Charliegrrl: Censoring pro-porn feminism (94)

This post is on the BDSM Activism web board.

5 Apr 07, 12:09 AM
emark
UK, 6 yrs
Miss_Lizzie wrote:
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.
I'm just loving the way that they're criticising us on the term "rape play" as if it's a term that we invited and only we used. Terms like "rape play", "rape fantasy", "pretend rape" certainly aren't oxymorons as "Laura" suggested, but nonetheless there are too many people who don't engage brain to consider the distinction between fiction and reality, and associate it with actual rape, and so I'd rather keep away from any term with the word in it.
But referring to fictional images and roleplay as "rape" is a term used by the Government, people in favour of the law, and charliegrrl herself - I'll be the first person to say that these are nothing to do with rape by definition, as they are consensual/simulated.
Anyhow, the only thing offensive right now is the disaster that results from a mad blog post, when only the most misleading, innaccurate and illogical comments are published. It offends me, perhaps therefore, by their logic, we should criminalise extreme blog posting? Of course, normal blogs by normal people won't be affected, so it'll be okay.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/

5 Apr 07, 12:20 AM
emark
UK, 6 yrs I've posted my comments onto http://imafeministand.blogspot.com/ .
One person from the pro-law side has responded there, but the rest seem only willing to talk to people who will agree with whatever mad views they come up with next.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpposeCensorship/
Edited 5 Apr 07, 12:37 AM by emark

5 Apr 07, 8:55 AM
verte
UK(E), 6 yrs
I just thought it might be useful to post Ladyfest's statement here (this is part of what was sent to a member of Object and Charliegrrl when inviting them to take part in the panel):
"We wanted to make it clear that Ladyfest Leeds has been put together with the overarching aim to celebrate creativity, diversity and promoting gender equality. It is an opportunity to build communities, collaborations and conversations amongst women and people supportive of gender equality. It will be an inclusive space for all kinds of feminisms and is intended to be a space for healthy debate.
We don't aim to prescribe what views a person can have to be defined as a feminist and accept that people don't always agree. It is not part of Ladyfest Leeds' mission to define, label or exclude."

5 Apr 07, 11:53 AM
ToakReon
UK(RH), 10 yrs
Y!
Astonishing, isn't it, that the only replies seeming to get past the "moderation" in this blog are the ones applauding the OP ...
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/

6 Apr 07, 1:46 AM
grahamm
UK, 9 yrs
Y!
Here's a few more responses to Charliegrrl's friends who get their comments posted on her blog...
TristanT:

“These Hoes Had It Cummin'” in which it is promised on the cover that all female stars are “captured, enraptured, butt-humped then bumped off” - basically, their abduction, rape and murder is acted out in the scenes.
Leaving aside the dubious promise of their being “enraptured”, I wonder how your critics might reason this one out?
I'm not quite sure what I or anyone else is supposed to "reason out" here.
Are you saying that this wasn't an entirely fictitious publication posed by actors who were paid to work, but someone was *actually publishing* evidence of "abduction, rape and murder"?
Tell me, have you ever seen those so-called "true crime" magazines? How exactly does the publication you mention differ from the "photographic re-enactments" that these magazines produce?
For that matter, have you ever watched CSI or any other such drama series...?
Linda:

This will apply to people who take photographs/videos of themselves indulging in acts of the type pictured.
But since these acts - grievous bodily harm, murder, rape, necrophilia and bestiality are illegal, even with 'consent', can I suggest you're also extremely stupid if you photograph/film yourselves doing them!
What a pity, you *almost* got the point, but unfortunately you've been suckered by the juicy red herrings about "necrophilia" and "bestiality" etc which is not what anyone here is talking about.
Firstly we are objecting to the parts of these proposals that refer to acts that *APPEAR* to risk serious bodily harm or death *even if* between consenting adults. Breath play, for instance, is *NOT* illegal, a person can participate in it in the full knowledge the they are not breaking any law.
Yet if, in someone's subjective opinion, it they take a photograph and it *looks* as if it's dangerous, then, suddenly they're facing three years in jail.
Does that really sound reasonable to you?
Secondly, it seems you have at least some idea about Operation Spanner, unfortunately, again, you miss the point. The defendants were of the (seemingly) entirely reasonable opinion, that they weren't breaking the law because they were all consenting adults, but, again, because someone else's *subjective* opinion differed they ended up in Court.
The problem, I repeat, with these proposals is that there is *NO* clear definition of what they mean and there *WILL* be no such definition until some poor soul (male or female) is hauled up in front of the courts and the law actually put to the test. Unfortunately, even if they are found to not be guilty you can pretty much guarantee that his or her life, family and career will have been destroyed as their private business is dragged through the media.
Is this something you think should happen?
Liz:

I think you are right to call these people out.
What's the point of "calling these people out" if you're not going to listen?!

What people do in their own time, privacy etc is their business
But it's *NOT* just our business. Consider: If, for some reason, you were arrested by mistake on an entirely spurious charge the Police have the right to search your home *AND* your computer.
If you had a photograph on there of an entirely legal activity that, in the subjective opinion of a Police Officer "risked serious or life threatening injury", then you could find yourself facing a *serious* charge that could result in you getting three years in jail *even though* you had never actually committed a crime in the first place!

but they shouldn't try to push their agenda when in involves hurting and damaging women as a whole.
Have you actually read *ANYTHING* on here that suggests that anyone, male or female actually wants to "hurt or damage women as a whole"? Well, no, because *NOBODY* has said any such thing and they would be ostracised from the BDSM community if they did so!
We believe in *SAFE, SANE and CONSENSUAL* activity and we believe that nobody should try to "push their agenda" when it involves hurting and damaging consenting adults who are breaking no laws.
Please, Liz, do some more research, look at the Backlash website http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and read the bits where even the Government admits that there is *NO* evidence that this material encourages harm.
See the exerpts from the Williams Report http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/williams61.html commissioned by the Thatcher Government, then quietly buried when it didn't come up with the "right answers" ie that pornography doesn't cause violence against women.
Read the articles by Milton Diamond PhD at http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornogr... and http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornogr... which demonstrate that in the USA and Japan the increasing availability of porn has actually resulted in a *reduction* of sex crimes against women.
Read the article by Avedon Carrol (of Feminists Against Censorship) at http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm pointing out the flaws in the argument that "feminism" must mean "anti-pornography".
And Charliegrrl, oh dear, Charliegrrl...
It is not that we're "demanding you publish our comments", if you wish to put your fingers in your ears, stamp your feet and chant "La! La! La! I'm not listening" that's entirely your right.
But when you choose to blatantaly misrepresent the situation, when you act as if your side is the *only* side, when you won't even allow through a comment from a woman *and* a feminist (Why? Is hers the "wrong kind of feminism?!) who was at the event because it differs from *your* statements about what happens, how else should we describe what you are doing but *CENSORING* any viewpoint that doesn't agree with you??
Why are you so afraid of publishing anything that suggests that you might not be 100% right??

6 Apr 07, 2:27 AM
blueelf
NO, 9 yrs I haven't read all the replies here, but I browsed through the replies on charliegrrrl's blog. And I am thinking... She and her friends are clearly fanatics. Extremists. It is basically impossible to discuss anything sensibly with fanatics. They have made up their mind, and it is forever set in stone, until they themselves choose to change it. There is nothing anyone else can do about it. It's only their opinion that counts. So it's natural that they won't post arguments that differ from their own, but they have no hesitation to post their opinions on other boards.
We are just wasting our time and energy if we try to argue with such people. I think we should remember that they exist, but basically ignore them. We should concentrate on talking with people who at least to a small extent respect other people's opinions. And I think there should be more workshops like the one charliegrrrl is talking about. The workshop she is talking about is obviously making an impression on people already. That is a good thing. And by the way, it annoys the fanatics. That is a bonus.
It is a fact, though, that extremists like charliegrrrl are scaring lots of people away from calling themselves feminists. People hear about about closed-minded fanatics calling themselves feminists, and they think "I am not like that. If that is feminism, then I am not a feminist." Ok, I admit that I don't know for sure if that is the case in the UK, but it certainly is here in Norway, where I am. There are lots of people who support women's rights (of course!), but few who call themselves feminists. The extremists aren't exactly helping the cause of women's rights.

6 Apr 07, 3:10 AM
Heliax
UK(W), 4 yrs
grahamm wrote:
Linda:
This will apply to people who take photographs/videos of themselves indulging in acts of the type pictured.
But since these acts - grievous bodily harm, murder, rape, necrophilia and bestiality are illegal, even with 'consent', can I suggest you're also extremely stupid if you photograph/film yourselves doing them!
What a pity, you *almost* got the point, but unfortunately you've been suckered by the juicy red herrings about "necrophilia" and "bestiality" etc which is not what anyone here is talking about.
Something I found interesting when I first started looking into the politics of this campaign, was how often people quote snuff movies, when there is a wealth of research and evidence that shows that snuff is nothing more than urban legend. It simply doesn't exist.
But after looking at the wikipedia entry on Necrobabes, I found this link, which suggests that necrophilia barely exists itself. In fact, the necrophilia entry on wikipedia states that virtually no research has been done in this area, and even Kinsey didn't really find much in this area. Of the entries on cases of necrophilia, the most famous is Karen Greenlee, although like the other handful of cases, I'm not sure that any of them are completely believable. Certainly the president of the San Francisco College of Mortuary Science has little belief in its existence.
Perhaps bestiality is the only one that really exists.

6 Apr 07, 1:16 PM
grahamm
UK, 9 yrs
Y!

blueelf wrote:
I haven't read all the replies here, but I browsed through the replies on charliegrrrl's blog. And I am thinking... She and her friends are clearly fanatics. Extremists. It is basically impossible to discuss anything sensibly with fanatics. They have made up their mind, and it is forever set in stone, until they themselves choose to change it. [...]
We are just wasting our time and energy if we try to argue with such people. I think we should remember that they exist, but basically ignore them.
I do this for two reasons, one because it's fun to point out the glaring fallacies in their arguments that they manage to ignore and secondly because not all of them are necessarily as fanatical, eg there's a possibility that a couple of them will actually take the time to look at the links I posted above and *think* about them, rather than just dismissing them out of hand.
Oh, one other reason: Practice! I don't know if I'll ever be called on to eg be interviewed about this, but if I do, I know that I've already worked out answers to the sort of questions I could be faced with

6 Apr 07, 1:23 PM
grahamm
UK, 9 yrs
Y!

Heliax wrote:
Something I found interesting when I first started looking into the politics of this campaign, was how often people quote snuff movies, when there is a wealth of research and evidence that shows that snuff is nothing more than urban legend. It simply doesn't exist.
Never underestimate the power of a good urban myth!

But after looking at the wikipedia entry on Necrobabes, I found this link, which suggests that necrophilia barely exists itself.
As I think I've mentioned before on here (or it may have been the Backlash forums) up until the passing of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 there was *no crime* of "necrophilia" in the UK, the only thing you could be done for was IIRC "preventing the lawful disposal of human remains"!

Perhaps bestiality is the only one that really exists.
And the Danish had the guts to move that from "sexual offences" to "cruelty to animals" legislation, ie if you don't cause the animal harm or distress, it's not an offence.
Try convincing the Goggins's and Coaker's of this work to change UK law to match...!

6 Apr 07, 1:39 PM
Heliax
UK(W), 4 yrs
blueelf wrote:
We are just wasting our time and energy if we try to argue with such people...
Part of the problem, is that people like Charligrrl, are expressing the same mistruths as people like Martin Salter. I think it should always be countered, with rational fact based opinion.

Next page


	©1997-2010 Informed Consent