if you missed this porn thread at Reclusive Leftist

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

Moderators: delphyne, oneangrygirl, deedle, sam

if you missed this porn thread at Reclusive Leftist

Postby sam » Fri May 19, 2006 11:45 am

"Your orgasm can no longer dictate my oppression"

Trisha Baptie
sam
chaotic good
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:54 am

Postby Jimmy H. » Fri May 19, 2006 11:57 am

I saw it. You did real great, and Ms. Violet seems to appreciate it (somehow, I was convinced that she was a member here, but apparently that's not the case).
Jimmy H.
antiporn star
 
Posts: 411
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:23 pm

Postby Lost Clown » Sun May 21, 2006 12:04 am

I feel kinda bad saying this, but I'm glad the idiots stayed on her blog instead of attacking me on mine.
"One must care about a world one will never see." -Bertrand Russell

"I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure." Clarence Darrow

"Pornography is to sex what McDonald's is to food." -Gail Dines
Lost Clown
antiporn star
 
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 2:17 pm
Location: Cascadia Free State

Postby delphyne » Sun May 21, 2006 3:46 am

The people Violet allows on her blog, like Alon Levy, means I'd never post there. Are blogs not set up so the blogger can ban people?

Mind you she thinks radical feminist analysis of BDSM comes from Foucault, so she and I probably wouldn't have much to say to each other anyway.
delphyne
antiporn star
 
Posts: 2930
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 10:59 am

Postby sam » Mon May 22, 2006 1:51 pm

Today's reply.

Mandos:
The Nazis. The KKK. The ENTIRE POINT, as far as I can tell, of the first amendment is to prevent imagery, writings, etc, to be taken as part and parcel of the harm.


I am not a lawyer, but you are incorrect in this assumption as laws such as those against libel and defamation mean some imagery and writing are not protected speech due to the harm they inflict. I can’t recommend MacKinnon’s concise book Only Words to you enough, as I think you especially can get a lot out of reading her step-by-step argument how pornography qualifies as hate speech.

“I’m sorry about what happened to this woman, but burning tapes is not free speech. It’s an act.”


Slipping a woman a date-rape drug and then videotaping her is not speech it is an act. The taping of that drugged rape, the mass production of the plastic casings, the designing of the box cover with title “Nailed Necrobabes”, the selling of it to vendors, and the exchanging of money so thousands can pay to see a drugged young woman raped are all acts, but our legal system says they are “free speech.” California is the home of the world’s pornography industry but prostitution, paying someone to have sex, is illegal in California, creating quite the man-made legal loophole (loopcanyon) that pornography is mere free speech and not in reality documentaries of prostitution, acts of paid-for fucking videotaped. The title of another MacKinnon book sums it up, Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws. If I can’t murder on film and call it freedom then pornographers should not be allowed to rape on film and call it freedom.
It’s just that the antiporn side has a couple of major soft points: those being a very particular view of how human relationships ought to be, and an inability to articulate what acceptable sexual imagery and vicarious pleasure should look like


Well that’s a nice damned if you do and damned if you don’t moment. By refusing to give a specific blueprint of what I think utopian sex will be like I’m imposing a particular view of human relationships? I know you can’t mean the radical view that female bodies should not be publicly-owned and traded rental properties for men’s penises and fetuses is an unfair imposition to someone else’s sex pleasure, so what’s the charge here? I see no contradiction in refusing to say whether or not getting restrained during sex can play a role in the private lives of a sexism-free utopian future and saying today’s international black market in human bodies bought by people who treat them as disposable things-for-penetrating is grossly unhealthy and destructive.

Violet:
Sam, why can’t the Dworkin-MacKinnon ordinance be recast to allow victims damaged in the making of pornography to sue, but removing the troublesome provision about allowing others (readers/viewers/bystanders/rape victims) to try to sue for damages based on putative influence?


Again I’m not a lawyer, but the Illinois ruling shows it very easily could, it’s just that cultural woman-blaming and intentional misconceptions put forth by the pimpographers means their justice is slow-coming. A great statistician was asked how long it would be until women reach social parity with men, and he answered that given the numbers at hand it should be 200 years or so, but given men’s nature it would likely take much longer.

We don’t, for example, allow Jewish people to sue the publishers in this country of Mein Kampf, even in a case where someone went on a Jew-bashing spree after reading the book.


I’m pretty sure cases like this are indeed allowed to be tried. Publishers of a book giving instructions on how to murder a person were tried when the family of the murder victim found out the killer had used the book. The outcome is another question that we can debate as legal scholars will, but the fact that the murdered person’s relatives were allowed to try, even if they failed, is the difference because Linda Boreman and Carol Smith were/are not allowed their day in court to make their case. If people feel so sure arguments about pornography harming people have no merit and will fall flat on their face then there should be no reason not to let them have their day in court to try.

Give them their chance to be heard and let them fail as our male-dominated system will likely decide, but in refusing to let them even be heard the pornographers relay their real fear. They know that opening the door to them paying the costs for the physical and emotional damages they do to pornstitutes and others through the use of their products would eventually put them out of business. They’ve seen what happened to tobacco industries for lying about nicotine’s addictiveness and harms, and they know their own trade journals (Adult Video News) are full of scientific evidence of pornography addiction and the effects pornography has on users. In AVN’s case one effect is that 20% of porn users meet scientific definitions of addiction and AVN used this data to draw more money out of addicts with such tricks as delaying “satisfaction” longer than non-addicts would allow themselves to be delayed in order to up the costs of time-based internet pornography.

But we live in a men’s laws, women’s lives country that shows no willingness to enforce OSHA standards in an industry bigger than Hollywood for worker safety such as 100% condom use and dental dam protection for pornstitutes. Showdogs like Lassie are legally protected from various exploitive harms but trying to get pornographers to be held legally responsible for paying 19-year-old Lara Roxx’s HIV drugs and loss of pornstitute employment due to her HIV+ status is less than a joke, it’s simply inconceivable. http://www.oneangrygirl.net/LaraRoxx.html

Violet
For example, let’s imagine a couple who enjoy filming themselves making love and putting that videotape online, and let’s further imagine that both people are equal partners in the relationship and no one is being coerced or emotionally blackmailed or anything else. Where, philosophically, would that situation fit in your ideology of pornstitution?


Having encountered many forms of this question, I always feel like I’m being asked, “When there’s no more sexism will you be happy?” and because the answer is so obvious I wonder at what lurks behind the seemingly simplicity of it. Here’s the best answer I can come up with this morning.

When men no longer commit incest, rape, harassments, and abuses against any women I’ll stop complaining about the naked images of girl-women they surround themselves with in the post-patriarchal world. Do we have a deal? Any representative of Man want to spit and shake on it? I will cease and desist all criticisms of pornstitution if all men agree to stop the daily misogynies they visit on feminized bodies (that means no hurting transgendered or gay men too because no proxies for femininity are to be abused either.)

Men control everything. They have stolen the lottery men and women put into equally and taken the entire million dollars of privilege for themselves. Asking men nicely to share hasn’t been working. Why would men give up anything when they already have the million dollars? I get the feeling some people think men just don’t know how sex can be anything other than an expression of contempt for women and property-marking and it’s the responsibility of feminists to explain to men why they should prefer the mutually respectful “Moments from a Loving Embrace” (I made that up) to streaming images of women gagging on penises shoved down their throat while tears run down their cheeks.

Feminists who believe men want mutually satisfactory sex with women more than they want to control women are kidding themselves; pro-pornstitution feminists are kidding themselves that women can ever be sexy enough and approving of current male sexuality enough to make men stop sexually brutalizing feminized bodies epidemically. Women are not going to pleasingly coax or flatter their way into equality with men who jerk off nightly to Gag Factor, Bang Bus and Max Hardcore pornography. Not one rape was ever stopped with, “But I’m an openminded woman who affirms your right to pay for sexual access to others and watch porn 24-hours a day!”

To men who don’t care whether or not women have fake or real orgasms as long as they get their cookies, which is to say men, there is no revolution in proudly holding your $100 vibrator aloft and declaring “I had a vaginal sneeze without you!” Who cares? Not men. They don’t care unless you videotaped it or write it in a graphic letter to Hustler, and then a fake orgasm will serve their purpose as well as a real one. I remember reading a Mad Magazine bit on female singers that lumped Tori Amos, Jewel and Alanis Morrisette into one category and came to the conclusion that they don’t care what boring personal tragedies or self-esteem stories they sing about as long as they keep humping piano benches and appearing “artistically” naked in videos.

Power concedes nothing without demand, and men already have the million dollars of privilege they stole. Feminists offering them more pornography, more whores, more strippers, more entitlement to women’s bodies to men is offering the millionaires another hundred bucks if they agree to share the million-of-privilege 50/50 with women. Why would men do that? They’re taking the hundred offered by the pro-pornstitution feminists and not giving up any of their stolen million because they don’t have to give up anything, don’t have to share or be thoughtful because they’ve got what’s theirs and what’s already theirs is unlimited wet holes for the taking any time day or night.

Think of why pro-prostitution feminists refuse to drop the loaded term “sex positive” for further insight into power conceding nothing without demand. It has been hashed out before that the term is unnecessarily divisive and serves to call feminists who don’t embrace pornstitution “sex negative”. This has been pointed out many times and I’m sure smart women like Amanda see that the term “sex positive” is anti-feminist in its origin and use (calling other feminists sex negative ain’t very sisterly) but they still cling to it. Even feminist bloggers who try to maintain a neutral stance on these issues can readily point to the problems with what the word-bomb “sex positive” implies, but other feminists don’t have a more powerful pull on the sex-pos feminists than the malestream media overlords do and those men prefer “sex positive” stay in use just as they orchestrated. Why would they concede to other feminists that this unproductive, divisive, toxic term has to go when they’re the ones with more power outside feminism regardless of what it means to other feminists and feminism as a whole? In this case, the hundred dollars offered to the sex-pos feminist millionaires is “acknowledge sex-pos is an unhelpful and divisive term” and they take that hundred to pat themselves on the back for being so willing to listen to criticism just like porn-using men let women have Playgirl, but ultimately they concede nothing and change nothing because they have not been pressured to and suggestions from less powerful feminists are consequence-free to ignore.

What I see in pro-pornstitution women is the lack of making demands on men to change their sexist ways. Some are better than others and whatever topics are close to their hearts make a difference, but if we cannot stand tall and say, “Men do not have a right to sex on demand from any woman” then I don’t think we’re going to make much headway fighting trafficking for sexual slavery, rape or sexual harassment and women will never be free to choose what’s best for their reproduction-capable bodies because women’s bodies will always be considered the property of men.
"Your orgasm can no longer dictate my oppression"

Trisha Baptie
sam
chaotic good
 
Posts: 4391
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:54 am


Return to essays, articles, rants for public view

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests

cron