Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

* 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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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/

This is very 1960's, I can easily ignore her.