I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe (poss. trigger)

Got something to share with the reading public that isn't an action but should be read?

Moderators: delphyne, oneangrygirl, deedle, sam

I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe (poss. trigger)

Postby sam » Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:42 pm

Since she became the editor it's been one "Why women have a right to use prostitutes" article after another. It makes me ill. Then these feminists whine about how wrong it is for Newsweek and Washington Post writers to say that thirdwave feminism is pro-pornography. How much respect would you have for a person who says they're a peace activist but they're not against war itself, just the bad wars?

Today I see there's the double-whammy of a kick to radical feminists with not only this latest installment of the ongoing john's rights series but with an editorial by transwomen Helen G. that purports to be about how radical feminists hate transwomen that gives examples of overt anti-trans prejudice perpetrated by people who are clearly not feminists, radical or otherwise.

http://www.thefword.org .uk/features/2008/01/against_censors
sam
chaotic good
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:54 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:15 pm

sam wrote:How much respect would you have for a person who says they're a peace activist but they're not against war itself, just the bad wars?


Confusing, huh? :?

So-called "left wingers" and so-called "feminists": All they say is bullshit.

Plus whenever they criticize radical feminists, they cannot even quote one part of their works properly: they (1) quote parts of rad fem books or articles that have been put in a certain context (in the original source), either that or they (2) falsely quote things that rad fems have never said nor will ever say...

The latter case (2) occurs more often than the former (1), in fact!

So long as "left wingers" and so-called "feminists" are behaving and thinking like that, instead of considering opening their minds to radical feminism (which is TRULY PROGRESSIVE AND TRULY LIBERATING FOR BOTH WOMEN AND MEN -- so if they don't open their minds to it, that's their miserable loss :P ), then they are not any better than right wingers... :evil:
Last edited by MaggieH on Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:31 pm

From the link that Sam gave ( http://www.thefword.org .uk/features/2008/01/against_censors ):

Porn should be reformed...
Fundamentally, porn itself – the explicit representation of the human body or sexual activity with the goal of sexual arousal and/or sexual relief –is not harmful. What grates is that so much of the porn that is being produced and disseminated is so very, very dire. Much of the contemporary porn available is tacky, limited, demeaning, badly executed, badly scripted and – often, but by no means always – exploitative to those that participate in its production and consumption. It is the type of pornography that is saturating our culture that is harmful, not porn itself.


What a lot of HORSESHIT!!! :angryfire:

"Originally, pornography does not mean "depiction of sex." Absolutely not. The word "pornography" derives from the ancient Greek "Porne" and "Graphos". "Porne" means "whore", but a specific type of "whore". "Graphos" means "writing." Too often when they try to describe the origins of the word, dictionaries translate pornography as "writing about harlots" or "depiction of prostitutes" in a simplistic way. In Ancient Greece, there were different classes of harlots. The prostitutes called "pornai" or "porneia" were found at the bottom of the scale. They were the cheapest "whores". They were the slaves of pimps who held them captive in brothels (sources: "Prostitution in Ancient Greece" at answers.com / ancienthistoryhelper.com.au / Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin). Thus, to give an accurate translation of "pornography" it is the "graphic depiction of the lowest whores" or, more exactly, the "graphic depiction of women as being the lowest type of whores", but "graphic depiction of female slaves" or "graphic depiction of the female slaves being sold for prostitution" can still be understood as appropriate translations...

...It is true that there have always been different types of sexual representations throughout history but to say that they have all been pornography is simplistic and diversionary. It is true that pornography can be traced back without difficulty as far as Ancient Greece in the west, but the word "pornography" also refers to the writing, etching, or drawing of women who, in fact, were kept in female sexual slavery in Ancient Greece (C. MacKinnon and A. Dworkin, in D. Russell Ed, Making Violence Sexy; 1993). "The influence of pornography on men who rule societies, and thus on the development of misogynist social institutions, can be traced back through feudalism, but it is only through relatively recent technology that the social environment has been glutted with pornography so that it hurts women openly, publicly, and with social legitimacy. This same pervasiveness and open availability have also made it possible to understand and document the effects of pornography, hence its place in the institutionalization of second class citizenship for women, for the first time in history." ("Memo on proposed ordinance on pornography, December 26, 1983"; In Harm's Way: The Pornography Civil Rights Hearings; 1997). There have been many sexual representations in art and literature in history but not all of them have been pornography. Besides, the contemporary pornography industry isn't a form of art but of exploitation. In a patriachal and capitalist society, the pornography industry is only interested in making a profit with images that exploit sexuality rather than explore it...

...the word "pornography" (derived from the Greek words "Porne" and "Graphos") originally means the "depictions of the lowest whores" (see my "Definition" section on this website) so pornography cannot be changed no matter how much some "feminists" are trying to change it. It will always be misogynistic and it will always be the representation of women as being "the lowest type of whores". As for the so-called feminist porn, it doesn't change from the domination-subordination dynamics of the heterosexual male-targeted pornography. Consider one title for instance: "O the Power of Submission" by Nina Hartley. "Feminist porn", "porn for women", or "porn for couples" are just cheap attempts by pornographers at marketing pornography to women and making more money. "

-- From my website http://www.againstpornography.org/
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby Laura » Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:43 am

Hi Sam,

I don't know if you also read the blog at The F Word, but I have repeatedly blogged against prostitution and sex trafficking there. The F Word does not have an editorial line, it is simply a place where ALL feminists are welcome to air their views. Jess does not necessarily agree with every article that is published, and I can tell you for sure that all the bloggers are not in agreement on all issues. If there have been more articles that do not wholeheartedly condemn porn recently (I can only see Abby's Anna Span article and the latest one you quote, though) that is simply because women have chosen to write on this subject recently. UK anti-porn feminists are equally welcome to write articles for the site.

I agree with you that it is both lazy and dishonest to point the finger at 'rad fems', as is in the trans article. Again, this is a reflection of the writer's own tendency to generalise (and rely on wikipedia by the look of it) than any editorial bias against radfems.

Wrt to Maggie's comments on the porn article - most people generally categorise 'pornography' in the way the writer does. I know that this is not the correct etymological definition of the word, but I think if we are to engage with the general public on this issue it makes sense to take 'porn' in the sense the writer outlines, because if you say you are 'anti-porn', most people will take that as meaning that you are anti 'depictions of sexual activity designed to sexually arouse' rather than against the sexualisation of abuse and violence against women. So, by reframing the argument as one of tackling degrading, anti-women porn and promoting egalitarian porn (not an oxymoron if 'porn' is used in the sense most people take it to mean) the writer makes the argument against porn as promotion of and actual violence against women more accessible to the general reader. Whether you agree with her on her stand on censorship and the possibility of creating feminist porn (erotica, if you prefer) is another matter.

Laura
Laura
 

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

There is NO "good porn" and "bad porn", the whole fucking pornography is bad! There is NO way of changing it and once someone (even "the general reader") understands patriarchy, capitalism, and the feminist critique of pornography (see https://www.againstpornography.org/ ), one cannot deny the fact that the whole pornography itself is inherently bad!

As radical feminist Rebecca Whisnant said, in a talk delivered at the conference “Pornography and Pop Culture: Re-framing Theory, Re-thinking Activism” in Boston MA, on March 24, 2007:

... I visited some classes and gave an anti-pornography slideshow in the evening to a large and receptive audience. During the question-and-answer period that followed, a young woman raised her hand. Clearly troubled by what she had heard and seen, she asked, “Well, what if we all just get together and tell the porn industry that this isn’t what we want -- that we want something more complex, more diverse, less hateful and one-dimensional? Wouldn’t they have to change their ways and give us what we want?”

There are many assumptions lurking in this query that we would do well to challenge, but what I want to highlight is the faith that’s being shown in the wonders of the capitalist marketplace. To this very bright, progressive, feminist young woman, here in this bastion of liberal-to-radical politics, it seemed plausible to think that -- in this connection at least -- the market will solve all of our problems. Now in making this assumption, there is something important that she fails to understand, namely that the cultural products of mega-corporations are much more like advertising than they are like art. When powerful and profit-hungry entities go hunting for market share at any cost, what those entities will produce and sell is whatever gets the most people in the gut the fastest and makes them want more of that now. This will never be equality. It will never be complexity. It will never be anything thoughtful or meaningful or reflective. Not ever.

Let me share one more anecdote from Alt College that will help me go a bit deeper with this idea. That afternoon, I had visited the Gender Studies senior seminar course to talk with the students about feminist politics and pornography. At one point in the discussion, a young woman raised her hand, and here is what she said: “Well, these days things are different. People in my generation want sexuality to be an important part of their lives; they want to be free and open with their sexuality. So that’s why they want to make and use pornography.” There’s a sweet kind of humor here: every generation thinks it invented sex! But more relevantly for our purposes, there are two massive assumptions underlying this young woman’s comment, both of which we need to challenge whenever we see an opening to do so.

The first assumption is that, for some experience or activity to be important, real, and considerable, it must be made into an image: take a picture, roll video, turn on the webcam. As Gail [Dines] is fond of pointing out, we live in an image-based culture. Everything has to be made into an image, and we derive our conception of who and what we are largely from the images that surround us. But here is a question: when you are doing something -- virtually anything -- are you more or less free in doing it when you know someone is watching? What if they’re taking pictures? What if they’re going to show those pictures to a whole bunch of people you don’t even know? (Are you feeling free yet?) For instance, do you dance crazier and more freely when you’re by yourself in your bedroom, or out at the nightclub when your image is being projected on the big screen?

The second assumption underlying this young woman’s comment is that, for some experience or activity to be important, real, and considerable, it must be made into a commodity (that is, bought and sold). But here is another question: when you put some activity into the marketplace -- that is, you decide to sell it instead of just doing it -- does that make you more or less free in doing it? For instance, suppose you like to make music. Up until now it’s been a hobby, something you do in your spare time, but now you’ve decided that you want to get signed with a major label. All of a sudden you’re not free to make any old kind of music you want, are you? Now it’s “What do they think they can sell? What’s in vogue this week, and are you it, and if not, can they make you into it?”

So we face a bizarre phenomenon in many discussions of pornography, in that it’s only with respect to sex that many otherwise progressive and leftist people assume that putting something into the capitalist marketplace makes it more free (or is evidence that one is free in doing it). We need to find ways to challenge the naïve and regressive conceptions of freedom as the freedom to enter the marketplace and/or to choose among the options that the marketplace offers us. We need to suggest to people that -- in many everyday contexts, but perhaps especially for the most intimate and potentially-creative activities of our lives, like sex and sexuality -- real freedom in that activity means neither selling it nor letting somebody with a profit motive tell us what it is supposed to look and feel like.

My final suggestion this morning is one that’s been made before, and that is that we need a vision of alternatives. The makers of ostensibly-feminist porn claim to be providing such a vision, and that’s why their message is appealing to many: we sense a need for alternatives, and that need is real, but more commodified images isn’t it (and particularly not the ones they’re giving us). But it is true that our side needs to be more than just, as Dworkin once aptly put it, “the morbid side of the women’s movement.” There’s something to that, inevitably, and rightly so: there is no way to face down the industries of sexual exploitation without confronting some very ugly realities. We must not flinch from that task, and we must continue to find ways to help others face those realities without dying inside. But we can’t just be “Atrocities R Us.” We have to give people (including ourselves) some inspiration and some room to move. This is a tall order and I’m almost out of time, but in closing, here are three quick ideas for moving in this direction.

First, note the connection to my point about withdrawing from the market. To open up the space for new thinking and experimentation, we need to detox, to get out of the path of the porn culture’s cynical, manipulative, and hateful messages. To start thinking our own thoughts and dreaming our own dreams, first we have to get away from the bastards who are shouting at us through megaphones. Second, we need to draw on our own experiences of love and sex as joy and communion (and encourage others to draw on theirs). As radical feminists have long emphasized, patriarchy constructs our sexuality very profoundly, and even the most enlightened among us are not immune to that construction. But the construction, for most people at least, does not go “all the way down.” Despite everything, many people do have experiences of mutual and egalitarian sexuality -- or at least hints or glimmers of it -- and that’s really good news. We need to encourage people to tap into these experiences, hints, and glimmers -- to remember what they know from their own lives, that no pimp or corporation sold to them or ever could, and to want more of it.

Third and finally, as we continue to tell people what sexual freedom isn’t, we should also encourage them to think deeply and creatively about what it is. What would real sexual freedom look and feel like -- the kind that everyone can have, instead of the kind that amounts to freedom for some at others’ expense? We need to richly imagine, and encourage others to richly imagine, another world: one in which no woman or girl is ever called “slut,” “prude,” “bitch,” “cunt,” or “dyke”; in which no woman, man, or child ever has to fear rape or suffer its damage to their spirits; in which men do not control their own and other men’s behavior by the threat of being seen and treated as women; and in which lesbian love and connection is not reduced to a pornographic fetish for men. In this world, every woman and girl sees her own body as beautiful, no man or boy is made to see his as a weapon, and people take part in sexual activity only when (and only because) they expect to enjoy it and to be honored and fulfilled therein. It can be painful to think in this way, because we become more acutely aware of just how far away we are from this better world. But the third wave has one thing right: desire can be, or can become, a form of power. We need to use the power of our desire for this world -- our desire to bring it into being for ourselves and for our children and our grandchildren -- to unite us and to animate our thinking and strategizing about how to take our culture back from the pornographers.


-- https://www.againstpornography.org/femi ... lture.html
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby Laura » Sat Jan 05, 2008 10:39 am

Thanks for that, Maggie, interesting reading.

I am WHOLLY in agreement with the final paragraph - that's certainly the place I want us to get to wrt sexuality. And, of course, demanding that the existing porn industry makes porn that depicts this isn't going to work - it's not what people currently want to see. What most people - men, mainly - want to see is based on what they have already seen and learnt through exposure to porn and being brought up in a patriarchy. So demand is based on supply is based on demand. But how do we break the cycle? We can change our education system so it teaches boys and girls, men and women to respect each other, we can thoroughly overhall sex education, but if the sexual material available is teaching an opposing message of hatred, is this going to work? The writer of the f word article suggests the creation of egalitarian porn alongside changes in the education system and this seems to make sense to me. We can of course just hope that people will start to reject the hatred and abuse shown in porn once they grow up in a more enlightened society, but why not ensure that there is some nonmisogynistic material out there just in case? It would be nice if we could magically remove all the nasty material, but that isn't going to happen, however many censorship laws are brought in, so trying to provide some kind of alternative seems sensible to me.

I don't think arguing for egalitarian porn is the same as arguing that we need images of sexuality in order to liberate our sexuality, as your article suggests. People don't want sexual images because it makes sex and themselves feel more real or important or free. Some people just like to be turned on. Simple as that. What, at the most basic of levels, is actually wrong about watching something to become sexually aroused? Right now, of course, because of the nature of porn, it means eroticising abuse and misogyny. But watching something that doesn't degrade or abuse anyone? Where is the problem?

The argument isn't that we should commodify sex to make it more free. The aim of the porn described in the f word article isn't to make money. It is to provide sexual stimulation - for people who want it - free of misogyny and abuse. Yes, that might be hard to make considering how much patriarchy affects our sexualities, but what's the harm in trying? Imagine if, when a curious and hormonal young person typed sex into google, they weren't faced with millions of images of woman hatred, but degradation free images of consenting, mutually enjoyable sex. Yes, that seems a world away now, but you have to start somewhere, and that's all the writer is suggesting.

I agree with everyone here that pornography, in its current form, does huge damage to women and warps all our sexualities - even those who dont directly watched it - I experienced this as a teenager through my boyfriend's porn use. It hurt me immensely. But this was because of the nature of porn in patriarchy (as well as my feeling that it was like cheating, but that's a different issue). We want to destroy patriarchy, we want to create a new society with new ways of living and interacting. Rethinking sexuality is a huge part of this, and I think the creation of new forms of sexual imagery has its role to play here.
Laura
 

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sat Jan 05, 2008 12:51 pm

Laura, please don't be pro-porn or pro-"reforming pornography" when you do know that the radical feminist critique of pornography agues that THE WHOLE FUCKING PORNOGRAPHY ITSELF IS INHERENTLY BAD (condiser the etymology of the word -- as quoted above). Such idea of "reforming pornography" initially appears to be understandable when so many people have been socially trained to consume images for their own sexuality, instead of having a sexuality of their own that does not rely on images.

Perhaps you should take a look at my website (linked somewhere in an above post) or read Pornography: Men Possessing Women by Andrea Dworkin or any other feminist anti-porn books (see my booklist, if you need to: https://www.againstpornography.org/books.html ) and maybe you'd understand the issue more clearly -- why pornography is inherently non-feminist.

I wasn't talking about censorship. There is an alternative to that, such as this one (the Dworkin-MacKinnon civil rights approach), for instance:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin ... ay/TOC.htm

Pornography is inherently bad. And thus, it cannot be reformed! Maybe, in a non-patriarchal society, there would be an egalitarian form of art representing sexuality. But it would NOT be called "pornography". Maybe it would be called Erotica instead (which is rooted in "eros", i.e. "sexual love"). Pornography is inherently bad. So, please forget the whole pornography if you are a real feminist! Do not forget what is one of the most important feminist struggle at the moment:

-- The most important thing at the moment is to communicate with others in order to go against the pornographized culture and change it. We have to talk honestly about the sex/gender crisis we face, along with the epidemic of violence against women and children. We have to Say No to Porn! It is also true that an anti-porn education + a healthier sex education in schools would be helpful. There are many other ways to address this issue aside from censorship, such as educating communities about the detrimental effects of pornography for example.

You should also think about the definitions of "pornography" that feminists have given before (which clearly show why the material is inherently patriarchal and cannot be reformed):

Accurate definitions of pornography and the differences between pornography and erotica:

a. Accurate definitions of pornography:

Pornography is the sexually explicit material that reflects and helps maintain the subordination of women. It is central to the sexual oppression of women. Oppression is a system of interrelated barriers and forces which reduce, immobilize, and mold people from a certain group, and effect their subordination to another group.
(Robert Jensen, quoting Marilyn Frye, in Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality; 1998).

"Pornography, like rape, is a male invention, designed to dehumanize women, to reduce the female to an object of sexual access, not to free sensuality from moralistic or parental inhibition. The staple of porn will always be the naked body, breasts and genitals exposed, because as man devised it, her naked body is the female's "shame", her private parts the private property of man, while his are the ancient, holy, universal, patriarchal instrument of his power, his rule by force over her. Pornography is the undiluted essence of anti-female propaganda."
-- Susan Brownmiller, in Against our Will (1975).

"In the subordination of women, inequality itself is sexualized: made into the experience of sexual pleasure, essential to sexual desire. Pornography is the material means of sexualizing inequality; and that is why pornography is a central practice in the subordination of women."
-- Andrea Dworkin in Letters from a War Zone (1988).

We can indentify pornography, the sexualized subordination of women (or children, men, or transsexuals) as having four main parts:

1. Hierachy: a question of power, with "a group on top ( [usually] men) and a group on the bottom ( [usually] women)".
2. Objectification: when "a human being, through social means, is made less than human, turned into a thing or commodity, bought and sold";
3. Submission: acts of obedience and compliance become necessary for survival. Members of oppressed groups learn to anticipate the orders and desires of those who have power over them, and their compliance is then used by the dominant group to justify its dominance;
4. Violence: when it becomes "systematic, endemic enough to be unremarkable and normative, usually taken as an implicit right of the one commiting the violence." The first three conditions make violence possible.
(Andrea Dworkin, Letters from a War Zone; 1988).

Not all pornography contains all these [four] components, but all these [four] elements are present throughout contemporary pornography (Robert Jensen, Getting Off; 2007).

Some defenders of pornography might argue that there is a difference between mainstream pornography and violent pornography but feminists know such claim is untrue. For instance, after visiting pornography shops and asking clerks and managers what was popular with consumers (the sampling method was therefore market-driven), researchers Robert Jensen and Gail Dines rented and analysed pornographic videos and concluded that "violence was portrayed as heightening the erotic charge of the scenes." (Jensen and Dines, "The Content of Mass-Marketed Pornography", in Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality, 1998). The thing is when violence is portrayed in a sexual context, as a form of pleasure, it is less likely to be seen as violence. Plus, the nearly non-existent difference between non-violent and violent pornography should not even be used as a defense of pornography nowadays with the existence of the Internet and DVD's, the pornographic worlds of "gonzo" and "features" (the most popular kinds of porn on the market) are both increasingly more violent and misogynistic. More recently, In a study, "Mapping the Pornographic Text: Content Analysis of Popular Pornography" (2007), Robert Wosnitzer, Ana Bridges and Michelle Chang concluded that 90% of contemporary mainstream pornography contained scenes of aggression.

b. Differences between pornography and erotica:

"[E]rotica" is rooted in "eros" or passionate love, and thus in the idea of positive choice, free will, the yearning for a particular person. (Interestingly, the definition of erotica leaves open the question of gender.)....[The] erotic: a mutually pleasurable sexual expression between two people who have enough power to be there by positive choice. It may or may not strike a sense-memory in the viewer, or be creative enough to make the unknown seem real; but it doesn't require us to identify with a conqueror or a victim. It is truly sensuous, and may give us a contagion of pleasure."
-- Gloria Steinem in Take back the Night: Women on Pornography (1980).

"Pornography" begins with a root "porno", meaning "prostitution" or "female captives", thus letting us know that the subject is not mutual love, or love at all, but domination and violence against women. (Though, of course, homosexual pornography may imitate this violence by putting a man in the "feminine" role of victim.)....[The] pornographic: its message is violence, dominance, and conquest. It is sex being used to reinforce some inequality, or to create one, or to tell us that pain and humiliation (ours or someone else's) are really the same as pleasure. If we are to feel anything, we must identify with conqueror or victim."
-- Gloria Steinem in Take back the Night: Women on Pornography (1980).

"I define "pornography" as "material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior"...."Erotica" refers to "sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism and homophobia, and respectful of all the human beings and animals portrayed".
-- Diana Russell in Against Pornography: The Evidence of Harm (1993).

Erotica is typically defined as "literature or art dealing with sexual love" (Dictionary.com Unabridged). One website, NoPornNorthampton.org, quotes some distinctions between pornography and erotica as such:

"-- [S]ome characteristics we associate with porn: mechanical, mindless, uncaring, exploitative, imbalance of power, lack of consent, taking without permission, selfish, careless, heedless, simplistic, shallow, objectifying, deceptive, cheating, violating, rough, harsh, inflicting pain, degrading, humiliating, unloving.

-- [S]ome characteristics we associate with erotica: humane, mindful, caring, respectful, communicative, listening, consensual, balance of power, mutual pleasure, integrity, wholeness, sharing, thoughtful, deep feelings, loving."

Also, there is a strong link between pornography and rape/child sexual abuse. Check out Diana Russell's book excerpts:

http://www.dianarussell.com/porntoc.html

http://nopornnorthampton.org/files/2853 ... imized.pdf

And I've got loads more resources on my website which show that pornography is inherently bad and that you cannot possibly be a "pro-reforming pornography feminist"....

Consider pornography's atrocious harms to women inside and outside of the industry -- that come from its inherent misogyny -- that cannot be changed -- see https://www.againstpornography.org/wome ... ustry.html and https://www.againstpornography.org/effectsandharms.html ).

If all this isn't enough for you to become inherently anti-pornography, then I'm afraid I can't help you... What that F-Word article talks about is BULLSHIT... I'm afraid to tell you...
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby KatetheGreat » Sat Jan 05, 2008 1:56 pm

I thought we took an issue to porn also partially because it commodified women.
We become things that are easy to consume and dispose of.

I guess it would be easier to tolerate pictures that seemed mutual and healthy, but I would take issue with the idea that men still feel the need to buy images of women under the assumption that he is entitled or "needs" access to several naked women as a man.

So if we "reformed" it, would this change that aspect? I worry about that issue.
KatetheGreat
antiporn star
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:03 pm
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:00 pm

KatetheGreat wrote:I thought we took an issue to porn also partially because it commodified women.
We become things that are easy to consume and dispose of.

I guess it would be easier to tolerate pictures that seemed mutual and healthy, but I would take issue with the idea that men still feel the need to buy images of women under the assumption that he is entitled or "needs" access to several naked women as a man.

So if we "reformed" it, would this change that aspect? I worry about that issue.


I agree, Kate. Pornography simply CANNOT be "reformed". Pornography is inherently patriarchal.
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby rich » Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:43 pm

a place where ALL feminists are welcome to air their views


This is untrue. First of all, you discriminate against feminists who aren't in the UK. OK, that's a silly point to raise, but on a deeper level, you have to admit that you do in fact -- currently -- draw a line somewhere. What about NAZI feminists or pro-apartheid feminists? What about male feminists who believe they're natural "sexual dominants" and it's ok so long as the woman they're sexually dominating is a "strong feminist" outside of the bedroom? What about the fact that you de-linked Amptoons: why can't the Bang Bros. be feminists with views worth airing?

It's obvious that you have been choosing sides (as well you should be) and that the "All Feminists" thing is just PR spin.
rich
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1134
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 11:43 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby delphyne » Sat Jan 05, 2008 5:55 pm

I agree with you Maggie that the idea that porn can be reformed is nonsensical. I'd also add that the claim that radical feminists use the term pornography in some special way, outwith normal society is untrue. When we talk about pornography and when porn users talk about pornography we're talking about the same thing: it's only the naive, the disingenuous or porn-defenders who try and obfuscate to pretend it means something else. Egalitarian porn is an oxymoron, it's the inequality and exploitation in porn that make it so sexy for its mainly male consumers.

The writer of the f word article suggests the creation of egalitarian porn alongside changes in the education system and this seems to make sense to me. We can of course just hope that people will start to reject the hatred and abuse shown in porn once they grow up in a more enlightened society, but why not ensure that there is some nonmisogynistic material out there just in case? It would be nice if we could magically remove all the nasty material, but that isn't going to happen, however many censorship laws are brought in, so trying to provide some kind of alternative seems sensible to me.


What the writer in that article does is make a long and antifeminist argument against the laws that the UK government is introducing that will make possession of certain types of very extreme pornography (necrophilia, bestiality etc) illegal. It's already illegal in the UK to produce or distribute that type of pornography so they are simply extending the laws to tackle the demand side of the equation. It's true that she does give a nod to the creation of this fantasy "egalitarian" porn but only after she has called necrophilia, rape porn and BDSM "valid kinks" - she wants to keep the misogyny because it's sexy. Some feminist she is. She also argues for pornography to be distributed to schoolchildren, blithely ignoring that exposing children to porn is a form of child abuse, although I suppose it does create more consumers. My guess is she's part of the BDSM gang who seem to like to use feminism to validate their behaviour and have also been trying to co-opt it for their agenda for quite some time now. I can see why Sam has lost her love for the F Word.
delphyne
antiporn star
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:59 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby Laura » Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:29 am

Maggie,

I have read Pornography: Men Possessing Women. I am aware of all the definitions of pornography that you list. You say:

'Maybe, in a non-patriarchal society, there would be an egalitarian form of art representing sexuality. But it would NOT be called "pornography". Maybe it would be called Erotica instead (which is rooted in "eros", i.e. "sexual love"). Pornography is inherently bad."

This is what I am arguing. I was just using the word 'porn' instead of erotica' because, as I said earlier, most people simply see porn as sexually arousing material/depictions of sexuality, regardless of the origins of the word. By most people I dont just mean porn users - you think the average woman who doesnt use porn but who is unaware of the radfem arguments against it is likely to be aware of the origins of the word or what porn really represents? I know I wasn't before I started reading antiporn material a couple of years ago. So, how is this egalitarian form of artistic sexuality going to come about? If trying to make feminist porn or erotica is wrong/impossible, where is this going to come from?

'So, please forget the whole pornography if you are a real feminist!"

Pornography in part lead to me self harming and self hating. Feminism saved me. I just think we need to put arguments - and egalitarian sexual imagery - forward in ways that the general public find accessible. Please don't imply that I am not a real feminist for doing so.

Rich,

Do you know of any Nazis or pro-aparteid individuals who identify as feminists? Of course the normal levels of decency are applicable to writers - racism, homophobia, disablism etc will not be tolerated. Saying we are welcome to all feminists in the UK (I should have added that, sorry) is not 'PR spin' (we don't make any money out of the f word, btw)- it is a way to create a space where feminists can air, test out and access a whole range of ideas related to feminism, a space where people are not silenced because they don't perhaps support a certain strand of feminist thought or specific ideas (this happens in both 'sex positive' and radfem spaces, as well as those in between - I've experienced it so please don't all jump on me for this - Maggie herself has told me that my thinking on this thread could mean that I am not a 'real feminist' [I know this is a subject specific space so it's not exactly the same thing, but that kind of sentiment is out there and it's something we want to avoid at the f word]. )

Katethegreat,

I thought we took an issue to porn also partially because it commodified women.
We become things that are easy to consume and dispose of.

I guess it would be easier to tolerate pictures that seemed mutual and healthy, but I would take issue with the idea that men still feel the need to buy images of women under the assumption that he is entitled or "needs" access to several naked women as a man.

So if we "reformed" it, would this change that aspect? I worry about that issue.


Yes, I worry about that too. Access to sex and sexual imagery is not a right, men do not have 'needs', they have 'wants'. Porn does commodify women to fulfil these wants. Currently we have almost no sexual imagery of men designed for women. The 'feminist' porn that is out there seems stuck in the patriarchal idea that it is only women who can be the objects of sexual attraction. Sex is still seen as men consuming women. I think maybe sexual imagery can be made that doesn't buy into this. Many people like to be turned on, like to look at attractive people, even like to watch people having sex. Maybe this can be tapped into on a level that is about appreciation of the people in the films rather than consumption and domination. I don't know, it's a tough one. All I'm saying here is that I don't think it would be a bad thing to try.

Thanks for responding to my question - I genuinely want to know what people think the essential problem is with producing and watching egalitarian erotica/porn (porn in the sense of how most people understand it). ...

delphyne,

I agree - I didn't like what she wrote about rape fantasy. Rape fantasy is an oxymoron for a start - it's not rape if you want it. But I don't think it is feminists' place to be saying what is and isn't an acceptable sex act. Wrt BDSM - yes it can be abusive, especially when taken to the stage where people live as sub/dom - but I have never been comfortable with the out and out condemnation of any act that could fall under this acronym. How do you know what is going on in people's head when they tie each other up or xyz? Why am I not a feminist if I like my sex partner to cause me some pain, because it gets me off, when it is consensual, when s/he is doing it because I want her/him to? What about anal sex, which I have seen condemned as inherently nasty to women, sth men only do to degrade us, when in fact I like and have initiated it. For some people their sexual proclivities may include knifeplay etc. i find that upsetting and I dont understand it, but I'm not in a position to judge unless it is being undertaken in an abusive, nonconsensual way. This isnt the place to be discussing this so I won't go on, but I don't think feminism is about saying what is valid and invalid when it comes to sex. In general, the law referred to does seem to be only about stuff that it illegal already, as you said, but I understand people's concerns that this could lead to state control of sexuality and sexual expression.
Laura
 

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby KatetheGreat » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:22 am

You talk of creating egalitarian porn - but I'm curious to see what that would look like when any sexual decision is defended with an appeal to consent.
Wouldn't a lot of the dominant themes in our current pornography, by that definition, be a-ok?
It sounds very similar to what we have now, and I'm not sure we could criticize any content, no matter how it seems to belittle the women, as long as she smiles somewhere within it's execution, or seems to enjoy it in the end/consented to it.

Say your boyfriend enjoys BDSM porn in which the girl is tied up. She's consented to it, she apparently enjoys it. He sits at his computer every night of the week and enjoys the view. How might this affect his girlfriend or his female co-workers when he's reguarlily supplied with "healthy, feminist" material of women being tied up and whipped?


I raise these questions as someone who's read your blog and tended to really enjoy the content. I just can't make this argument add up.
KatetheGreat
antiporn star
 
Posts: 378
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:03 pm
Location: Nova Scotia

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:05 am

Laura wrote:By most people I dont just mean porn users - you think the average woman who doesnt use porn but who is unaware of the radfem arguments against it is likely to be aware of the origins of the word or what porn really represents?


That is why we have to educate as many people as we can on what pornography really is, the etymology of the word, the different definitions feminists have given, the differences between pornography and erotica, and the radical feminist critique of pornography!!!

Laura,

Also, do not forget these ultimately more important feminist goals I've talked about above.

The most important things at the moment are:

-- to communicate with others in order to go against the pornographized culture and change it;

-- we have to talk honestly about the sex/gender crisis we face, along with the epidemic of violence against women and children;

-- we have to consider pornography's atrocious harms to the prostituted women inside of that industry and its atrocious harms to the women and children who are harmed because of men's pornography consumption;

-- we have to educate communities on the detrimental effects and harms of pornography (the new feminist anti-porn slideshow, developed by G. Dines, R. Whisnant and R. Jensen, is very helpful for that -- you can receive a copy of the script and supplementary materials, along with the CD with the slides, by sending an email message to stoppornculture@gmail.com );

-- we have to Say No to Porn!

Laura,

I hope you are not forgetting these major anti-pornography feminist goals (quoted above), are you? These are a lot more important (=addressing the harms) than trying to put forward any argument for an "egalitarian erotica" in this patriarchal capitalist world!!! You do realize that, don't you? :shock:
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby delphyne » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:18 am

But I don't think it is feminists' place to be saying what is and isn't an acceptable sex act.


Why? We make judgements about all sorts of other activities and behaviours as to whether they are harmful to women or not. Why stop just because erections or orgasms are involved? What ever else feminism was created for it wasn't to enable men to dominate and hurt women. Radical feminism argues that male violence, particularly male sexual violence, against women is the foundation that patriarchy is built on and you're arguing that we should ignore it in the bedroom, one of the places women experience most violence in their lives.

I don't think rape porn, violence in the bedroom and necrophilia are "valid kinks", I think they are enormously damaging to women. If a man is interested in any of those things, especially hurting the woman he is with then he is a danger to women and needs to be confronted, not given feminism to hide behind.

It's noticeable that almost all the pro-porn feminists are BDSMers. I don't think it has ever been about porn per se, I think it's about mounting a defence for men to continue sexually hurting women and as porn falls in that category obviously they will defend that too.
delphyne
antiporn star
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:59 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:25 am

Laura wrote:But I don't think it is feminists' place to be saying what is and isn't an acceptable sex act. Wrt BDSM - yes it can be abusive, especially when taken to the stage where people live as sub/dom - but I have never been comfortable with the out and out condemnation of any act that could fall under this acronym. How do you know what is going on in people's head when they tie each other up or xyz? Why am I not a feminist if I like my sex partner to cause me some pain, because it gets me off, when it is consensual, when s/he is doing it because I want her/him to?


WTF? :shock: BDSM is inherently harmful!!! Consent is no excuse!!! We have to utterly reject any patriarchal visions of sex, i.e. predicated upon domination/submission and sado-masochistic dynamics!!! We have to advocate a healthier vision of sexuality which relies on equality... Laura, have you ever heard of healthy sexual politics? Radical feminists have addressed that as well, you know... :roll:

Eh, WTF? :shock: :shock: :shock:
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby Laura » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:28 am

Kate,

Yeah, you're right, it doesn't really add up... basically I'm just thinking that everything isn't as black and white as I once thought and trying to look at some different perspectives.

I think the issue is the intention with which sex acts are being performed: is it to give pleasure, or to degrade, to scare, to upset, to attack? Right now, if a man watches porn of a woman being whipped, he's watching a woman being whipped with the intention to degrade her, she's probably being called a slut, a whore, dirty etc. He gets off on degradation and at the same time is given a message that women are shit. But maybe if a man watches erotica/porn of a woman being whipped - and clearly this, like any egalitarian porn/erotica, would have to be made in an ethical, consenting way - and the woman's pleasure is shown to be of utmost importance, she is treated like and respected as a human being, the whipper is portrayed and the film shot in such a way as to avoid any kind of desire for degradation, it wouldnt have the same result in the viewer. In a nonpatriarchal society he wouldnt want to watch women being degraded and treated like crap anyway. This is why it all goes hand in hand i think - we try to change society and we make egalitarian images at the same time to support this and eventually people won't want to watch abusive porn at all.

The other issue is that at the moment porn is based on male subject/female object, reinforcing patriarchal ideas of female subordination and the role of women as sex slaves. If there was a plethora of different depictions of gender roles in sexual imagery then maybe it wouldnt be so damaging - right now it's all there is and that's part of the reason the dominant sexual mode is man ab/using woman.

Content can be criticised - of course - what I was arguing against was the idea that particular sex acts are somehow inherently antiwomen no matter how they are performed.

As I said, I'm not sure about all this, but people's desire for sexual imagery and stimulation isn't going away and while all there is to meet that desire is misogynistic porn we're all screwed. So I think the idea of trying to make feminist erotica/porn isn't a bad one and I'm not convinced that the creation and enjoyment of egalitarian, ethically produced sexually stimulating imagery is inherently wrong and antifeminist.
Laura
 

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby Laura » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:45 am

WTF? BDSM is inherently harmful!!! Consent is no excuse!!! We have to utterly reject any patriarchal visions of sex, i.e. predicated upon domination/submission and sado-masochistic dynamics!!! We have to advocate a healthier vision of sexuality which relies on equality... Laura, have you ever heard of healthy sexual politics? Radical feminists have addressed that as well, you know...


I know, Maggie. Thing is, I have tried and tried and TRIED to remove any trace of enjoyment of BDSM type activities from my sex life and sexuality and just have nice, loving, communicative etc sex. It made me unhappy. I felt I was acting the whole time. I wasn't doing what my body enjoyed, but what my politics told me was 'right'. It LOOKED like my sex was more 'equality based'. But in my head, in my relationship, in my boyfriend's head, was anything different? No, it wasn't. Equality, respect, lies in the beliefs you hold, in the intentions you have towards the other person and the way you make those intentions felt. My boyfriend can tie me up and fuck me and I can do the same to him, in the spirit of respect and care and wanting to make the other person happy, within the confines of an equal relationship.

I agree that feminism shouldnt be left outside the bedroom - we need to analyse everything we do. But I have analysed it, and my assessment is that intention and attitude is more important to equality than the sex acts me and my partner engage in. There are elements of BDSM that are abusive as I said - sadism certainly seems to me to be at odds with respect for others - but to write off anything could fall under BDSM as INHERENTLY HARMFUL just seems excessive, and thoughtless, to me.
Laura
 

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sun Jan 06, 2008 7:54 am

Laura wrote:As I said, I'm not sure about all this, but people's desire for sexual imagery and stimulation isn't going away and while all there is to meet that desire is misogynistic porn we're all screwed. So I think the idea of trying to make feminist erotica/porn isn't a bad one and I'm not convinced that the creation and enjoyment of egalitarian, ethically produced sexually stimulating imagery is inherently wrong and antifeminist.


Eh, what are THE MOST IMPORTANT FEMINIST GOALS here? WAKE UP!

WTF? I'm lost... :shock:

The most important issues to tackle here are pornography and prostitution and their inherent harms to women and children!

Personally, I feel I feel a lot more free without having images or so-called "art" controlling my life and sexuality. :P

And I agree with Delphyne: "We make judgements about all sorts of other activities and behaviours as to whether they are harmful to women or not. Why stop just because erections or orgasms are involved? What ever else feminism was created for it wasn't to enable men to dominate and hurt women. Radical feminism argues that male violence, particularly male sexual violence, against women is the foundation that patriarchy is built on and you're arguing that we should ignore it in the bedroom, one of the places women experience most violence in their lives."

Well-put, Delphyne! Also, good replies, Kate! :female:

We have to TAKE THE ISSUE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SERIOUSLY! And I'm surprised it is not the case for everyone here! :shock:
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Re: I used to like The F Word pre Jess McCabe

Postby MaggieH » Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:00 am

Laura wrote:I know, Maggie. Thing is, I have tried and tried and TRIED to remove any trace of enjoyment of BDSM type activities from my sex life and sexuality and just have nice, loving, communicative etc sex. It made me unhappy. I felt I was acting the whole time. I wasn't doing what my body enjoyed, but what my politics told me was 'right'. It LOOKED like my sex was more 'equality based'. But in my head, in my relationship, in my boyfriend's head, was anything different? No, it wasn't. Equality, respect, lies in the beliefs you hold, in the intentions you have towards the other person and the way you make those intentions felt. My boyfriend can tie me up and fuck me and I can do the same to him, in the spirit of respect and care and wanting to make the other person happy, within the confines of an equal relationship.

I agree that feminism shouldnt be left outside the bedroom - we need to analyse everything we do. But I have analysed it, and my assessment is that intention and attitude is more important to equality than the sex acts me and my partner engage in. There are elements of BDSM that are abusive as I said - sadism certainly seems to me to be at odds with respect for others - but to write off anything could fall under BDSM as INHERENTLY HARMFUL just seems excessive, and thoughtless, to me.


Holy fuck!!! :shock: Somebody helps here!!! :shock: I'm leaving this board for a few hours...

I'm lost, sick, and tired... :pale:
"The assumption that "most women are innately heterosexual'' stands as a theoretical and political stumbling block for many women. It remains a tenable assumption, partly because lesbian existence has been written out of history or catalogued under disease;. . . partly because to acknowledge that for women heterosexuality may not be a "preference" at all but something that has had to be imposed, managed, organized, propagandized and maintained by force is an immense step to take if you consider yourself freely and "innately" heterosexual. Yet the failure to examine heterosexuality as an institution is like failing to admit that the economic system called capitalism or the caste system of racism is maintained by a variety of forces, including both physical violence and false consciousness. . ."
-- Adrienne Rich, in Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence: http://www.terry.uga.edu/~dawndba/4500compulsoryhet.htm

“The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.” ~ Alice Walker
MaggieH
antiporn star
 
Posts: 1817
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:36 am

Next

Return to essays, articles, rants for public view

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 62 guests

cron