Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

1 Apr 07, 4:20 PM
ThedaVamp
UK, 4 yrs

doulos wrote:
Brilliant.
I'd use this emoticon only I might get accused of being a puppet of the patriarchy, simply subconsciously submitting to your fiendish male agendas to make me post such an emoticon...
See Daddy? Sinners have soul too.

1 Apr 07, 4:24 PM
SnowdropExplodes
UK, 5 yrs
Y!
here's my reply to the blog:

Maybe I'm not welcome here, being a male who uses "extreme" pornography, but I consider myself a feminist and in the interests of balance I would like to give my view.
It's estimated that something like 25% of women (conservative estimate - the real figure could be higher, since these figures necessarily are self-reported) fantasise about "rape". Not one of these women would enjoy it if they actually were raped, but they do enjoy the fantasy of being forced.
"Rape play" is when a woman agrees with a man whom she trusts, to have sex where she resists him and he uses force to restrain her and impose himself upon her. It is NOT rape, it is consensual sex. The fantasy of being forced is played out with someone who is trusted, and with whom she chooses to have sex.
It is false to say that this proposed legislation will protect women from real violence. The standard set in the proposed legislation is that it depicts acts "likely to cause death or serious disabling injury". There is NO evidence of ANY examples of pornographic material showing real examples of these, despite the world's law enforcement community (Interpol, FBI, etc) trying for decades to uncover such material. In the same way that Hollywood movies fake deaths, "extreme" pornography is FAKE. As evidenced by the fact that the sites offering it universally carry the phrase "18 USC 2257 records compliance". That means that they have proof of age and consent for all models involved, and that the FBI can and does check up on them.
For me, the definition of feminism is "promoting the self-determination and freedom of women". To me, that includes allowing women to choose their sexual fantasies and to live them out if they so desire. Whch means that both the sexually dominant AND the sexually submissive female must be allowed their freedom to be so. You might wish to interpret the sexually submissive woman as being a helpless pawn of a male-centric society, but if you take the time to talk to these women, you will find that many of them are strong, powerful people who have made their choice not from a position of weakness, but a position of power. Erotic submission is not about a helpless pawn being treated as an underling; it is about a strong, confident person giving a gift of control.
To claim that suppressing sexual fantasies, and visual representations of those fantasies, is a feminist cause, is to claim that women are incapable of making their own choices without the aid of a feminist intelligensia to guide them into the "right" choices. It is also to claim that a man like me is nothing more than an unthinking impressionable animal who cannot tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Neither of these claims can possibly have any benefit to the cause of equality of the sexes, nor for the economic and social liberation of women as a class.
The anti-censorship feminist argument is one that asks us to view men and women both as intelligent, thinking beings capable of making informed and positive choices. The pro-censorship argument denies this of both men and women.
As I'm currently ploughing through a couple of tomes from the 1970s feminist movement, I'm learning quite a bit about how feminism draws on marxist terminology to make its claims (hence my reference there to women as a class). The connection is a tenuous one, however, and it seems to me that feminists who follow that line have a tendency to adapt their data to fit the theory rather than vice versa.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

1 Apr 07, 6:32 PM
emark
UK, 6 yrs I read her blog, and all I see is:
"Help, help, I'm being oppressed! These nasty-wasty women call themselves feminists and make me cry! Only I get to decide what counts as feminism! Look at meee! I'm a victim!"
Which I was tempted to post, but I'll try to do something a bit more constructive instead.
Well, at least she's reduced at the moment to posting on her blog which is presumably only read by those who are already as brainwashed as she is, and seem to have an inability to distinguish between fantasy/consensual-acts, and non-consensual acts.
Although I guess a wider problem is that there are people who perhaps would listen, but are misled about the law - consider the comment #3, where she claims this law doesn't affect what people do in public, and only applies if they publish it! Duh! (Also I wish all these people who seem to know of porn involving actual non-consensual violence would inform the police, as neither the police nor the Government seem to know about it.)
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/
Edited 1 Apr 07, 6:42 PM by emark

1 Apr 07, 7:29 PM
Tovarich
UK, 4 yrs
Y!

SnowdropExplodes wrote:
......As I'm currently ploughing through a couple of tomes from the 1970s feminist movement, I'm learning quite a bit about how feminism draws on marxist terminology to make its claims (hence my reference there to women as a class). The connection is a tenuous one, however, and it seems to me that feminists who follow that line have a tendency to adapt their data to fit the theory rather than vice versa.....
Now for a lefty, I'm not exactly one of the intelligentsia (keeping me safely out of the gulag, lol) but I always thought one of Marx's drawbacks (and there are many) is that he hardly mentions women at all, except by implication in a de-humanising way, collectively as part of the oppressive superstructure rather than individuals with a deserved place amongst the proletariat.
Not that it's impossible for feminists to take what they can from Marx and apply it to other thinkiong....which is what most of us who wouldn't take being called Marxist as an insult do anyway.
Tovarich is a combination of frothy comedy with bitter political undertones.- googlism

1 Apr 07, 7:33 PM
doulos
UK, 4 yrs
I think there is an awful lot that can be learnt from Marx, but his economic theory of exploitation is utterly fallacious and, unfortunately, radicals seem to take the worst part of Marx rather than the best.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken
Edited 1 Apr 07, 11:10 PM by doulos

1 Apr 07, 7:41 PM
Tovarich
UK, 4 yrs
Y!

doulos wrote:
I think there is an awful lot that can't be learnt from Marx....
Yeah, his gardening tips are shite.....not one decent bloom in my patch since I started 'withering away the estate'
Tovarich is a combination of frothy comedy with bitter political undertones.- googlism

1 Apr 07, 8:07 PM
doulos
UK, 4 yrs

Tovarich wrote:

doulos wrote:
I think there is an awful lot that can't be learnt from Marx....
Yeah, his gardening tips are shite.....not one decent bloom in my patch since I started 'withering away the estate'

Hehe
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

1 Apr 07, 9:29 PM
verte
UK(E), 6 yrs
Wooo, train wi fi... My reply is probably a bit jumbled.
So far no replies from anyone who disagrees with her are visible. What a surprise.
Here's mine anyway:
"Hi charliegrrrl,
Thanks for taking so much interest in our workshop and my personal blog. I'm sure I should be flattered that you deem me worth stalking and complaining about. Please cite my blog if you wish to make reference to it.
I'm sorry you have misunderstood what the workshop was going to be about. We did not set it up to 'criticise' opposition to anti-censorship feminism, but to raise a discussion. I intended to speak briefly, but then run the discussion from a position of neutrality, which will still be the case - I just won't be moderating. I agree that this is a much fairer way of running debates, but the only reason we did not have anti-porn feminists on the panel is because you/they never engage with us. We have tried very hard to start a healthy discourse with a member of Object, and I am now trying to do the same with you, but unfortunately the former refused to acknowledge our position and deliberately misquoted and misunderstood us, and it seems that you are doing the same.
I do disagree with you that the new laws to criminalise extreme porn will protect women. I think they will do entirely the opposite. I have intended from the start to focus my talk at Ladyfest on methods other than censorship that might make the porn industry a more equal and safe place for women, none of which will be possible if the material that is made is criminalised. It will not stop people making this pornography, it will not stop women participating in it.
I must correct 'Linda' above: the government have no intention of criminalising the making of extreme porn, simply the possession of it. I believe vast changes must be made to the sex industry to make it a fair and equal place for women who choose to make it their careers, but I do not think censorship is the answer. It will push pornography further underground and make it impossible for sex workers to have any rights. I suspect you consider them 'victims', incapable of making their own choices, but if you actually talked and engaged with sex workers, I think you would find that this is not true in the vast majority of cases.
The blurb I posted in my personal weblog was a draft. It was deliberately provocative because we wanted people to come to the workshop. It has nothing to do with Ladyfest's 'ethics' because they did not agree to it. I posted it to get some feedback and ideas for changing it.
As I recall, rape porn was not brought up by us at Feminist Fightback. It was brought up by anti-porn feminists. You asked for our perspective on it, we gave it, you interrupted people, insulted and belittled us, I lost it and cried. Congratulations. Your arguments were not constructive, just discriminatory. I've spoken to friends who were standing by the door at the Fightback Sexual Expression panel and they confirmed to me that no-one walked out.
Since one of the Ladyfest organisers gave me this blog link, I've had a read. I admire your actions to put lad mags on the top shelf, where I agree they belong. We have plenty of issues in common and from my perspective it is a great shame that you refuse to engage in healthy debate with us without resorting to personal insults and discrimination akin to homophobia, as I think we have plenty to learn from one another.
I am almost certain you will censor this reply, as you have done all the replies to this blog that you do not agree with. Again, it is a great shame that you are so unwilling to actually engage with us. We are all fighting for the liberation of women, but this same old debate has been going on for the past thirty years. We need for it to move on. We need to find a middle ground.
Thanks for reading this,
verte"

1 Apr 07, 10:39 PM
katali
3 yrs I posted, it still says awaiting wahtever...
quite frankly, if that is what feminists believe then im not a feminist.
Her belief that all sex-trade workers (inc pole dancers etc) are being abused is bollox. Yeah, some of them might be forced into it, however, some women actually choose to do things like that, and enjoy it!! the men they dance for pay them a ridiculous amount of money for very little (and I'm not intending to imply they dont work hard for their money, altho I prob will) so really who is being more taken advantage of?
should all women keep all their clothes on all the time so men can never see or lust after them cos that might disempower the women?!
WTF?!
its like the 60's feminists who eblieve that in order to be equal to men they have to look like them!!
Equal does not mean the same, it means WORTH the same, and it is not at all the same thing!!!
And to shout her world view like its the gospel truth, and any women who doesnt follow it must be brainwashed and oppressed is fucking insulting.
And now Im all wound up, damn. Oh well, someon will come an beat me later, an I'l feel better. Gosh, how brainwashed I must be to believe I get enjoyment out of that!!
AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!
"I want what I want when I want it, what is so immature about that?!" - Jackie, That 70's Show

1 Apr 07, 10:40 PM
ThedaVamp
UK, 4 yrs
Well - she's now shown some of her responses, but surprise! surprise! only those that agree with her!
See Daddy? Sinners have soul too.

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent