You are viewing IC as Guest

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

1 Apr 07, 10:51 PM
Tanos

UK(M), 14 yrs

ThedaVamp wrote:
Well - she's now shown some of her responses, but surprise! surprise! only those that agree with her!

Ha ha!

So that's a moral victory: if she was right, she would be able to show the opposing responses and enter into debate with them.

But she's wrong. And deep down she knows she's wrong: she's just too frightened to admit it.

Aren't you, charliegrrl? (Since I'm sure she's reading this already.)

Tanos

And for the record, this is my post there:

Tanos wrote:
charliegrrl is too frightened to let her readers see all the responses her post has generated.

Many of them, however, are being posted here, where she cannot silence them:

http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/boards/activism...

People who are right don't need to hide from debate.

Tanos

www.tanos.org.uk
"There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist" - Ayn Rand

Edited 1 Apr 07, 10:57 PM by Tanos

1 Apr 07, 11:30 PM
verte
UK(E), 8 yrs

ThedaVamp wrote:
Well - she's now shown some of her responses, but surprise! surprise! only those that agree with her!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaargh, it's all so pointless and amusing. She can stay sitting in her sad little hole moaning for as long as she likes.

Ladyfest are hopefully putting me in touch with another anti-porn feminist who is happy to communicate with me/us via email. Apparently she's sane, clever and non-ranty, so I'm really hoping we'll be able to find shared ground even if we have to agree to disagree on censorship.

1 Apr 07, 11:44 PM
titchfield
UK(CF), 6 yrs

Clever? Or selectively clever? Sometimes we're overly generous with people who have silly ideas about the little things such as, well, reality and the like

I've never yet seen a rational argument against porn. Very rarely is it anything other than pure religious vitriol. I think it's from the well known 11th commandment 'Thou shalt not pleasure thyself whilst observing artistic representations of other people, especially if they're having sex.' but correct me if I'm wrong.

It's incredibly sad to see so many women parroting this gibberish which they get (amusingly from my point of view) from patriarchal religions. You might reasonably think that anyone claiming to be a feminist would be investing a degree of thought about the world and the way it works. Yet, sadly, they seem incapable of understanding the concept that the people you disagree with must be allowed a voice or there can be no discussion or advancement.

If they aren't going to get involved in the discussion then they leave the rest of us with only one option and that's to make the reasonable assumption that they are part of the book burning lunatic fringe and not rational human beings at all.

2 Apr 07, 12:00 AM
eleventh_hour
UK, 5 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'

lol

Doulos - even backlash are linking to the journal Capital and Class; if that's not marxist, I don't know what is. http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/cac.pdf.

I'd be interested to hear why you think Marx's theory of exploitation is 'utterly fallacious' - maybe it would be worth starting a new thread on the subject as I don't want to sideline this one.

Anyone else up for a bit of master-slave dialectic?

2 Apr 07, 12:01 AM
mq1965
UK(DA), 8 yrs

Bet this won't be approved either

2 Apr 07, 12:09 AM
MarcusStrapp
UK(CB), 7 yrs

I have not studied the debate, I don't even throw much effort into desconstructng or analysing the whats and wherefores of my deviancy. I know from the emotional seat of my pants, or perhaps more importantly from the depths of my heart, my kink is founded in my desire to care for people. It is not something that I can easily explain by rational and logical argument. it is the place where faced with being right or wrong, I am probably going to opt for being kind by preference. It is as such a grey area and one that is difficult to defend against hostile attack.

Rights and wrongs are not absolutes, but a set of commonly accepted and adopted standards. The law is a subset of those standards that make it into statute. Therein lies the nub of this issue. Whether you like it or not, what we practice is considered by the majority as subversive and unacceptable.

Attitudes do change. Homosexuality was once "wrong" and "illegal". Estimates for the prevalence homosexuality vary but even if we err on the side of caution, we can safely go with 1 in 10. That is a sizeable minority. In time, that sizeable minority changed a "wrong" to a "right" (or at the very least an "ok"). What do you estimate is the proportion of the population practising BDSM? Now consider that what we do can be visibly indistinguishable from acts of genuine abuse and we have what I fear may be a hill that will not be climbed in our lifetime. I am not sure there is the critical mass required to overturn the prejudices of the vast majority.

There is also the issue, that some of those that do commit violent sexual crimes, may also align to our cause. The e-petition to abandon the proposed violent pornography bill has 1810 votes (that sure isn't anything like 10% ). But what happens when the next Peter Sutcliffe's name turns up on that petition. If and when that does happen and if it makes the media, those petitioners and all BDSM'ers will probably find themselves tarred with the same brush. Imagine trying to explain to your mum why your name was on the same petition for advocating extreme violent pornography as say Ian Huntley's (or if not your mum since your mum might be uber smart and cool, but you get the idea). It is very easy to be misrepresented!

Violent sex crimes, heinous as they obviously are, possibly attract a disproportionately high emotional response from both press and public inasmuch as other forms of violent abuse remain woefully under represented and reported, e.g. domestic violence. Perhaps that has something to do with this country still having a childish nudge nudge wink wink attitude to sex. Whilst we appear to have a sex everywhere culture; every hoarding; every TV program; every newspaper, we also still have a remarkably repressed attitude to the nitty gritty of sexual activity. Isn't it odd that the common experience which sustains the race remains in some senses a taboo? Public nudity and an erect penis are still big no no's (Oh for God sake, no I am not putting up a cock shot so stop asking!) The tabloids boost sales with page three tits and whatever salacious tittle tattle it can uncover. Our nation pays for it, laps it up and then sucks it's teeth and shakes it's head in disapproval. Wide coverage in these papers of the worst atrocities (such as the Soham murders) will also catalyse polarisation between acceptable straight mainstream sex and dubious dangerous everything else.

I think we can expect to be a persecuted minority group. I feel I am too old to want to try turning the world upside down, I want to be free to practice what I do with those that I love, and for now that means that I do it, with a degree of concealment. I salute you that you take your enthusiasm, intellect and commitment to freedom into battle, but expect to come face to face with ignorance and bigotry. Do not underestimate it's power. In my own small way I know what it is like to charge into battle under a similar banner (or belief) only to have been scythed down. If you love anything or anyone, you are always vulnerable.

verte wrote:
Right, well, Charliegrrrl has now lifted material, and details about me, from this blog and posted it on her own without linking to here. Although I'm sure I should be flattered that she must have been stalking me online since October, her actions are not only illegal, they are threatening and libellous.

http://charliegrrl.wordpress.com/2007/03/30/when...

I am a feminist. One of the reasons I signed the petition and have spoken for Backlash is because I do not think criminalising the distribution of extreme material will do anything to protect women.

Sadly I am not sure that I totally agree. and I raise this not because I believe we should strengthen censorship (I don't) but because I think the statement is vulnerable to being faulted. I suspect that if you could remove (or substantially reduce the amount) of violent pornography in circulation, there would be some minimal reduction in violent sex related crime. Quite simply, you only need one person to be adversely affected by violent pornography. There is always at least one "one person" and usually a few!

The question becomes to what extent one is willing to trade our liberty for curtailment of criminality.

It's a bit like traffic speed limits. We could reduce death on the road by reducing the maximum speed by 50% or even 75% on all roads. if we all crawl along the roads we will all be safer BUT, there is of course a cost. It is an emotive argument when you put a longer journey time in the balance with a child knocked down and killed.

It's difficult to multiply a billion longer journey times and say they weigh more than a child's life. And that is where we are now. We have forgotten or seem less willing to accept that life is a risky business. We live in a society that has such a pathological fear of dying it is trying to insure against all risks and eventualities. The premiums though are our freedoms and liberties. You could say that we are so frightened of dying that we are forgetting how to live.

The media exacerbates the problem, by it's one-to-many nature. The worst crimes are centre stage in every living room in the country and whereas in times of old would have troubled a small community, they now trouble the whole country. It's no wonder so few kids walk to school any more. I doubt though that it is any more dangerous now than at any other time in recent history. If it is more dangerous now, then I suspect that it's the fear of the many of being labelled meddling, perverted or pedophile that stops good folk from intervening and engaging with children and thus perhaps, a greater proportion of those that do engage may well be the ones we don't want to! What a tangled web we weave.

verte wrote:
Anti-porn feminism, as it stands, is still using the same old, limited, tired arguments it has used since the '70s. It assumes all female porn workers are hapless, personless victims unable to make their own decisions and sexual choices. It's classist, it's even chauvinist, and I find it repulsive. The way they choose to oppress women who are not in total agreement with them, to prevent us from having a voice, is no different from the patriarchal systems they apparently seek to eradicate.

Criminalising extreme material will not stop it being made. It will simply send it further underground, making it far more difficult to honour the rights of female sex workers who already are unable to speak out positively about their work and choices because they have been shouted down by these feminists for the last thirty years.

I will not be bullied into pulling out of this workshop. I proposed to run this workshop at Ladyfest, apart from anything else, to give women a space to talk about sexual expression in a safe space where they will not be shouted down and infantilised by anti-porn feminists who are usually given these platforms. I am grateful that Ladyfest is fighting our corner and still wants to give us this chance.

My talk at Ladyfest will focus, as I have always intended it, upon options other than censorship that may help protect female sex workers without assuming they are stupid and incapable of making their own sexual choices, while still honouring the rights of sexual minorities and women's right to freedom of sexual expression and exploration. I do not think my views on porn are especially 'extreme'. I simply want to find a middle-ground that does not rely upon feminism siding with right wing groups like Mediawatch and censorship.

So there it is. Just wanted to keep you updated.

I wish you the very best. Change the world for the better. if nothing else, seeing your bright bravery finds a warm place in my heart.

--- Edited for typos.

Conventional wisdom is often more about convention than wisdom.
-- Marcus Strapp

Edited 2 Apr 07, 6:50 AM by MarcusStrapp

2 Apr 07, 12:15 AM
Chastiser
UK, 12 yrs

can we not just censor feminism? works for me.

Mike

Let Me unchain your mind and your sexuality will follow.
www.fetbid.com the free to buyer and seller kink friendly auction site. Place ya stuff on there and support the site.

Edited 2 Apr 07, 12:17 AM by Chastiser

2 Apr 07, 2:59 AM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

MStrapp wrote:
What do you estimate is the proportion of the population practising BDSM? Now consider that what we do can be visibly indistinguishable from acts of genuine abuse and we have what I fear may be a hill that will not be climbed in our lifetime. I am not sure there is the critical mass required to overturn the prejudices of the vast majority.

The interesting thing I've noticed though is that even people in favour of the law have been keeping away from demonising S&M - instead, people are somehow claiming that S&M will not be affected, thinking that the law only applies to published images or actual non-consensual violence.

There is also the issue, that some of those that do commit violent sexual crimes, may also align to our cause. The e-petition to abandon the proposed violent pornography bill has 1810 votes (that sure isn't anything like 10%

). But what happens when the next Peter Sutcliffe's name turns up on that petition. If and when that does happen and if it makes the media, those petitioners and all BDSM'ers will probably find themselves tarred with the same brush. Imagine trying to explain to your mum why your name was on the same petition for advocating extreme violent pornography as say Ian Huntley's (or if not your mum since your mum might be uber smart and cool, but you get the idea). It is very easy to be misrepresented!

The same would apply to any person who signs any petition who later commits a crime - but yes, sadly most people don't think logically when it comes to these matters.

Sadly I am not sure that I totally agree. and I raise this not because I believe we should strengthen censorship (I don't) but because I think the statement is vulnerable to being faulted. I suspect that if you could remove (or substantially reduce the amount) of violent pornography in circulation, there would be some minimal reduction in violent sex related crime. Quite simply, you only need one person to adversely affected by violent pornography. There is always at least one "one person" and usually a few!

The problem is that this applies to all sorts of things - that porn might make one person rape, or violent films might make people violent, or we should ban alcohol because it might reduce violence, or it's okay to bring in draconian anti-terrorism laws as long as it might stop one person.

The problem is (a) you have to factor in the cost of such laws - the loss of liberty from people locked up for example, and (b) the burden is upon those in favour of the law to show what causal link there is in the first place.

It's a bit like traffic speed limits. We could reduce death on the road by reducing the maximum speed by 50% or even 75% on all roads. if we all crawl along the roads we will all be safer BUT, there is of course a cost. It is an emotive argument when you put a longer journey time in the balance with a child knocked down and killed.

That is a very good comparison - the fact that we don't have all cars crawling at snail pace suggests that people aren't willing to sacrifice convience even to save lives. But for some reason, when it comes to sex, porn, and minorities, all logic goes out the window. It's okay to sacrifice somebody else's liberty...

Another fallacy is that we only think of the possible child's life who might be saved, but think about other consequences - for example, banning cars, or policing new laws and locking productive citizens in prison has an economic cost. And although at first it seems that a life isn't worth any amount of money, that's not true - money can be used to save lives. Money spent on pointless laws is money that could be spent on health and saving lives.

Also there are other considerations - for example, people who commit suicide or otherwise have their lives ruined as a result of this law.

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/

2 Apr 07, 3:01 AM
emark
UK, 8 yrs

The thing that frustrates me most about that blog entry is not the entry itself - I realised that she's a rabid brainwashed mad person - it's the replies from people who have clearly been completely misled about the issue, e.g., saying that this is about actual violence or published material.

Mmm much straw men floating around

Says sparklematrix.

Oh, the irony, it hurts.

Edit: But sparklematrix, aren't you now guilty of publishing extreme pornography? http://sparklematrix.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/86... . If the law passes, perhaps we should make sure we report this entry...

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/

Edited 2 Apr 07, 3:06 AM by emark

2 Apr 07, 3:32 PM
kisses_for_me
UK, 5 yrs

Awaiting moderation and likely to remain unpublished I suspect

Quote Linda....... <i>Which is not a 'thought crime' because it affects other people. And of course a lot of it also depicts real violence - which is why the possession of child porn was criminalised. Having a market for something creates a demand for it - no one bothers to make stuff no one will buy because they'd go out of business pretty quickly</i>

How does anything I posses affect you? It affects the actors/models who got paid a fair wage, the producers and distributors also made money from me, and I got the chance to see something I enjoy.

That is not a statement on violent porn, but a very general one that could equally apply to a soap opera, somethign I find distasteful. Child porn was NOT outlawed because of violence, to claim that implies that sexual images of children not involving violence is permissable!

And you last line sums it up perfectly, there is indeed a demand, outlawing that demand is creating a thought crime, you may like pizza, I dont so perhaps I should petition to have it made illegal, then your desire for an illegal foodstuff would be a "thought crime".

To get to the original point, surely the idea of feminisim is allowing or creating equality for women, surely that should extend to their inner desires too, no matter how distasteful anyone else may find them. For a feminist to say "no you shouldnt have that fantasy or talk about it" is just the same as if a male were to say it, in fact probably worse due to the inherent hypocrisy. By saying something is wrong or not permissable you are not fighting for equality, but claiming superiority!