Monthly Archives: May 2011

Best. Gail. Dines. Rebunk. EVER!!! From. Thomas. Roche. (via TinyNibbles/Our Porn, Ourselves)

Posted on by
Reply

Thomas Roche (@ThomasRoche) just used the pages of TinyNibbles.com (where he now shares co-contributor status with Violet Blue (The Sex Blogger)), and also the pages of Our Porn, Ourselves (OurPornOurselves.org), to issue the absolute best refutation of the Radical “Feminist” wingnut that is Gail Dines….especially targeting her recent steaming pile of hot mess she posted posted to the Austrailian Sydney Morning Herakl.

The entire article stands on its own, and I strongly suggest you go to either TinyNibbles (be warned, though, contains NSFW content and links) or OPO and read through it. But, for inspiration’s sake, here’s some snippage of how absolutely on point Roche demysitfies the true nature of Dines’ sex hating foundation (stronger points by Roche emphasized by me in bold):

To Dines, “culturally imposed myths about their sexuality” means specifically the myth that women like sex, or, to meeet Dines and Murphy much more than halfway, the myth that women like the kind of sex specifically portrayed in pornography, since the sum total of Dines’ and Murphy’s “case studies” in the Guardian article are that they hear from women who feel  pressured for sex. “They have been told over and over that in order to be valued in such a culture, they must look and act like sluts, while not being labeled slut because the label has dire consequences including being blamed for rape, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-mutilation.”

But who’s doing the blaming here? Dines and Murphy are the ones who just blamed sluts for eating disorders and self-mutilation! I’m slut-positive — and, just speaking for myself, I blame eating disorders and self-mutilation on a sick, diseased Patriarchal society, dysfunctional mental health and health insurance systems, rampant soulless Capitalism, sex-phobic family interactions, sex-silencing religious structures, a culture that teaches girls they are less than boys…need I go on?

[...]

I would assert that one of the most dominant and pervasive myths about female sexuality is the idea that women don’t like sex. Its close corollaries are “good girls don’t like sex” and “normal women don’t like sex,” and “women don’t like abnormal sex.” Whether that is one of the chief myths that creates gendered violence, I don’t know, but it’s certainly true that what follows close on that myth’s heels is the idea that, by liking sex, by liking “abnormal” sex, or by liking “normal” sex but liking it an “abnormal” amount, women abdicate their right to physical sanctity. For a women’s studies professor, Dines sure seems to blame the victim a lot. Is this woman friends with Camile Paglia?

Or, to see it another way, women abdicate their right to physical sanctity for liking sex without it being the kind of sex that “normal” women like. Women place themselves in jeopardy, says Dines, by being “sluts,” which to Dines means that their sex is not about, or not just about, “connection, empathy, tenderness, caring, affection.” That is to say, the crime of sluts is by liking sex without letting Gail Dines decide what kind of sex they have.

In Dines’ view, Women who choose to be “sluts,” especially proud sluts, are partly responsible for rape — not just their own, but all rape.

Because they like sex differently than Dines’ so-called “normal” women, “sluts” undermine their right not only to their own physical sanctity, but the sanctity of all women, in Dines’ view. That sounds like a pretty narrow definition of “normal,” and one that Dines has single-handedly decided on.

But how normal is normal, Gail? In case you haven’t noticed, “normal” sexual relationships are very often royally fucked up! Did Dines burst forth from Zeus’s skull the same year as AOL, or does she honestly not remember that sexual relationships were fucked up before the internet — even, believe it or not, before commercial porn?

And this is even before Roche debunks Dines’ cracked and burnt beyond recognition slander of the term “gonzo”…but I don’t want to give too much away.

Just go there and read for yourself.

Share

Why Porn Is Indeed A Left Issue…And The Antiporn Activists Are Definitely NOT Left (Or, Debunking Dines/Jensen Nonsense, Chapter #7,560)

Posted on by
Reply

Recently, when going through my files, I was able to discover some copies of some old threads from Nina Hartley’s online forum that she ran from her Nina.com website, in which I among with other members had some deep down discussions on plenty of issues….especially concerning sexual politics and feminism. The forum has since been “privatized” and firewalled to subscribing members only due to a successful hacker’s DDOS assault; but back then it was essentially a free-fire zone for those of us who loved and worshipped Nina for far more than her ass or her authentic sexual performances to vent on the issues of the day.

Back in 2005, the main issue we were dealing with was the obsession of some on the Left with supporting the base philosophy of the antipornography “feminist” movement that porn absolutely had to be destroyed and conqurered in order to women to achieve full equality. Of course, the main proponent of such nonsense happened to be none other than Wheelock College professor Gail Dines, with the help of her colleagues: University of Texas at Austin professor Robert Jensen (who would later author his screed to sexual guilt tripping, Getting Off),  and NYU professor Dr. Chyng Sun, who wrote a notorious essay for CounterPunch back in January 2005 on the arrival of the Adult Entertainment Expo convention in Las Vegas spouting all the usual antiporn “feminist” memes. (Nina’s response to Dr. Sun’s essay, also posted to CounterPunch, is now also posted here as a seperate page.)

My forcus here, though, is not so much Dines and Jensen’s corw views on porn (which have been so eloquently and throrougly hashed and rehashed), but their stated belief that their hardline antiporn “feminist” position should be the default position of anyone calling himself/herself a “progressive” or a “leftist”.

As someone who defines himself as an Independent Leftist and a feminist supporter as well as a sex radical liberationist, I have a real and long-held issue with that.

In fact, I would say that my response to such notions of antiporn “feminism” being the only tried and true Left position on porn can be reduced to one word:

BULLSHIT.

OK….three words:  UTTER TOTAL BULLSHIT.

But…why take my words for it alone, when you can use their own words to indict and convict them for me?? To that end, I will use an essay that Dines wrote for the rad Left journal ZNet back in 2005, in which Gail attempts to make her case why the Left should be totally in the antiporn “feminist” pocket as a “critique” of capitalism as well as patriarchy. (Interesting side note: The original ZNet article listed Dines and Jensen as co-writers; yet the online version currently archived at ZNet only lists Dines as single author, though it dows credit Jensen at the bottom lede.)

It’s rather long, so this may be a multi-parter.

 

Pornography Is A Left Issue

Anti-pornography feminists get used to insults from the left. Over and over we are told that we’re anti-sex, prudish, simplistic, politically naïve, diversionary, and narrow-minded. The cruder critics do not hesitate to suggest that the cure for these ailments lies in, how shall we say, a robust sexual experience.

In addition to the slurs, we constantly face a question: Why do we “waste” our time on the pornography issue? Since we are anti-capitalist and anti-empire leftists as well as feminists, shouldn’t we focus on the many political, economic, and ecological crises (war, poverty, global warming, etc.)? Why would we spend part of our intellectual and organizing energies over the past two decades pursuing the feminist critique of pornography and the sexual exploitation industry?

The answer is simple: We are anti-pornography precisely because we are leftists as well as feminists.

As leftists, we reject the sexism and racism that saturates contemporary mass-marketed pornography. As leftists, we reject the capitalist commodification of one of the most basic aspects of our humanity. As leftists, we reject corporate domination of media and culture. Anti-pornography feminists are not asking the left to accept a new way of looking at the world but instead are arguing for consistency in analysis and application of principles.

It has always seemed strange to us that so many on the left consistently refuse to engage in a sustained and thoughtful critique of pornography. All this is particularly unfortunate at a time when the left is flailing to find traction with the public; a critique of pornography, grounded in a radical feminist and left analysis that counters right-wing moralizing, could be part of an effective organizing strategy.

As you can basically tell from the unctous tone of the begining of Dines’ essay, she’s not too happy to have to even answer the criticism of why campaigning for censorship of and abolition of consensual adult explicit sexual media has to become in her mind the sin quan non issue of the Left, or why she thinks that her brand of “radical feminism” is in essence the only means of countering “right-wing moralizing” (I’m sure that Patrick Trueman and Shelley Lubben would have appreciated that drive by insult beffore inviting Dines to the lectern to join their “Pornography Harms” summit meeting with Congress).

Of course, that doesn’t stop Dines from making her classic memes about porn being the centerpiece of not only misogynistic sexism and racism, but also the central fulcrum of capitalist culture used to enslave women and children to men’s penises.

Left media analysis

Leftists examine mass media as one site where the dominant class attempts to create and impose definitions and explanations of the world. We know news is not neutral, that entertainment programs are more than just fun and games. These are places where ideology is reinforced, where the point of view of the powerful is articulated. That process is always a struggle; attempts to define the world by dominant classes can be, and are, resisted. The term “hegemony” is typically used to describe that always-contested process, the way in which the dominant class attempts to secure control over the construction of meaning.

The feminist critique of pornography is consistent with — and, for many of us, grows out of — a widely accepted analysis on the left of ideology, hegemony, and media, leading to the observation that pornography is to patriarchy what commercial television is to capitalism. Yet when pornography is the topic, many on the left seem to forget Gramsci’s theory of hegemony and accept the pornographer’s self-serving argument that pornography is mere fantasy.

Now, there is some legitimate truth to what Dines is saying regarding the classical Left (and here I use “Left” to mean “further Left than conventional liberalism”) critique of the mass media as purveyors of mythology and propaganda designed to persuade people to consume and buy “stuff”.

The problem, though, lies in conflating the definition of the “dominant class”, which is defined in traditional Marxist/socialist circles as those who control the means of production and distribution of goods and services, with Dines’ assumption about “class” being construed as gender (i.e., all men with penises are granted power over all women, imposed via pornography). First off, not all men equally share in the power; it’s obvious that a woman like Sarah Palin has far more economic and social power than, say, a Walmart people greeter or a sanitation worker, and no watching of Who’s Nailin Palin porn satires will change that. Secondly, “pornographers” are hardly the only ones to sell the mythology of “fantasy”; in fact, they aren’t even close to being the first ones. Ever heard of Lost in Space, or Star Trek, or Dick Tracy and/or Superman cartoons, or even “spaghetti Westerns”, Professor?? I’d hardly think that these popular media were selling reality, unless you really do believe that teleportation devices really do exist or gunfights were just like the OK Corral. And, Paramount has made a hell of a lot more money for selling their fantasies than porn producers ever could.

Apparently the commonplace left insight that mediated images can be tools for legitimizing inequality holds true for an analysis of CBS or CNN, but evaporates when the image is of a woman having a penis thrust into her throat with such force that she gags. In that case, for unexplained reasons, we aren’t supposed to take pornographic representations seriously or view them as carefully constructed products within a wider system of gender, race, and class inequality. The valuable work conducted by media critics on the politics of production apparently holds no weight for pornography.

Pornography is fantasy, of a sort. Just as television cop shows that assert the inherent nobility of police and prosecutors as protectors of the people are fantasy. Just as the Horatio Alger stories about hard work’s rewards in capitalism are fantasy. Just as films that cast Arabs only as terrorists are fantasy.

Not quite fantasy, though…because many police officers and prosecutors actually do their best to protect society, there is room within the present system for “ashes-to-riches” tales of the Horatio Alger kind (though most who become rich get there with the help of government subsidies and/or inherited wealth), and there actually are some Arabs who believe in terrorism as a last resort to resolving long-standing grievances. The problem is when such anomalities are exploited and oversimplified into stereotypes that are used to pit one group against another and demonize innocent people of an entire group for the crimes of a few.

And of course, the assumption that gagging from fellatio must be “throat rape” even if the woman in the video specifically desires it and gets pleasure from it, and is able to survive the experience with throat intact, completely contradicts the notion that such acts are merely ruses done by male “pornographers” to force unsuspecting women into such activity. Most legitimate socialists/Marxists don’t go this deep into the individual free will; they are more concerned with the status of inequal distribution of wealth and resources and its ill effects on the overall society. They assume that the individual has relatively free will that is conditioned by his/her abilities and his/her economic status…and that redistributing wealth and resources in an more equitable and humane fashion would do far more for equality than micromanaging personal choices. Perhaps THAT’S why many legit Lefitsts look askew at antiporn “radical feminism” as as best a sideshow distraction, and at worst a counterproductive and reactionary diversion from the task at hand.

All those media products are critiqued by leftists precisely because the fantasy world they create is a distortion of the actual world in which we live. Police and prosecutors do sometimes seek justice, but they also enforce the rule of the powerful. Individuals in capitalism do sometimes prosper as a result of their hard work, but the system does not provide everyone who works hard with a decent living. Some tiny number of Arabs are terrorists, but that obscures both the terrorism of the powerful in white America and the humanity of the vast majority of Arabs.

Such fantasies also reflect how those in power want subordinated people to feel. Images of happy blacks on the plantations made whites feels more secure and self-righteous in their oppression of slaves. Images of contented workers allay capitalists’ fears of revolution. And men deal with their complex feelings about contemporary masculinity’s toxic mix of sex and aggression by seeking images of women who enjoy pain and humiliation.

Actually, the reason those “media products” are critiqued is not so much because they are proven to be stereotypes not reflecting the true diversity of law enforcement or the Muslim faith or the realities of capitalism, but rather because they are exploited by political and economic agents as tools and justification for acts of exploitation and unequal treatment. And besides that, the media is not nealy as one-sided and monolithic as Dines would depict (mostly because she would much rather the media be just as monolithic as her critique accuses them of being…only be monolithic to her and her specific ideological favor); there are actual struggles within the media in which various agents battle each other to get their points and experiences and truths accross. It is highly reductionist to simply revert to the notion of “subordinated” people and “contented” workers just waiting for the proper ideological instruction to break their apparent chains of “slavery”; that ship has sailed and sunk far too many times.

Why do so many on the left seem to assume that pornographers operate in a different universe than other capitalists? Why would pornography be the only form of representation produced and distributed by corporations that wouldn’t be a vehicle to legitimize inequality? Why would the pornographers be the only media capitalists who are rebels seeking to subvert hegemonic systems?

Why do the pornographers get a free ride from so much of the left?

After years of facing the left’s hostility in public and print, we believe the answer is obvious: Sexual desire can constrain people’s capacity for critical reason — especially in men in patriarchy, where sex is not only about pleasure but about power.

Leftists — especially left men — need to get over the obsession with getting off.

Yup…it’s all about the evil sexual desire in men — and those women who refuse to follow the hivemind ideology of “radical (lesbian) feminism” and continue to take pleasure in men’s “domination” of them through their erections — which blinds them to the alleged real and genuine harm that adult sexual media does to women and children. If men would just do as Saint Andrea Dworkin says and “give up their precious erections” and learn to “make love as women do with each other”, and voluntarily give up porn altogether, then equality between the genders would naturally and organically flourish without even a struggle.

And especially “left men”, since they are the ones apparently, according to Dines, who are the most suspectable to the hazardous impacts of porn, and because right-wing men — you know, the ones who actually maintain the power and who run capitalism — are either incapable of being reformed or are irrelevant to the process. After all, getting off is merely an “obsession” imposed by male patriarchy, not a reaction to natural sexual desire.

How this gets to be the pinnacle of “Left activism” rather than just another version of right-wing repression cloaked with a “radicalfeminist” patina, is a process that only lurks in the mind of an myopic ideologue like Gail…but I digress.

Let’s now break down some of Dines’ subset critiques.

Corporate media

Critiques of the power of commercial corporate media are ubiquitous on the left. Leftists with vastly different political projects can come together to decry conglomerates’ control over news and entertainment programming. Because of the structure of the system, it’s a given that these corporations create programming that meets the needs of advertisers and elites, not ordinary people.

Yet when discussing pornography, this analysis flies out the window. Listening to many on the left defend pornography, one would think the material is being made by struggling artists tirelessly working in lonely garrets to help us understand the mysteries of sexuality. Nothing could be further from the truth; the pornography industry is just that — an industry, dominated by the pornography production companies that create the material, with mainstream corporations profiting from its distribution.

It’s easy to listen in on pornographers’ conversations — they have a trade magazine, Adult Video News. The discussions there don’t tend to focus on the transgressive potential of pornography or the polysemic nature of sexually explicit texts. It’s about — what a surprise! — profits. The magazine’s stories don’t reflect a critical consciousness about much of anything, especially gender, race, and sex.

Andrew Edmond — president and CEO of Flying Crocodile, a $20 million pornography internet company — put it bluntly: “A lot of people get distracted from the business model by [the sex]. It is just as sophisticated and multilayered as any other market place. We operate just like any Fortune 500 company.”

The production companies — from big players such as Larry Flynt Productions to small fly-by-night operators — act predictably as corporations in capitalism, seeking to maximize market-share and profit. They do not consider the needs of people or the effects of their products, any more than other capitalists. Romanticizing the pornographers makes as much sense as romanticizing the executives at Viacom or Disney.

Increasingly, mainstream media corporations profit as well. Hugh Hefner and Flynt had to fight to gain respectability within the halls of capitalism, but today many of the pornography profiteers are big corporations. Through ownership of cable distribution companies and Internet services, the large companies that distribute pornography also distribute mainstream media. One example is News Corp. owned by Rupert Murdoch.

News Corp. is a major owner of DirecTV, which sells more pornographic films than Flynt. In 2000, the New York Times reported that nearly $200 million a year is spent by the 8.7 million subscribers to DirecTV. Among News Corp.’s other media holdings are the Fox broadcasting and cable TV networks, Twentieth Century Fox, the New York Post, and TV Guide. Welcome to synergy: Murdoch also owns HarperCollins, which published pornography star Jenna Jameson‘s best-selling book How To Make Love Like A Porn Star.

When Paul Thomas accepted his best-director award at the pornography industry‘s 2005 awards ceremony, he commented on the corporatization of the industry by joking: “I used to get paid in cash by Italians. Now I get paid with a check by a Jew.” Ignoring the crude ethnic references (Thomas works primarily for Vivid, whose head is Jewish), his point was that what was once largely a mob-financed business is now just another corporate enterprise.

How do leftists feel about corporate enterprises? Do we want profit-hungry corporative executives constructing our culture?

This would be just a tad more authentic except for these inconvenient facts:

1) The $13 billion figure for US porn profits has been proven to be greatly exaggerated, extrapolating the entire profits of media corporations like NewsCorp or DirectTV which only profit in part from offering adult sexual content as if they were exclusively from porn; and completely avoiding the fact that most media corps get their profits from distinctly non-sexual (and in many cases, explicitly anti-sexual and anti-pornographic) programs and interest groups. Not to mention the fact that even $13 B wouldn’t even cover the single gross profits of one Fortune 500 corporation (such as Walmart) for one week.

2) DirectTV, like other broadcast provders, only provides the infrastructure for making broadcasts available to the public. To blame them for offering porn is like blaming the people who built Interstate 10 between Lafayette and Baton Rouge for a drunk driver using that roadway to get in an accident resulting in the death of a bystander. (And remember, Dines is supposed to be a Leftist, opposed to direct government censorship of the airwaves.)

3) Mose importantly to this discussion, though, is the fact that porn is simply not reducible to the enterprises of HUSTLER, Playboy, or even VIVID; the ease of technology combined with the availability of camcorders, webcams, and simplified coding techniques has made it possible for anyone with access to a broadband feed, a webcam, and a camcorder to produce and even profit off user-made porn. And, an increasing amount of such porn is being produced by people who are unabashedly progressive, including feminist women, people of color, and sexual dissidents who don’t neccessarily meet the “patriarchial” standards. Of course, to folk like Dines, lesbian porn, “alt.porn”, couples-oriented porn, and especially gay male porn simply don’t register enough for her to recognize their existence…or they all can simply be dismissed as just mere “marketing niches” designed by male pornographer capitalists to profit off degrading and raping women.

4) And finally…Dines misconstrues traditional conventional Left critiques of corporations. It’s not their products that make them problematic, it’s their processes of privatizing production and raking profits without justly compensating those workers who do the work that creates their profits. Being “power hungry” is not the issue; exploiting their workers is.

Commodification

It’s long been understood on the left that one of the most insidious aspects of capitalism is the commodification of everything. There is nothing that can’t be sold in the capitalist game of endless accumulation.

In pornography, the stakes are even higher; what is being commodified is crucial to our sense of self. Whatever a person’s sexuality or views on sexuality, virtually everyone agrees it is an important aspect of our identity. In pornography, and in the sex industry more generally, sexuality is one more product to be packaged and sold.

When these concerns are raised, pro-pornography leftists often rush to explain that the women in pornography have chosen that work. Although any discussion of choice must take into consideration the conditions under which one chooses, we don’t dispute that women do choose, and as feminists we respect that choice and try to understand it.

But, to the best of our knowledge, no one on the left defends capitalist media — or any other capitalist enterprise — by pointing out workers consented to do their jobs. The people who produce media content, or any other product, consent to work in such enterprises, under varying constraints and opportunities. So what? The critique is not of the workers, but of the owners and structure.

Look at the industry’s biggest star, Jenna Jameson, who appears to control her business life. However in her book she reports that she was raped as a teenager and describes the ways in which men in her life pimped her. Her desperation for money also comes through when she tried to get a job as a stripper but looked too young — she went into a bathroom and pulled off her braces with pliers. She also describes drug abuse and laments the many friends in the industry she lost to drugs. And this is the woman said to have the most power in the pornography industry.

As we understand left analysis, the focus isn’t on individual decisions about how to survive in a system that commodifies everything and takes from us meaningful opportunities to control our lives. It’s about fighting a system.

I’m not even going to get into how Dines completely and deliberately distorts Jenna Jameson’s biography to prove the innate evil of porn (except to note that drug abuse is hardly the sole domain of porn or sex work, that Jenna has openly said that she has no regrets over her career in porn, and that the rape was when she was an adolescent and had nothing whatsoever to do with her porn experiences). On the other hand, though, Gail’s total misanthrophy on the actual meaning of consent and free will is so breathtaking.  Far worse commodification occurs with impunity in non-sexuality based industries and occupations (and let’s not ignore the issue of sexual harrassment as well)…but only porn deserves censure and censorship as a “system” which specifically drives its talent to drug abuse and death and rape.

I eagerly await when Gail actually attempts to interview other porn performers not so easily bendable to her ideology. Well, maybe not….since I’ll probably be waiting for all eternity.

Oh, and Gail??  Most legit Leftists are highly critical of “capitalist media”, but they don’t call for direct government censorship or intimidation of said media, only for creating alternatives to counter the myths and assumptions and sometimes outright lies put forth by such media. Sort of like what progressive pornographers are doing. And, most Leftists I know actually respect the right of free speech and free expression, because they know from experience what state censors can do when they turn on them.

Racism

As the most blatant and ugly forms of racism have disappeared from mainstream media, leftists have continued to point out that subtler forms of racism endure, and that their constant reproduction through media is a problem. Race matters, and media depictions of race matter.

Pornography is the one media genre in which overt racism is still acceptable. Not subtle, coded racism, but old-fashioned U.S. racism — stereotypical representations of the black male stud, the animalistic black woman, the hot Latina, the demure Asian geisha. Pornography vendors have a special category, “interracial,” which allows consumers to pursue the various combinations of racialized characters and racist scenarios.

The racism of the industry is so pervasive that it goes largely unnoticed. In an interview with the producer of the DVD “Black Bros and Asian Ho’s,” one of us asked if he ever was criticized for the racism of such films. He said, “No, they are very popular.” We repeated the question: Popular, yes, but do people ever criticize the racism? He looked incredulous; the question apparently had never entered his mind.

Yet take a tour of a pornography shop, and it’s clear that racial justice isn’t central to the industry. Typical is the claim of “Black Attack Gang Bang” films: “My mission is to find the cutest white honeys to get Gang Banged by some hard pipe hitting niggas straight outta compton!” It would be interesting to see a pro-pornography leftist argue to a non-white audience that such films are unrelated to the politics of race and white supremacy.

Up-market producers such as Vivid use mainly white women; the official face of pornography is overwhelmingly white. However, alongside this genre there exists more aggressive material in which women of color appear more frequently. As one black woman in the industry told us, “This is a racist business,” from how she is treated by producers to pay differentials to the day-to-day conversations she overhears on the set.

OK…so porn has it’s share of cretins, both amongst fans and producers. And some of them do promote some of the most corrosive racial stereotypes known to mankind. But, was porn around in, say, the time that Emmett Till was hanged for whistling to a White woman?? Was porn to blame for the Birmingham Church bombing in 1965?? Did racist stereotypes of the monster dicked Black gangsta/hypersexed Black “.ho”/Latina/Asian only take off with porn, or where they preexisting prejudices that propagated mostly with religious ChristianWhite fundamentalism?? Also…never read publcity press releases as reality, Gail…there’s a reason why hyperbole is the norm for advertising..

Dines seems to also forget in her evangelical zeal to lay the whip on “interracial” porn that there has been a distinct movement within the industry to create a more humane, less explicit brand of interracial porn that depicts its participants as lustful equals rather than her usual stereotypes. Has Gail ever heard of folk like Lexington Steele, Sean Michaels, Justin :Long, Tyler Knight, and Mr. Marcus….stars as well known for their bedside manor and respect for women’s pleasure as they are for their sizable schlongs?? And what about women like Vanessa del Rio, or Vanessa Blue, or Shine Houston…all of whome happen to be Black/Latina women whom have used their talents to produce more egalitarian porn??

Of course, Dines might simply mean that Black/Latina/Asian women in porn are simply becoming as aggressive as their White counterparts are, and that merely their willingness to take dick in every orfice possible justifies her dissing them as enablers of “racism”. In short, it’s not so much the racial as it is….the SEXUAL. As in…porn corrupts the natural concept of “love” and “intimacy” that should only exist between two people and is natural to “our sexuality” as women.

Which is a perfect segue into Dines’ next quabble with porn:

Sexism

Contemporary mass-marketed heterosexual pornography — the bulk of the market for sexually explicit material — is one site where a particular meaning of sex and gender is created and circulated. Pornography’s central ideological message is not hard to discern: Women exist for the sexual pleasure of men, in whatever form men want that pleasure, no matter what the consequences for women. It’s not just that women exist for sex, but that they exist for the sex that men want.

Despite naive (or disingenuous) claims about pornography as a vehicle for women’s sexual liberation, the bulk of mass-marketed pornography is incredibly sexist. From the ugly language used to describe women, to the positions of subordination, to the actual sexual practices themselves — pornography is relentlessly misogynistic. As the industry “matures” the most popular genre of films, called “gonzo,” continues to push the limits of degradation of, and cruelty toward, women. Directors acknowledge they aren’t sure where to take it from the current level.

This misogyny is not an idiosyncratic feature of a few fringe films. Based on three studies of the content of mainstream video/DVD pornography over the past decade, we conclude that woman-hating is central to contemporary pornography. Take away every video in which a woman is called a bitch, a cunt, a slut, or a whore, and the shelves would be nearly bare. Take away every DVD in which a woman becomes the target of a man’s contempt, and there wouldn’t be much left. Mass-marketed pornography doesn’t celebrate women and their sexuality, but instead expresses contempt for women and celebrates the charge of expressing that contempt sexually.

Leftists typically reject crude biological explanations for inequality. But the story of gender in pornography is the story of biological determinism. A major theme in pornography is that women are different from men and enjoy pain, humiliation, degradation; they don’t deserve the same humanity as men because they are a different kind of creature. In pornography, it’s not just that women want to get fucked in degrading fashion, but that they need it. Pornography ultimately tells stories about where women belong — underneath men.

Most leftists critique patriarchy and resist the system of male dominance. Gender is one of those arenas of struggle against domination, and hence an arena of ideological struggle. Put an understanding of media together with feminist arguments for sexual equality, and you get the anti-pornography argument.

But of course…because women, as you well know, are incapable of achieving pleasure on their own, and are either too stupid or too brainwashed by the alleged pleasure or pain of a man’s penis to understand and seek the true pleasure of “feminist sexuality” not dependent on either a male penis or a “patriarchial substitute” like a dildo or a vibrator.  And no, Dr. Betty Dodson, masturbation won’t save you either…that’s an especially onerous male-created distraction for seperating women from thrir ultimate destiny.

And…never mind the many positions of women being on top or dominant, never mind the prevailance of female dommes and male submissives, never mind the absence of women in gay male porn or the total absence of men in lesbian porn, never mind the fact that most women already enjoy many of the acts seen in most porn wilingly in private for free. The mere fact that they get paid for acts they already enjoy is simply another sign of evil patriarchial assimilation and self-absorption and even self-abuse rewarding men and capitalism…and that’s why only antiporn radicalfeminists should be the cutting edge of socialism. At least, according to Dr. Dines, pronounced socialist activist…when she’s not making money with honoraria or slipping cash under the table from fundamentalist Baptist groups, that is.

You would think that someone who says she has studied porn for 20 years should be willing to engage in some slightly more comprehensive and broad-based analysis than this cracked-ass quackery. In the antiporn radfem hivemind, however, all thought crashes at the sight of a male penis. Or…a engouged clit or nipple.

And for the last Goddess damn time (today), Gail: “Gonzo” is NOT a subgenre, it is a particular style of filming. It’s not about what you film, it’s how you film it.

The need for a consistent analysis of power

Leftists who otherwise pride themselves on analyzing systems and structures of power, can turn into extreme libertarian individualists on the subject of pornography. The sophisticated, critical thinking that underlies the best of left politics can give way to simplistic, politically naive, and diversionary analysis that leaves far too many leftists playing cheerleader for an exploitive industry. In those analyses, we aren’t supposed to examine the culture’s ideology and how it shapes people’s perceptions of their choices, and we must ignore the conditions under which people live; it’s all about an individual’s choice.

A critique of pornography doesn’t imply that freedom rooted in an individual’s ability to choose isn’t important, but argues instead that these issues can’t be reduced to that single moment of choice of an individual. Instead, we have to ask: What is meaningful freedom within a capitalist system that is racist and sexist?

Leftists have always challenged the contention of the powerful that freedom comes in accepting one’s place in a hierarchy. Feminists have highlighted that one of the systems of power that constrains us is gender.

We contend that leftists who take feminism seriously must come to see that pornography, along with other forms of sexualized exploitation — primarily of women, girls and boys, by men — in capitalism is inconsistent with a world in which ordinary people can take control of their own destinies.

That is the promise of the left, of feminism, of critical race theory, of radical humanism — of every liberatory movement in modern history.

Ah, but this is a rich irony. Dines acknowledges the traditional Left edict about attacking hierarchy and challenging authority….and then promptly throws that heritage under her massive 18-wheel bus to impose the biggest, most massice hierarchy and blind obedience to authority around. The fact that the authoritarian in this case is a smiling “radical feminist” instead of a smirking male Devil doesn’t make it any less ironic….or disconcertingly frightening.

Yes, individual choice can be constrained by any number of circumstances. If you are poor and desperately in need of food or shelter, and the only available shelter there is hosted by a known abuser, and the choice is either to accept the latter’s protection and risk getting caught up in his/her abuse (yes, Gail, women are perfectly capable of abusing other women and even men, even in this land of patriarchy), or to decline and remain poor and wait for the next opportunity…well, you can say that her choices are quite limited in the way that a more economically well off persin isn’t. Yes, some men are heels who simply are incapable of keeping their pants zipped and who do see women solely for their personal concubines or human Fleshlights. And quite a few of them are angry enough to express their rage at women through rape or other forms of sexuall assault or sexual battery. Women face that threat every damn day of their lives.

Where legitimate sexual liberationist feminists and legitimate Leftists seperate themselves from antiporn “feminist” fascists like Gail Dines and pony-show guilttrippers like Robert Jensen, however, is that we don’t attempt to blame all men for the crimes of a few; that we trust the experiences of all porn performers — whether good, bad, pretty, ugly, or everything all at once — and we respect their right as adults to make informed decisions about what they do with their own bodies, while still offering them the full entitlement of resources and protection against abuse of power to perform their deeds safely, humanely, and with mutual pleasure for all those involved. And notice I said “ABUSE of power”…because power in and of itself is NOT innately all that bad or evil if it is tapped as a means of protection for oneself.

Also…equality for all is the fundamental hallmark of any legitimate Leftist; however, equal does NOT have to equate to “everyone must look the same, speak the same, dress the same, or make love the same way”. It simply means that whatever way you look, you dress, you speak, you eat, or you make love (or simply fuck), you treat whomever you are with with the utmost respect as a free and equal human being. It’s only an authoritarian, fascist society that insists on a uniform view of anything, whether it be food, clothing, or sexual preference; and dressing cow dung in a bowl and dousing it with the most powerful sweet fragrance does not make it anything less than denatured shit.

There’s not a damn thing wrong with fighting against sexual abuse and rape, and men certainly do need an education on respect for women, as does every one else. But here’s a radical idea: How about we use the most pleasurable aspects of sex depected through a more positive, progressive mode of porn, to overwhelm the uglyness of the small fringe of sexual media that so scares folks like Gail Dines, and throw our support toeards progressive talent and producers working to create a more egalitarian, more humane, and more erotic sexual media?? You know, that “catch more flies with honey than vinegar” thing?? That “akido” rather than karate thing?? It does actually work sometimes, you know.

And, in the meanwhile, perhaps we can get back to the basics and build a Left based on the fundamental idea that the root cause of capitalist oppression happens to be…well, capitalism??  Not male penises, not every man with an erection, not every woman who likes a dick in her mouth or bootyhole or vagina or her hand (or all four)…but abusive capitalists who make money off the suffering of everyone else??

There’s only one thing that I can agree with Gail Dines on:Pornography absolutely IS a Left issue. And on this issue, she’s definitely chosen a side. Too bad it’s the RIGHT-WING side, not the true Left.

Share

A Quick Comparison/Contrast On Feminism, Porn, And Sexuality….Can YOU Decide Who's The Legitimate Feminist??

Posted on by
1

Let’s play Compare and Contrast, OK??

I am going to post two quotes dealing with feminism and pornography, from two radically different perspectives; both of which claim to represent progressive feminism. See if you can spot who’s real and who’s just spouting bullshit.

Comment #1:

We should be taking porn very seriously. Studies show that the more porn men watch, the more they want to play out porn sex in the real world. They become bored with their sex partners because they don’t look or act like the women in porn. What troubles many of these men most is that they need to pull up the porn images in their head in order to have an orgasm with their partner. They replay porn scenes in their minds, or think about having sex with their favourite porn star when they are with their partners.

What is new over the past five years or so is young men admitting their addiction to pornography. I had been somewhat sceptical of the addiction model, thinking that it was a way for men to avoid taking responsibility for their porn use. But sex and relationship therapists Wendy Maltz and Larry Maltz discuss in their book The Porn Trap how therapists are seeing a wave of porn addicts looking for help. They find that “what used to be a small problem for relatively few people had grown to a societal issue that was spilling over and causing problems in the lives of countless everyday people.”

[...]

As someone who has studied porn for more than 20 years, I also don’t know where all this is going to end. If we have any hope of stemming the tide, we need to build a movement that includes grassroots education programs and media strategies that lead to cultural change.

It also needs to offer an enticing, positive vision of sexuality based on equality and respect. As long as we have porn, women will never be seen as full human beings deserving of all the rights that men have. We need to build a vibrant movement that fights for a world in which women have power in and over their lives, because there is no room for porn in a just society.

– Gail Dines, quoted from her latest regurgitation of antiporn “feminist” agitprop via the Sydney Morning Herald

And here is Quote #2:

For me, one of the biggest holes in the sex-negs’ argument is that they assume sexuality is essentially part of the male domain.  In their acceptance of the patriarchy’s dominion over, and definition of, sexuality, they have lost sight of the fact that there is strong theoretical evidence that in prehistoric times sexuality was the the domain of the female.  Though it may seem paradoxical that it was not used as a weapon over men in those times, sex as a weapon or a tool of terror and aggression were both invented by the ascending patriarchy as a means of social control.

Sex-neg anti-porners say that “porn is the theory; rape is the practice.”  For me, it rings truer to say “patriarchal sexual repression is the theory, rape by men and denial of sexual pleasure (to self and others) by women is the practice.” These anti-sex zealots believe they are correct in what they see, even though all they can see is what the patriarchy says is the truth about Eros.  They refuse to listen to women’s voices that say that there is anything else.

[...]

What galls me is that the way sex-negs express their rage impinges directly on my life and I feel I must resist this attack on my freedom of choice as assiduousy as I would resist Operation Rescue’s attack on women’s reproductive choices.  It’s all part of the same continuum of sexual choice. Either women are capable of managing their sexual lives in their entireity or they are not. It can’t be both ways.  In the end, I feel it comes down to whether or not one feels that [sexual] arousal and titillation are EVER desirable states to promote or achieve; and I believe that they are.

[...]

I do not feel that the mere depiction of naked women is inherently degrading. Nor do I feel that depictions of women desiring sex is a negative thing. If one has been keeping up with the literature of the past 20 years on female sexuality, one would know that many women desire frequency as well as a wide variety of sexual experiences.  I believe that  women can, and do, use the pornographic medium to lay claim to their sexuality and we need to support them in their efforts. I believe that, for people not predisposed to sociopathic fixations, no amount of exposure to “harmful” imagery will goad them to violent behavior. One should keep in mind just how many people have used passages from the Bible as justification for rape and murder. Blaming all of the sexual violence in our culture on the availability of sexually explicit words or images (no matter how distasteful) is illogical, irrational, ahistorical, puritanical, prudish, ignorant and just plain mean-spirited, no matter how well-intentioned the purveyors of such attitudes may be. It is to the culture’s disadvantage that I hear no discussion of women as perpetrators of sexual violence nor acknowledgment of men’s very real sexual pain and exploitation. We must deal with the real and women’s sexual pain and rage as only part of a bigger picture.

To overlook the root causes of institutionalized violence (5000 years of anti-pleasure, hierarchical, patriarchal social engineering) in favor of placing the blame for Western society’s ills on an entertainment form widely available for less than 100 years exposes an extreme bias. Women alone are not the victims of the system. Rather, women, children and the majority of men are oppressed by our pleasure-negative, puritanical society which deliberately denies both genders full access to their own bodies.

- Nina Hartley, quoted from an 1993 essay she wrote in The Gauntlet magazine titled “Reflections of a Feminist Porn Star”; recently reposted here

Naturally, I have my particular bias…but this time I’ll just leave it up to you to read and decide for yourself.

Share

OK…Is Gail Dines An Attention Troll To Be Ignored, Or A Crank To Be Ridiculed And Smacked Down Hard?? (A Response To Dee Dennis, aka, The Formerly Debauched Diva)

Posted on by
2

[Update (7/18/11): Since this post was created, the artist formerly known as Debauched Domestic Diva has decided to reveal her true self, and now posts and tweets under her real name of Dee Dennis. Out of respect for her, I've modified this post to reflect her new ID.Her main point as well as her deep cleavage remain the same as always, of course.  :-) ]

I’m currently in a fascinating Twitter go-round with the lovely (and totally stacked) Dee Dennis (aka Debauched Diva, Twitter ID: @debaucheddiva @DeeDennis) over whether Gail Dines is overstepping her 15 minutes of fame and whether we might be enabling her rantage by continuously responding.

Dee (aka ‘Da Diva) just posted at her Posterous page that as far as she’s concerned, Dines has become the prototypical “attention troll”, seeking to mine any situation to get publicity for her antiporn “feminist” hackery….and Diva thinks that it may be time to just cut Dines’ mic off and ignore her.

In effect, Diva would rather Dines get the Orly Taitz treatment that Lawrence O’Donnell recently gave when he ran the Birther Queen off the set of his show after she attempted to sell another version of her “Obama wasn’t born here!!!” snake oil.

Some snippage of what Miz Dee wrote:

See, I firmly believe she is an attention troll and just like any other troll on the Internet she should be handled the same way.

Ignore them.

She is never going to go away and she is never going to change her stance because without her anti-porn stance she is just like any other person.  Without her anti-porn crusade who would give a shit what she has to say?  Think any news media would care to talk to her?

I look at her latest actions in her quest for attention and I think to myself, consider the source.

You can’t fix stupid and you can’t reason with crazy.

Let’s stop banging our heads against the wall.  It only gives us a headache.

Normally, I’d agree with the former Diva about giving attention trolls too much airtime and legitimating their stances….but in this case, I have to disagree for the following reasons.

Gail Dines is no mere attention troll. She is a prominent “feminist” and activist that has real influence amongst progressive and liberal/leftist branches of feminism.

Not to mention, she is becoming the go-to voice for what counts as the “feminist” position on pornography and sex work, as stated by her frequent editorialization in such journals as The Guardian and CounterPunch. While there are some prominent voices within feminism in direct opposition to her views (see Susie Bright, Nina Hartley, and a few others), they simply don’t get the kind of publicity as Dines does. Merely silencing our side will not change that.

It is important that those on the Left who are anticensorship and even pro-sexual expression speak openly and honestly and expose and counter the mass of lies about them that spew from Dines and other antiporn/antisexwork “feminists”; if only to show that the Left is not an monolith when it comes to protecting free sexual expression and women’s right to self-autonomy. Allowing Dines to control the debate through omission strengthens her far more than merely responding with the facts.

And there’s one more thing: it’s no headache to me to respond to Dines’ madness, because I always simply laugh at such bullshit, and responding in kind to her is less a chore than it is good, clean fun. Smacking down inanity and stupidity never made me sad..especially when said inanity and stupidity is done with such lack of class or tact.

This is not to demean Diva’s Ms. Dee’s position at all; she is entitled to her views and they do make sense. I just happen to have a slightly different opinion on this one.

 

Share

Why SlutWalk Is More Feminist Than Most Feminists Could Even Dream Of (Or, Reason #5,876 Why Gail Dines Is The Bill O'Reilly Of Radical Feminists)

Posted on by
1

Most of you know me as a fierce defender of and even sometimes worshipper of sexually assertive women.

It’s not because I aim to get into every one of their panties, either.

(Though, admittedly, the thought has crossed my mind a time or two. A day. OK, OK, an hour a day. Oh, all right…plenty of hours a day.  Hey, I’m an average man with feelings and working sex organs; can’t deny that.)

On the other hand, though, that desire for women who aren’t afraid to “play the slut”, if not even “BE the slut”, comes with an ethic and a responsibility to respect them as full human beings not reduced to the size of their chests, butts, or clits.

Even when they fully choose to show themselves off or put themselves out for their own sexual pleasure, it is fundamental that anyone worthy of having a human conscience remember that just because they put out does not make them your very personal sex doll or vibrator; and that outside of the fantasies they provide, they are and should be respected and given all the privileges of privacy that all women deserve.

Needles to say, that also includes the right NOT to be sexually assaulted, or to be catcalled against their will or consent, or to be judged by their style of dress.

Actually, that goes for all women in general, whether they choose to dress in a burqa, a business suit, or a tank top and miniskirt. Whatever they decide to put on (or take off) is inmaterial to whether or not they are available to you. If she wants you, she will say so; otherwise, just assume the default position of NO and move on. (And no, “maybe next time” does not mean “Yes” either…it means just what is says.)

It is depressing to actually have to type this in the second week of the fifth month of the year 2011, because the idea that a woman’s choice of clothing determing her supposed sexual availability and giving a green light to any rapist or other sexual assailant to ignore her stated rejections should have been put to permanent rest a long time ago.

What turns this into an even greater travesty is when the voices for “modesty” and forced chastity and browbeating women for their choices happen to call themselves “feminists”.  Nay…”RADICAL feminists”.

And this is why I once again have to drop another Gail Dines Stupid Radfem Right update on you. Not that I likeusing up valuable pixel space ripping on the Wheelock College professor/antiporn “leftist” activist/faux feminist, but when she goes like Bill O’Reilly and says something more astonishingly, breathtakingly, viciously boneheaded than her usual mimes about porn being the Great Male Patriarchial Capitalist Menace, I feel the need to write something before my blood pressure bursts.

This time, the “good” Professor has decided to sink her teeth into the unwilling neck of an emerging movement known as SlutWalk, which was designed to defend the right of women to wear whatever the fuck they wanted and resist rape and sexual assault in their own way.

SlutWalk originally started out in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, by a feisty group of feminists who got seriously pissed off when a Toronto policeman named Michael Sanguinetti decided to shoot his mouth off about rape prevention. Problem was, he blamed the victims of rape for their own accounts, directly implying that they wouldn’t be raped if they had just been a bit more selective with their style of clothing.  The direct quote from Sanguinetti (courtesy of The Guardian UK):

“You know, I think we’re beating around the bush here,” Michael Sanguinetti began, blandly enough, as he addressed the 10 students who turned up for the pep talk. Then he said: “I’ve been told I’m not supposed to say this – however, women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised.”

Ahhh, yeah. Because the many women who didn’t dress “like sluts” and still managed to get sexually assaulted don’t quite matter, right?? And, of course, the men who do in fact attack women only attack women who dress like “sluts”, thusly, they should be given the benefit of the doubt that they are motivated solely by rampant lust rather than anger and violence and rage vented through sex…ahhh, really???

It was in anger of a different kind that some feminists in Toronto decided to directly take on Sanguinetti’s bullshit straight on and defend the notion of female sexual self-determination against such slut shaming and rape ideology. Thusly, Slutwalk Toronto was born online (and on Facebook), and a protest march organized..which has basically exploded and metasized into a worldwide movement against the mythology and etology of slut shaming.

Their manifesto released at the time of the original protests in Toronto speaks for itself; so I will simply reprint it in its entirity.

BECAUSE WE’VE HAD ENOUGH!

On January 24th, 2011, a representative of the Toronto Police gave shocking insight into the Force’s view of sexual assault by stating: “women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized”.

As the city’s major protective service, the Toronto Police have perpetuated the myth and stereotype of ‘the slut’, and in doing so have failed us. With sexual assault already a significantly under-reported crime, survivors have now been given even less of a reason to go to the Police, for fear that they could be blamed. Being assaulted isn’t about what you wear; it’s not even about sex; but using a pejorative term to rationalize inexcusable behaviour creates an environment in which it’s okay to blame the victim.

Historically, the term ‘slut’ has carried a predominantly negative connotation. Aimed at those who are sexually promiscuous, be it for work or pleasure, it has primarily been women who have suffered under the burden of this label. And whether dished out as a serious indictment of one’s character or merely as a flippant insult, the intent behind the word is always to wound, so we’re taking it back. “Slut” is being re-appropriated.

We are tired of being oppressed by slut-shaming; of being judged by our sexuality and feeling unsafe as a result. Being in charge of our sexual lives should not mean that we are opening ourselves to an expectation of violence, regardless if we participate in sex for pleasure or work. No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.

We are a movement demanding that our voices be heard. We are here to call foul on our Police Force and demand change. We want Toronto Police Services to take serious steps to regain our trust. We want to feel that we will be respected and protected should we ever need them, but more importantly be certain that those charged with our safety have a true understanding of what it is to be a survivor of sexual assault — slut or otherwise.

We are tired of speeches filled with lip service and the apologies that accompany them. What we want is meaningful dialogue and we are doing something about it: WE ARE COMING TOGETHER. Not only as women, but as people from all gender expressions and orientations, all walks of life, levels of employment and education, all races, ages, abilities, and backgrounds, from all points of this city and elsewhere.

We are asking you to join us for SlutWalk, to make a unified statement about sexual assault and victims’ rights and to demand respect for all. Whether a fellow slut or simply an ally, you don’t have to wear your sexual proclivities on your sleeve, we just ask that you come. Come walk or roll or strut or holler or stomp with us.

Join us in our mission to spread the word that those those who experience sexual assault are not the ones at fault, without exception.

“No one should equate enjoying sex with attracting sexual assault.” Isn’t simplicity wonderful??

Remember, Clones, these are NOT porn performers or exhibitionists insisting on their right to walk the public streets naked at rush hour, nor are they sex workers calling for their right to walk the streets in front of the local high school. These are basically your mothers, your daughters, your girlfriends, your friends….in short, average women insisting that they, not some asshole policeman, can determine for themselves when to attract wanted sexual attention and when not to….as well as restating the essential truth that no woman should ever be blamed for being the victim of sexual assault, and that no man should be allowed to use the excuse of a woman’s state of dress as a “Get Out Of Jail Free” card or to ever justify sexual assault or battery.

Sounds like progressive feminism to me. Who would ever oppose that kind of movement against sexual assault, other than holy roller fundamentalists who insist on forcing chadors, burqas, and veils on women as a means of “protecting” them from the evil “male” desires??

Who, you ask?

Cueth the Professor from Wheelock College and antiporn activist named Gail Dines.

Of course, she was too chickenshit to post her observations from her home base in the US, so she (and another professor/rape “expert”, Wendy Murphy), decided to use the friendly pages of the Guardian UK to vent her spleen as to why SlutWalk is BAAAAAAAD for women and feminists, if not fundamentally antifeminist.

At least, anti- the kind of sexually restrictive, reactionary, closed-minded, fear-mongering “feminism” that Dines love to waddle in.

Most of her rant focuses on the stigma that the broader culture still attaches to the word “slut”…which she so lovingly not only approves of, but even uses as a wedge against those women stupid enough to accept their right to sexual self-determination not redeemed by her own radical feminist values. Some snippage follows:

It wasn’t long ago that being called a “slut” meant social death. No “nice” boy would take you home to meet his parents and no “good” girl would ever be your friend. At the same time, refusing to submit to sex meant you were a “prude” or “frigid”. In short, there was no right way to be. Things have improved a bit in that young women are more insistent on their right to sexual autonomy, but sexually active women remain vulnerable to harsh social judgments even as the mass media celebrate and encourage such behaviour. And research shows that the label “slut” still has long-term negative consequences, especially for younger girls.

Now, I’m not denying that such attitudes about women being “prudes” and “frigid” don’t exist among select few people….but notice how Dines turns it against women who do resist the stigma and who do declare themselves to be sexually assertive…as if they are the cause of the “negative consequenses” of rape. Of course, you will remember that the meme of “We’re just ‘prudes’ because we resist evil male sexuality!!” is a classic projection of Dines used to ward off charges that she indeed wants to censor sexualiy of women. To which the proper answer should be: “Well, if the shoe fits….”

The fact that more than 2,000 turned out to march around Boston Common suggests that women are, indeed, hungry for sexual autonomy. But something else was at work here: many of the banners protested the ubiquity of sexual violence in the lives of women. Signs made by protesters showed that women are angry with being blamed for male violence and fed up with the failure of the culture to hold men accountable. Clearly the theme of the SlutWalk has struck a nerve, with similar events being planned around the world, including one in London in June.

The organisers claim that celebrating the word “slut”, and promoting sluttishness in general, will help women achieve full autonomy over their sexuality. But the focus on “reclaiming” the word slut fails to address the real issue. The term slut is so deeply rooted in the patriarchal “madonna/whore” view of women’s sexuality that it is beyond redemption. The word is so saturated with the ideology that female sexual energy deserves punishment that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources.

So now, Dines and Murphy are attempting to steal the thunder of SlutWalk by claiming that their motives are not what they have explicitly stated themselves…and also attempting to undermind them by telling them that their mission is a failure because….the word “slut” is simply beyond redemption as a bludgeon of “patriarchy”.

You may note the thinly veiled implication that as a result, any woman who attempts to claim usage of the term as a symbol of sexual self-assertiveness and autonomy is, by Dines’ edict, a mere pawn of, if not a direct agent of, said “patriarchy”, and a useful idiot of “male sexuality” in opposition to “female sexual agency”. In other words, Dines simply paraphrases the long lived dictum of her predecessor and mentor, Catherine MacKinnon: “If ‘slutdom’ is a part of your sexuality, then you have no right to your sexuality.”

Oh, did I say “thinly veiled”??? The next few paragraphs state it far more explicitly:

Advocates would be better off exposing the myriad ways in which the law and the culture enable myths about all types of women – sexually active or “chaste” alike. These myths facilitate sexual violence by undermining women’s credibility when they report sex crimes. Whether we blame victims by calling them “sluts” (who thus asked to be raped), or by calling them “frigid” (who thus secretly want to be overpowered), the problem is that we’re blaming them for their own victimisation no matter what they do. Encouraging women to be even more “sluttish” will not change this ugly reality.

As teachers who travel around the country speaking about sexual violence, pornography and feminism, we hear stories from women students who feel intense pressure to be sexually available “on demand”. These students have grown up in a culture in which hypersexualized images of young women are commonplace and where hardcore porn is the major form of sex education for young men. They have been told over and over that in order to be valued in such a culture, they must look and act like sluts, while not being labeled slut because the label has dire consequences including being blamed for rape, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-mutilation.

Because, you see, according to Gail Dines and Wendy Murphy, calling yourself a “slut” simply enables men to think of ALL women as “sluts” in the negative “I want to rape them with impunity” way. In fact, the mere calling of oneself a “slut” engaging men to mere erections and sexual arousal is more than enough in this evil “porn culture” to encourage violence and degradation of women.

Naturally, Dines and Murphy are far too sophisicated as “radical feminists” to come out and say that maybe Officer Sanguinetti was right all along and that women who dress “sluttily” are to blame for their own violence  And, quite naturally, they are quick to place the fundamental blame on the rapists themselves and give the women a break as the ultimate victims of male assault.

The problem is, though, that their core ideology of laying the fundamental blame on “male rape culture”, fueled by porn, capitalism, and mere male erections, doesn’t really allow for women fighting for themselves to reclaim their own individual right to be safely sexually assertive, or to even dress the way they want. Indeed, in a back-door kind of way, they actually give plenty of tribute to the fundamentally repressive, conservative meme of “she asked for it” by basically accepting carte blanche without any proof of evidence the fact that men are at root evil rapists led by their erections to brutalize women.

It’s as if the fundamental fact that the overwhelming majority of men do in fact respect women enough to not assault them even if they are dressed in a way that sexually arouses them doesn’t even register with Dines or Murphy. Or, that most women are more than capable of negotiating with men the acceptable boundaries of consent and what is and isn’t acceptable behavior or contact based on time and place…and, more importantly, that women and men are able to have those boundaries enforced through mutual trust, consent, mutal pleasure, and, if needed, the power of the state.

Besides all that, Dines and Murphy conveniently gloss over the far more powerful institutions of society that do NOT reward women for “slutdom”, but in fact punishes them profusely through loss of respect, loss of self-esteem, and even loss of social and economic privileges, if not actual physical punishment. Porn performers may get paid a decent amount of money, but they don’t compare to Hollywood movie actresses or politicians or even CEO’s…and I’ll bet ‘ya not many of those are self-identified “sluts”. For every Cameron Diaz there are at least five Demi Moores; and Sarah Palin still makes more money than Lisa Ann could ever dream of. (Unfortunately, since Lisa Ann’s a lot more moral and accomplished than the Half-Governor ever will be. Even fully clothed.)

Of course, Dines and Murphy do have an alternative to promoting “slut” theology….unfortunately it’s the same old tired “authentic female sexuality” divorced from real fact or experience or orgasm, rooted in the usual radfem notion of “radical female sexuality” (or, what the old heads would call “radicallesbianism”) freed from the bounds of male dictums and demands…and of male erections, too.

Women need to find ways to create their own authentic sexuality, outside of male-defined terms like slut. The recent TubeCrush phenomenon, where young women take pictures of men they find attractive on the London tube and post them to a website, illustrates how easily women copy dominant societal norms of sexual objectification rather than exploring something new and creative. And it’s telling that while these pictures are themselves innocent and largely free of sexual innuendo, one can only imagine the sexually aggressive language that would accompany a site dedicated to secret photos of women.

While the organisers of the SlutWalk might think that proudly calling themselves “sluts” is a way to empower women, they are in fact making life harder for girls who are trying to navigate their way through the tricky terrain of adolescence.

Women need to take to the streets – but not for the right to be called “slut”. Women should be fighting for liberation from culturally imposed myths about their sexuality that encourage gendered violence. Our daughters – and our sons – have the right to live in a world that celebrates equally women’s sexual freedom and bodily integrity.

How nice that two women who  have no problem sharing the dais with such prominent progressive “feminists” as Patrick Trueman, Shelley Lubben, and Judith Reisman, can lecture other feminists on what they should represent as “authentic female sexuality”. And how even nicer that they can promote their version of “It’s not your fault, but close your damn legs and cover yourselves up anyway, because you are enabling the men to leer and that’s raping us anyway” as a means of “sexual freedom” and “women’s autonomy”.

I’ll take Susie Bright and Nina Hartley’s brand of feminism over this crap any day of the week.

And I’ll STILL respect a woman’s right to say “HELL NO” and mean it, and still say “YES” and mean that, too.  Whatever she chooses to wear.

I love and worship sluts — the real ones and the wannabes just playing for fun — just too damn much to degrade and disrespect them as much as “feminists” like Gail Dines do.

But, she wouldn’t be the Bill O’Reilly of radicalfeminists otherwise.

And Slutwalk wouldn’t be the best of legitimate progressive feminism if they didn’t incur her wrath. All the better for them, I say.

Share

Memo To Birther Whackjobs: Here's Your Long Form Right Here…Along With Osama bin Laden's Head Attached To It!!

Posted on by
Reply

WOW.

Never thought that even this Indy Leftist would actually be praising a military action. But this one is probably the biggest success since WWII..and we didn’t even have to drop an atomic bombm either.

Osama bin Laden, Mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on Washington and New York City, leader of al Queda, and all around smack talker against “the Crusaders” and everything else modern (and a big time racist to boot), is no longer a member of the living human race. Thanks to the fine efforts of the United States Armed Forces, some actual investigation, and a surgical strike, the man held duly responsible for the death of 3,000+ American citizens on that fateful day has met his maker.

Oh, but I feel so bad for poor Osama…because instead of those 77 virgins that he promised his followers for their terrorist deeds, he’s only going to get a welcoming ceremony into the deepest and thermonuclear depths of Hell

Actually, I don’t feel so sorry for bin Laden at all. You get ultimately what you deserve, and when you pull off an senseless attack as you did, revenge is gonna be quite a bitch.

I save my sorrow for the brave men and women who lost their lives on that fateful day.

But do you know who I actually do feel some empathy for?? The Grand Old TeaPublicans.

It’s not been a good week for them, hasn’t it?? First, President Obama kills off their priime issue with the release of his long-form birth certificate, making them look like the whackjobs they are.

Then, Mother Nature decides to send scores or tornadoes upon the Deep South to remind them of who’s really in charge.

And now, tonight, five years after George W. Bush donned his codpiece, did his Top Gun fantasy and declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq (while casting aside numerous efforts to actually get bin Laden when he had the chance, since he was too busy firebombing Fallujah and stacking Abu Ghraib, I guess), Prez O manages to score the ultmate trophy that proves his foreign policy mettle.

Of course, this probably won’t end the wars in Afghanistan or Pakistan,,,,far from it. Osama’s newly found martyr status could even enrage al Queda enough to induce other terrorist attempts. And, it doesn’t erase at all the tyranny of the aftermath of those wars. It doesm however, offer at least a window of closure to all those whom have grieved the death of their loved ones.

Not to mention, it seriously kicks the hell out of the Right’s claim of Obama as “soft on defense” and not so Presidential. When you are able to claim Mummar Gaddafi’s son and Osama bin Laden as your prized trophy cases in one week, you’ve proven you mettle beyond expectations.

And, it proves that you don’t have to invade whole countries and torture people en masse to get the job done. SEAL teams and surgically placed drones combined with decent planning and investigation really does work sometimes.

In the meantime, I hereby send this parting gift to Osama as a token of my appreciation for everything he’s done, and to remind him why we kicked his ass straight to HELL. Oh, and what he will be missing when the Devil uses his balls for Ping-Pong.

Nina Hartley (when she was a VNA Girl, courtesy of VickyatHome.com)

 

Vicky Vette (via VickyatHome.com)

 

Bridgette B. (h/t Juliland.com)

 

Lisa Ann as “Serra Paylin” (h/t Hustler Productions/TheRealLisaAnn.com)

Vanessa Blue and a friend (via VanessaBlue.com)

Suck on them, Osama, you bastard.  Oh wait, you can’t, because you’re DEAD.

Scoieboard, beeeyotch.



 

 

Share