Bufe had to watch got to his head just a bit.

He then uses the word "judeochristian" like a damn slur and gets behind what all this opposition to his porn is really about: morality! Only in the West does "moralitybaiting" exist, and he uses it here just to slam anyone else who remains unconvinced. Sex is inherently good because it feels nice, he says to all those filthy puritans. "Pleasure" is inherently good just because. Who the hell said hedonism and profligacy was bad, a bunch of filthy prudes I bet!

Therefore, pornography is good because no one gets hurt and it can make hedonism easier. And the real issue in all of this is anyone who has an issue with any of that - and anyone who does have an issue with that hates freedom. Long live everyone doing whatever they want, as long as its consensual! Morality is a spook and restricts our glorious, glorious freedom.

Chaz Bufe is a gigantic tool.

commieprincess
Jan 20 2013 23:12
Quote:
It could easily be argued that women "objectify" men every bit as much, if not more, than men "objectify" women. If men look for appearance in women, women look for money in men...

A great number—including many who bridle at the way men "objectify" women—won't even look at low-paid men because of class prejudice, because low-paid men are not desirable "money objects." Thus we have the grotesque spectacle of women complaining about a "man shortage" while they're surrounded by working class men they don't even see.

Perhaps I've missed something, but this seems like a very poorly thought out and offensive deduction. Is there any evidence for the assertion that women tend not to be attracted to lower income men? Yes there is pressure on men to make money, to "be a man" and get a job, and to protect and look after his weak, inept family. Is this reinforced by women in particular? Any evidence for this? Besides, I wouldn't say that pressure is as prevalent as the pressure on women to look a certain way. Hardly a minute goes by without women being made to feel conscious of their looks.
Also, women complaining about a shortage of fuckable men could be down to a huge number of things, not just income. Perhaps these women aren't grotesque snobs, perhaps they just don't want to fuck men who make stupid, uninformed, sexist leaps of conjecture based on their own feelings of inadequacy.

Having said all that, I thought this piece started out well!

Chilli Sauce
Jan 21 2013 09:15

NNN, there's a lot to say on your post, but I just wanted to point out briefly that

Quote:
He then uses the word "judeochristian" like a damn slur and gets behind what all this opposition to his porn is really about: morality!....Long live everyone doing whatever they want, as long as its consensual! Morality is a spook and restricts our glorious, glorious freedom.

the idea of the sanctity of Judeo-Christian values is a very liberal one. I mean, there's not a liberal politician out there who doesn't try to claim the s/he's acting in accordance with the virtues of Jesus. And we know that conservatives love to cherry pick the fuck out of the Bible to justify their pet prejudices.

I guess what I'm saying is that I agree that this article has its faults, but the idea that there's something inherently exploitative about people having sex on camera for the sexual enjoyment of other* isn't in keeping with a materialist, communist analysis. Moreover, the supposed morality (or immorality) of consensual sexuality is one based religious control and the promotion of "values" which prop authoritarian structures, be they religious or political.

*Capitalist production of such images, of course..

Steven.
Jan 21 2013 10:06

Yeah, I don't agree with the criticisms of Nnn, but this much is right:

commieprincess wrote:
Quote:
It could easily be argued that women "objectify" men every bit as much, if not more, than men "objectify" women. If men look for appearance in women, women look for money in men...

A great number—including many who bridle at the way men "objectify" women—won't even look at low-paid men because of class prejudice, because low-paid men are not desirable "money objects." Thus we have the grotesque spectacle of women complaining about a "man shortage" while they're surrounded by working class men they don't even see.

Perhaps I've missed something, but this seems like a very poorly thought out and offensive deduction. Is there any evidence for the assertion that women tend not to be attracted to lower income men? Yes there is pressure on men to make money, to "be a man" and get a job, and to protect and look after his weak, inept family. Is this reinforced by women in particular? Any evidence for this? Besides, I wouldn't say that pressure is as prevalent as the pressure on women to look a certain way. Hardly a minute goes by without women being made to feel conscious of their looks.
Also, women complaining about a shortage of fuckable men could be down to a huge number of things, not just income. Perhaps these women aren't grotesque snobs, perhaps they just don't want to fuck men who make stupid, uninformed, sexist leaps of conjecture based on their own feelings of inadequacy.

Having said all that, I thought this piece started out well!

with regard to the pressure to make money and everything, TBH I think that is related to people's peer groups in general, not "women as potential mates". Because you want to be able to socialise and do the same things as your friends, which if they start earning more money means you need to as well, or it can get hard to still hang out. And I mean who is going to change their whole life just trying to get laid? It's bizarre.

And even if that were the case to some extent, I bet it is more than outweighed by the huge numbers of single mothers who have been much more real pressure to make money because they have children to care for on a single income.

BTW, on your request for "evidence" of this, I had a quick Google and studies do come up showing things like this, however they seem mostly to do with "marriage" (which isn't the same as attraction), and done by biological determinist idiots.

Chilli Sauce
Jan 21 2013 21:43

Hi again NNN. I know you haven't responded to my post yet, but I had time to give your post a re-read and had a few more thoughts....

Quote:
If the idea that people can watch 5 hours of TV a day and walk away with thinking the same way they did before is stupid, men watching misogynistic propaganda that also gives you boners might establish misogyny where there wasnn't any or enhance misogynistic tendencies.

Now there might be something to be said that misogynistic pornography reinforces a misogynist's misogyny as does the idea that TV (as the main medium of mass culture) reinforces all sorts of oppressions. But here again I think you have to be careful not to miss the forest for the trees: the problem is a structural one. It's a liberal argument which sees media as the generator of oppression rather than the facet of deep, structural hierarchies based in social and material relationships.

Quote:
So, in order to handwave such accusations pre-emptively, he says that Danemark's disastrous and horrific expirement in porn liberalization was, in fact, a riveting success and lowered instances of rape and sexual violence. Thus, ensuring sexual "freedom" is better than restricting it. Patriarchy is natural, Bufe says, and restricting man's violent desires will lead him to be even more misogynistic.

I don't know anything about porn in Denmark, but I think the onus is on you to prove it was "disasterous and horriffic" and to disprove the figures put forward by Bufe.

I'm also not sure where Bufe says patriarchy is natural (although as CommiePrincess has pointed out, the article is not without it's own patriarchy). I also don't think wanting to watch porn qualifies as a "violent desire".

Quote:
He then shrilly accuses "the feminists" for not paying attention to religion. The fact that organized religion is becoming completely irrelevant in the western world is ignored

Completely irrelevant? I'm not sure. I agree that on a whole the West is becoming more secular. But in America, a large percentage of people vote Republican and the party has a massively powerful religious right wing. These people have successfully undermined a lot of reproductive freedoms since the start of the millennium. If I was a woman who's access to abortions was being threatened, I'm not sure I'd be so quick to say that political religion is "becoming completely irrelevant".