Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

"2) 'thought crime' refers to the criminalisation of thoughts, not actions. No-one's trying to stop you from thinking, from doing what you want in private when you have give Informed Consent. Don't go all 1984 on us, it doesn't work."

Actually, this is exactly what's happening. The proposed legislation states that *possession* of this material will be a crime. Thus me taking a picture of myself being spanked by my Mistress and never showing it to anyone would still be illegal under this act.

In addition, the thought crime comes about because the definition of pornography proposed for the act is "material intended to sexually arouse". Thus the only way to be guilty of possessing it is to judge the intentions and thoughts of those creating and viewing it. How can that be anything but a "thought crime"?

I'd again like to invite those whose comments *have* been allowed to appear on Charliegrrl's blog (ie those who agree with her) to join these forums or the Backlash ones and actually engage in a *real debate*, rather than a one-sided polemic from someone who doesn't want to hear opposing voices.

Anyway, to Laurelin:

1) criticising you, or suggesting that a graphic description of 'rape fantasy' is not suitable for a feminist gathering in which there is a good chance that many of the women there will have been sexually assaulted at some time or another, is NOT censorship. Charliegrrl does not have the power to censor you, so stop whining. She does have the power to call you out, and that is what she has done, and will continute to do.

Err, Charliegrrl does most certainly have the power to censor us, as has already been repeatedly shown. She can pick and choose which comments she allows on her blogs and won't allow any that disagree with her.

Why she does this if she's so sure she's right and, indeed, she's "calling us out", I couldn't say...! What good is it to "call someone out" if you're not going to listen to their replies??

2) 'thought crime' refers to the criminalisation of thoughts, not actions. No-one's trying to stop you from thinking, from doing what you want in private when you have give Informed Consent. Don't go all 1984 on us, it doesn't work.

You miss the point. The implication of the proposed laws is that by simply *looking* at "extreme pornography", people may be induced to commit "violence against women" and, as such, the best way to prevent this is by not allowing them to look at these images or threatening to jail them for doing so.

This is *EXACTLY* what "Thought Crime" from 1984 means. Remember that the aim of "Newspeak" was to control thought because then you could control crime.

3) women are routinely raped and beaten in the pornography industry to make these pictures. Women's rights to integrity and safety in the world override your rights to look at pictures which may (and probably do) include unwilling participants. Deal with it. If you are more angry about your own 'freedoms' than the safety of some of the most vulnerable women in the world, then you have no right to claim to be feminist. Feminism isn't about just you.

Who are these women? Who has routinely raped and beaten them? There are laws to protect people from rape, violence and other such crimes, please can you provide links to any court cases where such crimes have been proven?

Or is this just anecdotal scaremongering? Can you not believe that women *do*, voluntarily, of their own free will, choose to work in the porn industry?

I can assure you that if I knew of *ANY* women who had been abused or raped or had acts of non-consensual violence committed against them I would be *proud* to stand by their side and support them through the process of getting whatever scumbags had abused them *locked up*, and I have little doubt that the rest of the BDSM community would be standing right behind us too!

So you're right, feminism *isn't* about just you or Charliegrrl's misguided opinions!

4) We're not going anywhere

Neither are we.

We're going to keep telling the truth and countering the nonsense being spouted by those who want to criminalise us just for having different sexual preferences to them.

So how about instead of attacking us, you open your eyes and join us?

Any chance of a blowjob?

This space for sale.

This space for sale.

charliegrrl: "women's submission is so deeply ingrained, we are taught to eroticise our own submission"

having spent many a year suppressing my more extreme desires in order to appeal to men and what i thought they wanted, i can say with absolute certainty that the choice to properly express all that i am sexually was mine, it is the healthiest choice i have ever made........sex often left me unsatisfied and confused, my true desires did not seem to coincide with what partners sought and so i modified my behavior to aid relations.........if my submissive (and sometimes dominant, as i switch) behavior was about satisfying the needs of men and not myself then i would have remained in my former state of trying to please them through chaste and virginal behavior....it no longer suits me to live out anyones fantasies but my own and if they happily coincide with someone elses then that's excellent

charliegrrl: "Women's liberation is not about reaching 'liberation' through orgasm, being tied up as a slave, performing rape role play with you fuck-heads"

daisy puke: "women find out too late that “experiementing” with bdsm will fuck your head right up sick street eventually - defining their lives by the fact that they like pain, rape and men's domination, well, maybe this is all part of their eye-opening process - one day they will see the big picture

no, womens liberation may not be about that, but my personal liberation has been (minus the fuck-heads of course)....... 5 months down the line from when i first heard of bdsm i am more content than i have ever been..............to have the space to wantonly express every part of myself sexually is extremely liberating and the effects of this liberation have spread way beyond the bedroom......i have never felt so very natural and earthy about sex as i do of late, i have never felt so in control of my own life, i refuse to give the credit for this to men, or indeed to anyone but myself and the fact that i have found the things which make me feel satisfied and normal.....i am absolutely astounded that such simplistic and fearful thinking exists in a feminist forum, well maybe not astounded, not even surprised actually......just disappointed

Patrick Califia is a well-known femininist lesbian BDSM-er. However, his views are his and his alone.

No-one has raised the subject of paedophilia so far in this debate. The possession, making (in terms of electronic copies) and distribution of pornographic images of children is already illegal in the UK. No-one is arguing for this to be changed.

It is sickening to see someone raise this as if it is part of our objection to the proposed legislation, or to imply that BDSM is synonymous with paedophilia. Frankly, it undermines your arguments to raise something that no-one here is advocating and try to use it to taint those arguing against you.

http://verte.livejournal.com/

It includes a statement about the Ladyfest workshop.

Edited 4 Apr 07, 2:02 PM by Rosalee

Me too. How they can really think that such views AREN'T going to be offensive to an awful lot of people while criticising ours of doing the same is astounding.

I have tried once more to attempt to clarify my views and my intentions with the workshop in a non-BDSM space where anyone can reply anonymously if they choose. Rosalee has linked to it above.

Edited 4 Apr 07, 2:12 PM by verte

Yea, I really don't like the term playrape, just like I'm not all that fond of the term sadist either, because of the contradictions in them.

Of course *we* don't know that "Linda" is actually female, nor, indeed, that Charliegrrl is.

But the point she misses is that it doesn't matter if the posters are female or male, anyone who doesn't post comments that Charliegrrl agrees with is censored because she simply refuses to allow those comments to be published.

I know for a fact that one woman has tried to post a comment offering an "on the other hand" viewpoint of what happened at that workshop, yet still Charliegrrl won't allow it to appear.

Why, Charliegrrl? It's just another view of the facts, what are you so afraid of that you won't allow anyone else to read it?

PS To Bea from Charliegrrls blog:

If someone is determined to make a fool of themselves, how is it "smearing their character" if we point this out?

Charliegrrl is doing a fine job of showing exactly what "character" she has, we're just pointing this out in the hope that those of you who have written "nice things" that Charliegrrl agrees with will finally see what is going on.

Edited 5 Apr 07, 12:08 AM by grahamm