Get on the fucking ball, janitors.

20 Dec

I was hanging out here at Chez Deuce with Pisaquari the other night when we decided to do a little Google experimentin’. You see, despite having issued challenges in the past to my many porn-apologist readers requesting that they produce an example of “feminist” (or at least non-misogynistic) porn, I have yet to see one of these unicorns myself. I don’t particularly care whether I ever do see one, being as I don’t need other people to tell me what to think about in order to jack off, but I would like to see some evidence if people are going to keep making the claim that not all porn is necessarily laden with woman hatred. I also don’t really understand why people — especially feminists — spend so much time and energy discussing three feminist outliers that may or may not exist while ignoring the three billion or so misogynistic porn images that definitely do exist.

So we googled “feminist porn” to see what we’d find. What we got was 322,000 results, most of which were discussions by feminists of whether such a thing as feminist porn can or does exist, along with a very, very small number of sites claiming to offer “woman friendly” porn. On the first page of results, there were only two that contained any porn or links thereto, and there wasn’t another one until the fifth page of results. From there on out, I didn’t see any at all and eventually got tired of seeing the same summary results over and over: rehashings of the ol’ “is feminist porn an oxymoron” debate and interviews with women who claim to be both feminists and porn stars. Interesting.

We weren’t exactly shocked at the results, though I think we were both a bit surprised that there were only three sites within five pages professing to offer feminist porn. I mean, I know that most self-proclaimed feminist porn fails comically to live up to its name, but I still figured there’d be more than three sites in five pages claiming to make the grade. We decided to compare those results with other search terms for niche varieties of porn we assumed would garner a similar number of hits.

TRIGGER WARNING

We googled “rape porn.” We got 1,860,000 results, and the entire first page, a link to the Wikipedia article on tentacle rape porn notwithstanding, was made up of links to sites offering rape porn. On the first five pages, every single result save three was a rape porn site. Some quotes: “Crying young teen bitches in violent rape porn movies!,” “Weeping chicks getting their holes probed by countless men in a row or even at once – all without their approval, all at inimitable Gang Rape Videos!,” “Rape these bitches so hard they bleed from torn ass holes and abused pussies.”

We googled “brutal porn.” We got 2,810,000 results, and every single result in the first five pages except for one news story about a brutal child porn ring was a site offering things like “Brutal sex, throatfuck mixed up with brutal face fucking” and “some of the scariest porn on the net.”

We googled “dog porn.” We got 47,600,000 results, and aside from a few articles about a porn actor who killed a dog and some dumbass asking what would happen if his dog watched porn on Yahoo! Answers, the entirety of the first five pages were made up of sites offering things like “Dog fucks wet pussy. Huge horsecock in teen pussyand “dog fucking girls, woman drink animal cum, beast cumshot.”

Sigh. For god’s sake. Can we face the fucking facts, PLEASE? There are nearly six times more hits for “rape porn” than there are for “feminist porn,” nearly nine times more results for “brutal porn,” and nearly one hundred forty-eight times as many results for “dog porn.” In all three instances, the top results were all for sites offering images of women being brutalized, raped, or fucked by animals, with nary a news article, blog post, or interview with anyone who might take issue with the existence of propaganda that teaches men and boys that women and girls are subhuman and available for raping. I know how search engine optimization works, but I also know that the number of times people click on a certain site in relation to a given search term plays a role in that site’s position in the results for future searches for that term.

Do you know what that means? No one clicks on sites that claim to offer feminist porn. Lots of people click on sites that offer rape porn. Were feminist porn to actually exist, it wouldn’t matter, because no one is looking for feminist porn and no one cares to see what it might look like because people don’t watch porn to see two equals going at it. While we waste our time arguing about whether feminist porn exists, whether a feminist can be into mainstream porn without getting kicked out of the club, whether women can participate in the production of mainstream porn and still claim to be feminists, etc., men are producing and consuming enough brutal porn to drown us all in a purulent swamp of misogyny. It ain’t men these sites are claiming we’ll get to see fucked by donkeys, anally gang raped, brutally throat fucked, and covered in jizz. It’s women, and it’s women who have to live in a world saturated with images of women being degraded, debased, dehumanized, and despised. Who gives a shit, in this context, if a couple of tattooed, 115 IQ havin’, zombie lovin’ drama club geeks think they’ve found a way to make a video of two people fucking that doesn’t involve the woman being called a whore?

We had to try to find something even more recherche than feminist porn. We tried “pizza porn” (3,190,000 results) and got a combo of photos foodies had taken of pizzas with ridiculous shit on them and sites about introducing “sluts” to “big sausages.” We tried “rodeo porn” (748,000 results) and were treated to sites featuring topless women riding bulls and being porked by rednecks. So, of course, we tried “redneck porn” (725,000 results) and found out there are thousands of sites that amalgamate cousin incest and deer hunting into one rompin’ good time. We checked out “homeless porn” (1,050,000 results), “cop porn” (2,730,000 results), “emo porn” (2,920,000 results), “fart porn” (1,680,000 results), “shit porn” (6,490,000 results), “fraternity porn” (387,000 results), and “puke porn” (1,620,000 results). It seemed we’d never find a porn genre that had generated less interest than feminist porn when at last we stumbled upon it. Janitor porn! Only 239,000 hits! But to be fair to janitors and lovers of janitor porn, there were quite a few actual porn sites with clips like “Janitor Pretends he Rich give SLUTS fake Vodka for Group Sex” within the first five pages of results, so even though “janitor porn” might generate fewer results than “feminist porn,” there might actually be more janitor porn than there is feminist porn (really, I’m sure there is, since I’ve now seen janitor porn and have yet to see feminist porn).

Let’s get some perspective here, huh? When someone spends 99% of their time defending .0000001% of an industry while avoiding confronting the 99.9999999% of the industry that has real effects on women’s lives, that person looks a bit delusional/defensive/dishonest. Let it go, dude. Admit that you know porn is bad for women and you use it, participate in it, or profit from it anyway. You aren’t fooling anyone here, and I doubt that you’re even fooling yourself.

328 Responses to “Get on the fucking ball, janitors.”

  1. Hecate December 20, 2010 at 4:52 PM #

    This is so to the point, it blows me away. When you started listing those statistics ND, it was very visceral to me. The higher the numbers went, the more I could feel male hatred of women escalating.

    We need more bloggers like you, but that may prove difficult, as you are clearly 1 in 7 billion… And that’s a statistic you should be well proud of.

  2. Aileen Wuornos December 20, 2010 at 5:02 PM #

    Also wish to echo the THANK YOU.
    Quick experiment:

    1. Google “porn”
    2. Click #1 result, porn hub dot com
    3. See titles such as “Big tit Laura slammed in the ass” “Sunny Lane Gets Cunt Stretched” etc etc and see
    4. Add for website “Brazzers”, advertisement features a womon in a “sex scene” that reminds me of one of my own rapes, in the add you see her slapped in the face, dragged by her hair and choked before being held down and penetrated.
    5. Google “Brazzers” get following results:
    ‘Teens Like It Big
    Big Tits at Work
    Pornstars Punishment
    Milfs Like it Big’
    6. Realise you’re only proving Nine’s point and continue
    7. Google “Brazzers + rating” and see that on average, this website scores 7+ by men.
    8. Conclusion, porn = misogynist, end of story.

    “men are producing and consuming enough brutal porn to drown us all in a purulent swamp of misogyny. It ain’t men these sites are claiming we’ll get to see fucked by donkeys, anally gang raped, brutally throat fucked, and covered in jizz. It’s women, and it’s women who have to live in a world saturated with images of women being degraded, debased, dehumanized, and despised. Who gives a shit, in this context, if a couple of tattooed, 115 IQ havin’, zombie lovin’ drama club geeks think they’ve found a way to make a video of two people fucking that doesn’t involve the woman being called a whore?”

    Fucking word.

    “Let’s get some perspective here, huh? When someone spends 99% of their time defending .0000001% of an industry while avoiding confronting the 99.9999999% of the industry that has real effects on women’s lives, that person looks a bit delusional/defensive/dishonest. Let it go, dude. Admit that you know porn is bad for women and you use it, participate in it, or profit from it anyway. You aren’t fooling anyone here, and I doubt that you’re even fooling yourself.

    SO TRUE.

  3. Owl Eyes December 20, 2010 at 5:53 PM #

    holy shit.

  4. elkballet December 20, 2010 at 5:54 PM #

    I actually had a draft of almost exactly the same experiment waiting to be published. I find it ridiculous when people try to claim they watch feminist porn or non-violent porn. I had someone who claimed this actually link me to what they watched. This supposed non-violent porn consisted of a woman gagging on a penis (it wasn’t violent because she wasn’t crying) then taking it roughly up the butt (again not violent because she was pretending to smile) and then getting a cumshot to the face. Non-violent my ass. These defenders of non-violent feminist porn just have their head in the sand. It’s very hard to face a reality that you get turned on brutalizing and raping women. It’s much easier to just pretend it’s only everyone else and you’re so different. It’s especially easy to do if a) most others are doing it too and b) you’re reinforcing this with an orgasm.

    In a study by Kaiser on the third-person effect, they found that although almost 3/4 of people thought sexual media affected others either a lot (~50%) or somewhat (~20%), over half of respondents felt that they weren’t affected at all by sexual media and the majority of the rest said very little. Less than 10% said a lot. So people can be really thick and stupid when it comes to things they are personally invested in.

  5. pisaquaririse December 20, 2010 at 6:12 PM #

    Somehow feminists have come to believe making material that the rapists, misogynists and sexists *don’t want to watch* will undermine their rape-y desires.

  6. Hecate December 20, 2010 at 6:24 PM #

    What a great post elkballet. It’s a perfection description of the hypocritical world of the porn apologist. And I do feel that men have never, at any point in history, been honest about the fact that violence against women turns them on.

  7. isme December 20, 2010 at 7:52 PM #

    Great post, ND.

    “These defenders of non-violent feminist porn just have their head in the sand.”

    I’d disagree. I’d say they’d be more likely to be lying through their teeth, though I’m at a loss to explain why they bother when society is on their side.

  8. ocdaydreamer December 20, 2010 at 7:53 PM #

    The closest thing I would come to “feminist porn” would be I series of short videos I saw at a friend’s house. They were videos (professionally done, I think, but not “high-res”) of women making each other orgasm in different ways. There were no men, and it didn’t really look like it was made for men or by men. There wasn’t any violence that I recall (although I didn’t watch them all)–no rough fucking, no gagging on anything, and definitely no rape.

    But even thought it was non-violent, I wouldn’t really call it “feminist” porn. I mean, does “not violent against women”=feminist? That sounds kind of like praising someone for NOT raping someone. I mean, do we have to lower our standards so much that everything that’s not anti-feminist is feminist?

    I’m afraid, honestly. Because when someone says they’re “into porn,” I know that chances are, it’s violent porn (even like, as elkballet said, they don’t THINK it’s violent porn). I hate to even talk about porn to the men in my life.

    It makes me sick that stuff like Max Hardcore is so popular. I despise that man more than any other non-murderer on earth, but I can’t even say “I wish he’d die,” because even if he did, someone else would take his place. Hell, even now, they’re trying to make porn more and more “edgy” and it terrifies me when I wonder how much further they’re going to go.

  9. one angry girl December 20, 2010 at 8:47 PM #

    Let me be the first to say…THANK YOU.

  10. Hecate December 20, 2010 at 11:28 PM #

    ‘Perfect,’ even! :D Sorry, had a long day!

  11. concetta Falcone-Codding December 21, 2010 at 7:33 AM #

    Let me say THAnk you Girls for your work. Please I have been trying to email the writers of this website. I wish to say “all my life I felt like they do” and I want to say more not on this comment. please email me
    at
    sarah_falcone@yahoo.com
    God bless you, I write too, and am writing a memoir..

  12. Miss Andrist December 21, 2010 at 7:34 AM #

    @9/2:

    Thank you for being able to do what I probably won’t ever. Another link in my arsenal of What (Exactly) Is Wrong With This Shit.

    – et al –

    So, YouPorn. It’s supposedly like YouTube except, porny. Of the most popular websites on teh interwebs, it’s #74.

    An ex-Nigel told me about it – or rather, explained it while I was trying to cope with the reality of being a web developer. I have never gone there (let’s call avoidance of triggers with the potential to induce suicidal ideation a phobic aversion) so I have no idea. I can’t believe it is what he insisted it is: “what if people just enjoy showing off?”

    We came up with a theoretical situation where the sexually explicit is just that – and not objectionable – on another thread. His premise (like so many of them who “don’t like ‘that’ kind of porn” or “only like amateur”) was that amateurs can be presumed to be there willingly.

    Unfortunately for the state of the world and my peace of mind, I can’t accept these easy arguments, because I know that this (TRIGGER WARNING):

    http://womensrights.change.org/blog/view/whos_getting_off_on_the_sexual_coercion_in_kendra_wilkinsons_sex_tape

    even exists.

    Has anybody else addressed the amateur-is-okay bullshit?

    -Miss Andrist
    Lover of Men

    • Nine Deuce December 21, 2010 at 1:00 PM #

      People love to tell me amateur is OK. They figure it absolves them of guilt if the people aren’t being paid and are just doing it because they want to. The problem is, how can anyone be sure that the women being taped a) know they’re being taped and b) agreed to have the video made public. And leaving that simple argument aside, there’s always the analysis of why a woman would allow herself to be taped and the difference in intent between the man and the woman in making amateur porn. People will grasp at anything before they’ll admit porn is a problem.

      • 50shadesofharm June 27, 2013 at 11:45 PM #

        The amateur pornography is made by people who have been taught and are imitating the same distorted,sexist,male dominated,female submission woman-hating definitions of hetereosexuality that the “professional” pornography teaches,sexualizes,and normalizes because it teaches no healthy equal alternatives!

      • pbutterfly2000 November 12, 2013 at 11:20 AM #

        I’ve read from prostitution survivor accounts that “amateur” porn was made of these women without their consent, often while they were being gang-raped or otherwise brutalized, heavily drugged, having sex with a dog, often crying and screaming for mercy. People need to realize that that’s partially what they are defending when they defend “amateur” porn – the filmed rape of sex slaves.

  13. Feminist at Sea December 21, 2010 at 7:34 AM #

    I recently came across some delusional/hopeful talking about the feminist porn awards. I watched their video of the awards and one performers got an award for the best “gonzo porn scene”. Feminist fail, in my opinion.

  14. Fede December 21, 2010 at 9:25 AM #

    Pisaquari rocks!

  15. Sophie December 21, 2010 at 12:54 PM #

    ‘Let’s get some perspective here, huh? When someone spends 99% of their time defending .0000001% of an industry while avoiding confronting the 99.9999999% of the industry that has real effects on women’s lives, that person looks a bit delusional/defensive/dishonest. Let it go, dude. Admit that you know porn is bad for women and you use it, participate in it, or profit from it anyway. You aren’t fooling anyone here, and I doubt that you’re even fooling yourself.’

    This paragraph is fucking perfect.

  16. Mary Tracy December 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM #

    I applaud your strength for carrying out this “experiment”. It is truly frightening.
    I have lost all patience with the whole “feminist porn” argument long time ago.
    Funnily enough, yesterday I came across this comment by someone on the David Icke forum (don’t ask), and though it doesn’t say anything particularly new, it’s interesting to think about this perspective,

    “From a spiritual point of view, could there be much worse than being pulled into Life, into a physical body — via porn ?

    Both their minds, at the moment of conception, are in a frenzy of artificially stimulated lust by the sights and sounds of other people having faux sex, possibly using children or animals in the process

    And you wonder why the world’s going down the pan ?

    You wonder why young kids want off the planet – why they hate themselves ?

    Anyone with an ounce of genuine spirituality (not religion … spirituality) could not promote or condone or defend porn. It is the ultimate debasement of the soul

    So those who defend porn via whatever means, are choosing flesh over spirit

    Who/what inhabits your children or the children you’re going to put on the planet ? Will you be fantasising about porn as you impregnate your partner/are impregnated ? Or will your desire be generated by love for your partner ? “

    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059527502&postcount=99

    It’s interesting, not to mention refreshing, to question the existence of porn on spiritual grounds.

  17. Mary Tracy December 21, 2010 at 1:30 PM #

    Pisaquari rocks too! Thanks to you both. And where is she? I haven’t seen any new posts in her blog in ages!

  18. Fede December 21, 2010 at 1:44 PM #

    I am giving out the link to this post to all the men I know who read English. Then, I am translating the text into Danish to give to the rest.

    After that, if any of them so much as breathe a word other than

    “I see now, and I am sickened that I have been blind to these horrifying facts. I apologise and will never watch porn again,”

    I am shutting them out of my life.

  19. Nine Deuce December 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM #

    Thank you, everyone, for the lovely compliments. Please also thank Pisaquari as she had to suffer through just as much as I did to make this post happen, and she came up with the idea to google janitor porn (because she’s hilarious).

  20. Aileen Wuornos December 21, 2010 at 6:05 PM #

    “Somehow feminists have come to believe making material that the rapists, misogynists and sexists *don’t want to watch* will undermine their rape-y desires.”

    IMHO, the fact that porn users can and do regularly increase their intake and the extremity of the pornography they watch contradicts their little bullshits like this.

    “The closest thing I would come to “feminist porn” would be I series of short videos I saw at a friend’s house. They were videos (professionally done, I think, but not “high-res”) of women making each other orgasm in different ways. There were no men, and it didn’t really look like it was made for men or by men. There wasn’t any violence that I recall (although I didn’t watch them all)–no rough fucking, no gagging on anything, and definitely no rape.”

    The power play and violence in this one is that the camera’s taking the place of a phallic object, and the presumed audience (I am more than willing to bet) is still men, even if it’s not, that’s who the main audience is going to be.

    ” People love to tell me amateur is OK. They figure it absolves them of guilt if the people aren’t being paid and are just doing it because they want to. The problem is, how can anyone be sure that the women being taped a) know they’re being taped and b) agreed to have the video made public. And leaving that simple argument aside, there’s always the analysis of why a woman would allow herself to be taped and the difference in intent between the man and the woman in making amateur porn. People will grasp at anything before they’ll admit porn is a problem.”

    Totally agree, not to mention, one must wonder how many womyn and girls were raped, filmed and had a video posted online under the guise of amateur porn?

    “I’ve seen far too many of those kinds of videos posted as “revenge” against a girlfriend/wife/whoever to think that it’s all fine. There’s a lot of crap under that rock too.

    This too.

  21. Lishra December 21, 2010 at 7:12 PM #

    That’s quite the telling experiment. And I totally agree about “amateur” porn being way problematic too. I’ve seen far too many of those kinds of videos posted as “revenge” against a girlfriend/wife/whoever to think that it’s all fine. There’s a lot of crap under that rock too. Ugg… just the thought of men wanting to watch porn because they know the woman didn’t agree to have the video be distributed. The world: it’s awful.

  22. Imaginary December 21, 2010 at 11:07 PM #

    Porn is a brainwashing system you can use at home. I am truly afraid of what comes next. I found some of my step-dad’s porn (from the 70′s); it involved copious amounts of rape and incest. This was considered “soft core”. This has got to be stopped. Men need to know that there are consequences to abusing womin. We can’t just reason with them any more.

  23. ocdaydreamer December 22, 2010 at 1:47 AM #

    The power play and violence in this one is that the camera’s taking the place of a phallic object, and the presumed audience (I am more than willing to bet) is still men, even if it’s not, that’s who the main audience is going to be.

    Are you suggesting that women wouldn’t be aroused by a visual depiction of sex, or that no woman would allow herself to be videotaped? I don’t mean to sound snarky or anything–I’m curious about the statement that the camera is taking the place of a phallic object. The tone of the video didn’t really “feel” like it was made for men. My friends told me it was made “by women, for women.”

    Another question is (to anyone), is there some kind of distinguishing between “porn” and “visual depictions of people having sex that is meant to sexually arouse, but is not violent or degrading”? I mean, when I think of mainstream porn, I think of fake and unrealistic depictions of women, lack of respect for those women, “dirty” talk that sounds over-the-top even to those who like “dirty” talk (words like “dong” and “twat” come to mind), and often as much infantilization as is possible without straying into actual child pornography.

    But is there any sort of visual erotica that’s not violent or degrading? Or does there always have to be some power game going on?

    And I’m not talking about “woman as dominatrix” porn, either. I’ve never thought that was feminist, although I’ve heard of people misusing the word “feminist” to describe it.

    • pbutterfly2000 November 12, 2013 at 12:42 PM #

      I think male-produced porn is almost always about power, and also about transgression and taboo. I have a theory that one reason porn has gotten SO bad recently is that men want to have their taboo spaces, their spaces that are men-only spaces where no women are allowed and where they can be naughty boys doing something bad. I think the taboo or naughtiness of sex is what turns a lot of people on (both men and women). But the men have to keep climbing to higher and higher peaks of humiliation and degradation to rise above the tide where the women keep lapping at their heels and flooding their space, adapting neatly to every new horror that the men create in an attempt to shock and stun women enough that their spaces remain woman-free. Essentially these men need to make their virgin/whore separations, and they can’t do so when every women they know thinks it’s cool to be a porn star etc. I think of Bette Gordon’s film VARIETY and how a woman in one scene went into a sex shop and watched the men looking at porn, and how invaded and angry the men felt. They wanted to be in the position of looking, not of being looked at. They refused to be objectified by her being a voyeur to their voyeurism.

      The truly odd thing about porn is that it’s a “no women allowed” space in which the objects are women. So women are allowed, but only in one capacity. This is what every porn video screams out at us, over and over again: no women allowed, unless naked, colonized, dehumanized, without agency. I can think of early attempts in porn to erase those power dynamics with some of the films of one director, Henry Paris. He was trying to “mainstream” porn, to make it into a legitimate theatrical experience for couples. One film in particular, NAKED CAME THE STRANGER, seems to have come close to the goal of equitable porn. That film is about a married couple, each of whom has an affair with someone else before they get back together at the end. At the beginning of the film they go to a costume party as Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, but cross-dressed, with the wife as Fred Astaire and the husband as Ginger Rogers. The wife’s affair is done as a black-and-white silent movie, completely romantic, whereas the husband’s is more comic. But the true climax of the film is the hot, tender, loving sex that the couple has at the end of the film. I think it may be the only film I’ve ever seen that portrays sexual love between a married couple in that way. There were other examples of erotica and porn (the sex novels especially) from the ’60s and ’70s that tried to include women as equal partners in sexual experience. But this market flopped once more degrading porn came on the market, and porn became not something cinema artists and real novelists made, but just an industry catering to specific misogynistic needs. (I still would not call this porn feminist – just equal and potentially pleasurable for both sexes).

      I think what men discovered when they tried to indoctrinate women into porn and women started to actually like porn (and even to like sex more) is that the taboo element was squashed for them. They used to have the men’s club, and in fact almost every workplace was a men’s club with females servicing the males as secretaries who often doubled as mistresses. Now, with that club culture mostly gone, and ever larger numbers of women in the workplace, they have their internet spaces which they try to ban women from. But the internet is open, so they can’t get those spaces free of women either. But the main aphrodisiac seems to be in the power, the banning of the women from men’s spaces and relegating them to powerless objects for male consumption. Back when nudity was taboo in the 1950s, it was degrading enough to have a woman pose nude in a centerfold to arouse men’s taboo fantasies; now alas they need much more.

      What I find so ludicrous in women’s attempts to like and accept degrading porn is that men never intended for women to accept or like it. Their whole point is to make it as misogynistic and disgusting as possible so that they can have their men-only spaces. Female apologists for male misogyny must be seen as great fools by men. The men WANT to be misogynists. That is the whole point.

      All of that said, I think Catherine Breillat makes feminist porn.

  24. Rainbow Riot December 22, 2010 at 3:13 AM #

    Effing brilliant. The statistics really, really helped to create a mental image of the magnitude of this shit. I don’t think many people realize that A LOT of men watch the kinds of porn listed in the post. And it is scary to think that most of the men who search for things like “dog porn” probably have girlfriends, wives, children, etc. It is normal in our society to watch porn, because it is assumed that men need it. In reality, they don’t need it, they want it, because it sells them the all too real image of them being in total control. Even all woman, “non-violent”, “feminist” porn is made for men. The biggest con they ever pulled on us is making us think that we need it and want it, too.

  25. kurukurushoujo December 22, 2010 at 6:43 AM #

    Thank you for this post, ND. Some people continue to completely disregard the very obvious demand/supply mechanism here.

  26. factcheckme December 22, 2010 at 6:49 AM #

    Well done 9/2. I would also add that the underlying assumption for those who think het porn could ever be “feminist” is that there’s nothing wrong with PIV itself. Which of course there is. Even anti porn activists, particularly perhaps MALE anti porn activists, seem to miss this point entirely, the result being to frame the problem as a “consent” problem (or an economic coersion problem or a trafficking problem) which of course it is. BUT. Its also a problem of men thinking its perfectly ok, even allegedly feminist men think this, to place women in harms way by sticking their dicks into them under a variety of circumstances. Even anti porn and anti prostitution work, as we currently know it, normalizes PIV, and piv-centric sexuality. Which obviously benefits men.

  27. factcheckme December 22, 2010 at 7:03 AM #

    Anyway, my point is that het sexuality in its entirety, because its piv-centric and therefore uniquely and particularly harmful to women, is based on woman-hatred. Putting it on film doesn’t solve any of this. Noone is saying it does, not even the fucking piv-pozzies who think there’s any such thing as feminist het porn. But that’s only because they have swallowed woman-hating het sexuality in its entirety, and can’t see the forest for the trees.

    • 50shadesofharm June 27, 2013 at 11:49 PM #

      Hetereosexual former porn using guy tells the truth about pornography and what is blatantly very obvious!

      Forum Name Women’s Rights

      http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … x6696#6812

      6812, Since you
      Posted by gaspee on Sat Mar-31-07 08:28 AM

      – (warning for frank language.)

      Seem to think only people who have seen a lot of porn are qualified to speak, I might meet your qualifications. I’ve watched a lot of porn. I used to have no problem with porn. I *write* erotica for a few online magazines. A few years ago, I got so ed by het porn that I’ve never watched it again. I will watch gay porn, either m/m or made for *women* f/f. I won’t watch made for men f/f.

      porn is degrading to women. Period. Mainstream porn, especailly. I’ve watched a lot of it over the years. I’m no spring chicken. I don’t have a problem watching m/m porn. Funny, that. Know why? because I don’t take it personally when men are treated like a f*ck hole. Hmmm… I think I’m onto why most men don’t have a problem watching women turned into nothing but a place to stick their d*ck.

      When watching for what passes as mainstream porn these days, I get sick to my stomach. Anal, face f*cking to the point where the poor girl is next to vomiting, slapping, demeaning talk. it’s all there in mainstream porn. Why men are so turned on by anal in het porn has always been a mystery to me. Why women do it is another mystery. I can get why men have anal sex. Women do it because men want them to.

      What makes me the most sick is the look in the girls’, oh sorry, *actresses*, eyes. It f*cking kills me these days, which is why I don’t watch het porn any more.

      And I’m speaking as someone who has seen a lot of it.

      Now put on some Bel Ami stuff and my girlfriend and I are quite happy. Why? Watch it sometime, then watch the current top five or ten selling het porn titles and I think you’ll see the difference. And if you don’t, that’s a little scary.

      And to continually say that het porn “isn’t like that” and looking at the top selling and rented titles makes me think you are being disingenious or in plain old denial.

      Because the most popular het porn is like that.

      And someone doesn’t have to watch a lot of porn to see just how degrading to women it is.

      Forum Name Women’s Rights

      Topic subject Hmmm, no response to your post. Wonder why?

      Topic URL http://www.democraticunderground.com/di … x6696#6835

      Posted by Morgana LaFey on Wed Apr-04-07 10:14 PM

      And someone doesn’t have to watch a lot of porn to see just how degrading to women it is.

      Yup.

      and:

      I don’t have a problem watching m/m porn. Funny, that. Know why? because I don’t take it personally when men are treated like a f*ck hole. Hmmm… I think I’m onto why most men don’t have a problem watching women turned into nothing but a place to stick their d*ck.’

      Especially when they’ve been taught and continously reassured that women LIKE that, or if they don’t something wrong with them.

  28. skeptifem December 22, 2010 at 4:23 PM #

    factcheckme- your PIV obsession weirds me out, and I have tried repeatedly to read your blog and understand what your deal is but I can’t. It doesn’t make any friggin sense. You don’t have to have ANY position on PIV to be anti-porn.

  29. Nelle December 22, 2010 at 5:27 PM #

    Everytime I hear that there’s “woman” porn and “feminist” porn I start to laugh. The only female porn is in those dumb romance novels, and even that’s training women to be dickminded. I laugh at those novels. Anyway, about the pornyponies..

    You’d think they would be foaming at the mouth at the people who actually like having the foulest,most degrading shit in their porn, but nope. As usual,it’s the woman’s fault for pointing out the ugliness of porn . I mean women need to just get that, they like freaky deeky sick shit, and “STOP SEEING ALL THE NEGATIVES AND LOOK AT THE POSITIVES”!

    • Nine Deuce December 22, 2010 at 10:15 PM #

      I like that word, “dickminded.”

  30. Nelle December 22, 2010 at 5:42 PM #

    Also great post, I forgot to mention. Many of your posts are great,to be honest. Been lurking around some feminist blogs for a tidbit.

    And it sickens me so how people are abusing animals and women in porn. I don’t even want to ever encounter someone who actually likes that. It kind of creeps me out-one of those sickos could be in your house-you could be dating them.

    Anyway “Feminist” porn is a Lochness Monster -I keep hearing about it,but no one’s ever shown me it. It all just like a giant pile of male-centered sickfuckery.

    Porn will never be female-centric,or be pro-female because its foundation was BUILT ON MISOGYNY, funfems. You can have a small little apartment, but the men have the entire building. The.Entire.Building. And you’re defending your wee little apartment, the apartment they ALLOWED you to have. Don’t get too “open-minded”,though,they’ll kick you out and just stop pretending altogether they are feminist men.

  31. No Sugarcoating December 22, 2010 at 5:58 PM #

    Every porn post you make is so on point. It baffles me how anyone can read this and not understand.

    @factcheckme – Saying that heterosexuality in its entirety is misogynist is a bold statement. I’m not challenging it, but I am confused as to how you came to this conclusion. It would be difficult to normalize PIV sexuality as it is already the most normal, natural sex act there is. It is our sexual reproduction. You could say that many, or even the vast majority of men see PIV as a way to degrade a woman, but how can PIV itself be inherently degrading when it is actually instinctual for a women to desire it and required for the survival of any animal species? Does this not also deny that the vagina is a sex organ designed to give women pleasure? Do you have a specific blog post that would answer these questions? This is probably something you get asked a lot.

    I completely respect the desire for less emphasizing on sex = penetration, because it is male-centric, but the vagina is a sex organ, unlike the mouth, anus, etc. No one can claim that the desire for vaginal sex is cultural.

  32. Jilla December 22, 2010 at 6:12 PM #

    You forgot one. Or maybe you didn’t. I had to squint and scroll really fast so as not to get sick(er).

    Elderly/senior porn. Women in their 80s, seemingly drugged, being raped while in beds. Nursing homes, chronic care, retirement homes, I assume. Pictures of anal, vaginal and oral pentration, cum-shots to the face, and in all, the women (of course it’s women) have their eyes closed and their bodies are slack, and being held in position. In some cases they are painful looking positions no woman of that age could achieve, with the preponderance of joint and arthritis damage many of them might have.

    I saw this first about six years ago, and similar, a few months ago when googling “women’s sexuality” “aging women and sexuality” and “mature women and sexuality”. I was looking for information on STD prevalence and condom use in older women.

    • Nine Deuce December 22, 2010 at 10:13 PM #

      We did look up “granny porn” (6,330,000 results) but didn’t think to do “senior.” Jesus fucking Christ, dude.

  33. sneeky bunny December 22, 2010 at 6:56 PM #

    I second Skeptifem. I too have gone over to your blog and have had similar difficulty. If PIV is not for you, then I say good for you, but I am uncomfortable with it becoming a feminist litmus test; to wit: if one has heterosexual PIV sex, then one is not a feminist. That is too narrow a definition and I’m kind of afraid that’s where you’re heading.

  34. Mary Tracy December 22, 2010 at 7:33 PM #

    All forms of “visual erotica” are morally questionable. Period. I always found it particularly fascinating how people, well, men, feel “entitled” to have “visual stimulation” for their sexual desire. Why should other people have to copulate in front of a camera for other people to watch? Seen from this angle, it’s pretty obvious that unless there’s a class hierarchy or a power hierarchy, there is no incentive for people to effectively sell a part of their sexual lives for money. That is what makes it immoral. If everyone was equal, nobody would actually take part in erotica for anyone else’s benefit.
    The commodification of human sexuality, which is what takes place for “erotica” to be produced and sold, is morally wrong. Sexuality is a part of people’s lives, and it can never be either bought or sold.

  35. sneeky bunny December 22, 2010 at 8:50 PM #

    Sorry, didn’t mean to be redundant. PIV, of course, implies hetero sex.

  36. ocdaydreamer December 22, 2010 at 10:27 PM #

    Mary Tracey – Thanks a lot for explaining.

  37. sneeky bunny December 22, 2010 at 11:23 PM #

    Oh I have a question! ND I am assuming in your research you came across the site Crashpad, and I am curious what your thoughts might be about it since it’s a by dyke for dyke operation. I think I have preeeeetty good idea where you come down on main stream hetero porn made by and for those in possession of The Penis(tm) by this time :) and I want to be clear that I am not asking this question as a segue to a defense of horse fucking or any of the other truly appalling examples of main stream porn you have brought to our attention.
    Personally I would be interested in a feminist critique of sites like Crashpad and to discuss where it might fall with in the porn continuum.

    • Nine Deuce December 22, 2010 at 11:41 PM #

      I don’t usually discuss anything but mainstream het porn (and the more egregious excesses of het porn niche genres). I’m familiar with the problem of gender roles and hierarchy being recreated in lesbian and gay porn, but I don’t tend to discuss it a lot as I’m trying to stick to the 99% rather than the outliers. I suppose I may need to check it out and come up with a real stance, but I kind of feel like that might better be done by a lesbian feminist.

  38. sneeky bunny December 22, 2010 at 11:55 PM #

    Fair enough, thanks! :)

  39. skeptifem December 23, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    re: amateur porn

    A poster on my blog said their rape was taped and put on amateur sites.

    I think I may be different than a lot of radical feminists because before I came to be one I watched a shitload of porn. I had a boyfriend who worked in a porn store, and I would hang out there with him, and we would rent a lot of it and watch it for non-sexual purposes. We would rent the weird stuff to laugh at it and whatnot. I saw a lot of shit that I wish I could unsee. A lot of amateur porn is about emulating mainstream pornography, its like an endless depressing loop of how many people do not understand how to fuck outside of the pornography model of it. I don’t know why people tell me that is better somehow, it looks exactly the same as far as content goes. There are some amateur porn videos out there that are very obviously of women trafficked for sex tourism (sometimes the women don’t speak any english), where the johns paid to tape it. Amateur porn is also exempt from the small amount of laws that apply to pornography- the possibility of someone being underaged goes wayyyyy up considering that. Even in porn that is just photos of naked people there are models who show up for “test shoots” of photos and then don’t get officially hired or paid, and the shots get distributed out on the internet anyway. Its just completely fucked, all of it.

    A lot of dudes are willing to admit the inherent humiliation present in capitalism ( tons of em seem to like Office Space), but couldn’t possibly see how sex work could make the problems more egregious. Its “just a job” because they aren’t doing it, I guess.

  40. Jilla December 23, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    “(…) but the vagina is a sex organ, unlike the mouth, anus, etc. No one can claim that the desire for vaginal sex is cultural.”

    One could argue that it’s not the vagina which is the female sex organ, but the clitoris, with most of it arcing around the whole of the vulvar area.

  41. Undercover Punk December 23, 2010 at 7:52 AM #

    but how can PIV itself be inherently degrading when it is actually instinctual for a women to desire it and required for the survival of any animal species?

    Uhhh, because heterosexuality is COMPULSORY. We no longer have instincts, save survival. And even so, I do not have to restrain myself from killing-to-eat my little doggie when I’m really, really hungry and have nothing in the house to eat. Heterosexuality is coerced and forced upon all of us under the threat of social ostracization, and in some places, even DEATH. And hetero-normativity is, clearly, about male supremacy. FCM has PIV on LOCK DOWN and if y’all don’t get it already– how dangerous it is EVERY.FUCKING.TIME.– it’s because you don’t WANT to get it. The moment that humans figured out that PIV = baby, it should’ve STOPPED except for the specific purpose of procreation. As we can see, this has YET to happen, despite overpopulation that threatens our species’ very survival!

    Does this not also deny that the vagina is a sex organ designed to give women pleasure?

    No one can claim that the desire for vaginal sex is cultural.

    Give me a fucking break! The CLITORIS exists SOLELY for female pleasure. It is the ONLY body part, male or female, that does. It also has 2x as many nerve endings in that tiny little space as the entire penis does. Sure, penetration is pleasurable *for some women.* But ffs. Get a grip on your anatomy. The vaginal canal is not the end all, be all. And the costs/risks outweigh the benefits 10 to 1. Face it.

    CrashPad is a fucking Kink Fest that glorifies power-plays and sexualized violence. Enough said.

  42. factcheckme December 23, 2010 at 7:54 AM #

    No one can claim that the desire for vaginal sex is cultural.

    omg. you may as well say that wanting/needing to please men isnt cultural, since historically, male-pleasing has been more causative of womens participation in PIV than anything even approaching womens “desire” for it.

    but anyway. what if i am actually right about PIV, and het sexuality (PIV = sex = PIV) being woman-hating because it is harmful to women, but not to men? i think this conclusion is pretty self-evident actually, if its harmful ONLY to women, whats the purpose and effect of engaging in it?

    but even if its not evident to you, ASSUME that its true for a second. doesnt everything kind of fall into place after that? i mean really. it explains alot. all PIV-centric sexuality existing on a continuum of woman-hatred explains why even the united states supreme court cant tell the difference between “mere” porn and illegal “obscenity”. it explains why allegedly “feminist” porn is so elusive. it explains why porn and in fact just run-of-the-mill “fucking” is getting more and more degrading to women, and more violent, but it still considered “just sex.” its why rape and heterosexual fucking are nearly indistinguishable, in so many instances. its why marriage resembles prostitution, and why framing all of these issues as issues of “consent” and “agency” seem like chasing your tail, and smack of doublethink.

    since someone asked for a link, i will provide one. i hope this isnt derailing 9/2. i personally dont think it is, and that the idea of the woman-hating continuum explains exactly WHY what you say is so elusive, IS so elusive. but the idea that SO MANY MEN are watching even the extreme stuff says a lot too, and i am mindful that the “extreme stuff” and how common it really is, was really the point of this post.

    http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/

  43. sneeky bunny December 23, 2010 at 10:18 AM #

    @ Undercover Punk: That’s not *quite* what I had in mind when I said I’d be interested in a discussion on the subject. :) Could you perhaps elaborate?

  44. lizor December 23, 2010 at 10:50 AM #

    “All forms of “visual erotica” are morally questionable. Period. I always found it particularly fascinating how people, well, men, feel “entitled” to have “visual stimulation” for their sexual desire. ”

    Yeah, I think so too. As a het female, I like to look at a good looking guy, but it very rarely enters my mind (unless I am with some of my gay male friends). It certainly is not a need, let alone a “right”. There is always a reductive element to act of sexual looking and it is always the object that is reduced.

    Now supposing that gender inequality was reversed and I was taught and encouraged to and rewarded for viewing all men as less than myself, I would think that somewhere deep inside, I’d be a bit nervous about losing my unearned privilege and I may manifest that anxiety in a number of ways that may include insisting that I have “stimulating” men to ogle. It may distract me from my moral quandary, by boosting and reinforcing my sense of power over half the planet, and reward me for that distraction.

    I steeled myself and had a little look at “feminist” porn on the web and what I could find looked just like bog-standard male produced porn – particularly in that the camera is always trained on the woman who is being penetrated. So what’s the deal? Why is none of this feminist porn concerned with looking at men having sex or acting sexual? Is it because a prerequisite to wanting to make porn is assimilating the cultural construct of the male gaze?* If I decide to wank to other women (who, BTW have the factory-produced mono-look of all women mainstream porn) this is supposed to advance gender equity??

    I also think Mary Tracy’s proposition that porn be considered from a spiritual point of view pretty compelling. I have always felt that porn and pornified sex play are a desecration of the [female] body and of what for me can be a joyful sacred celebration of the soul (if you take soul to mean embodied spirit). Porn is in it’s essence anti-sex and it hates the female body it pretends to value, even to the extent that the vagina is always, always secondary to the anus and the throat. “Feminist” pornographer Tristan Taormino has made a living instructing women on how to take it up the bum and down the throat. So according to her brand of “feminist” porn, the vagina as entry is a poor third-runner to those other orifices. Woman-centred pleasure, my arse. (pun not intended)

    *The old chestnut about men being more “visual” is a huge crock. They are only more visual when it comes to ogling and using women. In everything else, the cultural standard is that men are visually retarded.

  45. Undercover Punk December 23, 2010 at 3:58 PM #

    I’m not interested in discussing the harms of BDSM content–I believe 92 has THAT on lock down– which is overwhelmingly present in Crash Pad Series porn (as far as what I’ve seen). Yes, the dykes are hot. But the narrative is the same, including penetration as the primary sex act. Application different, reason the same.

    • Nine Deuce December 23, 2010 at 5:45 PM #

      I checked out this Crash Pad business. Strap-ons are a little too prominently featured in the intro clips to give me the impression that we’re moving away from phallocentrism and the recreation of hierarchical gender roles. Still, I’ll leave that discussion to practicing lesbians.

  46. Jilla December 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM #

    Well elkballet, just what did they use for visual arousal? I recall reading about that study, and thinking they had used what arouses men, with, as Nine points out, the focus (the viewer) always on the woman. Women just do not get off on objectifying their desire, unless their view point has been perverted, such as the crshpd site. That’s just not normal.

  47. Jilla December 23, 2010 at 3:59 PM #

    Pornography only exists to degrade women. Visual doesn’t enter into it. Unless of course, we’re talking how good some gay men are at fabric and clothing design? Oh. Not the example you had in mind?

  48. lizor December 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM #

    I am speaking from the experience of 40+ years of being told that men ogle women and jack off to Playboy because they have this enhanced visual acuity/appreciation of “beauty”.

    When I say “cultural standard”, I mean standard male behaviour as described by our culture. I am talking about the array of supposed ineptitudes – TV hubbies who can’t operate a vacuum and dudes who supposedly don’t know what tie goes with what shirt so Mommy/Wifey has to lay out his clothes for him vs. this supposed visual orientation. I am saying that our in culture, what we state as “fact” about men’s aesthetic sense is packed with contradictions that are convenient, if lame, excuses for selfish infantile behaviour including, as ND says, the mass exploitation of women by the porn industry.

    I’d apologize for my less-than-precise choice of words, but your knickers are so obviously in such a big fat twist you’re trying to nitpick in order to dodge anyone calling bullshit on this.

    However, I am speaking in generalizations, so don’t worry, no one is saying you aren’t a Very Visual boy. OK?

  49. gracemargaret December 23, 2010 at 4:00 PM #

    “Porn will never be female-centric,or be pro-female because its foundation was BUILT ON MISOGYNY, funfems. You can have a small little apartment, but the men have the entire building. The.Entire.Building. And you’re defending your wee little apartment, the apartment they ALLOWED you to have.”

    Exactly Nelle! FunFeminists think being a stripper/porn actress/prostitute is some kind of act of ‘rebellion’ when in reality it’s just one of the two patriarchally correct female roles women are allowed: the homemaker or hooker, madonna or whore. That’s not rebellion, that’s total submission to the male-supremacist system.

    When women in those professions are abused or killed, listen to what most men say about them…they are dirty sluts/whores/bitches and deserved it. This is your clientelle as a sex worker…people who despise you so much that they gloat when you are inured, raped or murdered.

    When I was a kid I remember there was a a billboard campaign by started by families of murdered prostitutes. They would have a childhood photo of their daughter/sister/loved one with just the initials NHI under it. I found out later that NHI is police slang for “No Humans Involved”, which is what they would put on police reports when a woman or girl in prostitution was murdered.

    That sums up how most men feel about the women in porn and prostition. Any atrocity can be committed against them because there are no humans involved.

  50. Male observer December 23, 2010 at 6:23 PM #

    “*The old chestnut about men being more “visual” is a huge crock. They are only more visual when it comes to ogling and using women. In everything else, the cultural standard is that men are visually retarded.”

    Why is it so important to you that males are not the more visual of the sexes? What bone do you have to pick in saying that males are not more visual? The fact is that men have been shown to have significantly higher visual-spatial aptitudes than women. This would explain the heavily male preponderance in visual-oriented preoccupations such as video games and sports, as well as – yes, I’m going there – pornography. That isn’t to defend pornography as it is today, but it would explain how it would appeal to the more visual-oriented of the sexes. But I would go back to the question of why it is so important for your worldview that you deny that males are more visual-oriented than women. Surely you can oppose pornography without making up patently false claims? And why do “cultural standards” – of which I am sure you have misrepresented, but that’s irrelevant – have any necessary truth value to them? I thought you womyn were big on your opposition to cultural standards.

    inb4 mansplaining, you’re-just-trying-to-get-laid, etc.

    • Nine Deuce December 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM #

      Let’s see where you’ve gotten the idea that men have better spatial reasoning. Video game, sports, and porn obsession are much better explained by cultural ideas about masculinity that emphasize violence, competition, dominance, etc. We can recognize what you call “cultural standards” without subscribing to the idea that they ought to direct our actions, thoughts, etc.

  51. Male observer December 23, 2010 at 6:56 PM #

    We can argue about the respective roles played by cultural influences and biological influences all day, but the fact is that there is no good way to resolve these arguments such that everybody could agree. I have my experience with my male body that you don’t know about, and you have your experiences that I don’t know about. But I would ask you again, why is it important at all to your arguments against porn that you deny any biological role? Porn is degrading to women if it is culturally influenced or not. Wouldn’t you agree?

    • Nine Deuce December 23, 2010 at 7:18 PM #

      Of course. Duh. But “men are visual” is often used as an excuse for the existence of an industry that banks on cultural and social dominance.

  52. elkballet December 23, 2010 at 7:30 PM #

    As for the biological role, I have spent quite a bit of time researching this. The general “gist” of the research is that basically it has long been acknowledged men are more visual. This is because most of the research used self-reporting. They would show men and women videos and have them report whether or not they were aroused. This resulted in reporting that men were visual and women were not.

    However, what they realized was that women just weren’t, for whatever reason, aware they were aroused. When they tested physical response to visual stimuli, they found that women not only were just as aroused as men, they were aroused by a wider range of things.

    Basically, men have a larger part of their brain devoted to visual stimuli, but it has no impact on how visually aroused they are. The only real difference is men are more aware/in touch with their visual arousal than women. Women are visually aroused just like men, men can also be mentally aroused just like only women are supposed to be.

  53. lizor December 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM #

    Hmmm…This is not terribly important, but there’s something funny going on with the chronology of the posts. I posted a response to Male O. and it now appears to have been written 2.5 hours before his comment. Maybe it’s a timezone thing?

  54. factcheckme December 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM #

    The only real difference is men are more aware/in touch with their visual arousal than women.

    well thats one explanation. now lets get down to brass tacks: this was PIV-centric porn they were using as (and calling) “visual stimuli” right? as jilla suggests above.

    if this is the case, another explanation for this “difference” would of course be that women were involuntarily physically aroused, which is the “human” response to the material. its designed to involuntarily physically arouse, which is why as laurelin says repeatedly on her own blog, feeling any “guilt” or self-disgust at ones physical response to porn is counterproductive (and why using “arousal” to justify its use is actually irrelevant, and doesnt justify it or really mean anything at all).

    feeling mentally aroused, or sexxxay about watching the material is another thing entirely. men are aroused mentally at watching women be abused, and it makes them want to abuse a woman of their own (aka. it makes them want to fuck) and women (not surprisingly) dont feel the same way about watching, as jilla says, glorified images of their own destruction. about watching another woman be put at risk for pregnancy. about watching another woman engaging in the “sex-act” thats the least pleasurable and most dangerous to women as a sexual class. about having dangerous male sexuality both literally and physically shoved down her throat every single fucking minute of every single fucking day, and being expected to “like it” and having everyone call it “sex” when she knows better.

    are people ever going to admit that porn induces action and actual abuse of actual women, on the part of men? and that the images are abusive? nope, prolly not. instead, we will cling desperately to the idiotic notion that “men are more visual.” even though as mentioned above, they dont seem to notice when there are clothes or toys or cereal all over the floor, and cant seem to accurately aim their urine stream after decades of trying.

    FAIL.

  55. Jilla December 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM #

    Since we know now how plastic the brain is, I think what you describe is because well…can’t think of a better way of putting it…”practice makes perfect”.

  56. Jilla December 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM #

    And how are women mentally aroused? By visual imagining.

  57. Aileen Wuornos December 24, 2010 at 4:49 AM #

    Are you suggesting that women wouldn’t be aroused by a visual depiction of sex, or that no woman would allow herself to be videotaped? I don’t mean to sound snarky or anything–I’m curious about the statement that the camera is taking the place of a phallic object. The tone of the video didn’t really “feel” like it was made for men. My friends told me it was made “by women, for women.”

    Did I actually say that? No. By the way, do you really think that womyn can’t internalise misogyny and act in misogynistic ways?

    But is there any sort of visual erotica that’s not violent or degrading? Or does there always have to be some power game going on?

    Where there is money to be made, there is power to be made. You’re watching them, does that not strike you as a power (seeing as the womyn and girls will have no idea who is and who isn’t getting off on them?)

    Personally I would be interested in a feminist critique of sites like Crashpad and to discuss where it might fall with in the porn continuum.

    Ready for Aileen’s handy rad fem analysis? Same shit, different toilet.

    Why is none of this feminist porn concerned with looking at men having sex or acting sexual?

    Because men aren’t the “fuckhole” class. They are the “fucker” class. All porn, even “feminist” porn is focused on men and men’s sexuality and their warped interpretation of it.

    Male Observer,

    If men are *so* visually inclined, why do they never notice if womyn get hair cuts or alter their appearance to increase fuckability status? Oh wait, cos they’re not visually inclined at all, and that’s a bunch of evo-psych buttshit.

  58. cub December 24, 2010 at 10:21 AM #

    what follows is a repost of a comment/reply i made on imdb in the terry zwigoff board:

    (somebody else): How many guys aren’t superficial? By nature, guys are visually oriented. It’s the way male genes typically work.

    (me): you are absolutely right –that’s why women are well adapted to living in caves and deep sea vents like anaerobic amoebae, blind and completely devoid of any visual acuity!

    doubt me? HOW DARE YOU!?! why, it’s in the genes doncha know!

    DUR-DUR-DUR-DUR-DUR-DUR…..DURHEYYYYY…..

  59. Jilla December 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    Slightly OT: Why women don’t make good photographers/videographers. Nothing to do with being handicapped visually.

    See the third photo down? See? You are never going to look like that. And THIS is why you are not making porn. You WOULDN’T WANT to look like this, first. And second? This look? This is his major talent. Strike out. ONLY talent.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/multimedia/camera-club/

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/multimedia/camera-club/

  60. Hecate December 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    Thanks Aileen Wuornos. The points about money as power and men being the ‘fucker class’ are spot on. Too bad men never considered respect to be the real currency. They never will, either. Too much is at stake for them to behave like human beings…

    And so true about men never noticing anything outside of themselves! The day a man notices a woman’s haircut, will be the day I hand him $1,000. Even that will not suffice, as they get paid so much more to continue being a$$holes.

  61. Jilla December 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    The camera is the porn consumer. Always. The camera is the viewer, always. Film is THE voyeur medium. Men are better at (sic) visual because it primarily requires consumption, capture, and owning. At some point, realizing what tools they are, men try to create arty photos or film, thinking that’s going to change what’s going on. Nah.

  62. Bluecat December 24, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    I have much to say on this subject, being intimately acquainted with it, but I just wanted to take a minute to say thank you for this marvelous post. This one goes into my porn re-education file for sharing with those who express an interest in porn critiques.

    @Male Observer:
    I always wonder why men are so heavily invested in believing that there are immutable gender differences in the brain. (Yeah, that was sarcasm.) Current research says the opposite, that men and women’s brains are 97% identical, and that 3% is highly amenable to external influences, so it’s rendered statistically negligible. What we know for certain is that social conditioning alters brain structure, it literally changes how we perceive and think about the world around us. As a recovering porn addict (female porn addict, that is) I can tell you point blank that habitual porn viewing heightens the visual stimuli/sexual arousal connection, it creates a dependency on it, it alters how you view the opposite sex (or the sex you’re attracted to), it creates new demands in the mind of the viewer for more, more, more visual material (ogling is a natural outcome of these demands). Everything men believe about their “natural” inclination to view porn/objectify women is wrong, wrong, so extraordinarily wrong that it would be amusing if it weren’t so tragic.

    My brain is never going to be the same. I was perfectly content without porn several years ago, I had no interest in it, thought most of it was too ridiculous to be arousing. I developed a curiosity about it, eased myself into it with softcore, quickly became desensitized and dependent on it for arousal, needed more explicit porn to create the “porn high” I’d become accustomed to, got into hardcore stuff, used it more often, got even more dependent on it. When I decided to give it up, I’d succeeded in altering brain chemistry, succeeded in molding myself into a first-rate objectifier who “needed” porn.

    I became a porn addict in my 30′s, much later in life than most men, who become dependent on it before they even reach 20, so I’m in an excellent position to tell you exactly what porn does to the brain. Most men think it’s a natural inclination because they begin using fairly early in life, they don’t have the same perspective.

    Oh, and about the visual/spatial abilities. I don’t know where you got your data, but current research has shown that if you remove stereotype threat and provide education to compensate for women’s lack of experience early in life (boy toys provide more practice in these areas), women perform equally to men on tests of visual/spatial abilities.

  63. No Sugarcoating December 24, 2010 at 10:51 AM #

    “One could argue that it’s not the vagina which is the female sex organ, but the clitoris, with most of it arcing around the whole of the vulvar area.” This is a great point. Although now we may be operating on two different definitions. Is a sex organ the organ used for reproduction or sexual pleasure? Or both?

    “We no longer have instincts, save survival…. Heterosexuality is coerced and forced upon all of us under the threat of social ostracization, and in some places, even DEATH. And hetero-normativity is, clearly, about male supremacy. FCM has PIV on LOCK DOWN and if y’all don’t get it already– how dangerous it is EVERY.FUCKING.TIME.– it’s because you don’t WANT to get it. The moment that humans figured out that PIV = baby..”

    Do instincts fade over time? Also, reproduction is a form of survival instinct, isn’t it? Anyways, I actually sort of forget PIV = baby. With that in mind, it is true that PIV is always a risk for women. I’m so used to the messages that sex does not need to = procreation, that I was thinking without that benchmark. I also don’t want children, so I assumed any PIV intercourse that may take place in my future would be with condoms. (Or perhaps male birth control, if they would ever get around to inventing it…)

    “Give me a fucking break! The CLITORIS exists SOLELY for female pleasure….Sure, penetration is pleasurable *for some women.* But ffs. Get a grip on your anatomy. The vaginal canal is not the end all, be all. And the costs/risks outweigh the benefits 10 to 1. Face it.”

    I know that the vast majority of women cannot orgasm from vaginal penetration and many don’t find it pleasurable at all, but I always thought this was (or rather, could be) less of a design flaw with the vaginal canal and more a problem with how men use their penis. In the context of a male supremacist society, it would benefit men to believe that the woman’s lack of pleasure had nothing to do with them, but rather was just an inherent flaw in the vagina. Wouldn’t it? It’s the ultimate ego soother. It would also feed into their belief that vaginas were made for the man’s pleasure – not the woman’s. I’m giving the vaginal canal the benefit of the doubt, basically. Have there even been studies of how women react to vaginal penetration without a penis?

    @factcheckme
    I don’t think that really applies to what I was saying. Instinct is separate from society and culture. Culture defies instincts all the time. Modesty? Abstinence? Birth control? Also, wouldn’t that mean men have the instinct to please women in order to get the PIV they so desire?

    I didn’t mean to insinuate that your beliefs were ridiculous or far reaching. I just didn’t really understand. It may be true that PIV is on the continuum of woman-hating, especially if you acknowledge that it is uniquely harmful to only women. I’m just so used to PIV-bashing among pornified men that it’s become hard for me to even see it that way. It’s like some of us are relishing the scraps we’re thrown under the table. When I look at mainstream pornography, it’s hard to believe that anyone could find PIV so objectionable. I’m just so used to the extreme misogyny in porn, that PIV seems…harmless. :/ But it’s not. I get that. I’m just desensitized.

  64. factcheckme December 24, 2010 at 6:27 PM #

    I didn’t mean to insinuate that your beliefs were ridiculous or far reaching. I just didn’t really understand. It may be true that PIV is on the continuum of woman-hating, especially if you acknowledge that it is uniquely harmful to only women. I’m just so used to PIV-bashing among pornified men that it’s become hard for me to even see it that way. It’s like some of us are relishing the scraps we’re thrown under the table. When I look at mainstream pornography, it’s hard to believe that anyone could find PIV so objectionable. I’m just so used to the extreme misogyny in porn, that PIV seems…harmless. :/ But it’s not. I get that. I’m just desensitized.

    well, thanks for acknowledging it i guess? but, to clarify, i didnt say that “PIV is on the continuum of woman-hating.” my point was (and i diagrammed it over at my place for claritys sake) is that theres a continuum of penis-in-vagina that starts with “vanilla” and ends with rape-murder and death from pregnancy-related complications. and that this continum represents the whole of het sexuality, and that its all on this continuum somewhere, and that EVEN what we call “vanilla” and therefore everything “more extreme” too (which everything is, duh. vanilla…then strawberry then chocolate right?) appears to be a direct line to the ultimate destruction of woman. and this is a problem.

    as much as some more modern porn might be “other-orifices” oriented, heterosexuality isnt. most porn involves PIV at some point, and ALL heterosexuality includes PIV at some point too (or its not considered “sexual” or consummated at all). i would like to know though from the saturated and desensitized out there…how much modern porn doesnt involve PIV *at all*? 10%? 25%? all of it? none of it? i dont even know anymore. when i stopped watching porn, it all still included PIV but there was of course “other stuff too”.

  65. Jilla December 24, 2010 at 7:46 PM #

    About vaginal penetration: because we evolved to standing creatures after our basic anatomy was ‘designed’, we won’t have much vaginal stimulation when we are not on all fours. The head of the penis needs to stroke and hit the underside of the clitoris and urethra (? name) which are on the top of the vagina, not the bottom which is stroked with missionary and just about any other penetration.

    The vagina isn’t a sex organ. It’s a means to an end.

  66. veganprimate December 24, 2010 at 7:51 PM #

    So, a wife who previously had waist-length hair goes and gets a buzz cut. When her husband gets home from work, he says nothing. When she says, “Do you notice anything different about me?”, he follows with, “Oh, is that a new blouse?” Tell me more about how visual men are.

  67. Boycott American Women December 24, 2010 at 11:39 PM #

    BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN

    Why American men should boycott American women

    I am an American man, and I have decided to boycott American women. In a nutshell, American women are the most likely to cheat on you, to divorce you, to get fat, to steal half of your money in the divorce courts, don’t know how to cook or clean, don’t want to have children, etc. Therefore, what intelligent man would want to get involved with American women?

    American women are generally immature, selfish, extremely arrogant and self-centered, mentally unstable, irresponsible, and highly unchaste. The behavior of most American women is utterly disgusting, to say the least.

    This blog is my attempt to explain why I feel American women are inferior to foreign women (non-American women), and why American men should boycott American women, and date/marry only foreign (non-American) women.

    BOYCOTT AMERICAN WOMEN!

    • Nine Deuce December 25, 2010 at 6:22 PM #

      I approve of your plan, dude. But I think you should take it a few steps further. How about you boycott all women? I don’t think it’s fair for American women to get to outsource having to deal with you to other, less privileged women. If that doesn’t sound doable for you, consider suicide. Merry Christmas.

  68. Sargassosea December 25, 2010 at 7:14 AM #

    “…but how can PIV itself be inherently degrading when it is actually instinctual for a women to desire it and required for the survival of any animal species?” – No Sugarcoating

    Doesn’t this part especially, “when it is actually instinctual for a women to desire it”, imply then that lesbians and spinsters are somehow unnatural or Darwinian failures because they DO NOT instinctually “desire“ (not to mention the oxymoronic nature of having those two words in the same sentence) PIV?

    Holy cow.

  69. Valerie December 25, 2010 at 7:15 AM #

    Great post ND. Thank you. And great responses from everyone.
    The thing that makes me laugh/cry about people defending porn is that they actually think they are the ‘David’ of the story, not the Golith (sp?). They fancy themselves the underdog. They refuse to see the influence and the money that is being spent on and made from porn. Its’ absurd.

  70. Fede December 25, 2010 at 7:15 AM #

    Male observer asks, because he obviously cannot see the questions as anything than purely theoretical;

    “Why is it so important to you that males are not the more visual of the sexes?”

    Why, I’ll tell you the exact reason for that, MO: we find that point terribly important for YOUR sake; your sake and the sake of every male on the planet. Because if it is really true that you lot are biologically hardwired to despise and mistreat us, then we obviously cannot allow you to exist any longer. And we (most of us, despite everything) truly hope it doesn’t have to come to that.

  71. Aileen Wuornos December 25, 2010 at 7:15 AM #

    Ah Hectate, anyone who uses that as a screen name is more than welcome! She is one of my favourite goddesses :)

    Men are better at (sic) visual because it primarily requires consumption, capture, and owning.

    Oh hell yeah Jilla, I hadn’t even thought of it in that aspect before, that’s brilliant.

    No Sugarcoating,

    Have there even been studies of how women react to vaginal penetration without a penis?

    No, I don’t think there have been, but from every thing I’ve read, only about 27% of womyn can orgasm from penetration alone. There are little to no nerve endings inside the vagina (because how much would that fucking hurt when giving birth?) = very unlikely that pleasure comes from penetration of any sort. Not to mention, that it’s still dangerous because of the tears it cause in the vaginal tissues, if the object being used to penetrate is not clean & the risk of UTIs.

    Actually, an increasing amount of pornography features no vaginal penetration at all and instead focuses soley on anal and oral penetration.

  72. Aileen Wuornos December 25, 2010 at 9:38 PM #

    Great post ND. Thank you. And great responses from everyone.
    The thing that makes me laugh/cry about people defending porn is that they actually think they are the ‘David’ of the story, not the Golith (sp?). They fancy themselves the underdog. They refuse to see the influence and the money that is being spent on and made from porn. Its’ absurd.

    Yeah I’ve often wondered about this myself, advertising is a billion dollar industry that influences everyone (including me!) so why do so many men and colluding women want to believe that pornography is any different?

  73. crucial d December 25, 2010 at 11:05 PM #

    Suicide jokes aren’t cool. Your blog is though.

  74. isme December 26, 2010 at 1:21 AM #

    “Yeah I’ve often wondered about this myself, advertising is a billion dollar industry that influences everyone (including me!) so why do so many men and colluding women want to believe that pornography is any different?”

    People don’t like to admit that they are influenced by advertising et al to begin with.

    Admitting that porn is bad would tend to lead to the idea that not using it would be a good thing, and that’s not going to go down so well. Personally, I’m surprised so many people bother with the pretence, rather than coming out and telling everyone that they think hurting women is sexy. After all, that’s hardly an unpopular point of view.

  75. Jilla December 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM #

    Actually, an increasing amount of pornography features no vaginal penetration at all and instead focuses soley on anal and oral penetration.

    ##

    If what I saw recently (senior, elderly, mature women search) is any indication, vaginal penetration hasn’t lost its cachet for men. Now they’re using double and triple penetration, animals, fists, arms, knives, broken bottles, anything which will hurt and harm. Followed by cum shots to the face.

    I remind everyone of the study done at the Wheeler porn conference, where they proved dangerous, abusive porn is the most rented at your neighbourhood vid store. That’s the other thing men want to tell us: It’s just sex. Obviously we don’t like sex. We have pesonal issues.

  76. lizor December 26, 2010 at 7:25 AM #

    A 1974 review by Angela Carter Of “Inside Linda Lovelace”, a fictional (her horrifying factual tell-all came later) autobiography of a porn star’s “desire” as dictated by industry.

    “Some people”, our Lady of Hard-Core Porn reflectively begins her memoirs, “are born to greatness, others have greatness thrust upon them.” Her own fame devolves partly upon her own sexual virtuosity but, more, upon the demands of a society that utilises limited libidinal gratification as a soporific in a time of potential social disruption. She, the archetypal swinger, is the product of the “permissive” society she eulogises; but the notion of “permissiveness” can only arise in a society in which authoritarianism is deeply implicit. Now I am permitted as much libidinal gratification as I want. Yippee! But who is it who permits me? Why, the self-same institutions that hitherto forbade me! So, I am still in the same boat, though it has been painted a
    different colour. I am still denied authentic sexual autonomy, perhaps even more cruelly than before, since now I have received permission to perform hitherto forbidden acts and so I have acquired an illusory sense of freedom that blinds me more than ever to the true nature of freedom itself.

    With no surprise, one learns from the preface that Ms Lovelace is “no adherent of
    Women’s Lib”. She preaches sexual freedom divorced from social or spiritual emancipation: “the only place she wants to be equal is in bed”. Nevertheless, she exemplifies what could be called “porn pride” when she states: “I have learned to do things with my mouth and vagina that few women anywhere can hope to achieve.” However, she gives credit for her training to Chuck, the “sexual engineer”, a libidinal Svengali who launched her in blue movies; she didn’t even invent it for herself, or learn it from her mother (which, I suppose, would be the natural way in a
    less repressed society). In an interview published in the afterword, she claims always to achieve orgasm herself in the act of fellatio which is physiologically impossible. Therefore I suggest her relation to men and to her own sexuality is ambiguous, and, coloured by either a degree of self-deceit, or the desire to deceive.

    Nevertheless, she can ingest an entire foot inside her vagina; we know not only because she tells us so (which wouldn’t be the strongest evidence of veracity) but because she has been filmed doing it. Fame, however, came with Deep Throat, since when her name has become synonymous with a fellatory technique that looks, to the cold eye, uncommonly like a sublimation of a suppressed castratory urge of immense proportions. If my sexuality had been as systematically exploited by men as Ms Lovelace’s has been, no doubt I, too, would want to swallow men’s cocks whole; it is a happy irony she should have found fame and fortune by doing so.

    Now, in spite of the respect she has for her achievements as a unique phoenix of fuckery, Ms Lovelace does only what any accomplished whore is expected to do in a society where the profession of prostitution demands specific sexual virtuosities. Any Bangkok prostitute can blow smoke rings through her labia minor and be certain of applause and thanks. Her own fellatory technique is derived from that of a Japanese geisha (via, of course, Chuck. You wouldn’t find Ms Lovelace in a Japanese whore house, learning her trade the hard way.)

    Not every girl can insert a foot inside her vagina and those with this talent are surely entitled to public recognition; but our society generally denies the prostitute both appreciation of and the opportunity to exercise particular sexual virtuosity and, besides, Ms Lovelace is no prostitute. Perish the thought. All is done for love. The pay in porno movies is “lousy” until she hits the big time — that is, until the porno movies become respectable. Sometimes, in her movies, she plays the role of a whore, but she is not a whore herself. Her attitude to sex is not commercial. It is sacramental.

    “My God is now sex. Without sex, I’d die. Sex is everything.”

    In the service of the god, she has taken the repertoire of sexual display from the commerce and intimacy of the brothel and allowed her performance to be frozen upon celluloid, condemned to a sequence of endless repetitions. In doing so, she has removed any element of tactile immediacy from her exposition of the potentialities of the body and therefore completely defused the sexual menace implicit in her own person and her polymorphously perverse talents. And that menace is enormous. If she can engulf a foot, what else could she not engulf? The owner of the foot in his entirety? The world itself?

    But, though the cinema has become an imaginary brothel, it is not one in which the flesh on display is for sale. Hence it can never be handled. On the screen, she is safe from real contact with the impulses she arouses. (She constantly reiterates her own sexual exclusivity; she does not fuck with anybody. They must be special. They must be “swingers”.)

    These defunct images of her sexual virtuosity do not involve nor implicitly challenge the potency of the spectator.

    And, in the eternity of the celluloid, the cock exists as a thing in itself. The exigencies of porno-movie making means that: “Many of the cocks seen in the nitty-gritty close-ups don’t belong to the guys that are seen leading up to the action.” Because those who can act can’t fuck, and vice versa. Indeed, she reveals, many of the actors are homosexual; and the faces of the owners of the most active organs never appear on the screen. Dispossessed, then, of all human attributes but the anonymity of the genital organs, nothing is generated. Nothing will come of nothing.

    Like a postulant, Ms Lovelace shaves herself before she engages in these primal yet abstract confrontations. She has removed all traces of the animal from her body, so that it has the cool sheen, not of flesh, but of a mineral substance. She is not an embodiment but a crystallisation, even a reification, of libido; her art or craft, the public exposition of sexual activity reduced to a geometric intersection of parts, her queasily kitsch prose style, her leer, her simper, her naïvety, her schoolgirl humour, effectively antiseptises all the danger from that most subversive and ambivalent aspect of our selves.

    No more terror, no more magic. Sex utterly divorced from its reproductive function, its function as language and its function as warfare.

    She is a shaven prisoner in a cage whose bars are composed of cocks. And she has been so thoroughly duped she seems quite happy there.

    Each age gets the heroines it deserves and, by God, we deserve Linda Lovelace.

  77. lizor December 26, 2010 at 7:26 AM #

    Boycott Boy seems to have lifted his rhetoric from “mail-order bride” adverts. I have seen these ads (in Men’s HEALTH magazine no less – I guess owning domestic slaves is considered good for a man’s health). That’s why he’s talking about “spoiled” non-subervient North American dogs – oops, I mean Women.

    I thought the suicide joke quite appropriate.

    While I’m on the topic of patriarchally-inappropriate comments, I watched the film Hard Candy last night. When the 14-year-old girl that the pedophile has lured into his house is about to castrate him, she says; “This really is one of the simplest operations you could imagine. Makes me wonder why they teach Girl Scouts things like camping and selling cookies when they could teach them something really useful like this.”

    Word.

  78. lizor December 26, 2010 at 12:46 PM #

    Jilla – Thanks for the link. I am passing this around.

  79. gare December 26, 2010 at 12:46 PM #

    Werent you just looking for something with ‘feminist’ in the title though? I think they define FP as something that meets certain criteria, like the Bechtel test or whatever.

  80. crucial d December 26, 2010 at 6:56 PM #

    You may think suicide is funny but if you were a survivor of suicide you wouldn’t.

    • Nine Deuce December 26, 2010 at 11:56 PM #

      I don’t think suicide is funny.

  81. Aileen Wuornos December 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM #

    How exactly can one survive suicide?
    If you survived it, it’s not suicide.

    Jilla, don’t doubt that for a minute, but from a cursory glance at porn review sites it seems like vaginal penetration is meant to just be. ‘foreplay’ for anything more degrading, if that makes sense.

    Gare’s comment made me chortle. Bechedel test for porn. Hah!

  82. Jilla December 27, 2010 at 7:49 AM #

    I hate the way feminist threads devolve into people finding the one thing they can hold the writer hostage with, and riding it.

    Better you went to the Suicide Girls forum and pointed out the error there. It takes no courage at all to do it here. It’s just a way of shutting everything down.

  83. Andrew December 27, 2010 at 7:49 AM #

    I think pornography is inherently exploitative (like most industries) and serves to recast societal gender-roles in ways that disadvantage (or harm) women. I also use it.

    Despite that confession, the “why” of it all still remains, but I think FactCheckMe’s assertion that PIV anything, including porn, is inherently problematic hits the right note. At one point does a pelvic thrust become anti-feminist? How can we tell the difference, upon insertion, between a gasp in pleasure and a gasp in pain? Does a woman’s desire to be stimulated with “harder” sex increase the incidence of rape, or make her a misogynist? If these questions sound stupid, it’s because sex and “anti-feminist sex” are largely indistinguishable once we move away from easy cases like “dog fucking,” Max Hardcore, and “puke porn.” With no easy distinctions it seems that if liking porn makes someone a bad feminist, liking any sort of phallic intercourse may as well.

    Feminizing porn thus seems to really be about feminizing sex, especially since most fetishes seem to grow out of the inherent power differential between the various parties to a sexual encounter. That’s not to say it couldn’t (or shouldn’t) be changed, but to do requires a much more critical examination of our biological processes and the values surrounding them than a simple castigation of the porn industry can provide.

  84. gare December 27, 2010 at 8:36 AM #

    During 92′s previous multi part porn series, she made the statement ‘womens real sexuality far surpasses anything on a screen’. Maybe the word just hasnt got out

  85. crucial d December 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM #

    You should have googled survivor of suicide before you joked about it, Aileen. It means that I have lost someone close to suicide. My mother. I love this blog and I’ve been reading it for over a year. I read your blog, too, Aileen. I am a feminist and I’m majoring in women’s studies and I agree with everything Nine Deuce has ever posted. I ask that people not make suicide jokes or suggest people commit suicide because it is a trigger for me. It instantly makes me think of my mom shooting herself. Okay? Thanks.

    • Nine Deuce December 27, 2010 at 3:29 PM #

      I apologize, crucial d. I have only done so twice on the site with reference to men that I think the world would be better without. I definitely did not intend to trigger you or anyone else who has personally dealt with this issue.

  86. factcheckme December 27, 2010 at 3:30 PM #

    andrew, i insist that you stop agreeing with me. cease and desist immediately!

  87. EmilyBites December 27, 2010 at 3:36 PM #

    Andrew makes me want to vomit just like porn, how weird!

    Thanks for the post Nine Deuce – your writing on pornography is always brilliant.

  88. crucial d December 27, 2010 at 3:39 PM #

    Thank you; I accept and appreciate your apology.

  89. lizor December 27, 2010 at 3:50 PM #

    I apologize too crucial d. I have also lost a very beloved friend to suicide and it is not funny at all.

    In the context of the posts, I did not think that ND’s words were inappropriate – given that so many of us posters here make reference to feeling suicidal when we consider the depth and vastness of women-hating. This guy seemed to be despairing of some fantasy of being victimized by uppity North American Women, so calling his bluff in harsh terms did not seem out there to me, but I have the luxury of not carrying the same harrowing trauma that you do.

    I do sincerely apologize for the pain this caused you.

  90. Yazzi December 27, 2010 at 5:28 PM #

    @ fcm – “cease and desist immediately”? are you joking or do you actually want andrew to stop agreeing with you?

    if you do i totally agree – he is an absolute jerkoff who can’t stop rubbing his male privilege in everyone’s face. (if you’ve read his comments on other threads re porn you’ll understand why i am so irked by him.)

    he’s a privileged jerkoff enjoying a Privileged Jerkoff every night at women’s expense and he KNOWS how much it harms/damages the women in porn (and indirectly ALL women) but has said quite blatantly he just doesn’t give a flying rat’s ass.

    all he’s done on this thread is regurgitate what you said in a vague, roundabout way and then diss nine deuce’s post in a vague, roundabout way.

    i don’t think it (or ANY of what he says) is at all worth having my face rubbed in his godawful godbaggery. what an insufferably arrogant, BORING and VALUELESS little prick he is.

  91. crucial d December 27, 2010 at 7:34 PM #

    Thank you, Lizor. It’s been five years and some people think that’s long enough to be “over it” but I can’t get past it, I don’t think I ever will. Her death inspired me to return to school after a ten+ year hiatus and focus on women’s studies and I ultimately hope to help women affected by domestic abuse, as she was. I really didn’t mean to derail your comments section, Nine. I love your work. I’ve always been made to feel like a prude for hating porn. It’s good to know that there are others out there that feel the same way that I do about it and are able to express themselves eloquently on the subject. Thanks for that!

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM #

      It’s such a horrible,unreal insane injustice that women have to go out of their way to *prove* that pornography is painfully blatantly extremely sexist,dehumanizing of women,woman-hating and or often violent towards women,and that this is all sexualized,normalized and eroticized,if it was Blacl people portrayed the exact same ways foe White viewrrs or Jews for Nazis or anti-semitic Christians,most people would totally understand the real issue of the injustice and harms of sexualizing,legitimizing and normalizing racist and anti-semitic inequality and hatered! It’s *only* acceptable and made to seem “sexy” when it’s women portrayed and treated in thiese horrible ways!

      There is a minority of pornography that sexualizes racisim with Black people portayed as slaves for whites on plantations,and there is some that sexualizes Jews in Nazi contration camps,but it’s not the majority of pornography which we know is sexist,woman-hating male dominated.,dehumanizing women,men’s violence and cruelty towards women,that is so unjustly,sickly,so popular and mainstreamed! And it just furtherly demonstrates what I already know,that sexism,and men’s *IRRATIONAL* hatred of women is much more deep rooted,widespread and acceptable than racism and anti-semiticism is! And women portrayed in these terrible ways to men,involves the heterosexual relationship,but Blacks and Jews don’t have to have any “romantic” or sexual relationships with their haters and opprossers like women are expected to do.They can’t and don’t give birth to them either,like women having sons,and men are born and nurtured by the very group of people they hated and degrade for *NO RATIONA*L reasonsfor 1,000′s of years it’s totally cruel,incomprehensible and mind boggling! I’m so glad I will *never* have sons!

      So that is a big part of why it’s always the exception when it comes to sexualizing men’s hatred,cruelity,violence and gender inequality such as male dominance and female submission all typically what pornography sexualizes and normalizes,and sadlt this is why many women got influenced by it too! And because it;s been so unjustly and wrongly mainstreamed!

      They say that having our periods is a curse,well the real curse is that women need men for sexual reproduction,why couldn’t we have been like those minority of plants and insects that can reproduce non-sexually,and just give birth to girls,that would be my total true feminist utopia!

      But even though being a “prude” isn’t the issue at all,I looked up the word prude in the in the 2000 Webster’s New World Dictionary,and the word prude derives orginially from the French word Proud and woman,meaning a proud woman. I’d much rather be a proud woman against sick,sexist,woman-hating,male violent,male dominated sh*t,and proud of it!

  92. No Sugarcoating December 27, 2010 at 7:48 PM #

    About the PIV in porn questions – I’ve watched a loooot of porn. Lately, I have been staying away from porn websites because I found some great feminist blogs like this that eloquently summarize everything that’s wrong with it instead of me having to watch it. So, I will tell you, yes – PIV is becoming increasingly absent in porn. Besides the obvious misogynistic aspects of many other sex acts in porn, the absence of PIV probably has its own meaning. While PIV can be painful and unpleasant, especially in porn, it is a sex act that can only be done with a woman. That’s important.

    It’s my theory that the absence of PIV in porn is the denial of everything female, denial of female genitalia. It’s a denial of female sexuality. You said PIV is uniquely harmful to women, perhaps the opposite is also true. There was a website where people left comments about the porn, customer feedback, and one of the men complained that there was a double penetration and when the penis was in her vagina she looked like she might be enjoying it. He thought PIV should be banned from the website, actually. So delusional on so many levels, but from a man’s POV, PIV = female POSITIVE sexuality and therefore bad. I also saw a comment recently that “Why do pornstars even bother being in porn if they don’t do anal? They might as well be models.” Those are two of the most extreme examples I can think of.*

    The first one was only unusual because a guy who acknowledged that anal was extremely “unpopular” with the vast majority of women thought double penetration would be pleasurable, for some reason. I kind of want to start a blog that just lists examples of this kind of attitude and how pervasive it is. Each post could be a response to one of the myths about porn and the men who use porn. It would definitely be triggering and graphic though, so I’m not sure anybody would want to read that. I’m not sure I’d want to write that. But I feel that it HAS to be exposed for what it is.

    I know many anti-porn feminists stop watching porn, but when the proporn people start with their, “Oh, it’s a small amount of porn that’s degrading/You haven’t seen much, so you’re not qualified to talk about it..” I want to shout YES I HAVE! I wish I hadn’t, because I liked men a lot more before watching that shit! When someone asks me why I hate porn, I say “Because I’ve seen it.” Before I watched hardcore porn, I thought anti-porn feminists were just prudes or manhaters. I wasn’t even a funfem, I was “one of the boys”. Although after finding feminism I realized I was born this way. There have always been feminist instincts inside me. I just didn’t know what they were yet. I’m 17, soon to be 18. Most people would be excited, but all I can think of is how old guys on the street can fantasize about choking me on their penis without feeling guilty because I’m not a “child” anymore. What’s a pornier age than 18?

  93. gracemargaret December 27, 2010 at 8:15 PM #

    Andrew you sound unbelievably creepy. If you really want to help change things (which is why I assume you are here) you could go to sites like this:

    National Organization for Men Against Sexism http://www.nomas.org/

    http://www.mencanstoprape.org/ (you can join their STRENGTH TRAININGS & WORKSHOPS or
    join Men Creating Change)

    Also, there’s The Mentors in Violence Prevention http://www.jacksonkatz.com/mvp.html

    Good Luck!

  94. Aileen Wuornos December 27, 2010 at 9:14 PM #

    Oh my goddess Andrew, don’t you get tired of the taste of your foot in your mouth?

    Crucial d:
    I didn’t joke about it dude. I have known well, hm, let me count (P.S I am NOT trying to turn this into a pissing contest, I am just saying!):
    1. One of my good friends little sisters killed herself when she was 14 and I was 15
    2. *My* best friend killed herself when she was 16 and I was 15
    3. The next year, the TWO friends I’d introduced the above to killed themselves six months apart.
    4. Another six months down the track from that, my bf at the time killed himself in a car accident
    5. This year, one of my good friends killed himself with an o/d.

    And I have attempted suicide MANY times, although, thankfully not for at least a few years. I really am genuinely sorry for your loss, because it is a fucking shitty thing to deal with.

    I am fairly desensitised to death though (those are just the people I know who have had a hand in their own death, not those who have died of illness, disease and old age, which makes the list bigger) and firmly believe that those around the person who committed suicide aren’t “survivors” because they’re not the ones who attempted/succeeded on their lives. One of the above friends who did kill herself has said the same thing, I remember the conversation that we had about it very clearly. If it seems like I am being callous to you, fair enough, but, I’m not apologising for my way of dealing with all the suicides in my life.

    Believe me, I don’t think that suicide is funny, at all, so please don’t accuse me of making jokes were I wasn’t.

  95. Aileen Wuornos December 27, 2010 at 9:23 PM #

    *where

  96. j December 27, 2010 at 11:53 PM #

    you should try looking at queer porn from directors like courtney trouble (nofauxxx.com) and shine louise houston (crashpadseries.com) for “feminist” porn. also, look at the feminist porn awards. and also, there is porn that is technically feminist, but do not like to label themselves as feminist porn because “feminist” has a lot of complicated political implications that some people like to avoid. see cocksexual.com.

    • Nine Deuce December 28, 2010 at 1:33 PM #

      j – I’m aware of the existence of the Feminist Porn Awards. I’m sure that George Orwell, if he were alive, would write an essay about them. All of these sites completely fail, but that isn’t the point here at all. As I stated in the opening (and closing), I don’t care whether feminist porn does or does not exist, and I’m not going to spend all day seeking it out when there are millions of RAPE PORN sites out there and my time might be better spent attempting to bring awareness to/do something about that, as it is a far bigger problem than the fact that “feminist” porn is hard to find.

  97. Fede December 28, 2010 at 8:04 AM #

    ‘When someone asks me why I hate porn, I say “Because I’ve seen it.”’
    Goddamn right, No Sugarcoating!

    I think you might be right that in porn, woman-hating and woman-negating is actually far-reaching enough that PiV becomes the lesser evil, or even to some extent a symbol of acceptance of the female, which is why PiV is now being suppressed in favour of anal.

    I used to be ‘one of the boys’, too. (I was never a funfem, because I always hated performing femininity.) Once or twice, I was told I had bigger balls than all the males in the room. It was intended as a compliment and I took it as such. But not today. Today I know that to be ‘one of the boys’ is to be a worthless creep, and to be ‘one of the girls’ means to be a slavish admirer of said worthless creeps. I’m one of the women.

    ‘I kind of want to start a blog that just lists examples of this kind of attitude and how pervasive it is. Each post could be a response to one of the myths about porn and the men who use porn. It would definitely be triggering and graphic though, so I’m not sure anybody would want to read that. I’m not sure I’d want to write that. But I feel that it HAS to be exposed for what it is.’
    I’d read it. You’re right, it must be exposed. You fear it would all be triggering and depressing, but I think it would be balanced out by how elating it is to see someone stand up for truth and human decency.

  98. Aileen Wuornos December 28, 2010 at 8:05 AM #

    Crucial D:
    Again, I apologise if it seemed like I was joking, but I wasn’t. I am very sorry if my comments seem callous, because I forget that not every one is as desensitised to death as me, and it’s good to hear/read that you’ve still managed to honour her memory by doing well in your life.

    No Sugarcoating:

    I too used to be an avid porn consumer/pirater (seeing as I never *paid* for it, but I was encouraging it) and when I first came to Nine’s blog I was defending it and BDSM and a whole bunch of other shit I despise now.

    ‘So delusional on so many levels, but from a man’s POV, PIV = female POSITIVE sexuality and therefore bad. I also saw a comment recently that “Why do pornstars even bother being in porn if they don’t do anal? They might as well be models.” Those are two of the most extreme examples I can think of.*’

    This doesn’t surprise me either, I’ve seen porn users talk about how “weak” female pornstituted womyn and girls are because after they are anally raped on camera for the first time, many of them quit because of the damage they sustain. Dana DeArmond, who does do anal scenes, still cops nothing but shit from her “fans” either way. The fact that 18 is the age for ‘legal’ porn is very telling too, we are still children at that age (despite us thinking that we are not!) and hell, we’re still children really even into our twenties.

    I first saw porn at age 11 and watched it for many years, it has dangerously warped my sexuality and it’s taken so much work for me to de-condition myself from accepting womon-hatred and making hate (Gail Dines) to girls and womyns bodies.

    ‘The first one was only unusual because a guy who acknowledged that anal was extremely “unpopular” with the vast majority of women thought double penetration would be pleasurable, for some reason. I kind of want to start a blog that just lists examples of this kind of attitude and how pervasive it is. Each post could be a response to one of the myths about porn and the men who use porn. It would definitely be triggering and graphic though, so I’m not sure anybody would want to read that. I’m not sure I’d want to write that. But I feel that it HAS to be exposed for what it is.’

    This is a really fantastic idea, if you’d be willing, I would love to help with something like that, it needs to be done. This shit needs to be exposed for the vile, anti-womon junk that it is.

    This isn’t my blog, but thank you for sharing that No Sugarcoating.

  99. Jilla December 28, 2010 at 8:05 AM #

    I am so goddammed triggered by manipulative people.

  100. Andrew December 28, 2010 at 8:05 AM #

    The reason I openedwhy admitting I use porn, besides that ND asked “me” to, is because I didnt want anything I said to be misinterpreted as some sort of defense.

    This, however, is an anti-porn post, and I am wondering if that goes far enough, since it seems that the same problems present in porn are present in most phallic sex as well. Like I already said, Max Hardcore is an easy case as that kind of behavior is offensive in both contexts, but what about the more “vanilla” porn? Some aren’t remarkable at all, but if they are still degrading to women then I fail to see how the sex lives of an overwhelming majority of people aren’t as well.

    If I am right then there should be a conversation about what types of sexual behavior are inherently coercive or degrading. Whether or not a camera is present seems irrelevant.

    Personally, I couldn’t think of a more perfect illustration of male domination than jumping on top of something, sticking my penis in it, pumping until it stopped feeling good, and then withdrawing.

    • Nine Deuce December 28, 2010 at 1:06 PM #

      The presence of the camera is very goddamned significant. I won’t pretend that people — even smart ones — come away from a lifetime of social conditioning without recreating patriarchal rituals in their sex lives, but that’s a far cry from purposely exaggerating them for the purpose of making a profit on anti-woman propaganda and pushing that anti-woman propaganda out into a world which could definitely do without it, thereby making life harder for women and increasing the chances that their real-life sexual encounters will be abusive and male-supremacist.

  101. chad December 28, 2010 at 8:07 AM #

    i just want to say thanx to everyone for the comments. this has opened up a dialogue about a subject that i wanted nine deuce to write about, guys being visually stimulated and all. as a male feminist, i have been told that the best way to help other feminists is to talk about feminism to men… and let me tell you this is not a walk in the park. men do pass off porn consumption as totally natural excluding the role/ways their socialization plays on their consciousness.

  102. Suliz December 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM #

    No Sugar Coating:

    I feel for you! Being 17/18 was tough for me, and it wasn’t made any easier by the douchebags who kept mentioning my age during sex.
    “Tell me how old you are!” Ugh.. As if I needed more reasons to feel icked out about their sexual intrest in me in the first place (seeing as I was clearly disturbed and a borderline addict).

    I turned 20 a month ago and it was SO NICE to just be out of that late teens age bracket. I hope you do go through with that blog. It would be really awful to read, but I think it would be important too. Let me know if you want any help.

  103. lizor December 29, 2010 at 9:46 AM #

    j – why don’t you read the thread?

    The “feminist porn awards” and “crashpad” have already been linked and a discussion of the content there has already been started. If you took the time to get up to speed, you could contribute by telling us why you think this content IS feminist.

    Also, maybe you could elaborate a bit as to why, as you say ““feminist” has a lot of complicated political implications that some people like to avoid”. Could it be that the central tenet of porn is that, sexually speaking, men are above and do the shitting and women are below and get shat upon, so “feminist” in the language of porn, is anti-sexual?

    FTR, I propose that feminism is one of the very few pro-sexuality areas of discourse out there right now, what with porn being so anti-sex and so ubiquitous.

  104. j December 29, 2010 at 9:47 AM #

    Nine Deuce– I don’t disagree with your goal of raising awareness about stuff like rape porn, and in fact, I applaud you for it, but I’m just wary of the way you’re talking about the subject. Yes, you’re right, there are people who are full-on defensive about porn without considering the problems of most porn out there. It’s total denial and essentially saying, “[ALL] PORN IS GOOD!” (Likewise, it doesn’t do any good to say that all porn is evil, either). My concern is that it’s a little condescending the way you are disregarding feminist porn and generalizing about people who produce or work with ethical porn as only talking about how awesome porn is and ignoring the bad stuff. Maybe that’s what you’ve noticed, but I’ve noticed the opposite. Whether or not you agree with the existence of feminist porn (I prefer “ethical porn”—ethical in production, conscious about issues of agency and self-representation in marketing), there are plenty of people in the industry who do enjoy their work, have the sense that the personal is political and have perfectly valid reasons for wanting to be in the porn industry. To imply that their work is unimportant simply because they’re a minority within the larger porn industry denies them the ability to speak for themselves and fails to recognize the good things that they do. And it’s also generalizing A LOT to say that “no one” wants to see feminist porn. There are a lot of people who do want to see ethical porn that isn’t oppressive with stuff like rape porn or all that racist “ORIENTAL PORN” or whatever (which is why I brought up queer porn– I’m not sure why you think they are “fail”, but these people are representing themselves in ways they wish to be, and this is a HUGE deal for the queer community because queer sex has a history of being legally defined as obscene— again, kind of denying agency, yeah?). And for people participating in the production of that kind of porn, it is doing some kind of good in the industry because it recognizes the possibility for porn to NOT be disgusting and degrading. Maybe you don’t care, but I think one effect of ethical/feminist/queer porn is to make people think about ways in which porn can be positive and still be attractive for consumers and performers. Porn producers don’t have to treat porn performers like shit and exploit them. Good working conditions can exist and I’d like to believe that if people knew that and that they are already planning on entering this industry, they’d rather choose to work for companies that aren’t producing exploitative stuff. Point is, the reason why a small minority of people are talking so much about this stuff is because this small percentage of the industry is actually trying to NOT be exploitative. It’s entirely possible to be pro-ethical porn and ACTIVELY anti-unethical porn at the same time.

    • Nine Deuce December 29, 2010 at 10:40 PM #

      Again, here you are taking the focus off the problem/the vast majority and placing it on unicorns.

  105. Valerie December 29, 2010 at 9:47 AM #

    @Andrew
    After your last post, I think you might be a troll but I write this in ernest hoping that some of it starts to make sense to you.
    People behave differently in front of an audience. Whether it be in person or on camera. It’s called ‘the observer effect’. Many different studies have been done on this. An easy to understand example would be that people are more likely to wash their hands in a bathroom if someone else is there.
    Also, humans, whether by nature or nurture, are prone to conformity. There are also numerous studies done on that subject too. And women, who are smaller in size have an extra incentive to conform.
    In short, I think you need to do some more homework. The observer effect is fairly common knowledge for most adults. Please look into it and try to understand.

  106. crucial d December 29, 2010 at 9:47 AM #

    I did find your words callous and I cried when I read them. Her suicide has left me with the pesky side effect of being sensitive. SOS support groups acknowledge that their loved one’s pain is over but we are left with the pain of blaming ourselves and wondering what we could have and should have done differently. It’s different than losing a friend. She was the only mother I’ll ever have and knowing that she felt so horrible about life that she put a bullet in her chest rips me open. I think about her everyday and any mention of suicide puts me in a very dark place. I was watching an episode of House and a woman put a gun to her mouth and I couldn’t get the remote fast enough. I was shaking and weeping because it was just too real to me.

  107. Jilla December 29, 2010 at 9:47 AM #

    I have worked as a professional photographer, and “ambulance chaser”, a “shooter”. When beginning, and being sent out to cover events, I was told “find some young woman, blonde preferably and keep it on her.” That’s your money shot.

    Apart from the fact that I was told that, clearly, and it worked to bring me A1 and a day’s wages, I can see that being used in porn. Even in so-called feminist porn, the camera is on the woman, her reaction, her moaning, her pain, her fear, the disgusting look of cum and mascara mixed drizzling down her face. The camera is NEVER anywhere else, or no-one would watch it and buy it.

  108. skeptifem December 29, 2010 at 12:30 PM #

    “s that theres a continuum of penis-in-vagina that starts with “vanilla” and ends with rape-murder and death from pregnancy-related complications. and that this continum represents the whole of het sexuality, and that its all on this continuum somewhere, and that EVEN what we call “vanilla” and therefore everything “more extreme” too (which everything is, duh. vanilla…then strawberry then chocolate right?) appears to be a direct line to the ultimate destruction of woman. and this is a problem.”

    PIV does not represent the whole of heterosexuality. Your critique works from the point of view of porn, but fortunately private sexual happenings do not have to be like pornography. The culture of porn is something that has to be fought against, and that is completely horrible and damaging, but it doesn’t have to rule the sex lives of straight people.

    Feminist dudes (like the guy from “masculine mystique”) and ones I know IRL acknowledge that women liking/not liking PIV should be about as controversial as women liking/not liking mustard on their sandwiches. Its only a big deal to dudes like andrew who see it as a conquest. I am almost certain thats why he agrees with ya. PIV can be treated as something other than the pinnacle of sex for heterosexual couples. Ones that do have a reasonable attitude towards sexuality and are open about it can change the way other porn indoctrinated people see their own sexual potential. Even in “intercourse” andrea dworkin discusses the possibilities of PIV looking very different than what most people conventionally conceive of it (with female orgasm providing most of the stimulation instead of it being all about thrusting and friction)- that had a powerful effect on me. The idea that sex can be rethought to such an extent was pretty spiffy, made me a lot more optimistic about dudes. Relationships can be a place to team up and work together against oppressive forces like pornography style sexuality. Knowing people who are perfectly happy not fitting the mold of gender roles is something that has had a real effect in the world. Acceptance of gays and being pro-gay rights was a really recent shift, and the number one determinant of changing from an anti-gay to pro-gay stance was simply knowing a homosexual. Coming out did something powerful to society, especially the younger generations. Being fat and happy and not ashamed of it helps many people. The Out project for atheists has made me feel less alienated in the borderline theocracy I live in-it matters to me, a lot. We are all connected; honesty and integrity in action does improve the world for other people who share an oppressive situation. It is one of those small things that can really make a difference over time.

    Okay the rest of my comment is towards several other posters. They are talking about evolution in a truly uninformed manner, talking about how much women inherently do/do not like PIV, or how many nerve endings are in the vagina, etc. Its completely besides the point. We don’t have the needed information to understand how complex human behavior has evolved, period. Any of it. We don’t have a recent ancestor to work off of or the mechanism of the behavior-those are two things that developmental biologists NEED to make a claim on the evolution of anything. Its crap. Also, human sexual is really fucking diverse. It cannot be put into a box or generalized in any real way, and it is highly subject to social conditioning. The limits of what can be changed over a lifetime within an individual’s sexuality is pretty wide ranging, not to say that it is something that we all have under our conscious control all the time or something (obviously). For an extreme example: there are whole groups of people who like to fuck cars, exclusively. There were enough for a conference and a BBC documentary. There are countless things like that within human sexuality that occur repeatedly (which rules out their existence being some kind of fluke), and there aren’t any real answers at this point. Things like the 1000 year obsession with bound feet are an example of a weird fetish being imposed on the general population with great success.
    Human sexuality has fuckall to do with “natural”, I think the goal should be more about being authentic than natural.

  109. Pisaquari December 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM #

    Poor Janitors.
    All these stats tell me is that it’s about time feminists liberate janitors. We haven’t inflated this movement enough. We need MORE people OTHER THAN WOMEN to save.
    …what with all the time we’ll have left over now that we’ve saved porn by making “feminist porn” for approximately 15 people across the globe–we can now focus on making sure janitors feel sexy.

    Now that our husbands, significant others, brothers, uncles, friends, coworkers, fellow apartment dwellers, MEN–now that they finally have all this ethical stuff to watch I bet they will stop raping us and beating us and verbally abusing us and doing all that other stuff they do in 90% of the porn out there. Right?
    Riiiigght.

    Oh and men aren’t visual. I know this because I know it. Jacking off to 4 square inches of female genitalia is *not* visual. Jacking off to the same body parts over and over-all looking approximately the same (I mean, come on)-is NOT visual. If they’re so fricking visually wired, why aren’t they delighting in ALL SORTS of images? What about the gold finches or the sistine chapel or greek statues? What about all that *brilliant art* they’ve been shoving down our throats as “masterpieces” for centuries? They claim they have designed and “erected” (ahem) all the great buildings and paintings and monuments. Of course you have.
    Now splooge on it.
    Men aren’t visual.

  110. Andrew December 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM #

    @Skeptifem,

    I suppose PIV does not have to engender much “thrusting and friction,” but you acknowledge at least that that type of intercourse (the overwhelming majority) is problematic. I said, based on FCM’s observation, that there should be a conversation about whether even “vanilla” sex (as opposed to just porn) could be particularly offensive, abrasive, or degrading. It looks like Dworkin had the same idea.

    @Valerie,

    The observer effect does not illustrate why porn is particularly problematic. These women are certainly acting differently than they would in a private setting, and that may create an additional set of problems regarding the expectations it creates in viewers, but it is only when these acts are intertwined with ideas of male domination that they become feminist issues. That, at least to me, seems to make the substance more problematic than the fact there is a camera in the room. Moreover, the observer effect would not contemplate situations wherein the “actors” (both) do not realize they are being taped. I doubt that kind of pornography would necessarily be okay.

    Anyway, this point is straightforward, the criticisms directed at porn could and should likely be directed at the way normal intercourse takes place off-camera as well. As for “trolling,” I wouldn’t have said anything if FCM’s idea wasn’t dismissively cast aside by the majority of readers. I would much rather be a troll than someone who refused to treat the subject seriously.

  111. factcheckme December 29, 2010 at 4:55 PM #

    Feminist dudes (like the guy from “masculine mystique”) and ones I know IRL acknowledge that women liking/not liking PIV should be about as controversial as women liking/not liking mustard on their sandwiches. Its only a big deal to dudes like andrew who see it as a conquest.

    i am sorry, but this is just a baldfaced fucking lie. either you are lying, or the “feminist doods” you know are lying. there is JUST NO WAY that this is true.

    no PIV = abstinence. everyone knows this. now, i am not talking about each and every encounter NECESSARILY, because there are those alt couples who do “other stuff too!!!!111!1!” and pat themselves on the back for being so sexually diverse, and stuff, and things. i am talking about het sexuality in its entirety, AS a sexuality. its PIV-based. meaning, if you are straight and partnered with someone who is NEVER, and i mean NEVER going to have PIV with you, especially by choice, this relationship is unconsummated, that person is prudish, or there are hangups or issues etc etc. you know its true, and so do i.

    also, as i say repeatedly on my blog, i am talking about the way things ARE. not the way they SHOULD be or COULD be or the way i wish it were. IF there are a tiny handful of people who this does not apply to, they are as elusive as “feminist porn” and you are being completely disingenuous if you are spending any time at all discussing them, instead of acknowledging my point.

    and PS. those doods are so totally lying.

  112. Porserpina December 29, 2010 at 10:51 PM #

    This is not going to be a popular comment, but girls, I feel it needs to be said.

    I am a 22-year-old woman who is bisexual and enjoys watching pornography. I have been raped, and I have witnessed violence against women first-hand. However, I do object to your article, not only because I do not believe /all/ porn is bad, but also because I think your experiment fails intellectually. Here is why.

    First off – I do not doubt that some men (and indeed women) do enjoy the subjugation of women, even in a sexual manner. However, in saying that “all men who enjoy porn” also enjoy being violent towards women, you are condemning millions, if not billions, of decent fathers, husbands, grandfathers, uncles and brothers, (most likely some of them your own), and in fact, your analogy falls apart almost at first glance.

    Let’s look at in detail.

    Essentially, your argument goes, that if we enjoy watching something violent, and it inspires in us certain emotions (e.g. it turns us on), then we must, necessarily, enjoy what we are seeing, in the manner of the emotion (e.g. sexually). Now, whilst this appears to make logical sense, it is in fact erroneous. Take those who watch musicals. Whilst they enjoy watching people singing about something (e.g. singing in the rain), it inspires in them a certain emotion (e.g. happiness), it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they enjoy the rain, by the association with singing they have enjoyed; many will in fact be averse to it, and some may even be scared of thunderstorms.

    Let us now look at porn. Whilst some people may indeed enjoy sadism, the majority are unlikely to find the sadistic act itself a turn-on. Porn is not about violence; porn is about watching graphic, visceral sex; the images are explicit and often demeaning to the women involved, but simply put, they hardly put the men in a particularly dignified light either. Often, it is true, men are exaggeratedly dominant in these roles; but I would argue that this is often just a hyperbolic representation of the feeling of sexualised masculinity, of dominance or “machismo”, that does not neccessitate men getting off at the sight of women in pain.

    Secondly, I think the nature of watching porn needs to be taken into account. Porn is simply sex, no strings, no fuss, just something to jack off to briefly. Porn is not the sort of movie short wherein you carefully consider the title before watching. Yes, frequently words such as “slut”, “whore” and “cunt” are used, and it is very easy to perceive this as a demeaning insult to women. However, porn isn’t about women – it is just about sex, which is exactly what these titles convey. Porn is a fantasy – not to say that men fantasize about brutalising women, but rather that they are able to briefly suspend their concept of “women” from the sex act. What is being depicted, at that time, is not a “woman” – it is a “slut”, “whore” or “cunt”, that is to say, it is a fictious construct of an object whose purpose is entirely for sex. This is precisely because the majority of men do not want to see “women” being used for sex acts, hardcore or otherwise – rather, they want to see the stimulus (a body) in a ficticious vacuum, aside from the emotional or intellectual considerations which sex with a “woman” innately connotes. Similarly, the men themselves in porn are objectified – most do not show their faces, and in fact are reduced to nothing more than a disconnected groin section, in affect, a floating penis, detached from any real person or “man”.

    Thirdly – some women have argued that porn’s focus on the woman in the film is objectifying, and further proves the violent intent, by focussing on her reactions, without which, the film would not be sold. To this, I can but be shocked that anyone could miss the point, that the female body is of *course* the centre of attention in pornography aimed at heterosexual males, simply because this market, which is the largest target audience of pornography, does not find the male anatomy attractive. To put it another way, if they wanted to watch naked men romping, there’s plenty of gay porn out there, which focusses on the men involved (Google it – I got 21,800,000 results – way above the number for “rape”, “brutal” or “dog” porn). The lack of male presence in porn aimed at heterosexual men is nothing to do with inequality, simply that the man’s presence, beyond functioning as desired, is a turn-off. Lesbian and gay porn, however, focusses equally on both partners, as both are viable attractions for the audience.

    Finally, I did my own googling experiment on different types of porn, just to show where it fails. The problem is, the act of masturbation is uniquely isolated from man’s other faculties, that is to say, it is completely separate from any emotional or intellectual interference. The desire for sex with a specific partner carries with it emotional and intellectual desires, understandings and consequences; the desire to masturbate (ignoring any debate as to the ethical value of the act itself, which, I will add, I believe to not only be harmless, but in fact healthy) does not. Therefore, the unpopularity of the term “feminist porn”, I would suggest, has nothing to do with the objection to the concept of sexual equality, but merely the fact that “feminist” is a term of intellectual concern, and as I just stated, the desire for masturbation refrains from intellectual consideration. Furthermore, I’d argue that the overwhelming popularity of such searches as “dog porn”, and the graphic nature of the terms used to describe it, have less to do with degradation of women, and are more inspired by man’s obsession with witnessing brutality and extremity in any human behaviour.

    Let’s put it to the test.

    First, let’s get the nasty stuff out of the way. How much of the popularity of searches such as “dog porn”, and, indeed “rape porn” is because of our obsession with disgusting spectacle, extremity and ugliness?

    Not to start too extreme, I googled “Ugly porn.” Even I was surprised with the overwhelming popularity: 3,760,000 results – far more than either “rape porn” (1,860,000) or “brutal porn” (2,810,000 results).

    Next I tried something more extreme. I googled “Extreme porn” – which came up with a whopping 69,900,000 results. I narrowed it down a bit, trying to think of strange catergories of porn that had been missed off the list, including:

    - Weird porn – 4,380,000 results, showing how fascinated we are by bizarre acts.

    – Funny porn – 70,600,000 results makes it laughably more popular than “dog porn”, at 47,600,000 results.

    – Feet porn – 5,800,000 results, making it more popular than “rape porn” and “brutal porn” combined (4,670,000).

    – Vegetable porn – 901,000 results (getting your five-a-day in a more unique fashion proved far more popular than violent “redneck porn”).

    Removing women from the equation altogether, I decided a new tactic. I googled “brutal gay porn”, to see if it was true that all degradation in porn is directed towards women. The result? 33,100,000 results, or 11x the amount of heterosexual “brutal porn”.

    I also had a look for anything that would back up my argument that porn is about fantasy, and does not in fact concern the concept of “woman” or indeed “man”, so much as it does “anatomy of the desired sex”. Cartoon porn, which involves no real humans whatsoever, proved overwhelmingly popular, with 3,260,000 results; hentai (a form of Japanese animated pornography) came in at 73,000,000 results.

    Finally,I googled the following, to try to prove that an intellectual term such as “feminist” will not work in a search engine when combined with “porn” because porn’s function in masturbation is disassociated from any intellectual concern:

    Republican Porn – 1,450,000 results, none of which involved any actual porn (most were news articles related to Republicans’ scandalous involvement in porn or their stances on porn).

    Socialist porn – 474,000 results. Surprisingly, the liberals have less internet association with pornography than the right-wing. Once again, no actual porn involved.

    Marxist porn – 152,000 results – yes, a porn that is actually far less popular than “feminist porn”, which comparatively has a whopping 322,000 results.

    Post-modernist porn – only slightly more popular than the feminists, with 351,000 results.

    Dadaist porn – 510,000 results.

    For my last google of the evening, I decided to look for an atonym to “feminist” that would still have the same intellectual distancing effect when googled in conjunction with “porn”. “Mysogynistic porn” comes up with 1,630,000 results – however, after 34 pages, I have not seen one single pornographic entry, merely a very long list of articles. Even if men are looking for degrading pornography (and I am not denying it exists), using an intellectual concept in a search engine clearly does not work for finding actual porn.

    My apologies that this post is around the same length as the article itself; I just felt this needed saying. I’m not saying violence against women doesn’t exist, in porn and elsewhere, and I’m certainly not saying it’s something we should take a blase “shit happens, you can’t do anything to stop it” attitude towards. However, I am saying that pornography is not by any means synonymous with sexual violence, and that it is possible to enjoy this sort of media without enjoying the subjugation of women.

    • Nine Deuce December 29, 2010 at 11:18 PM #

      Someone else please respond to this. I’m tired.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM #

      Porsepina, definitely doesn’t get it and what pornography taught her is mostly why,and the whole sexist,woman-hating,gender stereotyped male dominated insane world we all liv in that created pornography in the first place!

      And for a *woman* especially any who call themselves “feminists” liking and using pornography is excatly like a Black person who calls themselves a civil rights activist liking and using racist Klu Klux Klan pornography or a Jewish person with Nazi pornography!

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM #

        Below is from the anti-pornography feminist site Pornography And The First Amendment. Twiss Butler of The Washington NOW said to me that women who support pornography and call themselves “feminists” are supporting sexism and woman-hating and are *NOT* feminists,and she’s totally right they are traders and hypocrites!

        Women’s Institute for

        Freedom of the Press

        Pornography and the First Amendment

        Twiss Butler

        from her chapter “Why The First Amendment Is Being Used to Protect Violence Against Women,” in The Price We Pay, The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography, Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds. (NY: Hill & Wang, 1995)

        “Twiss Butler argues that men’s control of institutions of communication and education allows them to support speech that harms women and to suppress speech against that harm. She observes that the publishing industry funds legal, journalistic, and nonprofit organizations endorsing a First Amendment absolutist position. She contends that the industry’s defense of pornography as protected speech serves the double purpose of dignifying misogyny and establishing the First Amendment as the publisher’s product liability shield.” (p. 160)

        “When feminists criticize pornography as graphic misogyny, they are attacking not only the system of sexism itself, with its economic and social pay-offs for men, not only Playboy’s advertising rates, but also publishers’ broad First Amendment shield against liability for any harm caused by the products that they produce and sell.

        “The publishing industry and the men in it therefore have a conflict of interest in reporting a critique of pornography as inimical to women’s civil rights (unsecured as those rights are by the Constitution). We need to consider how that conflict of interest distorts the information we receive through journalistic coverage of public debate and action on this issue.

        “Publishers protect their liability shield either by silencing feminists while granting speech to those who vilify them, or by misrepresenting the feminist critique of pornography. Women are given credibility and access to speech to the extent that they say what men want them to say. Stray from the script and you will be attacked, misquoted, or simply go unheard. As power brokers in a large industry profiting from sexism, publishers disguise this censorship as selfless concern for the First Amendment and freedom of speech. (p. 163) …

        “In the news business as elsewhere, men have long relied on the weapon of pornography to avoid having to compete on their own merits. The role pornography plays in keeping women journalists at a disadvantage is evident in the experience of Lynn carrier, an editorial writer for the San Diego Tribune who sued the paper in 1990 for sex discrimination and harassment. Men coworkers attempted to intimidate and segregate Carrier by displaying pornography in the office, using sexual insults when talking with her, and asking her to run out and buy a copy of Playboy for her supervisor–who also wondered aloud what she would charge Playboy for posing nude for photographs. Carrier won her civil suit (refusing, incidentally, to accept a secret settlement), but the outcome was typical–she no longer works at the Tribune, but is employed instead at a smaller paper in the area. (p. 164) …

        “To protect pornography, women’s speech must be carefully controlled. When Linda Lovelace said she loved starring in pornographic films, she was treated as credible; when Linda Marchiano said that she had been beaten, raped, and coerced into making those films, her credibility was questioned. No risk is overlooked. At a National Press Club speech by Christie Hefner in 1986, I addressed her ‘as a pornographer’ in a written question about her lawsuit to censor testimony from a federal hearing that referred to Playboy as pornography; when my question was read aloud by the club’s president, these three words were deleted.” (pp. 166-167)

        [This chapter by Twiss Butler alone is worth the purchase of The Price We Pay, The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography. The entire book is excellent and highly recommended.] These comments are from the site,not mine.

        • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:35 PM #

          Studies by Dr.John Court found that in Australia Queensland did not allow easy distribution of pornography but South Australia allowed easy and accessible pornography.He compared the rape rate of 100,000 at risk for more than a 13 year period and found Queensland had no increase in their rape rate,but South Australia’s rape rate increased 6 times! In 1974 Hawai allowed easy distribution of pornography and their rape rate increased,then they restricted it and the rape rate went down,and then they allowed wide distribution again,and the rape rate went up again and then when they restricted again,the rapes decreased!

          Sociologists Larry Baron and Murray Straus also did a state-state circulation rate of pornographic magazine sales and the connection to states with the highest sales of these magazines including playboy and the rape rate in those states.And in Alaska and Nevada is where the pornographic magazines sold the highest,and those 2 states also had the highest rape rates compared to any other states.They repeated this study the next year and the findings were exactly the same,even when they controlled for other causes,and it was only sexual assault that increased not other crimes.

          And,

          Linnea Smith By Patricia Barrera

          Linnea Smith is your average woman of the 90s. She has a satisfying family life, rewarding career in mental health and interests that include traveling with her husband, spending time with her daughters, babying her dogs and reading pornography. Yes…reading pornography–and using her professional skills and expanding international network to fight it. Like most of us, she never really thought about pornography as a critical social issue until a 1985 media conference where she learned about past and present research on pornographic materials. And what she learned shocked and angered her.

          As a psychiatrist, feminist, and woman, she was well aware of the personal and societal consequences of battery, rape, and child sexual abuse. The results of the studies delivered at that fateful conference were an indictment to the connection of pornographic materials, both directly and indirectly, with these violent sex crimes. For Smith, pornography became an issue of public health and human rights that needed to be addressed.

          As every critical thinker should, Smith went straight to the source to see for herself what was going on. She turned to Playboy, the nation’s first pornography magazine to earn mainstream acceptance and support. By 1984 Playboy had 4.2 million subscribers, and was selling 1.9 million magazines at newsstands (Miller, 1984).

          The results of her extensive investigation of the magazine (from the 1960s on) are presented in three brochures. “It’s Not Child’s Play” is a disturbing brochure that outlines the specific ways in which Playboy sexualizes small children and presents them as sexual targets for adult males in their magazine. The collection of cartoons and pictorials is damning, and made even more so when juxtaposed against pathetic statements made by Playboy representatives denying they ever used children in their publication. Smith very well could have called the brochure “Playboy Exposed”.

          Right alongside their claims that “Playboy never has, never will” publish such offensive imagery (Playboy, December, 1985), Smith placed pictures the magazine did indeed publish- of children in sexual encounters with adults and references to girl children as ‘Playmate’ material. In December of 1978, for example, Playboy published a picture of a five year old girl with the caption “my first topless picture,” and in March of that same year published a cartoon in which Dorothy from The Wizard of Oz is pointing out the Lion, Scarecrow, and Tin Man to a police officer as having just raped her on the yellow brick road.

          Smith did not limit her investigation to the use of children in Playboy. She found jokes about sexual harassment, abuse, manipulation, dehumanization and avoidance of intimacy by men toward their partners and callousness toward women in general, and the promotion of sexual conquest over women instead of sexual intimacy with a woman.

          In another powerful and well documented brochure, “As Sex Education, Men’s Magazines are Foul PLAY, BOYS!,” Smith once again had Playboy do the talking for her. The brochure featured Playboy cartoons that dehumanized women like the one in which a man was shown holding a pornography magazine over his girlfriend’s face and body as they are having sex (Playboy, August, 1974), and another featuring a taxidermist calling a man to come and pick up his wife, who had been stuffed (Playboy, April, 1995). Was she hunted down and killed, too?

          Smith’s brochures include extensive documentation and commentary by recognized scholars and researchers addressing the impact of pornography on our society. There are chilling statistics, like the finding that 100% of all high school aged males in one survey reported having read or looked at pornography, with the average age of viewing the first issue being 11 years old (Bryant, testimony to the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography Hearings, 1985).

          In another study she lists, three per cent of the women in a random sample and 8.5 per cent in a survey of college undergraduate women reported being physically coerced into sex by someone inspired by pornography. Ten per cent of the nonstudent and 24 per cent of the student respondents answered yes to the question of whether they had ever been upset by someone trying to get them to do something out of a pornographic book, movie, or magazine (cited by Anderson in Lederer and Delgado, eds., 1995).

          Also included is a study conducted by Mary Koss on 6,000 college students in which she found that men reporting behavior meeting legal definitions of rape were significantly more likely to be frequent readers of pornography magazines than those men who did not report engaging in such behavior (Koss and Dinero, 1989).

          Smith is one of few people to expand her analysis of pornographic magazines to include the presence of drugs and alcohol, especially important today considering the almost epidemic level of drug and alcohol use by adults and teenagers in this country, Smith agrees that drugs and alcohol are contributing factors to high risk and coercive sex, and that the relationship between them within pornographic materials is an overlooked, and greatly needed, area of research.

          As Smith explains ” . . . No [other] reputable publication brought positive drug information within easy reach of juvenile (or adult) consumers. Since 1970, Playboy has been glamorizing intoxication as a mind-expanding, sexually-enhancing experience. It is difficult to conclude these magazines have not played a major role in popularizing ‘recreational’ drug consumption and the myth of its being fun, risk-free, and even sexy. What greater reinforcement for drug taking behavior than to eroticize it?”

          In “Drug Coverage in Playboy Magazine,” a brochure she developed for the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association), Smith compiled a plethora of cartoons that favorably paired sex with drugs and alcohol. Cartoons, articles and columns advise readers on how to use drugs for sexual enhancement. References to negative effects were usually humorously presented and so, easily dismissed.

          Playboy’s depiction of underage users of drugs and alcohol even included their own version of the Official Boy Scout Handbook in (Playboy, August, 1984). Their suggestions for Scout Merit Badges included “Water Safety” for the scout who ordered his Johnnie Walker whiskey straight up, and “Free-Basing” for the scout who smoked cocaine. A similar feature in 1979 stated that “Today, ‘boyhood fun’ means cruising and scoring; overnight adventures’ involve Ripple and car stripping; and ‘survival skills include cocaine testing, bust evasion and cutting into gas lines” (Playboy, December, 1979).

          Once Smith contacted the NCAA about her serious concerns, media attention and public scrutiny increased. Playboy denied any wrongdoing, claiming they were only reflecting a “major cultural phenomena”, but they did scale back the more obvious pro-drug and alcohol features in the magazine. damage control campaign resulted in a politically correct editorial statement on the magazine’s position on drug abuse in the May 1987 issue as well as a few anti-drug articles. To counter Smith’s NCAA attempts, the magazine also courted collegiate sports information offices with a mass mailing of a hastily compiled slick, glossy booklet “The Dangers of Drugs”, explaining their “real” position against substance abuse. However the magazine still includes covert messages glamorizing substance abuse and pairing sexualized alcohol consumption with easier prey. According to Smith, “we succeeded in exposing yet another dimension of the destructive nature of pornography, and, at the very least, cost Playboy some time and money.”

          It may also cost Playboy the niche they are trying to carve out for themselves in organized sports. Playboy’s strategy for commercial success has been to include respected and well- known public figures in their magazine, an old tactic for aspiring to legitimacy. That way the magazine may be looked at as more of a credible news journal than just a porno rag. Readers too, can feel better about their consumption of pornographic pictures of women when they are “wrapped” in articles about current social issues. It made business sense to Playboy to seek out an alliance with athletes who, in some countries, are accorded hero status.

          So they came up with an annual pre-season award for college level athletes and coaches, the Playboy All-America Award. The nominated players and coaches receive an all-expenses paid trip to a luxury resort for a weekend party, photo session and public relations blitz.

          The team selection process is unorthodox at best. It is not a panel of sports officials but rather Photography Director Gary Cole, doubling as sports editor when needed, (Playboy, March, 1996, p.117) who chooses players and coaches for the award. The prerequisite is not athletic ability but rather who agrees to be photographed for the magazine. Again, a common tactic for legitimacy. Playboy rejects players unwilling to have their pictures associated with the magazine- -its content and underlying messages–and keeps making “awards” until the sufficient number of players and coaches agree to the photo sessions. The event hit some legal snafus as well. Complaints were officially lodged with the NCAA which included the presence of professional agents at the photo sessions. This charge, like the others, was also denied by the magazine in a letter to the NCAA.

          Go to Part II

          • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:37 PM #

            From psychiatrist Linnea Smith’s excellent important site with *tons* of research studies on the many harms of pornography!

            http://www.talkintrash.com/playboy/PB96.00.html

            ANOTHER LOOK AT CENTERFOLDS

            NOTE: This website contains material that may be offensive. All visuals are drawn from Playboy magazine. The purpose of this website is educational. Research in the field of sexual media indicates that the actual use of the material is far more effective than just text in relaying the covert messages and harmful implications of pornography. We have used the least explicit yet still representative examples.

            YES, I’M OVER EIGHTEEN AND I WISH TO PROCEED

            Playing With Boys’ Fantasies… Is Not a Game
            PART I PART II PART III PART IV

            Child Magnets Help Attract a Young Audience
            PART I PART II

            Targeting Children is Big Bu$iness
            PART I PART II

            Soft Core’s Hard Sell
            PART I PART II PART III

            Sex with a Scorecard
            PART I PART II

            Is There Anything about Children NOT for Sale?
            PART I PART II PART III

            Youth Public Health Unzipped
            PART I PART II

            A Picture’s Worth a Thousand Sexist Words
            PART I PART II

            The Pornography Party Line: Sexualizing Inequality, Teaching Contempt
            PART I PART II

            The Sexual Subordination of Women Puts Females at Greater Risk for Harassment, Manipulation, and Harm
            PART I PART II PART III PART IV

            Readers are Sexually Shortsheeted by Messages Devaluing Relationship, Intimacy and Partnership.
            PART I PART II PART III

            Soft Core is Costly “Speech” for a Free Society

            PART I PART II PART III PART IV

            “I Read Playboy for the Articles…” But Do You Get the Message?
            PART I PART II

            Activism Section

            We All Need to Take A Closer Look

            And Work Together for Social Justice

            People Take Action: What YOU Can do

            Beyond the Cost of Pornography

            Bar Endnotes

            Men who said NO to PLAYBOY
            Project Director
            Linnea Smith
            WebCrafter
            Nikki Craft

            For more information, contact:
            Linnea Smith, M.D., P.O. Box 16413, Chapel Hill, NC 27516

            This complete Playboy brochure is available for downloading and viewing on Acrobat Reader. For more information on getting this brochure with Acrobat go to Linnea Smith’s Homepage. Or the brochure can be read directly from your WWW browser.

            Since Feb 18, 1998

            • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:38 PM #

              Psychiatrist Park Elliott Dietz On Porn Harms

              In 1994 I wrote to psychiatrist Dr.Linnea Smith about my experience and the harms of pornography. She wrote me back a very nice note and thanked me for my important efforts to educate people on the harms of porn. She said it’s especially difficult because the public is desensitzed and the media is reluctant to crititicize other media especially sexually explicit media. She sent me two huge folders full of important information on the harms including Playboy cartoons of women being sexually harassed in the workplace by their male bosses!

              One of the many things she sent me was a transcribed lecture by psychiatrist and law professor Dr.Park Elliott Dietz, and this lecture was given before the National Conference of State Legislators on August 5 1986 and was videotaped by C-Span. Dr. Dietz served as a commissioner on the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography. He was professor of law,professor of Behavioral Medicine and Psychiatry,and Medical Director of The Institute of Law,Psychiatry and Medical Director of The Institute of Law,Psychiatry and Public Policy at The University of Virginia School of Law and School of Medicine.

              He gave many examples of women and children’s testimonies who were sexually abused by men who used pornography,and also women who were sexually harassed on the job with pornographic pictures hung up on the walls and shown to them. He said he only used a small sample of the 1000′s of women and children who testified. He says many times that pornography is a health problem and human rights issue and he said one of the reasons is because so much of it teaches false,misleading,and even dangerous information about human sexuality.

              This is what he said a person would learn about sexuality from pornography, “A person who learned about human sexuality in the “adults only” pornography outlets of America would be a person,who had never conceived of a man and woman marrying or even falling in love before having intercourse,who had never conceived of two people making love in privacy without guilt or fear of discovery,who had never conceived of tender foreplay,who had never conceived of vaginal intercourse with ejaculation during intromission,and who had never conceived of procreation as a purpose of sexual union.,

              Instead,such a person would be one who had learned that sex at home meant sex with one’s children,stepchildren,parents,stepparents,siblings,cousins,nephews,nieces,aunts,uncles,and pets,and with neighbors,milkmen,plumbers,salesmen,burglars,and peepers,who had learned that people take off their clothes and have sex within the first 5 minutes of meeting one another,who had learned to misjudge the percentage of women who prepare for sex by shaving their pubic hair,having their breasts,buttocks or legs tattooed,having their nipples or labia pierced,or donning leather,latex,rubber,or childlike costumes,who had learned to misjudge the proportion of men who prepare for sex by having their genitals or nipples pierced,wearing women’s clothing,or growing breasts.

              Who had learned that about 1 out of 5 sexual encounters involves spankning,whipping,fighting,wrestling,tying,chaining,gagging,or torture,who had learned that more than 1 in 10 sexaul acts involves a party of more than 2,who had learned that the purpose of ejaculation is that of soiling the mouths,faces,breasts,abdomens,backs,and food at which it’s always aimed,who had learned that body cavities were designed for the insertion of foreign objects,who had learned that the anus was a genital to be licked and penetrated,who had learned that urine and excrement are erotic materials,who had learned that the instruments of sex chemicals,handcuffs,gags,hoods,restraints,harnesses,police badges,knives,guns,whips,paddles,toilets,diapers,enema bags,inflatable rubber women,and disembodied vaginas,breasts,and penises,who had learned that except with the children,where secrecy was required,photographers and cameras were supposed to be present to capture the action so that it could be spread abroad.

              If these were the only adverse consequences of pornography,the most straightforward remedy would be to provide factually accurate information on human sexuality to people before they are exposed to pornography,if only we could agree on what that information is,on who should provide it to the many children whose parents are incapable of doing so,and on effective and acceptable means by which to ensure that exposure not precede education. In the absense of such a remedy,the probable consequences in this area alone are sufficient to support recommendations that would reduce the dissemination of that pornography which teaches false,misleading or dangerous information about human sexuality. And these are not the only adverse consequences of pornography.

              He then says before he gives more examples and research,that pornography is a health problem and human rights issue because it increases the probability that members of the exposed population will acquire attitudes that are detrimental to the physical and mental health of both those exposed and those around them,pornography is a health problem and human rights issue because it is used as an instrument of sexual abuse and sexual harassment.

              And look where we are now!

              • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:47 PM #

                There was a university of Pennsylvania student who was gang raped in 1990 after college men watched porn videos in their dorms.And I still have a 1985 letter written into Mademoiselle Magazine by a woman who wrote in response to Peter Nelson’s His Column,Why Nice Guys Like Playboy,she wrote from Allendale New Jersey,”I just finished reading Peter Nelson’s His Colum.Peter Nelson is certainly no nice guy,nor is any participant in pornography, a trade which profits from the exploitation of women.Why I must ask does a so-called “woman’ magazine” feature editorials which support misogyny? Mr.Nelson’s callous disregard for women is
                evident in his neglect to face the fact that pornography promotes rape and violence .I know,because my best friend was raped by four men who used pornography as a reference guide.

                There were several articles that were online from MIT’s newspaper The Tech from 1983,1984 and 1985 about how women were being sexually harassed year after year in the 1980′s after men watched hardcore porn videos on campus the university lecture hall and of because of the sexual harassment of women students after the showings. Rhea from the sadly former Women’s Alliance Against Pornography Education Project in Cambridge,sent me a lot of research on the harms of pornography back in 1991.One of the things she sent me included information that North Carolina State Representavie Richard Wright-Democrat,while announcing enactment of anti-pornography legislation he sponsored,cited a N.C. State Police study which found:defendants in 75% of the violent sex crimes in the state”had some kind of hard-core pornographic material” in their homes or vechicles.”I’m talking about S&M (sadistic & masochistic) material,bondage he said,that came from The New York Times 1/26/86 &
                10/13/85;The Virginian Pilot 10/20/85 and the articles were contributed by Alexandra Basil,Ray Lynn Oliver;Barbara Sparrow.

                The information also included a study conducted by the Michigan State Police in which 38,000 sexual assaults from 1956 to 1979 were analyzed found that in at least 41% of those crimes,pornography was used or imitated just prior to or during the act this came from Ladies Home Journal October 1985.The information Rhea sent me also included that a study of 36 convicted sexually oriented murderers/serial killers,found the single most common trait amongst them was 81% listed their primary sexual interest as pornography,71% voyeurism.The study’s objective,conducted by the FBI’s behavioral science unit in Quantico,Virginia,was to develop a psychological profile on sex killers in order to track them faster.The researchers concluded,after interviews with the 36 who collectively provided information on 1,188 murders,that the killers were characteristically immeresed in fantasy,this came from NY Daily News 6/26/85 and This World 7/14/85.

                Feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler says in her
                book,Patriarchy:Notes Of An Expert Witness that serial killers are obessed with pornography and woman hatred and sexually use their victime both before and after killing them,and she said most wife beaters,pedaphiles,rapists and serial killers of women are addicted to pornography. Nobody would need to do studies
                to prove that racist and anti-semetic pornography is very harmful to Blacks
                and Jews and it never would have been mainstreamed and made acceptable!

                Dr.Gene Abel also found that more than 50% of sex offenders used
                pornography and that they were less able to control their abusive behavior than sex offenders who didn’t use it. Psychiatrist Dr.William Marshall who treats rapists and child molesters,found that 86% of rapists regularly use pornography and that 57% imitate pornographic scenes in the commiting of their crimes he also found that in a study of convicted child molesters in Ontario Canada,77% of those who molested boys and 87% of those who molested girls said they were regular users of hard-core pornography.

                • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:53 PM #

                  News Print Article Email Friend

                  STUDY PROVES “PORNOGRAPHY IS HARMFUL”

                  by LifeSiteNews.com

                  Tue Mar 12, 2002 12:15 EST

                  Tweet

                  “Findings are Alarming”; 12,000 Participants in Study

                  CALGARY, March 12, 2002 (LSN.ca) – A new study has found that viewing pornography is harmful to the viewer and society. In a meta-analysis (a statistical integration of all existing scientific data), researchers have found that using pornographic materials leads to several behavioral, psychological and social problems.

                  One of the most common psychological problems is a deviant attitude towards intimate relationships such as perceptions of sexual dominance, submissiveness, sex role stereotyping or viewing persons as sexual objects. Behavioral problems include fetishes and excessive or ritualistic masturbation. Sexual aggressiveness, sexually hostile and violent behaviours are social problems as well as individual problems that are linked to pornography.

                  “Our findings are very alarming”, said Dr. Claudio Violato one of the co-authors of the study. Dr. Violato, Director of Research at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education (NFFRE) and a professor at the University of Calgary, said “This is a very serious social problem since pornography is so widespread nowadays and easily accessible on the internet, television, videos and print materials”.

                  Studies have shown that almost all men and most women have been exposed to pornography. An increasing number of children are also being exposed to explicitly sexual materials through mass media. The rise in sexual crimes, sexual dysfunction and family breakdown may be linked to the increased availability and use of pornography. The rape myth (belief that women cause and enjoy rape, and that rapists are normal) is very widespread in habitual male users of pornography according to the study.

                  “There has been some debate among researchers about the degree of negative consequences of habitual use of pornography, but we feel confident in our findings that pornography is harmful”, Violato noted. “Our study involved more than 12,000 participants and very rigorous analyses. I can think of no beneficial effects of pornography whatsoever. As a society we need to move towards eradicating it”.

                  The authors of the study concluded that exposure to pornography puts viewers at increased risk for developing sexually deviant tendencies, committing sexual offences, experiencing difficulties in intimate relationships, and accepting of the rape myth. Dr. Elizabeth Oddone-Paolucci and Dr. Mark Genuis, researchers at the National Foundation for Family Research and Education, are co-authors of the study that was published in the scientific journal Mind, Medicine and Adolescence.

                  For more information see NFFRE at: http://www.nffre.com

                  All content copyright 1997-2010 LifeSiteNews.com, all rights reserved.

                  • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:56 PM #

                    Pornography is extremely sexist and woman-hating and it teaches and normalizes sick distortions of women,men and sexuality,and it sexualizes male supremacy,sexist gender inequality,male dominance,women’s subordination and submission to men,,male supremacy objectification and dehumanization of women as only sex objects to be used,ejac*lated all over,and disgarded, for men,often calls women woman-hating names like s***s,b******,and w***** and even male violence!

                    And because it sexualizes and normalizes all of these sick things and sexist injustices, and has been wrongly mainstreamed and made acceptable in a sexist sick woman-hating male dominated society,that created and normalized it in the first place,more women are sadly disturbingly being influenced to think this is what normal hetrosexuality is,and it teaches men that this is what women want and like, and that they want to be treated by them this way! Attitudes like yours really make any hope for change seem hopless!

                    Many men who used to use pornography when they were younger who are now anti-pornography anti-sexist anti-male violence educators include, former all star high school football player Jackson Katz who wrote the great important book,The Macho Paradox How Some Men Hurt Women and How All Men Can Help and he writes about how pornography sexualizes men’s power,woman hatred,sexual objectification and dehumanization and subordination of women,and this is all connected to male violence,and gender inequality,and how the pornography industry has sold this woman-hatred and men’s power as normal and liberating to the public.

                    Therapist Russ Funk who is a anti-racist,anti-sexist,anti-male violence educator has written books and articles on this as well and he had a chapter ,What Pornography Says About Me(n) in the book,Not For Sale:Feminists Resisting Prostitution & Pornography in which he said that when he used pornography he saw all women as just f***able even women he saw in classes,business coleagues and women on the street .He said being commited to justice and using pornography is inherently contradictory,because one can not look at others as fully equal,empowered,dynamic human beings if one is also looking at them through the pornographic gaze.

                    He also did a presentation in 2006 at The Center For Women Children and Families,Pornography What’s The Harm? On his site it describes 3 workshops he presents to people on the harms of pornography.He also wrote a book in 1993,Stopping Rape:A Challenge For Men and he includes pornography as one of the causes of rape culture.

                    The important organization,Men Can Stop Rape also discusses and educates on how men’s sexuality is socialized by pornography.

                    And Robert Jensen has written great articles and his important book,Getting Off Pornography And The End Of Masculinity.And Dr.Michael Flood’s recent report is great too.John Stoltenberg’s excellent 1989 book,Refusing To Be A Man Essays On Sex and Justice that consists of brilliant important speaches he made from the late 70′s -the late 80′s also discusses how pornography eroticizes and sexualizes male supremacy, sexism,woman hatred,violence,male dominance and female submission and subordination of women,and makes it feel and seem like sex to people and even makes sexism necessary for some people to have sexual feelings and arousal,keeps it this way, makes it the reality that people believe is true, and keeps people from knowing any other possibility.He co-founded Men Against Pornography In New York.

                    Paul Kivel who is the founder of The Oakland Men’s Project in California who has been a long time anti-sexist,anti-racist,anti-male violence educator,also wrote about how harmful and sexist pornography is in his great important 1999 book,Boys Will Be Men Raising Our Sons For COURAGE,CARING,and COMMUNITY.

                    He writes that it is not surprising that an industry worth billions of dollars a year,which may be bigger than the record and movie industries combined,has developed many ways to justify it’s existence and insinuate itself into mainstream male culture.

                    Paul then says that there are several books that describe in detail the harm pornography does to men as well as to women.He says these books listed in the bibliography,also contain descriptions of the pornography industry’s efforts to suppress and disrupt people organizing against it.The books he lists are,Men Confront Pornography edited by Michael S.Kimmel,Making Violence Sexy:Feminist Views On Pornography by Dianna E.H.Russell,and Pornography:The Production and Consumption Of Inequality by Gail Dines et.al.

                    Paul also says in this book that talking to another adult can also help you decide if this is a situation in which you want to forbid the presence of porn in your house or if you just want to make it clear to your son how you fell about pornography but will let him decide what to do with the magazines or videos he has.He says in either case,it’s important to find out your son’s thoughts about pornography .He then says he may no little about the industry,it’s exploitation in the production of pornography,or the effects on women,men,and their relationships when men use it.He says it might be useful,if you have the stomach for it,to look through some of the material with him and talk about what you see.

                    Brooklyn College psychology professor Dr.Robert Brannon was a co-chair with Phylis B.Frank for 20 years from 1990 of The New York NOW’s Task Force on the harms of pornography,trafficking, and prostitution and he is co-founder of NOMAS National Organization For Men Against Sexism and he;s the organization’s group leader of their Task Force on prostitution and pornography.There is lso a n excellent recent report by pro-feminist Australian gender studies and sociology professor Dr.Michael Flood,The Harms Of Pornography Exposure Among Children And Young People and he also includes a lot of great research studies about the effects on adult users.He explains that Adults also show an increase in behavioral agression following exposure to pornography including non-violent or violent depictions of sexual activity (but not nudity) with stronger effects for violent pornography.He has a lot of researchers as references.

                    Dr.Flood also then explains that in studies of pornography use in everyday life,men who are high frequency users of pornography and men who use ‘hardcore’,violent, or rape pornography are more likely than others to report that they would rape or sexually harass a woman if they knew they could get away with it.And they are more likely to actually perpetrate sexual coercion and agression.His reference for this is studies by psychologist Neil Malamuth et al 2000.Dr.Flood also says that perhaps the most troubling impact of pornography on children and young people is it’s influence on sexual violence. And he then says that a wide range of studies of the effects of pornography have been conducted among young people age 18-25,as well as older polualtions.

                    He says across these,there is consistent and reliable evidence that exposure to pornography is related to male sexual aggression against women.This association is strongest for violent pornography and still reliable for non-violent pornography particularly for frequent users. His source is psychologist Neil Malamuth et al 2000.He also says that in experiemental studies adults show significant strengthening of attitudes supportive of sexual aggression following exposure to pornography.He then says the association between pornography and rape supportive attitudes is evident as a result of exposure to both non-violent (showing consenting sexual activity) and violent pornography while the latter results in significantly greater increase in violence-supportive attitudes.He also says exposure to sexually violent material increases male viewers acceptance of rape myths and erodes their empathy for victims of violence.

                    His source for this is Allen et al 1995.He explains adults also show an increase in behavioral aggression following exposure to pornography including non-violent or violent depictions of sexual activity(but not nudity) with stronger effects for violent pornography.Allen et al 1995.He said in a 2010 article that in 2009 there was a major compliation of research studies that confirmed all of this earlier research studies.

                    He also explains there are many studies that show that teen boys who are frequent users of pornography more often sexually harass girls and believe it’s perfectly OK to hold a girl down and force her to have sex.

                    Dr.Flood also says that pornography is a poor and indeed dangerous sex educator and that pornography helps to sustain young people’s adherence to sexist and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships. He says it may exacerbate violence-supportive social norms and encourage their participation in sexual abuse.

                    He also says that children may also be alienated as many adult women are,by the subordinating representations of women common in pornography .Dr.Flood was quoted in an online 2004 article about men becoming feminists that when he was a young guy who used pornography often,and it played a big role in his trying to guilt trip a woman into having sex when she didn’t want to. And in an online 2001 article called,Can Men Be Feminists? he talks about the good things that have changed,but then talks about the bad things that haven’t changed and some of the things he said that haven’t changed are movies that glamorize men’s sexual violence against women,and pornography that portrays girls and women only as sex objects for men. One of the things he says for men to do to become feminists,is stop using pornography and also clean the bathroom etc.

                    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:57 PM #

                      The Daily Illini

                      The Independent Student Newspaper

                      Column: Pornography: a vicious cycle
                      Dan Mollison

                      Updated: October 26th, 2005 – 12:00 AM

                      Tagged with: Dan Mollison, Person Email Address, Technology, Opinions

                      What part of the entertainment industry is bigger than the NFL, the NBA and the MLB combined?

                      You guessed it – it’s pornography. The porn industry has grown into a $10 billion a year business, with some of our nation’s best-known corporations – including General Motors, AOL Time Warner, Marriott, Hilton and Westin – silently raking in big profits from pornography without mentioning it in their company records. Pornography has become so pervasive that in 2003, Americans spent more money on porn than they did on going to see Hollywood movies.

                      Even though pornography stretches into the homes of millions of Americans, we don’t openly talk about it much. We’re even less likely to discuss how those who use pornography – who are primarily men – might be affected by seeing these images. I recently had the opportunity to be part of such a discussion, and I came away from it with a new perspective on how the men in my life, including myself, have been impacted by our exposure to pornography. When men choose to use porn, their lives and relationships pay the price.

                      I was at Indiana University for a men’s conference on sexual assault prevention last weekend, and we talked about pornography’s influence on men. We focused on the type of pornography that is consumed the majority of the time, the graphic material that depicts a man – or men – sexually dominating a woman. These films usually include a standard series of sex acts including oral, vaginal and anal penetration, which are often performed while the men call the women by a multitude of derogatory names. While they’re being penetrated, women are expected to say over and over again how much they like the sex. And when the man reaches orgasm, he will typically ejaculate on the woman’s body, sometimes on her face.

                      These sex scenes convey to viewers the idea that women are not human but rather are objects to be used by men to satisfy male sexual desires. In order for a man to get pleasure from watching a woman being verbally, sexually and sometimes physically abused, he has to deny the woman’s humanity. If he’s thinking about the fact that this woman has the same feelings, relationships with loved ones, dreams and aspirations as his mother, his sisters and his female friends, there is no way he would be aroused by a scene in which a man treats a woman like garbage as he’s penetrating her; he’d find it sickening. Pornography dehumanizes women, and when a man is exposed to it for a long period of time, it becomes easier for him to ignore the humanity of the women in his life.

                      One of the men at the conference shared how his past experiences with pornography have had a deep impact on his life. Like many of his peers, he was first exposed to pornography in middle school, years before he would have his first serious sexual experience with a woman. Pornography offered him a rare glimpse into the world of sex that nobody was talking about, and because he wasn’t given accurate information about what sex was like, he started to believe that the acts he had been witnessing in pornography – of men sexually dominating women – is what sex is supposed to be. He then carried these beliefs into his romantic relationships, and caused his partners, and himself, a lot of undue grief.

                      This experience has become a downright common one for men, and it’s truthfully a hard bind to be in. Pornography offers men a taste of something they can never have, a feeling of being completely in control. But when men return from these fantasies to a world that doesn’t always go their way, they crave the feeling of being powerful even more; and they may even seek it out in their relationships.

                      To me, being a man means accepting that I won’t always get my way in life. It’s difficult to escape from the trap that pornography sets on men, but it will always be more satisfying – and more manly – to respect women, rather than use them.

                      Dan Mollison is a junior in LAS. His column appears every Wednesday. He can be reached at opinions@dailyillini.com.

                    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 5:07 PM #

                      Aurora Center,

                      Mark Wukas wrote in the Chicago Tribune March 21 1993 that back in 1989 research by psychologist Dr.James Check at York University’s psychology department Toronto Canada found 29% of boys indicated that pornography was the most useful source of sex information including school.parents teachers and peers.He said that to find out what children were learning from the pornography, Check devised a questionnaire that asked under what circumstances is it OK for a boy to hold a girl down and force her to have sexual intercourse.Check found that 43# of the boys and 16% of the girls said that holding a woman down and forcing sexual intercourse is at least maybe OK if she gets him sexually excited.His findings also found that one third of 14-year old boys and 2% of girls watch video pornography regularly.

                      Also, Robert Jensen explains in his great important book,Getting Off:Pornography And The End Of Masculinity whatever the genesis of the cum shot in the history of pornography we can ask why it continues.He then asks what does the cum shot mean? He says in one of the first films he watched for his study of pornography was the 1990 porn video Taboo VIII and one of the male characters offers an answer.He says that when this man refuses the request of a woman(whom he feels is a slut) to have intercourse with her he tells her,”I don’t f*ck sluts I jerk off on them.Take it or leave it.” He then ejaculates on her breasts.Robert Jensen says that this suggests that ejaculating onto a woman is a method by which she is turned into a slut,something -not really someone-whose purpose is to be sexual with men.He then says ejaculating onto her body marks her as a “slut” which in pornography is synonymous with “woman”.

                      He then says that that assessment was echoed by a veteran of the pornography industry (porn star and director Bill Margold),who told an interviewer:I’d like to really show what I believe the men want to see:violence against women.I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that.The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face.Men get off behind that,because they get even with the women they can’t have.We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face.

                      Bill Morgold also said,My whole reason for being in the Industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don’t care for women and want to see the men in my Industry getting even with the women they couldn’t have when they were growing up.I strongly believe this,and the Industry hates me for saying it…So when we come on a woman’s face or somewhat brutalize her sexually :we’re getting even for their lost dreams.I believe this.I’ve heard audiences cheer me when I do something foul on screen.When I’ve strangled a person,or brutalized a person,the audience is cheering my action,and then when I’ve fulfilled my warped desire,the audience applauds.

                      Feminist anti-porn educator Sociologist Dr.Gail Dines said that many of her female students told her that their boyfriends are constantly pressuring them to the things they see in pornography,that they have seen it in the pornograohy and now they want to experience it in real life.She said that many young women are so desperate to have a man in their lives that they will often give in and do these things even though their instincts are telling them don’t do it.

                      Dr.Chyng Sun also reports that many women have told her that their boyfriends and husbands are constantly asking them to the things they have seen in pornography and they don’t want to.On quite a few message boards over the years I have seen posts by men asking women if they like to have or will let their boyfriends or husbands cum on their faces like they do in the porn videos.One women made a topic about 5 years ago called,Some Men’s Disgusting Obsession and she said her boyfriend constantly wants her to let him ejaculate on her face and she said she feels it’s disgusting and degrading and she said he watches a lot of porn videos and she knows thats where he got the idea. A guy responded and said that a lot of young men are watching a lot of pornography on the internet today and they learn to think it’s sexy to ejaculate on a woman’s face or body.

                      Another guy posted on an “Adult” Site where they had advice questions and anwers and he posted that he ejaculated on his girfriend’s face and she was very angry and upset and she left him for good.But he couldn’t understand why and what he did wrong because he said his girl friend was always wild in bed and he said he watches a lot of porn videos and all of the porn stars love facials.On LoveShack.org a guy said that he and other men he knew said that it never occurred or appealed to them to ejaculate on a woman’s face or body,only inside her vaginally,until they saw it in pornography.Many women have also said their husbands and boyfriends are pressuring them to have anal sex after seeing women in pornography portrayed as if they love it.

                    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 5:09 PM #

                      Take Action

                      Calendar

                      Our Issues

                      Join NOW

                      Need Help?

                      Chapter Info

                      Local Places
                      Of Interest

                      Home

                      WAVE: Women Against a
                      Violent Environment

                      Porn Insidiously Devalues Women

                      by Barbara Kasper and Barbara Moore

                      Originally published in the October 27, 1994 Democrat and Chronicle (Rochester, NY)

                      There has been much discussion about the airing of the public access show on cable television called Life Without Shame. While many in our community do not want the show to air, there seems to be little we can do to stop it. There are so many rights in the way: the right to adult etertainment, the right to sexual expression, constitutional rights of free speech, and the rights of business owners.

                      One right which has been given little attention in this debate is human rights — specifically the rights of women.

                      We feel that pornography is harmful to women and that as women we have the right to live in a society free of this harm. Pornography degrades women. It defines us through our body parts. It encourages self-hatred in women because we can never “measure up” to the women seen in pornography. We dare not grow old or become overweight. In pornography, women are rewarded for fulfilling males’ fantasies — being either the passive “good girl” or the insatiable whore.

                      More importantly, pornography frequently eroticizes violence. We do not believe that every man who watches Life Without Shame will become a rapist or beat his wife or girlfriend. However, we do feel that misogynistic sexual entertainment for men portrays the humiliation of women as “sexy” and presents women as two-dimensional beings.

                      In a world where women are being raped, stalked, beaten, and killed in epidemic proportions, pornography conditions too many men to “get off by putting women down.” Eventually, viewing enough pornography can desensitize all of us so that we do not even question the devaluation of women in our society.

                      We believe that the number of rapes and assaults on women would be drastically reduced — but not entirely eliminated — if pornography were to disappear. We believe that pornography often serves as a cultural backdrop, if not actually a catalyst, for the sexual exploitation and abuse of women.

                      Pornography sells. Men spend more than $8 billion a year on pornography. What is sells is lies about women and their response to sex. Pornography frequently portrays women as mindless, childlike and submissive. We are “pets” or “playmates.” Other forms of pornography depict women who enjoy being raped, spanked, tied up or mutilated.

                      Would there be any real need for debate if viewers of cable television were exposed to programming that featured the consistent abuse and humiliating of Jews, African Americans or the elderly? Would everyone who objected to such programming be encouraged to simply “change the channel”? Yet when women are the victims, issues surrounding censorship and First Amendment rights are raised impeding progress toward real solutions.

                      Many young males state that their first sexual experience was masturbating to pornography. Think of what this pornography then says to these men — that women like to be treated like objects, treated with contempt, and enjoy eroticized violence. Women in pornography never say “no,” or if they do, they don’t really mean it. Women in porn are really men’s property — always available and ready. pornography, therefore, reinforces inequity in relationships. It is difficult to believe that men can use pornography and at the same time truly respect the women in their lives.

                      Far too many people believe that they have the right to control those to whom they feel superior. We know rape is not a crime of passion but rather an act of power and control. The same is true of domestic violence, sexual harassment and incest.

                      Who benefits from pornography? Who finances pornography? Who is behind the camera? Who buys it?

                      Who has the power?

                      We need to stop the lies that pornography tells about women and sex and tell the truth. The truth is that pornography supports a larger culture that hurts, exploits and discriminates against women. Unfortunately, far too often when we tell the truth we are accused of taking away rights. As Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, who have written books against pornography, state: “Take away wrongful power and you will be accused of taking away rights. Often, this will be true because the law, under the guise of protecting rights, protects power.”

                      Whose rights should take precedence? Is it the pornographers who produce Life Without Shame? Or is it the majority of us who want to live in a society which does not allow the subordination, degradation or violation of women?

                      Contact us:
                      info@rochesternow.org
                      P.O. Box 93196, Rochester, NY 14692

  113. Aileen Wuornos December 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM #

    but what about the more “vanilla” porn?

    To quote an interview with Audre Lorde by Susan Leigh Star:

    “The s/m concept of “vanilla” sex is sex devoid of passion. They are saying that there can be no passion without unequal power. That feels very sad and lonely to me, and destructive. The linkage of passion to dominance/subordination is the prototype of the heterosexual image of male-female relationships, one which justifies pornography. Women are supposed to love being brutalized. This is also the prototypical justification of all relationships of oppression—that the subordinate one who is “different” enjoys the inferior position.”

    There is no such thing as “Vanilla” pornography. Maybe if you get a time machine and go back to the seventies, or sixties, but in this day and age, no pornographic film is complete without calling a womon a cunt, or a whore, or a slut at some point. Or choking her. Or ejaculating on her face.

    My concern is that it’s a little condescending the way you are disregarding feminist porn and generalizing about people who produce or work with ethical porn as only talking about how awesome porn is and ignoring the bad stuff.

    Feminist porn is an oxymoron, like Microsoft Works or Vegan Butcher. Let’s take the “feminist” porn awards for example, one of their winners was the Rock River Prison “movie” which was about a womon going into prison and being raped by prison guards (no consent can exist where one is in a position of authority over another) and raped into initiated of “prison gangs”. Not to mention that this whole concept is so classist, and racist but the idea that fucking between people who aren’t equal is romanticised pretty much nulls and voids your “point” IMHO.

    It’s entirely possible to be pro-ethical porn and ACTIVELY anti-unethical porn at the same time.

    Something that has the literal meaning of “The Graphic Depiction of the Lowest Whores” is never going to be ethical, and will always be misogynist. One can not polish a turd.

    Crucial D: I am sorry for your loss. I am not sorry for my choice of words though, I realise that losing friends and non-direct relatives is very different to losing your mother. However, my point remains the same.

    PIV does not represent the whole of heterosexuality.

    No it doesn’t, but it is certainly the first thing that springs to het minds when you mention the word “fucking”.
    Skeptifem, I am also noticing that you are not mentioning lesbians at all, I find that significant, although I can’t quite articulate why.

    For an extreme example: there are whole groups of people who like to fuck cars, exclusively.

    That’s still phallocentric/penetration centric.

    Things like the 1000 year obsession with bound feet are an example of a weird fetish being imposed on the general population with great success.

    Bound feet was not imposed on “the general population” – it was imposed and forced upon womyn and girls, by men and by turning womyn into token torturers. I really recommend you read Gyn/Ecology by Dr. Mary Daly.

    First off – I do not doubt that some men (and indeed women) do enjoy the subjugation of women, even in a sexual manner.

    Ask yourself this. WHY. WHY. WHY. WHY do some womyn “enjoy” being turned into sexual beasts of burden?

    you are condemning millions, if not billions, of decent fathers, husbands, grandfathers, uncles and brothers, (most likely some of them your own), and in fact, your analogy falls apart almost at first glance.

    Do you not know that the majority of rapes and sexual abuse are perpertrated on girls and womyn by their fathers, husbands, grand fathers, uncles and brothers?

    Whilst they enjoy watching people singing about something (e.g. singing in the rain), it inspires in them a certain emotion (e.g. happiness), it does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that they enjoy the rain, by the association with singing they have enjoyed; many will in fact be averse to it, and some may even be scared of thunderstorms.

    Seeing womyn and girls being raped for cash is very different from singing. Orgasm is a very powerful conditioning tool.

    Porn is not about violence; porn is about watching graphic, visceral sex; the images are explicit and often demeaning to the women involved, but simply put, they hardly put the men in a particularly dignified light either.

    Oh noez! Patriarhy hurtz men too?!!!11! Porn is the graphic depiction of the lowest whores. Porn is the graphic depiction of the lowest whores. Porn is the graphic depiction of the lowest whores. Porn is the graphic depiction of the lowest whores. Porn is the graphic depiction of the lowest whores.

    Especially if you consider that penises are still meant to be a symbol of power, the “seat” of masculinity, the symbol of domination and male conquest. The word vagina literally means “Sheath” – it is a void, it is an empty, it is a hole. While men in pornography may be just penises, they are penis with power. Womyn and girls do not have that “luxury”.

    Porn is simply sex, no strings, no fuss, just something to jack off to briefly.

    Porn is not just sex. Penis + perceived orifice =\= sex. Do you not see how you’ve just confirmed what many of us have written in that one sentence? There are human womyn and girls in that who do have strings attached to their “scenes” who do have to deal with a lot of shit and have no idea who is jacking off to their image, where or when. Also, they don’t get royalties.

    Porn is a fantasy – not to say that men fantasize about brutalising women, but rather that they are able to briefly suspend their concept of “women” from the sex act.

    Porn is not just fantasy. What you are witnessing is a womon/girl’s reality. For every double penetration, every cum shot, every “br00tal anal fucking” there is actual a human being, living it IN REALITY. And the fact that men and yourself have managed to schism the fact that there is a live human being being pay-per-raped to “it’s just fantasy” is very telling.

    What is being depicted, at that time, is not a “woman” – it is a “slut”, “whore” or “cunt”, that is to say, it is a fictious construct of an object whose purpose is entirely for sex.

    (emphasis mine) And you have no problem with womyn and girls being objectified? Being shown as just an object to penetrate? There is no vacuum by the way. That womyn/girl that you are watching being pay-per-raped is someone’s daughter, or someone’s sister, or someone’s mother. The men who watch this material rapidly forget/ignore this, but then when in their own bedroom, forget that the womon/girl they are with is also someone’s daughter, someone’s sister and possibly someone’s mother.

    Gay male pornography also does not feature many of the degrading and dehumanising acts that one will witness in heterosexual pornography. How do I know? Oh right, I’ve seen it.

    Lesbian and gay porn, however, focusses equally on both partners, as both are viable attractions for the audience.

    Lesbian porn is an even bigger oxymoron than feminist porn. “Lesbian” porn is a male constructed, male-identified wishful thinking of what lesbianism is (and it is nothing like it) and the target audience for “lesbian” pornography is of course, still heterosexual men, not lesbian womyn.

    Cartoon porn, which involves no real humans whatsoever, proved overwhelmingly popular, with 3,260,000 results; hentai (a form of Japanese animated pornography) came in at 73,000,000 results.

    This is ridiculous. Cartoon porn still involves the graphic depiction of womyn as the vilest whores, often it is more violent than non-cartoon pornography because the makers feel like they can “get away with” much more. Most of the hentai I’ve ever seen, even the “vanilla” shit, is depictions of rape.

    However, I am saying that pornography is not by any means synonymous with sexual violence, and that it is possible to enjoy this sort of media without enjoying the subjugation of women.

    Pornography is sexual violence. You are enjoying the subjugation of womyn by watching it, you are participating in violence against womyn by watching and therefore, supporting it. By the way, you still have no idea if the womon or girl involved in it is a) of legal age, b) actually consenting for real c) only consenting under duress and c) has been a survivor of rape or sexual assault herself.

    This is coming from someone who used to have the exact same attitude as you by the way. Nine has written extensively on why she hates pornography, and spring boarded me to write my own.

    As Nine said:

    Again, here you are taking the focus off the problem/the vast majority and placing it on unicorns.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 3:55 PM #

      In the 1970′s pornogrphy wasn’t that different at all in it’s sexualized,normalized sexist,male dominated,female submission,woman-hating,dehumanizing objectification and violence towards women it just wasn’t nearly as mainstreamed pre-internet.

      In the excellent 1980 anti-pornography feminist anthology by 33 brilliant feminists,(including a chapter by pulitzer prize winning author of The Color Purple Alice Walker) there is a chapter,Pornography and Violence What Does The New Research Say? by the brilliant great anti-pornography anti-male violence against women expert Dr.Diana Russell. Part of what she says is,”I believe that movies portraying respect,affection,tenderness,and caring along with sex-including totally explicit sex free of sex-role stereotypes-would be educative,erotic,and therapeutic,particularly for men with sex calloused attitudes.However,as the well-known psychologist H.J. Eysenck and his colleague D.K.B. Nias point out most pornographic films are not like this”.

      DR. Russell then quotes these psychologists from their 1978 book,Sex,Violence and The Media page 258 as saying,” Even when they do not overtly depict scenes of violence and degradation of women at the hands of men,such as rape beatings,and subordination,the tone is consistently anti-feminist with women only serving to act as sexual slaves to men,being made use of and ultimately being deprived of their right to a sexual climax-in the majority such films,the portrayal ends with men spraying their semen over the faces and breasts of the women.”

      Dr.Rusell also says that after an extensive review of the literature on TV violence as well as pornography Eysenck and Nias conclude that:” It seems clear to us that there are certain areas of sexual behavior which should be completely excluded from the list of permitted activities(for depiction on film);sex involving children is one such area,rape and other forms of sexual violence vividly and explicitly presented are others. Sex invloving animals would probably also come into this category…. Torture,bondage and sado-masochistic acts involving sex may also be mentioned here.Such films may perhaps be shown on psychiatric prescription to patients addicted to such perversions,but they are not safe for public showing.” From page 257 in their book.

      Also,another name for the vagina thankfully is the birth canal where every baby incomprehensibly including men,(unless their mothers had a C section) was born out of! I have seen birth movies and it’s amazing how the baby passes out of women’s vaginas which can stretch 3 times it’s size for the birth of a baby! It’s not a “hole”(I know that *you* weren’t saying it is Aileen,but that it’s the sexist,gender stereotyped,woman-hating male diminated penis worship society that defines it that way) it’s a love and birth tunnel where babies are conceived and born out of!

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 4:08 PM #

        Also, we know as a terrible result of how pornography has been so unjustly and wrongly mainstreamed,sadly many women are now influenced to believe the sexist woman-hating ,distortions and male dominated myths,and definitions of men’s violence against women,cruelty,hatred of and male dominance and female submission,which is the epitome of gender inequality,that pornography sexualizes and normalizes, is what is “sexy” and “erotic” and we now have a horrendeous best selling book (disturbingly,depressingly with women!) series Fifty Shades Of Grey based on it! And now a Hollywood movie that is going to horribly normalize and glamorize this even further!

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 5:30 PM #

        I just noticed I made a typing mistake.

  114. Aileen Wuornos December 30, 2010 at 12:13 AM #

    *emphasis in the Lorde quote is my own.

  115. Jilla December 30, 2010 at 12:33 AM #

    Nine, what response is there to someone who says the same thing as any sexual abuser, but takes 800 words to say it and thereby thinks they’ve said something original?

    You know me. This is where I left, last time.

  116. Jilla December 30, 2010 at 12:35 AM #

    And as I said then too, I believe, they’re just using these conversations as a kind of foreplay for whacking off later, or while. This thread turns them on, and finally, achieves nothing for us.

    • Nine Deuce December 30, 2010 at 2:44 AM #

      I hear you, Jilla — and I waffled about approving the comment — but I thought it needed a response. I’m just too busy/tired of repeating myself today (maybe I’ll be up to it tomorrow).

  117. isme December 30, 2010 at 12:51 AM #

    “you are condemning millions, if not billions, of decent fathers, husbands, grandfathers, uncles and brothers,”

    Yes, I think condemning most members of the male gender is a recurring theme of the blog. Though, “not my Nigel”, except when it is.

    “the images are explicit and often demeaning to the women involved, but simply put, they hardly put the men in a particularly dignified light either.”

    Oh noes! What about the menz! Who are clearly being demeaned to some small extent so we can ignore what’s happening to the woman.

    “Often, it is true, men are exaggeratedly dominant in these roles; but I would argue that this is often just a hyperbolic representation of the feeling of sexualised masculinity, of dominance or “machismo”, that does not neccessitate men getting off at the sight of women in pain.”

    So…they don’t want to hurt women, they just want to dominate them? Well, that’s slightly reassuring, I guess.

    “Yes, frequently words such as “slut”, “whore” and “cunt” are used, and it is very easy to perceive this as a demeaning insult to women”

    It is very easy, yes. What do you imagine would happen if you went round calling people that outside of porn? Those words (attempts at reclaiming aside) are flat out insults.

    “What is being depicted, at that time, is not a “woman” – it is a “slut”, “whore” or “cunt”, that is to say, it is a fictious construct of an object whose purpose is entirely for sex”

    You don’t see the reduction of women to literal sex objects to be a teensy bit worrying?

    “aside from the emotional or intellectual considerations which sex with a “woman” innately connotes.”

    Occasionally, perhaps, but not that often. The woman is there to pretend to enjoy what’s going on (which isn’t that alarming, excepting when she’s pretending to enjoy something rather alarming, which isn’t that rare), or fear/disgust/pain at the approach of the mighty phallus.

    “Similarly, the men themselves in porn are objectified – most do not show their faces, and in fact are reduced to nothing more than a disconnected groin section, in affect, a floating penis, detached from any real person or “man”.”

    Why then have there not been constructed a list of not-insults like cunt, whore, slut used to label this other mere object then?

    “To this, I can but be shocked that anyone could miss the point, that the female body is of *course* the centre of attention in pornography aimed at heterosexual males, simply because this market, which is the largest target audience of pornography, does not find the male anatomy attractive.”

    That’s the usual response given by heterosexual porn users…endless complaining about switching to shots of the man’s face while they’re enjoying videos of bits going in othe rbits.

    “How much of the popularity of searches such as “dog porn”, and, indeed “rape porn” is because of our obsession with disgusting spectacle, extremity and ugliness?”

    So, you are saying that such things do not constitute porn, because they are not used for sexual gratification? I have a hard time believing that.

    “I also had a look for anything that would back up my argument that porn is about fantasy, and does not in fact concern the concept of “woman” or indeed “man”, so much as it does “anatomy of the desired sex”.”

    So? The images weren’t created digitally using live humans, but surely the intent is the same (albeit most cartoon porn tends to feature characters from cartoons (seemingly usually kids ones) in sexual situations (seemignly usually rape, incest, or something along those lines).

    “However, I am saying that pornography is not by any means synonymous with sexual violence, and that it is possible to enjoy this sort of media without enjoying the subjugation of women.”

    Theoretically, maybe, in practice, no. Pornography reflects a wide range of extremely misogynist viewpoints and actions (ok, yes, except that one time when it didn’t). It is also a large part of mainstream culture. As such, it very obviously has a large, negative impact upon the real world.

  118. Valley December 30, 2010 at 1:41 AM #

    I am going to be totally honest and say that I really wanted to stay hidden reading but Porserpina’s comment kind of changed my feelings on that.

    All right, so I am going to take this comment piece by piece because it is a rather long comment and my is probably going to be an even longer one.

    Porserpina says “First off – I do not doubt that some men (and indeed women) do enjoy the subjugation of women, even in a sexual manner. However, in saying that “all men who enjoy porn” also enjoy being violent towards women, you are condemning millions, if not billions, of decent fathers, husbands, grandfathers, uncles and brothers, (most likely some of them your own), and in fact, your analogy falls apart almost at first glance. ”

    A lot of women participate in the misogynistic nature of the world around them. It is inevitable as we are taught this from a young age. Women will watch porn for various reasons and will try to fit in and be one of the guys for the privilege they think it will net them. Yes men can be good guys outside of their porn habits, but deep down if they are watching this sort of porn they may well want to be violent towards women and have been just not to the women who know them well. A one time date, someone not in their inner circle. On the other hand it is possible they may never act on their fantasies but it doesn’t change them.

    Porserpina then goes on to say “Secondly, I think the nature of watching porn needs to be taken into account. Porn is simply sex, no strings, no fuss, just something to jack off to briefly. Porn is not the sort of movie short wherein you carefully consider the title before watching. Yes, frequently words such as “slut”, “whore” and “cunt” are used, and it is very easy to perceive this as a demeaning insult to women. However, porn isn’t about women – it is just about sex, which is exactly what these titles convey. Porn is a fantasy – not to say that men fantasize about brutalising women, but rather that they are able to briefly suspend their concept of “women” from the sex act. What is being depicted, at that time, is not a “woman” – it is a “slut”, “whore” or “cunt”, that is to say, it is a fictious construct of an object whose purpose is entirely for sex. This is precisely because the majority of men do not want to see “women” being used for sex acts, hardcore or otherwise – rather, they want to see the stimulus (a body) in a ficticious vacuum, aside from the emotional or intellectual considerations which sex with a “woman” innately connotes. Similarly, the men themselves in porn are objectified – most do not show their faces, and in fact are reduced to nothing more than a disconnected groin section, in affect, a floating penis, detached from any real person or “man”. ”

    Okay and this personally creeps me out just a touch. Here you are actually illustrating why porn can be so *bleeping* problematic. By breaking a person down to their parts it becomes easier to seem them as not a person but an OBJECT. When a person becomes an OBJECT you feel less guilt if something bad happens. By defining women as a sexual object (and porn is saying that women more than men are the sexual object) you are instilling in men that it is okay to view all WOMEN as sexual objects. Now you might say that most men will be taught this isn’t the case but with our sexual education in the schools almost non-existent and parents too wrapped up in religion to explain this-you would most likely be wrong. Now a days most men are getting their sexual education from porn which is scary in and of itself. So if men are getting their education from porn and the porn they are watching objectifies women into body parts can we be surprised if rape does increase because can you really rape an object? Not to mention if it was only the sexual acts they were interested in then why are their so many categories? Colors of skin? Fake breasts and bleached blonde hair? The fact is they are view the whole woman in the sexual act, not just her parts. As for men, they do often show all of them, but for the ones that don’t it is to enhance the viewer’s feeling of being in the porn by using what they call POV (point of view).

    But really, there is a whole woman in porn, and the whole woman is being masturbated too, not just the sexual act.

    You go on to point out what you must feel is the fatal flaw in Nine Deuce’s argument-the porn results. You state that to search for an ideal (feminist porn) versus an objective (rape porn) slews the results in fave of the objective. You also state that really these might have to do with people enjoying the weird or the disturbing (kind of horror movie like).

    Yet this actually doesn’t break Nine Deuce’s argument as much as you say. Most men do tend to start with the comfortable when they are watching porn-porn that is close to what they already do in the bedroom. PIV and oral with a man and a woman. But as their brains become saturated with these images they find they are not as stimulating as they once were and they begin to use other porn such as threesomes or BDSM inspired porn to get the same emotional high. Eventually even this becomes not enough so they start to look for more extreme porn to get the feeling because they are desensitized to the other more common stuff. So your searches actually tie into the fact as men get used to it they need to take it to that next level. So you are not disproving her point or at least not in the way that you had hoped.

    As for brutal gay porn, when I was on the dating scene one of my ex’s mentioned that he was very into that type of thing because it featured a male who was feminized and brought a new level of danger to the proceedings. Now this is anecdotal but I think it prove my point. The reason that gay porn and brutal gay porn is popular may have less to do with it being gay and more to do with men wanting to kick it up the last notch going into the taboo area for them.

    For the record, yes I have used porn. I do not use it anymore because I find that I am too torn up by the problems that exist inside of the porn industry and the women who work to be able to blindly and blithely go on my merry porn using way. I also read way too many stories of porn addiction and I get nervous around anything that I feel I MUST have.

    And I will also state for the record this is my hardest post because of the fact that I have used porn in the past and it makes me feel weird picking apart Porserpina’s statement. I hope I was somewhat coherent.

    Valley

  119. kurukurushoujo December 30, 2010 at 4:42 AM #

    >>>> about the supposed “discrimination” of men in pornography through reducing them to their penises

    In the 80s anti-prostitution activists in Sweden found out that prostitutes were often asked to “compliment” the men on their penis size. You know: “Ooooh, your cock is sooo big. I love how it feels inside my pussy!” etc. etc. It was in my opinion rightfully assumed that the reason for this is that men have no sense of themselves as being physically desirable. They are supposed to be ratio, women are supposed to be nature, they are supposed to be loved for their ability to be provider/protector/master, women are supposed to be different service functions. This is usually the way patriarchies work, from what I can make out. A man has probably never learned to present himself as desirable, as sexually exciting to a woman- however, he has learned that his penis is desirable. There is propaganda spanning centuries emphasizing the potency and power of the phallus: uteri were seen as empty flower pots to be filled, from the phallus alone springs forth life.
    And not to forget: if you concentrate on the penis, the man attached to it loses his shape and through this also any potential attractiveness. This helps to keep the male viewers of porn from developing jealousy and more importantly icky gay feelings. Gay feelings are assumed to de-masculize a man. Therefore, making a man’s physicality less visible doesn’t exist because it’s a simple “turn-off”- there’s much more to it.

  120. factcheckme December 30, 2010 at 5:32 AM #

    there are maybe a few dozen who call themselves “radical feminist” in this world and who do in fact “condemn” billions of teh menz worldwide for the atrocities they commit against women. they do so IN RESPONSE TO AGGREGATE MALE BEHAVIOR, whereby billions of men across time and place have, in fact, sexually brutalized girls and women. we condemn men as a sexual class BASED ON THE DEMONSTRABLE PROOF THAT THEY DESERVE IT. the fact that this applies to SO MANY MANY MEN is evidence that this is a widespread problem, that its more common than not, that there is something seriously, seriously wrong. yet the fucking fun-fems and other rape apologists erroneously believe (or assert anyway, who knows what they actually manage to BELIEVE) that the FACT that this is so widespread is actually evidence of some kind of misunderstanding, or that radical feminists just take everything *the wrong way*. ie. its a problem with *perspective.* OUR perspective. dont believe your lying eyes etc. just be more “sexually open” and then the problem of rape goes away. yes, isnt that fascinating? it actually DOES go away, once you accept that anything that involves male sexual pleasure is *sex* and sex is good, inconditionally. poof! gone. its easier than actually getting men to stop raping, in fact, so i do credit them with coming up with a very creative “solution” to the problem. its kinda ingenious actually. as long as you drink the delicious kool aid all the way and keep drinking it.

    women are dependant on men individually, financially, once they are partnered with them, almost always. and to the extent that women desire marriage and motherhood, women are dependent on “men” as a sexual class, to make their dreams come true. women literally CANNOT AFFORD to see the truth about men, the truth about AGGREGATE MALE BEHAVIOR, the atrocities that men, as a sexual class, or individiual men, commit. but yes, in fact, BILLIONS OF MEN are rapists and abusers of women. let it sink in.

  121. factcheckme December 30, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    @ Andrew

    There IS a conversation happening about piv, at my place. It’s pretty much all I blog about anymore. Click on the piv category in the drop-down menu, and commence reading.

  122. Hecate December 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    Another amazing deconstruction of porn from you, Aileen Wuornos. Thank you! Thank you also for complimenting me on my handle :)

    “Do you not know that the majority of rapes and sexual abuse are perpertrated on girls and womyn by their fathers, husbands, grand fathers, uncles and brothers?”

    This resonated with me, having been a victim of sexual abuse as a child myself. My grandfather raped several generations of girls in our family with impunity. I still don’t know how to handle having been a victim of such an extreme crime committed against me before I was even 10. I now perceive the world as irredeemably evil and have never been able to see it differently.

    As an adult, I have seen further evidence of said male-induced evil at work, in the form of miserable sexist pigs and wish I could somehow escape it. Maybe if I were to work in a non-profit, there would be a higher ratio of women?

    I don’t know how some posters here live with themselves. I’d rather be a cynic than have such blinders on. If you’re a goofy Pollyanna type, this really, really isn’t the board for you… Just because you deny all of these acts so vehemently, does not mean they don’t exist. Get it?

  123. No Sugarcoating December 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    Whoops, I forgot to add that screenname.

    Niley4never

  124. No Sugarcoating December 30, 2010 at 10:38 AM #

    Porserpina’s comment was so counter productive to her viewpoint that I was actually considering that a feminist might be making that post just to reveal the skewed mind of the pro-porn woman. I mean…I just can’t even. She thinks she’s making an argument, but she is literally proving everything these feminists are saying to be true. Porn users don’t see the actors as human or even alive, they see them as LITERAL SEX OBJECTS. This is one of the common arguments against pornography, so I don’t even know what she was hoping to achieve by giving us this point. If you don’t see the woman in porn as a person, you can justify ANY brutal act or rape against that woman. DERP DERP DERP.

    She confirms several other problems with porn. People who watch porn think porn = sex. Sex = porn. Thus, sex that doesn’t look like porn = bad/boring. Then she goes on to say that porn is just a fantasy..it’s not what people really enjoy. So which is it? Is porn sex or is it something that’s not real? If porn is sex, why would you not want to do the acts you see in porn in real life? Also, how can you fantasize about raping a woman, jack off to it, but not “enjoy” the depicted rape of the woman? That statement about men not actually fantasizing about brutally raping women when they watch a brutal rape fantasy has got to be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard to date. Porsepina, what is your reasoning for that? Are you aware that the statement sounded incredibly redundant? What kind of logic is that?

    This was the first and only post to try and argue with 9D’s wonderful post because the truth is staring at you right in the face. The evidence is damning. The only one that that tried to argue with it ended up proving anti-pornography feminists’ points and suspicions. No sex positive feminist could come in here and try to argue with that because she would immediately out herself as a non-feminist.

    Everybody who wanted to help with the blog – thank you. I decided that it has to be done, and I created a temporary AIM screen name that you can contact me at. If we can establish that you’re one of these fine ladies and not a troll, I’ll give you some real contact information, so we can brainstorm.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 6:10 PM #

      I really hope that Porsepina is really a man porn user and it’s painful and bad enough that so many men use and love pornography which is sexualized sexist,woman-hating,dehumanizing cruelty to women,male violence and domination,but it’s even *worse* when women do!

  125. Fede December 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM #

    Porserpina’s comment boils down to this:

    Porn users can compartmentalise! What they use to fap to says nothing about what they think of women. It’s just that they don’t mind (in fact they seek out) obvious and often fairly brutal rape happening to some woman on camera who could be anybody. Any BODY, get it? If billions of men are doing it, it can’t be wrong.

  126. kristina December 30, 2010 at 12:24 PM #

    Damn I love u ladies!!! My pc is down and has been for awhile, my depression has reached epic proportions being a stay at home mom and married to a hopefully former porn addict…(they get real sneaky and upset when you don’t trust them) but the responses from our usual female visitors have made my day…thank god for my cell phone!

  127. Bluecat December 30, 2010 at 1:35 PM #

    Ooh, I love the “compartmentalization” argument. It’s A-OK to segregate some women into a Fuck Objects To Be Used & Abused compartment of the brain because why exactly? Compartmentalization is a learned skill, it’s the product of a society that accords full human status to a percentage of members (men), who then get to choose to what degree any given member of the second, lesser-human class (women) gets to be human.

    It cracks me up whenever men proudly proclaim the ability to “compartmentalize”, completely oblivious that they’re announcing their status as a member of the dominant, fully human class that gets to decide whether or not women get to be human, and to what extent. Hey, yeah, good for you, buddy. Just keep on informing the world that you revel in your male superiority. It serves as a warning signal for those of us enlightened enough to know better that Here Thar Be Misogynists.

    In fact, I would argue that any person capable of “compartmentalization” is borderline sociopathic and should be avoided at all costs. Compartmentalizing people is how genocide happens, it’s how war is justified, it’s how the rich get away with marginalizing the poor – it’s at the root of every rationalization for one group being more human/deserving than another.

  128. Fede December 30, 2010 at 2:41 PM #

    “My apologies that this post is around the same length as the article itself; I just felt this needed saying.”

    Yes, it’s a good thing that the porn users has Porserpina to stand up for them! If she hadna stepped in, billions of decent fathers woulda been defenseless against the hordes of radical feminists.

    You make a point of mentioning that you yourself were raped, Porserpina; I suppose to make you appear to be someone who should know if porn was inherently evil, right? Here’s a woman who’s been raped and still does not condemn porn. So porn must not be so bad.

    Another way of seeing it is that billions of decent fathers all over the world are fapping to the stylised representation of what your rapist(s) did to you – and what innumerable male rapists have done to innumerable women – and you don’t mind, because it’s all purportedly nothing to do with reality.

    I suggest that you *want* it to be isolated from reality because the enormity of this humanitarian crisis is too much for you to bear, and I wouldn’t blame you, because I used to be in the exact same position. Wanting to believe that porn is benign, or all in good fun, or even just neutral, however, does not make it so.

    When I say that your comment, Porserpina, is the perfect tool of the patriarchy, I hope you will not take it the wrong way. You know, the way we hysterical feminists take words like ‘slut’ and ‘whore’, and **TRIGGER WARNING** ‘Rape these bitches so hard they bleed from torn ass holes and abused pussies.’

    Abre los ojos, Porserpina.

    I will say this, though, you are welcome in my house any day for a cup of coffee and a talk. Your rapist is not. Nor is any man who faps to representations of rape, compartmentalised or not, adoring father or not. Therefore, you will not see many men around, if you decide to take me up on my offer.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 6:17 PM #

      Porserpina is a rape victim liking pornography because she identifies as a sex object and victim used,dominated and abused by men and disgarded just like the women she sees treated in pornography!

  129. Bluecat December 30, 2010 at 4:17 PM #

    Ad Hominem tangent to follow…

    Andrew…dear old Andrew. He comes here, time and time again, states something to the effect of “SEXISM/MISOGYNY = BAD”, then turns around in a heartbeat and says, “ANDREW LUV PORN. ANDREW BIG FAPPER TO GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF MISOGYNY.” (Not his words, verbatim, of course. I hope he won’t mind if I exploit his sentiments a wee bit.)

    Just imagine for a second, Andrew, walking into a Black Panther meeting and announcing: “RACISM BAD! ANDREW HATE RACISM!” You smile at the congregants, shake a few hands, and then you tell them about your frequent visits to the KKK site and how much you looooooove watching reenactments of lynchings.

    Gosh, that makes a ton of sense, doesn’t it?

  130. Fede December 30, 2010 at 6:21 PM #

    Big fapper and reenactments of lynchings. Those were mental images I did not need, particularly not in the same sentence. And yet, the comparison is apt.

  131. EmilyBites December 31, 2010 at 7:51 AM #

    Amazing Bluecat – I lost my tea out of my nose.

  132. factcheckme December 31, 2010 at 9:03 AM #

    bluecat made me spit on my screen, then depressed me with the lynching reference. it is analogous though. the congnitive dissonance there must be absolutely disabling. seriously.

  133. elkballet December 31, 2010 at 12:08 PM #

    Bluecat, I never actually thought about compartmentalizing that way. The idea of it had always bothered me, but I was never quite sure how to put it into words. You just made all my arguments with porn lovers a million times better.

    Someone asked a LOOONG time ago what they used for visual arousal in women and it varied from study to study, but all used some form of penetrative porn, probably mainstream. They deemed it non-violent heterosexual in most. Some studies branched out including woman on woman, man on man, and even showed some people images of monkeys and the like having sex. What they found was that women were aroused by a wider variety of images than the men. I don’t know if they showed them images of degradation, but I can tell you that many women are aroused by mainstream porn, despite rough anal, cumshots to the face, etc… I’m working on a post now where I examine the effects of regularly watching porn, to a woman.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 6:50 PM #

      Thats because pornography so horribly,disturbingly and unjustly sexualizes,normalizes and eroticizes men’s dominance,cruelty,violence,dehumanization and woman-hatred and makes into “normal” heterosexual sex,and teaches this sadlt to many women too!

  134. Andrew December 31, 2010 at 1:19 PM #

    Bluecat,

    I think the question of whether some acts are exploitive, coercive, degrading etc. is a much different question than whether I should be affected by it. I don’t see the tension.

  135. cub January 1, 2011 at 12:15 PM #

    elkballet– excellent; side note on arousal studies–i recall angrily calling in to dr. drew on “love lines” (the tv show, i think– it was so long ago) and protesting his ridiculous pronouncement that women require elaborate stories and emotionally-driven fantasy in order to climax when masturbating. i didn’t get on the air, but the next night, he made an on-air reference to there being exceptions. i took pains in the screening conv. to reference the even-then ancient hite report and the fact that his sweeping generalizations about women’s sexuality would do a butt-load of harm to young women who watched his show especially. but what does it take for men to understand/care that what may work for one woman does not work for all? i know, this is a great spot for a joke, but ffs, this guy was supposed to be a credentialed person–and evidently he was/is not alone in being an oblivious puke…
    …which leads me to andrew: YOU SHOULD CARE BECAUSE IT KEEPS YOU FROM BEING A FUCKING SERIAL KILLER, YOU WRETCHED SOCIOPATH

  136. gracemargaret January 1, 2011 at 1:10 PM #

    Great point, cub, about our pal Andrew. Why on earth is he posting on a feminist blog in the first place? I’m not saying men shouldn’t contribute here, but I don’t see the purpose of Andrew’s posts, honestly. What does he hope to accomplish if not to rub his ‘superiority’/male privilege in our faces, either consciously or unconsciously?

    I recommend reading The Sociopath Nextdoor by Martha Stout, Andrew. It may give you some insight as to why you don’t give a flying fuck about acts that are exploitive, coercive, and degrading to others.

  137. Aileen Wuornos January 2, 2011 at 2:00 AM #

    Thank you and you’re welcome Hecate!

    Bluecats comment is the best one I’ve read all year.

    Andrew,

    You sir, are a dickhead.

  138. lizor January 2, 2011 at 7:16 AM #

    Porsepina’s comment makes my head hurt. I am so sick of people comparing voyeuristic jerking off to simply watching entertainment. And the implicit assertion that masturbation to human degradation can be PRACTICED and then, like a machine with different modes, loving connected sex just “happens” because it’s an actual human that the guy is porking, well, it’s just insulting to the intelligence.

    It sound’s like she’s been reading up on her Michael Bader and it’s a wonder that she didn’t explain, like he does, that men watch porn because their mothers were too busy working to meet their every need and too “emotionally cold” too keep a Dad around the house and there fore they want to act out hateful degrading scenarios – but, ya know, LOVINGLY.

  139. lizor January 2, 2011 at 7:16 AM #

    FTR, I checked out a bunch of the women involved in the Feminist Porn awards and I sure as shit did not feel welcome or safe in the environments created by their work.

    Candida Royale flat out dismisses any women’s concerns about porn as “hatred” for both women in porn and of SEX itself. Tristan Taormino, who took the award for “Best Gonzo” and who directed a series called “rough sex” – (which I’m sure is consensual and all that. Too bad they are compelled to exploit and distribute, rather than simply enjoying all that slapping and choking and degrading language, but anyway) – advises a couple who wrote to her about their problems with anal sex (man penetrating women, duh). The woman enjoys anal stimulation, but when her husband forces his cock into her ass, it hurts. Taormino’s advice is to keep trying to get her to “open up”. Because apparently it could not be possible that a woman could simply NOT LIKE anal penetration. And ya know, with enough practice she’ll discover that feeling pain is an integral part of getting off.

    Feminist? Please.

    We form and transform our sexualities though our practices. Out bodies are not fixed machines but as responsive and mutable as out brains. I’m sure with the right “conditioning” , those of us who refuse to admit that this is our essential feminine sexuality, could eventually learn to orgasm to pain and humiliation. This seems to be a central trope of “feminist” porn.

  140. Jilla January 2, 2011 at 6:25 PM #

    We know where the children are getting it from. I used to belong to a listserv with some of those people. I was banned. Before I went I heard all of that lizor. And guess what? This listserv was funded by a women’s studies department in a north eastern university. Run on the university’s server. Paid for with the stipend of one of the pomo professors. A woman. (Ostensibly.) The list, still going on as far as i know, was chock-a-block with male “sex therapists” with their own websites titled such as “Dr. Sex”.

  141. No Sugarcoating January 2, 2011 at 6:25 PM #

    Just seeing the words Tristan Taormino makes me want to vomit. I wanted to give the Feminist Porn Awards a chance, but seeing that they worship Taormino was all I needed to know that they were indeed, full of shit. She is the shittiest of the shits. I know we’re not supposed to blame patriarchy tools for harming other women, but she actively encourages coercion and rape of women. I can’t with her. I really can’t. I though she was one of those women that believed anal could be a ~sensual~ experience for women, and porn just fives it a bad name. That was from seeing the cover, title, and several reviews of her book. Actually going to her website and hearing her talk reveals that she’s the opposite. It’s AMAZING that she gets away with the shit she does. I want some statistics on how many of the purchases of her book “for women”, were by men. I’m going to be generous and say almost half. It’s probably more though.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:05 PM #

      The anus is nothing but a sh*thole and that is all it was ever designed and intended for. There is *nothing* “erotic” about a sh*t germ filled sh*thole unless someone finds sh*t “sexy” too! It’s all because of pornography eroticizing,sexualing and normalizing sh*holes and sh*thole sex,that anyone would find it “sexy”!

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:12 PM #

        It’s also very mindboggling why men who totally worship their penises,want to stick it in the most bacteria contaiminated part of the body,a sh*thole where sh*t comes out at least once or twice a day! Natalie Angier the NYT pulitzer prize winning science writer explained in her best selling book,Woman:An Intimate Geography that the vagina is one of the cleanest places in the body,it has healthy bacteria the same bacteria that is in yogurt people eat. And she also explained that the vagina is much cleaner than the mouth and much much cleaner than the rectum!

  142. J January 4, 2011 at 6:45 AM #

    About “compartmentalizing”: it has long been men’s excuse to uphold the virgin/whore dichotomy.

    “Oh, honey, don’t you worry! I can COMPARTMENTALIZE, so when I watch porn, obviously, THOSE women are nothing like YOU, or our daughter, or our mothers. THOSE women probably choose to do that anyway, it’s what THOSE women do! You are far too CLASSY to be in porn, and I like my wife CLASSY because I don’t want people judging me for having a whore as a wife. But do you think we could try some new stuff in the bedroom, sweetie? Don’t fret, you’ll still be classy, but I just feel that we could use some spicing up. You don’t want to do these things? Oh, honey you are just INSECURE and JEALOUS, but you don’t need to be. Just be a little more OPENMINDED. After all, this is what good, healthy sexuality is! Your INSECURITY makes you prudish, but we’ll fix that. So…now you do all that kinky stuff. I’m concerned because I don’t think you’re as CLASSY as you used to be, honey! You know, maybe you never really were all that classy. Maybe no woman is. Except my mother.”

  143. Aileen Wuornos January 4, 2011 at 6:45 AM #

    Second at the rage at Candidia Royale (who has been called a pimp before, because that’s what she is IMHO) and Taoramo or whatever the fuck her name is who’s favourite film subject is grooming womyn into activities that they are not comfortable with. Same shit with Violet Blue.

    On the same site as the Feminist Porn Awards, they sell movies by Belladonna, who was raped on camera the first time she was involved in porn and has tried to leave the industry many times. One of Belladonna’s films is called “Dark Meat” which invokes racist, white supremacist stereotypes of Black men and features images of womyn being gagged on penises and having their faces pulled on, often from the mouth – none of these “actresses” even remotely look like they are enjoying it. By the way, Belladonna is a choosey choose my choice pornographic ‘actress’. Also observe the following description from Belladonna (Remember, this woman is featured on the feminist porn awards website, even though she is not awarded, they still sell her products, this shit exists on a continuum yo)

    Lexi makes Kelly her little pig in No Warning 5!

    All this crap about the story they did on her to portray her in a “negative” light is a load of dogs bollocks too. If you’re in a bad place, you’re in a bad place.

    A turd – it can not be polished.

  144. annon January 4, 2011 at 9:10 PM #

    I found female friendly porn

    from the show 30 rock

    BAM!

    • Nine Deuce January 5, 2011 at 10:50 PM #

      Yeah, that’s totally the same thing as porn. Women wishing men would behave like human beings = men treating women like toilet paper.

  145. gracemargaret January 6, 2011 at 1:44 AM #

    Kanye West shows how it’s done: Kanye West and his sexy, dead bitches in his new “Monster” music video: http://fb.me/JF0yLpzw **TRIGGER WARNING**

    Quote from About Face describing video (I don’t have the stomach to watch it):

    “video opens by slowly panning down a dead, hanged body of a woman decked in lingerie and heels while Bon Iver warbles on in the background.

    “SEXY, YEAH?

    “It pans down and there’s Rick Ross sitting in a chair, smoking a cigar menacingly, surrounded by these hanging corpses.

    “EVEN SEXIER, RIGHT?

    “It goes on to show Kanye sitting in a bed with two young women who are either dead or extremely drugged. Neither is moving but one appears to be breathing, and Kanye picks up their arms and hands and makes them touch themselves and each other.

    “Let’s just be absolutely clear about what’s going on here: Kanye West is sexually assaulting two drugged women, or sexually violating two corpses.”

    (there’s more, it gets worse if you can believe that)
    Very original Kanye! Violent porn becomes mainstream pop video, I’m not psychic but I forsee people not giving shit or defend this as art. No irony in women being hung in a video by an African-American music artist. Someone mention lynch porn or something earlier, well here it is!

  146. isme January 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM #

    “Yeah, that’s totally the same thing as porn. Women wishing men would behave like human beings = men treating women like toilet paper.”

    Argh…the whole “girl porn” thing. Because if people make movies that women want to watch, it negates anything made for a male audience, no matter how fucked up.

    More annoyingly, one common example of this magical counterweight of “girl porn” is Twilight. Admittedly, it was aimed at a female audience, and is about male dominance and possession of women, so there is some logic behind the label of “girl porn”, but I think an important step has been missed somewhere in the thought process.

  147. kurukurushoujo January 6, 2011 at 6:23 AM #

    Nine Deuce, have you seen this?

    Kink.com First To Stream Deflowering of Young Virgin Live (NSFW)

    The industry needs to deliver.

    I do not even want to think about this, it literally made me sick to my stomach and that hasn’t happened in a really long time.

    • Nine Deuce January 6, 2011 at 2:55 PM #

      For fuck’s sake. Did you see the quote from Acworth? I may have to ditch my plans and write about this.

  148. lizor January 6, 2011 at 9:52 AM #

    “Kink.com First To Stream Deflowering of Young Virgin Live (NSFW)”

    Yeah – and everything they do is respectful and consensual, hunh???????

    Some days I just hate this world.

  149. truthvscompliance January 6, 2011 at 9:53 AM #

    When I tried to search for feminist porn – theonly site I saw was Abby Winters (I think that was the name) and it looked like the same tired cliche – all the women were white, all making the dumb cliche “come fuck me face” found in playboy magazines. It’s a joke. I’ve seen some asshole recomment Adam and Eve videos as being “woman friendly” porn – yet I’ve seen those pornos, ALL the women have big fake boobs, are being fucked in ways that don’t stimulate woman, scenes of throat fucking, and seriously – this is how fucking brainwashed people are – they see these images and they can’t even see the fucking difference between how women and men are treated. Don’t even see it. They got their “O” blinders on. It’s really sickening. And yeah – no feminist porn exists. I have not seen ONE porn that treated women with ANY sort of equality – not ONE.

  150. isme January 6, 2011 at 10:18 AM #

    “I do not even want to think about this, it literally made me sick to my stomach and that hasn’t happened in a really long time.”

    I’d assumed that was hyperbole, and that the porn industry had nothing left to shock me with. I was wrong.

    • Nine Deuce January 6, 2011 at 3:19 PM #

      I have — only sort of jokingly — been asking people lately when they think we’ll see porn in which women’s nostrils are penetrated. I guess this had to happen first.

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:28 PM #

        Actually Hustler Magazine did show that decades ago calling it nose sex,I know because domestic violence counselor and feminist anti-pornography anti-violence activist Laura Kuhn sent information to me back in 1997 when she was a main member at the former Media Action Alliance.

  151. FCM January 6, 2011 at 4:59 PM #

    rebecca mott details in her archives that prostituted women ARE fucked in literally every orifice, and that includes eyes, ears and nose. as she says, all whores are fucked in every hole; no hole is off limits if you are a member of the whore class. i didnt exactly fall out of my chair at the news, but at the same time, i do still occasionally hear things that i had never considered before, and that was one of them.

    • Nine Deuce January 6, 2011 at 5:28 PM #

      Jesus Christ I hate men.

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:34 PM #

        So do I and every woman has a totally rational reason and right to hate men back! I really feel sorry for any women who have sons! A woman giving birth to a son is exactly like a Black person giving birth to White racist Klu Klux klan members or a Jewish person giving birth to a Nazi,except they can’t do that!

  152. boycot living men January 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM #

    Fortunately, there IS a form of sexual intercourse where women aren’t treated like fucktoys.

    It’s called necrophilia.

    Dead men are the only ones that don’t hate women.

    • Nine Deuce January 6, 2011 at 6:19 PM #

      Hardy har har.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:38 PM #

      Well it’s really amazing that most men don’t get ulcers and heart attacks and die young from the heart attacks from all of their irrational cruel hatred of women! They should be careful about having so much hate inside,it could and should be bad for their health!

  153. lizor January 7, 2011 at 8:19 AM #

    Re: nostrils, etc – I hesitate to tell this as it is so horrific, but its true so why should I cover this man’s brutality? I know a woman from my city who was beaten so badly by her husband that she had a colostomy and the colostomy, being a new orifice…

    She charged him and he got a slap on the wrist, it being HIS wife and all.

    Yes, I truly fucking hate men.

  154. kurukurushoujo January 7, 2011 at 8:19 AM #

    Oh, yes, I read that quote. Pornographers are pure-bred capitalists- that’s what you get when you let an industry run wild under the guise of free speech. No producer or director who doesn’t have an ideology to sell will talk differently about the prostitutes he’s exploiting. Because the customers just don’t care- wait, they do care but only about their gratification and Acworth knows.

    We should also remember the names of the guys who are participating, especially James Deen. He’s popular with the ladies as it seems. Turns out he’s just another asshole.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:44 PM #

      In around 2002 I read a synopsis on I think it was Adult Video News site about a hardcore porn video starring Tera Patrick called,Tera Patrick aka A Filthy Whore. And it called her a stupid turkey b*tch and a cum guzzling whore. Then there was another similar title with another well known porn star,I forget her name and they also described her as a stupid b*tch slut and said other horrible hateful things to describe her that I don’t remember now.

  155. isme January 7, 2011 at 8:20 AM #

    “Fortunately, there IS a form of sexual intercourse where women aren’t treated like fucktoys.

    It’s called necrophilia.

    Dead men are the only ones that don’t hate women.”

    Ok, I laughed at that.

  156. Aileen Wuornos January 7, 2011 at 8:20 AM #

    Fortunately, there IS a form of sexual intercourse where women aren’t treated like fucktoys.

    It’s called necrophilia.

    Dead men are the only ones that don’t hate women.

    That statement is so disgustingly heterosexist and misogynist I don’t even know where to begin. I can’t even pretend to laugh at that.

    That’s just brought kink.com to a whole new low, I can not believe I used to be self-loathing enough to support that kind of shit.

  157. boycot living men January 7, 2011 at 8:20 AM #

    BTW I have seen images of women with dick in their nostril. And women being fucked in their bleeding guts and in their skull.

    They were drawings. When men can’t come up with ways to degenerate women enough with real videos, they turn to “art”.

    Google “guro porn” if you really want to see how far this hatred goes. You probably don’t.

  158. Hecate January 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM #

    Don’t mean to change the topic here, but I wanted to share a favorite composer of mine with you lovely ladies. Yes, many males are consumed by hatred. I believe there are a very select few who transcend their gender, and societal conformist bullshit. Arvo Part is definitely one of them in my humble opinion.

  159. isme January 7, 2011 at 10:42 AM #

    “Google “guro porn” if you really want to see how far this hatred goes. You probably don’t.”

    You really, really, really don’t. Although, that sort of thing often comes up alongside mainstream porn, and inevitably with BDSM, you are likely to have it pop up sooner or later regardless of going looking for it.

  160. j January 11, 2011 at 3:27 PM #

    Re: The violently misogynist Kanye West video – here is a petition to not have it released:

    http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/prevent-official-release-of-kanye-wests-women-hating-monster-video/

    Please sign it folks. There must be a limit to the woman hating allowed in media.

  161. M. January 11, 2011 at 9:06 PM #

    Why do men hate wimmin? Seriously, I want to know why.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:49 PM #

      New Internationalist
      Home
      Magazine
      Books
      Blog

      Politics Environment Economics Development Culture Humanrights Activism Corporations Country Argument More»
      Home ›
      Features ›
      Why Men Hate Women
      Issue 212
      new internationalist
      issue 212 – October 1990

      Why men hate women

      ‘…And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat….’ And we all know what happened then – or do we? ‘

      Celia Kitzinger throws new light on an old story.

      It almost certainly wasn’t an apple in the Garden of Eden. The Genesis story refers simply to ‘forbidden fruit’ and biblical scholars argue that a quince or a fig was more likely.

      But in mediaeval woodcuts, on stained-glass windows and in classical Christian art, the apple symbolizes the first sin and Eve is portrayed as the first sinner. Eve the temptress, created by a male deity, formed from the rib of Adam, later to cause the fall of ‘man’ from grace and innocence – this patriarchal myth of woman underpins Western culture.

      In casting woman and serpent as evildoers, Judaic writers overturned a powerful earlier tradition which associated both with wisdom and fertility. In the ancient goddess religions, snakes were the special companions of women, symbols of sexuality, linked through the shedding of their skins – which was seen as a form of rebirth – with women’s creative and reproductive powers. Early Mediterranean statues and reliefs depict fecund goddesses with great nourishing breasts, generous hips and bellies ripe with pregnancy, often with serpents entwined sensuously about their bodies.

      Appalled by this pagan tradition, the authors of Genesis converted the sensual, fertile goddess into a shameful sinner. They covered her nakedness with an apron of fig leaves, and punished her sexuality with pain and oppression: ‘In sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee’.

      The myth was used by early churchmen as a vehicle for expressing their horror and disgust at women’s bodies: ‘What is the difference whether it is in a wife or in a mother, it is still Eve the temptress that we must beware of in any other woman,”1 wrote St Augustine in the late fourth century. Projecting all guilt upon women, branding them as lustful allies of the Devil who wean men from God and lead them from the path of virtue, the Genesis story enshrines the myth of feminine evil as a justification for female oppression.

      Terrifying hatred
      The history of Western men’s attitudes to women is a history of woman-hatred, often with terrifying consequences. During the European witch hunts, thousands of women were tortured and murdered when woman-as-Eve was transformed into woman-as-witch. The infamous Malleus Maleficarum – a document produced by two Dominican monks who were appointed by Pope Innocent VIII in 1484 to investigate and stamp out witchcraft – states that ‘all witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable’. The charges levelled against witches included every misogynistic sexual fantasy harboured by the monks and priests who officiated over the witch hunts: witches copulated with the devil, devoured new-born babies and rendered men impotent. A whole chapter of Malleus is entitled: How, as it were, they Deprive Man of his Virile member’.2

      Witches were also accused of using herbs to ease the pain of labour at a time when the Church held that pain in childbirth was the Lord’s punishment for Eve’s original sin. The Inquisitors concluded: ‘Blessed be the Most High who has so far preserved the Male sex from so great a crime.’2

      This virulent loathing of women’s bodies continued during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the West: any expression of sexual desire by women was considered filthy, corrupt, sinful and marked them as whores, the daughters of Eve. Upper- and middle-class Victorian men relied on working-class female prostitutes to satisfy their sexual appetites, while demanding the purity of their wives and inflicting upon them the impossibly sentimentalized and saintly ideal of the Virgin Mother.

      Middle-class women and girls who expressed sexual feelings – with men or through masturbation – were often diagnosed as ‘morally insane’ and imprisoned in mental asylums. Others were ‘cured’ through sexual surgery, including clitoridectomy or ‘female circumcision’, which doctors first practised on indigent American women and black female slaves.

      These same physicians continued a long tradition of viewing menstruation as dirty and dangerous, ‘the curse’ inflicted upon women because of Eve’s sin. The new professions of gynaecology and psychology denounced women’s bodies and minds as seriously defective, and used ‘scientific’ discoveries to justify excluding women from higher education and from political life.

      Woman’s Bible
      The first feminists struggled against ideas like these – often with remarkable humour. Weary of quotations from the Bible being used to lend God’s authority to the subjection of women, the leading US feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton published The Woman’s Bible in l8953, a caustic and entertaining commentary on the scriptural passages most favoured by misogynists.

      As a comment on Eve’s lofty nature she notes that the serpent did not try to tempt her from the path of duty by brilliant jewels, rich dresses, worldly luxuries or pleasures, but with the promise of knowledge… and he found in the woman that intense thirst for knowledge that the simple pleasures of picking flowers and talking with Adam did not satisfy’. Compared with Adam, she says, Eve appears to great advantage throughout the entire drama.

      Few contemporary feminists would consider the Bible sufficiently central to our oppression to be worthy of this sort of attack. Yet the underlying woman-hating motif of the Genesis story is reiterated throughout Western culture, permeating language, law, medicine, psychology, art and literature.

      At last count the English language had 220 words (almost all derogatory) for a sexually promiscuous female and only 20 for a sexually promiscuous male (most of these complimentary). Words associated with women are sexualized so that apparently equivalent terms acquire very different meanings. A ‘master’ exercises authority whereas a ‘mistress’ is the so-called kept woman. The term ‘sir’ retains respect while ‘madam’ refers to someone who keeps a brothel. A ‘lord of all he surveys’ is quite different from a ‘lady of the streets’, and the meaning of ‘he’s a professional’ is generally understood differently from ‘she’s a professional’. Even the word ‘woman’ is used as a term of abuse.

      Likewise, words available to describe female genitals – ‘cunt’, ‘slit’, ‘crack’, ‘slot’ – reflect centuries of sadistic male use. Too often even modern obstetric medicine treats women’s genitals with brutality. A pregnant woman faces cold metal instruments being shoved carelessly into her by clumsy doctors. She endures unnecessary episiotomies – the cutting of skin between anus and vagina – to speed delivery and is then sewn up again ‘tight as a virgin for your husband’.

      Triumphant phallus
      This hostility towards the female body is expressed through pornography – most sickeningly in ‘snuff’ movies in which the actress is literally murdered on screen. In the pornographic portrayal of the sexual act women are overpowered and silenced, strapped helpless to tables, bound spreadeagled on beds, humiliated, degraded, gagged, handcuffed, beaten, assaulted with gun, knife, whip, penis. The pornography of pregnancy – in which pregnant women are depicted as whores, huge bellies fetishized, cunts displayed for the camera – is the ultimate ‘triumph of the phallus over the death-dealing vagina’ .4

      Men frequently fear women’s sexual power and feel justified in blaming them for acts of male violence. A 12-year-old girl who was raped after visiting her attacker’s bedsit for coffee, behaved foolishly’ commented one British judge in 1988. A few years earlier the judge observed of a 17-year-old girl who was raped by a motorist with whom she hitched a lift after being stranded following a party, that ‘the victim was guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence’.1 Another rapist was sentenced to only three months in prison because his five-year-old victim was, said the judge, ‘an unusually sexually promiscuous young lady.’ He added, ‘I do not put blame on the child exactly, but I do believe she was the aggressor.’5

      Female sexuality causes men to lose self-control so that they cease to be responsible for their actions – or so runs the accepted wisdom. And in the US one woman continues to be raped every three minutes, one wife battered every 18 seconds.

      Roots of hatred
      Why do men express such hatred of women? Psychoanalysts suggest that men’s gender identity is very fragile because, within typical child-rearing practices, girls can identify with their primary care-taker while boys have to separate themselves from their mother in order to achieve and assert their masculinity.

      ‘The whole process of becoming masculine is at risk in the little boy from the date of his birth on; his still-to-be-created masculinity is endangered by the primary, profound, primeval oneness with the mother.’6 It is only by setting woman apart as Other, by resisting intimacy with her, by treating her with contempt and aggression, that men assert their own independent and fragile masculinity.

      And because men have distanced themselves from ‘the weaker sex’ over the ages, setting themselves up as superior, it must be unbearably humiliating to need and desire women so much. Sex with women can re-evoke in men ‘the unqualified, boundless, helpless passion of infancy. If he lets her, she can shatter his adult sense of power and control; she can bring out the soft, wild, naked baby in him’.7

      In heterosexual intercourse men risk discovering in women an unsettling power which contradicts and undermines their own more obvious social, political and physical power. No wonder male sexual desire is so desperately tormented and full of conflict.

      Because women know men to be vulnerable and fragile, they are often tempted to excuse them as ‘just little boys’ who need to over-compensate for their sense of inadequacy or ‘womb-envy’ with acts of spiteful misogyny. Female nurturing is presented as the solution to male violence – as though women haven’t been doing that for centuries. Germaine Greer once commented that ‘women have very little idea of how much men hate them’. For it is painful to confront the extent of men’s hatred. But only when both men and women acknowledge its existence, its extent and its pervasiveness, can we act to end it. .

      Celia Kitzinger teaches psychology in London.

      1 Misogynies, Joan Smith (Faber and Faber 1989).
      2 For Her Own Good, Barbara Ehrenreicb and Deidre English (Anchor and Doubleday 1978) and Beyond Power: Women, Men and Morals, Marilyn French (Jonathan Cape 1985).
      3 The Woman’s Bible Part One, Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1895, reprinted Polygon Edinburgh, 1985).
      4 Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Andrea Dworkin, (Women’s Press, London, 1981).
      5 Spare Rib, Issue 118, 1982.
      6 The Sexuality of Men, ed. Andy Metcalf and Martin Humphries (Pluto Press, London).
      7 The Mermaid and the Minotaur. Dorothy Dinnerstein. (Harper and Row 1977).

      This first appeared in our award-winning magazine – to read more, subscribe from just £7

      Permalink | Published on October 5, 1990 by | 35

      Themes:
      Women
      Men
      Write to the editor
      Email article
      Share
      digg reddit stumble upon facebook delicious
      Tweets

      @ambarvalia
      Why Men Hate Women http://t.co/dN8FHWET

      @zmsakni
      Hands down one of the weirdest article I have ever read — Why Men Hate Women http://t.co/io54xVrB

      @lifesuspended
      Why Men Hate Women — New Internationalist http://t.co/b5ZgjeuA

      @cinnamonclove
      “The term ‘sir’ retains respect while ‘madam’ refers to someone who keeps a brothel.” (http://t.co/RN0El9zx)

      @cinnamonclove
      “A ‘master’ exercises authority whereas a ‘mistress’ is the so-called kept woman.” (http://t.co/RN0El9zx)

      @cinnamonclove
      Last tweet is according to this great article from 1990 that New Internationalist linked to from their archives http://t.co/RN0El9zx

      @ruthbush
      Great article from the New Internationalist about the history women’s inequality (back to biblical times) http://t.co/XWs07Zxv

      @newint
      Do men hate women? Here’s one from deep in the archives that still gets loads of web views. http://t.co/XOG74Aiy

      @yekrovert
      Why Men Hate Women — New Internationalist http://t.co/jRdKrhTY

      @fullerregina
      Men have no reason to feel threatened by a woman who is trustworthy. http://t.co/w1V37Lxo

      @eveangellies
      Why Men Hate Women — New Internationalist http://t.co/tkfFmixa

      @clarice_clique
      Why Men Hate Women http://www.newint.org/features/1990/10/05/hate/

      14
      Chris Grezo
      The problem of rape is getting worse
      8
      Mari Marcel Thekaekara
      One billion rising against gender violence
      2012-11-20

      Popular tags
      Human-rights
      Food
      Environment
      Human
      Poverty
      Oil
      India
      Books
      Activism
      Africa

      This article was originally published in issue 212

      October 5, 1990

      About
      New Internationalist
      North American Office
      2446 Bank Street, Suite 653
      Ottawa, Ontario
      K1V 1A8
      Canada
      New Internationalist reports on issues of world poverty and inequality. We focus attention on the unjust relationship between the powerful and the powerless worldwide in the fight for global justice. More about our work

      © Copyright New Internationalist 1973-2012.

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 7:59 PM #

        There was a 1993 study by a psychologist and other researchers I think from the University of California I found online years ago and they asked men and women about pornography and most women said that pornography sexually subordinates women,and the authors of the study said that the penis is worshipped in pornography(as it is in the whole male dominated sexist,woman-hating society) and semen is glorified.

        Have you ever read any of the excellent books by acclaimed radical feminist psychologist Phyllis Chesler? When I wrote to Gloria Steinem when I was 22 she wrote me back a great response and suggested I read Women And Madness by Phyllis Chesler and that I would find that it made me feel less alone.

        I was only 7 when that book came out and I had never heard of her, so I read it and it’s great powerful information as are her other books that I went on to also read, her great book About Men, which came out in 1978, and (Gloria also gave a great review on the cover) and I read it about 15 years ago for the first time. She interviewed 100′s of men and many of them were married. In her chapter called Wombless Men, she has pictures of sculptures and paintings by famous male artists like Salvador Dali, and Michaelangelo etc and she demonstrates and talks a lot about men’s subconscious fear and envy of the womb and men’s (crazy!) hatred of women. 1 of her references in her extensive bibliography is psychiatrist Wolfgang Lederer’s 1968 book, The Fear Of Women in he which explained the same things.

        She also has a chapter called Phallic Sexuality and in the beginning of it she has a little boy interviwed by a Dr.Richard Green about Sexual Idenity Conflict in Children and Adults and he was asked if he ever wished he had been born a girl, and he said yes. Dr.Green asks him why does he wish that, and the little boy says, girls they don’t have to have a penis. The doctor says they don’t have to have a penis? The little boy then says they can have babies. The doctor then says to him why do you think girls don’t have to have a penis?

        And the little boy says Cause they have to have babies … and babies can’t come out of a penis… babies come out of a vagina… The doctor then says to him , your penis gives you a nice feeling doesn’t it? You’re not scared of it when it gets big and stiff are you ? The boy says no. The doctor says good ! It’s supposed to do that when you tickle it. That’s one big advantage for being a boy cause girls can’t do that you know. The boy says Um hum. The doctor then says to him, sure they can have babies but only boys can have a penis stand up like that.

        In the beginning of her chapter Wombless Men she has woman hater Freud interviweing a 5 year old boy patient and Freud says to him, But only women have children. Hans the little boy says he’s going to have a little girl. Freud says you’d like to have a little girl.Hans says yes next year I’m going to have one. Freud says to him but you can’t have a little girl. Hans says, Oh yes boys have girls and girls have boys. Freud says, boys don’t have children only women ,only Mummies have children. Hans says, but why shouldn’t I ? She also says in the chapter,On having A Penis and she interviewed 100′s of men about having a penis,that female blood regularly shed,reminds men of their “castration” fear,and that it also reminds them of their deeply repressed desire to *bear* children and of their inability to do so.She also says in the chapter,Wombless Men that male science,male alchemy,is partially rooted in male uterus envy,the desire to be able to create something miraculous out of male inventiveness.However,men in science have carried us all to the brink of total planetary,genetuc and human destruction,repressed and unresolved uterus-envy is a dangerous emotion.

        She also has a chapter on Pornography and Other Male Sexual Fantasies. And she says in the chapter Wombless Men that it is no accident that books of pornographic or erotic art are also the source of many expressions of womb envy. In Dr.Chesler’s great 1994 book, Patriarchy Notes Of An Expert Witness she explains that both wife beaters and serial killers of women were addicted to pornography. She also explains that serial killers are mainly white male drifters obsessed with pornography and woman-hatred who sexually use their victims, either before or after killing them and who were themselves *paternally* abused children, and as adults they scapegoat not fathers but mainly women , sometimes children , sometimes male homosexuals who are seen as “feminine” or vulnerable. She then says that serial killers may be responsible for the daily and permanent , disappearance of 1000′s of prostituted and non-prostiuted women each and every year all accross the US.

        She also talks a lot about how sadly, women have been taught to hate themselves and each other because of the crazy male dominated woman hating society! She has many good reviews for her book, Woman’s Inhumanity To Woman which I also want to read.

        Also in 1997 ( I also wrote to Dr. Chesler at this time and she wrote back a note and sent me some articles she had written) I spoke with her secretary who was in her 50′s or early 60′s and she told me that she read several chapters in one of Dr. Chesler’s books, and that it was very interesting. I told her that I read several of her whole books. I said to her how unreal and crazy it is that men hate women for *no* rational reasons and that they are born and nurtured by *women* that their mothers are *women* and that most women have been kind to their sons, husbands and to men in general even though they have hated and discriminated against us, and have been doing all of these horrible injustices to women for 1000′s of years ! And she said, it’s crazy and unreal but it’s true!

  162. LeyaS January 12, 2011 at 12:48 PM #

    Inquiring minds want to know what’s antifeminist about millions of films calling millions of women cumguzzling fleabitten hoebags who beg to be fucked raw til they bleed.

    http://feministing.com/2011/01/12/what-makes-feminist-porn-feminist/

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 10:42 PM #

      http://saidit.org/archives/jun06/article5.html

      This is an excellent talk Not Your Father’s Playboy Not Your Mother’s Feminist Movement Contemporary Feminism In A Porn Culture. by feminist anti-pornography anti-violence philosophy professor Rebecca Whisnant at the 2007 conference,Pornography and Pop Culture:Re-framing Theory Re-Thinking Activism She says that on Nina Hartley’s(who hypocritically calls herself a “feminist pornographer!) web site she had a new film then entitled,O:The Power Of Submission and among her favorite links on her site,Rebecca says that one is called,”Slave Next Door and has the tagline,Real Sexual Slavery and she says the portal page of this web site reads in part,Slave Next Door is the graphic depiction of a female sex slaves life and training for sexual slavery. It contains extreme bdsm situations and … sadistic training.”

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 10:44 PM #

      http://saidit.org/archives/jun06/article5.html

      This is an excellent talk Not Your Father’s Playboy Not Your Mother’s Feminist Movement Contemporary Feminism In A Porn Culture. by feminist anti-pornography anti-violence philosophy professor Rebecca Whisnant at the 2007 conference,Pornography and Pop Culture:Re-framing Theory Re-Thinking Activism She says that on Nina Hartley’s(who hypocritically calls herself a “feminist pornographer!) web site she had a new film then entitled,O:The Power Of Submission and among her favorite links on her site,Rebecca says that one is called,”Slave Next Door and has the tagline,Real Sexual Slavery and she says the portal page of this web site reads in part,Slave Next Door is the graphic depiction of a female sex slaves life and training for sexual slavery. It contains extreme bdsm situations and … sadistic training.”

  163. Hecate January 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM #

    Thanks for that link, j. I signed it, asking if he’d want to see the same things done to his dead mother. Sadly, he probably wouldn’t care. I think videos like this are proof that the backlash against womyn is getting worse, not better. We’d do well to watch our backs. It seems like the womyn of this blog are very savvy and know enough to protect their interests. But I’m worried about womyn who refuse to pay heed to these deeply disturbing messages. They may be avoiding them out of fear, but bullies must be confronted, or there will only be an escalation of this foul behavior.

  164. isme January 12, 2011 at 6:26 PM #

    “Sadly, he probably wouldn’t care.”

    I doubt that. Being shocking instead of utilising any sort of talent has been very successful in the past, and attempts to stop this sort of thing, or even to express disgust only serve to give it the publicity he wants. If nothing else, everyone will want to see the video to find out why they should oppose letting people see it.

  165. Hecate January 13, 2011 at 8:26 AM #

    I certainly see your point isme. It’s a sad commentary on the music industry, and the entertainment industry in general when shock value replaces talent. Maybe Kanye is trying to shock us into forgetting his mean-spirited antics with Taylor Swift?

    At any rate, the idea of his new video still repulses me.

  166. gracemargaret January 13, 2011 at 8:53 PM #

    Unreal. Kanye’s video is being called “a defense of blackness”.

    http://bit­.ly/gnmrjK

    “The first image that caught my attention was one of the first shots in the video–hanging bodies of white women. Historically speaking, the image reminded me immediately of the lynchings of black men in the South. Often black men were beaten, castrated and/or lynched for doing anything with a white woman: having sex with her, making a pass at her, flirting with her, maybe even staring at her. All one needs to do is look up the story of Emmett Till to know what I am talking about.

    “So, when I saw that image, two thoughts came to mind: To have that image in 2010 shows how far we come and how much of a risk-taker Kanye is, but also what it could subconsciously mean racially. Black men have been labeled as hyper-sexual and lusting after white women, even willing to rape and kidnap them, and as a result many were lynched for it. Sometimes in those lynching incidents, the white woman did have consensual contact with the black man but once she was caught, she would cry “rape” (think of the Scottsboro Boys).”

    If you want to make a ‘statement’ Kanye, why not go after white male supremacism? Targeting a vilified and oppressed group doesn’t heal or defend another vilified and oppressed group.

    Such a risk-taker, that Kanye.

  167. isme January 14, 2011 at 2:27 AM #

    I like this quote, but probably not for reasons the author had in mind:

    “”Monster” is just reflecting what is going on in our culture as whole. Violence, whether racial, gender or any other social issue, has been part of fabric of American culture. As American as apple pie.”

  168. Fede January 14, 2011 at 4:49 AM #

    Ah yes, I was wondering how long it would take before the first twat explicated how the lynchings of black men was all white women’s fault.

    Never mind that the lynchings were quite predominantly perpetrated by white men, or that a black man sleeping with a white woman was such a taboo because white women were the property of white men!

    Rather than being a risk-taker, you are a cowardly turncoat, Kanye.

  169. Hecate January 14, 2011 at 12:45 PM #

    Very true Fede! Also, it’s fairly common for most people to deem sexism ‘less offensive’ than racism, which is cowardly and short-sighted in itself. No one wants to see the elephant in the room when it comes to sexism. I have been seeing some encouraging women writers come forward, saying it like it is, as in this article:

    http://www.alternet.org/world/149527/why_men_push_war%2C_and_how_women_leaders_can_lead_us_to_peace/

    There are suprisingly few comments on it, perhaps because people are finally acknowledging that the author is spot-on.

  170. littledozzie January 18, 2011 at 4:28 AM #

    I really love how you cut through the bullshit and make things perfectly clear and inescapable. Truth is great…even when it sucks at the same time? Hmm. Yeah I just find myself wondering what knowing the truth about porn/men/society in general is going to accomplish. I’m new to this radical feminist thing. Are we trying to change the world? Or just raise awareness…by changing our OWN behavior, and the things we will or won’t tolerate? I guess I’m clueless.

    I’m more of a closet feminist I guess…because if I said what I thought EVERY time an issue came up, I would be fighting constantly, and I’m not a confrontational person. I also lack the tools necessary for debate, as I’ m a total newbie (was a fundie xian, then played role of porn-loving “one of the boys” chick) So…if anyone would be so kind as to steer me in the right direction?

    I mean what the hell can I DO about porn, besides get majorly pissed and offended, and not watch it myself? Do I have to alienate all my guy friends by becoming “bitchy” and “prudish” whenever they are joking around? Yes, they joke about all things porn related and juvenile. I brush it off and don’t take it personally. They ARE creepy perverts…but what role am I supposed to play here? It’s not in my nature to speak out, unless I’ve had a few drinks in me…so I just sit there, even laughing along…at the degradation and oppression of women. Fun.

    This is why I question if I can even BE a radical feminist. If I even have it IN me.

    Sorry if this post was too self-obsessed. I’m a lurker, I always get pumped to read your blog, but at the same time I’m left feeling so goddamn helpless.

  171. gracemargaret January 18, 2011 at 6:37 PM #

    Hi littledozzie, I can totally relate to your post. A lot of times I wish I could UN-know the things I know now. I actually took a break from all things feminist for a few years, it just got to be too overwhelming for me. I’ve learned to pick my battles because like you said, if you always have to point out sexism/misogyny you’d be constantly fighting, because it’s everywhere. I’m a pretty shy and chill person, so it’s uncomfortable for me to be confrontational too.

    I think you can change the world by raising awareness, they aren’t two separate things. Actions and behavior are the result belief systems. Getting people to examine their beliefs and assumptions about gender is a big way to change things. Actually I think it’s the only way to change things. The porn question is difficult because people will accuse you of being a prude or anti-free speech if you question the violence and hate that magically becomes invisible when it’s labeled “sex”. It’s really stupid.

    I do feel helpless a lot of the time but reading this blog and experiencing the sense of sisterhood here has really given me more confidence in dealing with situations that call for speaking out.

  172. kristina January 18, 2011 at 8:18 PM #

    Littledozzie… I feel your plight, i’ve been there… Think of it this way…would u want to hang out with possible rapists? I know I wouldn’t.. Start small, when they say something offensive, say that’s disrespectful and i’ve kept quiet in the past, but not anymore…and walk away before u blow ur top and lose an argument out of anger… The guys who really enjoy ur company won’t give u a hard time and might be interested in how they hurt u and want to resolve it… There is no real guideline on how to be a feminist, arm yourself with knowledge and stay true to yourself, but don’t let that behavior slide…if it’s offensive call them on it, and if you can’t do that walk away until you can be outspoken… I regret all the years I stayed silent and find it invigorating and liberating to call out sexist attitudes…start on the internet to argue, but look up logical fallacies to really be equipped in the art of arguing with “men”…they use them as much as they do porn…supposedly its a sign of intelligence… I personally think its common sense..but whatever… The change starts with awareness and you wont bring about change staying silent or joining in… I’ve had several arguments with men in my family and my husband about sexist issues, and its appalling at how they just don’t care…i’ve had to walk away to avoid screaming or even crying (if a subject was triggering..one of those subjects for me is porn).. Once u get used to arguing online u won’t want to stay silent in your life…i’d say this blog is the best place to start in an argument…the users here are supportive and polite if you don’t understand something…well most of them…some are a little highly charged for me, but the internet isnt good for conveying the tone of a conversation either..lol

  173. lizor January 19, 2011 at 8:59 AM #

    I relate too Littledozzie, and I guess getting comfortable with feminism is, in many ways, getting comfortable with yourself. And asking yourself why you worry about displeasing guys who are insulting you regularly with their porn use and jokes about it, who assert on a regular basis their unearned privilege at your expense; guys who you yourself say “ARE creepy perverts”.

    The very best way to find out which actually are creepy perverts and which are your friends is to speak your mind without apology. You may be surprised that some guys will actually agree with you. The others are vampires that you are much better off without.

    All my best to you. You are not alone.

  174. lizor January 19, 2011 at 11:52 AM #

    There’s a ridiculous article by Tracy Clark Flory over on Salon about “The Modesty of the Porn Generation” that posits that women don’t look at porn, don’t know much about porn, but fully expect their partners to use it. One even said she would be wary of a guy who didn’t.

    The only thing more depressing than the article are the comments.

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:01 PM #

      I read an online article about 4 years ago and I don’t have it book marked so I don’t remember the name of it or the author of it. But she was saying that she’s not for censorship of pornography but she hates the way it objectifies and degrades women. Well a woman in the comments said that she read an article on Salon by Tracy Clark Flory where she said that she learned everything about sex at the age of 12! from looking at online pornography and that a few years later she was doing the things she saw in it in her sexual relationships! She constantly writes horrible pro-porn articles and of course totally ignoring the sexist,woman-hating,violent harms! But what can we expect,she learned that is “normal” sexuality from pornography as a kid!

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM #

        About 2 years ago I found an online Salon.com article from 2009 and I forget the title of it and I’d really like to find it again. It was by a woman who said she can tell when one of her male lovers is a pornography user because they have sex in a very detached,unaffectionate mechanical way. And she said her boyfriend was jack hammering away.In this article was a sex educator who contributes to I think an erotic site for women Babeland. And she said that men have been imitating pornography for years.And she said that in 2008 Babeland took a big poll of women and asked them what are the myths pornography teaches men about women and sex.

        I have a feeling that her husband is or was a big pornography user & then she watched it with him,which research shows is usually because of a male partner,and she wrote her books from what she saw,and was taught to her as “normal” and “sexy”!

        They said,That women get orgasims from penatration,that women like to have semen on their faces,that anal(sh*thole!) sex is sexy and that women like very big penises. Isn’t it that something scerwed up,that these are EXACTLY the damaging lies,myths and distortions that E.L James writes,promotes,normalizes,and reinforces in her horrible sexist,woman-hating,sexualizing,& eroticizing men’s violence against women books! I have a feeling that E.L James’s husband is or was a big pornography user & then she watched it with him,which research shows is usually because of a male partner,and then she wrote her books from what she saw,and was taught to her as “normal” and “sexy”. And or she was sexually and physically abused either as a child or as an adult.

        • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:13 PM #

          I am referring to E.L.James watching a lot of hardcore pornography.

          • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:15 PM #

            I have a post printed out since 2003,but I’m not sure when it was written,it’s called in a Smut Rut Why Does Pornography Harm Women?And one of the many things she says is porn also harms women because it causes men to unkowingly view women as less than human,as less than themselves;as objects or animals.She then says,it teaches them not only to be dominators,but also misogynists-meaning they believe women are not their equal but their pets,their servants.Then she says,if men believe women are less than human,it is logical to believe that viewing pornography leads to violence against women,as statistics have shown.If women are viewed in reality as the objects that they are in porn;to be used,abused,and tossed aside at will,than the logical result will be spousal(or partner)abuse.She mentions Ted Bundy and his addiction to hardcore pornography and she said that the violent acts in the pornography were eventually not real enough for him and he eventually killed and mutilated women in reality.

            She then says,under the heading For Women,An upsetting trend now is the fact the women are increasingly not only accepting of porn,but are becoming viewers of porn,even though it’s an industry that is so injurious and contemtous of them.What started out as a trend of women who viewed pornography with their partners reluctantly has become a culture of women who embrace it as being “feminist” or “liberating”.

            She then says,that some would argue that porn can be “feminist” in nature,but I believe it is all a crude adoption of the same belittling,objectifying lack of ethics that hurts women in other types pornography.She says the porn I speak of that is rationalized to be “feminist” is that in which the female is the dominatrix,or master and abuser. In Fifty Shades Of Sick,Violent,Sexist, Damaging,Woman-Hating, the woman is not the dominatrix and abuser,but in the old role that women have been in for 1,000′s of years,dominated,subordinated,submissive,to men and abused by men! Then she says,it is not feminist to objectify men or treat them as animals,simply because they have done so to us.It is only stooping to their level,adopting the values that we are trying to react *against*.She says,being a feminist does not mean belittling the other sex-that would only be revenge. A true feminist respects both sexes and would treat the “opposite” sex as they would want to be treated.Then she says that women are the population most hurt by all types of pornography,and should be the first to refuse to look at,watch or accept it.

  175. Bluecat January 19, 2011 at 9:50 PM #

    I think the question of whether some acts are exploitive, coercive, degrading etc. is a much different question than whether I should be affected by it. I don’t see the tension.

    Ah, but, Andrew, admitting that porn is degrading to women – which you have unequivocally done, though not in this thread AFAIK – and continuing to use it creates quite the ethical dilemma, does it not? You can’t kick puppies and call yourself an animal lover. You can’t eat meat and call yourself a vegetarian. And you can’t use porn and call yourself a feminist ally, or make the heady assumption that you’re not a sexist, which I thought you were trying hard to be – not a sexist. I’d gotten the impression from recent posts that you were attempting to turn over a new leaf. I guess I was wrong.

    And you’re questioning whether or not you’re affecting by porn? The negative, mind-altering effects of pornography are well-documented and *you* are not a special snowflake with a preternatural immunity to it. What you are is an addict. It takes one to know one. I remember all too well the convoluted, logically bankrupt justifications I would invent in order to continue using porn well after I’d acknowledged its detrimental impact on my life and society in general.

    Goodness knows there are myriad support groups for men trying to quit porn. You’ve at least got that.

  176. Bluecat January 19, 2011 at 9:57 PM #

    Oops. …affected by porn…

  177. Bluecat January 19, 2011 at 11:15 PM #

    Why do men hate wimmin? Seriously, I want to know why.

    I’m sorry, M, that no one picked up the gauntlet on this one. I think it got lost in the midst of an on-going dialogue up-thread. While there are others here who could offer a more eloquent, incisive answer, I can’t resist offering my perspective. I hope it helps somewhat.

    Misogyny is culturally hereditary. Boys and girls are socially groomed to believe very different things about their sex and the world around them. From an early age we teach boys to suppress their emotions, that hyper-competitiveness and social hierarchy are everything, and that self-confidence and mental fortitude are absolutely necessary if you want to get ahead in life, even if you have to fake it (you can see how the seeds of sociopathy and narcissism are planted in childhood, fruiting to varying degrees through the cultivation of masculinity).

    So what happens when a kid grows up partially cut off from his feelings, bonding with his peers through domination play and aggression saturated pastimes (i.e., a steady diet of violent video games and sporting events), learns that the male sex essentially rules the world, is catered to by the entertainment industry, has the power to change the geopolitical landscape in the bat of an eye, and is barraged through popular culture/media with the ceaseless message that there is a plethora of gorgeous women in the world – the apex of female achievement – sexually available 24/7 to men, that men are the natural consumers of women – mysterious and dangerous creatures that ensnare men with their sexual wiles – and that this is the Natural Order of Things? And then they grow up and find out that some of these women aren’t content to sit back and allow men to continue ruling the world and hogging the pie, so to speak, they want the same level of respect given to male peers (which is impossible, of course, because men and women are just too different), and, to add insult to injury, they have a problem with male consumption of women as sex objects? The nasty bitches, amirite?

    Oh yeah. Let’s not forget the ubiquity of anti-woman, anti-feminist propaganda…it’s a beam of life-affirming sunshine direct from heaven for angry men clinging to their male privilege like it’s the very essence of their soul, without which they would be nothing. Seriously, I get the impression that porn isn’t the only highly addictive substance many men indulge in; male privilege is pretty addictive, too. Wouldn’t you want to annihilate the people trying to take away your drug of choice?

    • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:30 PM #

      Except the sexes are more alike than different! Below is part of a presentation by Eastern College Gender and Christian Schalor Psychology Professor Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen

      Trinity 2007

      Opposite Sexes or Neighboring Sexes?

      C.S. Lewis, Dorothy L. Sayers, and
      the Psychology of Gender
      Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen

      Gender and Modern Social Science

      C. S. Lewis was no fan of the emerging social sciences. He saw practitioners of the social sciences mainly as lackeys of technologically-minded natural scientists, bent on reducing individual freedom and moral accountability to mere epiphenomena of natural processes (See Lewis 1943 and 1970 b). And not surprisingly (given his passion for gender-essentialist archetypes), aside from a qualified appreciation of some aspects of Freudian psychoanalysis (See Lewis 1952 (Book III, Chapter 4) and 1969). “Carl Jung was the only philosopher [sic] of the Viennese school for whose work [Lewis] had much respect” (Sayer 102).

      But the social sciences concerned with the psychology of gender have since shown that Sayers was right, and Lewis and Jung were wrong: women and men are not opposite sexes but neighboring sexes—and very close neighbors indeed. There are, it turns out, virtually no large, consistent sex differences in any psychological traits and behaviors, even when we consider the usual stereotypical suspects: that men are more aggressive, or just, or rational than women, and women are more empathic, verbal, or nurturing than men. When differences are found, they are always average—not absolute—differences. And in virtually all cases the small, average—and often decreasing—difference between the sexes is greatly exceeded by the amount of variability on that trait within members of each sex. Most of the “bell curves” for women and men (showing the distribution of a given psychological trait or behavior) overlap almost completely. So it is naïve at best (and deceptive at worst) to make even average—let alone absolute—pronouncements about essential archetypes in either sex when there is much more variability within than between the sexes on all the trait and behavior measures for which we have abundant data.

      This criticism applies as much to C. S. Lewis and Carl Jung as it does to their currently most visible descendent, John Gray, who continues to claim (with no systematic empirical warrant) that men are from Mars and women are from Venus (Gray 1992).

      And what about Lewis’s claims about the overriding masculinity of God? Even the late Carl Henry (a theologian with impeccable credentials as a conservative evangelical) noted a quarter of a century ago that:

      Masculine and feminine elements are excluded from both the Old Testament and New Testament doctrine of deity. The God of the Bible is a sexless God. When Scripture speaks of God as “he” the pronoun is primarily personal (generic) rather than masculine (specific); it emphasizes God’s personal nature—and, in turn, that of the Father, Son and Spirit as Trinitarian distinctions in contrast to impersonal entities… Biblical religion is quite uninterested in any discussion of God’s masculinity or femininity… Scripture does not depict God either as ontologically
      masculine or feminine. (Henry 1982, 159–60)

      However well-intentioned, attempts to read a kind of mystical gendering into God—whether stereotypically
      masculine, feminine, or both—reflect not so much careful biblical theology as “the long arm of Paganism” (Martin 11). For it is pagan worldviews, the Jewish commentator Nahum Sarna reminds us, that are “unable to conceive of any primal creative force other than in terms of sex… [In Paganism] the sex element existed before the cosmos came into being and all the gods themselves were creatures of sex. On the other hand, the Creator in Genesis is uniquely without any female counterpart, and the very association of sex with God is utterly alien to the religion of the Bible” (Sarna 76).

      And if the God of creation does not privilege maleness or stereotypical masculinity, neither did the Lord of redemption. Sayers’s response to the cultural assumption that women were human-not-quite-human has become rightly famous:
      Perhaps it is no wonder that women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind or no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is not act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel which borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about women’s nature. (Sayers 1975, 46)
      It is quite likely that Lewis’s changing views on gender owed something to the intellectual and Christian ties that he forged with Dorothy L. Sayers. And indeed, in 1955—two years before her death, Lewis confessed to Sayers that he had only “dimly realised that the old-fashioned way… of talking to all young women was v[ery] like an adult way of talking to young boys. It explains,” he wrote, “not only why some women grew up vapid, but also why others grew up (if we may coin the word) viricidal [i.e., wanting to kill men]” (Lewis 2007, 676; Lewis’s emphasis). The Lewis who in his younger years so adamantly had defended the doctrine of gender essentialism was beginning to acknowledge the extent to which gendered behavior is socially conditioned. In another letter that same year, he expressed a concern to Sayers that some of the first illustrations for the Narnia Chronicles were a bit too effeminate. “I don’t like either the ultra feminine or the ultra masculine,” he added. “I prefer people” (Lewis 2007, 639; Lewis’s emphasis).

      Dorothy Sayers surely must have rejoiced to read this declaration. Many of Lewis’s later readers, including myself, wish that his shift on this issue had occurred earlier and found its way into his better-selling apologetic works and his novels for children and adults. But better late than never. And it would be better still if those who keep trying to turn C. S. Lewis into an icon for traditionalist views on gender essentialism and gender hierarchy would stop mining his earlier works for isolated proof-texts and instead read what he wrote at every stage of his life.

      Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen is Professor of Psychology and Philosophy at Eastern University, St. Davids, Pennsylvania.

      This essay originally was presented as the Tenth Annual Warren Rubel Lecture on Christianity and Higher Learning at Valparaiso University on 1 February 2007.

      The Cresset

      Bibliography
      Evans, C. Stephen. Wisdom and Humanness in Psychology: Prospects for a Christian Approach. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989.
      Gray, John. Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. New York: HarperCollins, 1992.
      Hannay, Margaret. C. S. Lewis. New York: Frederick Ungar, 1981.
      Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority. Vol. V. Waco, Texas: Word, 1982.
      Lewis, C. S. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. III. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2007.
      _____. The Discarded Image: An Introduction to Medieval and Renaissance Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1964.
      _____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. I: 1905–1931. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2004a.
      _____. The Collected Letters of C. S. Lewis, Vol. II: 1931–1949. Walter Hooper, ed. San Francisco:
      HarperSanFrancisco, 2004b.
      _____. “On Three Ways of Writing for Children,”[1952] Reprinted in Of Other Worlds: Essays and Stories, ed., Walter Hooper, 22–34. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1975.
      _____. “Priestesses in the Church?” [1948]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 234–39. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970a.
      _____. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,”[1954]. Reprinted in God in the Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics, ed. Walter Hooper, 287–300. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970b.
      _____. “Psychoanalysis and Literary Criticism,”[1942]. Reprinted in Selected Literary Essays, ed. Walter Hooper, 286–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1969.
      _____. [N. W. Clerk, pseudo.] A Grief Observed. London: Faber and Faber, 1961.
      _____. The Four Loves. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1960.
      _____. Till We Have Faces. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1956.
      _____. Surprised by Joy: The Shape of My Early Life. London: Collins, 1955.
      _____. Mere Christianity. London: Collins, 1952.
      _____. That Hideous Strength. London: John Lane the Bodley Head, 1945.
      _____. The Abolition of Man. Oxford: Oxford University, 1943.
      _____. A Preface to Paradise Lost. Oxford: Oxford University, 1942.

      The Cresset
      _____. Perelandra. London: The Bodley Head, 1942.
      Martin, Faith. “Mystical Masculinity: The New Question Facing Women,” Priscilla Papers, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Winter 1998), 6–12.
      Reynolds, Barbara. Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul. New York: St. Martins, 1993.
      Sarna, Nahum M. Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical Israel. New York: Schocken, 1966.
      Sayer, George. Jack: C. S. Lewis and His Times. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1988.
      Sayers, Dorothy L. “The Human-Not-Quite-Human,”[1946]. Reprinted in Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women
      Human?, 37–47. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 1975.
      Sayers, Dorothy L. Gaudy Night. London: Victor Gollancz, 1935.
      Sterk, Helen. “Gender and Relations and Narrative in a Reformed Church Setting.” In After Eden: Facing the Challenge of Gender Reconciliation, ed., Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, 184–221. Grand Rapids:

      Eerdmans, 1993.
      Copyright © 2007 Valparaiso University Press http://www.valpo.edu/cresset

      ——————————————————————————–

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:31 PM #

        List Price: $27.00
        ISBN: 0262720310
        ISBN-13: 9780262720311
        Pub. Date: February 1999
        Publisher: MIT Press
        Why So Slow?: The Advancement of Women
        by
        Virginia Valian

        Overview
        Why do so few women occupy positions of power and prestige? Virginia Valian uses concepts and data from psychology, sociology, economics, and biology to explain the disparity in the professional advancement of men and women. According to Valian, men and women alike have implicit hypotheses about gender differences — gender schemas — that create small sex differences in characteristics, behaviors, perceptions, and evaluations of men and women. Those small imbalances accumulate to advantage men and disadvantage women. The most important consequence of gender schemas for professional life is that men tend to be overrated and women underrated.Valian’s goal is to make the invisible factors that retard women’s progress visible, so that fair treatment of men and women will be possible. The book makes its case with experimental and observational data from laboratory and field studies of children and adults, and with statistical documentation on men and women in the professions. The many anecdotal examples throughout provide a lively counterpoint.

        What People Are Saying
        The MIT Press
        Editorial Reviews
        From the Publisher
        Publishers Weekly – Publisher’s Weekly
        Social psychologist Valian thinks that the Western world has gotten gender all wrong. “As social beings we tend to perceive the genders as alternatives to each other, as occupying opposite and contrasting ends of a continuum,” she writes, “even though the sexes are not opposite but are much more alike than they are different.” Indeed, despite nearly three decades of feminism, “gender schema”the assumption that masculine and feminine characteristics determine personality and abilitycontinue to influence the expectations and thinking of most Americans. Just about everyone, Valian writes, assumes that men are independent, task-oriented and assertive, while women are tagged as expressive and nurturing. As such, women lag behind in many professions and continue to do the lion’s share of housework and child-rearing. Girls remain less attentive in math and science, while even women who attend medical school tend to steer themselves into “gender appropriate” slots such as family practice or pediatrics. Valian bases her findings on research conducted by social scientists in fields as disparate as psychology, education, sociology and economics, and the result is a work that is both scholarly and anecdotally rich. But it also posits concrete suggestions for changing the way we view the sexes, from stepped-up affirmative action programs, to timetables for rectifying gender-based valuations. Accessible and lively, Why So Slow? is a breakthrough in the discourse on gender and has great potential to move the women’s movement to a new, more productive phase. (Jan.)
        Product Details
        ISBN-13: 9780262720311
        Publisher: MIT Press
        Publication date: 2/5/1999
        Edition description: Reprint
        Pages: 421
        Sales rank: 726,586
        Table of Contents
        Preface
        Acknowledgments
        A Note on Method and Scope
        1 Gender Schemas at Work 1
        2 Gender Begins – and Continues – at Home 23
        3 Learning About Gender 47
        4 Biology and Behavior 67
        5 Biology and Cognition 81
        6 Schemas That Explain Behavior 103
        7 Evaluating Women and Men 125
        8 Effects on the Self 145
        9 Interpreting Success and Failure 167
        10 Women in the Professions 187
        11 Women in Academia 217
        12 Professional Performance and Human Values 251
        13 Affirmative Action and the Law 277
        14 Remedies 303
        Notes 333
        References 353
        Author Index 385
        Subject Index 393

        © 1997-2013 Barnesandnoble.com llc

      • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:37 PM #

        Below is an email I wrote to Oxford University Gender communication professor Deborah Cameron author of the great important book,The Myth Of Mars and Venus Do Men and women Really Speak Different Languages?.

        Dear Deborah,

        I recently read your great important book, The Myth Of Mars & Venus. I read a bad review of the book, The Female Brain on Amazon.com US by psychologist David H.Perterzell he called it junk science.

        I also thought you would want to know that John Gray got his “Ph.D” from Columbia Pacific University which was closed down in March 2001 by the California Attorney General’s Office because he called it a diploma mill and a phony operation offering totally worthless degrees!

        Also there is a Christian gender and psychology scholar and author psychology professor Dr. Mary Stewart Van Leewuen who teaches the psychology and Philosophy of Gender at the Christian College Eastern College here in Pa. She has several online presentations that were done at different colleges from 2005- the present debunking the Mars & Venus myth.

        One is called , Opposite Sexes Or Neighboring Sexes and sometimes adds, Beyond The Mars/Venus Rhetoric in which she explains that all of the large amount of research evidence from the social and behavorial sciences shows that the sexes are very close neighbors and that there are only small average differences between them many of which have gotten even smaller over the last several decades and in her great even longer article that isn’t online anymore called,What Do We Mean By “Male-Female Complentarity”? A Review Of Ronald W.Pierce,Rebecca M.Groothuis,and Gordon D.Fee,eds Discovering Biblical Equality:Complentarity Without Hierarchy, which she says happened after 1973 when gender roles were less rigid and that genetic differences can’t shrink like this and in such a short period of time, and that most large differences that are found are between individual people and that for almost every trait and behavior there is a large overlap between them and she said so it is naive at best and deceptive at worst to make claims about natural sex differences. etc.

        She says he claims Men are From Mars & Women are From Venus with no emperical warrant and that his claim gets virtually no support from the large amount of psychological and behavioral sciences and that in keeping in line with the Christian Ethic and with what a bumper sticker she saw said and evidence from the behavioral and social sciences is , Men Are From,Earth ,Women Are From Earth Get Used To It. Comedian George Carlin said this too.

        She also said that such dichotomous views of the sexes are apparently popular because people like simple answers to complex issues including relationships between men and women. She should have said especially relationships between them.

        Sociologist Dr.Michael Kimmel writes and talks about this also including in his Media Education Foundation educational video. And he explains that all of the evidence from the psychological and behavioral sciences indicates that women and men are far more alike than different.

        Yet Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen says that there are no consistent large psychological sex differences found.

        I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity.

        They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.

        I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that’s due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.

        I know that many scientists know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different enviornments too and Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen told this to me too when I spoke to her 13 years ago.Dr.Van Leeuwen said that humanbeings don’t have sex fixed in the brain,humanbeings adapt to their environments and they develop certain characteristics in response to those envirornments,but they aren’t fixed and unchangeable.

        Also there are 2 great online rebuttals of the Mars & Venus myth by Susan Hamson called, The Rebuttal From Uranus and Out Of The Cave: Exploring Gray’s Anatomy by Kathleen Trigiani.

        Also have you read the excellent book by social psychologist Dr.Gary Wood at The University of Birmingham called, Sex Lies & Stereotypes:Challenging Views Of Women, Men & Relationships? He clearly demonstrates with all of the research studies from psychology what Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen does, and he debunks The Mars & Venus myth and shows that the sexes are biologically and psychologically more alike than different and how gender roles and differences are mostly socially created.

        Anyway, if you could write back when you have a chance I would really appreciate it.

        Thank You

        • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:39 PM #

          I have an excellent book from 1979 written by 2 parent child development psychologists Dr. Wendy Schemp Matthews and award winning psychologist from Columbia University, Dr.Jeane Brooks-Gunn, called He & She How Children Develop Their Sex Role Idenity.

          They thoroughly demonstrate with tons of great studies and experiments by parent child psychologists that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike than different with very few differences but they are still perceived and treated systematically very different from the moment of birth on by parents and other adult care givers. They go up to the teen years.

          They also show that surveys show that boys are overwhelimingly prefered over girls,(sadly nothing has changed and sexist Tee shirts that say( I’m Too Pretty For Homework So I Let My Brother Do It For Me) (and other sexist anti-female ads,pornography,etc do too) like these both reflect and contribute to this injustice.They also explain that when people guess if a pregnant woman is having a girl or a boy,and they list a whole bunch of false unproven old wives tales,that assign all negative characteristics to a woman if they think she’s having a girl,and the imagined girls or given all of the negative characteristics.

          For example they say that author Elana Belotti(1977) explained these examples, The man and woman each take hold of one end of a wishbone and pull it apart.If the longest part comes away in the man’s hand,the baby will be a boy. If you suddenly ask a pregnant woman what she has in her hand and she looks at her right hand first ,she will have a boy;if she looks at her left hand it will be a girl.If the mother’s belly is bigger on the right-hand side a boy will be born,and also if her right breast is bigger than her left,or if her right foot is more restless.

          If a woman is placid during pregnancy she will have a boy,but if she is bad-tempered or cries a lot,she will have a girl.If her complexion is rosy she’s going to have a son;if she is pale a daughter. If her looks improve,she’s expecting a boy;if they worsen,a girl.If the fetal heartbeat is fast,it is a boy;if it is slow it is a girl.If the fetus has started to move by the fortieth day it will be a boy and the birth will be easy,but if it doesn’t move until the ninetieth day it will be a girl.( Belotti 1977,pp.22-23)

          Dr.Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Matthews then say, now rate each of the characteristics above as positive or negative. A woman expecting a girl is pale,her looks deteriorate,she is cross and ill-tempered,and she gets the short end of the wishbone,all negative characteristics. They then say,furthermore ,a girl is symbolized by the left-the left hand,the left side of the belly,the left foot,the left breast. They say,left connotes evil,a bad omen,or sinister,again the girls have all of the negative characteristics. They then say,that sex-role stereotypes about activity also characterize Belotti’s recipes:boys are believed to be active from the very beginning and girls have slower heartbeats and begin to move around later.They then say,the message although contradictory(girls cause more trouble even though they are more passive) is clear in that it reflects the sex-role stereotype that boys “do” while girls “are” and the belief that boys are more desirable than girls.

          I once spoke with Dr.Brooks-Gunn in 1994 and I asked her how she could explain all of these great studies that show that girl and boy babies are actually born more alike with few differences but are still perceived and treated so differently anyway, and she said that’s due to socialization and she said there is no question, that socialization plays a very big part.

          I know that many scientists know that the brain is plastic and can be shaped and changed by different life experiences and different enviornments too and Dr.Mary Stewart Van Leewuen told this to me too when I spoke to her 13 years ago. Dr.Van Leeuwen also said that humanbeings don’t have sex fixed in the brain and she told me that humans have a unique highly developed cerebral cortex that allows us to make choices in our behaviors and we can learn things that animals can’t.

          There was another case in Canada that I read about online some years ago about another case in which a normal genetic male baby’s penis was destroyed when he was an infant and in this case he was raised as a girl from the much younger age of only 7 months old,not as late as 21 months as was David Reimer,and research shows that the core gender identity is learned by as early as 18 months old.

          In this other case,it was reported in 1998 he was still living as a woman in his mid 20′s but a bisexual woman. With David Reimer they raised him as a girl too late after he learned most of his gender identity as a boy from the moment he was born and put into blue clothes, treated totally differently, given gender stereotyped toys, perceived and treated totally differently than girls are in every way(in the great book,He and She:How Children Develop Their Sex Role Identity it explains that a lot of research studies and tests by parent child psychologists found that they give 3 month old babies gender stereotyped toys long before they are able to develop these kinds of preferences or ask for these toys. They also found that when adults interacted with the same exact baby they didn’t know was a girl or boy who was dressed in gender neutral clothes,they decided if they *believed* it was a girl or boy. And those adults who thought the baby was a boy,always handed the baby a toy foot ball,but never a doll and were asked what made them think it was a girl or boy and they said they used characteristics of the baby to make the judgement . Those who thought the baby was a boy described characteristcs such as strength,those who thought the baby was a girl described the baby as having softness and fragility,and as the Dr.Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Wendy Schempp Mathews explain,Again remember that the same infant was being characterized as strong or soft,the actual distinction by sex characteristics being only in the minds of the adults.

          They also explain that in the toy preference studies,girl toddlers often show an intitial interest in the trucks,but eventually abandon them for a more familiar type of toy. Also check out Kate Bornstein’s books,Gender Outlaw and My Gender Workbook,and recently a co-written book,Gender Outlaws. Kate used to be a heterosexual married man who fathered a daughter and then had a sex change and became a lesbian woman who now doesn’t idenity as a man or a woman. I heard Kate interviewd in 1998 on a local NPR show and she totally debunks gender myths,and rejects the “feminine” and “masculine” categories as the mostly socially constructed categories that they really are.She even said,what does it mean to feel or think like a woman(or man) she said what does that really mean.

          • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:40 PM #

            Public release date: 4-Nov-1999
            Print E-mail Share

            Contact: Penny Burge or Sharon Snow
            burge@vt.edu or ssnow@vt.edu
            Virginia Tech

            20-year-old sex-role research survey still valid

            BLACKSBURG, Va. ­ In the late 1970s, Penny Burge, director of Virginia Tech’s Women’s Center, was working on her doctoral dissertation at Penn State University researching the relationship between child-rearing sex-role attitudes and social issue sex-role attitudes among parents. As part of her research, Burge designed a 28-question survey in which respondents were asked to mark how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: “Only females should receive affectionate hugs as rewards,” “I would buy my son a doll,” and “I would be upset if my daughter wanted to play little league baseball.”

            Hard-hitting questions, many of them. But Burge carried on. She received her degree in 1979, and in 1981 her research findings were published in the Home Economics Research Journal.

            Among her findings were that respondents who named the mother as their child’s primary caretaker held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes than respondents who named both parents. In addition, those respondents who held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes also held more traditional social issue sex-role attitudes, and fathers were more conventional than mothers with respect to the issue of whether or not boys and girls should be raised differently.

            “We found that parents do cling to traditional sex-role attitudes,” Burge said. “It was more pronounced with male children where pressure to achieve was more intense.”

            Over the years, Burge occasionally received requests from other researchers for permission to use her survey in their own research. Burge always granted permission, but had redirected her research focus to gender equity in education. She had moved on in her career, serving on the faculty in Virginia Tech’s College of Human Resources and Education from 1979 to 1994 when she became director of the Women’s Center.

            But a recent request from a researcher at New Mexico State University sparked her interest. The researcher, Betsy Cahill, had used Burge’s survey (with some modifications and additions) to conduct research on early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward gender roles. After the results of Cahill’s research were completed and published in The Journal of Sex Roles in 1997, some unexpected events occurred.

            The Educational Testing Service, a national resource that makes research instruments more widely available to other researchers, requested permission to use the Burge and Cahill survey tools in its upcoming Test Collection, a reference publication for future researchers. “I was honored,” Burge said. “It was nice to have another researcher include my survey instrument in her own. And the request from the Educational Testing Service gave an additional sanction to my survey. It’s amazing to me that the same type of social questions are still valid after 20 years.”

            And no one can dispute the past two decades have brought enormous social changes in the world, which leads to the second unexpected occurrence.

            Cahill found that many of the findings from Burge’s research were still very much the same. For example, teachers who espoused traditional gender role beliefs for adults also did for children. For those who were more accepting of cross-gender role behaviors and aspirations, they were more accepting of these behaviors from girls than boys.

            Enter Sharon Snow, newly hired assistant director of the Women’s Center at Virginia Tech, and the third coincidence regarding Burge’s survey tool. As part of a survey research class Snow took while working on her graduate degree at Texas Woman’s University, she cited Burge’s study in her literature review.

            “As part of the class, we conducted a survey of students to determine their attitudes about gender roles in children,” Snow said. “We found that parents do indeed drive gender-based behavior. It’s not something that just happens naturally.”

            So 20 year later, researchers find that parents still have a profound influence on their children’s gender roles.

            “The most amazing finding is that despite tremendous societal change over the past two decades, many parents still hold fast to raising their children with traditional sex-roles,” Burge said.

            • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM #

              I have a lot more information about all of this but I know I can’t post it all at once I’m not trying to spam,just post important hopefully helpful information.

          • 50shadesofharm June 28, 2013 at 11:48 PM #

            There is an excellent online article that I printed out about 12 years ago,by Jungian psychologist Dr.Gary S.Toub,called,Jung and Gender:Masculine and Feminine Revisted. On his site it now only has part of this article and it says you have to register to read the full article. I emailed Dr.Toub years ago and he wrote me back several nice emails,in one he said he really liked my letter,and that it was filled to the brim with excellent points and references.

            In this article he talks about what parts of Jungian thought he finds useful and what he finds problematic. The first thing he says he finds useful is, In the course of Jungian analysis, he often assists female clients to discover traditionally,masculine qualities in their psyche and that he likewise frequently assist male clients to recognize traditionally feminine qualities in their psyche. He says this process frees each gender from the straight-jacket of stereotyped sex roles and expands his clients identities. He then said that the process also mirrors and furthers the breakdown of male-female polarization in our culture,and the cultural shifts towards androgyny.

            He also says that most importantly, his practice of Jungian analysis places the greatest emphasis on facilitating his clients individuation process. He says this means that he tries to assist clients,male or female,to search for their authentic self-definition,distinct from society’s gender expectations.He also says that many Jungian definitions of masculine and feminine are narrow,outdated and sexist.

            He also says that he has found that generalizing about what is masculine and what is feminine is dangerous,often perpetuating gender myths that are discriminatory and damaging.He says while there is some research supporting biological roots to personality differences,the majority of studies suggest that much of what is considered masculine or feminine is culture determined.

            He also says that viewing masculine and feminine as complementary opposites,while useful at times,is problematic. He then says as his gay,lesbian, and transexual clients have taught him,gender is more accurately viewed as encompassing a wide-ranging continumm. He then says that likewise,the more people he sees in his practice,the more he is impressed at the great diversity in human nature. He says he has seen men of all types and varieties,and women of all kinds. He then says,he is hard-pressed to come up with very many generalizations based on gender.He says he knows that there are some statistical patterns,but how useful are they when he works with individuals and in a rapidly changing society? He says if each person is unique,no statistical norm or average will be able to define who my client is.

            He then says,from a psychological perpespective,men and women are not, in fact,opposite. He says his clinical experience is that they are much more psychologically alike than different,and the differences that exist are not necessarily opposing.

            Public release date: 4-Nov-1999
            [ Print E-mail Share

            Contact: Penny Burge or Sharon Snow
            burge@vt.edu or ssnow@vt.edu
            540-231-7806
            Virginia Tech

            20-year-old sex-role research survey still valid
            BLACKSBURG, Va. ­ In the late 1970s, Penny Burge, director of Virginia Tech’s Women’s Center, was working on her doctoral dissertation at Penn State University researching the relationship between child-rearing sex-role attitudes and social issue sex-role attitudes among parents. As part of her research, Burge designed a 28-question survey in which respondents were asked to mark how much they agreed or disagreed with statements such as: “Only females should receive affectionate hugs as rewards,” “I would buy my son a doll,” and “I would be upset if my daughter wanted to play little league baseball.”

            Hard-hitting questions, many of them. But Burge carried on. She received her degree in 1979, and in 1981 her research findings were published in the Home Economics Research Journal.

            Among her findings were that respondents who named the mother as their child’s primary caretaker held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes than respondents who named both parents. In addition, those respondents who held more traditional child-rearing sex-role attitudes also held more traditional social issue sex-role attitudes, and fathers were more conventional than mothers with respect to the issue of whether or not boys and girls should be raised differently.

            “We found that parents do cling to traditional sex-role attitudes,” Burge said. “It was more pronounced with male children where pressure to achieve was more intense.”

            Over the years, Burge occasionally received requests from other researchers for permission to use her survey in their own research. Burge always granted permission, but had redirected her research focus to gender equity in education. She had moved on in her career, serving on the faculty in Virginia Tech’s College of Human Resources and Education from 1979 to 1994 when she became director of the Women’s Center.

            But a recent request from a researcher at New Mexico State University sparked her interest. The researcher, Betsy Cahill, had used Burge’s survey (with some modifications and additions) to conduct research on early childhood teachers’ attitudes toward gender roles. After the results of Cahill’s research were completed and published in The Journal of Sex Roles in 1997, some unexpected events occurred.

            The Educational Testing Service, a national resource that makes research instruments more widely available to other researchers, requested permission to use the Burge and Cahill survey tools in its upcoming Test Collection, a reference publication for future researchers. “I was honored,” Burge said. “It was nice to have another researcher include my survey instrument in her own. And the request from the Educational Testing Service gave an additional sanction to my survey. It’s amazing to me that the same type of social questions are still valid after 20 years.”

            And no one can dispute the past two decades have brought enormous social changes in the world, which leads to the second unexpected occurrence.

            Cahill found that many of the findings from Burge’s research were still very much the same. For example, teachers who espoused traditional gender role beliefs for adults also did for children. For those who were more accepting of cross-gender role behaviors and aspirations, they were more accepting of these behaviors from girls than boys.

            Enter Sharon Snow, newly hired assistant director of the Women’s Center at Virginia Tech, and the third coincidence regarding Burge’s survey tool. As part of a survey research class Snow took while working on her graduate degree at Texas Woman’s University, she cited Burge’s study in her literature review.

            “As part of the class, we conducted a survey of students to determine their attitudes about gender roles in children,” Snow said. “We found that parents do indeed drive gender-based behavior. It’s not something that just happens naturally.”

            So 20 year later, researchers find that parents still have a profound influence on their children’s gender roles.

            “The most amazing finding is that despite tremendous societal change over the past two decades, many parents still hold fast to raising their children with traditional sex-roles,” Burge said.

  178. Bluecat January 19, 2011 at 11:36 PM #

    I forgot to add that we aren’t that far removed from a time in history when women had severely limited life choices – their best shot at financial stability was to attach themselves to a man (and for many it still is) – and were widely considered the mentally/physically inferior sex. Men from a different age remember and pine for those times, the younger generations wonder if we’re moving in the wrong direction – some of them adamantly believe we are and won’t be satisfied until the Natural Order is fully restored (hence the advent of MRA groups). When domination/subjugation is the preeminent cultural paradigm, as it is in patriarchal society, the dominant group is always going to try to keep the subjugated group down. The more power gained by the subjugated group, the greater the backlash (e.g., modern porn).

  179. Fede January 20, 2011 at 10:48 AM #

    @Andrew: Consuming – and presumably being turned on by – the depiction of acts that are “exploitive, coercive, degrading etc.” is in and of itself proof positive that you have already been quite heavily affected by porn and by its underlying ideology. I’m amazed you don’t see that. If you were not already damaged, where would the incentive be for you to watch something that you yourself would describe in those terms?

  180. Andrew January 20, 2011 at 9:41 PM #

    Fede,

    I think you are mostly correct, and being a consumer of porn is not necessarily a badge I wear proudly. To be honest, I would prefer I wasn’t. Conversely though, I am not sure that if I wasn’t I wouldn’t exploit women in some other fashion and so still be somewhat culpable.

    The reason I made it a point here is because I believe one can admit his consumption of porn (as 9-2 asked such men to, as a starting point) and still discuss these topics seriously.

    It is not as if I come here just to point out that I don’t care about the thoughts, feelings, and ideas expressed here. There is a lot I agree with and share perspective on, there are also some conclusions I take issue with that don’t necessarily add up to me.

    In short, I enjoy the topics discussed here and try my best not to personally offend any of the commenters here when I share my opinion. If I did with my earlier statement I am sorry.

  181. Fede January 21, 2011 at 10:21 AM #

    “being a consumer of porn is not necessarily a badge I wear proudly. To be honest, I would prefer I wasn’t.”
    OK, that gives us somewhere to start from, I suppose.

    “Conversely though, I am not sure that if I wasn’t I wouldn’t exploit women in some other fashion and so still be somewhat culpable.”
    I disagree with your use of the word ‘conversely,’ here. Because unless you are saying that your addiction to consuming women is such that you would ‘have to’ start raping prostituted women for cash if you gave up porn, I really don’t see how overcoming the porn addiction can be anything but a great big positive plus. You are correct, of course, that there might still be issues of exploitation in your relationship with women, but getting rid of a major one can only be good.

    “I [...] try my best not to personally offend any of the commenters here when I share my opinion. If I did with my earlier statement I am sorry.”
    I think there’s a very important distinction to be made here: when you identify as a porn consumer, you do not offend me personally. I am not in the videos or whatever it is you consume, nor is any woman I know personally, to the best of my knowledge. What is more, I get the distinct feeling that you are able to compartmentalise in such a fashion that you can communicate with me without simultaneously imagining me in terms of pornography. Being a consumer of porn you are, however, offending my ethical principles; i.e. my firm belief that enjoying another person’s degradation is despicable, no matter what the excuse. And insofar as I can identify with women everywhere who end up being degraded because they are women, I am obviously offended by proxy, if you will, that you would not make more of an effort to live a life as low on women’s degradation as humanly possible. So you see how you can offend me even though you are careful not to offend me personally.

  182. Bluecat January 22, 2011 at 3:57 PM #

    Andrew, while I have numerous problems with the traditional 12 step program of recovery, the one thing it gets absolutely right is that recovery is 100% possible through support, willpower, patience and behavior modification. It takes 90 days of uninterrupted abstinence from your drug of choice to affect an initial rewiring of your brain; once you’re over that hurdle, it gets increasingly easier to refrain from using. That 90 days won’t happen initially because relapse is inevitable, but every time you relapse and jump back on the wagon, it gets easier to stay on the wagon.

    Because porn addiction isn’t a chemical addiction like alcoholism or heroin addiction, it responds exceptionally well to behavior modification. There is simply no excuse for not quitting and what is offensive here – rage-inducingly offensive – is that you are choosing to continue using porn. You say you would “prefer” not to use it. Well, guess what. You aren’t getting any sympathy from this recovered addict because I know from personal experience that you’re bullshitting us. You’re bullshitting yourself. No one said recovery was easy. Being a decent human being isn’t easy. Do you think every person posting to this blog hasn’t made sacrifices, do you think they don’t experience hardship on a on-going basis because of their decision to pursue a radical feminist lifestyle?

    What is offensive is your cowardice. What is offensive is your apathy. What is offensive is your weak, morally inferior character and lack of desire to do anything about it. I torment you because I think you have the potential to be a decent human being. It’s a shame you don’t have the courage to try.

  183. Andrew January 23, 2011 at 12:59 AM #

    @ Fede & Bluecat,

    I am not sure what to write here in response other than to say that the reasons I’d like to quit using pornography have a lot to do with the way it affects me personally and not the way it affects the women in it; or even women generally.

    My sexual psyche has been warped by pornography to a great extent, I’m sure, but that has little to do with the discussion of what about porn, sex, or the differences between the two gives rise to female subjugation and degradation.

    On the morality issue:

    Morality is subjective and different moralities can’t really be “inferior” to one another. I would first have to accept one’s moral premises before I could be shown to be morally inferior to them, and I haven’t done that.

    I don’t doubt that the fact I choose to use porn enrages you and others here, but that fact is really neither here nor there. I commented on this thread because I am interested in what about certain sexual acts or the contexts they occur in makes them harmful. The moral ramifications of my realizing that harm aren’t really relevant.

  184. gracemargaret January 23, 2011 at 2:37 AM #

    “that the reasons I’d like to quit using pornography have a lot to do with the way it affects me personally and not the way it affects the women in it; or even women generally.”

    Andrew why do you want to quit if you don’t care about harm done to the victims of porn? What exactly is the problem, then? It takes up too much of your time? It’s expensive? I’m not kidding when I say Andrew sounds like a textbook sociopath. Not all sociopaths are violent, that’s why it may sound extreme for me to use the term, but it fits.

    “Morality is subjective and different moralities can’t really be “inferior” to one another. I would first have to accept one’s moral premises before I could be shown to be morally inferior to them, and I haven’t done that.”

    Moral nihilism is a classic characteristic of sociopathy. And he seems to be upset that someone said they don’t get personally offended by his porn use, insisting that it really does ‘enrage’ people here. It’s sounds like that’s exactly what he’s after. But before that he makes some bizzare apology.

    Why does Andrew get a free pass on all his gloating narcissitic/sociopathic BS? Is it for the entertainment value?

    Just wondering.

  185. joy January 23, 2011 at 3:39 AM #

    Is he perhaps an elaborate puppet-troll?

  186. Andrew January 23, 2011 at 5:21 AM #

    Gracemargaret,

    I didn’t really want to respond to their comments as its somewhat awkward, but they asked me and so I answered. I also don’t really understand your assertion that people not being offended by my porn use makes me upset. If anything I feel like I understand their anger quite well. In any event, unless 9-2 wants to write a post about my porn use and general world outlook, I won’t be discussing it anymore.

    I do like your efforts to paints me as a sociopath though. I almost want to go out and torture a small animal just to see if I’d be good at it. Instead, I’ll probably just settle for making myself a sandwich. Interestingly enough, since severe emotional/physical harm is a large part of both torturing animals and using them for meat products, my “moral nihilism” blinds me to the difference.

  187. lizor January 23, 2011 at 6:45 AM #

    I agree Gracemargaret. I get the feeling Andrew is possibly beating off at his own incoherent posts and to the fact that he is still being indulged here. I don’t see any hope in what he has to say and I find his words make me feel sick to my core – probably because he reminds me of other pompous narcissists I have had the misfortune to be exposed to. You are probably right about his being a sociopath -reading the hollow dissonance of his mockery of reason is like looking at porn. It’s poisonous.

  188. Fede January 23, 2011 at 9:23 AM #

    If men’s psyches weren’t warped, there would be no subjugation of women, Andrew. You never cease to amaze me with with your complete lack of capacity for logical reasoning. I can only speculate that you have some fantastical idea that as long as your propensity for women’s suffering is all in your mind, those women getting raped in front of a camera are not getting hurt. You do realise that by creating a market for taped rape you are making sure that a new generation of young women will also be raped on film, do you not? Or do you just not grasp the fact that your choices as a consumer have consequences in the real world?

  189. Fede January 23, 2011 at 9:43 AM #

    I agree with your assessment, gracemargaret. I actually laughed out loud at Andrew’s contention that there’s no such thing as someone being morally inferior to someone else. You just keep telling yourself that, Andrew! Oh, mama. The loops of abstactatiolicious contortionism these guys will jump through. Anything not to have to examine their own actions in the light of actual humanist values.

  190. Bean January 23, 2011 at 9:45 PM #

    So basically Deuce, you’ve proven the relative unpopularity of porn with specific themes of rape/violation.

    See the image I’m using as a gravatar? The glasses? Those are actually the frames I wear. If I run a search for them, wanna know how many results I get?

    1, 860, 000. Hilariously.

    Everything on the first page is actually specs, too.

  191. Bean January 23, 2011 at 11:21 PM #

    @Bluecat

    Along with many mentions of porn “rewiring” your brain, I noted you said this to Andrew:

    The negative, mind-altering effects of pornography are well-documented and *you* are not a special snowflake with a preternatural immunity to it.

    Studies say that watching porn “rewires” your brain, eh? I’d sure like to know what studies those were. Because to the best of my knowledge, scientists are currently unable to demonstrate that ANY visual media has ANY effect on our brains that last more than a few hours at best. Am I behind on the latest research? Do tell.

    I first starting watching porn videos some years back. I couldn’t find what I was looking for in the geeky fanfiction my geeky friends and I had been writing for each other since I was in high school, so I (with trepidation – there were a lot of things I thought I “knew” about porn that made me very nervous and almost too self-conscious to even load a porn site) started watching porn videos people were linking on a kink-themed website I sometimes visit.

    Once I got over my initial nerves, I found [video] porn to be quite novel (in comparison to the erotic fiction I was used to) and therefore quite exciting. I probably watched it most days out of the week for months, for many hours at a time. And I escalated too.

    I got increasingly bored with it.

    I am very glad I’ve seen some of the porn I have. Some of it was very affirmative and joyful to watch. Some of it made me understand things about my sexuality that nothing else ever had. Some of it made me like things I hadn’t found hot before. (Oh no, escalation!) Some of it taught me things about myself which disturbed me – but I’m glad to know them. Some of it made me more understanding and less judgmental about other people’s sexual turn-ons that I hadn’t been gracious about before. Some of it amazed me with the breadth and depth of human sexual imagination. Some of it gave me a bit of an idea what kind of potential even porn videos (which have narrative restrictions that written stories do not) have to be great commentaries on how and why sex is important to people (and be hot, too). All of those things are reasons why I’m fundamentally pro-porn, even if I despise a lot of the porn I’ve seen.

    Because, you know, the overwhelming majority of what I’ve seen is dreck. That’s one point I won’t disagree with. (Being “pro-porn” doesn’t mean that I think all porn is totally awesome; it means that I think porn has positives and isn’t inherently evil.) But much of it is tiring, angering and boring. It got to the point where I realized that if I spent a few hours on a free-streaming porn site, I felt more like I’d signed up for a few hours of getting punched in the face. Particularly within the niche fetish I’d originally set out looking for, it seemed that I’d already found – and saved, and re-watched – every single damn video that was any good.

    I guess your argument here might be that I’d exhausted the initial “high” of porn videos and needed “more” to get the same high; but the idea of getting punched in the face harder or more often never had any appeal, so I’m not sure how that’s supposed to work.

    So at that point I largely gave up on porn videos, and went back to geeky Whoporn. (Better written than the stuff in that first linked video, mind you.) Nearly every video I’d saved I’ve since deleted (since I realized I wasn’t re-watching it anymore, and it was taking up space).

    But I think I watched MORE than enough porn to have passed whatever tipping point ex-porn addicts are always ominously warning about (as though porn addiction is a completely inevitable side effect of watching porn, particularly “too much” porn) and yet am unequivocally not addicted to watching it.

    So pardon me if I’m skeptical of this “rewiring” business. Again, if you have those studies, please link ‘em.

  192. joy January 24, 2011 at 12:02 AM #

    Bean still thinks porn is creative and good for the soul. How surprising

    Gag me with a spoon. The more and more I read this shit, the less I want to be carried out of here alive.

    Or at least, the less and less I ever want to touch a living man again. Which is a good thing, actually, if this is the best we can get out of it.

  193. gracemargaret January 24, 2011 at 2:59 AM #

    So Andrew, you can totally get the harm done to animals is actual harm but not to women in the creation of violent porn? And openly say that you don’t care? It’s not unusual for misogyinists to treat animals better than women, if even half the stuff done to women in porn was done to animals, there would be a massive public outcry.

    But women in porn and prostitution are so vile and filthy it doesn’t matter, they just deserve whatever happens to them, at least that’s what dudes tell me. They even laugh if you suggest porn actresses and prostitutes are human beings. Try it. I have.
    They LAUGH.

    I remember seeing a photo once of a wholesome family at a picnic with a mom and dad and adorable son and daughter with a cute blonde curls in her Sunday best sitting and smiling next to a tree where a black man was hanging, his tongue protruding from his mouth from the noose around his neck, clearly dead. Some at the picnic were posing by the tree the way people do when they catch a really big fish and want to show off. They were probably nice to their dog, too.

    Like I said, you don’t have to be a violent nutcase or someone who abuses animals to be a sociopath. Just someone who’s completely indifferent to the suffering and pain of others and sees them as mere objects for your use.

  194. lizor January 24, 2011 at 8:26 AM #

    @ bean

    “Studies say that watching porn “rewires” your brain, eh? I’d sure like to know what studies those were. Because to the best of my knowledge, scientists are currently unable to demonstrate that ANY visual media has ANY effect on our brains that last more than a few hours at best. Am I behind on the latest research? Do tell.”

    The Brain that Changes Itself by Norman Doidge, MD has an entire chapter on pornography and brain structure.

    Now could you please tell me where you saw the porn that made you write “Some of it amazed me with the breadth and depth of human sexual imagination.”

    I have been looking and can’t find a damn thing that is not anti-inimacy, anti-creative and completely lacking in imagination. Those things I find when I sexually interact with humans, but never with porn. Please advise.

  195. elkballet January 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM #

    Seriously, how many times are porn fanatics going to spout this tired “no studies” “biased studies” crap? My area of expertise on this is in scientific studies and I can assure you there are THOUSANDS of well-conducted studies showing a correlation/causation between porn use and aggression, sexual dissatisfaction, emotional dissatisfaction, increased likelihood to engage in risky sexual behavior, higher likelihood to believe rape myths (like that all women secretly want to be raped), higher likelihood of seeing women as object or things, decrease in the desire to remain committed, decrease in the desire to have children especially if they are female, lower empathy for women, lower empathy for rape victims, lower likelihood of wanting to support “women’s programs” like cancer research women’s shelters and medical care, lower likelihood of believing a woman when she says she was raped, etc… or should I go on? Before you come in here spouting crap about there being no studies why not try actually looking.

    I have yet to see a real study (well-conducted) that shows anything actually positive from porn use (the only ones were poorly done correlations between child porn use and lower child rape, but they have all been dismissed across the board for failing to show causation or take other factors into account). I have seen several that report neutral effect, but most of those rely on self-reporting (questions like, do you think porn has a negative effect on you? A negative effect on others? etc…).

    Furthermore when dealing with a social science that deals so heavily with mental well-being anecdotal cannot be dismissed and should be included as valid evidence. There are immense numbers of women who are being harmed by porn, frequently by a partner who watches degrading porn and lies about it. Many women report being pressured into painful and degrading sex acts by porn-watching partners. Ejaculating on a woman’s face without asking, anal sex the first time, and bondage are all becoming regular acts that have been shown to be popular as a result of porn use. Interviews with men show this quite clearly, they’re not too shy about admitting that’s why they want it. Magazines nowadays share coping mechanisms for women, just like back in the 60′s, for how to have things hurt less, how to tolerate accommodating every sexual desire the porn-viewer wants, threatening that if she doesn’t she WILL be cheated on or dumped. How is that not a direct admission of male entitlement?

    In fact the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers found that in 2004 over half of all divorces the internet (i.e. porn) was one of the major contributions for the divorce. What is happening there? Women are being told that simply on the basis of the fact that they are women, they have to put up with being hurt over and over. This is a result of sexism and male entitlement.

    Don’t even bother responding to my message until you look up studies by:
    Donnerstein, Zillman, Bryant, Violato, Malamuth, and (Peter Jochen and Patti M Valkenburg) for a start.

  196. Fede January 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM #

    Thank you, elkballet, that was to the point and hugely informative.

    The porn-sick dude is not convinced that watching a slut getting used and abused in all holes is necessarily bad for him. No surprises there. Also not surprising is his insolent assumption that his well-being is the issue here. Twat.

  197. kurukurushoujo January 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM #

    Damn, my linkage didn’t work. Can you fix it, ND?

  198. kurukurushoujo January 24, 2011 at 1:26 PM #

    elkballet, your comment rocks.

    This is so true:
    Magazines nowadays share coping mechanisms for women, just like back in the 60′s, for how to have things hurt less, how to tolerate accommodating every sexual desire the porn-viewer wants, threatening that if she doesn’t she WILL be cheated on or dumped. How is that not a direct admission of male entitlement?

    Patriarchal oppression has shifted to the personal level like never before. It’s no coincidence that nowadays many women’s major troubles center around making work and childrearing compatible. And that we see a new emphasis on women’ sexual servitude. Sexuality is a social relation like any other and has long ago become an institution to enforce the social structure.

    For better reference:

    Peter, Jochen. and Valkenburg, Patti. Adolescents’ Exposure to Online Sexually Explicit Material and Recreational Attitudes Towards Sex

    E. Oddone-Paolucci, M. Genius, C. Violato: A meta-analysis of the published research on the effects of pornography

    Repeated Exposure to Violent and Nonviolent Pornography: Likelihood of Raping Ratings and Laboratory Aggression Against Women

    Pornography and Attitudes Supporting Violence Against Women: Revisiting the Relationship in Nonexperimental Studies (Malamuth, Hald, Yuen)

    The Importance of Individual Differences in Pornography Use: Theoretical Perspectives and Implications for Treating Sexual Offenders (Kingston, Malamuth, Fedoroff, Marshall)

    Self-Perceived Effects of Pornography Consumption (Hald, Malamuth)

    Predicting sexual aggression: the role of pornography in the context of general and specific risk factors (Malamuth, Vega)

    Pornography and teenagers: the importance of individual differences. (Huppin, Malamuth) (I can already expect that this will be descended upon by eager defenders of pornography.)

    Malamuth has done much more.

    SHIFTING PREFERENCES IN PORNOGRAPHY CONSUMPTION (Bryant, Zillmann) (library registration needed?)

    Pornography and Sexual Callousness, and the Trivialization of Rape (Bryant, Zillmann)

    Pornography’s Impact on Sexual Satisfaction (Bryant, Zillmann)

    The Methods and Merits of Pornography Research (Bryant, Zillmann)

    Oh, let me quote from the first page (of this discussion which is obviously not inherently biased towards anti-porn):
    The controversy over effects of violent and nonviolent pornography alike has been unnecessarily harsh and laden with false accusations (e.g., 3, 11, 18). It has the emotional overtones that characterize the defense of highly valued, precious commodities.

    No shit.

    Zillmann and Bryant have also done more.

    This was accumulated by yours truly who is the mistress of procrastination!

  199. joy January 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM #

    Between this and the “why, yes, in fact, multiple people you encounter in your daily life ARE fantasizing about your violent denoument (but at the same time, they don’t really mean it, silly, your pain and suffering is just all mental fun and games for them!)” comment elsewhere —

    bean has really iced the cake on my voluntary permanent celibacy, twice. Or maybe this is just the cherry on top.

    Really, I dunno what y’all are doing or who you’re doing it with — 25+ sex partners in my past and I don’t know any live humans who can “amaze me with the breadth and depth of human sexual imagination.” (Just offer a gradient scale of “boring”, from “this is frightening and painful” to “okay, I could reach orgasm, now what?”)
    So those who have met these sexual artistes, here’s your I’ve-seen-a-unicorn pass?

    [For the record, I tend to go with Twisty's idea: that there are perhaps loftier goals and better ways to enrich the soul than sex. And definitely better ways and goals than porn (which has become unfortunately indistinguishable from sex). So while I'd love to be optimistic here, color me skeptical.]

  200. Aileen Wuornos January 24, 2011 at 7:53 PM #

    You know, I’m pretty convinced that Bean and Andrew actively hate womeyn. And women. And girls.

  201. gracemargaret January 24, 2011 at 8:19 PM #

    Thanks for being a voice of reason elkballet and for the links kurukurushoujo. I find it bizaare that anyone would think watching child porn would prevent the abuse of children when they need actual children to, um, ACT in child porn to supposedly stop them from molesting/raping kids. Makes sense.

    Just to reiterate to the pro-exploitation folks, men LAUGH their ASSES OFF when you suggest prostitutes and women in porn are human.
    If you’re a guy you know exactly what I mean.
    Even the nice guys, guys who I had respect for and liked, guys who get teary-eyed at the mention of Nelson Mandela and Ghandi and the Dalai Lama and MLK find it absolutely hilarious to suggest such a thing. The way they snicker and giggle makes me want global warming to speed up and take us all out permanently.

  202. isme January 25, 2011 at 2:50 AM #

    “I have been looking and can’t find a damn thing that is not anti-inimacy, anti-creative and completely lacking in imagination. Those things I find when I sexually interact with humans, but never with porn. Please advise.”

    Well…there is alot of creative and imaginative stuff out there. Some people put alot of work into making *really* disturbing porn.

  203. lizor January 26, 2011 at 1:13 PM #

    @isme –

    Yeah, I guess you are right. I tend to equate creativity with embodiment and connection, but that’s just based on my experience.

    I guess you could argue that the little boys I grew up with who would come up with new ways to torture animals and Dr. Mengele were also “creative” in their own way. Maybe that’s what Bean meant.

  204. EDB January 28, 2011 at 4:58 AM #

    kurukurushoujo – Whoa, thanks for all the links. They went into a notepad file immediately.

    elkballet – Just chiming in with “great comments.”

  205. Bean January 28, 2011 at 7:55 PM #

    My thanks to lizor, for attempting to answer the question I was actually asking. I thought it was a clear enough question, but obviously it wasn’t.

    Unfortunately, my library does not have that book. I think my local bookstore has it, so I will have to track it down.

    Now could you please tell me where you saw the porn that made you write “Some of it amazed me with the breadth and depth of human sexual imagination.”

    I have been looking and can’t find a damn thing that is not anti-inimacy, anti-creative and completely lacking in imagination.

    Lacking in imagination?! What are you doing, reading Robert Jensen’s descriptions of the porn he’s watched over and over? (Bad idea, by the way. He’s a pretty twisted dude.)

    Note that my statement shouldn’t be combined with any other – some of that “breadth and depth” disturbed the shit out of me. But I’m amazed by anyone claiming it’s not there. I have a really, really, really, REALLY long list in my head of things that turn people on…and every time I make the idiotic mistake of thinking it’s as long as it’s going to get, something alerts me to the fact that I’m wrong (again). And for everything on that list, there’s probably dozens of variations I’d never be able to come up with on my own.

    Human sexualities, I’m convinced, share many commonalities and yet are practically as individual as fingerprints. Evidence of that in erotic media is there if you actually look for it. And even the disturbing parts fascinate me, as it’s still evidence of our collective ability to be very, very imaginative, even when you would think conditions would be such (i.e. hegemony) that we wouldn’t be. Sorry, but I see even “disturbing” stuff (which is not necessarily disturbing because it’s misogynistic, mind – it may be disturbing for entirely different reasons) as potential sites of resistance.

    I know you’re going to disagree with me on that one, but the argument continues to be (or seems to be), “I don’t watch porn; but when I do, it’s all the same plastic stuff. So I don’t watch more because I know it’s all the same. So if you say otherwise you’re wrong/crazy.” Uh, okay. But that’s not convincing, and I hope you can see why that argument does not look convincing.

  206. joy January 28, 2011 at 10:04 PM #

    Maybe we don’t mean it all LOOKS the same — maybe we think it’s all the same because it’s all objectification.

  207. lizor January 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM #

    No Bean, I am not “reading Robert Jensen’s descriptions of the porn he’s watched over and over”.

    But I have read Jensen’s book on the function of the church in contemporary western communities and it was great; clear-eyed, articulate and honest – nothing “twisted” at all. I have also watched his lectures on porn and masculinity and I fail to see anything “twisted” there either. Do you actually have an articulate critique of Jensen’s work, or are you going to stick with the ad hominem mud-slinging?

    Your patronizing and presumptive response is really offensive, lecturing me on human sexuality and then telling me what my response is sure to be (because of course you’ve heard it all before with my “type”). Where the fuck do you get off?

    What I’ve seen on the [het] pages on Redtube and Youporn, etc and of these myriad pop-ups that you have to swat every time you go to one of these places are so cock/penetration-centred, so preoccupied with ogling a single female body type, use the same degrading language, the same anal/face shot finish, etc. I have seen far more variety in erotic art anthologies of pre-20th century and non-western imagery, but we are talking about the modern, western, profit-driven porn industry.

    I have looked for this wonderful celebration of the spectrum of human physical pleasure which you imply I am too ignorant or incompetent to find and I am not seeing it. Internet porn appears to mirror to the same narrow fascistic picture of humanity that Hollywood film execs manufacture to feed our “content” addition. I see no more reflection of my experience of sex – well, not counting the rape, that is there for sure – but none of the experiences I have had in the latter part of my healing. Perhaps it’s because I love my lover and contemporary porn, as Annie Sprinkle said in a recent lecture I attended, marginalizes love altogether.

    I ask you again, if there is some internet pornography out there that is not all about looking at the women getting penetrated by cocks, toys or foreign objects, cum, pissed and or shit upon, that does not use the same old dumb-to-degrading language, the same old predictable “pounding”, “banging” and “slamming”, that does not presume power-over (“play” or real) is a prerequisite to arousal, please tell me where this stuff is. It most certainly is not showing up in the “most-watched” lists.

  208. kurukurushoujo January 31, 2011 at 6:17 AM #

    Lacking in imagination?! What are you doing, reading Robert Jensen’s descriptions of the porn he’s watched over and over? (Bad idea, by the way. He’s a pretty twisted dude.)

    What’s wrong with Jensen? I already heard about his creepiness a couple of times without actually seeing evidence for it.

    potential sites of resistance

    In a strictly individual sense. You cannot fuck yourself to freedom as a group. Didn’t work in the 70s, doesn’t work now and won’t work in the future- at least if people go on pretending that all forms of sexuality are equally good and valid. Because they see themselves as a typical representative of society although being anything but. This is why, Bean, you having invested a lot of time into finding creative porn- at least according to your standards, nobody here knows what you think is creative- doesn’t mean that the potential existence of your preferred category of porn is actually significant enough to count as an argument.
    When people want to have a quick jack-off (and porn is predominantly about having a quick jack-off) they visit sites like YouPorn or Pornhub- and the stuff over there is repetitive as hell. Most obviously wouldn’t want to have it any other way- this is the reason those sites are so successful.

  209. joy January 31, 2011 at 2:22 PM #

    If people are basing their sexualities off things they see on film or in pictures, how is that “creative”?

  210. Zas March 6, 2011 at 10:25 PM #

    gracemargaret

    Oh, PLEASE. White women DID say they were raped when they were found having sex with black men. And that resulted in the lynching of said black man. I’m not saying for every lynching ever but it did happen.

    White folks would gather around and treat the lynching a entertainment/picnic. Some of the old photos show white children and women sitting around. So don’t say, ‘Oh, innocent white women never, ever, ever perpetuated racism, no sir, that’s only white MEN.”

    Watching white feminists talk about race (see a thread at Twisty’s that degenerated into white feminists telling women of color that their experiences didn’t matter and the PINNACLE of oppression is being a white attractive female and in fact they’re less oppressed because they are non-white) is like watching MRAs talk about women: puke inducing.

  211. gracemargaret March 8, 2011 at 2:18 PM #

    Zas, what comment of mine are you addressing? The one where I talked about a white family, where mom, dad, son and daughter are having a picnic while a black man is hanging from a tree? The mom and daughter would be female racists, wouldn’t they?

    Where did I say ‘Oh, innocent white women never, ever, ever perpetuated racism, no sir, that’s only white MEN”?
    Please point it out to me. Why not address what I ACTUALLY said and not your strawmen arguments.

    Yeah and I’m sure Twisty, who’s a lesbian and not into sexiness much, thinks the PINNACLE of oppression is being a white attractive female and that women of color aren’t important. Do you have anything to actually back up your accusations or are you twisting her words around (no pun intended) like you just did mine.

  212. Alina March 8, 2011 at 11:05 PM #

    http://www.antipornmen.org/

  213. mstrchef117 March 14, 2011 at 10:00 PM #

    Wait, is the porn position you guys are holding criminalization of production or is it possession?

    Heres what I don’t get though, and that is your opposition about cartoon porn/hentai. I mean, there are no real performers to be abused (such as in Western Porn and Possibly JAV). I mean, some very famous seiyuus do Eroge (aka. H-Games) and Hentai anime. For example, Norio Wakomoto (from Code Geass, Koihime Musou), Shizuka Itou (Amagami SS, Beelzebub), and Yukou Gotou (Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya, Shuffle) so you won’t find much abuse in this industry.

    In addition, I really don’t buy that these “images” are harmful. First of all because one would have to actively look for the more extreme hentai, if you are not aroused by some of the more extreme stuff, you won’t watch it.
    In addition, those who seek the more niche videos (such as scat, rape, bondage as in Night Shift Nurses or Bondage Games) are already aroused by this kinda of stuff, so taking away this stuff isn’t going to change the fact those guys are aroused by rape and etc.

    Also, what about the vanilla hentai stuff. And by that I mean the scenes you will see in your typical high-school romance/comedy escapist eroge. Where the only sex scenes are those of the main character and the heroine cosummating their relationship. This also applies to well written eroge such as Ef- A Fairy Tale of the Two and Muv Luv Alternative. I mean, what is the harm of letting people who have virtually no chance of successfully interacting with women in real life from escaping into a “safe” social environment where they are actually “desireable” or in some of the more extreme cases “powerful” in the sense that they would never have that kind of control in real life, (much like a person gunning down civilians in GTA4 or in the No Russian lvl in Modern Warfare 2).

  214. Zas March 15, 2011 at 12:37 AM #

    gracemargaret, sorry that comment wasn’t addressed towards you but to the person talking about Kayne’s video as a defense of blackness and how it was the white men doing the oppressing.

    Twisty herself didn’t say anything but the people who comment there. Here’s an example:

    “‘this kind of white-girl objectification..would actually be a step up for women of color.’

    Understood, but in disagreement and believing that this is a myth that has benefited the patriarchy. Given the choice between being a beauty compliant, slender white girl or a woman who is viewed as scary and sub human and unworthy of protection, I would deliberately choose the scary and subhuman role. Being the desirable commodity causes you to go nuts, shave your head, attempt suicide, etc, like we see the young girls in Hollywood do.”

  215. gracemargaret March 15, 2011 at 3:11 PM #

    I understand Zas, that is a messed up and ridiculous comment by the poster on Twisty’s blog. I don’t see how being expected to be slim and beautiful is worse than being seen as subhuman and scary and not worthy of protection. Then violence towards you is considered all the more acceptable.

  216. joy March 15, 2011 at 3:34 PM #

    As a former practicing anorexic, now a purposefully “scary” woman, I think it might be a “grass is always greener” situation.

    Though anyone saying, “Gee, I wish I was MORE oppressed!” is clearly myopic.

  217. elkballet March 20, 2011 at 12:25 PM #

    mstrchef117,

    I am getting a bit tired of the Hentai argument. This article doesn’t even mention how women in porn are treated, it is entirely about the portrayal of women. From ALL hentai I’ve seen, the portrayal of women is often worse than in “real” porn. I’ve seen things that were described as a loving relationship that involved violently (extremely violently) raping young girls. The way women are shown in hentai porn is extremely harmful and negative, and focuses more on rape than any other genre of porn I’ve heard of (except of course rape porn). The women in it are usually portrayed as helpless teases, just asking to be abused. They are usually drawn so unrealistically Barbie-like that it makes me wonder about the sanity of people who can get off to those mutants. Let alone watching mutants, who are clearly supposed to be young, being violently raped. And don’t tell me this doesn’t impact the way people view women, I read this quote:

    I generally prefer animated porn, because it’s much prettier than any woman can be. And I think seeing the most horrific thing you could possibly imagine is cute and funny. Therefore, the only thing that makes real women more attractive is the relationship.

    The only “redeeming” quality about hentai is that it doesn’t contribute to the trafficking of women. But other than that, the portrayal of women in hentai is horrendous.

  218. mstrchef117 March 21, 2011 at 8:36 AM #

    To clarify, Hentai genre spans videos, doujinshi(fan-made comics) and H-Games/VN

    I’m apologize that all the hentai you have seen is all rape (which I do concede is probably 50%+ of the videos are dark shit, its much harder to sell a non-rape/story heavy hentai when the viewer has little interaction). There are definitely non-rape hentai out there. These are however most often non-rape, story heavy Eroge/VN (AIR, Kanon, Ef-Fairy Tale, Rumbling Hearts, Canvas 2 etc.). These games have been adapted to all-ages games (aka. sex scenes removed)and popular anime. You can hardly call those images harmful. If you were to ban all porn or “criminalize” it, you would scoop up some genuine work with some literary value in it. You are blanket labeling an entire genre although it probably not that hard for someone to think that all hentai is rape as most of the stuff that reaches the US is that…..

  219. Kairan April 5, 2011 at 10:05 PM #

    The relative amount of “dog porn” to ANY other porn is enough to make me feel physically sick. That’s all I needed to open my eyes.

  220. Alina April 7, 2011 at 9:08 AM #

    http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_181_if-every-excuse-turned-out-to-be-true_p20

    I am “AlinaRockss” on there….I know I shouldnt of even bothered on a site like cracked but I couldnt helpt it.

  221. Alina April 7, 2011 at 5:22 PM #

    UPDATE
    on the same site there is a forum for people who try to stop looking at porn.

    http://www.cracked.com/forums/topic/12020/the-great-internet-porn-off-cont./3760

  222. elkballet April 7, 2011 at 6:06 PM #

    Argh that’s SO depressing about the “trying” to stop porn. People keep insisting that only 8% of the entire population is addicted (like that’s a low number on its own) and we see hundreds of thousands of relationships and marriages devastated cause the guy didn’t want to stop looking at porn. I mean come ON. How does that not fit the definition of addicted to porn if a guy would choose to hold onto his porn over his relationship? I’d say half the male population minimum is “addicted.”

  223. Alina April 8, 2011 at 5:38 AM #

    Yeah I know,you can se how I got scrutinized and “put in my place” in the first link I posted.On the second link those men are actually trying and some of them are even pointing out the harms of porn.I am for once positively surprised,I didnt expect anything like that,on a website who´s main target are men.Isnt it if your´e not addicted then stop right now…

  224. Alina May 9, 2011 at 4:12 PM #

    ahem,any input in that thread on cracked by any of you would be appreciated.

  225. Alina May 10, 2011 at 11:52 AM #

    thank you LizWinsor,I am really happy for your reply on the cracked thread(I assume its someone from here because of the registration date)

  226. lizor May 10, 2011 at 11:55 AM #

    @ Alina – I tried to comment a while ago and could not get registered. Think I got it this time.

    Way to go holding your own against that bunch of HISterical (thanks to isme on the other thread – I’ll be using this from now on) reactionaries.

  227. Alina May 10, 2011 at 1:22 PM #

    Thank you ISME, are you LizWinsor on there?

    I was a lil surprised as to how outraged people got because I think porn is harmfull, some got really angry,HISterical indeed.
    How dare a person not submit to the mainstream and go against something “cool” and widely spread. There where some who actually tried really hard to weaken my postion and credibility… its probably wishfull thinking but I hope that my opinions and durance intimidated some of those backwarded fuckers.
    What got me angry is that 90% concentrated on making me out to have an extreme low self esteem(whilst I actually stood up alone against a bunch of ppl, and I dont think I done that bad either) whilst I know that it was part of weaking my credibility most of them do believe that I must be someone who is affected by somehting like Body dysmorphic disorder, I mean I must be, it couldnt just be that I hate everything that is porn and I especially would not tolerate it in a relationship. *sigh*

    One comment annoyed me peticulary and that was from a girl saying if you cant go against then join them, and all the women who proudly announced they actually LOVE porn, in an attempt to prove me wrong and “shock” me at the same time.

    And ofcourse there where the ones going on about me being prude and having issues with my sexuality…..grrrrr how I hate those.

    On the same page they do have that porn-off (as I mentioned before) but its mostly for people who are addicted to porn,tho every now and then I came across some posters who werent addicted and aknowledged the harms of it.

  228. Alina May 10, 2011 at 1:28 PM #

    I ment thank you lizor,sorry its cuz i red the last bit about ISME and HISTERICAL.

  229. isme May 11, 2011 at 7:58 AM #

    “its probably wishfull thinking but I hope that my opinions and durance intimidated some of those backwarded fuckers.”

    I’m afraid not. In my experience, the most you can realistically hope to achieve is to comfort other bashing their head against that wall that not everyone is out to get them.

    Personally, it’s not so much the obvious morons that I tend to find disturbing, it’s the more intelligent, educated people that are able to think for themselves and come up with interesting points regarding any issue not concerned with sexism, or entitlement in general.

  230. lizor May 11, 2011 at 3:08 PM #

    Stepping outside of liberal bounds here – all of those women chiming in with “I love porn and I’m a woman!!” should read Malcolm x’s ‘House Negros’ speech.

  231. mstrchef117 May 12, 2011 at 2:40 PM #

    Bloody hell, those guys [on cracked] are even worse then the people I talk to on 4chan (yea I know). But there was seriously no need for the personal insults and level of vitriol that they responded with. Although, (to avoid sounding like I’m blaming Alina), her comment could have been deemed “inflammatory” and/or “troll-baity” enough for them to want to respond ,which is unfortunate as this labels all porn watchers/users (though most likely pirates, because who pays for porn nowadays) can’t argue without resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks is embarrassing as a semi-avid porn user myself (as I have been semi-guilt tripped, by this blog, and a h-game/ VN Story about an abused woman none the less, into avoiding live action porn like the plague, but I digress ).

  232. Alina May 12, 2011 at 10:43 PM #

    @mstrchef117

    Well I agree partially because I was actually ment to write “to all who use the #1 excuse how would u find it if ur gf/wife was looking at porn and making half assed excuses about it.Hope all of u who use porn despite ur partners feelings MAYBE getting hurt,get cheated on.

    Yeah so I forgot to type MAYBE,and you can only edit within like 5 min.I did specify that MAYBE in a few posts on there tho.

    I guess you could say that my original post on cracked was put in a quite infantile way.

    @isme

    Well yeah ofcourse the more intelligent ones are the more dangerous ones.Many of them spend a hell lot of time rationalizing the use of porn,I wonder if its because they know its wrong atleast subconsciously??

    @lizor

    Regarding your comparsion to the ´house negros´ yeah I can see alot of parallels.Too many women are so submissive and rationalize their submission in mostly very dumb ways.I bet alot of those porn loving women kind of think they are better and ´open-minded´ if they accept or encourage/join the porn using.

    It never fucking stopped to be about pleasing the fucking MAN…I fucking hate how women are brought up to always put the man first.To shit on yourself,your feelings and wishes/desires to make the cock in your life more happy.I want more women to sit down and think how many fucking compromises they make and how many the Men do!!!For many women life is like that: go to work,take care of the kids(mostly her cuz its a “womans duty”)cook,take care of the husband/bf,trying to look fuckable as fuckable as the women in the porn the partner is wanking to,cuz its his “RIGHT”
    Whilst men get away with being fat,not taking care of the kids all that much,not cooking oh and how did I miss that 1 out CLEANING.Alo its okay if they have drink in pubs,oggle at women,go to stripclubs perhaps and the good ole porn.Before some assholes points it out,yeah I know its not ALL men.

    Another thing that I am sure of,is that many women secretely hate that their better half uses porn,but unfortunetaly its so widespread and popular that I bet many of them think as if there is something wrong with them like excessive jealousy,insecurity rather then that its normal to not like it or being hurt by it.How they come to that conclusion is easy to see on how me and my opinions have been threated on cracked.

  233. lizor May 13, 2011 at 12:21 PM #

    @mstrchef117

    “guilt tripped”??? What are you talking about? If you support a corrupt and predatory industry that hurts women in measurable ways, or if you participate in a practice/ideology that degrades women, then that is what you are doing. If you make ethically poor choices then it no one’s fault but your own. Quit trying to abdicate responsibility for your actions and for the consequences of those actions.

  234. isme May 14, 2011 at 4:32 AM #

    “Well yeah ofcourse the more intelligent ones are the more dangerous ones.Many of them spend a hell lot of time rationalizing the use of porn,I wonder if its because they know its wrong atleast subconsciously??”

    Perhaps some are threatened by having their doublethink pointed out to them (going to the effort of pretending to be nice people and thinking of women and equals and all), but generally I wouldn’t have said so.

    Right and wrong are subjective, after all, and who is to say that women should be treated as equals? Well, apart from the women, of course, but they obviously don’t count. Firmly entrenching oneself upon some form of moral high ground is worth any amount of blinkered thinking, it would seem.

  235. lizor May 14, 2011 at 11:24 AM #

    @ Alina -

    The “I’m a porn-loving woman” squad, from where I’m sitting, looks like a growing legion of “socially adapted” people trying to survive in the best way possible: You just have to kill a chunk of your soul, cheerfully submit, insist that being domesticated is your own choice and everything will be “fine”. It takes courage to insist on self-determination and it would seem that a lot of women would rather play along, giving themselves a virtual lobotomy, for the crumbs of short-term approval.

    Love your two paragraphs about pleasing men and the dudes being fat self-indulgent slobs. This is so old and prevalent and sadly SO relevant.

    Fuck.

  236. mstrchef117 May 14, 2011 at 5:54 PM #

    @isme
    Allow me to clarify that “guilt-tripped” part of my comment as there seems to be a misunderstanding, which I take full responsibility for as I probably could have used a better term. I would say it was more like a small scale “heel realization” (tvtropes ftw : http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HeelRealization). The point was, I felt guilty/horrible enough on the inside to refrain from using live-action porn. I was in no way abdicating my responsibility. Its just that I don’t usually empathize with people unless I have a form of emotional attachment, when I played a VN/H-Game with a “heroine” which is basically your the tragic abused heroine (of which, the bad ending, leads here to join the Adult Film Ind….., which I do believes imply something) and then, reading that well, what happened in game/story, is quite common, and then arguing in with myself, that to be consistent (as I felt strongly for Yuka, and her tragic past), I should stop watching porn where real women are exploited and hurt. So I guess, it took a porn game to get me to stop watching porn. Lol, the irony.

  237. mstrchef117 May 14, 2011 at 5:55 PM #

    Sorry, about the typos in the previous comment..I really should proofread my stuff. :(

  238. Alina May 14, 2011 at 6:11 PM #

    @isme

    I kind of doubt that most people realize what being completely equal actually means/involves.
    That I believe is because of the gender-roles and certain actions are made out to be down to being a “woman” or being a “man” like raising a child,or fixing the car.

    Most people will accept equality only within the vacuum of gender-roles and as far as they are concerned,we allready are equal and anything more is just us being crazy feminazis.

  239. Alina May 14, 2011 at 9:41 PM #

    quote lizor:

    ´The “I’m a porn-loving woman” squad, from where I’m sitting, looks like a growing legion of “socially adapted” people trying to survive in the best way possible: You just have to kill a chunk of your soul, cheerfully submit, insist that being domesticated is your own choice and everything will be “fine”. It takes courage to insist on self-determination and it would seem that a lot of women would rather play along, giving themselves a virtual lobotomy, for the crumbs of short-term approval.´

    Needless to say how I totally agree to that and is to a high extent what I was trying to say,expressed in frankly a much better way,lol.It needed to be quoted its that good.

    I sometimes come across women who even overcompensate the anti-woman sexism because they are unlucky enough to be born the “wrong gender”.
    Reminds me very much of that experiment where black girls where given the choice of choosing between a black doll and a white doll and most of them chose the white doll as they found it to be the prettier one.When they were asked wich doll looks more like themselfs,they did point out the black one.

    In my teenage years I have killed chunks of my soul by conforming to the mass,it always hurt me bothered me and killed my self-esteem slowly (we all do that to some extent in our teens,I know) .And funny enough no matter how much I conformed and how much of my personality I “changed” it never was enough.And yeah you are damn right its hard to go against the mass and be self-determined.
    I pointed that out many times in my cracked comments,its ironic that how the way ppl reacted to me is the perfect evidence as to why women hardly ever speak up.

    Thank fuck that in my early 20s I started to become exactly who I wanted to be,realising that you know what fuck fitting in,fuck ppl hating me for my opinions.

  240. lizor May 15, 2011 at 9:58 AM #

    “no matter how much I conformed and how much of my personality I “changed” it never was enough.And yeah you are damn right its hard to go against the mass and be self-determined”

    That’s why what you did over on that thread was so important. You never blinked despite the hysteria and abuse being hurled at you.

    Internet gutter-talk aside, I have had to come to terms with the fact that internalized misogyny is a psychological blind spot for most people and when you point to some aspect of a person that they are denial about, they will almost inevitably go all ‘fight or flight’ on you, and start hurling all sorts of utter nonsense with an incredible amount of fear and rage behind it. It’s a shitty job shedding light on this darkness, but now, more than ever, someone has to do it.

    Despite the incoherent defensiveness and personal attacks directed at you Alina, I think that there is a chance that maybe on or two people who read that thread may have remembered your words next time they looked at porn. You may not always see the positive results of the building blocks you offer people by speaking the truth, but that does not mean those positive results don’t exist.

    I am reading a book by a jungian feminist (as you can probably tell by some of my language) and she discusses the predatory internal voices that tell us we are not good enough, or in the most extreme, good for nothing and it struck me that this is exactly what porn literally and explicitly enacts and celebrates. The repeated “this is all you are good for” in porn.

    I like to think that a woman who is getting off sexually to a fantasy of her own obliteration, her own erasure, will at some point remember a web comment, or maybe a conversation that made her very mad at the time and that she may say “Am I more than this? Am I better than where I place myself in this story?” and then she’ll start to wake up.

  241. Hecate May 15, 2011 at 2:09 PM #

    Something like ‘The Story of O’ is a good example of the ‘erasure’ you speak of, lizor. It is literally about a woman being reduced to absolute zero. I think that subconsciously, men want women represented this way in porn because they hate that womyn have a kind of inner ‘knowing’ as to exactly what they want, and when. Time on this earthly plane has always belonged to womyn.

    I won’t put words in the mouths of other womyn, but I know exactly what time in the month I need a really good meal, and it’s usually the pre-menstrual time. I also know exactly when I want to be intimate, and I won’t let a man tell me when that should be. I think men really resent this, much as they go on and on ad nauseum that they love a woman with an ‘appetite.’ In truth, I think they are very threatened by it, because it implies true autonomy. Porn is the total reversal of any notion of female independence or preference, sexual or otherwise. I think the great MAW goddess should just devour all of that rubbish, recycle and start over again. Kali at her best! ;) And it would be great to start over again without males in the picture, but perhaps that is just wishful thinking.

  242. lizor May 17, 2011 at 10:13 AM #

    I am on a new computer and am having trouble posting, so apologies for double postings and I hope my post on the other thread went through.

    Re: story of O – absolutely. And in part I can understand the impulse towards complete abdication of responsibility. Living is hard. Living with integrity is hard. I think the “O” model is metaphorically about going back to the womb. It doesn’t work.

    Thank heavens for this blog and the amazing people posting their thoughts here.

  243. Hecate July 7, 2011 at 2:53 PM #

    So true lizor. I know too many women who will not ‘own’ their experience, and have paid a terrible price. There is a reason we are born in separate bodies and live our best lives with such when we claim them as our own, along with the mind that comes with them. I get the impression from some folk that they’d rather be living that awful horror film ‘Society,’ in which all is just one big orgy of flesh melding indiscriminately into other flesh and the individual bodies are no longer discernible. Co-dependence and subservience are words I want to banish from my life forever. And I’m greatly relieved that there are at least a few here who feel the same.

  244. Ed Drain (@SoldierCoder) July 23, 2012 at 10:26 PM #

    My comments are so far down on the list you may never see it, and that is ok. But in case you do, on the 2nd sentence in this blog post of yours I was SOOO on your train that I could not get off it till you were done taking me on your trip. And I gotta say, you are so right on!

  245. IRock November 2, 2012 at 9:01 AM #

    You’re amazing. We need more logical people in this world like you. Finally its great to read something which I completely agree with. Thank you.

  246. violentwinter February 10, 2013 at 5:39 AM #

    Reblogged this on violentwinter.

  247. Susan September 26, 2013 at 1:45 AM #

    I felt pretty insane right now reading this at 3:30AM while simultaneously laughing and crying. Those numbers are crazy, and as someone who’s been on a porn site maybe once or twice out of feminist curiosity, I had no idea beastiality porn was such a big thing. This blog has really opened my eyes. Clearly, the addictive and desensitizing nature of porn produces a need in men to constantly seek increasingly crazier, more evil genres of porn in order to make up for the fact that they’re so desensitized and detached from actual sex with women that the plain old rape porn is too fucking boring for them, which ultimately destroys the lives of the many many humans and animals involved in the production of this porn just so that dudes can keep on jackin’ it. I honestly don’t think I’ll ever recover from this knowledge.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. A Continuum of Woman-Hatred. Or, What “Flavor” Is Your Woman-Hate? « femonade - December 24, 2010

    [...] PIV, porn, rape. Tags: heterosexuality, misogyny, PIV trackback this was inspired by 9/2′s most recent and most-excellent takedown of porn.  she mentioned how so-called “feminist porn” is [...]

  2. A Continuum of Woman-Hatred. Or, What “Flavor” Is Your Woman-Hate? « femonade - December 24, 2010

    [...] was inspired by 9/2′s most recent and most-excellent takedown of porn.  she mentioned how so-called “feminist porn” is [...]

  3. Glamourising sexualised violence: Why I hate porn part four | anti social butterfly - December 25, 2010

    [...] behind these, and “oh it’s just a joke” will never fucking fly with me. As Nine Deuce would say, When someone spends 99% of their time defending .0000001% of an industry while avoiding [...]

  4. Links: December 27, 2010 « Against All Evidence - December 27, 2010

    [...] Against the Man-Chine: “Get on the Fucking Ball, Janitors”. . . on ‘feminist porn’ being less popular online than ‘janitor porn’, and [...]

  5. Порнографията – пълно порно | Кутията за всичко - May 14, 2011

    [...] [...]

  6. What About Feminist Porn? « Elkballet - July 7, 2011

    [...] just missed it in our research and writings. However as Nine Deuce said in her post on “janitor porn” there is very little out there even labelled as feminist porn. The vast majority of what is [...]

  7. Link Roundup « Other Side of Porn - August 21, 2011

    [...] But, you’re erasing feminist porn! Let’s get some perspective here, huh? When someone spends 99% of their time defending .0000001% of an industry while avoiding confronting the 99.9999999% of the industry that has real effects on women’s lives, that person looks a bit delusional/defensive/dishonest. Let it go, dude. Admit that you know porn is bad for women and you use it, participate in it, or profit from it anyway. You aren’t fooling anyone here, and I doubt that you’re even fooling yourself. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted on Monday, August 22nd, 2011 at 12:28 am and posted in Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. « 1 in 3 women watch porn? [...]

  8. Porn Part 10: The Rutting Dogs of Capitalism « Rage Against the Man-chine - February 16, 2012

    [...] one that leads to the present, when anyone with internet access can find hundreds of pages of rape porn with very little [...]

  9. No More Page 3: another Jezebel « Exiled Stardust - February 10, 2013

    [...] is no woman-friendly exploitation of a subhuman sex class.  Go back to Feminism 101 and start over.  Or take a [...]

  10. how do I know if my husband watches porn? | smashesthep - June 13, 2013

    […] [For more information on so-called "feminist porn", please check here, here, and here.] […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 440 other followers