With all the anti-pornography talk, can we have a sex positive thread?

[Kurska]

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 04:36 AM - Edit history (1)

Over the past 100 years our society has really begun to open up about sex. From the increasing acceptance of sexual minorities to a reduction of stigma towards adult engaging in private sexual behavior of any type they choose, the sexual revolution is a beautiful thing and I support it in it's entirety.

Politicians who sneer at other's private sexual practices and demand the government stop them like Rick Santorum are a dying breed.

Media is finally able to commonly portray sexually themes and issues without fear from government censors. Some of these have been beautiful and meaningful, while others are admittedly very crass displays, but the important thing is that we're finally properly acknowledging something that has been so suppressed in our society for so long.

Sex, when consensual of course, speaks to universal truths about the human condition, such as our need for love and touch of fellow human beings. Even what some people would consider brutal sex, like BDSM, speak to a willingness to trust your partner even in extreme circumstances.

A lot of people bemoan the availability of pornography, but I don't see it as universally bad, especially the phenomenon of amateur pornography. I am outstandingly happy that there are couples out there pointing their cameras at something that brings them close to share it with anyone interested. I'm completely willing to talk about what kind of effects pornography can have on society, but I hope that most of us can agree that we caused far more problem by throwing people into jail for it than we ever solved. Openness and honestly toward our society's demand for sexually explicit material allows us to finally examine under the spotlight of societal scrutiny the issues that do exist.

Our society still has some horrible and glaring issues with sexuality, especially in the realm of unwanted sexual contact and the prosecution of that behavior. But you know what, while very far from ideal, I feel like our society is closer to "getting" sexuality more now than ever. There is increasingly an acceptance and understanding that private consensual behaviors shouldn't be punished and that unwanted sexual contact like rape is completely unacceptable. We have a long way to go, but things are probably better now than they have ever been.

So yeah, sex is awesome and I like that our society is finally starting to open up about the topic. People who used to suffer in silence like gays are finally learning that they were never really alone and that there are always people out there who are like you. No one is a "freak" for what they are into sexually, because the only real freaks are the kind who violate other people's rights like rapists and those who want to micromanage the activity of others bedrooms.

Prudish and control freak mentalities toward the sexual practices of others is one the big differences between conservatives and progressives. Personally, I am proud to be part of a movement that is willing to talk realistically about the state of sex in our society, including any problems that do exist.

44 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Sex is totally awesome
	42 (95%)
	Boo sex is bad
	0 (0%)
	I like to vote
	2 (5%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[LittleBlue]

1. Well said

Suppressing sexual desires is no way to deal with sexuality. Exploring sexuality is healthy no matter what the prudes and religious fundies say.

[Kurska]

2. I agree, it isn't a coincidence the most sexually violent have strict sex laws.

Driving things underground only encourages individuals to engage in unhealthy and unlawful sexual practices. By bringing it out into the open we can identify where the problems are and what we as a society need to work on.

[rrneck]

3. I don't know that it is prudism so much as

literalism. People seem unable or unwilling to distinguish between an actual occurrence and the performance of same. It seems as if the objective is to erase the very concept of rape from the consciousness of mankind. Whoever conned them into even thinking that was possible sold them a bill of goods.

[Kurska]

4. Might be a little of both

Some people seem genuinely disgusted by it, others can't seem to get the whole fantasy/reality difference. In either case both problems are solved if that personally finally does realize "Hey if they are doing it with some who wants it, who I am to judge?".

[rrneck]

7. True.

I can understand the disgust. While generally speaking I think sex is only dirty if it's done right, some of the stuff people do is pretty creepy and disgusting. And that makes images of it creepy and disgusting by extension. I can understand how it pushes all the wrong buttons in people. And the initial emotional response generally determines one's moral position on the matter.

Given time I expect these issues will die out unless various ideology producers can keep them as evil totems for ingroup fundamentalist profit-taking.

A good OP. We could use a bit of common sense around here.

[renie408]

11. So, I'm a woman and I have a daughter...

So far I have stayed on the edges of the whole 'rape porn' argument because I am not sure what I think yet. I do feel that what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is their business. I do get that, for some, a little (or even a lot) rough sex with some male dominance is arousing and healthy and normal. And their business, not mine.

However, I also understand that glorifying rape as something women find somehow secretly sexually satisfying might not be a great idea. Fantasy role playing is one thing; being held down against your will while a man shoves his penis into you until he ejaculates is something else. Something else entirely. Something else so entirely different and so entirely common in this world that maybe it might be worth it for some people to not have access to their favorite version of pornography if it means even one woman will avoid it.

But, I also get that rape has little to do with sex. It is sex used as a tool. I wish there were better information either supporting or refuting the link between rape porn and actual rape.

This is a hard thing for me to decide where I stand. Since it isn't my 'cup of tea', it's easy for me to say we should get rid of rape porn. Honestly, I kind of wonder about WHY that would be your cup of tea, but whatever. Before I say it is harmless, I would like to see some evidence to that effect. No one questions whether or not child pornography is OK or not. This is because we know that children cannot consent. They are being exploited. Period. Most would think that child porn that uses either adults who look like children or even computer generated images is a slippery slope. Some percentage of men who start there are going to wind up wamting the real thing. Why can we not acknowledge that rape porn might have the same result?

Like I said, I can see all the sides of this discussion, but my gut says it is better in this instance to err on the side of caution.

[Kurska]

14. There is nothing wrong with having mixed feelings about something like rape porn.

It is ultimately a difficult thing to address. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that even if people have that kind of fantasy, it doesn't mean they actually would want to be involved in a rape. It is fantasy, people roleplay things that they wouldn't actually want to happen all the time. I feel that even people with that kind of fantasy overwhelmingly understand that real rape is a horrible crime that should be punished severely.

I think we can all agree though, that adults doing consensual things in their own home is their own call, no matter what they are doing.

[renie408]

17. Yes, no question.

Again, consenting adults...privacy...blah blah.

Obviously, rational people understand that fantasies are a way to take their freak on a little test ride with low commitment costs. It's not the rational people I am worried about.

I wish there were some way to protect the innocent completely. Then the rational people who get off on rape porn (again, read that sentence and tell me that it doesn't make you wonder even just a little bit) could do their thing with no worries that some irrational people might not be able to stop at the simulation.

I think a responsible society should draw some lines about what is and what isn't acceptable. Rape is unacceptable. That seems like a logical line to draw. Maybe I have made up my mind more than I realized.

[Kurska]

20. Rape is completely unacceptable, but so is censorship.

I would ask myself this. Would I prefer to live in a society where consenting adults did some pretty messed up stuff or would I rather live in a society where other people had the ability to police people's private behaviors?

I know what I would pick.

The best way to protect the innocent is to punish rapists. By removing the taboos about sexuality, women become more free to talk about their sexual feelings, including how intolerable they find rape. If we close our society back up and start censoring, I feel that we will do more damage than good.

[renie408]

26. No, censorship is not unacceptable. We censor things all the time.

Right here on this message board we are censored all the time. Just try calling somebody an asshole. Even if they are being assholes, you will find out real quickly how this board is censored. We wear clothes whether we want to or not in public because that is what society has mandated. Hate speech is censored. All kinds of things are censored and society runs more smoothly because of it.

I want to get this straight: Rape is completely unacceptable and vile behavior. Being turned on by simulated images of completely unacceptable and vile behavior is fine and nothing the rest of us should be concerned about at all. There is no chance that some percentage of the men who find rape porn really good stuff are going to decide the next time they are told 'no' that she wants it anyway.

I guess I am saying that maybe in our rush to be tolerant and open and accepting of all things, we may want to consider whether all things are actually worthy of tolerance. I am suspicious of the mental gymnastics involved with being able to say "Rape is abhorrent and completely unacceptable, but becoming sexually aroused by images of a man forcing his penis into a struggling woman is just fine." One of these things is not like the other. There seems to me to be room to be logically cautious here.

I don't think couples role playing at home is the same thing. And that's where I start to get bogged down in my own half-formed thoughts. I don't think a couple role playing and having rough sex is somehow the same thing as enjoying images of women being raped. So maybe I need to think about it some more to see where I really land.

P.S. I am writing this on my Kindle and you would not believe some of the stuff the autocorrect came up with. Apparently Amazon does not want people to use the words 'penis' or 'rape'.

[A Little Weird]

45. Best post in all of the rape-porn threads. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

120. I would be more open to the idea of legislating censorship...

... if the thing being censored was actually associated with something measurably bad. Rape victimization has been in a fast, steady decline at the same time porn has proliferated.

I'm old enough that I can remember when every other television commercial was a cigarette ad. That advertising was correlated with a steep rise in people smoking, and outlawing it was correlated with a steep drop.



The opposite is true about porn. There's an inverse relationship. The easier that porn is to find, the less common is rape.

I'm not supportive of efforts to ban something that is strongly correlated with something good.

[seabeyond]

130. porn stops rape? then we should feed our rapist porn to stop them from raping? and they

told me men really were not saying this on du. you are the second in this thread.

[lumberjack_jeff]

136. The fact that you (or I) don't like it isn't enough to call it harmful.

Depriving people of porn stops rape? Which male population group watches the least porn?

Probably Catholic priests are pretty high up the list, right?

[seabeyond]

137. are you saying, cause supposed numbers are down, porn stops rape?

there are many reasons the numbers are down. that does not mean in any way that porn stops rape. what a horribly irresponsible guess to throw out as fact. give our rapist porn. there. fixed the problem

many reasons those numbers are down, that you and many others repeatedly ignore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. I'm saying there's ZERO evidence to support the opposite argument.

When I go into a bathroom in which the faucet handles are unmarked, I turn one and feel the water. If the water becomes warmer, I assume that this is the hot. If I want warmer water, I turn that handle. If I want cooler water, I turn the other.

I don't simply keep cranking the left handle "knowing" that the left one is always hot and pretending that my freezing hands are something other than a consequence of my own biases.

Your argument is this: porn causes rape and therefore should be banned. That has been definitively disproven. That in itself is reason enough to reject the argument.

It's unnecessary to prove that porn stops rape, even though many scientists have proposed exactly that.

[seabeyond]

146. "Your argument is this: porn causes rape and therefore should be banned." ONE post.

ONE post where this is my argument. just one. 5 people have accused. five people have failed. you make the 6th.

one post where i have made this statement or even close to this statement.

one

[lumberjack_jeff]

155. Okay, then in ten words or less, what is your argument?

The more I read, the more I'm led to the conclusion that the argument is: Men consume most of the porn, and men do most of the raping, therefore porn=rape.

Of course, you could (and others here certainly have) substitute "beer" "sports" "hunting" or "nascar" for "porn", with equally logically unsound basis.

[seabeyond]

158. i am gonna have to think how to stream line it in under ten words or less. lol

i will get back to you. i am outta here.

[seabeyond]

159. btw. out of the 6, you are the first to ask without doubling down on a false accusation

that.... is why i respect you so.

[nomorenomore08]

361. One problem is there seems to be a conflation of "rape porn" with "all porn" which is not

a conflation I would make, personally. The line between the two may not be set in stone, but generally you or I can distinguish what is simply two people on camera having sex, from material that is overtly violent or abusive.

No one on this thread (to my knowledge) has outright supported banning all pornography. Personally, I wouldn't support banning anything except actual video recordings of criminal assaults - AKA real "rape porn" - which I view as more akin to snuff films and kiddie porn.

[renie408]

162. That is certainly interesting

And does seem to support the theory that rape porn doesn't increase the incidence of rape.

[renie408]

154. Do you have a graph for that one?

Cause I need to see some evidence for the whole "the more access to porn, the less rape". Also, I might need you to back up the claim about a reduction in rapes.

[seabeyond]

157. across the nation reports of downgrading and not filing reports of rape is a huge part of the

reduction. it is tied in the money.

the argument reduction is rape is oversimplified. i am not going out gathering the info. i have simply dont it too many times for it to be ignored. i know you are researching, thinking ect... that is good stuff.

i wanted to put that out, if you go out doing research, where we are seeing the issue. there are other ways in which this number is being manipulated. no police force is forced to send the numbers to fbi for statistics. they only recently changed definition of rape to include other types of rapes. all kinds of issue in this rape number

i do not know if it is higher or lower

i do know i do not trust the number.

anyway

i am done with this thread. just wanted to put out some info because you are exploring.

some of this stuff is very much mra... mens right so do be careful with reports, if they sound just too good. it is suggest rape has dropped 85% from the 70's, thru mra. 1 in 4-6 women are raped. if rape dropped 85%, then what.... 1 in 2 women were being raped in 70's

[renie408]

161. I don't trust tbe numbers in the posted graph, either.

And I think it is pretty disingenuous to lay the credit at the feet of porn. I could say that I think it is due to global warming if I wanted to.

[seabeyond]

166. another point. date rapes. in the 70's we did not even know what date rape was.

it was the 80's before we starting defining rape with the perimeter of a guy we know, that we date, that we could be raped. both genders were educated on this 80's forward.

now.... then take the 70's number without date rapes that no one reported and says all these "legitimate" stranger from the bushes rapes has decreased 85%, with people today reporting date rape.

we know, date rape is the vast majority of rapes.

so we have a whole new number to add in rapes. a huge number. and we are expected to believe rape has dropped 85%

if i believed rape dropped 85%, then i too would be arguing rape culture, porn stops rape, what are you women talking about rape, it is pracatically non existent.

[lillypaddle]

182. Thought you were done with this thread

guess not.

[seabeyond]

184. huh? are you gonna go after me cause i decided to add something in this subthread? really?

bah hahahahha

oh lilly....

[lillypaddle]

192. "go after you?"

WTF are you talking about? You always say you're done with a thread and then you continue to post. I just find it curious, and very passive-aggressive. But I see I'm feeding you ... never mind.

[seabeyond]

195. passive aggressive.... lol. ah ha. woman. check out your posts. that would be passive aggressive

trying to get a jab in without looking like you are getting a jab in.

i did walk. i took a shower. i thought further. i added what i thought about.

that is not passive aggressive. it is using a discussion board....

[nomorenomore08]

368. +1

People can disagree with you all they want - I know I do at times - but misrepresenting you, putting words in your mouth, is another matter. I feel like some posters have built this straw version of you that bears little resemblance to reality.

[seabeyond]

219. lilly has been jumping on my posts for a while now.... nothing new.

the nasty, really nasty, comes in the silliness that is brought to the exchange showing the foolishness. lol.

thanks seaglass

[seabeyond]

225. certainly is an obsession. for sure. nt

[seabeyond]

186. no, really, tell me, am i "allowed" to come in and even reply to you?

[lumberjack_jeff]

183. Think this through.

If awareness of rape has increased then why are people self-reporting fewer victimizations?

If the number of actual victimizations held steady, we would expect that increased awareness would drive survey numbers up.

Society is doing something right.

[seabeyond]

188. because we have a net saying 45-75% of claims are false, intimidating reporting. and cops the

have departments called "lying bitch" departments making an hostile environment to report. and because we have police force across the nation that wont even make reports of accusations. because we have judges that blame the 13 yr old girl. because we slut shame them for daring to be raped. because we have police tell girls to not bother, he is a football player. because police downgrade it from rape. a number of reasons....

[lumberjack_jeff]

198. The NCVS isn't about crime *reporting*, it's about perceived victimization.

They created the NCVS to measure crime underreporting, and they've been asking the same questions for 40 years.

It was created specifically to mitigate the issue you describe.

[seabeyond]

202. and here would be the flaws in ncvs. and this is without much work looking for issues

(Other than any incidents already mentioned,) has anyone attacked or threatened you in any of these ways: a) with any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife, b) with anything like a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or stick, c) by something thrown, such a rock or bottle, d) include any grabbing, punching, or choking, e) any rape, attempted rape or other type of sexual attack, f) any face to face threats, OR g) any attack or threat or use of force by anyone at all?

That’s not a good way to prompt women (or men) to report nonconsensual sex, broadly speaking, especially if they haven’t previously gone to the police—as most rape victims don’t. As the new report puts it: “This context may inhibit reporting of incidents that the respondent does not think of as criminal, did not report to the police, or does not want to report to police.”

The NCVS also doesn’t include scenarios in which a victim is unable to consent to sex because she or he is “drunk, high, drugged, or passed out.” And the NCVS doesn’t do enough to provide survey-takers with privacy. They can’t quietly check off a box on a self-administered questionnaire—they have to answer questions out loud over the phone. These features of the survey have also been shown to inhibit victims from responding.

Here’s how to fix this, the National Research Council panel says: Conduct a survey of rape and sexual assault separately from other kinds of crime. The best way to get an accurate count is to frame the questions in a “neutral context, such as a health survey.” Instead of asking, Have you been raped? the survey tool should ask questions about specific behavior, for example: When this incident happened, were you passed out from drinking or taking drugs? This gives room for survey-takers who might not call what happened to them “rape” to provide a more accurate measure of how many people are actually victims of nonconsensual sex. And they should be able to enter their answers on their own, on a computer, rather than over the phone.

There is, in fact, an existing survey that has many of the attributes the NCVS currently lacks. It’s administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and it’s called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. (NISVS is the acronym. Apologies for the alphabet soup.) NISVS “represents the public health perspective,” as Tuesday’s report puts it, and it asks questions about specific behavior, including whether the survey-taker was unable to consent to sex because he or she had been drinking or taking drugs. NISVS was first conducted in 2010, so it doesn’t go back in time the way the NCVS numbers do. But here’s the startling direct comparison between the two measures: NISVS counted 1.27 million total sexual acts of forced penetration for women over the past year (including completed, attempted, and alcohol or drug facilitated). NCVS counted only 188,380 for rape and sexual assault. And the FBI, which collects its data from local law enforcement, and so only counts rapes and attempted rapes that have been reported as crimes, totaled only 85,593 for 2010.

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/11/national_crime_victimization_survey_a_new_report_finds_that_the_justice.html

[lumberjack_jeff]

226. If the NCVS underestimates crime today, it did so 40 years ago too.

the NCVS is irreplaceable as a trendline.

[seabeyond]

227. 40 yrs ago we did not even consider date rape. 40 yrs ago there was no awareness

and motivation to speak out against family/friend child rape. asking children on a phone with an adult as likely standing right there and even if an adult is not there, in a time of total unawareness and acceptance it was just life. asked for it. no education. and you are suggesting that the replies were over 80% that there was rape.

intellectually, this totally makes absolutely NO sense what so ever.

[lumberjack_jeff]

232. So you're saying that 40 years ago NCVS underestimated even more than it does today?

If so, then you're saying that actual victimizations have dropped by more than 80%.

Back to the topic; what is it in society which has caused this drop, and if ubiquitous porn isn't it then what is?

Or are you saying that porn should be banned despite the harm it might do to rates of sexual victimization?

[seabeyond]

234. i am saying, what you are proposing is we are about at a zero rape rate, per your numbers.

and i KNOW that is not a reality

[lumberjack_jeff]

245. The NCVS has been asking this question for 40+ years

43a.
Incidents involving forced or unwanted sexual acts are often difficult to talk about. (Other than any incidents already
mentioned,) (in the last 6 months) have you been forced or coerced to engage in unwanted sexual activity by -

Read each category.

(a) Someone you didn't know -

(b) A casual acquaintance -

OR

(c) Someone you know well?

in 2012, 13 of every 10,000 respondents over age 12 said yes.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncvs1_2012.pdf

[seabeyond]

190. three women standing on the porch. i ask, how many rapes. THREE rapes with one

woman not having been raped.

tell me how that is a feel good number?

[lumberjack_jeff]

200. Ask 77,397 more people that question and you duplicate the NCVS. n/t

[seabeyond]

204. wrong. and that is why i KNOW your ncvs is flawed. and sure enough. easy to find. nt

[nomorenomore08]

371. You're absolutely right that even "relatively lower" is still too high.

Violent crime in general has significantly declined in the last 20 years, so I would expect sexual assault rates to more or less follow along. But complacency is never a good thing, and to this day we see too much victim-blaming, too much minimizing of serious criminal offenses that should earn a prison sentence but often don't. There may be more awareness, but way too many people still hold on to outdated, ignorant beliefs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

160. .

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=nvat

Click "quick tables" then in the row for "rape and sexual assault" select 1993-2012.

In 1993 slightly less than 900,000 people reported on the NCVS survey being sexually assaulted. In 2012, 347,000 did. That's a 61% drop.

[renie408]

174. I got to it.

I found the article a lot more compelling. There is nothing to say why this number is lower. Attributing it to porn feels like a stretch to me.

[Old and In the Way]

258. It is a very significant drop, though.

There may be 2 complimentary dynamics at play, here...both facilitated by the internet. One is social media and the negative exposure where rape events can be instantly amplified in this medium. One hi-profile local case can have a huge impact on the behavior of local populations. And internet porn, which might provide an alternative method for a young male to seek hormonal release.

[Kurska]

164. There is a massive difference between censorship on a private message board

And the government banning things for all society.

And no, I'm not going to go around judging people for things they ultimately can't control (their sexual interests), as long as they aren't hurting people it really actually isn't any of your business. I don't feel like tolerance has gone overboard, that is a very rightwing argument to me.

[renie408]

178. What if their sexual interest is children?

Do you form a judgment about that one? Or farm animals.

I can never understand how people can function without forming judgments about everything. Even judging that something is ok is forming a judgment. And you may not judge people for enjoying watching women being abused, but look how quickly you judged me for having doubts about whether that is a good idea or not.

Lastly, tolerance must have realistic limits. That may not appeal to you, but a safe and functioning society cannot be tolerant of everything.

[lumberjack_jeff]

193. for argument's sake, let's go way, way out on the uncomfortable logical limb.

Suppose that the the theories described in that Scientific American article are correct;

Self-Medicating with Fantasy
Perhaps the most serious accusation against pornography is that it incites sexual aggression. But not only do rape statistics suggest otherwise, some experts believe the consumption of pornography may actually reduce the desire to rape by offering a safe, private outlet for deviant sexual desires.
“Rates of rapes and sexual assault in the U.S. are at their lowest levels since the 1960s,” says Christopher J. Ferguson, a professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University. The same goes for other countries: as access to pornography grew in once restrictive Japan, China and Denmark in the past 40 years, rape statistics plummeted. Within the U.S., the states with the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and therefore the least access to Internet pornography—experienced a 53 percent increase in rape incidence, whereas the states with the most access experienced a 27 percent drop in the number of reported rapes, according to a paper published in 2006 by Anthony D’Amato, a law professor at Northwestern University.

Maybe it shouldn't be about judgment. If the bolded section above is true, does this have implications for the social value of (even deviant) CGI porn?

I guess the question is whether "deviants" are born or made.

[seabeyond]

199. 2006. 8 yrs ago. when internet porn was really getting going. when studies to see that actual

long term use was not available. thinks like non violent porn. as if you can even get that today. 87% of porn has violence and aggressiveness. those studies are out dated.

and i never go into this shit....

[Old and In the Way]

264. Got a cite for this 'fact'?

"87% of porn has violence and aggressiveness."

So, in your mind, porn (sex) = violence?

[Major Nikon]

510. There are feminists who believe that almost all coitus is coercive and violent

I doubt you'll get an answer for your cite request, but if you wanted to go looking for it, that would be a good place to start.

http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/radfem-101/#PIV

[Warren DeMontague]

522. Here's where she is getting that totally rather, er... hard to believe figure:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529726

Please note:



The most common act of physical aggression, by far, is "spanking". It doesn't take a genius to figure out the math on that one. The #2 act of physical aggression is "gagging", which is defined as:

(g) gagging (defined as when an object or body part, e.g., penis, hand, or sex toy, is inserted into a character’s mouth, visibly obstruct- ing breathing);

Now, I am by no means an expert on human physiology, but I am pretty certain of two basic facts around respiration: One, that most humans can breathe through their noses as well as their mouths, and two, that pretty much anything (save, perhaps, a snorkel) that is inserted into a mouth, will "visibly obstruct the breathing" of the mouth.

So either we're talking about some odd prehensile or otherwise abberational penii which can simultaneously obstruct the breathing of the nose AND the mouth at the same time, or we're just talking about obstructing mouth-breathing, which means pretty much any time a penis goes in a mouth.

Which means that, according to the study SB Is getting that figure from, 88% of porn has "violence and aggressiveness" like.. blowjobs. And perhaps not terribly surprisingly, blowjobs overwhelmingly for the most part involve a man's penis in a woman's mouth, instead of the other way around.

[Blue_Adept]

283. I must be watching the wrong porn.

I have a good deal of it on during the day for a variety of reasons. The violent side is very minimal overall, and there's so much out there that you can be selective. But when you try new actors and different production companies, you take the chance and get exposed to some variables.

I'd love to see a full on list of what people consider violence in porn so we can have at least something of a level field. Cause if giving someone a spank on the ass is violent, then yeah, there's a lot of violence. But do most people consider it violent?

[nomorenomore08]

363. There's way too much "violence and aggressiveness" in porn. I don't think many people would

dispute that - I sure as hell wouldn't. And it's also a rather fine line, finer than some would like to believe, between "simulated" violence and real violence. But 87%? What kind of study came up with that?

[renie408]

327. I would say this needs a lot more study...

Before I am comfortable with the whole "lets give sexual predators lots of porn" therapy.

It makes sense, though. And when I say we should tolerate or not tolerate something like this, I don't necessarily mean we should enact laws. I think people should decide for themselves what they find acceptable and live on it. I gotta say, I would find it alarming if I came across a graphic rape porn video in my son's stuff. Or even more alarming if I saw my daughter's boyfriend with it.

I don't watch violent or scary movies cause they freak me out. There are some things I just don't need in my head. But I know people who do and don't seem to be effected. Its just an interesting thing to ponder.

[nomorenomore08]

364. +1

And personally, I'm a horror fan, I enjoy a lot of violent and gory material. But I find even "simulated" (let alone actual) violence in porno to be a huge turn-off - frankly it appalls me.

[Kurska]

221. Children and farm animals can't consent.

I thought that went without saying, but I supposed it had to be.

[renie408]

320. So, as long as it is simulated child porn or farm animal sex

Its all good.

For somebody who prides themselves on not making judgments, it would seem you have judged me rather harshly because I am on the fence about rape porn. How odd.

[nomorenomore08]

365. Yeah, how dare someone be ambivalent about wank-off material that realistically depicts

violent assaults?

I'm with you here. And I'm not even really making judgements as to what should or shouldn't be legal - though obviously, a real recording of a real rape should not be.

[deafskeptic]

508. hence why I think both child and beastality pronography should be outlawed.

The key word here is consent.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

212. excellent post. well said. thank you.

[NaturalHigh]

19. "I think we can all agree though...

that adults doing consensual things in their own home is their own call, no matter what they are doing."

I wish that were true, Kurska, but unfortunately, some of the more radical posters don't agree at all.

[gollygee]

125. That's not true

Being opposed to people selling porn with actual or very realistic rape depicted, apparently sometimes even advertised as containing real rape, as apparently that is a selling point . . .

does not infringe on what people do in their own home. It has to do with what is sold outside of people's homes.

[nomorenomore08]

353. Those who produce consensual "simulations" need to more clearly differentiate their product

from the real thing. Reason being that there's a good amount of real rape/torture footage out there, which the crackdown in Britain (if arguably excessive) is meant to address.

[Warren DeMontague]

18. The question isnt whether there is nasty negative stuff out there, for sure there is.

If one is talking about laws, however, definitions are important. Like legal adulthood, is a bright and easily legally defined line. Consent itself- most people would say, I think, that if someone agrees to appear in film, signs something to that effect in clear mind and not under duress, they're consenting. Certainly the final authority on whether a person consents or consented should be the person themselves, not strangers who look at material they dont like and say "I wouldnt consent to that, so no one is capable of doing so"

Which is the argument we see against porn, all the time. Consenting adults aren't actually consenting adults because someone has arbitrarily decided that the minute a woman takes her clothes off in front of a camera, she becomes incapable of consenting.

Another problem in these threads is that anyone who questions the wording of, say, this UK law- or any law which bans performances, fiction, by consenting adults- is accused of "supporting" the worst of whatever someone can find on google.

i understand why the 1st amendment gives Nazis the right to march; that doesn't make me pro-Nazi. And bad laws, badly written laws, often fall victim to the inevitable unintended consequences effect. Certainly no one in California wanted to see another Polly Klaas kidnapping.. But the "3 strikes" law passed because of it didn't end up incarcerating more Richard Allen Davises, so much as the guy whose "third strike" was stealing a piece of pizza.

[renie408]

23. Oh, I don't care if the adults in the rape porn are consenting.

People do all kinds of ill advised, socially detrimental things for money. Look at the Kardashians. My objection isn't that the porn star women are being exploited. I imagine that ship has sailed. Besides, that's something the woman has to decide for herself. That has nothing to do with me. Tonight, if in the privacy of your own home, you and your significant other want to break out the whips, chains and caramel sauce...that ain't none of me, either.

My objection is the possible glorification of rape as an acceptable sexual outlet. My concern is that some percentage of men who start with getting off on rape porn will eventually move on to rape. BUT...I am not sure whether there is an actual correlation there. I mean, there is no way to tell if the rapist was destined to rape or whether the rape porn acted as a catalyst, sparking something in their already not-quite-right minds.

No matter what, consenting or not, I am not all about glorifying violence against women. I think there are some things we SHOULD find icky.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. I don't think a coherent definition of "rape porn" has emerged.

A lot of people have talked about consenting adult BDSM- not my thing, but certainly the people in that scene object to the idea that they're not capable of determining on their own what they as adults can or cannot consent to.

We've had several people post studies from religious right think tanks, including one that claimed "88% of porn contains images of aggression", while defining things like blowjobs as "physically aggressive acts".

And it's not helped by the fact that anyone who questions the wisdom of outlawing fictional dramatizations, is caricatured, strawman-style, as "loving their rape porn that they're getting off on as they spread their hate on DU" in a series of increasingly incoherent, over-the-top posts.

Let me break down for you where I stand: Like you, I do not support the glorification of rape and an acceptable sexual outlet. I do not support glorifying violence against women. I find those things icky, to say the least, as well.

It's also interesting that the ONLY thing I've ever come across on the internet- of course, I don't go hunting for such things- that could be described as the "rape porn" in question, was a link to a video on facebook in a thread very similar to the ones we've seen on DU in recent days. And it was posted by someone arguing against "rape porn". The UK law being defended by some on DU, here, presumably would have made that poster the criminal.

Those threads evolved much as the ones this past week have; whereby NO ONE thought the video was great, wonderful or sexy, everyone said "ick", and yet anyone who had the opinion that, despite being upsetting and ugly, it was likely a dramatization or fiction instead of a film of an actual attack, was accused of "cheering for rape porn".

It's fucking ridiculous. As far as I've seen, no one here supports rape. No one wants to encourage rape. No one thinks "rape porn" is a great or positive genre.

[renie408]

27. Which leads.me.to.wonder...

Is rape porn really that big a deal? From this past week on here, I would assume that there was a booming business in depicting violent acts against women.

I am pretty insulated from a lot of things in the world. We live in a rural area and I run a horse farm. I work a lot. I have spurts where I have time to get on here and spend time. From this past week I would assume the world is awash in rape porn and that the JFK assassination debate is still a hot topic on everyone's mind.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. I'm perfectly happy to admit that I've seen some porn in my lifetime.

I remember the days of the indie video store. Every college town had one.

Some of it I would definitely categorize as "misogynist", and certainly that's not ever been what I want to see. I've always thought people enjoying themselves is erotic.

The answer you will get, of course, would be to "google rape porn" and, perhaps not surprisingly, I suspect one would get some ugly results. There are probably a lot of nasty things one could google and get nasty results, that's sort of how google works. Good Christ, don't ever use google if you're thinking about self-diagnosing a medical issue. Or, at least, be mentally prepared.

The internet is big, and there is a lot of smut on the internet. I do not believe, however, that "rape porn", that is advertised as such, comprises a very large portion of what's out there.

Of course, if people are defining oral sex as violence, then there's a lot of violence.

JFK is easier to explain, what with the anniversary.

[Major Nikon]

28. It could also quite possibly go the other way

It could be true that someone who is predisposed to actual rape is finding an outlet other than actual rape.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut

The idea that the content that someone watches makes them do anything is ill conceived. Everyone still has the responsibility for their own actions. As hard as people are trying to make correlations between violent content and actual violence, science is pointing out inverse relationships, and this is true for things other than porn.

[rrneck]

165. "I kind of wonder about WHY that would be your cup of tea"

It's not, and I am somewhat offended that you would think that is the case. But I'm not angry and I don't think you are a bad person for your unfortunate evaluation of me.

And I think you're wrong to think sex is not a tool. It is the oldest and most important tool we have. It's the tool we use to turn resources into offspring. Throughout our history that tool has had a number of accessories attached to it from a means to deeply and emotionally understand each other, to barter for parity and as a weapon of war. All of those accessories helped us survive as a species. The application of those accessories depend on the context in which the tool is used.

But the issue is not about sex. It's about art. That's right, the skeeziest most disgusting porn out there is art. Really, really bad art. Just like any art it explores the extremity of human experience. And just like any bad art is delivers little more than a a tiny slice of it.

You will never get evidence that such material is harmless because it's impossible to prove a negative. There is no way to prove that it causes nothing. But there is abundant evidence that censorship of the arts, even bad art, stultifies cultures and narrows people's ability to produce creative solutions to problems. Soviet and Fascist German art are the most common examples, although corporate advertising are equally appropriate even though our culture is so inundated with it we don't notice it.

Ever seen First Monday in October? It's an old favorite of mine. These debates always remind me of that movie. One of the sub plots deals with pornography and at one point Walther Matthau says, "Crap's got the right to be crap."

You're perfectly free to be disgusted right along with the rest of us. But you and I are not free to tell people how they are supposed to feel about something. And we certainly are not free to legislate those feelings. If you want to change peoples feelings you have to teach them, not beat them.

[renie408]

170. That was a generic 'you', not a specific 'you'.

And crap does have the right to be crap. But crap does not have the right to incite someone to commit rape. That was my objection....the possiblility that rape porn may increase the odds of rape. But from reading the article posted by Lumberjack, it looks like that isn't an issue. So, I guess its to each his own.

And I didn't mean YOU 'you'.

[rrneck]

187. Ah, all good.

I'm off to work in the sunshine. Thanks for a nice chat.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

205. I am male ...

I watched a few minutes one time of what would be considered "rape porn" out of curiosity. It totally made me uncomfortable to watch. I, like you, don't understand its appeal. Of course, I didn't get through the whole video - had to close out of it. I guess I'm just one of those guys that don't get it. I much prefer to see two people enjoying sex - not one, even if it's fantasy, appearing to look like they are being violently violated. That just doesn't appeal to me.

With that said, I'm like you, if it's between two consenting adults, then I have a hard time seeing how it is my place to dictate what they do.

But you're right, this particular "fetish" is hard to come to a firm conclusion about.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. When folks are continually incapable of arguing against CONSENTING ADULT behavior without

bringing up non-consent and/or non-adults, that's a giant red flag, isn't it?

It'd be refreshing if people could stop making kissy-face with their straw men, riding their red herrings down their slippery slopes, and just admit that they want to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do with their own bodies, in their own bedrooms.

Which is the definition of an anti-choice position.

[NaturalHigh]

10. Here here!

I'm sick of people being called rape apologists because they don't advocate a ban on pornography. As I said in a thread a couple of days ago, I don't like pornography, but I feel strongly that consenting adults shouldn't be told what they can or can't do with other consenting adults in the privacy of their own homes.

I don't know of anyone on DU who is for slavery, trafficking, or child pornography. If they were and argued for it in any of their posts, I'm sure they would be rightfully tombstoned. Arguing against private, consensual acts among consenting adults, though, is fundamentalism fit for the craziest right wingers.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. To which, the response to your post would go something like this:

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:11 PM - Edit history (1)

"See? how can you call yourself a sentient being and be in favor of brazen wanton mushroom fucking"?

It is worth noting, of course, that your post had nothing to do with sentience, and nowhere did you advocate fucking mushrooms.

I hope Skinner puts up a fire hazard sign in GD, what with all the straw.

[NaturalHigh]

16. If a lot of the posters were being honest...

there would be a lot of "sex is bad" votes in this poll. Like you, I wish they would leave the straw men out and at least just say what they really mean: that they are absolutely terrified and appalled that people are out there enjoying sex, even more appalled if there is porn involved.

[DRoseDARs]

30. I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to come out and...

...deny the gays their right to exist like they always fucking do in these debates. We simply DO. NOT. EXIST. To them, all porn is men-degrading-women rape-fantasy, full stop. It's not just simply bring up sex-positive porn, be ignored. It's bring up gay male porn, be ignored, bring up lesbian porn, be ignored. Yes Virginia, there ARE "femi-nazis" in this world and they would like nothing more than for lezzie you and faggy me to simply not exist as we represent the glaring flaws at the core of all their arguments.

[Katashi_itto]

36. I think there is a small but vocal minority on DU that are using the cover of Feminism to promote

their RW and misandrist views. I've watch them post repeatedly from RW think tanks and sites that fit their views/agenda. They aren't real real feminists in any sense. Personally I think they are trying to give Feminists a bad rep on DU.

[RC]

113. +1000

I think we can all name at least a few of them. They hide out of sight and out of mind for a while, till the rest of us relax, then they come out of the woodwork for a few days with one or more OP's full of their thinly disguised misandrist and even outright androphobia claptrap, daring anyone to disagree with them.

Most people on DU have learned to stay out of those threads, when they break out into the Home page, but they have a following.
You are correct, even though they call themselves Feminist, they are anything but. In fact they give the real Feminist a bad name.
They are actually bullies, bent on intimidating anyone and everyone not agreeing with their basic premise - That men are bad, evil, misogynist to the core. No, we're not. And for those men that are, those Pseudo-Feminists more than likely, had in a roll in making those men that way.
We are all people, both men and women, and most of us respond in kind to others. Be nice to us, we will more than likely, be nice to you in return. But the few women I am talking about are not nice, they intimidate, they attack, they insult, they put down right up front and then use the responses they provoke as proof of their premisses - Men are bad. Men are the cause of their {read women in general} problems. They do not see their own roll in turning people off in working for real equality and Equal Rights for everyone, regardless of gender, orientation, or anything else used to separate and classify us.

[Katashi_itto]

168. Dear god I am saving your post. You put it so succintly!

Bravo!

[lillypaddle]

189. amen!!

Brilliantly put!

[HappyMe]

201. You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Even if you are a woman, you can't disagree one iota. Being a woman, I sure as hell don't like a guy telling me how to think. I also don't need to be bunged over the head by some woman telling me what to think. I just tune them out.

[Sissyk]

329. Or being told that we obviously don't get it.

Please, I can "get it" but still disagree with your take on things.

Some women just can't stand that ALL women do not agree with every one of their issues. That sucks!

[xulamaude]

243. Rule #1

blame women for misogyny.

Tried and true old-school.

[RC]

251. Are you trying to tell me All Women, Everywhere are innocent of misogyny?

Good luck with that. My saving grace is, I see people as individuals and women are individuals also.
Having been subject to enough misandry by some of the women I have known, I do know what I am talking about.
But just because one or a few people are a certain way, does not, by any means, mean all, or even most people are that way.
In other words there are women that DO blame men for their problems, when they should instead be looking in a mirror at their own reflection for the root cause.

[xulamaude]

255. Nope. nt

[HappyMe]

259. Yup.

The truth hurts.

[xulamaude]

271. Perhaps I should elaborate -

it just seems sort of silly to suggest that women are the engine hauling the heavy, heavy load of animosity directed at women.

It is true that some women hate themselves and other women, but you know - if you can't beat 'em join 'em. Internalization and all that jazz.

[Union Scribe]

379. I seem to recall a poster whose pet phrase

was "all that jazz."

[maddezmom]

381. Yup, I remember her as well

[xulamaude]

386. Bye bye life (and all that jazz)

link:

The first few seconds say it all really.

edit: cuz my linkage powers are found lacking

[LadyHawkAZ]

389. Indeed

I wonder how the weather is in Canada.

[nomorenomore08]

564. Precisely. It's not that women don't participate in their own repression - sure they do -

but putting the blame on "pseudo-feminists" for some men's hatred of women seems a bit like blaming racism on some stereotypical notion of what a given minority group is "like."

[BuddhaGirl]

314. +1

Great post

[nomorenomore08]

562. Seriously? Are you really blaming hatred of, and violence against, women on "pseudo-feminists"?

The rest of your post is not particularly unreasonable. You make some valid points. But "pseudo-feminists had a role in making those men that way"? Please tell me you don't think rape, domestic violence, etc. are provoked by "pseudo-feminism."

And BTW I'm a man, who has rather little use for most self-proclaimed "radical" feminists.

[RC]

568. Yes they can, for the reason already explained.

I have been a victim of one of them. It does damage, real psychological damage, especially if you are in a relationship with one and their facade is a good one, that can last years and you get blind-sided. You are in denial that a person you care about and has been so good with, can be doing the things they are doing to you. It just becomes too much to keep up the facade they have built for themselves.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024089018#post113

You are correct, even though they call themselves Feminist, they are anything but. In fact these women give the real Feminist (and women in general) a bad name.
They are actually bullies, bent on intimidating anyone and everyone not agreeing with their basic premise - That men are bad, evil, misogynist to the core. No, we're not. And for those men that are, those Pseudo-Feminists more than likely, had in a roll in making those men that way.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024089018#post113

They goad their targets into bad actions, so they themselves can play the victim. They do that here on DU to get posts hidden, intimidate others and drive DU'ers away, which to them anyway, proves they are correct. Successful intimation strengthens their resolve, emboldens them for the next attack.

I am lucky, as I see people, both men and women, as individuals. I always have. Many people of whatever gender, do not, for a variety of reasons. So they give the 'broad brush' treatment to whole genders, or gendered groups and put everyone in groups in general. The women I am talking about damage men, who in turn go out and spread the damage inflicted on them, to the other women in their lives. Way too many people think that if they got out from under and away from their tormenter(s), then they are now OK. No, they ain't, not by a long shot. Being in a situation like that causes damage, that needs counseling. In most cases they do not seek, not even think they need counseling and spread the damage to others. And back and forth it goes.
We give as we receive.

[nomorenomore08]

575. But it seems like you're almost - not quite, but almost - blaming women themselves for abuse.

That's the thing that bothers me, because if nothing else it's a dangerous way of thinking. Like saying that verbal provocation justifies physical assault, which in the vast majority of cases it doesn't.

"They goad their targets in bad actions..." I don't think you realize it, but this sounds an awful lot like "Women provoke men into hitting them by talking shit." I'm not accusing you of condoning violence against women, but you should be careful how you frame things. Just saying.

[RC]

577. No. Only a few women.

Most women are fine. And as for "They goad their targets in bad actions...", it is the mind-set of certain type women and about a certain group here on DU. Again, it is basically a form of bullying, no matter who does it.
Yes, it does go both ways. It is the few that spoil it for the rest of us - Both men and women.

[nomorenomore08]

579. Okay, fair enough. Thanks for clarifying a bit.

I still have issues with the framing and wording of certain things but that's my own opinion as much as anything.

[RC]

580. I sometimes can be clearer too.

It is actually hard to communicate through the written word. No voice infliction, can't see the facial expressions or body language. Then there are the unintended puns...

[nomorenomore08]

582. Sure, I get that. It's kind of a built-in hazard of Internet communication.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

208. Or maybe it's because people aren't listening to them at home and their daily lives. nt

[Old and In the Way]

49. I looked to see who voted in this poll.

You can bet that, in spite of their absence on this thread and in the poll, there are a multitude of PM's being sent amongst themselves, discussing this thread.

[seabeyond]

51. not a single pm. it is the stupidest damn OP yet ont he subject. oh... lets all talk about sex

positive. who like sex, raise your hand and vote. really.... lol, this. beyond stupid oiw.

this is about like a poll...

who you gonna vote for
obama
cruz

ya, right.

[Old and In the Way]

53. not a single pm?

why seabeyond, how could you possibly know this as true?

And why would you possibly think I was including you in this group? Lol.

[seabeyond]

54. ya. right dude. play games? whatever...

[EOTE]

97. A lot of people think very highly of themselves here.

It's always hilarious when they think they're not getting the kind of attention they should be.

[gollygee]

215. Nope.

You (not you specifically but anyone who thinks this way) think way too much of yourself if you think we send PMs about this or any other thread.

[Warren DeMontague]

331. Right, that would be obsessive. Like setting up an off-site board to coordinate with banned members

quack. snork.

[gollygee]

335. I haven't seen anything like that

[Warren DeMontague]

338. Try plugging these three words into google:

"duckies boardhost inveigle"

[xulamaude]

342. You mean there's more than one Overlordess?

Damn. Which lockstep am I supposed to pound out now?

[Warren DeMontague]

343. I don't know what you mean

but welcome back.

[xulamaude]

350. Thanks for the welcome. nt

[maddezmom]

345. Eye opening

[Warren DeMontague]

348. Indeed.

I'm sort of of the opinion that DU is plenty, and even then this sort of thread is a perfect example of why it shouldn't be taken overly seriously.

Obsessing about DU elsewhere on the web, strikes me as unhealthy. Seriously. Doesn't anyone play Jai Alai or shuffleboard anymore? Hobbies, people.

[maddezmom]

354. Well I am more of a Pilates freak and walker/hiker

But I have totally become addicted to words with friends. Find myself playing more and more.

[Warren DeMontague]

355. Yeah, I don't ever seem to get bored these days. I always have way more projects I'd like to

tackle, than time to do them in it seems.

One thing I almost never do anymore is watch tv. Certainly not in the interim btw the end of Breaking Bad and the next Mad Men or GoT season.

[gollygee]

356. OK, well that's the first I've seen it

It seems like if that were being used to coordinate rather than just discuss, someone would have mentioned it to me or sent a link or invited me? Either there isn't a coordination, or I should feel slighted. LOL

[Warren DeMontague]

359. It's okay, they didn't invite me either.

...sniff

[opiate69]

479. You..... You've got a gift, my friend...

http://m.

[Warren DeMontague]

480. And, a special purpose.

[opiate69]

482. Lmao!

HE HATES THESE CANS!!!

[eridani]

526. That was weird enough to tempt me to do it

No action on that board since 6/12, so not seeing how it is relevant to DU.

[Warren DeMontague]

528. Someone once said that "Character is what you do when you think no one is looking"

Yeah, I'm pretty sure someone, once, said something like that.

[xulamaude]

334. Because, yeah, it's simply not possible that women

just independently come up with the same concerns all by themselves! Like independently and all by themselves and everything!

We answer to our RadFem Overlordess and march in feminazi lockstep!

(oh yeah: sarcasm-drippy thing)

[Skittles]

6. I'VE HAD IT WITH MEN!!!

*LIKED IT TOO*

[Warren DeMontague]

15. How the hell do you manage your schedule, Skittles?

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. If you kick enough ass, you have time for anything. n/t

[Skittles]

25. easy: chronic insomniac

have been all my life

[Warren DeMontague]

32. I thought you looked familiar.

[Dash87]

305. /Thread winner

[Skittles]

311. it's a Skittles classic, Dash87

I use it whenever the opportunity arises

[RainDog]

336. ...

[Skittles]

372. LOL

OMG that gal on the left reminds me of a Far Side lady

[RainDog]

432. Dinah Washington

knew how to have a sex positive thread

[neverforget]

501. I miss The Far Side......

[Jesus Malverde]

566. lulz...nt

[eridani]

8. Feminist science fiction author Joanna Russ once said

"The cure for pornography is sex."

[NaturalHigh]

9. Good quote.

Sort of puts things in perspective.

[Egalitarian Thug]

210. Exactly, pornography is, at best. a very poor substitute.

If we could rid ourselves of all the insane anti-sex, anti-woman, dominance bullshit that we are crippled by through the religions of the Desert God of Death, we wouldn’t have nearly so many problems with this pleasurable, fundamental part of life on earth.

[redgreenandblue]

12. People shouldn't extrapolate from the American porn industry to porn in general.

Is commercial gonzo porn, particularly in the United States, exploitative? You bet! Does that mean all porn (depictions of humans having sex) is such? Not by a long shot. The thing is that the "all sex is rape" crowd are very vocal in these discussions.

[Fearless]

22. Very true

[seabeyond]

46. "all sex is rape" ONE post where anyone on du has said "all sex is rape". ONE. just ONE.

when arguing a totally bogus argument, it makes it really easy for a win. like this whole fuckin thread.

come on. one post that has said "all sex is rape"

you are the third person to put out such an absurdly ridiculous accusation on du and i betcha anything, you will be the third person to not come up with ONE post that says "all sex is rape"

why dont you just say duers say... the cow jumped over the moon. about comparable.

[redgreenandblue]

96. Alice Schwarzer: "heterosexual sex involves inevitable subjugation of women"

I was speaking in generalities, not in particular about DU. The most vocal total opposition to pornography in all cases (not just violent porn) historically came from Alice Schwarzer and her followers.

[seabeyond]

98. well, since that "crowd" is so very very small and i do not even hear them, golly, and certainly not

on du, when we have a thread like this Op which is really a slam about my sexuality, and other womens sexuality that does not adhere to others idea of rape porn, being called prudes and sex negative, maybe clarification is important.

what would be the point to make an argument of "all sex is rape" after days of rape porn threads and then say... oh, no one on du

[redgreenandblue]

248. I assure you, my post was not intended as a personal attack against you or any other Duer.

I was discussing generalities. It is my style.

Alice Schwarzer has been a leading voice of the feminist movement in Germany since the sixties.

[nomorenomore08]

405. Like I said, putting words in your (and others') mouths. I suppose both "sides" do that sort

of thing, but here is where it seems particularly egregious (and silly).

[Douglas Carpenter]

31. I have nothing against sex as long as it doesn't

spread diseases, cause unwanted pregnancies, leave emotional scars or scare the horses

[Warren DeMontague]

33. "Your wife was just showing us her Klimt"

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. i am not against sex - but I do think it is overrated

[Warren DeMontague]

35. That's sort of how I feel about

professional sports.

[loli phabay]

72. then you are doing something wrong, once you find your kink, fetish etc then it becomes. wow

[Douglas Carpenter]

100. I have been there and done that and I have seen through the illusion

[PassingFair]

128. Maybe you just haven't de-personalized it enough.

[Douglas Carpenter]

141. you're probably right - i have always had this weird, kinky tendency of associating sex with

emotionally feelings toward the person I was "interacting" with

[PassingFair]

240. I find that "sex positive"!!

[nomorenomore08]

409. To each their own. Different people have different ideas (and ideals) RE: "intimacy."

[Xithras]

207. I don't think we should be accusing anyone of doing it "wrong"

As a strong advocate of a sex positive society, I have to recognize that the sexual spectrum includes many people who are either asexual, or who simply derive no pleasure from it. There is nothing wrong with that, and not enjoying sex is as "normal" as enjoying sex three times a day.

In practice, I have found that most people can find some sort of sexual kink to light their fire, but will always be those who simply have no interest. If we want them to respect our sexual realities, we need to respect theirs.

[loli phabay]

519. it was more in humour post than a chastisement, but point taken

[bluesbassman]

516. You might be doing it wrong then.

[Douglas Carpenter]

534. that's a pretty arrogant thing to say. Some mature to a point where they recognize that somethings

are nothing but a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury and signifying nothing. Sex can under the right circumstance be a lot of fun - but like many if not most things in life - it is just over rated

[bluesbassman]

549. "like many if not most things in life - it is just over rated"...

Sad world you live in friend.

[Douglas Carpenter]

556. Quite the contrary. It's called accepting reality - and the more I have

accepted it, the more I have seen through the clouds of delusion - the happier in life I have become. But to be fair, not everyone is built the same. Not everyone has the same psyche. I can't imagine what is so liberal about insisting everyone has to be the same.

[dipsydoodle]

37. Its not sex which is totally awesome

Its making love which is.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. Eh, I beg to differ.

Love is supreme, above all, and the best...

...but raw unbridled lust -when done right- for its own sake ought not be underrated.

[PassingFair]

131. Your partner must feel so ....

cherished!

[Warren DeMontague]

289. did you read what I....

wrote?

[Warren DeMontague]

300. I'm guessing...

not

[Skittles]

316. I did

and I agree with your assessment

[nomorenomore08]

411. Why does it have to be one or the other? Can't you lust for someone intensely and still "cherish"

them?

[Fumesucker]

38. Fuck sex!

[Warren DeMontague]

41. Who else remembers this chestnut?

[LuvNewcastle]

43. I've got that cd!

I always play it on Mardi Gras and people get a big kick out of it.

[lillypaddle]

39. Great OP

You just said what many of us here are afraid to. Good job!

[RBInMaine]

42. ANY pornography though is exploitive and rather sleazy. Consensual PRIVATE ADULT sexual behavior is

no one's business, and there is no need of anyone trying to judge or control what others do in their bedrooms.

[Schema Thing]

57. unless they film or take pictures?

[Kurska]

179. Yes, the government doesn't belong in your bedroom... until you bring a camera? n/t

[nomorenomore08]

413. That's the reducto ad absurdum. But I don't think many people are actually taking the argument

that far, and if they are then I'm not going to take them very seriously.

[sibelian]

524. Exploitative, I think you mean. And WHY is it exploitative?

Can you explain that?

[Major Nikon]

554. Most capitalistic employment is exploitative to one degree or another

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 01:03 PM - Edit history (1)

At least that's what Marx told us.

In porn it's just about universally true that the woman makes several times that of the man, so whatever is exploitative about it is multiplied considerably for the man vs the woman yet those who remark about such things are generally only concerned about the women. Very telling that.

[zazen]

44. with all the anti-KKK sentiment, can we have a racism-positive thread?

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 08:39 AM - Edit history (3)

Seriously, the ACLU might defend the KKK's right to free speech, including promoting violent acts against minorities, but do they really turn around and argue and promote the beauty of racism and how all of we civil rights activists must realllllly hate white people and the wonders of white privilege?

This is such an old debate. Yeesh. Everyone--on the feminist boards and here--needs to go back and read John Stoltenberg (LGBT) on the degradations of gay porn and all of the arguments on the Minneapolis and Indianapolis legislation in the 80s.

Think the Dred Scott case in the 1850s and the decision that should have happened. Just because whites don't have the right to own a black man as personal property is not an attack on constitutional rights to personal property. Humans aren't others personal property. Private property rights are vital in our constitution--it's what gets defined as "property" that has evolved, as our understanding of human (and environmental) rights has progressed through the centuries.

Likewise, just because pornographers (and revenge porn stalkers) don't have the right to document rapes and sell them, doesn't mean citizens don't have a right to free speech. Other people's bodies (mostly women's and children's) are NOT the property of their pornographers or anyone else's. Your free speech right stops at another person's body.

YES, there are smart legal opinions--Edward Said from Stanford Law, I believe (that _should_ have been integrated in the failed Minneapolis legislation) that argue that one can apply traditional legal artistic/intellectual value criteria to simulated rape in film & literature, like The Forsyte Saga or Lolita. Frankly, a great way to educate people about rape is _through_ art--and what feminist in his or her right mind would want to jeopardize that? I think the marital rape in the Forsyte Saga should be shown in every frat and high school in America. It's hard to make it all "sexy" when you see it so painfully portrayed by two brilliant actors.

Civil litigation in particular recognizes nuances and probabilities all the time. Just because some things fall in the middle doesn't mean we need to allow documentation of trafficking to be traded around the Internet by organized crime, conditioning pubescent sexuality by orgasm to the torture and degradation of human beings, mostly females.

In short, it is precisely _because_ I respect consent, and the integrity of humans, and the need to shelter our young from adult-level harms while they are developing, that I support holding these rape traffickers accountable. Great sex is all about consent, and that can include consent to simulate non-consent. True consent has to come from a place where you really feel, and are, safe.

Violent porn has already harmed the people in it, and fosters a world where free expression of sexuality is NOT safe and where people (mostly females) learn to hate their natural bodies and natural responses and desires.

Let's start to move past this old, false dichotomy of "anti-pornography" vs pro-sex.

[Major Nikon]

48. Que the conflations of race/sex/consent/non-consent

There's nothing positive about racism.

Censorship schemes that you seem to favor were unworkable in the age before the internet and are even less so now. They inevitably involve some body that gets to choose what people can and can't watch and the benefit was dubious to begin with and the detriment was obvious.

"anti-pornography" vs pro-sex isn't a false dichotomy for the most part. Many anti-pornographers are both figuratively and literally anti-sex as the most vocal of them are either far right social conservatives who are against all sex outside of heterosexual marriage and anti-PIV(sex) feminists. Certainly there are exceptions, but inevitably it boils down to arguments about morality rather than substance.

"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong"
-- Betty Friedan

[seabeyond]

58. ""anti-pornography" vs pro-sex" such rw lutz labeling. like pro life vs pro abortion. ya. that

[Major Nikon]

75. I agree it's inflammatory

I explain in detail in my other post

[seabeyond]

79. and i explained my refusal to allow YOU and other men to define ME as sex negative. no.

[Major Nikon]

84. It should be pointed out you have no problem using inflammatory references yourself

Goose/gander arguments come to mind.

Just sayin'

[In_The_Wind]

47. Hurray for endorphins created by steamy hot uninhibited consensual sex!

By the way ... My safe word is Kumquat.
Oh and ... Don't even think of taking pictures.

[Aristus]

362. No need for a safe word.

I'm gentle...

[In_The_Wind]

366. That's even better.

[Aristus]

367. Thought you'd like that...

[seabeyond]

50. what is really funny is the people that i hear accuse others of being anti sex are having a hell of

a lot less sex. i hear this prude, anti sex, sex negative crap and then i read in other posts, that very poster saying, havent had sex in two decades. i never get it from the wife. not really that into sex anymore. still a virgin.

and i am thinking wtf? having a hell of a lot more sex then you all are.

that being said.

when you go into peoples sex life, calling them prudes, not liking sex, anti sex, whatever.... arent you doing the very thing you are suggesting all these anti sex people are doing. arent you using this very thing to insult them, that you are so *gasp* insulted if any dares to challenge porn acts like say.... stick a dick in the butt then in a womans mouth for no other reason that men get off on the humiliation and degradation of telling a woman to literally ... eat shit?

i betcha if i made a list of the "acts" in the gonzo porn that so many men are tripping all over themselves to get off on, put it up in an OP and people who arent all in this shit read the list.... you would have a lotta lotta the people who are all meh about porn totally fuckin disgusted. if people who pretty much ignore the crap out there, cause of a total disinterest in this garbage, were actually educated in what men are doing to women for the kicks, entertainment and thrills.... the vast majority on du would be appalled.

so pretend all you want how sticking a dick in a womans ass and then sticking a dick in the womans mouth, so you can literally make that woman eat your shit is sex positive.... no, i will not state that is sex positive.

[The Straight Story]

61. You seem to have 'man issues'

Plenty of women who not only enjoy porn but make it, and make a living doing so (ah...but there is that freedom of choice thing, which some around these parts absolutely hate. Except when it comes to aborting.)

But you keep focusing on just the men (well, at least you use that term a lot). Maybe because you see women as the weaker sex and always as the victim. Always.

Rich women like and make porn as well (kardashian, hilton, etc - although not always for general consumption). Gay men like (from what I hear) male on male porn (Except John Barrowman....he likes it all, even alien porn), does that have any victims? Oh....right, only women can be victims and forced into porn.

" so many men are tripping all over themselves to get off on" , "educated in what men are doing to women for the kicks, entertainment and thrills", "so pretend all you want how sticking a dick in a womans ass and then sticking a dick in the womans mouth, so you can literally make that woman eat your shit is sex positive"

Here is an idea, you don't have to like what others like. You don't have to hold open doors for people not like you, go to bars you don't want to go to, listen to the same music, or have the same hobbies. It does not make a person bad because they are different, and it doesn't make them a sexist or bad because something doesn't conform to your personal likes and dislikes.

[seabeyond]

63. did not bother with your post. the point of YOU telling ME i have man issues... end of conversation

[Major Nikon]

74. It helps if you know what people are talking about

I don't like the terms sex negative and sex positive because they tend to be inflammatory and you make a good case for demonstrating why. However, from a literal standpoint they do have considerable basis and are useful as shorthand so long as everyone understands what you're talking about.

First, I will define some terms at least as I will apply them for the purpose of this discussion and many others do as well.

Anti-pornography or anti-pornographers does not mean anyone who condemns pornography as this is a very large group which you may include yourself. Anti-pornographers are those who favor some sort of regulation/censorship/banning/reparation scheme. You may also include yourself in that group, I don't know. Not all social conservatives are anti-pornographers. Some are. Not all feminists are anti-pornographers. Some are.

By feminists I mean prominent feminists, not anyone who calls themselves a feminists or anyone who blogs anonymously as a feminists. I mean people who have authored papers or books on the subject that a significant number of people are reading and under a real name who are either living or deceased.

You can substitute social conservative in the above paragraph for what I mean by social conservative.

By sex I mean coitus, which some feminists refer to as PIV which means heterosexual penetrative sex.

Given those parameters, the number of feminists or social conservatives who are anti-pornographers aren't that many and the vast majority of them are anti-sex by either being against all sex outside of marriage or they are anti-sex because they consider the vast majority of it to be coercive, damaging, and/or violent to women. Given those parameters it is fair to say anti-pornographers for the most part are also anti-sex. If you can name prominent figures that fall outside those parameters feel free to do so.

That's why sex positive feminists call themselves sex positive. You may not like the terminology. I'm not a big fan of it. But it does have some basis whether you like it or not.

[seabeyond]

76. it does not matter how you define them. they are used for insult. just.... NO

like, just NO to pro life.

the end

the third wave feminist choose that to insult. pro porn men jumped on that and uses it to insult any woman that says anyting about their porn to insult, shmae and humiliate thru a womans sexuality, just like slut shaming. not a single bit of difference

you oppose slut shaming?

then you should be all over opposing prude/sex negative shaming

or you are a hypocrite doing the very thing you decry

[Major Nikon]

82. I'm not going to argue with you on this point

I think there are better terms, but those may be even less understood.

I tend to refer to all anti-pornographers as such, which includes the groups I mentioned, but that term is also ambiguous as I explained.

[seabeyond]

85. thank you. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

339. "Why do you anarchists hate roads so much, Dorothy"?

[HappyMe]

52. What people do in private is none of anybody else's business.

I happen to like sex. A lot. Like sex or don't, I don't give a crap. People's concern about what goes on in that aspect of my life ends at my front door.

[boston bean]

55. rape porn that make it appear women want to be raped

and that's all normal and shit, doesn't end at your bedroom door.

Get with the actual discussion taking place, not the one you made up thinking people are looking under your personal sheets.

That is not what the discussion is about, ok.

[HappyMe]

56. Well pardon the fuck out of me.

I stay out of porn discussions, because they are usually super long threads that turn into giant shit flinging arguments.

Take your snark elsewhere, I am not at all interested.

[boston bean]

60. Just pointing out the obvious, and trying to give a clue.

You aren't the only one that could be directed to, you just happen to be the poster I made my response to.

[HappyMe]

64. Thanks loads.

Wasn't that obvious to me, but whatever.

[boston bean]

66. you are welcome. hope it helped.

[HappyMe]

68. It helped my key word trash list.

So you are right about that.

[boston bean]

71. Excellent. You must not have trashed any word I used

cause you still saw my posts and responded.

Anyhoot, glad to help out in any way possible.

[HappyMe]

73. It only works in OPs.

[boston bean]

78. too bad then, I guess.

[Major Nikon]

80. Fair point

But substantive discussion also involves what you can demonstrate to be true and not just what you believe to be true.

The subject of free expression should always be approached from the standpoint of allowing everything and suppressing only when there is a clearly defined demonstrable benefit that far outweighs the alternative. Small minded people approach it from the other direction.

"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong"
-- Betty Friedan

[loli phabay]

69. what happens in my bedroom, or my streaming or flikr account is no ones business.

[HappyMe]

70. You got that right.

[boston bean]

77. When someone's son or daughter can go out on the web

and view it for free... it's not just your personal business, buddy.

Believe it or not, it is also empowering for women to know that not every single orifice in their body needs to be forcefully poked to have wonderful loving healthy sex.

Don't you dare come back and say anyone is limiting you. Oh, no they are not. Boys do not need to think that raping a woman is having fun loving healthy wonderful sex. Ok, they don't. And your right to do what you want in your bedroom, ends in your bedroom. No one wants to even know. But when it makes a full frontal appearance and is such a huge part of culture, in it's misogynistic way, where the effects don't stop at your mature relationship and your personal bedroom door, expect discussion. and please refrain from women calling prudes, its as bad as calling the wh*ores.. It's a simplistic dumbing down of the discussion in an effort to score cheap points.

[loli phabay]

83. thats your job to censor what your kids see online, not mine,

You do realise that adults like and enjoy all sorts of prodding and poking and by all sorts of stuff, yet you do seem to want to limit me into having sex the way you define it rather than how i want it by your very words. In all honesty your voice really means nothing in the scale of this as it seems you are definetly in the minority when it comes to people expressing thwir sexuality and the sharing of it with others.

[boston bean]

87. Yeah, I realize that you can and should be able to do what you want in

the privacy of your own home and within your relationship.

Very easy to say it's a parents job to censor, but easier said than done.

It's nearly impossible for even myself to avoid it.

Do what you want, stop trying to make it seem that anyone with a different opinion actually give a fuck what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, no one does, ok, it's really just not that important to most.

So how about you keep your judgments out of it as well?

[loli phabay]

89. you realise that webcams, streaming, flikr etc are extensions of our bedroom nowadays

And yet you do seem to want to dictate what one can do in ones bedroom, ones flikr account, ones streaming account, see one does not need to resort to foul language to converse,

[boston bean]

94. Your have a right to do what you want in your bedroom.

You are stretching it that it's no one elses business invasion of your privacy, when you try claim someone is restricting you in some way when you share it with the world.

You can't have sex on the public park bench. Maybe you would like that, but I wouldn't like to see it or sit on the bench where it took place. Your rights at that point are interfering with others.

[loli phabay]

102. and yet you are the one who wants to interfere with others not me

If someone wants to watch me or someone else have sex and there is consent why is it any of your business, just turn off the webcam on yoir computer and click another page. I sure as hell do not want to tell you what sites you can visit or what sexual proclivities are okay so it seems only one of us wants to control what others do.

[boston bean]

173. The easy access to it does affect others.

whether or not you want to acknowledge it, is not of concern to me. I'm stating the obvious.

[loli phabay]

521. so does everything we do in life, even your posts effect people

When you buy something also c etc etc,

[Major Nikon]

111. Do you think it's any easier for government to do it?

China has a great porn suppression program, btw.

[nomorenomore08]

423. Which is why the point is kind of moot, in some ways.

I myself do not in any way condone or endorse violent pornography, but I also recognize that what can be done about it is probably rather limited, unless millions of people (mostly men) decide not to watch it, which I think they should. Even "simulated" rape or torture is highly disturbing to me (and I would hope, to most other people) and while there may not be a legitimate way to ban it, I don't think it should be encouraged or simply ignored.

[Major Nikon]

436. Suppression didn't work before the internet

It has far less chance of working now.

[nomorenomore08]

513. I agree. I just find the whole thing depressing, to be honest.

The kind of material that seems to be popular is not only soulless - that I could handle - but brutal as well.

[Major Nikon]

518. Why worry about it?

There's all sorts of things that people are doing that are non-consensual. That's what bothers me. Worrying about the things that are consensual is a fruitless exercise and a fool's errand. The idea that consensual adults can do something that makes anyone else do something that's non-consensual has no basis in reality. It's a flawed hypothesis that's never been proven and given that decades and millions of dollars in studies have been spent in the effort, at what point do we say it never will be?

[nomorenomore08]

520. I was thinking of the general landscape of the "industry" and how it kind of bums me out.

And no, I'm not interested in coming down on anything that's truly consensual.

[Major Nikon]

523. I have few issues with people making moral arguments about porn

That's what free speech is all about. The only real issue I have there is some of it leads to misandry, misogyny, and homophobia. However, when people start talking about suppression of consensual adult activity regardless of whether a camera is involved or not, they should have a pretty good case for cause and effect and an even better case for impact. If they don't, I'm going to call bullshit. That's also what free speech is all about.

[nomorenomore08]

558. I basically agree. Which is why, even though I support it in principle, I suspect the U.K. law

may end up being too far-reaching. Like I said before, though, those who produce consensual porn featuring simulated violent scenarios, need to more clearly distinguish their stuff from the not-inconsiderable amount of real rape/torture footage out there. If they do so, explicitly, then I would think they're a lot less likely to be wrongfully prosecuted.

My fear, though, is that for many viewers of such material, adding disclaimers and so forth would ruin the fantasy, because they're getting off on the illusion that they're really watching someone be brutalized. Not that I can prove this, really, but it's a strong suspicion.

[Major Nikon]

103. Think of the children

What you describe is a parental responsibility and an appeal to emotion.

What some people fail to realize is that anytime you suppress anything you are trading freedom for something else. Some of this has a legitimate basis. We don't allow grammar school children to buy alcohol for obvious reasons. The idea that the US is more free than other countries is not a good one. There are many other countries which approach civil liberties from the basis of what should be suppressed rather than what should be allowed and they absolutely have far more freedom which extends to all sorts of areas. There's no more dumbing down than those who make half-fast comments about how something is icky, or why would anyone want to do that, or what is the benefit to it. Even dumber and lower are those who have to paint their ideological opponents as porn freaks. They are absolutely approaching the subject from a bassackwards direction. I could give a shit less about smoking pot, but neither do I want it suppressed. I could list lots of other examples.

Those who want to suppress should have a damn good argument as to why anything should be suppressed and the body of evidence to support it just isn't there whether they choose to admit it or not. It shouldn't be incumbent on anyone to prove why anything should be allowed.

[seabeyond]

81. you insist your children watch you and your wife go at it cause you feel it is educational, or

it just turns you on

as a society, would we gasp?

in theory i agree totally with what you say. but... i am pointing out, that most all of us have a line.

those getting all over this are pretending as if they do not.

[loli phabay]

86. heres the issue though your line and mine are in different locations, my issue is who draws the line

The line goes all the way from only sex between a man and a women who are martied and wanting kids to sex wearing a fox suit and singing Hatee hatee hatee ho. The issue is more about allowing kids and the faint of heart access to the hardcore stuff but with the way technology is today it is impossible to do so unless you want to force it all underground.

[seabeyond]

88. when you use comments like " faint of heart", i stop listening. i am not married to any of this.

that was not my point. i made a simple point, that as you say, we all have our lines.

when people start "pro sex" threads with the intent to shame women thru their sexuality, i call a halt. no. i wont allow it. no one gets to define my sexuality, just as you state no one gets to define yours.

but, let us be clear most all of us do have lines.

what i choose to do is discussing what is going on and where i see the problem with what is going on and how it effects us, individually and as a whole society.

that is not talking about laws, ban or forcing people to not do things. it is discussing issues i see very real problems.

i have never suggested bans or laws. unless it is tightening up already illegal acts that are not covered caUSE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY.

(didnt mean cap)

but, that does not stop many of the men i argue with from always, continually, redundantly, telling me i want to ban something.

[loli phabay]

90. lol i wondered why you shouted that bit, was nonplussed

I get what you are saying, but lets be honest there are people who want to ban stuff regardless if its even watching certain tv shows or eating certain foods. It seems to be human nature to tegard stuff that we dont like or is foreign to us as sometjing we need to get rid off. Its something we all do. You and i just have a different view on this subject, i dont see neitjer of us as a hundred percent right or wrong, we just come from different viewpoints, and thats good.

[seabeyond]

92. i could go with that. nt

[flamingdem]

59. WHY is there an image of a goat

showing up as an ad with this thread!?!

[HappyMe]

62. Goats go to hell...

[JVS]

144. I'm getting Nissans. I think it has to do with your browsing history.

So, what are you doing looking at goats?

[Iggo]

65. LOL...no. We can't.

[seabeyond]

67. no iggo we cannot when the premise of the thread is those people do not like sex.

no. the OP is about insulting a group of people, those insulted are not gonna just give the thumbs up.

ya... sex positive/sex negative.

hey, lets embrace pro life wording. insulting? ya

[Iggo]

150. I didn't read the body of the OP. I just answered the question in the subject line.

Then I trashed this thread like all the rest of 'em.

[seabeyond]

151. thank you... clarification is our friend. i appreciate it. go back to the trash bin

nasty thread, lol

i am outta here too.

good day to you

[RiffRandell]

91. Props to you for trying.

It started out positive, then well...it's pretty obvious.

[seabeyond]

95. when a posts intent is to insult, why would you think the insulted is going to stay quiet?

when the purpose was to shame my sexuality, why do you not stand up for my right to say... no.

you would if we had a post of slut shaming. but you think you have the right to shame my sexuality as being anti sex or a prude.

waht would be the difference?

you may feel shaming a group of womens sexuality is positive. i do not

[RiffRandell]

99. I don't think it was supposed to be insulting at all.

The poster came off genuine to me.

Shaming your sexuality? I have no idea where you got that from, and don't even want to bother venturing to try to find out.

[seabeyond]

101. sex positive/sex negative. prude.... kinda like pro life. is that offensive to you?

are you anti life?

of course not. it si stupid.

when men throw sex negative and prude at us women they are shaming our sexuality. if you cannot see or understand that very basic reality... ah well

have a good day

[Upton]

109. Actually..

at least one of your cohorts claims to be at least partially sex negative..

I am a mix of sex positivism and negativism.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024079616#post84

Is that equally as offensive to you too?

[seabeyond]

110. yes. a man that speaks out for women regularly. is not offended by sex negative, cause

of male privilege does not really get the insult.

thank you so much for proving my point. you are a helpful dude.

[Upton]

112. I see...

so a regular male contributor to HoF is immune from your accusations of.."when men throw sex negative and prude at us women they are shaming our sexuality"..

Very interesting...

[seabeyond]

114. how do you know i have not expressed my opinion to him? now. done with you.

i almost never bother replying to your post. but you did give me the opportunity to point out the male privilege and how this really is about shaming womens sexuality.

i appreciate your help

done

[Upton]

118. Hmm...

so, am I to infer from your post that you actually have told him his sex negative position is nothing more than an effort to shame women's sexuality?

Yeah, I just bet...

[Major Nikon]

132. The same person also identifies as a separatist feminist

...which is a bit of a head scratcher for someone who also self-identifies as a man. However, there are most certainly separatist feminists who have no issues self-identifying as sex negative.

There are some contexts where sex negative is not a pejorative, but I don't think most people understand feminism well enough to know when and how to do so. I don't think sex negative should ever be used in reference to someone or some ideological group who doesn't self-identify as such or at least supports an ideology that would lead you to believe it fits otherwise it's to easy to interpret it as a pejorative. Then again I feel much the same way about "MRA" and there are those who don't seem to give a flying fuck about that either and throw around the term ignorantly and specifically with the intent of it being a pejorative.

Just sayin'

[Major Nikon]

121. "Sex positive" as it applies to feminism originated with Betty Dopson, a feminist

She's also quite an interesting character with some very provocative ideas on sex and sexuality.

[Upton]

126. Thanks Major..

She is a founder of the pro-sex feminist movement, having left behind the more traditional feminist movement because she considered it banal, antisexual and over-politicized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Dodson

Now that's my kind of feminist..

[HappyMe]

152. That was refreshing.

Honest, no bullshit approach.

Thanks for posting.

[gollygee]

105. It's calling people who think rape porn is wrong

sex negative, prudish, and control freaks.

That is an insult, and it is also not accurate. I am very capable of thinking porn that makes rape look sexy and appealing is wrong, and still liking sex (I'm married and frequently do have sex), not being a prude, and not being a control freak.

[TreasonousBastard]

93. A couple of small points...

before I have to run off for work.

Rape is a crime of violence

Just like horsewhipping, shooting, beating to a bloody pulp... It's violence and whole canons of law deal with violence, sexual and otherwise. Gallons of ink and billions of electrons have been spent trying to explain how rape is somehow special, but it is different from other forms of violence as lynching is to beating with a lead pipe and not a political golf ball to be hit for distance.

Do depictions of violence create violent offenders?

We don't know. We've depicted murder in books, songs, plays, movies, TV, and now video games since the species became literate and nobody has yet proven a solid link. We still have boxing matches on HBO and phony wrestling matches on TNT but do either promote random violence? Depicting rape in a porn video most likely has the same effect as depicting murder in a Tarantino movie, but we really don't know. At any rate, the calls for censoring Tarantino movies are not nearly as loud as the calls for censoring rape porn, so something else might be at play.

Whassup with sex?

Sex has been relegated to the same status as taking a dump. We all do it but can't talk about it. In the case of taking a dump, it's smelly and revolting with little good to say about it other than waste removal, but what's the problem with sex?

Leaving aside the small fact that most of us have actually taken dumps that were more pleasurable than some of the sex we've had, we all freely talk about the meals, the clothes, the drinking and dancing... that lead up to either activity. But not the activity itself.

This has not been true in all cultures. At times, educating young people (usually young men, unfortunately) in proper sexual performance was the norm. Why not teach sex ed as really sex ed? Not just warnings about diseases and pregnancy by embarrassed teachers but actual field work-- like they do in drivers ed? Another income stream for hookers and porn stars?

Oh, the horror! But we spend all this time and money trying to stop kids (and adults, too, btw) from doing a perfectly normal, and fun, activity while not stopping sexual ignorance, violence, or trauma. Might not just teaching how to do it right solve a lot of our problems? There are, of course, how-to sex videos already out there. What does the anti-porn militia think about them?

[dawg]

104. Sex is not an unmitigated "good".

It is a thing similar to "speech".

It can be used to build someone up; it can be used to tear someone down.

It can build strong and lasting bonds; it can break them.

It is a great way to communicate strong feelings to someone that you care about; it can also be used to communicate contempt.

Sex, like speech, is neither good nor evil.

It's all in how you use it.

And I am due beer and travel money, and many experiences (hopefully some of them sexual).

[seabeyond]

115. k, your last line put a huge smile on my face.... this. is a very good post

and so simple.

and obvious

[dawg]

119. Well, I had to give a little shout-out to RT because ...

I knew I was wading a little further out into the deep-end than I normally care to go.

[nomorenomore08]

428. Which is why the "positive/negative" dichotomy is way too simplistic.

By asking a person to choose one or the other unequivocally, you're essentially trying to put them in a little box, and if they fall into the box you don't like, you simply dismiss them.

(Obviously I don't mean "you" as in dawg himself.)

[Vashta Nerada]

106. Some people like to poop in the punch bowl.

Apparently around here there's no such thing as positive sex.

[seabeyond]

116. says who? or is it the right to insult a group of women shaming them thru their sexuality?

are you good with slut shaming?

this post is the opposite. shaming women saying the are sex negative nad prudes. ergo, do not like sex

you believe it is ok to shut a woman up, by shaming her thru her sexuality?

[Vashta Nerada]

134. Why so defensive?

Why do you automatically assume I'm talking about you?

[seabeyond]

135. why accusing i am defensive when i asked you a simple question.

you say there are people here on du that do not believe in positive sex.

i ask you who

you refuse to give an answer

tell me one person who has a problem with positive sex. you put it out there, not me.

oh.... fifth one, makes a false accusation and connot back it up.

right?

one post where a poster is against "positive" sex.

[Vashta Nerada]

138. Just go away.

But please, let everyone here know your opinion.

[seabeyond]

139. so, you throw out a false, stupid ass accusation at duers on this board and cause i want an example

you demand i .... go away.

doesnt work like that.

[Vashta Nerada]

140. The world doesn't revolve around you.

Go bother someone else.

[seabeyond]

142. Apparently around here there's no such thing as positive sex.

this is your comment. you are saying you can say whatever bullshit you want and you are not allowed to be called out on the bullshit.

what does that have to do with me?

seems to me, you are making it about me.

of course you cannot back up your statement. there is no way you can back it up. i get that. but.... wowser, the way you own defeat, lol

adios

fifth one.... unable to back up the accustion to duers

[Vashta Nerada]

143. Ah.

Narcissistic much?

Not everything is about you.

You make it about you.

[seabeyond]

148. why do you keep bringing it to me. you are the one that made the statement.

btw... your post would be a personal attack, rude

just sayin... if someone were to alert, ???

[Old and In the Way]

163. Actually, you brought it to him/her with your post on his/her 106.

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

Smartly, he/she didn't take the bait on naming names.

[seabeyond]

171. actually, he made the point of stating people in this thread.... so i asked who. see how this works

he makes an accusation toward duers. i ask who.

he cannot provide and answer then starts backpedaling and everything else to squrim away from what he said.

he puts out a statement, i ask who.

we are not suppose to ask questions? challenge? expect a person to back up accusations at fellow duers?

[Old and In the Way]

177. And if he/she answered who, you would have alerted.

See how this works?

[seabeyond]

180. really? you know this for a fact, or are you once again just throwing out false accusation? the FACT

is anyone can read thru this thread and see, that what he accuses duers of is false. the FACT is he threw out an accusation with no basis. the FACT is he cannot back up what he says, so he resorts to calling me names ect...

[Old and In the Way]

203. "Some people like to poop in the punch bowl."

Is this an untrue statement? Really? Is this a FACT with no basis? Really? He/she can't back this up with names? Well, no, he/she can't without getting alerted on.

There was no calling you names...just in your fevered imagination.

[seabeyond]

206. clever but dishonest. "Apparently around here there's no such thing as positive sex. "

that is what i was addressing and i quoted exactly that a couple post laters asking ... who?

i would think since he had two sentences, it would be obvious that i was not addressing poopin in a damn punch bowl. but then, actually using the sentence he made a false accusation toward duers in this thread, would not work, would it. so you had to grab the poop post.

[Old and In the Way]

211. That's what you initially responded to

before you accused the poster of being rude and "bringing it to you". I agree, though, that "Apparently around here there's no such thing as positive sex " is a sweeping generalization. It would have been a FACT if the poster had stated, "Apparently around here, for some DUers, there's no such thing as positive sex ". Of course, you still would have been outraged and demanded who these people were.

[seabeyond]

214. i haev never seen a duer that " there's no such thing as positive sex". enlighten me.

[Old and In the Way]

217. I don't understand your post.

Shocker, I know.

[seabeyond]

220. you say some duers say " there's no such thing as positive sex". i have never seen a duer that

says/thinks " there's no such thing as positive sex". enlighten me who SOME of these duers are.

[Old and In the Way]

237. You will just have to use that creative imagination of yours.

So, to recap...you think all DUers are sex positive...but what about those posters to whom you have directed negative comments on sex threads to? Would you label them sex negative-postive or sex positive-negative?

[seabeyond]

238. well, you would have to be a little more specific what you are taking but regardless, i would

not, and i have not labeled them either.

[Warren DeMontague]

373. HOW CAN YOU CALL YOURSELF A LIBERAL WHILE YOU'RE DEFENDING PUNCHBOWL POOPING?

THAT IS EXACTLY THE SORT OF SICK BEHAVIOR OUR SOCIETY SHOULD CONDEMN. YET HERE ON DU WE HAVE ENTHUSIASTIC PUNCHBOWL POOPERS CHEERING PUNCHBOWL POOP PORN AND ENGAGING IN WANTON PUNCHBOWL POOPERY

[maddezmom]

374. ....

remdi95

[opiate69]

430. !!

remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95 remdi95

[Warren DeMontague]

539. You know, I actually think that thing may be more like "Koyaanisqatsi"

In that every time you say it, the fabric of the Universe comes that much more undone.

Nice going. Really. I hope you're happy.

[uponit7771]

107. +1

[Arkana]

108. Sex rules. Wish I was having it.

[L0oniX]

117. I'm getting some right now.

[TroglodyteScholar]

122. All the same a-holes who accuse you of defending "rape porn" when you defend vanilla porn...

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

...will still vote that sex is awesome. Even though they think they should dictate to the rest of us what is acceptable in the bedroom.

Sorry guys, it's not going to be a fun time if you make me meet with your attorney first.

[Warren DeMontague]

123. Reading your post, I have to ask one thing:

How can you call yourself a sentient being when you're so clearly in favor of brazen wanton mushroom fucking?

I read your post and all I can see is someone defending the inexcusable, namely fucking fungi.

[TroglodyteScholar]

133. It is indeed a shameful burden I must bear..

I can't see the other reply to my post, but I'm pretty sure the poster related to my description of the porn police....

[seabeyond]

124. not going to be a fun time if you make me mere with your attorney first.

an old and tired rw anti feminist talking point.

right

[PassingFair]

127. I love sex. I just don't have a desire to watch others having sex.

You can be "sex-positive" and still believe that sex is an intensely PERSONAL experience.

"Private consensual behaviors" shouldn't be punished. Pornography is never "private", it is always for the consumption of others.

It's disturbing to me that many seem to think that sex=pornography.

[Schema Thing]

197. Pretty sure non-private consensual behaviors shouldn't be punished either.

Or am I just a damn fool liberal?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

129. ...sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love."

"Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love." - Butch Hancock

[Skittles]

390. LOL

[duffyduff]

147. Pornography is not pro-sex, and opponents are NOT anti-sex or "prudes."

Anybody making the claim that opponents are prudes are ignoramuses who have NO idea of what porn really is about and what the industry is about.

Porn is the direct opposite of what sexual relationships should be. It's exploitative the same way prostitution is, and I would argue that like prostitution is a human rights violation.

The buying and selling of human beings is NOT a civil liberties right. "Consent" has to be freely entered into. Being relegated to doing porn or prostitution is NOT an act of "free will"--it is an act of desperation because of financial pressures. Furthermore, others are profiting from that exploitation.

I am sick and tired of reading the same type of bullshit rhetoric that has been used since the 1970s to glorify this crap.

[Vashta Nerada]

156. So what you're saying is you don't like an industry...

where consenting adults make their own decisions as to whether or not to have sex on tape?

I'm desperate for a job now and I may have to go work in retail, even though I don't want to. How is the retail business any different from porn, in your example?

[gollygee]

167. Should people be forced to look for work in the porn industry

in order to receive public assistance, the way they're required to search for work elsewhere? Should the US government turn down assistance to someone who refuses to work in pornographic films?

[Warren DeMontague]

543. I would be profoundly surprised if anyone is being required to look for work IN the adult industry

specifically, to receive public assistance.

Public assistance and work requirements are, AIUI, relatively open-ended; people need to look for work, be looking for work. I don't believe anyone in the public assistance office is going to be saying "you have to look for work in porn". Nor are they going to tell someone who looked for jobs elsewhere, that they can't get aid because they DIDN'T audition for a porn shoot.

If you can find a case where that actually happened, I will eat my hat.

[gollygee]

552. I didn't say it was happening

He said that it's no different than working in the service industry. If that's so, then it seems like he must think the requirements for searching for work should apply to pornography as much as the service industry.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

149. sure thing, Bubba -

I am POSITIVE that RAPE is not SEX.

RAPE PORN does not depict SEX; it depicts VIOLENCE.

capiche?

[Kurska]

169. Actually consensual role play that involves simulated rape is in fact sex.

See rape is sex without consent

Rape play is sex that simulates rape, but is actually consensual.

Again there is this massive unwillingness to recognize the difference between fantasy and reality, is it the oddest kind of literalism. If I play stabbed my friend with a retractable stage knife, would that be murder?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

176. uhm, Bubba,

Rape PLAY and Rape PORN are two different things. DON'T CONFLATE THEM.

and get this:

I don't care what you DO or DON'T do with another consenting adult in the privacy of your own home. THAT IS NOT A BUSINESS OR AN INDUSTRY. I DON'T CARE IF YOU MAKE VIDEOS AND SHARE THEM WITH THE WHOLE WORLD>

YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT SHARING IS NOT FOR PROFIT, capiche?

RAPE PORN IS NOT RAPE PLAY> PERIOD.

NO IFS AND OR BUTS ABOUT IT.

[Kurska]

181. Rape porn is rape play that was recorded...

Your attempt to define rape porn as only that which is profited from is not only wrong, but completely out of sync with the law that inspired this whole debate.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

191. Laws can be changed. -

supply and demand.

Are you demanding rape porn?

How many DUers are demanding rape porn from the porn industry?

sex as business. cool.

I don't sell sex.

I am too busy selling my soul for another industry.

[Kurska]

224. No one is demanding anything, besides others not censor what they don't like.

I have zero interest in rape play or rape porn, it isn't my thing. But that doesn't change the fact that it is protected speech and that if I don't stand up for unpopular things I don't like, why would anyone ever stand up for the things that I do?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

229. whatever, Bubba. peace out and dueces.

[Kurska]

233. Have a wonderful life n/t

[seabeyond]

194. did the person that "rape" play lack consent, lack control? cause if there was consent and control,

there was no rape, in the play. just scripted role while having sex.

no more or less.

has nothing to do with rape.

if the person did not consent, had no control. that would be rape. not fantasy rape. but absolute, full blown, rape.

[pintobean]

340. I just served on a jury for this post

Bubba is offensive!

[Laelth]

346. It certainly wasn't meant as a compliment. n/t

-Laelth

[pintobean]

349. 0-6 to leave it

You can call me Bubba if you want to. I can handle it.

[Laelth]

351. I know. I was the one on the jury who said it was rude.

I should have added that it was also counter-productive, i.e. unhelpful and petty. That said, I still voted to leave it.

-Laelth

[Major Nikon]

525. So does Pulp Fiction

And a lot of other content that's out there. Far more of it actually, and far more graphically.

[RKP5637]

153. Well said! Finally, the US is trying to become mature than stuck in

some dimwitted closet. When I was a kid a long time ago, I wondered WTF is with these people and their hiding of sex, etc. It always seemed really really weird to me.

[ryan_cats]

172. I would but...

I would but, I need both hands to type.

[shenmue]

185. I like to vote.

I like to press buttons on screen. Whee!

[Kurska]

295. Post of the year, all years +1 n/t

[MadrasT]

196. Meh. Sex isn't inherently good (or bad) all by itself.

There is no activity that is universally awesome for all people, all the time.

It can be the best of the best, or the worst of the worst (and everything in between).

I find society's fixation on the whole thing to be somewhat incomprehensible, actually.

[boston bean]

209. Prude shaming bullshit post.

Get this and get this point clearly.

Judging a woman based on perceived prudishness, is just the flip side of slut shaming.

Now, when you can be respectful to all women, let's talk sometime, ok.

[lumberjack_jeff]

228. So, every point of view a woman can possibly hold should be immune from criticism?

"prude shaming"

[Kurska]

235. My lord, no one is saying you don't have a right to be disgusted by whatever you want.

Or that you should feel bad if you're disgusted by some sexual activity (hell some consensual sexual activity does make me a little noxious to think about).

The point is that no matter how disgusted you are by it, you don't have the right to legislate against it. While it may not at all be your cup of tea, it is probably making someone out there very happy so who are you to tell them what do with their bodies?

[LittleBlue]

249. Any prude who wants to enforce their morality on others deserves nothing but

shame and scorn. I hope they feel the most agonizing, burning shame for their authoritarian beliefs. They make this world suck and have done so in many forms for over a thousand years, leaving countless victims in their wake.

Any prude who wants to live that life is fine with me. Once they start imposing their beliefs through laws on others, it's time for some prude shaming. They are a toxic contingent whose beliefs are against free society, and they should be purged from every political movement.

[boston bean]

279. Women are just so grateful to be judged

by what men think of them sexually.

Thank you, oh yes thank you, to men who are not shy in shaming women, whether they be sluts or prudes! They aint women they are something to be classified into categories, their opinion means less one way or the other.

It doesn't matter the issue at hand, just that a woman must be certain way in a mans eye, cause she is either or...



How have us women ever continued living without these judgments.

[LittleBlue]

288. This is life and you will be judged, fairly or unfairly, no matter what laws are passed.

In free societies we are free to express opinions and, yes, even pass judgment on others.

By all means, one should speak out, but when one crosses the line from criticism to regulation, they are the enemy of free expression. Shame is the only thing they should feel and rightly so.

[boston bean]

302. Yes, take your own advice then and don't be so hypocritical, would be

the kindest advice I could give.

[LittleBlue]

304. What law restricting free expression am I supporting?

I am against those laws. Furthermore, it is my position that prudes should be shunned and shamed. Where is the hypocrisy?

[boston bean]

306. Prudes should be shunned and shamed...

very telling... Who are you to determine who is a prude?

Also, please point me to a post where I stated anything should be outlawed, or new laws written. Until you can do, you are making things up in your own mind and are arguing something with me about something I've never stated.

[LittleBlue]

308. Who am I to determine who is a prude?

A free citizen, therefore I may determine what I please.

Also, please point me to a post where I stated anything should be outlawed, or new laws written.

Please point to a post where I said you did. Strawmen won't work here. This discussion began days ago as a pornography argument, hence my attack on prudes who wish to restrict what consenting adults can publish. I am referring to the group who wishes to support Cameron's laws and similar laws. If you're a member of that group, then you'll know one way or another.

[boston bean]

310. I am also a free citizen and therefore determine what I please,

so where does that leave us? Just you have those rights?

In regards to your second paragraph accusing me of creating a strawman. You are conversing with me, no one else. So either put up the evidence of what you claim I state or try to follow along with what I have stated.

Your personal feelings about what you think I think aren't relevant.

[LittleBlue]

321. If you've gotten lost in this discussion, there is a record above

You objected to prude shaming. I disagreed and have spent several posts telling you why. This should be no mystery to you. Prudes who try to enforce their views on others through laws are no less deserving of shame than anti-choicers or homophobes who do the same; the similarly eerie obsession with controlling the private, legal actions of another is disgusting.

I never once tried to determine what you think, it was a principled rejection of your statement. And you know that.

[boston bean]

333. I'm not lost, read what I write and respond to it.

really pretty simple. Not what you imagine I write or what you "think" I mean....

[xulamaude]

309. I have a question (and my bad if you've already addressed it)

but WHY do you think "prudes" should be shunned and shamed exactly.

Or maybe I should just ask what your definition of "prude" is?

[LittleBlue]

312. Specifically, prudes who try to enforce restrictions on others

Prudes are those who are not sexually liberated. They mix morality and sex in order to restrict themselves. Which is fine, until they attempt to pass laws enforcing their beliefs on others.

Why do I think they should be shunned and shamed? Because they are control-obsessed people who aren't satisfied just moderating their own behavior, and instead must control others. I find that urge contemptible.

[xulamaude]

317. Okay. Thank you. nt

[rrneck]

324. I don't think those who would censor porn are prudes.

They just want everybody else to be a prude until they authorize them to be otherwise.

[NuclearDem]

213. Sex is great. I don't particularly care for porn, though.

[LadyHawkAZ]

218. Obviously no, we cannot.

Never have. Never will.

[seabeyond]

222. so your idea of a positive sex thread is insulting women by shaming them their sexuality?

because the point of the "positive" sex thread was insulting other women on du. you know, shaming them as "anti/negative" sex or prudes.

that would be no different than slut shaming women.

i know you are opposed to slut shaming women. i assume you would also be opposed to shaming women suggesting the do not like sex. you know, attacking a womans sexuality instead of what she is saying.

[Kurska]

239. My lord, I never said anyone wasn't free to not like sex.

I have friends that are asexual, they don't want to have sex. I have zero beef with them

My beef is with people who don't like sex and want to be sure no one else enjoys it either.

Huge difference, but of course what I actually said and believe doesn't matter in comparison to what is convenient for you to argue against.

[seabeyond]

242. see, this is the issue. because women talk about rape porn, you tell them they do not like sex.

who the fuck are you to tell us women that we do not like sex. it is arrogant, condesending and nasty, stinking of the same crap that if a girl dresses a certain way she is a slut. she can say... hey, i have never had sex. but, because she is dressed a certain way a man can call her a slut. or because she takes bc pills a man can call her a slut.

because i and others talk about rape porn, does not give you the FUCKIN right to tell me i and others we do not like sex. that is shaming a womans sexually. it is disgusting, it is too normal in this world.

My beef is with people who don't like sex and want to be sure no one else enjoys it either.

who are these people you are speaking about.

[Kurska]

246. When the hell did I say YOU didn't like sex, why do you even assume this OP is directed at you.

Why don't you go look at another OP that was posted very recently, talking about all pornography inherently degrades women. This article was of course written by people who want to end abortion and jail gay people, but because it was anti-porn it was posted here. The people who wrote that article clearly do hate sex (at least gay sex) and do want to prevent other people from enjoying. Why is it that you find my OP offensive when all I did was say that consensual sex is a good thing (GASP) and that people who want to control the sexual lives of others are wrong, yet haven't said a word of negativity about that other one. If you really find my OP more offensive than anti-gay rightwing hatemongery being posted here, then you have some seriously mixed up priorities. So if you must have a target for my OP (it wasn't directed at any specific person), it ain't you it is anyone who wants to ban sexual expressions they don't like. I can't tell you if you are in that group or not, only you know for sure.

You can dislike rape porn as much as you want to, as a matter of fact I dislike it to as I've already stated. But you have zero right to demand it be censored because of your tastes and your feelings. If it is consenting adults, then it is none of your business.

[seabeyond]

250. My beef is with people who don't like sex and want to be sure no one else enjoys it either.

you have declared that there are people that do not like sex and you are using you declaration to shame them. that is no different than slut shaming.

[Kurska]

253. No see the and in that sentence indicates a compound thought

My beef is with people who don't like sex AND want to be sure no one else enjoys it either.

If I meant to say

"My beef is with people who don't like sex" then I would have said that, but I didn't. I said

"My beef is with people who don't like sex
a
n
d
want to be sure no one else enjoys it either"

A period is used to indicate the end of a complete thought, if the period hasn't come, then the thought isn't yet complete.

I know there are people who don't like sex, some of them are my friends. People have every right in the world to absolutely hate sex, but trying to restrict consensual sex for everyone else would make that person an jerk.

[seabeyond]

256. after all the rape porn thread you start an OP ... now can we have a sex positive thread.

really.... you erally think any one is going to buy this bullshit back pedaling.

[Kurska]

260. Yes, I was personally addressing you with my OP.

I had this several paragraph long statement all written out, exclusively to shame you, but somehow I managed to forget to put your name at the end of it. How embarrassing, I'll be sure to fix that.

[seabeyond]

262. you know, i know, everyone on this thread knows who you were addressing. me personally? all the

women that were speaking up on those threads. you CHOOSE to shame ALL the women who dared to speak out on the rape threads.

and how dare a woman stand up to you and say... do not, dont you fuckin dare, use my sexuality to shame me to shut the fuck up.

[Kurska]

267. The only people I am addressing are those that want to ban others consensual sexual practices.

If you want to include yourself in that group, then by all means feel free. Like I've said, unless an integral part of your sexuality is controlling the sexuality of others, I never said anything about your sexuality.

[seabeyond]

269. YOU are using womens sexuality to shame them. that simple. you cannot justify that, or validate

that.

YOU are no better than limbaugh or the repugs or any other random slut shamer.

[Kurska]

270. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true n/t

[seabeyond]

274. It is a fact. You are try to weasel your way around it all. It bottom lines to you

Using a woman's sexuality to insult her cause you do not like what she say about porn. That is the same as slut shaming. Obviously I have to keep repeating as you continue to try to validate that behavior

[Kurska]

276. Banning pornography is not a sexual behavior.

If you feel that I am trying to "shame" something (presenting a counter argument is not shaming), it is that. If you feel banning pornography is a sexual behavior then.....

uhhh

good for you?

[seabeyond]

286. using sex positive to sex negative, using prude, using anti sex then that is exactly what you are

doing.

[Kurska]

292. I'm so glad there exists people who can tell me what I am doing.

I often have difficulty understanding my own actions. Sometimes I think I am putting my shoes on, but really I am watering the planet. I find myself think I am listening to music, when in reality I am actually playing video games.

I am so glad there exists brave people who will tell me what I am actually doing as opposed to what I think I am doing. I would be lost without them.

[seabeyond]

296. it is literally your words. so whatever.... nt

[Old and In the Way]

322. If you can decrypt 286, please share with the rest of us.

For the record, I'm prude-negative. slut-positive.

[The Straight Story]

337. I don't think even the freaking TARDIS can translate some of what I am reading here

[Kurska]

344. I'll get my best men working on it

[Old and In the Way]

319. Hmmm...breakthrough thought here.

Maybe sex-negative people are attracted to sex-positive people. Or, maybe it's the other way around.

[Old and In the Way]

318. Hey, she loves sex and is sex positive.

It's the rest of us rape-pornists that are the problem!

[LadyHawkAZ]

247. I have seen people in these threads

attacking not just staged rape porn (which is understandably upsetting to some) but the entire idea of porn and the ability of the women involved to consent to it. Not some of them who might be enslaved, but ALL of them. Just the women. Never the hetero men, never the gay men, just the women. When people start messing with the concept of consent to make a consensual act into a non-consensual one to suit themselves, that's anti-sex, whether the person saying it enjoys whatever sex they personally have or not. There is no other way to spin it. The fact that it's only ever directed at the female participants makes it slut-shaming as well.

Sex-positive thought involves acceptance of all consensual sex, not just the types that one person happens to enjoy. Placing a narrow limitation on which kinds of consensual acts are acceptable and which are not is not sex-positive. It has zero to do with how much fun they, personally, have in bed, and that's where people seem to be getting confused.

I suspect there are a few here that genuinely don't like sex. I'm perfectly fine with that; people are free to do, or not do, whatever they please with their genitalia without needing my approval for it. Not liking sex or not wanting to have sex is not repeat NOT sex-negativity. However, there is a difference between not wanting to do it themselves and telling others that they can't/shouldn't do it either or are wrong/bad/dirty for doing so. THAT'S the difference between sex-positive and sex negative- it's not in what you like or do personally, but in how accepting you are of others' choices. And yes there absolutely are some here that do that, and I absolutely will shame that attitude wherever I see it. It's RW fundie misogynist bullshit, and doesn't belong on a liberal and theoretically feminist board. Period.

[seabeyond]

252. the only other way to "spin it" other than ANTI sex, would be ANTI porn. but what the fuck

call them anti sex and shame their sexuality. no different from slut shaming.

i understand the purpose of sex positive.... thought. it is right there with pro life.

[HappyMe]

263. Nice spin attempt.

Doesn't fly though, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[seabeyond]

266. really? women against porn are anti sex, not anti porn. to say anti porn is a spin?

so, you have absolutely no problem at all being with a group of men that choose to sex shame women for agenda purposes.

[HappyMe]

285. What men are you talking about?

Sex shame? Really, I can't keep up with all the latest 'shaming' lingo and what labels the cool kids are using.

I have watched and enjoyed porn. I have watched it alone and with my husband. I don't think anyone has the right to tell me or make it impossible for us to watch porn. If you don't like porn that's fine. You aren't going to convince anybody to stop watching porn. Ever.

I just don't understand what you are on about with this shaming thing. Why does everything have to have a specific label and be shoved into a specific box. Good grief, I don't take crap I read here so seriously that I think 'Oh God! I've been shamed!'. I just don't care. I most certainly won't be outraged enough to claim that or imply that ALL women have been shamed.

[seabeyond]

290. sex positive/sex negative, anti sex, prude. what do you think that is saying about people who speak

out against porn/ what do you think they are saying about women?

[HappyMe]

299. I don't know.

Why the fuck should it even matter?

Everybody has their opinion. If somebody chooses to dump a label on it, to me, that's their problem -not mine.
One person's or even a few people holding forth about stuff doesn't say shit about 'women'. You can't dump an entire gender into one bucket. The 'women' thing implies that we are all of the same mind about everything. We are not.

[seabeyond]

301. you dont know.

[HappyMe]

303. Well, maybe I do.

I figured you were just going to tell me any way. So I chose not to waste my time.

[Old and In the Way]

326. The 'women' thing implies that we are all of the same mind about everything.

Well, it is a very convenient label. When used by certain posters here - sorry, no names! - it can be wielded as both a club and a shield.

[Old and In the Way]

325. You sound like a prude-negative type person.

So therefore you must be a pro-rape pornist. Confused?

"I just don't understand what you are on about with this shaming thing." No one else does, either.

[LadyHawkAZ]

272. Voluntarily having sex and filming it for others to see

is also a sexual CHOICE. Insisting that the women who choose to do so are somehow subnormal and lacking the capacity to consent, simply to suit the narrative that porn is bad, is slut shaming. I did say "there is no other way to spin it" but what I should have said was "there is no other way to spin it and still attach any form of logic or consistency to the argument", because there are tons of ways to spin it as somehow "pro-woman" if you leave those qualities out. And since you brought it up, that's the same thing the "pro-life" does- spin their repressive ideology as "pro-woman", which makes perfect sense if you completely leave out logic, common sense, and in fact the woman.

If a person is pro-sex for themselves, but anti-everyone-else's-sex, they are not sex-positive. To continue your analogy, "Pro-Life", anti-abortion Rep. Scott DesJarlais pressured his mistress into having an abortion- would you consider him pro-choice on that basis?

Once again, it is not repeat NOT about their personal sexuality. It has nothing to do with what a person likes to do themselves, and everything to do with their acceptance of other people's choices, stop, end of sentence.

[seabeyond]

281. it is a disagreement about porn. i understand your issue on women choosing.

but that is not the argument here. i am not getting all into that with you, now. i did not get into that on the other threads.

the bottom line is, men on du, and some women on du, use anti sex, prude, and sex positive/negative to insult any woman that speaks out against porn. it is used in the same manner that limbaugh uses to slut shame fluke

it is a personal attack, it is used as a person attack many many many times. so you can say it isnt, but that is not reality. and it is being used just in that manner in this thread

[LadyHawkAZ]

307. The "disagreement about porn" is full of slut shaming, every time it turns up.

As noted above, there were people in the rape porn threads, as there have been in every porn thread, insisting that all porn actresses (never actors, only actresses) are non-consenting and completely warping the concept of consent to do so. It's blatant misogyny, and I have great big huge issues with it, which is why I keep turning up in these threads.

I re-read the thread again just to be sure- I saw no one shaming the personal sexuality of the anti-porn crowd. The OP itself was expressly about those passing judgement on other people's sexual choices, and so were the responses supporting it. No one actually seems to care if 1) you or anyone else personally like sex or 2) you or anyone else personally like porn, BDSM, oral sex or anything else. Nobody cares, so long as that personal preference is not being used to shame the preferences of others. If it seems to you like the term "sex-negative" is being used to shame that particular attitude, that's because it is. It's a right-wing attitude and deserves the call-outs just like any other right-wing attitude would. I said that in my first response to you above. If people choose to conflate attacking a particular attitude toward other people's sexuality with attacking the sexuality of the people saying it (which is exactly what's happening), that's their problem. It's not what is actually going on.

It's not repeat NOT a personal attack on the personal sexuality of the people involved, any more than using "anti-choice" is a personal insult on a person's personal breeding decisions. Attack on an opinion, yes. Personal attack, no.

[Sissyk]

376. You can speak for tthis womannn

anytime, Lady!

[Major Nikon]

547. The whole sex-negative thing is more than just a bit disingenuous

You have an entire thread in HOF where someone is basically saying, there they go in GD again calling us prudes because we don't like rape. The logical disconnect is reaching biblical proportions. I believe you are absolutely correct. Nobody is attacking the personal sexuality of anyone, or at least I haven't seen it.

The whole sex-positive concept originated by feminists, for feminists. It doesn't come from the right. While it is true that some have hijacked that terminology for nefarious purposes, I don't believe the concept as it originated was ever about prudishness. Certain feminists believe that the vast majority of heterosexual coitus is coercive due to the patriarchy. This is a fact that I hope nobody disputes and if they do it would probably serve them well to educate themselves on the subject because it's important to informed discussion on this topic as opposed to banal shit throwing. Some(if not all) of the feminists who were instrumental in the early feminist movement for anti-pornography held this belief (and still do for the most part). The literal meaning of heterosexual coitus is in fact, sex. Some of the 2nd wave feminists were dissatisfied with the anti-male bias and anti-pornography efforts of the 2nd wave which they saw as denying women self-agency and took to calling themselves pro-sex or sex positive, to differentiate themselves from much of the rest of the 2nd wave which they saw as having an increasingly restrictive view of sexuality. Now, not everyone may agree with this concept, but that's where it came from like it or not. If anyone doubts any of this, they can learn about Betty Dodson who started the whole movement. Google is your friend here. She's a great feminist and an even better sex educator.

[RiffRandell]

297. Excellent post.

[maddezmom]

341. Perfectly said

And god forbid you don't agree 100% with some women and some men...you will be called an apologist, enabler, not a "real" feminist etc. and it is not just about sex or porn either. I don't appreciate it when men tell me what to think, how to act or react. But I sure don't like it when other women tell me what to think or how to act or react.

[RiffRandell]

230. You got it! nt

[seabeyond]

236. you too, are into shaming women their sexuality? i am aghast.... nt

[Kurska]

241. "The only freaks are those who violate the rights of others"=shaming women for their sexuallity

Unless telling other people what to do with their sexuality is a vital part of yours, than I didn't say the first thing negative about you or any other woman's sexuality. I'd laugh if it wasn't so very very sad.

[seabeyond]

254. "The only freaks are those who violate the rights of others" wtf? and we are clear what you are

doing. it is a fuckin game that you and the others here play. you know it. i do. and every one that is jumping on it knows it. it is shaming women their sexuality. no cute. not funny

[Kurska]

257. That was line from my OP, maybe you would recognize it if you bothered to read it n/t

[seabeyond]

261. anti porn threads, now sex positive

"Prudish and control freak mentalities toward the sexual practices "

who do you fuckin think you are fooling

[Kurska]

265. See this is what you don't get

Wanting to ban pornography is a prudish and control freak mentality toward other's sexual practices. Not LIKING pornography is not a prudish behavior by any means, people have a right to like or dislike whatever they want.

I am speaking about a ideological proposition (ban pornography I don't like),not about any particular person.

Big difference, but again you're going to claim I believe something I don't, because you don't want to actually argue against what I really do believe for some reason.

[seabeyond]

268. there you go. right there. intent clear. this thread is to declare that women that spoke out on

rape porn thread are anti sex. you are using a womans sexuality to shame her. you admit.

you decide she does not like sex. YOU use the fact that you decide she does not like sex to shame her.

[Kurska]

273. ....

[RiffRandell]

280. No, I am a WOMAN who doesn't believe my sexuality is being shamed.

I'm outside of the box you believe all women and men should be in, and proud of it.

[seabeyond]

284. wtf? of course it is not your sexuality being attacked. you are helping to attack other womens

sexuality. no different than slut shaming. none.

[Old and In the Way]

330. Are you accusing Riff of being a gender-traitor?

Sounds like a personal attack on another DUer.

[HappyMe]

244. Add me to the list.

[Divine Discontent]

515. Lulz!!!!

perfect reply, considering... hahahaha




http://www.zazzle.com/shutdown_the_gop_by_voting_in_2014_government-128195183613839642?rf=238107662556833486

if anyone wants a 50% off code for zazzle good til the 30th, PM me! I can tell you how to get free shipping too, so the items are going to be super cheap and delivered right to your door!

[struggle4progress]

231. Different people seem to mean different things by "sex"

Some of these meanings appear to involve mutually respectful and caring interactions between people, and others do not

Mutually respectful and caring human relations seem to me generally to be a good thing: the further from that boundary, the greater the likelihood that somebody is exploiting somebody else

[Hayabusa]

275. Apparently not...

[Rex]

277. Let's talk about sex!

[kentauros]

278. Here are two women everyone here should read and/or support: (NSFW)

Barbara Carrellas (have a look at the Links section!)
Annie Sprinkle, Ph.D. - AnnieSprinkle.org(asm)

That is all

[Kurska]

282. Awesome links!

Might want to add a NSFW work part to it, but they seem to be saying some very interesting stuff.

[kentauros]

287. I didn't think about that, so thank you for pointing it out.

I've edited my post-title now

I have Barbara's book, Ecstasy is Necessary, and it's great! They both have wonderful insights on sex

[zappaman]

291. I love Annie!

Met her years ago and she made a tit print for me.



She is pretty damn cool.

[kentauros]

293. "Tit print"!

I like that!

She's so creative and I would love to meet her, too

[zappaman]

294. She would have a LOT to say in this thread!

Her life is VERY sex positive with a very healthy attitude towards sex...no matter how kinky it is.

[kentauros]

298. That is true on all points.

I haven't read this whole thread (post-titles are enough!) If she bothered with us, it would take at least a full day to address it all.

I love, too, that she does sex-based performance art. Seems like a great teaching tool

[liberal_at_heart]

313. I'm not sure why Americans are so afraid of sex. I have had both good and bad experiences in my

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

life. In my teens, I was a victim of statutory rape. I was a young teen dating a young grown man who was a drunk, verbally abusive, and coerced me into having sex. That was bad. I have been married now to a different man for 19 years. I am in a loving, trusting, respectful relationship with a man who likes to explore sexually. He is my best friend. We have a great marriage and a great sex life. I'll say it to the right wingers and I'll say it to the liberals. Stay out of my bed room.

[Prism]

315. I'm so glad I'm gay

Not only is the sex a blast, but we're also under the radar with the anti-sex brigade. They don't give gays a second thought.

As Dan Savage once said, LGBTers "tend to have the kink built in." Hooray for us.

I could play armchair psychologist all day in these threads, but really, I only walk away feeling a bit sad. Sex should be varied, playful, exploratory, and expressive.

Aggressive sexuality is a bad thing? Oh my. How boring that bedroom must be.

Keep thumpin, my friends.

[LadyHawkAZ]

323. "Keep thumpin, my friends"

Challenge accepted.

[Prism]

328. You. I like you. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

332. Remember, 88% of porn contains "aggressive acts" like ... blowjobs

Who would have thought so much violence was in porn?

[BainsBane]

414. "Indian gang rape," "military women raped," and "drunk girl rape"

where the top responses I found when I googled rape porn. You know, for the guys that hear about a woman gang raped and killed in India and think "hey, that's hot. Let me find some porn on that."

[Warren DeMontague]

431. Which has nothing to do with what I posted.

You googled something nasty, you got some nasty results. That's really not surprising, given how google works.

And before you try, no, I'm not "defending" whatever ugly crap you found on google.

[BainsBane]

441. I googled "rape porn"

the subject of the discussions this weekend, opposition to which the OP thinks means people don't like sex. You invoked some other reference which is not at all representative of the genre of rape porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

466. The fact that you googled something and then found the thing you were googling, only indicates that

google works.

The ONLY time in my entire long life I've ever come across what could be described as "rape porn", was a video from facebook that a HoF member posted to DU, resulting in numerous threads like the ones we've seen recently.

The reference I invoked had to do with a study which was posted, also in reference to the threads of late, which defined a lot of very silly things as "aggression", including blowjobs.

Let me ask you this: Did someone in GD actually say this? Say these words in your OP?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529981

If so, I'd be very curious to see a link.

[BainsBane]

470. I Googled the topic of discussion

Which is indeed foul, only members here insist is perfectly harmless fantasy. There have been countless threads on DU this weekend devoted to rape porn, beginning with one about the British law. I thought it only right to inform myself a bit on the topic. So I did a search and learned a bit about how that porn is categorized and advertised, though I chose not to watch any.

Are you implying there is no such thing as rape porn? What have all these threads been about? Take your safe search off and Google it yourself. Don't you think you should know what the content of the material is that you are denouncing people for opposing? I will be providing no porn links. Nice try at getting a hide.

The clear implication of this very OP is that if someone opposes rape porn, she doesn't like sex. I have had many conversations with the OP this weekend. He and others defending rape porn as a hallowed civil liberty pretend it is entirely about their sexual choices and has nothing to do with workers rights, human trafficking, or rape culture. Pretending not to know the context of threads you yourself have participated in rings hollow.

Edit: You worry a lot about what is posted in HOF. You might consider trash group. It's quite liberating.

[Warren DeMontague]

478. Okay, point by point.

members here insist is perfectly harmless fantasy.

Really. Members insist that the specific material you yourself found on Google is perfectly harmless fantasy? I doubt it. I suspect you're talking past each other. The problem people seem to have with the UK law, mostly- and the reason it wouldn't pass constitutional muster here in the US, I suspect- is because it is worded broadly enough to include dramatizations by consenting adults. You do not need to be "defending" each and everything that comes up on google under "rape porn" to recognize potential problems with a law that makes it a crime for two consenting adults - emphasis on consenting - to act something out in front of a camera, or to possess said material.

Badly written laws tend to have badly thought out consequences. Take the "3 Strikes" Law in California. One does not need to be "in favor of Polly Klass kidnappings" to recognize that a badly written law like that has ended up putting people in prison with life sentences for things like stealing a piece of pizza, because that was their "third strike".

Are you implying there is no such thing as rape porn?

No. Strawman.

...that you are denouncing people for opposing?

Again. Strawman.

Edit: You worry a lot about what is posted in HOF. You might consider trash group. It's quite liberating.

Rich, given the amount of over-the-top obsessing about the dread mens group.

[BainsBane]

486. Not much of a point by point

People are clearly defending the entire genre of rape porn and any and all porn. Many are enraged that anyone would criticize it or suggest responsible consumerism in regard to porn. Some have claimed expert familiarity with rape porn. The subject long ago left the British law in particular. I wonder if anyone even mentions that law in this thread.

Okay, perhaps denouncing isn't the right word. You are ridiculing. Denouncing would require enough respect to address arguments seriously.

Speaking of straw: How is it that you don't denounce as straw the whole sex negative/ feminists as prudes mantra that is the mainstay of these threads and many in the not-your men's group?

I've got the men's group on trash. I have looked in there exactly once in the past month. I haven't looked back since. I'm much happier for it.

The one time I looked recently I saw an enormous straw village about how somehow we asserted, implied, or imagined that the only porn that exists shows women. It came complete with the constant prude/sex negative comments. It showed no reality whatsoever to any HOF feminists actual argument. So excuse me if I take your outrage over my posts with a grain of salt.

[Warren DeMontague]

514. I'm not outraged, Bain.

I'm slightly bored, because this is the nth time DU has done this, with entirely predictable results. But outraged? No.

Perhaps you missed the multiple threads started over "studies" and opinion pieces which turned out to be fronted by known religious right thunk (this was, of course, intended to be 'think', but I like the typo better) tanks? Or the one with the dread "88% of porn contains aggression" which defined, among other things, the act of fellatio as an act of "physical aggression"?

It's hard to take "critiques of the porn industry" seriously when they're coming from people who so clearly either have an agenda against porn, period, or just don't know that much of what they're talking about. I'd wager there is already a lot more 'responsible consumerism' in terms of porn consumption, going on out there, than you think.

If you go on a hunt to find egregious stuff, odds are you'll find it. That does not mean that is what most people seek out. If you find evidence of an actual crime, you should report it, either to the FBI or maybe interpol. Pretty much everywhere on the Earth, as far as I'm aware, it is illegal to force someone to have sex, either in front of a camera or not.

And if the UK law had been solely about outlawing images of actual rape, i doubt anyone would have an issue with it. But there is a tradition- not even just here on DU, mind you- of defending even - especially- fairly indefensible art or literature. I can tell you that, for instance, Pasolini's "Salo" is an extremely unpleasant film to watch- yet I can also tell you that 1st Amendment defenses of the right to view that film (which should not be confused with defending its content) have come from some of the most respected voices in art and cinema.

[BainsBane]

529. I am not "people"

Last edited Tue Nov 26, 2013, 12:26 PM - Edit history (1)

I am not DU. I am not the woman from Swarthmore you talked to in the 1980s. I am one person, me. I am responsible for no one's ideas but my own, and I resent have my concerns dismissed because of what you saw someone else say once upon a time.

The issue is that is how virtually everyone has threatened the argument I've advanced. As far as I can tell, no one has read anything I say. They insist I have no right to mention the world rape culture and refuse to read further. They deny my right to discuss the issues in terms that are important to me. You of course aren't responsible for what others say, but together it forms a picture of complete disregard for even trying to understand what matters to me.

It's clear to me you don't know what this porn is like, which is why I suggested you (and everyone) do a search to have a look at it. The "egregious stuff" is the topic of the discussion: rape porn. It is indeed egregious. That is the point. It's a genre whose viewers are aroused by terror and violation of the victim portrayed. It is indeed illegal to force others to have sex on camera, but it is also widespread, both on and off screen. All the DOJ stats of reported rapes aside, 1 out of 5 (to 1 out of 4) girls and women are raped in their lifetimes: some at age four, some as adults, and others at any age from infancy to their 90s. That statistic includes just not loud-mouthed feminists but every other female in the country, including the wives, sisters, and daughters of male DUers. It also includes men, who comprise 10% of rape victims in civil society and far more in prison. I have PMed with some male rape survivors who feel incredibly saddened by these threads. Many here insist rape porn and rape bear no relationship to each other. I consider that a false assumption, which I have explained elsewhere in greater detail.

You can go the UN site or any anti-slavery group and read about the fact more people are enslaved today than at any point in human history, and the sex industry is one of the primary if not primary users of slave labor. No, that is not the labor force for all porn, but it is enough to make extremely difficult to know if the rape is real or simulated, especially since so many pornographers bill the porn as real. Clearly that is what their viewers want to believe. I have also repeatedly raised concerns about the rights of workers who do choose to enter than profession. Those concerns have been completely ignored and distorted to claim I want to "control women's bodies." Yet no one accuses posters of trying to control Walmart workers bodies. There is a clear disconnect about workers rights when it comes to sex work.

Rape survivors have an interest in seeing rape culture mitigated. It's hurtful to continually see concerns about one's safety turned into a joke about prudery. I can't force you or anyone else to see me as an individual with real concerns. I state my views and others completely ignore them in lieu of a caricature that bears no relation to what I have said. That strikes me as a performative illustration of the dynamic at work here: a dismissal of my rights and those of others impacted by rape and the rape culture--the same kind of disregard that enables the crime to be committed with virtual impunity.

I become angry because I see talk of the kind of violence I and so many other women here have experienced in our lives turned into a joke, turned into a denouncement of "misandry" and "punishing men." When I see that kind of trivialization and mocking of my concerns about the kind of violence I have experienced in my life, I am left feeling that members here see my life and those like me as without value. I understand that is not your conscious intent, but that is nonetheless how it feels.

I am consistent in my opposition to violence: from gun violence, gun culture, and the corporate lobby that promotes it, to slavery, rape, rape culture, violence against women, and the death penalty. These are the most important personal and political issues of my life. They are are from a joke to me. They are core to my sense of social justice, as well as my personal safety.

[Warren DeMontague]

531. I am opposed to rape, and support efforts to combat and reduce it.

I do not believe that censoring material by consenting adults, for consenting adults, is a way to accomplish that goal.

That does not mean I trivialize your concern; it DOES mean, however, that I am opposed to censoring material by consenting adults, for consenting adults. Material that involves people who are not consenting, by definition, does not fall under that cateogory. I have not seen convincing evidence that, at least, the domestic adult industry- which is governed by workplace laws in addition to 2257 reporting requirements, involves widespread non-consent. Like the "evidence" that claims violent media leads to violent acts- its simply not there, as much as some believe it ought to be there.

I do not believe anyone on this website supports rape or otherwise believes violence against women is a good thing. I simply don't, and I think those repeated straw caricaturizations- while I understand they may be coming from a place of personal pain- are unwarranted and at least as bad as ANY sort of disagreement or ridicule which someone may have posted on this board.

I think ending rape is a worthy goal, and I think rape is a serious problem. I also strongly believe that most everyone on this site agrees with that.

[BainsBane]

553. You do know that simple probability

indicates that your assertion that no one on this sight "supports or rape or believes violence against a woman is a good thing" is close to impossible. Just as there are rape victims here (and I know that number is far from small), there are almost certainly rapists and batterers. I don't know what you think it is about this site that would make it different from any other random sampling of thousands of people.

[Major Nikon]

536. Notice how you didn't get an answer to a direct question

I've seen better fidelity from gibberish translators.

[Kingofalldems]

347. My sentiments:

[Agnosticsherbet]

352. Perahps we shoudl hear form George Michael

[BlueJazz]

357. If Sex is so wonderful and all that, why do women I talked to usually say...

"You sick perverted bastard, get the hell away from me?"

[BainsBane]

360. Rape is not sex. It is violent assault

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2013, 07:49 PM - Edit history (1)

The discussion was about rape pornography. That some can't tell the difference is frightening, but it really does say everything.

The idea that there is something prudish about not wanting to perpetrate a culture of violence is absurd. Your post shows a complete lack of concern for the rights of rape victims, as does your willful determination to distort the concerns women have voiced here.

NO ONE has a right to rape. Defending rape porn is contributing to rape culture and therefore perpetuating rape. You have repeatedly demonstrated that you view of the concerns of women and other rape victims to be entirely consequential. Now we can set aside any pretense that there is anything close to respect for equal rights or human rights when it comes to women and male rape victims.

[last1standing]

369. The problem appears to be that you think of most sex as rape.

No one has a right to rape but people have a right to consensual sex in the way they choose, not the way you decide for them. Your authoritarian desire to control women's bodies is no better than the anti-choicers. You just want to stop them at an earlier point.

[BainsBane]

370. Bullshit

complete nonsense. Your post is a deliberate distortion. I have already addressed these points directly to you, and that you refuse to pay attention shows your complete disregard for my voice and other women who oppose rape culture. This entire discussion was about rape porn and rape, not sex. That some continuously conflate the two reveals more than they realize.

When two parties consent, it's sex. When one doesn't, it's rape. Why is that concept so hard to distinguish? Defending rape porn by claiming those who oppose it don't like sex tells me there is something seriously wrong around here. Choice and rape are antithetical. The inability to see that most basic of points is troubling, to say the very least.

Then I have to wonder how is it that so many mistake porn for sex? Pretty weird.

Now go advocate for Walmart's unfettered profits on behalf of their workers choice to go hungry.
Go advocate on the part of the workers in the pork industry who are exerting their "choice" to be forced to work against their will. You're a regular James C Calhoun.

You clearly have no interest in anything I have to say, so don't bother reading it.

Remdi95

[last1standing]

377. You addressed them to me in a group you had me blocked from.

It's not my fault you can't discuss a subject without spitting venom or that you can't handle disagreement without silencing your opponent first.

You have posted sex negative comment after sex negative comment but claim not to be sex negative. Too bad, your words speak for themselves and all the hate you can spew won't change that.

Facts are that you are attempting to tell women how they can use their bodies and are verbally abusing anyone who believes in letting women decide for themselves. There is no difference between this and working to ban abortion. You are trying to control women's bodies because you don't believe the average woman can make that choice for herself.

That isn't feminism, it's authoritarianism.

[BainsBane]

380. spitting venom? You just accused me of thinking all sex is rape

You've made clear your complete lack of respect for my concerns. Invoking your insults about "sex negative" when you don't know one thing about me or my life. It's a cheap insult because you refuse to engage with the substance of my argument. You don't address any of the issues about workers rights or slavery. Repeating the same inane argument fifty times doesn't make it better.

Is there some reason being blocked from a group hours after you posted made you physically incapable of reading my responses?

You tell women what they should do. You told all of HOF we weren't feminists because we don't support rape porn. You are one to talk.

You went into HOF to insult everyone in there. You had no business posting there in the first place, and your block was well deserved. Any man that puts himself in a position to tell women what they should think and want is someone who has no respect for women's rights.

This discussion is finished.

[last1standing]

382. You've posted nothing to suggest differently.

The hatred that bubbles up from your posts about sex are literally frightening. And you are not "all of HOF," you are merely one very loud voice there. But having a loud voice doesn't make you a better feminist, just a louder one.

By the way, the definition of feminism isn't "whatever Bainsbane decides is best for women," it's making sure that every woman is free to make the decisions she feels are best for herself.

You have repeatedly tried to suggest that I "support rape culture" but I think your belief that women are helpless is far more supportive of that culture than anything I've ever posted.

[RiffRandell]

387. Now this people, is "badass."

[last1standing]

394. LOL! Thanks. But seriously, that poster is writing some very disturbing things.

Because I support letting all women decide for themselves what they do with their bodies, she has called me pro-union-busting, pro-slavery, pro-female mutilation (at least I believe that's what the Remdi95 comment was about), and pro-rape culture.

If I were a republican troll who wanted to create a Limbaugh-style "femi-nazi" sockpuppet, what better than to relentlessly post "feminist" screeds while demanding that only I be able to decide what women do with their own bodies? It all reads like a parody of what republicans think feminism is about.

[Eleanors38]

496. Wasn't this also in the Gungeon? Had a certain ring.

[Major Nikon]

555. Par for the course

[Prism]

375. "Pride parades promote homosexuality"

Some posit they even make others gay by being exposed to them.

Are you comfortable parroting the Religious Right's authoritarian and anti-sexual attitudes in these matters? I see very, very little difference between their assault on sexual autonomy and much of what has been said in this thread.

[last1standing]

378. Her previous posts show that she is very comfortable with it.

She, and her cronies, have been posting articles and charts from right wing, homophobic sites for the last week or so in their push to control other women's bodies.

[hrmjustin]

398. Where did she link to those sites?

[last1standing]

401. Wander around in the Feminism Group, you'll find plenty of them.

John Briere seems to be a favorite of theirs.

[hrmjustin]

408. You accused her personally of posting from homophobic sites.

Do you have a link to that?

[last1standing]

412. Ah! I see, you have no desire to look for the facts, you just want to attack.

That's sweet but I'm not going to play the game where you then demand I give you the background of the author, the context of the site, the last name of his great grandmother, etc... I've given you plenty to search with so you can do that or not. All your choice.

[BainsBane]

416. I just provided the one HOF post where I cited any sources

So it is now incumbent on you to determine which of those is right wing and why. I have no idea who the john person you accused me of citing is, but since you seem quite certain that I did so I'll need you to provide the link since I have no recollection of doing so. You insisted you were speaking about me in particular. Since you have accused me, I demand proof.

[last1standing]

420. Nothing is incumbent upon me when it comes from you.

I'll point out the hate and sickness in your posts but I won't jump to do your bidding.

[BainsBane]

421. So you admit you fabricated that claim?

[last1standing]

424. I admit that you post very disturbing comments.

I also admit that your posts read like anti-feminist satire. No real feminist would be so adamant about controlling other women's bodies.

[BainsBane]

429. So that's a yes

because I used no such source. That is why you cannot link to it.

As for my supposedly controlling bodies: What bodies do I control by advocating socially conscious consumerism? How many actresses in rape porn have you asked how they feel about their working conditions?

[last1standing]

434. That's a Yes...

Yes, you're posts are incredibly disturbing if real.

I'm starting to believe you are posting parody.

[BainsBane]

438. Then provide text and links to what is so disturbing

You have shown your point about my using homophobic sources is entirely fabricated.

[last1standing]

442. Everything you're written is disturbing.

It is sex-negative, it equates consensual actions with rape, it advocates restricting the right of women to their own bodies.

That doesn't even touch on your hateful smears that had nothing to do with the subject like calling me pro-slavery or pro-female mutilation.

That is sickness.

[BainsBane]

446. Let me try again

Rape porn is part of rape culture.

Rape porn centers around rape, beating, and mutilation of women.

You insist rape porn is a civil liberty.

You call authoritarian my suggestion that consumers behave in a socially responsible way.

You say I am authoritarian and "sex negative" because I don't like rape porn.

Rape survivors don't tend to be keen on rape, hence the responses in HOF.

Survivors of domestic abuse can find violent porn disturbing, hence the responses in HOF.

I have talked about workers rights, something you continually ignore.

I have talked about the fact that the porn industry uses, in part, slave labor--some millions of women, boys, and girls.

You respond to such posts talking about "choice."


You refuse to distinguish why choice excuses exploitation of women in porn but not workers, like at Walmart, in the rest of the consumption economy.


You insist I am "restricting women's choices" by expressing my opposition to rape porn. (Who knew my words were so powerful).

You have not indicated that you have asked any women working in rape porn how they feel about their work.


You have addressed none of my points. You have instead responded with blatantly false accusations and insults, including accusing me of homophobia and citing homophobic sources.

You cannot link to any such sources because I provided none.

Your charge of homophobia is fabricated.

You continue to blame me for your anger. That is something you yourself own.

[last1standing]

448. Let me try again.

Your comments lost any shred of credibility when you had me blocked from a group then proceeded to post smears about me knowing I couldn't respond. Those are the actions of a coward and a bully. They are the actions of an abuser, not a feminist.

You cannot handle a fair discussion so the moment anyone disagrees with you, you cry "RAPE CULTURE" or make an ironic claim about others wanting to tell women what to do when you are the only one trying to restrict them. You show no respect to others and therefore deserve the same. If you ever decide to post rational posts that are filled with hatred and venom, I may see things differently.

Until such time, as I said, your posts are a parody of real feminism.

[BainsBane]

450. It seems clear you did not read my last post

Nothing in it comes close to vitriol.

[last1standing]

451. It seems clear you did not read your own post.

I will seriously discuss the issue of rape porn, or anything else, if you can stop accusing me of things I never said and stop smearing me. We can make it a clean break from this moment on or we can even take it private.

I'll start by saying that there are serious, real issues in the pornography industry that need to be resolved through regulation and policing. Too many producers - professional and "amateur" - purposely choose actors with addictions or get them addicted to drugs in order to ensure a willing model. Too often women are forced into sex work through desperation, limited choices and abusive relationships. Too often condoms aren't used and heath checks aren't enforced. These are real problems which can be resolved.

Would you care to respond to that?

[BainsBane]

452. I've made those points repeatedly

and you have systematically ignored them. I have talking about working conditions and workers rights from our first interactions. You introduce this now as though it were new, indicating you haven't bothered to read anything I've written. I have also talked about human trafficking-- slavery

I wish to take nothing private with you ever. What an absurd suggestion.

If you ever calm down long enough to read my last post, perhaps we can continue. If not, there is no loss because this can go nowhere.

[last1standing]

453. Since you couldn't resist spitting venom we can go back to the same old....

I made an offer that you didn't want to take so you had to post a hateful comment, even when I was being polite. Your posts are honestly the most disturbed, sickening things I have read on DU, and I've been here since it started.

No real feminist would so purposely try to make feminism look so crazy. This has to be parody.

[BainsBane]

455. It is increasingly clear to me that you define hate and venom

as the audacity to put forward ideas that make you uncomfortable or with which you disagree.

[last1standing]

456. In future I'll define it by linking to your posts.

Any one of them. They're all filled with the same bitter hatred.

[BainsBane]

457. Which you have been asked to do repeatedly to back up your allegations

starting with your accusation that I a homophobe who uses homophobic and RW sources. You could not do that because I used no such source. Now you switch to new charges which you likewise refuse to back up with links.

[last1standing]

461. LOL! I love the fact that you're so bothered by that.

So much so that you can't even correctly restate what I posted.

But then you've had a lot of trouble correctly restating what others have posted. You accused me of being pro-slavery and supporting female genital mutilation as well as union busting.

Your posts lack any honestly, decency, and generally coherency. They really are a work of parody. Congratulations on fooling everyone!

Is this Rush Limbaugh doing a "femi-nazi" impression?

[BainsBane]

460. Oh, I see what the venom was

I said I didn't wish to take anything private. I said no.

[last1standing]

462. No, you made a deliberate attempt to be hateful when I was trying to discuss issues.

That proves you don't give a Damn about feminist issues, only posting hateful comments.

[BainsBane]

463. You personally are the repository of all feminist issues?

And if I don't do everything to assuage your anger and make you feel better about yourself that means I don't care about feminist issues?

[last1standing]

465. Nope. That's why I wanted to discuss them.

Unfortunately, you seem to think that you are not only the repository of all feminist issues but that women must be directed by your decree.

I would have been glad to set all this bullshit aside and honestly discuss issues, but you won't stop with the hatred for a single instant. You can't post that you never want to take a conversation private, "ever", and expect the other party to be anything less than disgusted by your venom.

I'll extend an honest hand one more time. Do you want to talk seriously about this without any insults?

[BainsBane]

474. Where did I ever say women should be "directed by my decree"

Where did I imply it?

The last thing approaching an insult that I made to you was the swipe about James C Calhoun. Compare that to this entire subthread in which you have repeatedly insulted me.

I have spelled out my ideas. I find it disconcerting that you consider disagreement with you an insult. This post linked below in particular was very clear and had nothing close to an insult. I explained my views and my interpretation of your responses. When you respond to posts about coercive labor by talking about choice, it does make one wonder. However it increasingly seems that you are more interested in projecting issues and ideas onto me than understanding my views.

I'm well aware of your argument, yet you seem to have no familiarity whatsoever with mine.
You see this as an issue about the porn consumers sexual freedom and choices and interpret speaking out against the genre of rape porn as authoritarianism. (How my right to speech is a violation of your rights, I can't begin to imagine.) You insist women have the right to make choices to appear in porn. I wish you would be so respectful of my choices and my thoughts rather than telling me I'm not a real feminist because I disagree with you.

If you decide you want to know what I think, I suggest you revisit this post, which explains it as carefully as succinctly as possible. Mentioning rape culture is not a personal accusation against you. It is central to how I see the issue. If you refuse to accept I have a right to frame the debate in the way that meaning to me, we can't possibly converse.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4093327

[last1standing]

517. Seriously, thank you for writing that as I agree with some of it and see more as miscommunication.

Maybe if we both try very hard, we won't piss each other off in every post.

First, let's talk about what we agree on so far as I can see:

Neither of us likes simulated rape porn (I'll leave real rape porn out of the discussion because it is already illegal and should be prosecuted aggressively). I find it disturbing in every way possible. I can't understand the thrill people experience from it.

Both of us agree that many, if not most, women in sex work positions are not equal traders in perfect market. They are often there because they have been sold into slavery, addicted to drugs or otherwise impoverished, or abused to the point of retaining little or no self esteem.

We also agree that the sex work industry as a whole often exploits the desperation of these women by placing them in dangerous or uncomfortable positions with little oversight concern for safety.

We both agree that the Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st amendment to protect most adult pornography.

So the question becomes what can be done, within the confines of 1st amendment protections, to stop the exploitation of these women?

It's my contention that instead of trying to ban or restrict pornography, which would only send it back underground, we need to go to the root of the problems: poverty, crime and self-esteem.

Obviously, on this site the vast majority of us want to reduce poverty and income disparity. To do this we need a legalized livable wage indexed to inflation, a healthcare system that ensures that no one is ever bankrupted due to illness, and either a guaranteed job or, like Sweden is proposing, a guaranteed income.

As for crime, pornography is like drugs, abortion, prostitution, or any other "victimless" crime; if it is made illegal it will only go underground and those involved will suffer even more than they currently do. This is why I have always supported strong regulations on the pornographic industry to ensure the safety and rights of the workers.

Lastly, self-esteem, which is the most difficult problem. I have to admit I don't think I have all the answers here. In 2013, American culture is still extremely white male-centric and women, especially girls, are fed the belief that men must do, while they must be. Our entertainment tell us this, our schools tell us this, and our families tell us this. As a white male, I have no real concept of the Hell that must play on a young girl's self-esteem, but it's incredibly disconcerting. I'd be glad to hear your ideas here.

As for the effects of porn, I believe, based on reading your posts, that our major difference lies in whether we believe that simulated rape porn (or any porn) acts as a stimulant that encourages rape, acts as a depressive that discourages rape, or has a neutral effect.

Based on my readings of the commission LBJ formed in 1969 found no link between pornography and violent acts while the Meese Study published under Reagan in 1986 did find harmful effects but was so roundly criticized by experts in the field that it had little more impact than causing 7/11 to stop selling Playboy.

Since that time, studies by John Briere and Neil M. Malamuth have posited a correlation between the average viewing time of pornography and acceptance of sexual violence but again these studies have been criticized as vastly flawed as have the associations and other non-scientifically accepted views of these researchers.

Meanwhile, in 1970 a Dutch study found that legalizing pornography did not lead to a corresponding increase in sexual violence. Later, a study from the University of Hawaii actually found a sharp drop in the rate of child molestation after a restriction on pornography was removed in 1989. These studies have been generally accepted in the scientific community.

Related to the subject, a study released by Drs. Christopher Ferguson and Cheryl Olson earlier this year found no correlation between violent video games and increased violent behavior in children.

Based on these findings, it's my belief that pornography, even pornography with simulated violence, does not promote sexual aggression; in fact it may act as a minor deterrent in that it might be used to give a would be assailant the rush he needs without having to inflict pain on others. Of course, this last part is only my conjecture and I wouldn't begin to argue this as the reason some studies have seen a drop in sexual violence with the increase in pornographic availability.

Lastly, I have to admit to not being quite sure what you mean when you talk of "rape culture." I would think it's tied into the self-esteem issue in which women are taught to believe they are here to submit to men while men are taught that women are prizes to win, not equals with their own views and interests. Am I close? If so, I agree with you there as well; I've just never used that term to describe it.

[ScreamingMeemie]

467. ...

I was the one vote to hide it.

At Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:25 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Since you couldn't resist spitting venom we can go back to the same old....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4093463

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Repeated personal attacks throughout this subthread. This is a male member who accuses a female poster of not being a "real feminist" and trying to make feminism "look crazy." This is after calling her a homophobe earlier in this subthread, but when challenged could provide no evidence. His comments seem to be entirely unrelated to what she actually writes. He simply responds with one insult after another.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 25, 2013, 09:41 PM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sounds like a good description of BB - she is definitely one of the posters that makes DU suck at times.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: Thank you, alerter...for the well-reasoned comments. Looking over the thread, I have to agree that this should be hidden. One, because it's rather blatant as a personal insult (with regard to not a "real feminist," and two, because this poster could use an enforced break from this thread. Thanks again for the explanation.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I knew when I first saw this OP pop up that it would be an epic thread. I don't know the history here and certainly don't have time nor the inclination to read the whole thing. I think these two posters should take it outside and duke it out. Let the post stand.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Looking at this post alone, I don't think it needs to be hidden. Strongly worded, yes, but it's grammatical and the language is civil. And in this sort of exchange I'm not sure that there's any point in hiding the odd post here and there. (Probably would have been a "delete subthread" candidate in DU2).


***Sometimes it's a good idea to walk away from the thread.****

[last1standing]

469. You were the only one, huh?

I wonder what that says?


By the way, if you can produce the post where I called Bainsbane a homophobe, I'll donate $100 to DU, but you have to donate $100 if I find a post from her calling me "a regular James C Calhoun" or suggests I "go advocate for Walmart's unfettered profits on behalf of their workers choice to go hungry." Deal?

Or are those comments fair?

[ScreamingMeemie]

471. I have no dog in this fight. I only wanted you to see the kind of remarks your comments

have drawn. I hope you take some of those comments (including the one that says the person who voted thinks the entire subthread should have been removed...and the vote of the person who used their feelings toward BB to vote to keep it) to heart...or at least mind.

I tend to avoid posts of yours to be honest. And I participate in the juries on your posts with an open, level-headed approach. In fact, I have voted to keep posts of yours before.

[last1standing]

472. This entire subthread probably should be removed.

But this little tiff goes two ways, something you have not acknowledged. I have now twice offered to seriously discuss the issues and we'll see if she takes me up on the second offer.

As for avoiding my posts, that likely means we agree on very little. I'm good with that but promise to keep an open mind if a post of yours comes before me as well. People don't have to like each other to treat each other with respect.

[ScreamingMeemie]

473. I participated in a jury on a comment.

I wanted to give you feed back.

I agree on quite a few of your posts, until you disagree with someone typically.

[BainsBane]

476. How about $100 to an anti-slavery group?

http://www.antislavery.org/english/slavery_today/what_is_modern_slavery.aspx
For example?

[hrmjustin]

418. I give you my honest word I am playing no game.

You made a claim about another poster that she posted from a site that is homophobic. I asked you to give me the links? I am playing no game and I am not going searching through her posts. You made the claim so you should back it up.


I know her and she is in no way homophobic.

[last1standing]

422. I didn't say she was. I said she is comfortable with homophobic researchers and sites.

A simple search on DU with the name I provided should pop up what I'm talking about. I believe the thread was started by another poster and the one you're defending jumped in to defend the "research."

But I will say her posts are some of the most hateful, twisted things I've ever read at DU, and that's saying something.

[hrmjustin]

425. I am not going to search for this. It is clear you are not going to provide the link which you

should do since you made the comment. There is nothing more to say.

[last1standing]

435. Ok. Goodbye.

n/t

[BainsBane]

419. So sorry. I missed one: Mother Jones

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529971

Is fighting to maintain a woman's right to vote also right wing now?

[BainsBane]

415. Here is the one post in HOF in which I linked to sources over the past several days

Tell me which of these are right wing?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/125529656

I provided the entire post so you and others can view it in full context.

[Major Nikon]

527. Not just there, GD too just yesterday

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4079616

At least one of the people behind the source made the SPLC's list of top worst homophobes in the nation. The author of the article is a junk science monger and slut shamer. Both are as far right as it gets. None of them seemed to have a problem with it when it was pointed out. Amazing what passes for knowledge so long as people are saying what you want to hear.

[BainsBane]

384. Hold on. Are you actually equating a pride parade with rape?

[Prism]

388. What I said was precise and clear

You are assaulting sexual fantasy and advocating that parts of it you don't like be banned.

Just as the Religious Right combats same-sex sexuality because they don't approve of that component of sexuality.

I ask again. Are you comfortable with this alignment of your authoritarian approach with the Religious Right?

We've seen right-wing articles by homophobic sources used approvingly in support of the views you share. It goes without saying these sources also seek to control women's reproductive choices.

Are you comfortable inhabiting that space?

[BainsBane]

391. So if I don't like rape and rape culture?

I'm right wing? Suddenly the left is defined by being pro-rape? You all have jumped the shark. The one surprising thing about your post is its author. I expected more from you.
Rape and choice are antithetical. Women and men who are raped are deprived of choice. Some rape porn is simulated and some is real. All contribute to rape culture and the kind of disregard for victims we have seen this weekend.

This insistence you have of a clear line between rape porn and rape is simply false. That point has been established many, many times over these past few days. Some of that porn is made from women and children who are actually being raped. Some are enslaved and are therefore not free to grant consent. Men upload their actual rapes of victims online for others to watch. Pornographers bill rape porn as real because that is what their viewers want to believe. I did a google search this weekend and the top results were "Indian gang rape," "drunk rape," and "military women raped." This is porn geared for men who see a news report and think, "that's hot. Let me find a porno." Are you comfortable with that? Are you comfortable advocating for the subsidization of an industry that is responsible for the enslavement of hundreds of thousands if not millions?

Actually the commonalities with the right are shown in defenders of rape porn who insist their right to control women's bodies and shut our mouths about actual violence against women trumps our rights to basic safety and life. The idea that this is about women's choice, when we are talking about workers who labor without benefits, who contract a host of work related illnesses, and about some are even forced to labor as slaves or through debt peonage is a classic right wing argument. Do Walmart workers choose to make substandard wages. Do they choose to not earn enough to have a Thanksgiving dinner. Yes, on one level they do. But their choice is constrained by the marketplace, what Marx referred to as economic coercion. The same is true for porn workers. But here we're talking about an industry where most of the work force is women, and therefore their rights become inconsequential. Their only function in is to serve as a source of arousal for men. And if women object to rape, rape porn, and rape culture, we're prudes. If we object to the fact that rape fantasists are propping up an industry that uses a great deal of slave labor, we're buzz kills. The lives of the objects of porn don't matter. It's all about the consumer, just like the lives of workers in the consumer economy don't matter as much as the profits of the wealthy and low prices for the middle class.

I get it. Don't challenge male privilege or you'll get called right wing. Insisting women have rights and be considered full human beings is reactionary. If I do not recognize I have no right to speak against anything men want, I'm a right winger. Rights exist only for men--well, unless they are rape survivors who don't consider reenactment of their violation arousing.

I get that rapists and wannabe rapists love their rape porn. There is nothing I can do about that. But there is no fucking way I am going to pretend it is anything but violent and predatory. Obviously my opinion means nothing since it's been made clear I can't even be considered a feminist if I don't acquiesce to exactly what men demand.

These threads demonstrate precisely why rape culture is so persistent in this country. The rights of rapists and rape fantasists will always trump those of rape victims, especially since 90% of them are women.

Don't for one second think I don't see exactly what this is--an unwavering determination to force us to submit to what men want and silence us about our own rights.

[Prism]

399. I'm not reading your post since the first two sentences are dishonest.

Being for freedom of sexual expression - the core of LGBT and women's reproductive rights - is not "pro-rape". The repetition of this thought does not make it so.

I don't like porn that involves spitting in someone's face. I defend someone else's right to enjoy that consensual interaction. By your definition and argument method, you would somehow define me as pro-spitting in someone's face, even after I just specifically stated I personally did not care for it.

The reason you're so outraged is because you have repeatedly failed to read what people are saying to you in the plainest of language. If you think anyone here is pro-rape, I just do not know what to tell you.

That is a large self-generated fantasy than any of the porn we're discussing.

And what do you mean you're surprised by me? A gay man defending human sexuality? That really oughtn't be surprising. That should be expected. We deal with people trying to dictate our sexuality on a daily basis.

[BainsBane]

404. If you are not going to read my responses, don't answer

I found your entire post in accusation of me dishonest. Clearly you have no interest in an honest exchange of ideas.

If I advocate a boycott on Walmart, am I authoritarian? Or is exploitation irrelevant when it comes to women? Substitute one corporate industry for another, but because men here get off on it, it's sacrosanct. Don't answer because you won't read anyway. I'm sick of wading through bullshit.

[BainsBane]

395. Well, there is also a thread

on the cave sharing the rape porn defenders denunciation of Feminazis. I seriously doubt the right-wing sources you have read mention workers rights. I suspect they ignore them, just as defenders of rape porn here are doing.

It is true that the right is involved in the international campaign against human trafficking. Does that make slavery a good thing?

[Major Nikon]

383. Are there any prominent anti-pornographers who AREN'T sex negative?

I'm talking people who regularly advocate for the suppression (not just condemnation) of pornography.

I can name quite a few people who are.

1) Judith Reisman
2) Ed Meese
3) Charles Keating
4) Susan Brownmiller
5) Andrea Dworkin
6) Mary Anne Layden
7) Catharine MacKinnon
8) Gail Dines
9) Jerry Falwell
10) Laura Schlessinger
11) Sheila Jeffreys
12) Phyllis Schlafly
13) James Dobson
14) Rick Santorum

If you favor suppression. These are your allies.

[maddezmom]

385. Quite a list and we see some of them quoted here on a regular basis

If it fits their agenda. Sad.

[BainsBane]

393. What complete crap

But hey, it's easier than actually having to think about women as human beings.

[Major Nikon]

397. I noticed you couldn't come up with any names

If you want to have a discussion about why anyone on the list IS or IS NOT sex negative, I'd be glad to have that too. I doubt you will. I've noticed you're generally towards the bottom of this scale, which speaks volumes about your credibility, or lack thereof.



Cheers!

[BainsBane]

400. BainsBane

I speak for no one but myself. Would you like a list of former sex partners to check out that claim?

[Major Nikon]

402. That's not a name, nor are you prominent anywhere other than here (if that)

Neither do I fit either one of those criteria, but I'm not claiming otherwise. By prominence I mean someone who is published widely on the subject and is well read. By name I mean a real name, not a blogger pseudonym. All of the people on my list fit those two criteria.

I asked a valid relevant question and you've done nothing more than provide background noise so far. You're still at the bottom of the chart.

[BainsBane]

406. So you're not actually interested in what members here think?

But you will use names of theorists you don't like in order to attack us.
That's a pretty obvious shell game.

[Major Nikon]

426. I asked a question, you have yet to directly answer it

I'm very interested in what people think. I'm just not going to play your red herring games anymore. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.

Furthermore I'm not attacking anyone. The claim by several people is that it's not fair to paint anti-pornographers as sex negative. I'm addressing that directly. As yet you have failed to address anything I've asked or even questioned one single name on the list and explained why you don't think it's valid. You haven't provided any names that fit the criteria that contradict the premise either. All you've done is provide more background noise.

[BainsBane]

437. You are painting feminists here as sex negative

as you do frequently. If you want to enter a discussion with any of the writers you mentioned, that is your choice. I do not speak for them. I speak ONLY for myself. Sorry to disappoint you but I don't limit my ideas to bete noire reading lists from MRA websites. I think my OWN ideas.
Besides, I have never claimed an extensive background in feminist theory. As you know based on the great disdain with which you've treated my educational and research background, it is in the history of slavery.

Your point is meaningless. The entire point of this thread is to claim anyone who opposes rape porn is sex negative. You have made very clear you have no interest in what women here think, so once again discussion has no where to go.

Imagine how ballistic you would go if I insisted on holding you accountable for what MRA guys say. You'd be apoplectic.

[Major Nikon]

443. I'm painting THOSE feminists as sex negative

Which they are. The list is my own, and self generated with a small input from others, not that it makes any difference to anything other than ad hominem fallacies.

I have never and would never paint any feminist on this site as sex negative who did not self-identify as such. Meanwhile you paint others as "MRA" obviously intended as a pejorative whether they self identify or not. The doublethink in your argument is strikingly apparent.

As I said, I'm not going to play your red herring games and this leg of the thread is dead to me. I'm not going to pay attention to any replies. Work your way back up and try again if you wish, although if you can't manage to break into the top 3 of this scale, I'm not playing anymore.

[BainsBane]

454. So your post was essentially irrelevant to the OP

Since you don't care what those who have expressed concern about rape porn on this site actually think.

I did not accuse you of being MRA. I posted it as a foil to your point about sex negative.
However, the label is irrelevant. What matters are the ideas one puts forward.

It is interesting you say you don't accuse anyone who doesn't call themselves sex negative, because none of the women in HOF who hold in such disdain identify themselves as such. The term is a smear by those who willfully refuse to consider feminist arguments. The entire premise of your post is a red herring. That I try to get you to engage with me on the subject and you show your complete disinterest in what I or other women here thinks really says everything.


I have no doubt I could go to the men's group and find all kinds of references by you to sex negativity, but I don't have the stomach for it.

[kwassa]

440. "Are there any prominent anti-pornographers who AREN'T sex negative?" Why does it matter

Because it doesn't matter.

It really, really doesn't matter.

It is also off-point in the discussion.

[Major Nikon]

444. I asked a question that matters to me

If you think it's off point and doesn't matter, the obvious remedy is to not reply.

[kwassa]

449. It is off point and it doesn't matter, which is the only rational answer to your query.

I reply because I like to.

[Major Nikon]

459. As do we all hopefully

Cheers!

[last1standing]

407. You asked her to back up her claim so of course you don't think women are human beings.

A real feminist would never ask a woman to present facts.

in case it's needed.


I'm seriously beginning to think that the poster you're responding to is presenting us with an incredible display of parody.

[xulamaude]

403. Rule #2

bind progressive feminists together with religious conservatives (and those pandering to them) in order to portray their motives as exactly the same.

That our (progressive feminist) REASONS are diametrically opposed to their 'reasons' is not even a consideration. Talk about a broad brush...

[Major Nikon]

417. Their motives are the same

Both claim pornography poisons the culture without making a clear case for cause and effect.

Many (if not most) of the feminists on that list have allied with social conservatives to further their agenda so the idea that their motives aren't the same isn't a very good one. If anything it's unfair to the social conservatives, few of which have done so, but none of this is the claim I made anyway which means your point is strawman. Everyone on that list is sex negative. That was and is my point.

You are on the bottom tier of this scale.

[xulamaude]

447. Claiming that porn poisons the culture, as you say,

has nothing to do with the motives of either faction - how they think this "poison" is playing out on society and why they want it more closely watchdogged or banned.

Progressive feminists have been laying out their REASONS why they object to pornography for a really long time. Right here even. So have religious/conservatives. And their reasons are diametrically opposed.

Unless the Straw Man says otherwise. Or something.

[Major Nikon]

458. You just said the same thing

Obviously they believe it's poison whether it is or isn't. How they think it's playing out on society is poisonous. That is their motive and is no different than the social conservatives, even if their methods and reasoning are different which I have not disputed. That's why the two make good bedfellows. As I said, the claim that their motives aren't the same holds very little water given the historical reality and the objective (suppression of pornography) is unambiguously the same.

Furthermore not all progressive feminists agree while non-progressive feminists almost universally do, so you may wish to qualify your statements better.

If you want to accuse me of strawman, you might want to reference the chart as it's quite handy for such things. I consider this entire line background noise and I'm not going to entertain it anymore as I have no interest in repeating myself ad nausem simply so I can be disingenuously misinterpreted and roped into tangential discussions.

[xulamaude]

464. Got me!

I've repeated myself exactly once.

Won't make the same mistake again. Thanks.

[BainsBane]

475. The religious right opposes modern-day slavery too

Does that make slavery a good thing?

[Major Nikon]

481. What's red, hangs on the wall, and whistles?

[BainsBane]

483. That was your same argument for rape porn

Was it not? The right doesn't like it, therefore feminists are the same as the right?

[Major Nikon]

485. THE MAN IN THE WILDERNESS

The man in the wilderness asked of me,

How many strawberries grew in the sea?

I answered him as I thought good,

As many as red herrings grew in the wood.

-- Mother Goose

[opiate69]

487. Heh..

http://m.

[BainsBane]

489. Hey there!

Brad and the 14 kids say hi!

[opiate69]

495. ...

http://m.

[BainsBane]

497. My favorite show!

How did you know?

[opiate69]

498. Fuck.. Did Betelgeuse just go supernova? We actually agree on something??

[BainsBane]

499. This is the funniest bit

(If you're picking for content rather than trying to find cute ways to insult someone, the options are much better)

A broken clock and all. I wouldn't worry about it.

[opiate69]

503. Ahh.. "The Germans". IIRC, TV Guide ranked that episode in the top-10 all time.

I always liked this bit better, though..
http://m.

[BainsBane]

504. BTW

Have you ever seen a picture of me? I'm guessing not.

[opiate69]

506. Can't say as I have.. In all honesty,

I was trying to find the clip where he says to her, "you're still here??" But, youtube failed me. The "my god, you're ugly" was purely accidental... "don't touch me, I don't know where you've been" was the portion I was going for...

[BainsBane]

507. "Purely accidental"

Of course it was. As for the rest . . . I'm going to edit here. Madras T has it right in her recent HOF post.

I can see why you like the room with the view better. It fits your personality. I gotta go with the Germans though.

[opiate69]

509. Well, given the history, I don't for a second expect you to believe it.

But, it truly was not intentional. And hey, The Germans is a great episode. (Hell, the clip I posted was from it)... But, seriously... "I do remember the money you gave me. You won it on that horse!!" Some of the best slap-stick ever put to tape.

[BainsBane]

511. There isn't a bad episode in the series

Only Fools and Horses is another good one, but I haven't seen it since the 80s when I lived in the UK. My favorite TV show of all time is The Wire. IMO, it's the Shakespeare of television.

I would like to point out a contradiction between the idea that someone's sex life is their own business and calling another person a prude or sex negative: 1) It has nothing to do with the arguments that most HOF feminists have presented 2) it's a trivialization of real concerns regarding rape culture; and 3) if it were true, it would be passing judgment on someone's sex life, in the same way you complain others are doing. Plus, I for one have said at least 70 times that I don't consider the sex life of any consenting adults my business in the slightest.

[BainsBane]

488. You are consistent, I'll give you that

Avoid discussion at all costs. As for me, I'm comfortable enough with my views I have no problem discussing them.

[Major Nikon]

490. I'm not avoiding discussion, you just don't get it

[BainsBane]

491. You could try explaining it slowly

Since I'm so learning impaired. Looks like clear evasion at all costs to me.

[Major Nikon]

492. Others have tried

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4093032

[BainsBane]

494. I've dealt with his points repeatedly

You're way behind.

The point of my analogy is just because the right doesn't like something doesn't mean by nature that the thing is good. For the record, I am not arguing for banning rape porn. I have argued for socially responsible consumption, but then that requires the consumer have a social conscience. So that goes back to your graphic, and we are at an impasse.

No one has yet to explain why choice is an acceptable excuse for poor working conditions of porn workers (and ignoring slavery) but not at Walmart or the rest of the consumer economy. I think it's because the women who appear in porn are entirely inconsequential to most.

[Major Nikon]

500. Not talking about him

I've already told you I'm not playing your red herring games other than to identify them as such. I simply refuse to argue about it in any way, shape, or form. It always winds up in an ad nauseum display of asshattery that gets so far away from the original premise as to not even being remotely recognizable. I've already been down that road with you too many times. From now on, when you see something like this, you can keep at it as long as you want, but I'm not going to entertain you anymore and am instead going to entertain myself. If you want to make some half-fast claim that I'm not discussing the issue in good faith, please go right ahead. I think most will consider the source and I could care less if they don't. You're going to have to either figure out a new shtick or find a new playmate because you've worn this one out.

[BainsBane]

502. Right, obfuscation

Because someone doesn't see the issue in the same myopic terms you do doesn't make it asshattery. But point taken. You have nothing to say.

[Major Nikon]

505. That's it

[Warren DeMontague]

545. ...Hitler?

[Major Nikon]

548. I call Godwin

[Warren DeMontague]

550. Good luck.

I only seem to get his voicemail.

[LadyHawkAZ]

433. This never happens to progressive feminists.

Ever. Reason being, progressive feminists don't parrot right-wing nuts and fundie conservative ideology, and all that jazz.

[liberal_at_heart]

477. whatever the reasons I still say stay out of my bedroom.

[hrmjustin]

396. I don't care what people do in their bedrooms nor do I make a judgment on most porn.

My only concern with some hardcore rape scenes in some porn. My concern is that it can desensitize some who watch it. I am not advocating making it illegal but I think the industry should consider carefully whether some of these videos should be made.

[Scootaloo]

410. False dichotomy

Recognizing that pornography in general creates body issues and unrealistic expectations for both sexes, reinforces negative perceptions of sexuality in general and female sexuality in particular, and in many instances is overtly sexist, even violently so, does not translate into a dislike of sex, or even a hatred of porn.

It's a critique of a medium, with tacit acknowledgement that not every example one can find falls into that particular critique. By and large though, pornography is to sex what Ferris Beuller's Day Off is to high school. Except Sloane got characterization and some amount of respect.

[BainsBane]

493. You make me want to watch that My Little Pony show

I don't know if that has any relation to how you are as a person, but I really appreciate your posts. In the lounge the other day someone was making fun of the new season of My Little Pony and I said, "If Scootaloo likes it, it can't be all bad."

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

535. Don't expect an homage to Coppola's "The Conversation"....

....or a goofy parody of a-ha's "Take On Me" thrown in....

I thought with all the twenty-something hype it was like Animaniacs or something, and was disappointed to find after five minutes of watching it was just cartoon horses talking like little kids.

[BainsBane]

542. I wonder why so many people are into it?

It's like a big thing. People dress like ponies and everything. I didn't know anything about it before Scootaloo. I still don't really.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

544. There's a documentary about the Brony culture out there that turned up on Logo

I try to keep up on pop culture, but I still didn't really get it after watching that either, other than for the most part the people involved seem overwhelmingly positive. I thought it was some sort of hipster ironic performance art parody thing at first, but now I'm not so sure. I have a theory, but I won't get into it here.

Furries, I don't get that either and that's been around longer and supposedly has some sort of dark undertones. But to each their own.

[BainsBane]

546. All sounds pretty harmless to me

If it makes people happy, good for them.

[bluestate10]

427. I don't like pornography, but even with my position, I view many on DU

as being somewhat blind and puritanical concerning commercial sex, which pornography is one segment of. There is gross pornography that dehumanizes and enslaves. And there is pornography that women and men willingly participate in. The risk is not being able to distinguish between the two risks not having the insight to eliminate the gross forms of pornography from existence and put people that traffic it and profit from it and use it in prison. When ever a discussion of commercial sex come up on DU, whether it involves pornography or prostitution, the puritanical element on DU, which I am afraid make the majority, smothers any viewpoint that doesn't match their narrow viewpoint.

[flvegan]

439. To answer your question on subject alone: no. No we can't.

*looks up*

And probably never will.

[ScreamingMeemie]

468. Right?

Also, happy belated birthday.

I've been sucking at teh facebook lately.

[flvegan]

484. Aww, thank you.

I suck at Facebook like no other. I hope you are well.

[Kablooie]

445. Is it pornography when loving exhibitionistic couples broadcast live video of their love making?

Many couples are now broadcasting and chatting while they have sex.
Some do it for tips, others do it simply because they like the idea of people watching them.
The couple knows that many men and some women will get off on their love making and that's pleasing to them.
Is this wrong?
Is this pornography?
I'd be interested in hearing people's thoughts?

[ConcernedCanuk]

512. Looking at the poll - the answer appears to be HELL YES !!!

.
.
.



CC

[Vashta Nerada]

530. So, to recap: No. Not here. Not ever.

[Kurska]

532. My poor thread, just another victim of the great DU rape porn war

R.I.P

I'd like to think I have a fairly decent computer, but this thread takes about a minute and a half to fully load.

[Warren DeMontague]

533. I was in the DU porn wars of '05, '08, '09 and '11

trust me sonny, this is nothin'

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

537. To Donny....who loved surfing....and bowling. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

541. "And what was all that shit about Vietnam? What the FUCK, has anything got to do with Vietnam?"

[Kurska]

538. Why does it seem DU generally has porn wars in years there is no election

Lack of other things to talk about maybe?

[Warren DeMontague]

540. Yeah, for sure.

Except now it's almost Thanksgiving, and these threads are cutting into the valuable PETA calendar timeshare.

[nomorenomore08]

561. I think you may be on to something...

[opiate69]

551. Damn, that's a lot of wars to fight...

http://m.

[Warren DeMontague]

557. The "Heavy Metal" Soundtrack. Indeed.

"18 years of nothing... and now, twice in one day! What a place!"

[nomorenomore08]

560. '05, I wasn't around here yet. But '08, '09, and especially '11 I remember pretty well.

I stayed out of those battles partly for fear of catching a (figurative) bullet, but also partly because I didn't feel strongly enough about the subject one way or another. But I guess now the controversy over "rape porn" has gotten me interested/concerned enough to wade in - I don't know what that says about my psyche, honestly, but I must say that I find even "simulated" violence in porno deeply disturbing.

[nomorenomore08]

559. Hell, I wish one of *my* (admittedly very few) threads would get 500 replies. I'm lucky to get 5.

[Spider Jerusalem]

563. What does "sex-positive" have to do with pornography, exactly?

I see the problems of pornography as being totally unrelated to "sex-positivity". Mainstream commercial pornography is mostly made by and for heterosexual men. It reinforces gender stereotypes and female objectification in ways that aren't really healthy at all. Enlisting the idea of "sex-positivity" in a defence of mainstream pornography is essentially saying that as long as a woman is happy with her own objectification and acquiesces to the dominant cultural paradigm of gender roles that there's not really anything exploitative about it at all. Which is essentially bullshit, since it fails to take into account those underlying social and cultural attitudes.

[nomorenomore08]

565. Nothing. Not inherently anyway. Which is why the conflation of the two is rather questionable.

Some have claimed that many of those (e.g. Dworkin) who are anti-pornography are also anti-(hetero)-sex, and while I'm sure there's a good deal of truth to that, it doesn't follow that "anti-porn" = "anti-sex" inherently or automatically.

Personally, I'm neither anti-sex nor blanketly anti-porn. But I do recognize that, like any large industry under capitalism, the porn industry is rife with corruption and exploitation.

[Kurska]

567. See your attitude is exactly what I'm talking about.

"saying that as long as a woman is happy with her own objectification and acquiesces to the dominant cultural paradigm of gender roles that there's not really anything exploitative about it at all"

A woman engaging in sex on film or otherwise that you PERSONALLY find demeaning, degrading or objectifying is not, in fact, being exploited if she wants to do it and enjoys it.

This is a laughable double standard as well, given gay guys get involved in just as bad of "exploitative" material all the time and I never see anyone claiming that we need to be protected like special little flowers from our exploitative society. You gag, bound and to be vulgar screw a guy who wants to be and it is all good. You do it to a woman and "oh my god that poor woman, won't someone step in and outlaw this perversity" (maybe you don't think this personally, but I've seen it enough on this board to be tired of it). It is sexism masquerading as liberation and I'm sick of seeing it casually floated on this board as acceptable. Her body her choice and she doesn't have to give a rat's behind what you think of it buddy.

And as far as I'm concerned, that is the bottom line. Her body, her choice and you can sit philosophizing about all the horrible cultural stigmas she is playing into, but in end those words aren't worth the breath it takes to speak them. You cross a really clear line when you start telling women how they should feel about how they enjoy their own sexuality.

I'll be sure to tell any and all of my female friends into BDSM (some of which does happen on camera) that a very smart man on the internet told them that they sex they find liberating and enjoyable, is actually using them.

[Spider Jerusalem]

569. It's the social attitudes around it that are exploitative.

Since it reinforces the idea that women have value insofar as they're attractive to men, and as sexual objects. There's already a double standard between social views of male and female sexuality that treats women very differently than men, in very negative ways. "Sexism masquerading as liberation" is arguing that the sexual and gender dynamics of mainstream pornography aren't in some ways the reflection of heteronormative patriarchy.

[Kurska]

570. Your perception of social attitudes don't matter a fraction of an iota

In comparison to a woman's understanding and acceptance of her own sexual practices and behaviors.

The fact you have the gall to presume to tell a woman that she is being exploited for willingly engaging in sexual practices that she enjoys is beyond sad.

Just because you keep throwing out complex sociological terms doesn't change the fact that we are talking about women's private and yes sometimes commercial sexual expression (either way none of your business if consensual).

What I really don't get, and has yet to be adequately explained to me, is why when a guy engages in the exact same kind of "exploitive" sexual behavior it is okay, yet when a woman does it it is wrong and she should feel used. How is saying that some sexual practices are okay for men, but wrong for women anything but sexism? Either take a principled stand and say that ALL "degrading" sexual activity is harmful or recognize that you're holding a very glaring double standard. You can't have it both ways.

[Spider Jerusalem]

571. Apparently there are plenty of things you don't get

let me know when society tells men that they only have value insofar as they're sexually desirable, eh?

[Kurska]

573. You're the one saying society should influence how a woman feels about her private sexual behaviors.

I'm saying it doesn't matter and a woman should make peace with her sexuality in any way she sees fit. That she should explore and be free to explore her sexuality without gaggles of internet commentators telling her she needs to feel exploited because she likes to get tied up and have sex.

I have some wonderful advice. Take your conceptualization of society's sexual standards, pick them up and transport them out of the private and commercial sexual lives of women across our nation.

Thanks in advance.

[Spider Jerusalem]

574. I'm saying society does, in fact.

And I'm not talking about BDSM. I am talking about PORNOGRAPHY. Which you seem to have conflated somehow with being "sex-positive".

[Kurska]

576. I find it laughable you think a woman's private, consensual and enjoyable sex becomes exploitative

Just because you point a camera at it. You keep digging your hole though, maybe you'll end up with a free trip to china eventually.

For being so desperate to liberate women from society's harmful views of their sex life, it sure is ironic to me that you'd presume to tell women they are being exploited because of the society their sex life takes place in.

[Spider Jerusalem]

578. You're arguing that pornography and the attitudes around gender roles and sexuality it expresses...

aren't exploitative then? NB I did in fact say "mainstream pornography"; that is what I am talking about; if you're trying to move the goalposts then you're addressing something I didn't actually say. And I think you'd have to be stupid or wilfully ignorant to try to argue that Western society in general and American society in particular isn't in fact quite exploitative regarding female sexuality, gender roles, gender presentation, and a host of other associated issues.

[Kurska]

581. I'm arguing that blanket statements on whether a woman should feel exploited or not based on the

kind of sex she enjoys, presence of camera or if she is getting paid for it are supremely unhelpful and frankly kind of worthless.

Here is a little experiment, try to actually define what mainstream pornography is. Is a woman selling videos of her kinky bondage sex with her husband mainstream pornography? Do you need a production company to qualify as this evil mainstream pornography that women can't engage in without being exploited?

Is the exploitation that this woman should feel contingent on the presence of a fluffer on set or is that optional? Go ahead man, you've clearly put a great deal of thought into this. I'm waiting to be wowed by your perfect definition of universally exploitive "mainstream" pornography

If you're going to bust out ridiculous statements about when women should feel exploited you should bother to actually define what in the heck you actually mean. How will the porn producing women of our proud nation know when to feel exploited without you to boldly tell them when it is happening?

[Spider Jerusalem]

583. Except you're moving the goalposts, and arguing a point I didn't make.

The present state of gender politics and relations in Western society, and the production and marketing of mainstream pornography as something targeted at heterosexual male sexuality, and presented through the lens of the male gaze, makes it, by definition, exploitative. I haven't said whether or not women in mainstream pornography should "feel" exploited; I'm saying they ARE exploited. It has nothing to do with "enjoyment". And this has much more to do with the corrosive effect of pornography on views of sexuality and women more generally.

Again, can you tell me that men are generally viewed as sexual objects, or has having value only in relation to their sexual attractiveness and desirability? By and large, the answer to that is no, they aren't; women, though, still are, even in our supposedly more "enlightened" modern era.

[Kurska]

584. Oh my lord, I'm seriously questioning if you even read what you write.

"I haven't said whether or not women in mainstream pornography should "feel" exploited; I'm saying they ARE exploited."

So you're saying they are exploited, yet you're undecided on whether they should feel exploited? To me saying someone is exploited rather strongly implies that they should probably feel exploited. In fact, I've never heard anyone tell anyone else they are exploited with any intention rather than trying to get them to feel that way and then "liberate' themselves.

I've never seen someone try to twist themself in such a intellectual knot just to be walk back a statement that they swear they aren't trying to walk back. Either own it or admit it was a silly thing to say, because at this point in your mental gymnastic routine I'd probably start to feel a little embarrassed.

[Spider Jerusalem]

585. It isn't necessary to "feel" something for it to be the case.

Again: are men judged on the basis of their sexual attractiveness, in Western culture? By and large? Is their value inherent in their looks and sexual appeal? Yes, or no?

And you're making a very poor argument by conflating pornography and sex-positivity. The two things are not related, at all.

[Kurska]

586. And if something is the case and you don't "feel it", you're wrong

This is why I find your argument so extremely patronizing. You're telling women that despite how much they could possibly enjoy it, doing porn you personally find objectifying means they are exploited. The fact you're allowing a tiny bit of wiggle room in saying "they might not feel exploited though", doesn't change the fact you are essentially dictating the terms of their person to them.

"are men judged on the basis of their sexual attractiveness, in Western culture?"

um... yes they are. I could link you about 20 studies in 20 minutes that say that people vastly prefer attractive people to unattractive people, regardless of gender. Even babies prefer looking at attractive and symmetrical faces over unsymmetrical ones. Off the top of my head I've read studies that say attractive people are more likely to get a job, more likely to be helped by bystanders and are paid more for the same job than "ugly people". Given nothing but attractive or unattractive faces, people ascribe more positive personality attributes to attractive faces. This phenomenon is so common that it has it's own neat little moniker in social psychology "To people, what is beautiful is good". Again, this is commonly observed for both sexes, not just women. Our society is immensely vane and shallow towards everyone, men included. Empirical evidence says that if I was he-man adonis, I'd have an easier time finding a job in just about any field, including academia. Are women more affected by this phenomenon, probably, I can't tell you for sure I imagine it might depend heavily on the exact situation (as is often the case in things like this). I can tell you that I've seen the effect replicated over and over again for both women and men.

I'd link you academic articles about this, but unless you're currently affiliated with a university of some kind you probably wouldn't be able to read them.

For throwing out the whole "your argument is very poor" line, you don't appear to actually have investigated some of your core assumptions very deeply.

[Spider Jerusalem]

587. Hah.

First you call me patronising and then say "I could link you to articles but unless you're affiliated with a university, you wouldn't be able to read them"? Charming.

And no, they aren't. Not to the same degree and not in the same way. Women are definitely more affected, if you are are not aware of this I say again you are either blind or ignorant. (The bias is so subtle that it seems to pass unnoticed, but it can be very instructive to examine the differences in description between men and women in the press; females...whether politicians, actors, entertainers, or educators...who are the subject of media profiles? Almost invariably there's some reference to her appearance and age; men? Not so much. Philip Seymour Hoffman's weight isn't discussed nearly as often as, say, Camryn Mannheim's.

You don't even have a valid core argument if your argument is that there's not really any gender-based difference in society's treatment of men and women as it relates to expressions of sexuality and perceived attractiveness. I could link YOU to dozens of academic studies on the subject, but I'm not sure YOU'RE very capable of understanding them.

[Kurska]

588. "no, they aren't" Yes, men are.

Empirical evidence says men and women both suffer from attractiveness bias.

I'm also not trying to be condescending. I'm literally saying the only part you could read about them would probably be the abstract, because the rest is behind a paywall. I wasn't saying you are incapable of reading them, academic journal articles in social sciences are rarely that difficulty to read. If you're really going to insist on me doing this though.

http://guilfordjournals.com/doi/abs/10.1521/soco.22.6.637.54819

"A theme that emerges in life is that it is advantageous to be good looking. Corroborating this observation, an expansive literature has documented the benefits of facial attractiveness on a range of explicit measures. What is not yet known, however, is whether this association between beauty and positivity also exerts an implicit influence on people's responses. That is, does the “beautiful is good” stereotype operate when attention is not explicitly directed to a person's appearance? Using a modified Stroop task, we explored this issue in the current investigation. The results revealed that facial stereotypes do indeed exert an automatic influence on people's responses, an effect that is elicited by targets of either sex and displayed by both male and female respondents. In addition, female faces elicited positive evaluative responses (i.e., female–positivity effect). We consider the implications of these findings for issues in person perception.

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2787149?uid=3739600&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103005576811

"Meta-analysis was used to test hypotheses about the relationship between physical attractiveness and intellectual competence. In support of status generalization theory and implicit personality theory, attractive people were perceived as more competent than less attractive people. Attractiveness effects were stronger for males than for females, and stronger when explicit information about competence was absent than when it was present, in keeping with status generalization theory. In partial support of status generalization theory and expectancy theory, attractiveness was related to actual competence in children, but not in adults. Direct measures of competence were influenced strongly more by attractiveness than were indirect measures, as predicted by status generalization theory. Implications for theory, organizational policy, and future research are discussed."


I don't really feel like looking up more research on this tonight, so let me just phrase it simply. You can find some research where the effect is stronger for men, you can find some research where the effect is stronger for women and in most research the effect doesn't seem to depend on gender. The universal part of this all is that men and women both suffer from unfair judgement based on their attractiveness. Again, whether the effect is technically stronger for men or women is immaterial. I certainly never expressed the view that it was stronger for men. I imagine in most things, but not all things, it is slightly stronger for women; so I have no idea why you are arguing against that. I said the effect was significant and impacting for both men and women, which is the case.

I really don't know why you're talking about actors, there is a ton of actual research out there drawing real conclusions about the way people view and process information. I really couldn't be less interested in whatever anecdotes you want to come up with.

So to summarize what I've actually said. Attractiveness bias is something that effects both men and women. I think that in most cases attractiveness bias probably effects women more, but not in every instance (one possible example being in regards to associating beauty with intelligence). There is no denying though that it does effect both men and women to a significant extent, to say otherwise is just silly.

bolded for emphasis.

So tie this all back to your original framing of the question, before you, as you like to say, moved the goals posts, was

"Are men judged on the basis of their sexual attractiveness, in Western culture? By and large?"

Yes they are.

"Is their value inherent in their looks and sexual appeal? Yes, or no? "

Yes, it isn't the only thing but it is a consistent observed effect for men where their value is judged partly by their looks or sexual appeal.

I'm glad we had this opportunity to learn together. I've never really studied attractiveness bias that much before this, so it was nice getting a little more familiar with it.

[Warren DeMontague]

572. People fuck. People like cameras. People like watching stuff on screens.

Often those three things combine. If everyone is a consenting adult, big friggin' deal.

The people who wake up in the morning determined to stop the several billion adult people who enjoy masturbating to naked pictures of other adult humans... jesus, that must be frustrating. Let me know how that project works out- good luck, really.