Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

2 Apr 07, 11:28 PM
SnowdropExplodes
UK, 5 yrs
Y!

verte wrote:
She's replied to us en masse.
Just about to read it.
I read it, and I posted the following (goodness knows if she'll take any notice):

I only wish you would actually bother to talk to the people you so freely dismiss as "engaging in violent and domineering sex", the men and women involved. Maybe you should talk to some of the men who are the "victims" and the women who commit the "violence". Maybe you should learn to accept human beings as free, and equal in dignity and rights, instead of trying to dictate whose choices are acceptable and whose are anti-feminist.
If you could only talk to us instead of telling us we're evil and wrong; if you would only listen, engage in conversation, and learn about is instead of deciding what we are before we've even opened our mouths.
I'm busy re-reading Shulamith Firestone's "The Dialectic of Sex" at the moment and frankly, the anti-porn feminists are engaged in a pro-patriarchy endeavour, upholding the dehumanisation of women and reinforcing their status as an inferior class by setting women as equal to children. Ms. Firestone's invective against the cult of childhood and womanhood is a powerful piece of writing, and the legislation to ban extreme pornography is a part of that cult of the "weaker sex".
I still call myself a pro-feminist man (and you say that such people are welcomed here) but I do not accept that to be pro-feminist, I must be anti-pornography, nor do I accept that I must be anti-extreme pornography. I am certainly opposed to the exploitation of women, but that is a universal and not confined to pornography. The exploitation of women in pornography will best be combatted by legalising porn, not banning it - because then, actors and actresses in pornography will have the right to proper representation, collective bargaining, industrial tribunals and so on and so forth - protection would be properly available.
I'll bet she's not anticipating pro-porn arguments that rely on quoting feminist authors...!
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes

2 Apr 07, 11:33 PM
zombie_Thomasson
UK(E), 5 yrs
My reply unto her - much more calm this time, but still pointing out the right points, just not in a manner engineered to deliberately piss her off:
---
Sigh.
Seriously, if you don't have the mind to interpret us correctly, nor the stones to reply to our respective posts, why then are you bothering?
We're not happy about this law because our oft-discriminated culture is getting a lot of crap from a lot of people, despite the fact that 90% of us wouldn't be affected by the proposed law, we're getting more discrimination than ever, getting outed all over the place, and other things that I'm sure you'll agree shouldn't happen to minority groups.
The reason BDSM folks are beginning to speak out is because people like you seem to think that because a law is being passed, it's kosher to take public digs at us.
It's quite clear nothing's going to shut you up, nor do we intend to. You can be as gay as you like, but if you're opposing another sexual preference, then pot kettle kettle black, and it would do you well to remember all the times you've had intolerance shoved in your face by shouty people who didn't take the time to understand.
Stop making grossly sweeping comments about us because we don't beleive in the form the new law looks set to take. We don't like murderers either, but if you're seriously bent on beleiving the old Ted Bundy "The porn made me do it" plea, then you're grossly underestimating humanity at large, and its ability to make choices.
If you're going to purposefully webstalk everyone in the workshop, misquote them without linking back to prove you're not being an almighty wordtwister, and carry on in this vein, there'll only be a bigger gulf of misunderstanding, so stop wilfully encouraging it, acknowledge our humaunity, and we'll do the same.
Til then, don't shut up, you're only publically showing, to those who care to look further than your blog at least, that you're prepared to go to quite some length to misrepresent things that you do not stand for.
---
plus:
---
Incidentally, since when did women allegedly indoctrinated by our culture also become the enemy?
If the average submissive fem kinkster is so 'indoctrinated' that she speaks out for bdsm, surely she's there to be reasoned with and talked back to to your way of thinking, not to be attacked as if she were the raping and pillaging male……?
Or are victims lost causes and therefore enemies?
I just can't fathom your modus operandi……

Be Kind, Man. Don't Be Mankind.-Don Van Vliet
linktomyself.

2 Apr 07, 11:38 PM
doulos
UK, 4 yrs
nice points.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken

2 Apr 07, 11:45 PM
Northern_Phoenix
UK(NG), 6 yrs Added my tuppence....

So lets see...
I can't say that you advocating prohibition of choice is against the feminist ideal of equality between the sexes (which to me, includes freedom of choice regarding personal expression), because it goes against YOUR specific view of liberation.
I can't say that women choosing to express their sexuality through BDSM practices is feminist, because you don't agree with it. You infact choose to censor their views ('do it, but don't shove it in our faces'), denying them an outlet of personal expression because YOUR specific view of feminism prohibits it.
So, in short, you seek to remove freedom of both expression and choice from those that you disagree with. Proposal of a normative society is all well and good, although perhaps educate yourself as to EXACTLY what gay and lesbian groups went through to give you the freedom of sexual expression and the voice you have today before you dismiss a sexual minority that's fighting in the same way. And if you are aware of that history... Well, you'll know fine well exactly what marginilisation, exclusion, mis-representation, hate mongering and prohibition can do to a minority subculture, and the pain, both physical and mental, it can put a great number of individuals through.
Adovcating censorship of certain pornographic images isn't a bad thing in some regards, and I'm sure that every single member of the 'BDSM mob' would agree with me in saying that necrophilia, bestiality, paedophilia and the like shouldn't have a place. The difference between those activities, and those consensually agreed between the parties concerned is what our argument concerns. Images of actual rape count, to me, as non-consensual activities, and as such should be grouped with those that should be included in legislation in my opinion. But 'play' rape, which I admit I dislike as a term... If the people involved in the manufacture of such images, female or male, consent to do so, then what you'd seek to legislate against is a persons interpretation of such an article - and I don't think I need to point out that legislating interpretation is legislating against thought.
Interestingly, as the government admitted they couldn't draw a link between 'violent pornography' and actual offences caused, I'm somewhat suprised that you can. And, although I've never specifically looked, I've never seen nor heard about images of women being raped or murdered, but sensationalism is a good point maker, even if it's a fallacy. Ditto non-consensual strangulation. The world of 'play' is a different beast, and if you chose to educate yourself even a little rather than dismissing everything out of hand then you'd realise that.
While I hate to disturb your rhetoric with something that could be considered substantial, there is actually evidence to suggest that access to violent pornography actually REDUCES rape - http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynam... for your perusal. Somewhat files in the face of 'does contribute to a culture of real sexual violence against women and children'.
You mention in your reply that 'we' are trying to censor you. It's hard to do that on someones own site, where they are controlling what is and isn't seen, censoring dissenting views themselves. No-one is telling you you don't have a right to an opinion. All anyone is doing, to my mind, is telling you just how small minded and bigoted you are.
For the record, yes, I'm male. One that attaches to self-identified dominant females. Unless you go the 'well you're obviously just manipulating these poor people into fulfilling your fantasies' route, I don't quite see how you'd discount my views based on their maleness alone as you have with others. Good luck
Phoenix
When a man loves a woman it should be understood,
He would jump into fire if she thought he should.
***Masters Of Reality - Voice And The Vision***
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:19 AM by Northern_Phoenix

2 Apr 07, 11:48 PM
zombie_Thomasson
UK(E), 5 yrs
Nice. now she's added the IC activism board URL and told her minions to come here, then criticise it on her blog.
charlie: limiting each side of the argument to one website each doth not an open debate make. I know you won't join IC, so why not visiblise the replies on your own blog?
Don't want to tar your own comments section with dissent, maybe?
Be Kind, Man. Don't Be Mankind.-Don Van Vliet
linktomyself.
Edited 2 Apr 07, 11:55 PM by zombie_Thomasson

2 Apr 07, 11:55 PM
katali
3 yrs kat Says: Your comment is awaiting moderation. April 2nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm So it's Ok for you to censor us by refusing to post our views, but not ok for us to tell you what a misguided muppet you are?!
Quite frankly, you are as bad as a man. You are trying to tell other women what is and isn't acceptable for them to enjoy.
Well, (and this might come as a bit of a shock) I'm female, I'm not remotely brainwashed, and I enjoy sex. I'm proud of that!! I see it as a very feminine thing to enjoy sex, even with a man!! Sex is not simply a tool used by men to opress women, and you are propogating that view, and telling women that them enjoying sex with a man is dirty and wrong. Just like men have been doing for centuries to opress women. Again, how does that make you any better? You fool, you are using man's arguments to support your own narrow minded blinkered viewpoint of the world, without taking into account any actual evidence, of which there is none, to support this ant-violent porn stance.
The case studies and research that have been done show that there is no link between watching violent porn and carrying out violent acts, as you would see if you actually read the governments response to the consultation, where they admit there is no evidence to support them.
Open your eyes, your ears, and your mind, and never presume to tell a woman what she may and may not do, while calling yourself a feminist. You give all of them a bad name.
You tell us not to rub our activities in your face, while you are actively campaigning to have magazines that millions of people buy put out of business? You hypocrit!!

"I want what I want when I want it, what is so immature about that?!" - Jackie, That 70's Show

3 Apr 07, 12:03 AM
doulos
UK, 4 yrs
She has posted a link to this forum as a comment so we should acknowledge she is giving one way for her readers to see the criticism of her blog on here.
To any non-kinky feminists reading this: please don't be scared! We just want the right to engage in consensual activities and make images using consensual activities in peace unharrased by government.
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." H. L. Mencken
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:08 AM by doulos

3 Apr 07, 12:08 AM
zombie_Thomasson
UK(E), 5 yrs

doulos wrote:
To any non-kinky feminists reading this: please don't be scared!
We really can't stress this enough. Our point is that it is not we who are the enemy and the depraved. In fact, the more shock you might have reading all this, the more you should look deeper to find mutual understanding.
Be Kind, Man. Don't Be Mankind.-Don Van Vliet
linktomyself.
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:10 AM by zombie_Thomasson

3 Apr 07, 12:10 AM
verte
UK(E), 6 yrs

doulos wrote:
She has posted a link to this forum as a comment so we should acknowledge she is giving one way for her readers to see the criticism of her blog on here.

Yes, that certainly makes it considerably easier for the workshop to go ahead, for Ladyfest and for us, and I am grateful to her for that. At least anti-porn feminists will get a chance to see what the workshop actually intended to constitute, what Ladyfest's position actually was, and that my talk at Fightback did not mention rape fantasy, nor did I have any intention of bringing it up myself at Ladyfest.
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:14 AM by verte

3 Apr 07, 12:14 AM
Rosalee
UK, 4 yrs
Of course all anyone will be allowed to do on Charliegrrl's blog is cricitise us as she won't allow any comments that disagree with her particular viewpoint or at least question it. Which is why we need an uncensored site for this debate where all posts and viewpoints are allowed.

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent