Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

3 Apr 07, 12:27 AM
emark
UK, 6 yrs Just to clear up a few points to any new readers:
* No one is justifying material which shows actual non-consensual violence. The problem is that images would be criminalised whether or not participants consented, and even simulated acts ("realistic depictions") will be included. There is no strawman here - the Government has clearly stated this (see links below).
* One comment (Linda, #3) is under the impression that this is about published images, which isn't true at all. It's about possession of images, and applies even to private images which have never been published. So it would criminalise completely private sexual behaviour, so long as they take a private picture of themselves.
* It also isn't currently illegal to make such images - the Obscene Publications Act applies to publications. Even then, it requires that the image would "deprave or corrupt", but this test is not included in the new law.
* As an aside, the sites cited by the Government such as "Necrobabes" are simulated with consenting adults, and the Government has not cited any evidence that porn of non-consensual violence exists. It may do, it may not, but no one seems to know about it.
More information can be found in the Government's consultation documents:
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_08...
* http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/cons-extr...
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:28 AM by emark

3 Apr 07, 12:32 AM
verte
UK(E), 6 yrs

emark wrote:
Just to clear up a few points to any new readers: snip!

Thanks for posting that. That's great.
This is the kind of conversation I would one day love to be able to have with an anti-porn feminist:
http://www.anniesprinkle.org/html/writings/pocke...
Edited 3 Apr 07, 12:36 AM by verte

3 Apr 07, 1:02 AM
grahamm
UK, 9 yrs
Y!
I've posted the original comment on her blog at http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php... and there's also a reply that I would have tried posting on there had I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of getting out.
(BTW if anyone wants to copy those onto blogs etc, they're entirely welcome to)
I have added a comment to her blog inviting everyone reading to visit the Backlash sites to get a view of the issue that they might not be getting from her blog.
I wonder if that will get published?!
Edited 3 Apr 07, 1:04 AM by grahamm

3 Apr 07, 2:17 AM
MasterVilosSlave
UK(CB), 4 yrs
I posted in reply to her post to us...

"MVS" wrote:

Addressing your comments in order...
1) From what I could tell of the posters from my site at least (IC) the majority of comment-makers were females or submissives.
2) Why should we be ashamed of our sexuality. I've never felt so free and happy as when I've been submissive. I care for my lover in my way, and he for me in his way. He shows how protective and caring he is every day, and every day I'm amazed by the depth of his love and care for me. How could I ever hide our happiness or be anything but proud of our joy?
3) The man who killed L.L was a killer. He didn't need to watch acted out strangulations to make him a murderer. I believe he would have killed her anyway.
As for the 'ethics' in play this is something that has been agonised about and discussed in every BDSM circle for a long time:
If you've done any research into the BDSM community you'll find it's a tight knit, caring community with the byword being S.S.C. This stands for Safe, Sane and Consensual. That means that all play must be within the boundaries of safety (this means sterilising, breath play never for longer than a prescribed amount, and a lot of research), sanity (this means that whilst removing someones arm may be within the borders of safety provided medical training and preparation are in place it's not exactly a sane thing to do), and most important consensuality (this means agreements before hand, limits already decided upon, and safety words - or gestures so the play can be stopped at any time).
Our play can easily appear to be outside of the borders of safety in a picture, whilst it is being perfectly controlled by both parties. I believe that ethics is not something that should come into play - rather SSC covers everything that needs to be covered. Provided all parties enjoy themselves and consent that is the most important thing.
4) Please stop involving children in your arguments. Child porn is already illegal. Child porn is utterly irrelevant to this argument. No commercially available porn contains real acts of violence. Those who view and make real violence porn already know it's illegal and it will not change anything for them.
An interesting argument I'd like to make with regard to the 'violent porn begets violent acts' case. As a sexual submissive I am taught that sexual submissiveness is wrong. I grow up believing that there is no where for me to act out my fantasies in a safe environment with a consenting adult. I, like many sexually submissive women who suffer this same problem end up in a sexually abusive relationship, being pushed around, abused and degraded for real. I do not enjoy it and manage to leave in the end but just keep getting attracted to dominant and abusive men (and women).
Now lets say I'm born a sadist instead of a masochist. I long to strangulate another adult, but I have been taught that it is wrong to have these urges. I never see any porn with actors and actresses so I never learn that my urges are not 'wrong' I just need to act them out in a consensual situation. Eventually, never learning that I could have roleplayed my fantasies safely the pressure, guilt and embarrasment of my forbidden desire burst out, and I kill someone.
These two situations are caused by the same problem - lack of education. And for now, until different sexualities become accepted and ways of coping with them are widely distributed among the adult community, porn is the only way some people can learn. That's how it was for me.
6) If you felt accused of homophobia or you felt that people were trying to censor you then I wholeheartedly apologise. All we want is a forum to discuss these issues in an open environment.
If you're talking about the same comments as I am they were not accusing you as homophobia they were comparing the unwillingness to accept alternative sexualities such as fetishes and BDSM today as the unwillingness to accept alternative sexualities such as lesbianism, gayness and bisexuality ten years ago.

�A gentleman is someone who raises his hat before he beats his wife.� - British joke (ca. 1920)

3 Apr 07, 7:34 AM
verte
UK(E), 6 yrs

grahamm wrote:
I've posted the original comment on her blog at http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php... and there's also a reply that I would have tried posting on there had I thought it had a snowball's chance in hell of getting out.
(BTW if anyone wants to copy those onto blogs etc, they're entirely welcome to)
I have added a comment to her blog inviting everyone reading to visit the Backlash sites to get a view of the issue that they might not be getting from her blog.
I wonder if that will get published?!
It mighe be worth reading my last couple of blogs on here to get some background on how this has come about.
IC is banned where I work so I'll join seenoevil today.
Oh, and if anyone needs to contact me during the day, please use the email address on my profile.
Edited 3 Apr 07, 8:17 AM by verte

3 Apr 07, 9:37 AM
Backdooruk
UK(BA), 10 yrs
charliegrrl's myths:
1) Much of the criticism she has received has come from dominant men.: From counting posts on this thread 5 Dom men replied. The other 9 replies were from women and submissive men (6 + 3).
2) It's ok for women to engage in BDSM, but don't shove it in our faces: These are exactly the types of arguments used to exclude Lesbians from the feminist movement, back in the 70's and 80's.
3) It won't affect BDSM images anyway, it will only effect material already illegal to make : Pictures of Necrophilia, torture, rape and bestiality are not illegal to make, and especially *simulated* pictures of these things are not illegal to make. One of the other respondents to her blog almost got it when they said that it can't be rape if it's simulated - That is exactly the point!
Porn caused Liz Longhurst's daughter to be murdered : Graham Courts was engaging in (consensual) asphyxiation play long before he has access to porn (over 16 years according to past partners at his trial).
4) it contributes to a culture of real sexual violence against women and children.: More than 25 years ago I used to think that it may do. But in the last decade an a half enough convincing research has been done (and re-done) to delineate the limits of porn's influence as being quite minor. Even if I did believe so I wouldn't advocate imprisoning people for the pre-crime that their reading material may make them dangerous in the future � not unless I got some of Tom Cruise's cool gadgets first!
5) being anti-porn doesn't mean censorship against anything remotely naked: I doubt anyone thought or said that it did. To be honest I'm more surprised about someone using an anarco-feminist symbol on their blog would be in favour of any censorship, much let one so blatantly following the interests of religious and police groups. Activism has changed since I was younger!
6) saying that opposing BDSM is like opposing homosexuality is accusing her of homophobia: I really don't know where to start when someone doesn't understand a metaphor. Perhaps it will make the point if I recount to the experiences of a friend of mine.
As a teenager at one of her first feminist meetings instead of support from women she got told that her involvement as a lesbian tars the image of feminism. Fast forward half a dozen years and during the row about BDSM groups using the London Lesbian and gay centre (gay male and lesbian scenes have had a long term interest in BDSM and much of the current heterosexual BDSM culture developed out of that) she is told again that he interest in BDSM disqualifies her as a feminist. Of course being told that BDSM or lesbianism makes her a non feminist didn't stop any of her activism, or reduce her prison sentences (received at Greenham common etc).
- Chris
"I have made this letter longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter." - Blaise Pascal

3 Apr 07, 10:51 AM
proccie
UK(HP), 4 yrs

I cannot help but feel that all of this is pointless.
One of the lessons that I have learnt from this site is that people dress up emotional arguments with logic. Others then argue back logically and get frustrated when their opponent will not accept the validity of the argument, tempers rise, a flame war follows (and cookie gets another ban).
Seriously, we are dealing with a lesbian with her own version of a feminist political agenda (hell! what a cliche?). Is it surprising that she finds images that may show women in a submissive role being "abused" by men, distasteful? Will she ever acknowledge our point of view, will she be persuaded by logic or statistics or reasoned argument, no I think not. (I am trying not to come over as a misogynist male, but it's difficult.)
To use an analogy: Suppose that I were not overly fond of dogs. Her stance would be like me using the rare occurrence of dogs attacking humans and children in particular, to try to have Crufts banned. Absolutely barking. But no amount of logic on your part, or appeals by dog lovers showing the benefits of dog ownership will ever get me to love dogs or find Crufts anything but incomprehensible. Crufts encourages dog ownership, dogs attack humans, how can you defend it? Surely the lives of a few children are worth more than your selfish hobby?
She does not "Get" what it is that we do, she sees a "Wrong" (Longhurst) and in her mind the two are linked. Since she cannot empathise with rape fantasies, she cannot and will not accept the arguments of those who do.
Given that she is such a cliche and lacking in credibility wouldn't it be best to ignore her and concentrate other more politically succinct concepts, such as freedom of speech and the criminalising of innocent people as our campaign?
proccie

Zen S&M; the sound of one hand smacking

3 Apr 07, 11:10 AM
Smartarse
UK(CM), 5 yrs
I just want to add a couple of points about pornography, a subject which the 'Blog of Feminist Activism against Porn' seems to be suprisingly ignorant about.
In the internet age women use pornography too. It's no longer about magazines.
Women's attitudes toward pornography are changing as they gain access to pornography they want to view.
S&M pornography is often created by women.
The new laws mean for the first time many women will be criminalised for pornography use.
[edit - just to add I completely agree with Proccie on this and I'm acutely aware that as a male from a BDSM site my opinion isn't valid in the eyes of these people. I think most of this is about showing support for Verte and Co.]
Edited 3 Apr 07, 11:19 AM by Smartarse

3 Apr 07, 11:42 AM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 10 yrs
Y!
I'm copying here the comment I attached to the Charliegirrl blog.
OK � I am one of the �BDSM crew� (and therefore, inherently, an evil and vile person). I am also a man (and therefore, inherently, a latent rapist and abuser of women). These are stereotypes I've been labelled with.
Like most stereotypes they're inaccurate, offensive and just plain wrong. Mental images born of misunderstanding, ignorance and a desire to condemn based not on what a person is, but on what the condemner BELIEVES them to be. Such is the nature of prejudice - do not understand, do not TRY to understand, do not listen, do not be willing to accept that others believe differently from you and do so with profound honesty and deep conviction.
Once women were grossly and immorally oppressed by men. Men decided what was �good for� the women who surrounded them and had both the desire and the power to impose their will. This was wrong. This was unjust. This was unfair. Thankfully it is also, largely, in the past - though I admit the last vestiges of male domination in society seem rather persistent.
Now, thankfully, women DO have a large measure of freedom to choose their own stance on many subjects - including sexual subjects such as BDSM and the proposed criminalization of extreme pornography. Opinion will vary greatly from one woman to another - women are individuals with personal views. This is right and proper. This is the very freedom that women have fought for and largely earned.
Don't snarl at it. Rejoice.
But most of all be wary of replacing the oppression of women by men who �know what's best for them� with a similar oppression by the feminist movement uttering a similar excuse. It would seem most bizarre if I, as an �oppressive man� and a �vile, male BDSM Dominant� was required to give a lesson in the freedom of women to the feminist community - yet all too often I find I have to do just that.
Women must be FREE TO CHOOSE. Free to choose their sexual orientation. Free to choose the manner they express themselves. Free to say �no� - but ALSO free to say �yes�. This includes freedom to view extreme pornography if they so desire - which, though this seems to surprise many in the feminist community, many WOMEN as well as men do. They should also be free to do so without being thrown in jail for three years - which is why I am opposed to the extreme pornography proposals.
Opposed for the most sincere and genuine reasons.
Freedom is not �being free to do what is approved of by others�. Freedom is not �you may do what you like - as long as I feel it is right and proper�.
Freedom is about BEING FREE. Full stop. End of statement.
Women have fought long and hard for freedom. Let them be free.
I shall now climb down off my soap-box.
Toak
To predict the behaviour of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence - Friedrich Nietzsche http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/ http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ReviseF65/

3 Apr 07, 5:46 PM
CookieMonster
UK(RH), 4 yrs
Er, I was under the impresion that women now run the porn industry especially in the USA and now treat producers like two bit whores.
This is very 1960's, I can easily ignore her.

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent