[edited for copyright infringement - audra]

Gail Dines is a professor of American Studies at Wheelock College in Boston. She can be reached at [email protected]. Robert Jensen is a professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin. He can be reached at [email protected]. They are co-authors with Ann Russo of Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality. Both also are members of the interim organizing committee of the National Feminist Antipornography Movement. For more information, contact [email protected] or go to http://feministantipornographymovement.org/

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: audra trower williams ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Not only is this COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, but "porn" is *not* exclusively a "feminist" issue, damn it. I happen to like hot, sweaty gay porn with men doing all kinds of unspeakably delicious things together.

Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

---

I totally argee

This kind of article is the reason so many young women don't call themselves feminists, even if they believe in womens suffage and shattering glass cielings. Women love thier porn too.

On a related note over the weekend I went around asking women to sign a petitetion against womens suffage.

I'd tell them what it was afterwards, usually getting a laugh.

just a prank I ripped off from the man show and a funny way to get girls phone numbers.

quote:

---

feminism
Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view.

---

Everything said about hetero porn applies to gay porn. You can google "Christopher Kendall gay pornography" for more detailed info, but here's the gist:

Instead of breaking down heteronormal gender binaries, gay porn reinforces oppressive sex roles regardless of the actual gender of the participants.

A scene from Advocate Men where a non-gay male convinces another non-gay male to rape a gay man

"The man's got a tight, tight pussy, man," Phil told me. He wrenched his hand free and slapped Saul in the back. ˜Lean over and show this man your pussy ass."

In this way, feminized gay men are the subjects whose rape, battery and degradation are meant as a stand-in for women's usual roles in pornography. Traditional masculinity is glorified and femininity is an instrument of abuse. Such pornographic depictions promote inequality and subjugation as the preferred model of gay male sex as well as reinforcing homophobia and racism; minority men (esp. Asian) are a common stand in for the feminized role.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

The question is, can it be made better?

---

What about amateur porn?

It's not filling Larry Flynt's war chest.

It's not financing anyone's drug addiction.

It's sex-positive.

It's an extension of real people's sex lives.

What makes you think all younger women are of the stereotyped "porn positive" culture? I know many who aren't at all...

I do confess I have a problem with this line in the article though: "Leftists -- especially left men -- need to get over the obsession with getting off".

Why? We leftist women like to get off as well.

"Leftists -- especially left men -- need to get over the obsession with getting off".

Why?

So many answers, but here's one simple one. Because men continue to see women as sex toys, creatures existing for their sexual pleasure, instead of people, and pornography normalizes that dehumanization. I think it was someone here who recently put it "womanimals". I liked that.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:
Funny how some men can be concerned about me infringing copyright laws while paying for prostitutes to perform sex is illegal in the state most of them get their pornography from, California.

---

Anyhoo, after a wymin-only presentation of various wimmon-made erotic short films (this was in the mid-80's) she declared: "That third film was pornography because it made me horny." I kid you not.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

I would be more prepared to engage the author of this topic if she could deal with the quite obvious reality that there are leftists who critique corporate porn, while at the same time they try to reclaim the freedom to celebrate human sexuality.

The author of the piece tries to imagine that the "pro-porn left" is "silent" on all of these issues. That's simply not true.

This is not to say that there isn't the sort of inconsistencies the author describes, just that it is also true that we aren't "silent."

Regarding "corporate porn." Admittedly some pornographers are in control of substantial businesses. And small-timers are often pursuing a corporate model of business organization.

But what is it about their "product" that identifies it as "corporate"? "Do-it-yourself" pornographers also exist. These are some form of "worker-managed" enterprises. But what does the product look like?

What I'm getting at is this: If i ever filmed myself going at it, I'd work on my abs first.

But, I recall reading a gay man who said that he liked thin, hairy guys, and that all "corporate porn" offered was "shaved and oiled gym-bots."

I'm not sure we can blame a corporate form of organization for that. More like it, like we can blame so many of the other issues the author mentions, we can blame capitalism and wider currents in society.

There's obviously truth in that article, but it is silent on other obvious realities.

In the end: Is this author opposed to any and all recorded sexual imagery? If so, why? If not, what forms are acceptable to her?

edited p.s. I should have known that a lot of guys (like me) would feel compelled to offer an opinion on this. I will refrain from further commentary unless my comments are addressed and a response is requested.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: thwap ]

Abortion is a highly contentious, highly divisive issue too but I hope people don't stop debating it because of its difficulty. Seems like that's a good reason to talk about it more.

I feel like I'm pointing out the way Walmart is exploiting millions of women around the world and people are responding, "Yeah, well what about the natural food co-op I'm a member of, that doesn't exploit women does it?"

And the part about the millions of women being exploited by Walmart...what happens to them in light of such responses?

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

Everything said about hetero porn applies to gay porn.

---

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

Pornography is a term for a medium in print or film. It is similar, in some respects, to the term "mystery" or "science fiction". It describes a genre of film-making and print media. It's a sub-categorical description.

Pornography has become a championed issue by certain radical feminists (i.e. Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin), as well as by various "third-wave" feminists (i.e. Pat Califia, Judith Halberstam, etc.). In the former case, pornography is a kind of catch-all term for oppressive discourse and imagery in the media, while in the latter case, pornography is championed positively as liberatory in terms of sexuality, gender, and (particularly) queer politics.

My view is that pornography is like any medium; it has its good and its bad, and generally the good is less mainstream, while the bad tends to be more mainstream. Some pornography is boring, or sexist, or poorly directed, while some pornography is interesting, or fun, or well-directed, or politically conscious.

"Behind the Green Door" is not the same movie as "Debbie Does Dallas" (pornography), in the same way that "Dr. Strangelove" is not "Booty Call" (comedies), in the same way that "Bitch" is not "Cosmopolitan" (women's magazines). Same genre, different material.

That is why I find it specious reasoning to lump everything into one convenient category and then use it as a 'straw man' that represents everything oppressive and violent and sexist in society. I'm not pretending that there isn't some very bad, sexist, offensive, or illegal pornography being made out there, but I'm also not ideologically simplistic enough to just paint every aspect of the medium with the same broad strokes.

It is also simply incorrect to throw all queer pornography into the same bucket as straight pornography, and then try to find ways to make it fit some strange, rigid criteria ("oh, you see, cause this guy...this guy is submissive to that guy, and so this first guy is like the woman...and, see, he's being oppressed by the man, who's the other guy..."). Pornography has, in many complicated ways that I won't get into here, provided a kind of safe space for the expression of non-straight sexuality, fetishism, and any other nasty thing people love to do with one another, and has helped to legitimize the fact that, yes, some people have non-straight, non-missionary sex, and guess what...they get off on it! Crazy!

I object to this debate because it tends to result in people leaving logic behind in favour of ideological rhetoric, and polarizing what is not exactly a black and white issue.

Here's my simplistic solution to at least part of the problem: make rules and have inspectors enforce them. Like at the end of films with animals (and no, I don't mean to equate porn actors with animals), there's some kind of certification that 'nobody was coerced, threatened, -- more such language -- or hurt in any way in the making of this film'.

quote:

---

make rules and have inspectors enforce them

---

Seems entirely reasonable.

quote:

---

Instead of breaking down heteronormal gender binaries, gay porn reinforces oppressive sex roles regardless of the actual gender of the participants.

---

quote:

---

Such pornographic depictions promote inequality and subjugation as the preferred model of gay male sex

---

quote:

---

as well as reinforcing homophobia and racism; minority men (esp. Asian) are a common stand in for the feminized role.

---

Is it ever going to be possible for nice, serious Canadians to have debates on this or any other related topic without citing famous Americans? Damn. If there is one thing that drives me wild about debates in this forum, it is all the abstractions and the name-dropping of absent famous Americans.

*/brief rant*

The passage at the end of the article that Thalia has fairly and generously copied for us that bothers me is this:

quote:

---

A critique of pornography doesn’t imply that freedom rooted in an individual’s ability to choose isn’t important, but argues instead that these issues can’t be reduced to that single moment of choice of an individual. Instead, we have to ask: What is meaningful freedom within a capitalist system that is racist and sexist?

Leftists have always challenged the contention of the powerful that freedom comes in accepting one’s place in a hierarchy. Feminists have highlighted that one of the systems of power that constrains us is gender.

We contend that leftists who take feminism seriously must come to see that pornography, along with other forms of sexualized exploitation -- primarily of women, girls and boys, by men -- in capitalism is inconsistent with a world in which ordinary people can take control of their own destinies.

---

To which I answer: oh, hell.

Look: there is a difference between (1) developing sophisticated intellectual analyses of the commodification of anything and (2) the denial at any point in history of the intrinsic importance of individual human agency or the inviolability of individual human psyches.

While I might agree that any freedom of choice we might believe we have is warped by the racist, sexist, capitalist system in which we swim (duh), I am also deeply convinced that there are far worse things that can be done to the human mind.

To me, anyone who writes in imperatives for others ("must come to see") is at best a dangerous if well-intentioned idiot, and please, don't come anywhere near my brain.

The revolution is not coming tomorrow. The best that most of us can do in history, in a single lifetime, is to struggle through the piles of abstract propaganda shovelled on to us from childhood and attempt to build a psyche strong enough to face corruption from all sides. Of course those psyches are constructs -- but I defy anyone here to say that there is some single correct way to do that, or that there is anything healthy at all in preventing others, especially by force, from building their own psychological bases from within.

I don't care who we're talking about. Give me the worst pedophile serial murderer you can thing of -- I still think that fiddling with other people's brains, other people's consciousness by force is the worst obscenity.

To me, the rhetoric of the article Thalia has copied above is a justification for sadism -- either that or Stalinism. There are a lot of things we can do to change the world, but playing with other people's minds is one step too far, the eternal temptation of mad puritans on both the right and the left.

If you know the depths of your own mind, Thalia, you're a better woman than I am. To me, the liberty of the mind, beyond ideology, is a left issue, precisely because I know that I haven't fathomed my own mind, certainly no one else's, and yet I have seen so many come apart.

From the article:

quote:

---

Leftists typically reject crude biological explanations for inequality. But the story of gender in pornography is the story of biological determinism. A major theme in pornography is that women are different from men and enjoy pain, humiliation, degradation; they don’t deserve the same humanity as men because they are a different kind of creature. [....] The sophisticated, critical thinking that underlies the best of left politics can give way to simplistic, politically naïve, and diversionary analysis that leaves far too many leftists playing cheerleader for an exploitive industry. In those analyses, we aren’t supposed to examine the culture’s ideology and how it shapes people’s perceptions of their choices, and we must ignore the conditions under which people live; it’s all about an individual’s choice.

---

Anti bio-determinism always get my attention!

I don't think I've seen this issue framed this way. Issues around racism are also incredible or, more appropriately and unfortunately, are very credible.

I had initially intended to discuss copyright as a boogeyman, but Thalia's already addressed this in this context, and a meta-discussion on copyright can take place elsewhere.

Thanks, Thalia, for the great article!

Edited to add: I was going to quote more from the initial article/post, but it's already there. Please just read it through and make issue of consistency as a, well, constant.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: blake 3:17 ]

Vanguard of the Sexual Revolution

A call (in)to arms!

Because we get to have so little honest, intimate, beautifully dangerous sex that they can sell us flat images of it instead. Because we spend so much more time contemplating these representations than having sex that when we do sleep together, it is more a meeting of roles than of individuals—and not supportive or satisfying roles, at that. Because the most radical of us would still rather speak fancifully of total revolution than dare a moment of actual experimentation in a field that really matters, like our beds. Because as long as our own sexualities are constructed by the media of silence and the culture of violence, each of us is a Trojan horse bearing our own enemies (the values of domination and submission, the paralysis of fear and shame) everywhere we go.

We've got our straw man, The Complacent Left, and we've got some ad hominem attacks against this imaginary figurehead. But whatever the value of any of the positions expounded here when translated into a real world context outside the realm of straw men and ad hominem, they really do need to be translated into a factual context which doesn't build itself on this ridiculous demagoguery before they can be of genuine value within this, our material universe.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]

Art expands the mind and creates new mental possibilities. I believe in the potential for erotic art. Pornography colonizes the mind and stultifies erotic imagination. To keep bringing up marginalized exceptions to the mainstream pornographized sexuality rule is to forget it is the exceptions that often prove the rule.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

That's one concern I have with this article. I don't buy the opening generalisation.

I'm interested in what its position would be, were it to take any substantive position, on what the implications of pornographic critique should be. I'm very willing to agree that pornography plays with power structures and symbols and representations of authority and dominance in essentially all genres of porn (i.e., not merely fetish - in your most conventional drab garden variety sex video). To some extent, it's impossible to do anything without employing structures and behaviours representative of authority and power. Dance in sync and someone still needs to lead. Film a sex act and you generally need to put someone on top. But dissect these facts in far more detail and what do we do with that information?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:

"Leftists -- especially left men -- need to get over the obsession with getting off".

Why?

So many answers, but here's one simple one. Because men continue to see women as sex toys, creatures existing for their sexual pleasure, instead of people, and pornography normalizes that dehumanization. I think it was someone here who recently put it "womanimals". I liked that.

[ 28 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

---

quote:

---

Once we've critiqued every piece of porn ever produced in a 200 page interpretive essay, what do we make of it? How do we use this information?

---

Is it really 200 pages?

The question of theory and practice is a complicated one. Much of the best of the Left's theoretical writings are not exactly clear about what to do. One of the best reflexive pieces on 1999's Battle of Seattle was Where was the Color in seattle? which didn't have a lot of here's-what-we-should-do ABCs in it. And Osama Bin Laden didn't seem too important pre 9/11.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't discuss or learn about these things.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:
Instead of breaking down heteronormal gender binaries, gay porn reinforces oppressive sex roles regardless of the actual gender of the participants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
I would encourage any female feminists not wanting a discussion in the feminism forum to be dominated by men - pro-feminist or otherwise - to explicitly request that only feminist women post to a given thread. After so many go-arounds, we should know that, otherwise, we get threads like this one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

What a fucking load of bullshit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by disobedient:

Am I being too much of a pain in the ass to ask how, exactly, that works? Does this mean that men who don't watch porn don't objectify women or see them as sex toys?

---

Not a pain in the ass at all.

The answer isn't short, though, so I think it's best to direct you towards the research of Dr. Diana Russell. Her book Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm is illuminating, but you can read at her website about how pornography works within a male-dominated society.

The Role of Pornography in Predisposing Some Males to Want to Rape
http://www.dianarussell.com/pornsrole.html

"I went to a porno bookstore, put a quarter in a slot, and saw this porn movie. It was just a guy coming up from behind a girl and attacking her and raping her. That's when I started having rape fantasies. When I saw that movie, it was like somebody lit a fuse from my childhood on up... I just went for it, went out and raped." Rapist interviewed by Beneke, 1982, pp. 73-74.

(1) Pairing sexually arousing/gratifying stimuli with rape

(2) Increasing males' self-generated rape fantasies

(3) Sexualizing dominance and submission

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:
Pornography is a left issue
September 28, 2005
by Gail Dines and Robert Jensen

Anti-pornography feminists get used to insults from the left.

---

A polite understatement, as a review of some postings in this thread will clearly demonstrate.

Thalia, I wish I had time to take a more active part in this debate, but unfortunately I don't. However, I think this particular analysis, which focuses on a socialist or social democratic analysis of the media, and of pornography within that context of the media industry, is very worthwhile.

Many who have disagreed with you have immediately turned it back to an issue of sexuality and lifestyle, and refuse to deal with the business aspects of this industry. They give some token recognition towards the labour relations realities, but only to call for better protection, not a rejection of the industry or its products per se.

In particular, I will just comment on the interventions by Hephaestion. As a gay man, he is following the footsteps of a division or cleavage between left wing, anti-porn feminists and the majority of gay men that came in the late 80s or early 90s. It was identified by Andrea Dworkin and John Stoltenberg, and involved disputes over use of porn and the practice of SM. Dworkin and Stoltenberg uncompromisingly rejected both, as did Steinem and Brownmiller. (I wish I had time to get together links and references, but please, bear with me. If this thread is still alive in a couple of weeks I will try to do so then, but this week is too busy.)

But most gay men's organizations took a strongly opposing view, and I believe that is reflected in what Hephaestion, with his usual tact and diplomacy, has said in this thread.

Heph is rather like RealityBites in that regard, using his identity as a gay man as a kind of licence to swear at and denounce people and mercilessly ridicule their ideas, and if anyone responds in kind, they are immediately labelled homophobic. It's rather like the boy in grade school with a foul mouth and coke bottom glasses, "You can't hit me, I wear glasses!" Why so many Babblers are willing to fall for this scam I have no idea, but it sure works for them!

To be fair, that's not the only scam. A couple of others are the men who quote their wives/girlfiends on female subjects, though curiously, we are never priviledged to hear directly from the woman herself. Even more ingenious is the trick of the apparent female poster, who, even if she is "real", is still acting in concert with her boyfriend or "lover", and at least some of the time is acting as his agent.

Just a final word. While Heph has claimed that gay porn is different, notice that he too has asserted this difference without regard to the business realities of the industry. His argument too relates to lifestyle and tastes, and makes no attempt to even claim that the businesses that produce gay porn are any different that those that produce straight porn.

So to you Heph, a question. Are the corporations which produce gay porn any different from those producing straight porn?

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: MasterDebator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
Here's my simplistic solution to at least part of the problem: make rules and have inspectors enforce them. Like at the end of films with animals (and no, I don't mean to equate porn actors with animals), there's some kind of certification that 'nobody was coerced, threatened, -- more such language -- or hurt in any way in the making of this film'.

---

You must be torn on this issue, no? On one thread, you wanted to stigmatize irresponsible teenage mothers.

On this thread, you want to protect the freedoms of porn starlets.

What gives?

Master Debator

As usual, you've conveniently ignored the positions that you couldn't refute. Also, your apparent claim against Heph is that he's adhering to the homosexual "party line" or something, without addressing a single, solitary way in which his might be a valid proposition all on its lonesome.

quote:

---

Many who have disagreed with you have immediately turned it back to an issue of sexuality and lifestyle, and refuse to deal with the business aspects of this industry.

---

quote:

---

But most gay men's organizations took a strongly opposing view, and I believe that is reflected in what Hephaestion, with his usual tact and diplomacy, has said in this thread.

---

quote:

---

Heph is rather like RealityBites in that regard, using his identity as a gay man as a kind of licence to swear at and denounce people and mercilessly ridicule their ideas, and if anyone responds in kind, they are immediately labelled homophobic.

---

quote:

---

Useful for what? Helping gangs of abusive men to drug up some naive young women and then start violating them with the help of some plastic "toys"? You know, a campus panty raid, with some drugs and sex mixed in so the boys can have a great time?

---

I think it takes a lot of gall for someone to make incredibly sweeping judgments about gay men and queer culture, and then expect them to sit back and be silent as a bunch of heterosexuals argue in favour of a form of censorship which has been oppressing marginalized communities for ages.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
I would encourage any female feminists not wanting a discussion in the feminism forum to be dominated by men - pro-feminist or otherwise - to explicitly request that only feminist women post to a given thread. After so many go-arounds, we should know that, otherwise, we get threads like this one.

Not to say that co-ed threads aren't possible. Just that, sometimes, just sometimes, feminists participating in a feminism forum would like to hash things out by exploring the wide spectrum of feminist women's opinions, experiences, and knowledge.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
Not only are you homophobic, you have hideous views on sex in general. Such as your views on the usefulness of sex toys in
this thread:

...

I think it takes a lot of gall for someone to make incredibly sweeping judgments about gay men and queer culture, and then expect them to sit back and be silent as a bunch of heterosexuals argue in favour of a form of censorship which has been oppressing marginalized communities for ages.

And yes, confronting regressive anti-sexuality attitudes is a feminist issue.

---

Thank you for your help in defining feminist issues. Without your assistance, where would we be???

Your statement that I am homophobic is a facile fabrication, as you well know, but then that's the same game that Heph plays, so I don't suppose I should be too surprised.

It's also a complete fabrication to say that I make sweeping judgements about gay culture when I was talking about two (2) men who post on Babble, Hephaestion and RealityBites.

I realize that Canada Customs had unfairly and unjustly targetted Little Sisters and Glad Day bookstores for years, and under the Liberal Govt continues to do so, despite court rulings in favour of Little Sisters. I realize that gays are being discriminated against in this matter, and I object to that as strongly as anyone.

quote:

---

I realize that Canada Customs had unfairly and unjustly targetted Little Sisters and Glad Day bookstores for years, and under the Liberal Govt continues to do so, despite court rulings in favour of Little Sisters. I realize that gays are being discriminated against in this matter, and I object to that as strongly as anyone.

---

quote:

---

However, let me point out that this is something gays need to take up with the Liberal Party the next time the Liberals come calling and telling them that the enemy is the Tories, and that you cannot afford to waste your vote on the NDP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
I think it takes a lot of gall for someone to make incredibly sweeping judgments about gay men and queer culture, and then expect them to sit back and be silent as a bunch of heterosexuals argue in favour of a form of censorship which has been oppressing marginalized communities for ages.

---

Well said. Though I think it takes rather more than gall. It takes an abiding faith in the idea that heterosexism expresses society's natural order. It requires the assumption that the LGBTs of the species ought to be seated at the kiddie table while the 'normal' people lounge about debating whatever important issues happen to crop up. It takes a willingness to impose all that is hetero-normative upon those who don't care to be thusly imposed upon.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

...an issue of sexuality and lifestyle...

...His argument too relates to lifestyle and tastes...

---

quote:

---

Spatrioter said:

Frankly I'm a bit surprised you would consider voting NDP. You seem to have a lot more in common with right-wing so-cons who enjoy telling other people how to live their sex lives.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by spatrioter:
Clearly we are a victim of our own electoral incompetence. Thanks for offering the "gays" a civics lesson. Without your assistance, where would we be??

Frankly I'm a bit surprised you would consider voting NDP. You seem to have a lot more in common with right-wing so-cons who enjoy telling other people how to live their sex lives.

---

I have been an NDP supporter all my life. I certainly don't need your permission to support the party, any more than you need mine. I am pro-choice and do not favour censorship, but I do oppose pornography as a political matter and believe that MacKinnon and Dworkin were right in advocating that women and children be permitted to sue pornography producers and distributors.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hephaestion:
Listen, take your repressed, heterosexist, homophobic bullshit and cram it up your tightly-puckered ass. You obviously have no understanding of my "lifestyle" ('coz we all; know, after all, that that's all queer identity is, right? A "lifestyle"?), so why should any queer person waste an iota of time listening to your closed-minded, homophobic twaddle?

...

Spats, I, for one, have never been persuaded that MD is anything other than exactly what she appears to be at first blush: a "right-wing so-con who enjoy telling other people how to live their sex lives". If she IS a social democrat, she's apparently one made from the same mold as Bev Desjarlais.

---

I see you have decided to reply in characteristic tone. Nothing like keeping up traditions, eh Heph?

May I suggest that you cram this angy tone of your up your tightly clenched ass? Or would that be improper of me?

quote:

---

why should any queer person waste an iota of time listening to your closed-minded, homophobic twaddle

---

Other people post articles. This is the first time I've seen someone get slammed for copyright violation on a leftist political discussion board. Guess I'm still new.

My partner takes pictures of me in my underware (nice underware) and we joke about how much money we could make if we sold it on the internet. Probably a lot. Maybe enough to get me out of debt and put me through law school.

Porn is a feminist issue. Porn is a poverty issue. Porn is an issue for the left.

Why?

Porn and the skin trades are an issue to be taken up by the left because porn and prostitution are a industry. I don't think many people will disagree with me on this. The left deals with the rights of workers in capitalist industry.

Sex is big business. It's up there with weapons and cocaine.

Furthermore, if you research the lives of sex trade workers, you will find that oppressive and marginalizing economic conditions have often preceeded their entrance into the industry.

Sex trade workers have virtually no rights in our society. Perhapse that is an understatement. Sex trade workers get rapped (yes it is possible for a sex trade worker to get rapped) beaten to a pulp, and killed on a regular basis and it never makes the news. Why?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Saber:

I'm a little upset that the first response I read to Thlia's posting (an article containing some very astute Marxist analysis) was a plea to protect property ownership rights over information, rather than a socially conscious analytic response.

Other people post articles. This is the first time I've seen someone get slammed for copyright violation on a leftist political discussion board. Guess I'm still new.

---

quote:

---

My partner takes pictures of me in my underware (nice underware) and we joke about how much money we could make if we sold it on the internet. Probably a lot. Maybe enough to get me out of debt and put me through law school.

---

quote:

---

Porn is a feminist issue. Porn is a poverty issue. Porn is an issue for the left.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

Sex is big business. It's up there with weapons and cocaine.

Furthermore, if you research the lives of sex trade workers, you will find that oppressive and marginalizing economic conditions have often preceeded their entrance into the industry.

Sex trade workers have virtually no rights in our society. Perhapse that is an understatement. Sex trade workers get rapped (yes it is possible for a sex trade worker to get rapped) beaten to a pulp, and killed on a regular basis and it never makes the news. Why?

Well, I think that is a leftist issue.[/QB]

---

In some places they're fighting for thier rights at least.

quote:

---

Hookers want union contracts

September 24, 2005 ㅡ Over 200 prostitutes from Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi province, gathered at Korea University yesterday afternoon for a forum to lobby for their right to remain members of the world's oldest profession.
The same group earlier this month drew up a labor contract with their employers, brothel owners, regarding their working conditions.
The forum was called "Evaluation of the anti-prostitution law and the future of the sex industry in the labor force." Several left-wing groups turned out to support the right to engage in sex work; they oppose recent legislation designed to curb that trade.
"Our rights in the labor force have to be protected and guaranteed," said Lee Hee-young, a representative of the sex trade workers, adding that brothel owners and sex workers must stand strong against the anti-prostitution law.

---

(at least you didn't point out my glaring and politically problematic spelling mistakes so as far as I'm concerned, you're above board)

"Master Debator" and I, I am sure have many things to discuss. I've had many a row with Dwarkinian feminists. I do not know that she identifies herself as such, but never the less, I am sure she and I disagree on many things. This is vitally important. Without disagreement, there is no debate, no discussion of ideas and do development of deeper understanding.

I hope that we can have an ongoing, heated and inclusive discussion about these things.

Please, usderstand that when I say "the Left" I am using the most inclusive term that I feel applies. I guess I still think of TBLG issues as very much a part of the left wing political agenda. THis however may not have been clear since I was also defining "left" in very Marxist terms and I have no idea what Marx thought about gay rights.

Anyway,I am not interested in dealing with problems relating to the skin trade, using ideology or styles of policy that in any way undermine leftist principles of social justice. This is why I think of porn as a leftist issue.

I can see why you would take exception to it not also being explicitly stated as a TBLG issue.

Now that I think of it, in that part where I said "porn is a femenist issue, it is a leftist issue, bla, bla." I should also have said that it is a TBLG issue. It is.

Heph, please. Cool it a bit. Please. There is no need for the kind of attack you're making.

It isn't fair and I don't think it's true in any way.

Maybe we really do need to have a woman-only examination of this article. We seem to be faced with a huge split between the genders here.

Is it safe to say males do not approach or think of porn the same way women do? Could we look at possible reasons for this?

I don't think throwing accusations of homophobia at people who are not making homophobic statements is going to help. Heph, I don't care if you're as gay as a tree full of chicadees, some of what you have written is tacky and I'm a tad surprised you're getting away with it and not being sent to your room for a time out.

Large numbers of women object to porn for reasons which I consider to be valid. I'm sure we all object to the horrible abuses heaped on people who work in the cocoa trade, or in the sugar industry... are we to say nothing about it because , after all, we aren't personally being enslaved and brutalized? Are we to sit back and be silent and say "those people" have to liberate themselves and in the meantime...what? We keep eating chocolate bars and drinking cocoa and never objecting to the way the stuff gets to us?

I do not want to be the person who has to draw the line between "erotic" and "porn".

But I will support anyone who wants to stop violence, degradation and abuse, and I'm sorry, those things are horribly prevalent in the industry which produces the stuff you claim to enjoy watching. Not everyone is enjoying the romp you see on your screen. Not everyone has had a full and free choice about being "employed" in the making of your entertainment.

At the risk of personal attack and being deemed a humourless old bitch , your amusement and entertainment rank way down for me. I'll defend your right to be as queer as I am. Hell, you guys can be queerer than I am because I'm probably too tight-assed, strait-laced and repressed to be any kind of example of dyke open-mindedness. I don't like anything which involves whips and chains, I don't like any kind of hooks or piercings, and I really don't like anything which depicts women as just orifices to be stuffed repeatedly. And I don't think the ugliness is any less ugly when a person of the male gender is used in such a way as to suggest he is "female", "feminine", or "lesser" because he's a catcher and not a pitcher. And much of that is present in the stuff you claim to enjoy.

I'm not criticizing YOU for enjoying this crap. My criticism is with the people who are making huge fortunes producing this. And my criticism is of the people who are buying this without ever giving any thought to what it is they are buying, what it means, and what it supports.

There's this thing called "semiology". It is the science of signs and symbols. I suspect Thalia and some others have a very clear understanding of semiology and I suggest some of the males dominating this discussion don't have a fuckin' clue about semiology.

People are trying to develop a vocabulary, are trying to examine their own responses/reactions/visceral feelings. Getting all nasty and telling people to ram stuff up their ass isn't exactly helpful. Some people do not enjoy ass fucking and some people actively object to it because it hurts, and not just physically.

You're using your queerness as a weapon, holding it up as if it was the holy grail, something special and lofty to which all should aspire.

Well, get over yourself, okay! It isn't ALL about you.

I do not give a rodents furry nether portion if you are queer. It ain't a big deal. I'm queer, and that's not exactly a big deal, either. The world isn't going to shift on its axis because I'm an old dyke and it isn't going to shift because you're queer. Jesus, give over with the hissy fits.

Some, but not all, of what has been written here is intriguing. Much of it challenges me and I very much enjoy mental challenge. Skdadl has opened my eyes tonight and so has Thalia and I'm not taking sides, I want to read more, and more, and I'd like Martin to continue but I've had more than enough of ranting and raving and shove it up your ass'isms and insults and deliberately hurtful personal attacks.

Can we look at the how and why male response to porn is basically different from female response? And can we do it with a modicum of respect for each other? There are no flaming letters across the night sky saying Thou Shalt All Agree On Everything. It is by examination of our differences, even our vast and perhaps irreconcileable differences that we can all be enriched. But bitchiness sucks goats, okay?

Most (not all) women have had to struggle to get over anti-sex conditioning which has been heaped on us from birth. Many of us have had it hammered into our flesh by dominating fists that we must be somebody else's idea of "chaste" and "good". We grew up being warned by damned near everybody that "nice girls don't", being told to be virgins until our wedding night, being told we might not enjoy it but it was his "right"...many of us had to learn even the simple basics of clitoral stimulation on our own, in secret, while feeling we were doing something "bad" and that God can see through the roof and ceiling and knows what you're doing and you're gonna git it, you sinner. Those of us who found any degree of freedom from that kind of repression don't need some man telling us we're not liberated enough! We don't need anybody telling us we're tight-assed and repressed and suggesting all we need is a damned good fuck and we'll be fine. You wanna talk about ramming something up your ass, try ramming some of that.

Some of us don't enjoy or even watch porn because, to put none too fine a point on it, we are embarrassed by it.

We don't need any male, straight or queer, to yell and shout that we need to loosen up. Man, you will never even begin to understand how much loosening up we have forced ourselves to do. Yes, forced, because in our heads and in our intellects we knew we had been warped and crippled but in our trembling souls the voices were still chanting Thou Shalt Not...

God can see through the roof and ceiling...through your clothes..into your very heart and boy oh boy are you in for it if...

Many of us grew up propogandized by christianity. Well, will you guys just, please, LOOK at what the Holy Bible says about women and sex? We aren't allowed to even TOUCH your dingle-dangle, okay? Not allowed to TOUCH it. (how in hell they thought we would multiply and fill the earth without handling the equipment is a mystery!) But I leave that to theologians.

When the mob came what did the nice old Patriarch do? Why he handed his daughters over to them to be raped.

Jeez, now, there's a fine thing to which to aspire.

Leviticus says we can be sold by our fathers.

King David was a good man and Bathsheba tempted him, the whore.

And on and on and on and on...and so we salved ourselves with the non-Biblical myth of Lilith, supposedly the first wife given to Adam..except she refused to allow him the dominant position sexually, said a magic word and FLEW, man, flew off to the Gulf of Aqaba where she consorts GAILY with all manner of partners.....but we only whispered about Lilith because what she did was forbidden. She REFUSED to grant Adam the sexual dominance.

Some of you guys have no idea what a revolutionary idea that was to those of us who were struggling to get past the thou shalt nots and the no-no-dirty-dirty.

We were told "boys will be boys"..we were told about "sowing wild oats" and we were warned against being the ones with whom those oats were sown...

We were not taught to HAVE FUN with sex.

And so here we are, and we have fought to get ourselves out of the mire, and we are confronted with the question of an industry which is said to be the third largest industry in the world, and increasing numbers of women who were employed in that industry are finally speaking out and telling their truth and they did not HAVE FUN making the entertaining videos so many men find amusing. And some of those women will never speak out because they are afraid. And if they did speak out who in hell would listen to them, they're just a bunch of sex trade workers anyway.

And maybe gay male porn is in some way different. Maybe it IS the holy grail. Maybe the rest of us would be raptured to a new kind of heaven if we could just learn to enjoy watching it.

I edited my post almost immediately, realizing that I was yet another male "standing tall" for porn in rabble/babble's feminism fourm.

And I said I'd stay out unless I was asked about something.

And I did, until I got fuckt-up and was reading, and saw that fellow who calls for the social stigmatizing of pregnant teenagers, deriding calls for regulation of the porn industry.

Having plunged in, I decided to respond to Master Debator by pointing out that this thread is useless because MD and Thalia have created a strawman: The Completely Silent About Porn Left; and used it to write yet another Completely Anti-Porn Screed.

Heph was responding to MD's direct slandering of himself and RB. I believe he would have stayed out of it following his initial derision of the generalizations about porn, gays, and gay-porn.

What I'm typing here (and I totally intend to make this my absolutely last post on this thread) is that the men here have NOT been saying "lighten up." They've said that the original article provides a recipe for censorship, based on a blanket condemnation of porn and the convenient avoidance of the reality and potential of non-oppressive "porn" or "erotica" or whatever you want to call it.

And, for the record, I think there's a danger that the repression of women's sexuality that you spoke of, arising out of the blanket condemnations of this material, a danger for the continued marginalization of "sex workers," as long as we continue to argue that this stuff is iredeemable. By pretending that the Left hasn't tried to articulate a democratic, celebratory "erotica," we shut-off avenues to that possibility and leave the industry to the oppressive types the article rightly condemns.

I said at the very beginning there was a lot of truth in that article, but important stuff was left out.

I didn't tell any women to "lighten-up" and let me watch my simulated rape videos.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yst:
I can't help getting the sense that this anti-pornography argument and its like are essentially based on what comes down to Soviet Socialist Realist aesthetics.

And, frankly, nothing freaks me out more than Soviet Socialist Realist aesthetics. It's the most oppressive artistic outlook one may conceive, while still acknowledging the existence of a thing called art. At least the religious fundamentalists are fairly open about hating free expression and artistic creativity. This outlook which could be synopsised "image and art are mentally unhygenic and socially unacceptable unless they further and exemplify our outlook on power politics" comes down to the same thing as religious fundamentalism ("all expression must be our expression"), but it's a wolf in sheep's clothing, portraying itself as part of a progressvie policy agenda.

---

I wish I'd written that.

In terms of the content of this discussion (attitudes to porn), I don't actually have a "side." In human terms, I identify quite a lot with that long middle stretch of anne's last post, but I've learned a lot from debaters on all sides. I think that it should be possible for lefties to discuss this issue in all its complexities without all the acrimony, and I really appreciate the attitude that Saber took when s/he entered this thread. We should be able to talk like that no matter what "side" we are on.

Like Yst, though, I'm stuck with recognizing and reacting to the underlying forms of argument here, beginning with the underlying logic of the opening post. No matter how conservative -- and indeed, ill-informed -- my personal position is on porn, no matter how very seriously I take the horrifically exploitative trade in sex workers, there is one thing that bothers me more, scares me more, that I know will always lead to the greatest human grief.

What I see developing here is one of the classic splits that have so often riven the left. The "content," or the topic, hardly matters -- it is fascinating to see the split reproduced yet again so spontaneously.

quote:

---

There is no need for the kind of attack you're making. It isn't fair and I don't think it's true in any way.

---

quote:

---

Maybe we really do need to have a woman-only examination of this article. We seem to be faced with a huge split between the genders here.

---

quote:

---

Is it safe to say males do not approach or think of porn the same way women do? Could we look at possible reasons for this?

---

quote:

---

I don't think throwing accusations of homophobia at people who are not making homophobic statements is going to help. Heph, I don't care if you're as gay as a tree full of chicadees, some of what you have written is tacky and I'm a tad surprised you're getting away with it and not being sent to your room for a time out.

---

quote:

---

Large numbers of women object to porn for reasons which I consider to be valid. I'm sure we all object to the horrible abuses heaped on people who work in the cocoa trade, or in the sugar industry... are we to say nothing about it because , after all, we aren't personally being enslaved and brutalized? Are we to sit back and be silent and say "those people" have to liberate themselves and in the meantime...what? We keep eating chocolate bars and drinking cocoa and never objecting to the way the stuff gets to us?

---

quote:

---

I do not want to be the person who has to draw the line between "erotic" and "porn".

---

quote:

---

But I will support anyone who wants to stop violence, degradation and abuse, and I'm sorry, those things are horribly prevalent in the industry which produces the stuff you claim to enjoy watching. Not everyone is enjoying the romp you see on your screen. Not everyone has had a full and free choice about being "employed" in the making of your entertainment.

---

quote:

---

At the risk of personal attack and being deemed a humourless old bitch , your amusement and entertainment rank way down for me. I'll defend your right to be as queer as I am. Hell, you guys can be queerer than I am because I'm probably too tight-assed, strait-laced and repressed to be any kind of example of dyke open-mindedness. I don't like anything which involves whips and chains, I don't like any kind of hooks or piercings, and I really don't like anything which depicts women as just orifices to be stuffed repeatedly. And I don't think the ugliness is any less ugly when a person of the male gender is used in such a way as to suggest he is "female", "feminine", or "lesser" because he's a catcher and not a pitcher.

---

quote:

---

And much of that is present in the stuff you claim to enjoy.

---

quote:

---

I'm not criticizing YOU for enjoying this crap. My criticism is with the people who are making huge fortunes producing this. And my criticism is of the people who are buying this without ever giving any thought to what it is they are buying, what it means, and what it supports.

---

quote:

---

There's this thing called "semiology". It is the science of signs and symbols. I suspect Thalia and some others have a very clear understanding of semiology and I suggest some of the males dominating this discussion don't have a fuckin' clue about semiology.

---

quote:

---

People are trying to develop a vocabulary, are trying to examine their own responses/reactions/visceral feelings. Getting all nasty and telling people to ram stuff up their ass isn't exactly helpful. Some people do not enjoy ass fucking and some people actively object to it because it hurts, and not just physically.

---

quote:

---

You're using your queerness as a weapon, holding it up as if it was the holy grail, something special and lofty to which all should aspire.

---

quote:

---

Well, get over yourself, okay! It isn't ALL about you.

---

quote:

---

I do not give a rodents furry nether portion if you are queer. It ain't a big deal. I'm queer, and that's not exactly a big deal, either. The world isn't going to shift on its axis because I'm an old dyke and it isn't going to shift because you're queer. Jesus, give over with the hissy fits.

---

quote:

---

Can we look at the how and why male response to porn is basically different from female response?

---

quote:

---

Most (not all) women have had to struggle to get over anti-sex conditioning which has been heaped on us from birth. Many of us have had it hammered into our flesh by dominating fists that we must be somebody else's idea of "chaste" and "good". We grew up being warned by damned near everybody that "nice girls don't", being told to be virgins until our wedding night, being told we might not enjoy it but it was his "right"...many of us had to learn even the simple basics of clitoral stimulation on our own, in secret, while feeling we were doing something "bad" and that God can see through the roof and ceiling and knows what you're doing and you're gonna git it, you sinner.

---

quote:

---

Those of us who found any degree of freedom from that kind of repression don't need some man telling us we're not liberated enough! We don't need anybody telling us we're tight-assed and repressed and suggesting all we need is a damned good fuck and we'll be fine. You wanna talk about ramming something up your ass, try ramming some of that.

---

quote:

---

Some of us don't enjoy or even watch porn because, to put none too fine a point on it, we are embarrassed by it.

---

quote:

---

And maybe gay male porn is in some way different. Maybe it IS the holy grail. Maybe the rest of us would be raptured to a new kind of heaven if we could just learn to enjoy watching it.

---

quote:

---

And I would suggest it might help if some of the more rabid defenders of it would look at their own reactions and ask themselves if they aren't speaking from a place of guilt that they have unquestioningly accepted what has been marketed skillfully to them.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
To be fair, that's not the only scam. A couple of others are the men who quote their wives/girlfiends on female subjects, though curiously, we are never priviledged to hear directly from the woman herself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fern hill:
I am a feminist hetero woman and I've had this debate with a gay male friend and we've agreed to disagree because gay porn is NOT like hetero porn.

Here's my simplistic solution to at least part of the problem: make rules and have inspectors enforce them. Like at the end of films with animals (and no, I don't mean to equate porn actors with animals), there's some kind of certification that 'nobody was coerced, threatened, -- more such language -- or hurt in any way in the making of this film'.

When I've had occasion to see it, it makes me very uncomfortable not knowing whether it's consensual, paid properly, all that. Because sometimes, you know, the people don't look all that happy to be doing what they're doing.

---

We all know that it's impossible for us to handle a thread on feminism all by ourselves. We always need male babblers to come and be abusive and insulting to female babblers they disagree with because they just can't help themselves!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:

We all know that it's impossible for us to handle a thread on feminism all by ourselves.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

It was, briefly, a seductive take on the world, demonizing men, absolving women of all responsibilty -- except, of course, for those poor deluded souls who disagreed. They, of course, were obviously either stupid, brainwashed or sell-outs, because if you disagreed, you supported the Demon Men. SImple, irrefutable, and highly comforting reasoning, no?

I celebrated Dworkin's energy and commitment, but never did agree with her conclusions, and became steadily more disenchanted as the years went by. Catherine MacKinnon, on the other hand, I never could abide.

Give me the Patrick Califias, the Suzie Brights, the Hanne Blanks, the Violet Blues of the world. Give me the tough, strong, sensual women -- and men, and genderqueers, and genderfucks, and trannies -- who celebrate desire and sexuality and the mystery of attraction in all its flavours.

The exploitative porn industry stinks. Rape stinks. The wide areas of the world where women and men and boys and girls are forced into sexual slavery are an abomination on this planet. And I have nothing but contempt for the jerks *of both sexes* who consume the results. Sure, more men consume more porn than women do. But it's not just a male thing anymore -- if it ever was.

The anti-porn crusaders who think the Dworkin-MacKinnon law is a solution are sadly deluded. We already have laws on the books regarding abuse, rape, child molestation, slavery. We already have common laws that allow anyone to sue anyone else for battery, intentional infliction of mental harm, etc., etc. We need enforcement. We need support on the international and the national and the local levels, from political and judicial authorities, to work with what we have now to clean up the cesspools.

What we do *not* need is anyone telling us what to think or feel or desire. We do *not* need someone else imposing their definition of erotica versus porn on our thoughts and desires. We do *not* need well-intentioned (and I rather wonder if it is) control of our minds, our bodies, ourselves.

I have many identities. I am a feminist, an activist, a lover, a mother, a wife, an outdoorswoman, a queer woman, a social democrat. No one, NO ONE, tells my brain what to think or watch or read.

The ultimate mistake here is the conflation of "ooh, I think what they're doing is really icky, how could they, that's disgusting, it's all the fault of those nasty men who want to stick their penises in everywhere" with "there are very real social wrongs being committed every day against vulnerable people who are sex workers or slaves, and how can we fix this."

And for once, I am not annoyed by the men playing in the feminist forum. Folks like RB and Heph and Tape got caught in the shrapnel from a large and poorly targeted shell. I think they have every right to make their points -- which I absolutely agree with, but of course that has nothing to do with my saying that IMHO they're welcome in this thread

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: alisea ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Scout, normally I would sympathize with your position, but in this case, I'm with Heph and RB and the other gay men who have posted in this thread. As RB put it, if we want to keep gay men out of the thread, then we'd better shut up about them. They have every right to call people on what they see as heterosexist drivel.

---

It is not their "right" to respond that would concern me, but their manner of response, which is not unique to this forum.

quote:

---

but "porn" is *not* exclusively a "feminist" issue, damn it. I happen to like hot, sweaty gay porn with men doing all kinds of unspeakably delicious things together.

Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

---

quote:

---

In shorter words, if you want to keep fags out of the thread, you shut the fuck up about fags. Not one fucking word.

---

But in this case, I don't think it's over the line. Your quote of Heph is relatively tame (I'm sure I've seen you tell babblers to kiss your ass on occasion), and in this case, I think RB's reaction was justified too even if he worded it pretty strongly.

Basically, we have a thread here, started by someone who has polarized the whole community with her rudeness and condescension, along with MasterDebator, who has had a history of stalking RB around the board even in threads where he hasn't participated, and of writing some pretty heterosexist, if not downright homophobic, stuff on babble. I don't blame RB for losing his temper.

I've tried to stay out of these threads for the last day or two. I even made a pledge! (Which I've now broken. ) I can't speak for anyone else, but it hasn't been RB and Heph who have made me feel like the feminism forum is a hostile place and certainly not a safe place to discuss these issues.

I'm glad that queer men on babble are coming here and telling it like it is to these heterosexist, anti-sex feminists. They certainly don't represent any feminism I would want to subscribe to, or that I would even want to discuss with them.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: josh ]

quote:

---

Funny. I thought it was a thread on porn, Scout, not "feminism". Or the feminist ONLY response to porn?

---

What fucking forum are we in? Did I make a wrong turn?

quote:

---

Anti-pornography feminists get used to insults from the left.

---

I don’t know what would make me have the nerve to think that this might be about feminists and porn.

quote:

---

But then it'd be best to be a bit more selective in the porn that is under discussion, eh?

---

It would have been better for this thread if you had been more selective in the first post then eh?

quote:

---

As RB put it, if we want to keep gay men out of the thread, then we'd better shut up about them. They have every right to call people on what they see as heterosexist drivel.

---

Maybe the “gay men” could have avoided being the first poster in the thread then. Maybe they could avoid hijacking the goddamn thread from the get go by bringing gay porn into in the very first post.

But really it’s the fact that this happens over and over again that is really the problem. Men hi-jacking threads. Maybe the first few post could have been from some of the actually feminists of babble for a change. Men taking over threads that aren’t about them and leaving us no space to change each others minds is getting fucking tired.

The very first post:

quote:

---

Not only is this COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, but "porn" is *not* exclusively a "feminist" issue, damn it. I happen to like hot, sweaty gay porn with men doing all kinds of unspeakably delicious things together.

---

Which poster brought gay porn into this thread first? Who made this thread about something it should have never been about? Maybe if they had stayed the fuck out in the first place.

quote:

---

Also, just for the record, it's certainly not the men who are keeping me out of this thread.

---

Fine. Whatever. I don’t mind going toe-to-toe with other feminists when I think they’re wrong. That’s what this forum is for. And I wouldn’t let them keep me away. But I am not wasting my time in a thread dominated yet again by men, they are posting close to 3- 1 to female babblers. No matter what their fucking self-important excuse is for putting in their 2 cents frankly it’s just a man putting his shit in front of ours again.

quote:

---

I'm glad that queer men on babble are coming here and telling it like it is to these heterosexist, anti-sex feminists.

---

I think that this thread absolutely should be open to people of all gender and sexual orientations.

This is my opinion. I understand that a safe "caucus" envrionment is valuable in some circumstances. I think of it as analogous to trade barriers that protect a country with a small developing economy (or ought to, I should say. THe WTO has pretty much eradicated any barriers protecting any economys but big corporations) . Protectionism has a vital role. Ideology needs time to develop in safe environments.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: josh ]

The point is, that article DID mention gay porn and I think it's unreasonable to post something about gay porn (especially something that gay men consider heterosexist, and I agree with them) and then expect them not to post about it.

I don't think there's a double standard about who gets to educate who about their struggle. When I referred to gay men "telling it like it is" to heterosexist feminists, I meant on issues that directly affect them - like gay porn, which was explicitly mentioned in the article.

I think the main thing that RB and Heph and spatrioter were addressing was the part of the article where gay porn was lumped in with the rest of it. If gay porn hadn't been mentioned in the article (and hadn't been referred to in the past by MD in other threads), they might not have had a leg to stand on - but I think if gay issues are brought up, then gay men have a right to give their input.

I usually don't mind going toe-to-toe with other feminists when I think they're wrong either, but we have been witnessing rudeness, condescension, personal attacks and all the polarization that comes with it. I guess what I was trying to say in my earlier post (and not saying it well) was that if this thread is 3 to 1 men to women, I don't necessarily feel that it is the gay men in this thread who are wholly responsible for chasing the usual feminist participants out.

quote:

---

The point is, that article DID mention gay porn and I think it's unreasonable to post something about gay porn (especially something that gay men consider heterosexist, and I agree with them) and then expect them not to post about it.

---

quote:

---

Which poster brought gay porn into this thread first? Who made this thread about something it should have never been about? Maybe if they had stayed the fuck out in the first place.

---

quote:

---

What business does any man have telling a woman how she should feel about sex?

---

Well, the forum has recently seen two different women telling other women how they should — really more like must — feel about underwear. At that point, I'd say anything goes. I should be able to tell you whether spicy food "really" gives you heartburn or tell you whether or not you really do like a certain author. Once we're OK with seeing into the hearts and minds of others, how and why would we attempt to restrict that?

Also, perhaps it's time to consider a hard (password protected) policy of no men in this forum, ever.

I know (and appreciate) that this forum has certain restrictions which were originally (I'm told) put in place to prevent feminists from having to explain and re-explain and re-explain the need for feminism to malicious troll-types. But increasingly lately posters here have been trying to restrict this forum to females only, rather than its stated policy of "pro feminist", and this seems to have become a big meta-topic on threads.

quote:

---

Everything said about hetero porn applies to gay porn. You can google "Christopher Kendall gay pornography" for more detailed info, but here's the gist:

Instead of breaking down heteronormal gender binaries, gay porn reinforces oppressive sex roles regardless of the actual gender of the participants.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
... like gay porn, which was explicitly mentioned in the article.

---

quote:

---

Oh, and nice little rolly-eye, Josh. That really helps. I'd rather see a stream of obscenities than that stupid passive-aggressive smilie.

---

To each his own. But when they add "fuck" to the instant formatting, let me know.

quote:

---

But guaranteed, when people ask that long-standing, well-founded reasons for anger be checked for reasons of prissy, bourgeois good manners, you're just adding fuel to the fire.

---

quote:

---

But this whole "I only want women to respond to me" thing is a bit controlling, considering the forum already has a policy.

---

quote:

---

But this whole "I only want women to respond to me"

---

Oh, off-topic, but I'm going to respond, because I've been thinking about this for the last while. If the topic really is something central and unique to the condition of women, and that only discussing a woman's experience in relation to the topic would be relevant and realistic, then I don't see a problem of requesting that it be a woman-only topic (although, frankly, it should be obvious from the topic itself). But I think that should be clear in the first post, not several posts later when someone decides there are too many people with penises contributing to the topic (regardless of what they're saying).

I realise men, by nature are dominating and aggressive, but that is not reason, in and of itself, to request that men don't participate.

quote:

---

Oh, I see. So, seeking a degree of civility in a discussion forum is "adding fuel to the fire"? Maybe people with "well-founded reasons for anger" should just be totally exempt from the rules of the forum.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:

A general discussion on pornography is patently NOT solely a feminist issue.

---

No, but given this is the feminism forum, can you not cut it some slack? The first response to Thalia's initial post was a complaint that gay porn was not taken into consideration. The others implied that therefore the article must be 'bunk'. Is that fair?

quote:

---

Should have never been about?!?! 'Coz of course porn has *nothing* to do with gays, right?

Why, how very heterosexist of you, Scout.

---

As it pertains to this thread and this article about straight porn it doesn't have anything to do with gay porn nor should it have.

And if wanting to talk about feminist issues from a feminist perspective in the feminist forum makes me heterosexist then so be it, but I am thinking it doesn't. Nice attack by the way. It was only a little sexist. Not enough to get you in real hot water with anyone.

quote:

---

Well, the forum has recently seen two different women telling other women how they should — really more like must — feel about underwear.

---

I can deal with that here, that’s what this forum is about. Sometimes it can be fun and educational.

quote:

---

But this whole "I only want women to respond to me" thing is a bit controlling, considering the forum already has a policy.

---

and…

quote:

---

And yes, we should all be mature enough to stay out. But you know what, tell someone not to look up ...

---

It would be nice if we at least got to be half the posters in a thread. But it would be really nice if the thread hadn’t become about men. Participate fine. But stop fucking hijacking the damn threads and telling us how to be a feminist, what to talk about and when or name-calling when we don’t agree with you. How about that for starters.

quote:

---

My mistake, sorry. But the point still stands, that if you're going to make a statement like that about gay porn, then you can't really expect gay men not to have input into it.

---

A gay man brought gay porn into a thread about straight porn and feminism. It was a hijack from post one. Why?

quote:

---

A general discussion on pornography is patently NOT solely a feminist issue.

---

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Michelle:
... like gay porn, which was explicitly mentioned in the article.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it was?

---

It wasn't(as far as I can tell). However, the article talked about ALL pornogrpahy as if it involved women, without making distinctions between gay and straight porn. So, by implication, it was criticizing gay porn for harming women.

It's like if there's a clothing company called Smith Sportswear, whose factories are all in Canada. If some labour activist says "all clothing companies exploit sweatshop labour in Asia", he is by implication smearing Smith Sportswear. And I would think it acceptable for someone associated with Smith Sportswear to reply by pointing out that his company does not have factories in Asia.

Of course Smith Sportswear might have other problems, just that exploiting sweatshop workers in Asia isn't one of them.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

quote:

---

But stop fucking hijacking the damn threads and telling us how to be a feminist, what to talk about and when or name-calling when we don’t agree with you. How about that for starters.

---

Well you see, I have had one post in this entire thread and only after it has been derailed. I didn't hijack anything. I have never told anyone how to be a feminist nor has, so far as I can tell, anyone. I haven't told you what you can talk about, or when, and I haven't engaged in name calling. How are you doing on that score?

I mean, forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't the "feminist forum" all about defining what is feminism and who can talk about it and how they can talk about it? Isn't it?

I've read Dworkin, and FOR HER TIME she was incredible. I started to part company with her after reading her book on right-wing women... she made some sweeping generalizations in that book which made me feel she hadn't really had much to do with any. I wrote her about that and we had an extensive letter-exchange but it petered out and I lost touch with her. I've re-read her recently and in terms of today she has become dated, and not always "relevant". But that happens, a writer puts out something which has an impact, and because of that impact some others begin to get active, society changes and the written work no longer applies.

quote:

---

I mean, forgive me if I am wrong, but isn't the "feminist forum" all about defining what is feminism and who can talk about it and how they can talk about it? Isn't it?

---

quote:

---

...Even more ingenious is the trick of the apparent female poster, who, even if she is "real", is still acting in concert with her boyfriend or "lover", and at least some of the time is acting as his agent.

---

I want to address this quote from Master Debator. If I interpret her statement correctly, she is arguing that women (or people who like to appropriate women's voice) will often say that they like participating in porn, and that this is a trick of some kind that plays into the hands of patriarchal ideology.

I have heard this argument many times before. I find it very similar to the argument that Jews who criticize Israeli government policy are "self-hating Jews"

Let us just suppose for a moment that the "woman" who says that she enjoys her role in the skin trade really is a woman and not just some misogynist male pig pretending to be his girlfriend.

Okay, so this person really is a bonified real honest to goodness woman...meaning that...uh...well...we aren't going to attack her right to identify as a woman....okay?

Okay. So this woman says something like, "I really like taking my cloths off infront of men,dancing around to heavy metal music and masterbating against a brass rail. I get off on it." Okay.

If I interpret Master Debator's statement correctly, Master Debator would say that this woman is either a) tricked by patriarchal society or b) playing a trick (I'm trying to us M.S.'s language not make a pun) in collusion with patriarchal society, thereby harming the interests of other women.

I have heard women make statements very much like the hypothetical one I created above. The women I have spoken with who have histories in the skin trade also have lamented about the horrible working conditions that go along with what they do.

This is interesting because most people I know - if they have persued a career they like, will say that they like the essence of what they ostensibly do for a living, but hate their working conditions. As I mentioned earlier, people in the skin trades don't have even basic human rights in this society, let alone decent working conditons. So, I certainly can sympathize with complaints regarding working conditions.

What I find concerning about reference to women playing an,

"even more ingenious trick of the apparent female poster, who, even if she is "real", is still acting in concert with her boyfriend or "lover", and at least some of the time is acting as his agent."

is that reference to this "ingenious trick" impliles that the woman does not mean what she says. Furthermore, it makes a clear association between a woman's expression of her sexual desire and decite, trickery and perhapse some other Biblical evils. This is a dangerous association to make, since women are still fighting a stigma that brands their sexual desire with decite and evil. It is a misogynist equation that gives women virtually no agency to express their desires.

Women have fought very hard to have their words taken literally. Unless a woman implies clearly that she is using irony, I assume that she means what she says.

Oppressive ideologies and systems function partly by denying literal interpretations of what underprivileged people say.

"Well, she didn't really mean that."

Women have the right to say what turns them on and not be accused of deceit!

Personally, I would like to see greater female ownership and control in the porn industry. I've seen websites run by women, featuring women (and sometimes men) that have lit me up for weeks! I was turned on and inspired!

I realized that I hate regular porn for the same reason that I hate most regular media. It's stupid (as well as a whole bunch of hegemonic things that have already been stated).

My final point is this: if we are going to engage in a respectable femenist debate on porn, we must agree on one very pertinent femenist principle.
We must agree to listen to what women say

quote:

---

...Even more ingenious is the trick of the apparent female poster, who, even if she is "real", is still acting in concert with her boyfriend or "lover", and at least some of the time is acting as his agent.

---

I want to address this quote from Master Debator. If I interpret her statement correctly, she is arguing that women (or people who like to appropriate women's voice) will often say that they like participating in porn, and that this is a trick of some kind that plays into the hands of patriarchal ideology.

I have heard this argument many times before. I find it very similar to the argument that Jews who criticize Israeli government policy are "self-hating Jews"

Let us just suppose for a moment that the "woman" who says that she enjoys her role in the skin trade really is a woman and not just some misogynist male pig pretending to be his girlfriend.

Okay, so this person really is a bonified real honest to goodness woman...meaning that...uh...well...we aren't going to attack her right to identify as a woman....okay?

Okay. So this woman says something like, "I really like taking my cloths off infront of men,dancing around to heavy metal music and masterbating against a brass rail. I get off on it." Okay.

If I interpret Master Debator's statement correctly, Master Debator would say that this woman is either

a) tricked by patriarchal society or

b) playing a trick (I'm trying to us M.S.'s language not make a pun) in collusion with patriarchal society, thereby harming the interests of other women.

She is not c) saying what she means.

I have heard women make statements of sexual desire very much like the hypothetical one I created above. The women I have spoken with who have histories in the skin trade also have lamented about the horrible working conditions that often go along with what they do.

This is interesting because most people I know - if they have persued a career they like, will say that they like the essence of what they ostensibly do for a living, but hate their working conditions. As I mentioned earlier, people in the skin trades don't have even basic human rights in this society, let alone decent working conditons. So, I certainly can sympathize with complaints regarding working conditions.

What I find concerning about reference to women playing the,

"even more ingenious trick of the apparent female poster, who, even if she is "real", is still acting in concert with her boyfriend or "lover", and at least some of the time is acting as his agent."

is that it impliles that the woman does not mean what she says. Furthermore, it clearly associates a woman's expression of her sexual desire with decite and trickery.

This is a dangerous association to make, since women are still fighting a stigma that brands their sexual desire with decite and evil. It is a misogynist equation that gives women narrowed agency to express their desires.

Women have fought very hard to have their words taken literally. Unless a woman implies clearly that she is using irony, I assume that she means what she says.

Oppressive ideologies and systems, function largly by denying literal interpretations of what underprivileged people say.

"Well, she didn't really mean that."

Women have the right to say what turns them on and not be accused of deceit!

Personally, I would like to see greater female ownership and control in the porn industry. I've seen websites run by women, featuring women (and sometimes men) that have lit me up for weeks! I was turned on and inspired!

I realized that I hate regular porn for the same reason that I hate most regular media. It's stupid (as well as a whole bunch of hegemonic things that have already been stated).

My final point is this: if we are going to engage in a respectable femenist debate on porn, we must agree on one very pertinent femenist principle.
We must agree to listen to what women say

quote:

---

And I was being general.

---

quote:

---

Sure, and we haven't been doing that in this thread. Or is feminism about men and their porn all of a sudden?

---

So maybe instead getting all in an uproar that men are responding to it, a better course of action is to ask the moderators to move it to another forum.

SuicideGirls Gone AWOL
By Randy Dotinga

A group of angry ex-models is bashing the SuicideGirls alt-porn empire, saying its embrace of the tattoo and nipple-ring set hides a world of exploitation and male domination.

The women are spreading their allegations through the blogosphere, raising the hackles of the SuicideGirls company, which has until now enjoyed a reputation as porn even feminists can love.

According to the site's critics, about 30 SuicideGirls.com models have quit in disgust over the past few weeks. Despite their resignations, their photos remain on the site, minus their ubiquitous SuicideGirls online journals.

Two of the ex-models say they were attracted by the empowerment message, too. "I liked that you had a journal and voice, you had the chance to make your own (photo) sets," said "Dia," a 30-year-old former model who doesn't wish to be identified because she now works outside the porn business in Northern California.

"I looked forward to making great art," added Dia, who has unsuccessfully tried to get her photos off the site.

She and other models say that contrary to its image as a women-run operation, SuicideGirls is actually controlled by a man -- co-founder Sean Suhl. They accuse him of treating women poorly and failing to pay them enough. (According to the site's FAQ, SuicideGirls models get paid $300 per photo set.)

"The only reasons I'm doing this and I'm sticking my neck out is that people, especially females who are 18 years old and want to be a SuicideGirl, need to understand who they're representing," said 28-year-old ex-model Jennifer Caravella of San Francisco, who said she goes by the name "Sicily." "It's certainly not a group of women who are working together for this."

Women don't even control gynecological and obstetric medicince, so female control of the prostitution of female sexuality isn't happening any time soon, if ever. -Thalia

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

Maybe the topic is in the wrong place. Has that entered your mind at all? The thread topic is Pornography is a left issue. Left is a big, wide area that covers a lot of people and a lot of issues. Maybe, just maybe, it really belongs in politics or activism.

---

quote:

---

Anti-pornography feminists get used to insults from the left.

---

Has it entered your mind that it had some relevance to lefty feminists and that we might want to talk about it? It had relevance because a feminist posted it and wanted to talk about it with other feminists hence posting it in the feminist forum. How can that be wrong?

quote:

---

So maybe instead getting all in an uproar that men are responding to it, a better course of action is to ask the moderators to move it to another forum.

---

quote:

---

I believe pornography should be illegal.

This opinion doesn't make me real popular with so-called "First Amendment heroes" like Larry Flynt and Hugh Hefner. But as a pastor of a large church, I have seen the devastating effects of pornography on many families. I think it is high time our citizens get serious about fighting this plague on our society.

A few days ago, the conservative organization Morality in Media, Inc., launched an important new effort to urge state and federal investigators to increase their prosecutions of "illegal hardcore obscenity." This is a great new initiative in the battle against pornography.

I urge families to take these wise words to heart. Pornography is destructive and cancerous. Take extra care to ensure that the plague of pornography does not damage your family. And I encourage families to visit the Morality in Media website to learn how you can make obscenity complaints to federal and state prosecutors. It's time we all get serious in cleaning up our nation.

---

quote:

---

Maybe we don’t want to move it, maybe we wanted to discuss it. It would have been better if the rules of the forum had been respected.

---

quote:

---

Through the course of the next couple of years I came across several men in the Christian music industry who were struggling with this issue—three of whom helped with the making of this CD. I realized then that this is a big problem in the church and not just in the culture. And even though I had never thought of pornography as a personal struggle, I began to examine my own behavior and I did not like what I found. In fact, using Ephesians 5:3 as the standard—“Among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality”—I was able to come up with a list of many ways I too had fallen short. While I had been an active, practicing Christian since I was 23, I had never set a godly standard for my sexual thought life or disciplined my eyes. As a result I looked at images in magazines and movies through the years that I should not have. I began to see how this stole energy and intimacy from my relationship with my wife.

The CD song, “Never Shake His Hand,” refers to never allowing yourself to entertain or play with temptation or evil, in this context pornography. Is it possible for a teen guy in our culture to stay away from it?

Steve: There is no doubt that young men in our culture are dealing with an unprecedented flow of accessible sexual material—even in the seemingly “safe” places. Commercials during football games, PG-13 movies, billboards, magazine ads…it’s everywhere. Current trends in girls’ fashions certainly don’t give guys a break either.

What’s a hot-blooded teenager with hormones raging through his body to do?

---

quote:

---

Joean was a happily married 40-year-old mother when she discovered a new passion -- pornography. Her cable service had just been upgraded. As Joean flipped through the new channels, she found something that both shocked and excited her.

"That was like opening up a door to hell. I opened this door to darkness and debauchery. All of these demons came in," she reveals.

Joean started buying porn videos at pawn shops and went to great lengths to hide her addiction. Every time she bought a video, she peeled off the label and hid it under the front seat of her car. After her family went to bed, Joean watched the video. The next day, she put it in a brown paper bag and buried it in the trash at work.

"It was a secret sin that had me, and I couldn’t shake it loose," she recalls. "It had me by the throat because it had me at the very heart. It was taking over my life, and it was snuffing out the life of Christ in me. It choked the Word and prayer out of my life."

Joean was a devoted Christian and often spoke to large groups about her faith, but even she wasn’t immune to the pull of pornography. Living two lives ultimately cost Joean her joy.

"I was a hypocrite," she admits. "Here I was living for Christ on one hand, and living to love these movies, these videos, the Internet, anything that I could get my hands on. Anything that had to do with pornography I was drawn to. How could I justify it? I couldn’t."

Joean ended up at an adult store she had never been to before and discovered an orgy. When someone asked her to join in, she knew her addiction had gone too far.

"I knew at that point I was at the lowest," Joean explains. "I was dying piece by piece, inch by inch. I was dying."

In desperation Joean prayed, “God, deliver me or take me home because I cannot live this any more."

---

quote:

---

The traditional definition of pornography -- material that is sexually arousing or appeals to prurient interests -- is no longer satisfactory. The critical feature of all pornography is not that it deals with sexual themes, but that it eroticizes violence, humiliation, degradation and other explicit forms of abuse. Churches disagree widely over how we might best cope with the rapid and relentless growth of the pornography industry. One possibility, suggested by religious right groups and the Catholics, is censorship. The mainline Protestant churches, by contrast, have urged education and consciousness-raising.

The debate over the appropriate response to pornography is not limited to the churches. Since women are the most frequent victims of pornography, feminists, too, have debated how to respond to it. The churches can learn from their discussions.

.... I would warn Christian feminists that it would be a strategic mistake to forge an alliance with groups on the religious or political right simply because they, too, oppose pornography.

.... To construct a precise and effective critique of pornography, we must also have a clear idea of what we consider normative sexual expression. Unfortunately, throughout much of its history the church’s views of sexuality have differed little from those of contemporary pornographers. Many Christian thinkers have expressed contempt for human physicality and for women, a contempt that pornographers clearly share.

---

The pleasure of people who use porn is a non-issue. I am unconcerned with anyone's right to consume products of prostitution and very concerned about the methods of production and sexist, violent content of those products. "But it makes my genitals tingly" is not a counter-argument to the extreme amounts of rape, drug abuse, coercion and deceit necessary to keep people in the commercial sex industry.

No one passed a law against minstrel shows where black people painted their faces blacker and acted like stupid animals onstage for the entertainment of racist white people. The racism of minstrel shows was outed through education and through consciousness-raising, and white people stopped demanding them as popular entertainment because they are harmful to black people's quest for equal dignity with white people.

Woman is the nigger of the world, yes she is
we make her paint her face and dance
we make her paint her face and dance

- Yoko Ono & John Lennon

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

Thongs are improper.
Pornography is improper.
Posting articles without commenting on them is improper.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:
I wish you could speak to the subject instead of making personal attacks wherein you cast yourself as the oppressed victim of everyone who disagrees with you.

---

And this boys and girls is what we call Irony

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Imaginations are unruly and notoriously resistant to attempts at control. But our imaginations come from somewhere. Our imaginations may be internal in some ways, but they are influenced by external forces. Can we not have a conversation about those influences? Are we so fragile that our sexual imaginations can’t stand up to honest human conversation? It seems that pro-pornography forces live with their own fear of sex, the fear of being accountable for their imaginations and actions. The defenses of pornography typically revert to the most superficial kind of liberal individualism that shuts off people from others, ignores the predictable harms of a profit-seeking industry that has little concern for people, and ignores the way in which we all collectively construct the culture in which we live.

I have no interest in telling people where there sexual imaginations must end up. But I would like to be part of a conversation about the direction in which we think our sexual imaginations can move.

---

Just a prude? Feminism, pornography, and men’s responsibility

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

Pornography is a left issue
September 28, 2005
by Gail Dines and Robert Jensen

---

From the post that started this thread. Please note the name of the second contributor. Also, what Scout said.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

The defenses of pornography typically revert to the most superficial kind of liberal individualism

---

I think that would be:

"Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;"

So, why is this superficial? To me, it sounds like the basic, non-superficial idea that the state must be prevented from interfering with one's mental autonomy.

I think this gentleman would quite easily dispense with fundamental rights in his quest to excise the naughty bits from our culture.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

I already told you I have never been a prostitute, and I do not work for or give my money to pimps. Pornography users cannot say the same with conviction.

BTW, I love that Jensen article, writer.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

By the way, is it right to want a women-only forum, then introduce arguments written by men?

---

And who has done so? The man had already been introduced with the first post. His arguments had already been introduced. And nobody has somehow magically made this a women-only forum, nor requested it be one, that I'm aware of.

quote:

---

I would encourage any female feminists not wanting a discussion in the feminism forum to be dominated by men - pro-feminist or otherwise - to explicitly request that only feminist women post to a given thread. After so many go-arounds, we should know that, otherwise, we get threads like this one.

Not to say that co-ed threads aren't possible. Just that, sometimes, just sometimes, feminists participating in a feminism forum would like to hash things out by exploring the wide spectrum of feminist women's opinions, experiences, and knowledge.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:

No one passed a law against minstrel shows where black people painted their faces blacker and acted like stupid animals onstage for the entertainment of racist white people. The racism of minstrel shows was outed through education and through consciousness-raising, and white people stopped demanding them as popular entertainment because they are harmful to black people's quest for equal dignity with white people.
[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

---

quote:

---

The defenses of pornography typically revert to the most superficial kind of liberal individualism.

---

Granted, he has a right to have his opinion posted here, as do we all.

But isn't it pretty telling that this guy thinks "liberal individualism" is superficial?

Sorry, I don't buy that. Liberal individualism means that individuals have rights, and that the government may not take them away.

Liberal individualism means that individuals have rights, and that the government may not take them away.

Okay, I'll say it again:

The Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance gives no more powers to government than they already have, it recognizes a woman's right to make her case that a product has harmed her in its making or in being forced on her despite pornographer's claims that every piece of pornography is not actually a "product" but an artistic portrayal of political speech in action. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech that incites to harm, but currently people are not allowed to approach a court with the claim that they were hurt by pornography.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

I already told you I have never been a prostitute, and I do not work for or give my money to pimps. Pornography users cannot say the same with conviction.

---

quote:

---

but currently people are not allowed to approach a court with the claim that they were hurt by pornography.

---

Any lawyer here can feel free to correct me, but my understanding of civil law (in both Canada and the U.S.) is that you can seek civil redress for any harm inflicted upon you.

You can sue someone, for example, because their poorly-maintained lawnmower threw a rock that hit you, or their homemade firecracker damaged your car's paint job, or their dog ran free and bit you.

All you need to be able to do is:

a) demonstrate tangible harm
b) demonstrate that the defendant bears primary responsibility for your harm, and not a more proximate person or entity

If prostitution is so empowering, how come we don't sign up our daughters for Stroll Etiquette 101?

I have never ever seen a radical discussion about porn actually take place online. Within one or two posts, it always erupts into metadiscussions about why it's not ok to critique porn or the production of porn.

quote:

---

Okay, I'll say it again:

The Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance gives no more powers to government than they already have, it recognizes a woman's right to make her case that a product has harmed her in its making or in being forced on her.

---

We must be pretty stupid, I guess, that you have to keep repeating yourself.

But, indulge me. Suppose a woman wins such a case in court. Then, Mr. Sleezy M. Bad says: "I won't pay."

Would "government" be allowed to seize his property and hand it over to the aggrieved woman?

That is so very much not how pornography is really made. Abstract philosophies are not a replacement for the very well documented grotesque realities about the effects of prostitution on prostituted people.

I don't have a problem with the sex in pornography, I have a problem with the sexism in pornography. Like the original article said, "Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare."

quote:

---

The increasing "sexiness" of violence in the media was alarming. The outrage that women felt at seeing themselves displayed as pieces of meat signified that a rebellion against the objectification of women was called for. The problem was that the protests focused attention on particularly horrible images, not the underlying reality that women are treated as commodities by capitalism itself.

---

quote:

---

If prostitution is so empowering, how come we don't sign up our daughters for Stroll Etiquette 101?

---

If honest labour deserves our respect, how come we don't all fervently hope our kids can grow up to be ditch diggers or work the night shift at a Coffee Time Donuts?

quote:

---

The Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance gives no more powers to government than they already have, it recognizes a woman's right to make her case that a product has harmed her in its making or in being forced on her despite pornographer's claims that every piece of pornography is not actually a "product" but an artistic portrayal of political speech in action. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech that incites to harm, but currently people are not allowed to approach a court with the claim that they were hurt by pornography.

---

Well, I'm not a civil libertarian activist, but I'll tell you this. After your judgemental comments on various different threads, I am not prepared to trust anything you say about the Dworkinite canon or feminism. I'll leave that to 'Dadle who has been out in the world a spell, is just as radical as you are, and still agrees with me.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Communism vs. Feminism

A workers' state can begin to lay the material basis for an alternative but it requires time. Religion and the bourgeois family will wither away; they cannot be "smashed" or obliterated through legislation or fiat. Likewise, pornography is reactionary and sexist, but men will not stop using it, or change sexist behavior, because of moral dictates. As class society disappears under the revolutionary workers' state and as the division of labor becomes transformed, the cultural sexism rife among the masses can be successfully fought and will disappear into the garbage pail of history where it belongs.

Any failure to stress the need to overthrow capitalism in order to achieve liberation is also a capitulation to backwardness. As communists we align ourselves with the most oppressed sectors of society and join in united actions with feminists and other reformers for defense against attacks on women and gays. But we state as well that only the socialist revolution can provide a lasting defense and genuine human liberation.

Feminists reject the centrality of the class struggle and the fight against capitalism. The cross-class alliance of all women they call for would inevitably result in the domination by middle-class interests. Having rejected the working class, the one class that has the power to bring about necessary, fundamental changes, even the best-intentioned feminist must capitulate in one way or another to the powers-that-be. That is why the "second wave" of feminism has repeated the history of the first, increasingly calling on the state for protection. The 19th century feminists, in fact, took much longer to collapse into the reactionary "social purity" campaigns; the early movement's longer span reflected an ascending capitalism that could offer a lot more.

---

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

Generally speaking, the category of "torts" is open. That is, you may legally establish a new tort if you can show direct harm to yourself, caused by another.

In practice, though, if you sued me for some non-defamatory statement I made (such as insulting your physical deformities), my lawyer would argue that no such tort exists, or could exist.

A few years ago, Harry Kopyto tried to establish the tort of "racism". He had a client who had been hardmed by racism, someone called him a racist name, and tried to collect.

As I recall, the court said it was very reticent to create a new tort when the speech might be protected by the Charter, and anyway, the damage could not be established. If any, the causation was "too remote."

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
I don't see Thalia answering my question about whether the government would be empowered to enforce these new court decisions.

It's like she just skipped right over that point!

---

Or maybe I have things to do in the real world that preclude me from answering your question within a half an hour's time.

Suppose a woman wins such a case in court.

How would that happen if she's not allowed to bring up the case oin the first place? Linda Lovelace was not allowed to seek damages for being raped to make Deep Throat. Carol Smith said, because I have 36 different [porn companies as] defendants, 90 percent of the lawyers don’t want to touch it. A lot of them say, ‘oh, there’s got to be another case like this.’ If I could find a similar case to mine there would be no problem, but there hasn’t been one. There has not been another woman who’s come back and said, ‘What you did was wrong. You’re going to pay for it and you are going to take my images off of the internet.’

Then, Mr. Sleezy M. Bad says: "I won't pay."

If the pornographer found guilty of raping a woman in order to make pornography doesn't pay the damages he is ordered to pay, that makes him in violation of the law on a charge separate from the charges of rape. That charge would be between him and the court that ordered him to pay, not between the raped woman and the rape profiteer- that charge was settled.

But if a movie everyone knows was financed by Italian organized crime is made by a woman who not only testified in court that she was raped but wrote books about it and passed a lie detector test about it cannot get justice against pimps/pornograhers, who can? Linda Boreman aka Linda Lovelace wasn't allowed to sue her pimps, and there is no precedent in men's laws for suing pornographers that Carol can use to sue her pimps.

we run a serious risk of putting sex lives in the hands of people who don't give a toss about The Sisters, and would like to see them "heavy with child" and cleaning toilet boils with no union support."

People like Linda and Carol, is that who you mean?

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

If honest labour deserves our respect, how come we don't all fervently hope our kids can grow up to be ditch diggers or work the night shift at a Coffee Time Donuts?

Your question is silly.

---

quote:

---

People like Linda and Carol, is that who you mean?

---

No I'm talking about people like Falwell and Phelps, who wheather you admit it or not, are just as powful (and twice as scary) as Hefner.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: Thalia ]

civil liberties are a red herring!?

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Liberal individualism means that individuals have rights, and that the government may not take them away.

Okay, I'll say it again:

The Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance gives no more powers to government than they already have, it recognizes a woman's right to make her case that a product has harmed her in its making or in being forced on her despite pornographer's claims that every piece of pornography is not actually a "product" but an artistic portrayal of political speech in action. The First Amendment doesn't protect speech that incites to harm, but currently people are not allowed to approach a court with the claim that they were hurt by pornography.

---

I'm not sure of the distniction between censorship and lawsuits in this matter. Suppose we found out which environmentalist literature the Unabomber had read while developing his ideology, and gave his vicitms the right to sue the outfits that published those tracts, on the grounds that the Unabomber wouldn't have commited his crimes had he never read them. I don't think too many environmentalists would think that this was anything but an attack on their right to free speech.

Plus, if we can sue pornographers for causing men to abuse women, isn't that kind of saying that the abusers themselves aren't responsible? And wouldn't this be handing their lawyers one more argument for any criminal case? If parents can sue a teacher for allowing their son to be injured while playing in an unsafe manner on the playground, then I would think that the implication is that the child himself shouldn't be held repsonsible for his actions.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: voice of the damned ]

Plus, if we can sue pornographers for causing men to abuse women, isn't that kind of saying that the abusers themselves aren't responsible?

It's not vague like that, there has to be specific, provable connections between the abuse suffered and the porn product alleged to be a party to the suffering.

For instance, the murder of Jane Longhurst as talked about in this UK editorial:

Do we really have a right to view rape?
By Jenny McCartney

"The subject was the Government's new proposals to make it a criminal offence to view images of rape and torture on the internet, and the first speaker was Liz Longhurst, a softly-spoken, articulate 74-year-old woman whose daughter, Jane, had been murdered by the boyfriend of a close friend. The killer's name was Graham Coutts, a man addicted to websites that depicted women being tortured, raped and asphyxiated.

The day before Coutts murdered Jane, he spent 90 minutes looking at images of necrophilia and asphyxial sex. After he killed her, he kept the body in a lock-up and visited it a number of times, also returning to the websites intermittently. No absolute causal link can be established, of course, between Coutts' repeated immersion in these grotesque computer images and his murder of Jane Longhurst: killers such as the Boston Strangler, who sexually assaulted and strangled 13 women in the 1960s, existed long before the internet.

Mrs Longhurst argued, however - very convincingly - that Coutts' discovery of an online community of like-minded fantasists had "normalised" his behaviour in his own mind. Before then, he had been sufficiently troubled by his inclinations to make attempts to seek professional help - afterwards, he became determined to enact them. She proposed that governments attempt to shut down the most acutely violent pornographic internet sites, and "make things difficult" for those profiting from them.

Mrs Longhurst had already made it very clear that she was not out to criminalise non-violent pornography: this discussion was specifically about the sort of sites that Coutts frequented, with unmistakeable titles such as Necrobabes, Hanging Bitches, Deathbyasphyxia and Rapepleasure.

Some of the women depicted on violent pornographic websites - mostly hosted by foreign servers - will have been raped or tortured in reality for the titillation of internet viewers. Others will have technically "consented" to a simulation of rape or abuse, although often in circumstances which make a mockery of consent, such as when desperate for money or drugs or controlled by violent pimps. The essence of such images, however, is that the viewer is led to believe that the woman's consent is withheld.

thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
posted 29 September 2005 07:16 AM

“Heph was responding to MD's direct slandering of himself and RB. I believe he would have stayed out of it following his initial derision of the generalizations about porn, gays, and gay-porn.”

Well, I am afraid not. Heph’s postings were the 2nd and 16th ones in this thread, as you know. And my first posting was the 39th. In that posting, I did reply to Heph, though I did not reply to RB’s comments. I did mention him based on his other postings in the past. I think this also answers Michelle’s points, which are quoted below.

2nd post in thread:

Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
posted 28 September 2005 03:05 PM      

Not only is this COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, but "porn" is *not* exclusively a "feminist" issue, damn it. I happen to like hot, sweaty gay porn with men doing all kinds of unspeakably delicious things together.

Don't like it? Kiss my ass.

16th post in thread:

Hephaestion
posted 28 September 2005 03:45 PM      

Anyway, don't worry, Lagatta... I'm leaving... I've read this type of tiresome heterosexist drivel from Master Debater too many times already... And with that, I'm gone...

30st post in thread:

RealityBites
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718
posted 28 September 2005 07:20 PM      

{Reply to Thalia’s original post:}
“What a fucking load of bullshit.”

31st post in thread:

RealityBites
posted 28 September 2005 07:22 PM      
{Reply to writer’s request}
“ANY thread that discusses gay men I will participate in if I choose to, regardless of what forum it's in or what is requested, particularly when we are being subjected to a load of heterosexist garbage.”

39th post in thread

MasterDebator
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8643
posted 29 September 2005 12:08 AM      

“But most gay men's organizations took a strongly opposing view, and I believe that is reflected in what Hephaestion, with his usual tact and diplomacy, has said in this thread.
Heph is rather like RealityBites in that regard, using his identity as a gay man as a kind of licence to swear at and denounce people and mercilessly ridicule their ideas, and if anyone responds in kind, they are immediately labelled homophobic”

Since then there has been a bit more, including these paragraphs from Heph, Alisea and Michelle:

Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795
posted 29 September 2005 08:30 AM      

“Thanks for the condescension, Anne. But when I read crap from MasterDebator like: "...an issue of sexuality and lifestyle..." and "...His argument too relates to lifestyle and tastes...:, yeah, I'd call that a pretty damn good indication of either homophobia or at the very *least* heterosexism. When's the last time you heard or read anyone referring to the "heterosexual lifestyle"? That "lifestyle" crap is no more than code words for denigrating and belittling queer identity. I've heard it hundreds of times before. and MasterDebator has a past history of bullshit heterosexist assumptions and attitudes on this topic and on this board.”

{Replying to another of Anne Cameron’s points}

“Yet again, you have no idea what I watch, where it is produced, or who is involved. So stow your assumptions, all right?”

alisea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4222
posted 29 September 2005 11:19 AM      

“The breadth and depth of the assumptions underlying Thalia and MasterDebator's worldview and analysis are remarkable. They posit a philosophical and political take on feminism, classism, and gender relations that was wildly exciting 35 years or so ago, when Andrea Dworkin was in the early stages of her painful journey.”

Michelle
assistant babbler
Babbler # 560
posted 29 September 2005 11:41 AM      

“Basically, we have a thread here, started by someone who has polarized the whole community with her rudeness and condescension, along with MasterDebator, who has had a history of stalking RB around the board even in threads where he hasn't participated, and of writing some pretty heterosexist, if not downright homophobic, stuff on babble. I don't blame RB for losing his temper.”

To Heph:

Let me say that I didn’t mean to imply all the baggage you have attached to the word “lifestyle”, rather, I meant that your response was not on the topic of corporate or business control of porn production, but rather had to do with your personal use and enjoyment of the product. In that sense, it would be no different than if I referred to the lifestyles of heterosexual couples who enjoy porn as part of their lifestyle. Your particularization of this term was not intended by me, even if, given other writings elsewhere, that is the signal you received. To the second item, where you state that Anne doesn’t know what you watch or where it is produced, the point that Thalia and I have been trying to make is that everyone, including you, ought to be concerned about who makes it and how. Can you tell us what companies produce the porn you consume? Do you even know yourself? Are they the same companies that produce straight porn {HINT: The factually correct answer is, in many cases, yes. In fact there are some “stars” who cross-over and appear in both.}

To Alisea:

I think you’re about one decade out, in that the MacKinnon-Dworkin combination on anti pornography work dates from about 1980, or 25 years ago, not 35. Maybe that was a typo?

To Michelle:

I am a participant on this forum. I'm a partisan participant on this forum and almost all of the others. (I'm even partisan in the Middle East forum, although I try to be even-handed there when it comes to moderating decisions.) Audra has no problem with me doing so and moderating a couple of forums.

quote:

---

{Reply to writer’s request}

---

Nowhere in this thread have I requested that only feminist women should post. My initial post was indicating that, if feminist women want to have a focussed discussion amongst feminist women that does not get swamped by men, they should explicitly indicate that they want to hear from feminist women exclusively when starting a thread.

Thalia has since said that she did *not* want to make this that kind of thread. Which I have absolutely no objection to.

[ 29 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

quote:

---

Suppose a woman wins such a case in court.

How would that happen if she's not allowed to bring up the case oin the first place? Linda Lovelace was not allowed to seek damages for being raped to make Deep Throat. Carol Smith said, because I have 36 different [porn companies as] defendants, 90 percent of the lawyers don’t want to touch it. A lot of them say, ‘oh, there’s got to be another case like this.’ If I could find a similar case to mine there would be no problem, but there hasn’t been one. There has not been another woman who’s come back and said, ‘What you did was wrong. You’re going to pay for it and you are going to take my images off of the internet.’

---

quote:

---

Then, Mr. Sleezy M. Bad says: "I won't pay."

If the pornographer found guilty of raping a woman in order to make pornography doesn't pay the damages he is ordered to pay, that makes him in violation of the law on a charge separate from the charges of rape. That charge would be between him and the court that ordered him to pay, not between the raped woman and the rape profiteer- that charge was settled.

---

quote:

---

Linda Lovelace was not allowed to seek damages for being raped to make Deep Throat.

---

quote:

---

If the pornographer found guilty of raping a woman in order to make pornography...

---

I'm finding much of this a bit hard to follow, because I'm not sure whether phrases like the above should be taken literally.

Was Lovelace formally forbidden from seeking damages? Are pornographers raping women in the usual sense of the word in order to make movies?

Or is it rhetoric that I should be "converting" to common sense? For example, is it possible that Lovelace was not "forbidden" from seeking damages but rather just was never likely to successfully make her case? Is "raping" being used as some kind of loaded shorthand for "exploiting"?

My admittedly informal understanding of the law is that anyone can seek damages for anything they wish to, but that they may or may not be successful in proving their case.

My admittedly informal understanding of the porn biz, particularly the big "mainstream" businesses that we seem to be talking about, is that they require (and get) signed releases from models, and ensure that they're adults, over 18, who can legally sign such an agreement.

Just because I'm getting really tired of MasterDebator calling RealityBites and I liars when we mention that she has stalked him from thread to thread, tried to pressure him to reveal his real identity, written heterosexist garbage, and debated unfairly by calling people liars when they share different sexual and clothing tastes than her...I have decided to document my claims.

MD, posting heterosexist drivel and stalking RB from thread to thread:

April 21, 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000190
MD, claims that S&M is never consensual, and that people who practice it are misogynist. Then she posts homophobic crap about how “feminized queers” in pornography are degraded due to their subjugated role. I’m sure bottoms everywhere would be thrilled with that analysis! (They clearly are not, and gay men took great issue with this heterosexist crap in the thread.) Then she moves on to Magoo and asks him completely inappropriate questions about what he likes during sex, and claims that Magoo is lying when he said he had a friend who was into S&M. She generalized about all men, claiming that they never talk about sex except to brag about their conquests.

29 April 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004463
MD attacks RB with a snarky remark for no apparent reason and with no provocation.

28 June 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000694
I tell MD that I’m a participant in the feminism forum, not a moderator. (Which she disingenuously “forgot” today in this thread). Not to mention that this is one of those threads where she calls people liars if they say they find certain types of revealing clothing to be comfortable. Also, another RB stalking right out of the blue, even though he had hardly participated in the thread at all except for a couple of funny posts, and those posts were at the beginning of the thread, and written more than two weeks before her jab at him at the end of the thread.

6 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004698
A weird reference by MD, taken together with her reference on September 20 (below), that she thinks “fake” babblers are being made up in order to be banned right away.

7 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004712
MD’s first post to the thread is another “out of the blue” stalking – she takes a jab at RB, and insinuates that he gets special treatment because he’s a “special insider”, even though he had done nothing noteworthy in that thread up to that point.

11 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004706&p=
MD’s first post to the thread is an attack on RB, after RB got pissed off at a right-wing troll who suggested that same sex marriage is not a human rights. It’s okay to spew homophobic crap, but not okay to tell a homophobe who does it to “fuck off”, apparently.

13 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004723
MD tries to “out” RB with a weird conspiracy theory about RB and the CBC, and then whines when he tells her she’s full of it.

7 days later, 20 July 2005, in the same thread, MD again alludes to RB and his supposed CBC connection, at which point he tells her to fuck off and quit stalking him around the board.

16 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=000788
Another thread where MD comes in and makes a derisive comment about RB out of the blue, without his even having entered the thread at that point. He tells her yet again (in a rather colourful post) to quit stalking him.

31 July 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=004768
MD enters the thread, asks No Yards whether it’s his “full time job” to listen to the Grewal tapes. Then she starts up with RB, again insinuating that he works for the CBC and pressuring him to reveal his employment. I warn her for interrogating posters who prefer to remain anonymous. And yet, she continues to do so, and make insinuations about people (including a snarky remark about someone possibly being “unemployed”) until the end of the thread.

3 August 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001678
MD’s first post to this thread is yet another stalking - a gratuitous jab about RB, after he attacked a homophobic troll (who got banned in the same thread) and after I asked RB to send me a PM if he has a problem with someone. Her post came well after the fact, had nothing to do with the thread, and was posted a week after the incident occurred with many posts between in the meantime. It was pure shit-stirring.

9 August 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=008091&p=
MD enters the thread and out of the blue starts up by stalking RB with more CBC conspiracy theory accusations.

21 August 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000370
MD yet again stalks RB – her first post to the thread is a denunciation of RB, even though he has said nothing to or about her in that thread. He reacts in a characteristic manner and tells her – yet again – to quit stalking him. Then she calls him a liar, even though this very thread is another instance of it.

28 August 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000750
In this thread, MD claims that consensual S&M is abusive and makes fun of sexual violence, despite several people in the thread confiding that they either enjoy it or have in the past. And she suggests that the only way sex toys are “useful” is in order to rape and abuse women with during gang rapes.

13 September 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000392
MD’s first post in the thread is an attack on RB out of the blue. He then accuses her of posting “heterosexist crap” and “stalking” (which are supported by the links above), and she claims she did neither of those things as he “well knows”. Even though her first post to the thread was yet another example of it. She gets warned by Audra to stop doing it or she’ll be booted.

20 September 2005
http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=36&t=000398
Another weird little interlude where MD makes up some weird conspiracy theory about how it looks like a “set up” that there are sometimes trolls who come along for a couple of days and then get banned on purpose.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevPhoenixunleased:
I actually agree with that. The S&M community has a saying: harm but don't hurt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Okay, here we go.

---

That's quite a file you've been keeping, RB, ... er, ... I mean Michelle. If you and audra choose for whatever reason to buy into RB's complaints, which are totally fake, there's nothing I can do about it.

Michelle, you still haven't explained to me why you buy RB's story line, nor have you in any way explained your own dishonesty in this thread itself, where you again falsely claimed I was hassling RB. I pointed out to you that Heph named me and ridiculed me before I had even posted here, yet you persist in making the false and misleading claim that I have been somehow pursuing RB.

How is arguing with RB, who insults everyone freely, or complaining about his outbursts, "stalking" him? I haven't kept a file of all the gratuitous insults I have endured from him, I don't have the bloody time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:

I don't have a problem with the sex in pornography, I have a problem with the sexism in pornography. Like the original article said, "Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare."

Why don't you good men who love women get angry at the pornographers calling women these terribly sexist, degrading names?

---

I find myself extremely cynical about any argument which comes down to "Why aren't you more upset?" The answer is, because being upset doesn't achieve anything in and of itself, without any sort of follow-through. I've stated earlier in this thread that you seem to be full of rhetoric and completely devoid of any genuinely useful or productive intentions regarding how to act upon all the fervour of which you seem to be possessed and of which you'd like to possess all of us in turn. If someone tells me, "get angry, it's time to start a revolution" at least I know where they're coming from and where they're going. If someone tells me "get angry, it's time to, well, to be distraught" on the other hand I'm somewhat more critical of what the purpose of their rhetoric is. There are a great many things to be distressed about in this world. But without a plan of action, fretting over them really is for naught.

quote:

---

Why don't you write letters explaining you will boycott them unless they stop taking pictures of lovely young woman and captioning them "Dumb Asian Teen Whore Party #12" and "Cumguzzling Cunts Gagging on Cock #14"?

---

Ah, and here we have some sort of gesture towards a plan of action, which I do appreciate. In my case, the answer would be, well, because I have never purchased straight porn so far as I can recall, and so I doubt my boycott would carry much force in this regard. And whether you like it or not, this liberal democracy wherein we dwell does not provide for the right of an interest group to control the content of media for which they are not the apparent audience, save in a case of incitement through hate speech. If you believe "Dumb Asian Teen Whore Party #14", presuming it or something like it exists, constitutes hate speech or incitement of any other kind, then you or others interested in taking action on this particular issue certainly have every right to pursue such legal action, which I would in that case support, but otherwise, we simply can't expect to be able to censor everything that we find insulting. And there is a very, very large difference between incitement and insult. I find about half of the Hip Hop chart-toppers to which I have been exposed over the last few years to be deeply insulting and offensive towards women and frequently towards the gay community. But, frankly, under no circumstances can I claim to be the audience for those songs. If I considered a lyric to which I am exposed (though to be honest, I virtually never have occasion to hear rap and hip hop, so this is somewhat hypothetical) to constitute open incitement towards acts of, say, gay-bashing, for example, I would support legal action against the purveyor of hate-speech. But that's the limit of my perceived right to limit the speech of this community of which I am not a part, from my point of view.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Yst ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:
[QB]That's quite a file you've been keeping, RB, ... er, ... I mean Michelle. If you and audra choose for whatever reason to buy into RB's complaints, which are totally fake, there's nothing I can do about it.

---

I haven't been "keeping" it. I spent a little while last night with google and notepad.

quote:

---

Michelle, you still haven't explained to me why you buy RB's story line, nor have you in any way explained your own dishonesty in this thread itself, where you again falsely claimed I was hassling RB.

---

It's hilarious. I even list the threads individually, with explanations for each, and you're still all, "why do you say I'm hassling RB?"

Whatever. I'm not going to start pulling quotes out of them. Just finding them last night was work enough, and I probably wasted WAY too much of my time even doing that. People can look at the threads and judge for themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Also: I'm not RB, but nice conspiracy theory (you're good at making those up!).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Unfortunately Thalia is incapable of getting over the little rhetorical trick that she thinks is so clever: hairsplitting about the nature of the litigation in question. The purpose of the litigation is to control the flow of ideas she believes (and may actually be) harmful. Consequently every argument she makes amounts to an argument in favour of a form of blanket censorship. Even though it technically uses a more indirect mechanism.

Until she's willing to acknowledge that, I'm not sure that this discussion can go any further. But I think she also realizes this, because she just said that she's finished preaching to her choir.

---

Right. On.

Or, as votd put it:

quote:

---

I'm not sure of the distniction between censorship and lawsuits in this matter. Suppose we found out which environmentalist literature the Unabomber had read while developing his ideology, and gave his vicitms the right to sue the outfits that published those tracts, on the grounds that the Unabomber wouldn't have commited his crimes had he never read them. I don't think too many environmentalists would think that this was anything but an attack on their right to free speech.

Plus, if we can sue pornographers for causing men to abuse women, isn't that kind of saying that the abusers themselves aren't responsible? And wouldn't this be handing their lawyers one more argument for any criminal case? If parents can sue a teacher for allowing their son to be injured while playing in an unsafe manner on the playground, then I would think that the implication is that the child himself shouldn't be held repsonsible for his actions.

---

That's my sticking point too, and like Mandos, I find MacKinnon's fancy footwork in conceiving of and advocating such a law utterly dishonest, reprehensible, opportunistic, dangerous, threatening, nightmarish.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thalia:

I don't have a problem with the sex in pornography, I have a problem with the sexism in pornography. Like the original article said, "Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare."

Why don't you good men who love women get angry at the pornographers calling women these terribly sexist, degrading names? Why don't you write letters explaining you will boycott them unless they stop taking pictures of lovely young woman and captioning them "Dumb Asian Teen Whore Party #12" and "Cumguzzling Cunts Gagging on Cock #14"?

---

Because that how alot of people talk in real life and not just men.

I know a guy who told me a story about his girlfriend. She was having sex with a previous boyfriend when she said "do you want to fuck your bitch" or something to that effect.

His reply was that she wasn't a bitch, she was a nice person. She laughed at him and dumped him soon after.

She was cought up in the moment, getting off on being "nasty?", the fact that people like you Thalia are disgusted by it only made it more exciting and taboo for her, and he ruined it by confusing real life for sexual fantasy.

Just because she calls herself a slut, bitch whatever, doesn't mean she thinks she really is or the she has low selfesteem, it just a fantasy to adding passion, excitement, a piece of the forbidden, and way to make it more raw.

I know folks are pretending that what you're saying is over their head...but in reality they are strongly convicted by your analysis. That's why their responses are so reactionary.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RevPhoenixunleased:

I know a guy who told me a story about his girlfriend. She was having sex with a previous boyfriend when she said "do you want to fuck your bitch" or something to that effect.

---

And once again putting aside pornographic portrayals of impossible circumstances in favour of discussing the way things work in the real world, what needs to be understood in this sort of context is that, as I argued in a previous thread on this topic, the pretense of dominance/control/exploitation in a fantasy context such as this and the reality of dominance/control/exploitation in a relationship context typically do not intersect in modern fetishism, even if such fetishism is practiced within a relationship which considers itself to be conventional and not at all kinky (and I'm here using 'fetishism' in the most incredibly general sense).

This is for a very good reason: if fantasy and reality are to be kept separated and safety and comfort, both psychological and physical, are to be ensured for both parties, the simplest and most surefire way to ensure this remains the case is to have the bottom, or the sub, or whatever you want to name them effectively call all the shots. This is somewhat obvious, but it bears restating, given the hyperbole which is getting thrown around here regarding sexual practices. And this is as true for basic sexual intercourse as it is for everything up to full out SM.

I really do think it is worth restating: sexual fantasy and sexual power politics do not necessarily align in any way. And typically, in my observation, their relationship is reversed out of practicality in real world practice. So when I see someone asserting that these fantasies being portrayed in het porn necessarily lead to their application in real world sexual power structures by inspiring male delusions of innate sexual dominance, I really have a hard time believing it without some further evidence which isn't to the contrary. Those I've known who actively engage in fantasies of sexual dominance largely do so in a way which if anything divorces those fantasies from genuine relationship power politics all the more than they would otherwise be, simply because that's the only practical way to manage it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Audra knows this because she (and about 40 or 50 other people on babble) have either met me or know me personally, in real life. But nice try, though!

---

Ah, but Cynthia, none of them have met me, have they? None of them (except Audra) even know my email address and the IP headers on that only prove I live in TORONTO, the very centre of the universe where you claim to live too!

P.S. Are you sure you're not Wendy Mesley? I was married to her too.

I've noticed, by the way, that one or two babblers (I forget who) have H0H 0H0 listed as their postal code. Will MasterDebater start accusing them of being Santa Claus?

No doubt they did it for the same reason I put in M5W 1E6, a reason that is perfectly obvious to all but the most willfully dense twits - I didn't want to put in my real postal code so instead chose one that everyone who cares about such things would realize isn't my real postal code! M5W 1E6 isn't even a real physical location! It's just the code for Box 500, Station A in Toronto, which doesn't actually exist. I'm pretty sure the CBC doesn't send Timmy the mail boy down to the post office every morning to pick up the mail.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: RealityBites ]

quote:

---

none of them have met me, have they?

---

Heh. Heh. Heh.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Ah, but Cynthia, none of them have met me, have they? None of them (except Audra) even know my email address and the IP headers on that only prove I live in TORONTO, the very centre of the universe where you claim to live too!

---

Hmm. I'll have to rethink this one. Maybe hire someone to go to a babble meet up and pretend to be you. Yeah, that's it - then no one will suspect that we are really one and the same!

quote:

---

Just because I'm getting really tired of MasterDebator calling RealityBites and I liars when we mention that she has stalked him from thread to thread, tried to pressure him to reveal his real identity, written heterosexist garbage, and debated unfairly by calling people liars when they share different sexual and clothing tastes than her...I have decided to document my claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scout:
Why don't you take it up with Audra like the rest of us Michelle? What is your point with this? Frankly she hasn’t behaved any worse than RB/Newbie so I don’t know what you playing at but it stinks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Hmm. I'll have to rethink this one. Maybe hire someone to go to a babble meet up and pretend to be you. Yeah, that's it - then no one will suspect that we are really one and the same!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:
Keep up the good work, Thalia.

I know folks are pretending that what you're saying is over their head...but in reality they are strongly convicted by your analysis. That's why their responses are so reactionary.

I'm looking forward to seeing a leftwing and feminist critique of abortion. I think the comments generated by such a critique will be just as revealing.

---

Huh? I realise USians have a hard time coming to grips with issues that require social compromise, since you're buffeted, on one side, by absolute statements about freedom of speech and on the other, by absolute statements about right and wrong and "morality", and that the two sides are locked in an eternal struggle of war and mutual punishment, but I wonder just how helpful all of this to a debate on a Canadian forum.

quote:

---

From: Heph's Best Friend! H*ll Yeahhh!

---

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: faith ]

quote:

---

Why drag down three or four different threads because you have to be seen to be right? How tedious.

---

quote:

---

I have seen MD stubbornly stick to her opinion and a babbler accuse her of calling his wife a liar( a wife who is not here on rabble) but I didn't realise that sticking to your argument was an offense on babble, in that case I see a lot of bannings in the future.

---

That babbler was me, and of course my wife is Mrs. M., who I've mentioned dozens of times.

And strictly speaking, "sticking to one's argument" is not an offense on babble, in the sense of a banning or warning, but if the argument to which you're sticking is patently absurd, it could be offensive.

And to suggest that she didn't call my wife, and several female babblers, liars is disingenuous. At best.

When you insist that something someone says is not true, isn't that calling them a liar? I mean, isn't that self-evident?

And of course the biggest absurdity was that we weren't discussing facts, like which country has the highest annual rainfall, or who won the World Series in 1968. We were discussing women's individual opinions of thongs.

Wouldn't you agree that the very best person — actually, the only person — who can meaningfully talk about what you find comfortable is you?

Isn't that self-evident? Seriously, faith, is that not self-evident??

How someone could steadfastly insist that someone else's experience is false is beyond me.

Why you'd be so stupid as to defend that is also beyond me. Is it really necessary to deny women's lived experiences in order to make a point? Could she not have made the point without having to make absurd, blanket statements about things you cannot possibly know?

And in case you think the lynchpin of this is that my wife isn't a babbler, note that several other women, women who are babblers, made the same claim my wife did and similarly had their lived experience denied — smugly — by Thalia. Do you really think it's a good thing when women's experiences are denied, outright, in the feminism thread?

Leave all men and all non-babblers out of it and you're still left with a babbler, in the feminism thread, telling real, intelligent, capable women that what they think is comfortable is not, and that they're therefore lying. I know, I know. It was done without needing to use the word "lying". "Lying" is such an ugly word. Better to just insist that their claims aren't true! That sounds better, eh?

quote:

---

Originally posted by MasterDebator:

I see you have decided to reply in characteristic tone. Nothing like keeping up traditions, eh Heph?

May I suggest that you cram this angy tone of your up your tightly clenched ass? Or would that be improper of me?

I have been neither heterosexist nor homophobic in discussing this issue, or others, as you well know. This repeated accusation is just a fabrication, and one that you and RB are found of using on anyone you disagree with. As my son says, "It really sucks the big one."

---

ROFL.

You go MasterDebator! Give Heph the H*ll he deserves! I can't stop laughing...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:

Straight up....Heph can just about be regarded as little better than a troll.

------------------------------
From: Heph's Best Friend! H*ll Yeahhh!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Alan Avans also claims to be Heph's best friend. What's that all about?

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: writer ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Avans:
However, in Heph's imaginary world any fence-sitting or pondering upon the issue of SSM is prima facie evidence of homophobia. When I conceded, to Heph no less, that perhaps SSM is a civil rights issue.

---

And "perhaps" you're a human being with rights equivalent to mine.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

Is referring to a babbler sarcastically in one's "From" line not trolling? I find it hard to keep track, since anti-gay bigots are exempt from so many of the rules.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RealityBites:

And "perhaps" you're a human being with rights equivalent to mine.

But until you can convince me of that, fuck you.

---