Nine Deuce = Four Six * 2 + BS Raised To Infinity

Oh, and I thought that she was just doing a Good Cop/Bad Cop scene.

But it seems that Nine Deuce has now totally drank the Kool-Aid, and has dived all in. And she offers this “News Flash” to all us idiots who still can’t understand why she’s so down on those who don’t quite agree with her and her GenderBorgian friends.

Allow me to break down each of her talking points one by one.

The existence of gay porn does not disprove the argument that non-gay porn is degrading to women. There might be a different dynamic going on in a lot of gay porn (I remain unconvinced), but that doesn’t really mean anything other than that maybe gay porn needs to be analyzed by itself rather than under an umbrella with hetero porn. What we’re talking about when we talk about het pornography is the comingling of power with sex, which is THE CENTRAL FEATURE OF PATRIARCHY.

Well…if the existence of gay porn shows that men who are into gay porn don’t quite care about “degrading” women (or, simply like to see men fucking and sucking other men), well, it probably doesn’t prove anything. Unless, you happen to believe, as some of your own allies and bomb throwers just so happen to believe (*cough*Luckynkl *cough, cough* Satsuma *cough*) that male sexual obsession for gay sex only replaces the recipient of gay sex for the woman in the “submissive” (and thusly, “degraded” and “abused”) role. Otherwise, you’re right, it proves not a Goddess damn thing about how straight male desire for porn inherently “degrades” women. That, I guess, is a given that needs no proof whatsoever…at least not to pure “feminist” masters such as you.

Choice does not equal progressiveness. You can choose to do heroin if you want to, and it might feel fucking awesome, but that doesn’t make you a freedom fighter. You can be a feminist and be into BDSM, but you can’t claim that BDSM is feminist. Just because something feels good does not mean it’s feminist.

No, some choices are not necessarily harmless to one’s self or others. Injecting a syringe full of heroin into your body certainly can do much harm to one’s person. Engaging in consensual sex with someone whom you want to be with, and who wants to be with you sharing the pleasures, however, isn’t quite so harmful as injecting heroin, now isn’t it?? Not, at least, unless it fundamentally upsets certain fee-fees of certain lunatic “radicalfeminists.”

And no, ND, you just don’t get to dictate to other women what acts become “feminist” and what acts aren’t. Feminists can be into BDSM, and even feminist who would never do BDSM sex themselves can respect the rights of those women — whether they call themselves feminists or not — who are. Unless you are endowed by the Goddess upstairs or the Rulers Above (hey, wouldn’t the latter be, like..a PATRIARCHY?!?!?!) with special powers to dictate their personal likes, then I don’t think you have the authority to read their minds and rule their brains.

F/m BDSM (generally) does not fetishize and sexualize the oppression of people who are still oppressed. Therefore, its existence does not prove that there’s nothing problematic about the mingling of sex with oppression in M/f BDSM, burlesque or not. Again, it’s a matter of the need for separate analysis.

Oh, hold the fuck up here….so female dominant/male submissive sex is perfectly OK with you even if it goes horribly awry because it doesn’t involve mixing sex with “oppression”??? In other words, it’s perfectly OK to harm men BECAUSE men innately harm women by merely THINKING about dominating them through sex?? I thought that radicalfeminism was opposed to ALL forms of domination and submission equally across the board?? Ahhh..OOPS.

Questioning a practice does not equal abuse or oppression. And you can’t spend 15 paragraphs explaining that BDSM, as a “choice,” fits the (warped) definition of feminism and then compare the consequences of your choice to the oppression that lesbians and gay men face. Unless you are ready to say that female submission is innate or that being gay is a choice.

I guess that means, then, that religious conservatives really do have a right to question BDSM sex as a “choice” on their terms?? Because , ND, if you are saying that being a gay person really isn’t a choice, but being into BDSM sex IS one that can be “undone”, when what’s to say that that Christian Rightist might not use your argument to support the opposite view (i.e., that BDSM sex is merely a perverse “lifestyle” that defies God’s plan for sex, just as homosexuality or non-procreative sex does?? And why should we not compare you to the fundies when you use terms like “consequences of your ‘choices'”??

In order for me to oppress you, I have to be in charge of something that directly affects your life. I’m not.

Ahhhh, WRONG…..all you have to do in order to oppress someone is to deny that person his right to full humanity and dismiss his/her right to free will. You and your GenderBorg sisters do that almost every other post.

If I were truly denying anyone’s agency, I’d refuse to question their assumptions and behavior. I assume we are all responsible for the choices that we make, even though social forces tend to influence those choices. I know that there are people who are aware that M/f BDSM and/or porn are tinged (or saturated) with patriarchal oppression and choose to participate in them anyway, either because there is some benefit in doing so or because they think they can do them “the right way.” I doubt that’s possible, so I’m asking people who think it is to explain how that might be. Would it be better for me to treat other adult human beings like babies who can’t bear to be asked defend their beliefs?

Well…it would help if you actually respected those who attempt to defend themselves from your bromides, rather than simply use their answers as fuel for your cannons to shoot them down even more.

I can have a theoretical problem with something and speak my mind about it without specifically addressing an individual. If you don’t fit the definition of the kind of person I’m discussing, don’t take it personally. Everyone has the right to judge everyone, but we don’t have the right to enforce our judgements. Therein lies the difference between free speech and oppression.

Oh, why should we even take it seriously?? Especially when you deliberately temper your responses with ad hominem attacks on people’s looks or personal tastes, or basically call people you disagree with as rapists and child molesters even when they have done nothing wrong?? Even when you attempt to wave the exclusive “feminist” flag to rip down anyone who happens to disagree with your analysis of their personal practices?? When you even go as far as to deny and dismiss their own freakin’ testimonials about their lack of personal harm?? Gee, now that’s a really good question there, ND….why should we take you seriously??

Your bigotry and ignorance, on the other hand, should be taken very seriously, simply because it is being spewed in the name of a movement that is supposed to stand for something progressive rather than reactionary.

This is “Logic 101”, ND?? More like Bullcrap One.


The comments section is dominated by the usual voices with the usual boilerplate…until right to the end, where ND exposes her true paternalistic self. First, the comment before hers as a background:

[Comment by thorne on 2/26/09 @ 6:00 PM]

“Gayle – No shit, right? It’s incredible to hear the language of the oppressed co-opted by people who fetishize oppression.”

Did your read the part where we explained that we can be jailed or lose our kids? have you heard of the spanner case? Does it amuse you to play “this group is more oppressed than that group”? Our community has real life problems hate speach being the least of them.

We do not fetishize oppresion. What we do is power exchange. Power exchange does not magically turn evil whe it is MF instead of FM or FF or whatever.

I get that you want to make the point that the kink community is just and excuse for a bunch of male sadists to justify their abuse of woman. I get that the hundreds of comments by men and woman and the ocean of websites that explain otherwise will make no impression here.

I am also not taken in by the wide eyed, “all we are doing is questioning bdsm. If you lifestyle is ok why does it bother you when I we question it?”

It depends what the questionis doesn’t it?

Is it just innocent inquiry when someone wants to know if gay men are more likely to abuse children, and then asks the question over and over?

Oh, but get a load of ND’s reply to that one:

[Posted by Nine Deuce on 2/26/09 @ 6:27 PM]

Stop comparing your situation to the plight of homosexuals. And stop comparing my arguments to those of asshole homophobes. There is something to the idea that M/f BDSM fetishizes women’s oppression, and you aren’t going to take attention from that by setting up a false and easily discredited analogy.

Why are people getting fired for being into BDSM? Ah Talking about sex at work isn’t cool, whether you’re straight, gay, into BDSM, or celibate. It’s just not appropriate. And to be honest, if I were a parent, I’d be concerned if my child’s other parent were into BDSM because I wouldn’t want my child exposed to it. It’s absolutely ridiculous to think you ought to have the right to normalize that kind of behavior in front of children who haven’t got the critical thinking abilities to understand what’s going on.

We all know that the vast majority of child molesters are straight men, which has been shown in study after study. I’m asking the questions about BDSM because what I’ve seen on a lot of websites amounts to serious emotional and physical abuse, and because I have, whatever you guys want to claim to the contrary, read women’s writings about being upset and frightened by the treatment they receive. The fact that I’m not yet convinced that what you’re into is cool and meshes with feminism doesn’t make me dishonest, it just means that I’ve yet to be convinced that black is white and up is down.

Yup….people into BDSM who happen to get fired from their workplaces deserve to be fired because they boast about their work there. And….obviously, people who do BDSM should not be allowed anywhere around children..or, I assume, even to have or raise children, lest they be pollluted with such “degradation” and violence. Spoken like a true feminist, indeed…who happens to be an agent for the local Sex Morality Police Squad. Lou Sheldon would be proud of ‘ya, ND.
P.S. Ren Ev dispatches ND’s crap with the usual flourish here….and check out Ernest’s comment within, too.

P.P.S.: Natalia adds her own personal smackdown here…and Ren has a sarcastic follow-up. And also, see Trinity.


More Anti-BDSM Whackoid Smack From The GenderBorg (Your Turn, Polly!!)

Just as I promised earlier….more highlights for the mighty FAILFest that is the Great GenderBorg Anti-BDSM Crusade.

If you remember, all this started when Nine Deuce over at Rage Against the Manchine decided to mine her radfem credentials to blast women who are into BDSM sex as mere tools and “slaves” of men and perpetuators of “female slavery”…since the men who are into male domination in that particular subculture are nothing more than rapists. (Actually, ND tends to think that any and ALL men who are into ANY kind of porn or “patriarchial” sex not to her liking are prima facie rapists and abusers of women….it’s just that male doms are, to her, the most open and explicit examples.) A couple of male doms and their significant other “slaves” came in to defend themselves and their professed tastes; whereapon the rest of the GB tribe ambushed them as ignorant, blind traitors (for the women) or outright rapists (for the men).

I won’t reset all of the debate, since ND, Renegade Evolution, and the usual participants have more than enough documentation for you to ponder.

But I will today reference a particularly “brilliant” (in the way that serial killers, Dick Cheney, and Newt Gingrich  are brilliant) piece of GenderBorgian anti-BDSM agitprop produced by Polly Styrene at her own blog which attempts to make the case of how BDSM is so innately anti-woman. Basically, it says a lot more about the thinly-veiled biases and deep assumptions of GenderBorgian ideology than it does about the men and women who freely practice BDSM sex.

The prejudice comes right out with the title:

BDSM is violence against women

Yup…..even if the woman is dominant and the man is the submissive, it’s all about the woman being “violated”. But I guess that that doesn’t matter to Polly, since fem dommes don’t even exist.

Polly then begins with the usual mocking snark at women defending their sexual kinks:

You heard. Oh but oh noes, menz get beaten up too! Hmm, yes and men are sometimes sex workers, as Mr Douglas Fox constantly points out.

Now of course y’all are sitting here now, and going “But I’m into BDSM, and all that ever happens is that my manz handcuffs me with the  pink fluffy Ann Summers handcuffs and spanks me lightly. It’s a power exchange doncha know”

Only men who are “pimps” and “punters”, of course….never real live sex workers. And of course, only rich and privileged and pampered women who are so stupid as to partake in such anti-woman sex practices would ever come forth to defend such brutality.

She then resets Nine Deuce’s “experiment” of placing an ad in a local paper pretending to be a sub looking for a “power exchange”, which results in the usual biased and tainted analysis of the respondents:

The dudes in the first group were the least overtly terrifying of the bunch, but they were creepy and offensive in their own way. Most of them wrote what could best be described as novellas and used the word “art” in their comical and terribly written blatherings about their BDSM “philosophies.” Their descriptions of their sexual fantasies were like letters to Penthouse Forum written by dudes who wear eyeliner, with a lot of “trembling,” “aching,” and “quivering” in between the generous helpings of “pussy” and “cock.” They all described the mental and physical sensations they would cause our poster to experience down to the last detail with the kind of confidence that only men who are terrible in bed possess. Nearly all of them explained that their ultimate purpose was to help their submissives grow as human beings and that they understood that feminism had caused emotional conflicts for women who felt the “natural” “feminine” urge to submit to a (much older and wiser, naturally) man/dad/teacher (for a bunch of purportedly countercultural motherfuckers, these guys sounded an awful lot like Promise Keepers). Many of them addressed our poster as “little one.” Honestly, I thought I was reading the lyrics to a George Michael song half the time. Retch is right. These guys may have even fooled themselves into believing that their particular sexual fetishes are the kinds of things that women “crave deep within their souls,” but they’re kidding themselves with all their talk of transgression.

Now, let’s ignore the smack that ND implies that she knows from these respondents that they really would be “terrible in bed” based on their responses to her “ad”. (OK…you don’t really know these blokes, but you can pass judgment on their personal sex lives merely based on their responses because…what?? Special GenderBorg ESP??? Or merely imposing and projecting your pre-imposed biases about men and sexuality on them?? And remember, these were the least offensive of the bunch.

Then there were the dudes who didn’t bother to pretend there was any kind of philosophical basis for their desire to dominate and humiliate (their words, not mine) women. Their responses were all detailed descriptions of the kinds of sex acts they’d be carrying out on her, with nary a question about what she might fancy. They got very specific about the kinds of tools they were bringing to the table (literally and figuratively) and exactly how they would restrain our poster so they could “rape” her “asshole” and whip her “tits” and “cunt” with whatever instrument their shockingly uncreative minds could come up with (usually a belt). They too described the sensations this would cause for the poster, because they were just positive that they could make her “cum over and over” by hitting her and calling her a “filthy little slut,” a “cum slut,” or a “little whore.” These dudes made no attempt to disguise the fact that they get off on humiliating and hurting women, though they did dress that up a little with candle wax, leather, and various bizarre implements. (A lot of them were really into shibari, a — surprise! — Japanese bondage technique involving rope. Seriously, fuck Japan.)

Oh, please…do we really need such a literal reading?? And since when is “making her cum over and over” (that would be called in the civilian world “giving her an orgasm”, ma’am) considered a part of “humiating and hurting” her….unless you happen to believe that orgasms are part of the problem with BDSM sex…if not, THE WHOLE FRACKIN’ POINT of it all. (And Hello, ND….you were writing as a fem sub wanting a sexual encounter; I’d figure that you’d expect that your respondents would assume that and speak about that they had in mind. If you can’t deal with the answers, don’t ask the question to begin with.)

And then there was the third, and most shocking group, at least in ND’s mind:

The third group was by far the most frightening. They read the word “submissive” and creamed their shorts at the idea that there was a woman out there who’d let them act out Max Hardcore vignettes on her. None of them had anything to say about the “art” of BDSM or the sensations our poster would experience, but rather just told her which hole they’d like to rape her in (guess which one came in at number one) before they ejaculated on her face. Her wishes did come up a few times, always in the form of the insatiable desire to lick semen up after being raped. That’s about all I can say about that lest I break something or kill myself.

First off, Max Hardcore isn’t BDSM; he’s hardcore extreme gonzo.  Second, people responding to sexual fantasies tend to be a bit over-the-top and extreme in private one-on-one sexual conversation, and say things that they would never say or do in the public realm. And third…female dommes can think about “raping” their sub men with the same intensity (men do have mouths and anuses, you know).

The point of all this is that Nine Deuce takes what amounts to be mere extreme sexual fantasies — extreme ones, I’ll acknowledge, but no less fantasy — and makes them out to be actual ACTS that these men want to impose on her “submissive”.  In other words, these men are nothing more than potential rapists, if not ACTUAL rapists for merely speaking of these evil desires to “humiliate” and “abuse” women. The proper analogy here is to call for castrating people for not merely committing adultery, but merely THINKING of it in their brains or speaking of it to another person in private conversation.

But….that’s Nine Deuce’s particular myopia. What Polly Styrene does is simply run the pattern, catch the pass that ND offers, and, like Larry Fitzgerald knifing through the Steeler defense in Super Bowl LXIII, runs with it to the end zone….or, more appropriately, over the edge of Sanity Cliff.

Ok let’s look at what happens in real BDSM. It’s ’safe, sane and consensual’ right?

Well the dude below might have disagreed on BDSM being ’safe’. If he were still alive to disagree that is.

The “dude below” reference is to a tragedy that took place in 2007 where a British businessman was killed in a terribly botch bondage scene when he got suffocated.

Not good.  Also, not representative of what counts for the majority of BDSM. Yes, scenes can go horribly ary with calamitous results….just as planes can go down into the ocean and NASCAR drivers can lose their lives driving at 200+ miles per hour on oval tracks. But we’re talking about sex here, not stock car racing or flying….the rules are different.

And keep in mind the date: 2007. Yeah…one act in two years outweighs countless scenes where nothing even close to tragedy happens.

Polly continues:

And as for consensual. Well this is the argument that was recently put on ‘comment is free’ about why BDSM is different from christian cults. Namely that BDSM has a ’safe word’ and that consent is not given once, but can be withdrawn at any time.

Well even if that IS the case, there are still problems. But let’s be  honest, that’s  not always the case. Because if you are a ’slave’ you give consent once and that’s it.

Actually, the “safeword” is only one means of enforcing consent; another, as Ren Ev has pointed out, is to simply negotiate before the scene takes place what will happen and what is to be expected of both the dom and the sub.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg for Polly to prove the deadliness of BDSN:

Let’s consider the case of Glenn Marcus. Now if you google this guy you will find lots of people on BDSM boards defending him and saying what a great guy he is.

She then quotes freely from Ann Bartow’s Feminist Law Professor’s blog on the story of Glenn Marcus, who apparently is a especially brutal dom who especially loves his BDSM sex excessively violent and “degrading”. (And, who just happened to be a BDSM webmaster of a site (slavespaces dot com) which was a target of the federal government anti-trafficking laws….back in 2007.)

And of course, such evil can only lead to the ultimate slavery, according to Polly (and Ann Bartow), as in the case of “Jodi” (quoting from court testimonials, with emphasis in original):

In October 1999, the defendant arrived in Maryland, where he handcuffed Jodi to the wall and told her that he would punish her after he took a nap. (Tr. at 104.) While she was on the wall, Jodi testified that she had a moment of clarity and decided that she wanted to leave. (Id. at 104-5.) She told Celia, another woman serving the defendant, and Celia helped her get down. (Id. at 105.) Joanna awakened the defendant, who ordered that Jodi be returned to the wall. (Id.) When Jodi informed the defendant that she wanted to leave, he told her to shut up. (Id.) He then put a whiffle ball inside her mouth, closed her lips shut with surgical needles so that she was unable to speak, and placed a hood over her head. (Id. at 105-7.) While she was on the wall, he whipped and beat her with a cane extremely hard for an extended period of time and had sexual intercourse with her. (Id. at 106.) The defendant then took Jodi off the wall and attached her with handcuffs to a flat board, at which point he attempted to sew Jodi’s vagina closed using a sewing needle and thread, only stopping when the needle broke. (Id. at 106-7.) A butt plug was inserted into her anus (Govt. Ex. 2C, at 369, 1223), and the defendant used a knife to carve his initials into the soles of her feet (Tr. at 107). While this incident was taking place, Jodi was crying and screaming. (Id. at 107.) The abuse was photographed and Jodi had to write a diary entry about it, and these were placed on the defendant’s website. (See Tr. at 109; Govt. Ex. 2C at 365-74, 1217-24.) This was the most extreme punishment to which Jodi had ever been subjected. (Tr. at 123.) Prior to this experience, Jodi believed that she would be able to leave any time she wished. (Id. at 108.) However, after this episode, Jodi testified that she felt “completely beaten down,” “trapped and full of terror.” (Id. at 108.) She no longer wished to be involved with the defendant and remained with him only out of fear. (Id. at 170.)

The fact that she did ultimately leave him and even testified about his extreme abuse at his trial means not that much to Bartow or Polly….it’s all about smearing all male doms with the taint of Glenn Marcus.

The article goes on to the usual bit about whacking “feminists who claim that BDSM is a sexuality and we shouldn’t criticize it” as the same old privileged, “elitist” women who masturbate on the backs of “poor women” being ultimately abused and raped.  And then, Polly goes for the jugular:

Yes BDSM takes place in gay relationships, and yes men like to be dominated. But – as the response to Nine Deuce’s ad showed, there are still plenty of men out there who want to dominate and abuse women in horrific ways.

And yes, yawn, yawn, yawn, a BDSM community *controls* these guys. Oh give me strength. Look at all the defence of Glenn Marcus by the ‘BDSM community’. And anyway what about all those women outside the “BDSM community”. Those women who just read an article on the F word. Who are maybe a bit confused, not sure what their feelings are but hey – a feminist website says BDSM is feminist. That’s ok then!

To translate, if you are a “feminist” defending BDSM sex, even if it is freely wanted and consented to by the participants, and even if no injury or harm occurs within the scene, then you are an enabler of rapists and murders and misogynists..and MEN. Doesn’t even matter if you’ve never even heard of Glenn Marcus (or his court case involving prosecution of his website for “sex trafficking” due to its BDSM theme, which is much of the point of all the “defenses” of him)….if you defend him, you are a murderer.  Just as if you defend Douglas Fox’s right to exist as a sex worker, then you are a pimp and a rapist…because we say so.

Q. E. Frackin’ D.

And just in case you forget which side Polly Styrene chooses to roll with, her comments section includes all the usual GenderBorg participants….Stormy, Bonobobabe, mAndrea, Laurelin, and even Nine Deuce gets in on the fun.

I’ll simply let Ms. Bees and Wasps Agent speak for the collective though this comment:

OK, I need some “help” here radfems. I am now fully edumacated on “proper BDSM” and “whoopsies, accidents do happen BDSM”. So, into which category does the following, involving a paid professional, fully empowered and consenting, get put into?

Natel King (porn stage name of Taylor Sum(m)ers):

It’s all just harmless, empowering fun right? Lots of safe words, an “industry” in which a shit load of sex pozzie feminist bloggers promote as being the ultimate achievement of womanyness. In fact, I believe there is a former radfem blogger on the F-Word promoting BDSM as fluffy kittens because her boyfriend likes it, so she does too. (geez, don’t all stampede to point out the lack of even basic feminism in that scenario)

OK, I lied. I don’t really “need help” with this one. Lots of women (and girls) get used up, injured, murdered, in BDSM and porn (and let’s face it, mainstream porn pretty much looks like BDSM porn these days). It is NOT feminist to promote such activities to females as “em-fucking-powering”. It is NOT prudish to be against such mainstream and voluminous damage to the specific females involved and the knock on effect to females in general.

Stop promoting BDSM to other women as empowering and “just play”.

Stop promoting porn (even so called nice porn) to women as empowering and a valid career option.

Stop promoting prostitution as empowering and a valid career option.

It is NOT healthy for the majority of female participants. It is NOT healthy for womankind in general. And it certainly ain’t feminist to promote it.

Now grow up you dim-witted third wave / librul / sex pozzie feminists. And get a fucking clue.

Yup…instead, start promoting the new fourth wave/neoconservative/sex-fascist “feminism” as the new movement??

I think I’ll end this now before I end up throwing my monitor at the wall.



Oh, hark!!  What is that incredible screeching sound I hear in the background???

Why…doesn’t that look like some British woman on a broomstick, flying around like some gnat at a horse’s butt??

Oh, noez…woudn’t that be some antiporn zealot named…what??  Bitchy-Who or whatever???  Oh, sooooo sorry, that would be Witchy-Woo??  My apologies.

And what exactly is she screaming about, anyway??  Would it be because I called her bluff and responded to Nine Deuce’s loaded push poll…..errrrrrr, inquiry on how “pro-porn” males like me should feel about how the product they defend harms women??

Oh, I see…she’s complaining that I didn’t respond directly at ND’s blog, that I kept my response over here.

Gee, I wonder why?? Because there was the distinct notion that if I responded there, then Witchy would have been able to fire more of her stink bombs at me from there??

Oh, wait….she says it’s because she just doesn’t want to come over here and read exactly what I wrote….too dangerous for a prim radicalfeminist to even look at this blog.

That’s pretty hilarious, Witchy….since you were so free to go over to Renegade Evolution’s blog and freely blast her congratulating her for getting fired from her volunteer job at the rape crisis center due to her chosen profession.

And Goddess knows that you weren’t scared in the past to come here and view this blog and comment on my words, or comment on words I’ve posted to other blogs.

Now…does that mean that if I decided to go over there to your blog and copy my answers there, would you be willing to post it without any alterations?? Like you would allow posts from other critics of your positions??

Yeah, right. Like that would ever happen.

Maybe now I see why you were so moved to lighten the shade of that stripper pic you stole from Heart and ND to whiten out the racism intended (and BTW, it didn’t work; you can still see the Black faces there); I guess that you need the light because your regular vision is so darkened by your myopia???

Ahhhh…never mind.  Fly far away, Witchy, and take your flying monkeys with ‘ya.  Your act is steadily tiring.

[Major props to Caroline at Uncool for smoking W-W out and smacking her down.]


Don't Blame the Porno-iarchy, Maggie….Blame Your Own Freakin' Myopia!!

Oh, WOW….Maggie Hays is getting her zealot freak on again.

First off, Mags…did you get permission from Twisty to steal from her tagline??

Secondly…..“porno-iarchy”?!?!?!?! Don’t you know that “porno” as a suffix and a noun went out with the 70’s?? Wouldn’t “porn-iarchy” be a better term???

Now, I’m not going to fisk through the entire thing, since Ren Ev has already done so magnificently. But, let’s just go through some highlights:

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the misogyny, degradation, abuse, and racism that are inherent and blatant in the content of mainstream pornography.

Which means the all the misogyny, degradation, abuse and racism that take place outside of “mainstream pornography” — that is, in the wider world — are perfectly OK with you, Maggie?? As long as they all can be blamed on “the porno-iarchy”??

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the harms caused by pornography to women and children (and sometimes to men) in this unjust male-supremacist society.

Oh…so she actually admits that some men might be harmed by porn?? I thought that all men who used porn were simply innate rapists??

And change “male-supremacist” with “secular” or “Godless” society…and then tell me there’s much difference between this and the Religious Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for so many women and girls having to make themselves look “sexy” or “fuckable” to men in the goal to achieve a false sense of “empowerment” (been there myself when I used to go clubbing).

As if women weren’t doing such before porn became popular?? And what about the idea that the reason some women might dress to make themselves “fuckable” or “sexy” to men (or, perhaps, to other women) might be because she’s actually looking for sex for her own pleasure??

Oh, but of course not….everybody knows that sexual pleasure not redeemed by “deep intimacy” or “radicalfeminist” politics is simply male-defined and invented by the “porno-iarchy” to enslave women in their own selfish orgasms!!! It must be true because Maggie said so!!

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls have to force themselves to have sex when they don’t necessarily want to in order to please their boyfriends and husbands.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls are sexually coerced into sexual acts (coming from the ‘domination/subordination’ pornographic mind) they do not really want to practice.

Oh..and who are you to determine whether women want to or not want to engage in such “domination/subordination” practices?? Even when the woman is in the dominant position?? Of course, even if a woman says outright that she chooses for herself what position she favors, we all know that in a “porno-iarchy”, there is no such thing as mutual consent or even pleasure; it is all nothing short of rape…even if the individual participant insists she was never coerced and that she was never raped; and that she actually wanted to do it.

And….why, Mags, is it only women who are forced to have sex against their will?? Do you assume that men don’t have the same right of refusal when women insist on getting it on??

Oh, I forgot…men are simply coarse animals who can’t control their sexual instincts (unless given the proper radfem treatments of “john schools” and Bob Jensen/Kyle Payne/John Stoltenberg/Richard Leader seminars where they are taught that their penises are nothing short of dangerous weapons to be castrated for the good of society). Therefore, they aren’t capable of self-control….right??

Again…substitute “homosexual” for men and “ex-gay treatment centers” for “john schools…” and you are precisely into crackpot Paul Cameron/NARTH territory. How fitting for a “progressive feminist”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for blaming the victims of rape (saying that’s “her fault, she’s responsible for what happened because blah, blah, blah. . .”) and not the rapists.

Oh, nice one, Maggie…too bad that you can’t find one single example of a leading “pro-porn feminist” ever blaming a woman for being raped. On the other hand, I could find countless examples of antiporn “feminists” going so far as to say that women who dress “sexy” not only deserve to be raped or beaten; but that their very existence triggers men to rape innocent women in response. But…it’s all about the ‘porno-iarchy”, not the scapegoating, slut-shaming, hateful slanders of your side.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the (usual) censoring and demonizing of radical feminists in the malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for accusing us of “siding with religious zealots”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for not letting us rad fems educate enough people on the harms of pornography ’cause of the malestream media being tied to the pornography industry, ’cause pro-porners are endlessly trying to silence us and ’cause of ‘leftist’ liberal stubborn pornography-protecting mind (as Gail Dines & Robert Jensen say ‘Pornography is a Left Issue‘, not a right-wing one)

Too easy, Mags….I don’t see anyone shutting down Gail Dines’ workshops or attempting to censor Bob Jensen’s slideshows or beating down antiporn activists. (Unless you consider Maxine Doogan an antiporn activist, that is. Errrr…OOPS.) And last time I checked, wasn’t Wheelock College a “malestream” institution?? What about the Justice Department, which has funded plenty of Melissa Fairley’s studies that you use to buttress your arguments?? Or the significant support from the Bush Administration that your side has received??

And please….you just don’t get to define what the Left is or should raise as issues, given your close ties to the Farthest of the Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for some women defending pornography and prostitution in the name of ‘feminism’.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the pro-pornstitution ‘feminists’ being unfairly magnified by malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for slandering us, radical feminists, and totally misrepresenting our views or simply not understanding why we’re so angry at the pornstitution industry (because of the HARMS!!!).

Because only tried and true, pure, antiporn “feminists” like Maggie Hays are assumed to be telling the truth; everyone else is merely apeing the “porno-iarchy” in deep denial of the real “HARMS!!!!”) And of course, the “malestream” media simply eats the “pro-porn” lies up….note the big fat $400 MILLION contract that Nina Hartley just received to promote her book on talk radio…..ahhhhh, wait, hold up…..that wasn’t Nina??? That was really that anti-porn feminist activist Rush Limbaugh?? Oh…never mind, so sorry.

The rest of it I will defer to Ren Ev, since she debunks so well.

Actually, this was only the second most whackoid rant that Maggie has produced…the winner I will tackle with a full fisk anon. Hint: Think of broken records and building sock sand castles to knock down.