Sex Workers Breastfeeding (via Maggie Mayhem Speaks)

This is a powerful and comprehensive rebuttal by sex blogger and sex worker Maggie Mayhem in defense of alt.porn performer/activist Madison Young, in response to a scathing and vicious personal smearing by sex worker activist Furry Girl (of Feminisnt and SWAAY.org). The views reflected are Maggie’s alone, though I am in full agreement with them. — Anthony

There's already been more than enough attention, time, and trouble paid to a startling allegation of pedophilia and child sexual exploitation by sex worker activist and performer (Furry Girl) to another sex worker activist and performer (Madison Young). The situation got more than ugly: The story has been covered by Salon.Com and Jezebel.Com along with a ton of commentary by colleagues, fans, performers, and culture war voye … Read More

via Maggie Mayhem Speaks

The Death Penalty For Porn Producers:The Final Frontier For Radfems??

OK….I know that it’s been a while, so I have some catching up to do…..I’ll just do as Blackamazon does so well and kinda wing it in a “whatever breezes through my mind at the moment” way.

I’ve been wanting to post on this story, because there are so many angles, both on the political and sexual fronts, that can be raised here.

Iran Approves Death Penalty for Pornogaphers
By: David Sullivan
*
TEHRAN -Iran’s parliament has approved a bill that would sentence persons convicted of producing pornography to death.Lawmakers voted 148-5 with four abstentions that “producers of pornographic works and main elements in their production are considered corruptors of the world and could be sentenced to punishment as corruptors of the world.”

The “main elements in…production”*referenced in the bill include producers, directors, cameramen and actors. According to CNN, the term “corruptors of the world”*is derived from the Quran and carries a death penalty under Iran’s Islamic Penal Code.

Distributors and adult website operators could also face imprisonment and death. The bill encompasses all forms of sexually explicit media, including videos, DVDs and CDs. Pornographic books and magazines are already banned in Iran.

In order to become law, the bill must now be approved by Iran’s Guardian Council.

The bill follows in the wake of a scandal involving a pornographic video of Iranian actress Zahra Amir Ebrahimi that began circulating on the country’s black market last year. While Ebrahami has denied that she is the woman depicted in the video, she faces “fines, whip lashing or worse” for violating Iran’s morality laws. Ebrahimi’s male partner in the sex tape fled to Armenia but was later brought back to Iran, where he currently remains in jail.

The Associated Press notes that “porn material is easily accessible through foreign satellite television channels in Iran. Bootleg video tapes and CDs are also available on the black market on many street corners.”

[H/t to Ernest Greene at Nina Hartley's forum for posting that excerpt.]

This pisses me off for several reasons, and not just the obvious ones.

First off…there is the citing of the Quran’s statement of “corruptors of the world” in supporting the death penalty, which would apply not only to producers, but also distributors, website operators, and even the  actual performers. I mean, it’s known knowledge that Islamic societies are far more conservative and restictive when it comes to sexuality….but to go as far as to seek the freakin’ DEATH PENALTY for acts of private consensual sex??? I would think that that would run the risk of playing into the very scapegoat of “Islamofascism” that those who seek to topple that government would use to justify their actions.

And what would that say for those on the opposite side of the political equation: those on the political Left who have basically laid themselves down in defense of the ruling Iranian government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against those who favor toppling his rule?? I especially point to some American leftist women like Yoshie Furuhashi, who has been the most consistent defender of Ahmadinejad as an anti-interventionist and a revolutionary populist…..on occasion conviently glossing over the more reactionary social policies and gross anti-feminism that underlies his fundamentalism. She may be an extreme example of the boosting of fundamentalist Islam as populism and a acceptable alternative to “liberal interventionism”, but she is hardly alone.

Now, I happen to be a staunch anti-interventionist, and I will no more support invading Iran merely because the ruling government happens to be run by a bunch of misogynist thugs using religion to support their power trips, than I would have supported invading Iraq merely because Saddam was a butcher with a secret porn fetish. But….it does bother me more than a bit that so many Leftists are so willing to sacrifice even their own principles to defend “the enemies of our enemies”.

This isn’t to say that the fawning of “Cruise Missile Leftists” who exploit such issues as this to push for mass invasions are any better or worthy of my support, either; it’s just that perhaps we might be willing to acknowledge that merely opposing something without understanding clearly who we are standing with and standing for does make for some dangerous alliances that could easily wreck even the most careful  organized progressive movement.

The other angle in this that gets to me is something pointed out by Ernest Greene in his post at Nina’s forum; it is a standard theme of his regarding the unholy alliance between fundamentalists and radicalfeminists on the subjects of porn and sexuality:

Now while I’m sure they’d deny it loudly, anti-porn feminists undoubtedly take some glee in the notion of pornographers being executed. Anyone who has spent much time at The Den of the Biting Beaver or read Andrea Dworkin’s “novel” Mercy, which extolls the virtues of murdering male derelicts as a form of protest against the patriarchy has some idea of the depth of homicidal loathing these fanatics feel toward pornographers.However, in their delight at the prospect of smut-peddler’s heads being lopped off, they might have overlooked a significant detail from the story above, which is that the first target of the Iranian death-for-porn law just happens to be a woman.

Societies that suppress pornography most brutally are the very societies that suppress the rights of women most brutally as well. This is a lesson that any American feminist traveling in the Third World is all too likely to learn first hand. But then, since most of them prefer the comforts of Wheelock College, with its $36K per year tuition and, its tenured professorships for porn-bashing paranoids and its cozy conferences dedicated to denouncing the evils of sexual liberalism at which no opposing voices are allowed a hearing, they needn’t have their sleep troubled by such contradictions.

That last sentence is directed towards Dr. Gail Dines, one of the main antipornradicalfeminist activist voices.

Again, I recognize that not even all APRF’s will go as far as to support something as extreme as the death penalty for (male) porn producers or consumers; but it does seem for some of the more strident activists (*cough* SamHeart(less)GayleStormCloudBitingBeaverWitchyWoo*cough*) that if they are serious enough about their advocacy that porn consumption amounts to nothing less than the total abuse of women and the gateway to rape and rapicity, then why wouldn’t they carry their arguments to the logical conclusion?? Of course, they would have to sustain some deniability to seperate themselves from the Religious Right…but I wouldn’t think that that wouldn’t stop them from at least looking the other way at such a solution.

All this is a segue into the rumble currently going on at Feministe, where Roy originally posted how news of the Iranian proposed death penalty law (and an associated post by Trinity at The Strangest Alchemy) gave him a totally new perspective on things:

 I sat there at my desk, talking about sex workers and sex work and porn like they were abstractions… but they’re not, and mythago rightly called me on my shit. It took me a while to realize that, but it was a totally fair criticism. My sitting there saying that stats show this and stats show that and look how many sex workers were this or that… none of that helps them now, and talk like that does make me more likely to find myself allied with religious conservatives who have a “moral interest” in condemning sex work… and sex workers. And that’s the thing that mythago knew when posting that “Mackinnon and Dworkin made the silly assumption that their anti-feminist allies on the right would see their point of view, and apply protectionist ideas in a way that would help women instead of as a way to control women” and that trinityva was getting at when posting “often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.”And when I allow myself to ally with questionable or even flat-out bad groups, I have to accept that the damage they do in the name of our cause is damage that I’m contributing to. I can’t wash my hands of the harm that my allies do if they’re doing the damage in the name of our mutual cause. If I’m rallying behind the cry of “PORN HARMS ALL WOMEN!” and I allow myself to get backing from a group that’s adding “BECAUSE DIRTY SLUTS ABUSE SEX!” then aren’t I at least somewhat culpable? Because, ultimately, don’t my actions help further that cause, as well? And doesn’t that mean that the damage they’re doing is to some extent, on my hands?

Because those people have made it absolutely clear that they don’t care about the women involved. They’re not working to help end the abuse of sex workers. They’re not condemning poor working conditions. They’re not working to help sex worker’s rights. They’re not even remotely interested in making sure that their voices get heard. They’re interested in keeping the whores out of their neighborhoods.

For the record, here’s what Trin posted:

Now this is Iran and not here. But I do want to post it, as I do think that it’s important to remember that in many parts of the world, including here, a lot of the objection to pornography IS a deep-seated fear of corruption or contamination. And a goodly bit of the opposition is religious. As a few kerfuffles I’ve posted about here have cast into relief, often even “enlightened” people here who object to porn for the “right” reasons are willing to form alliances with those who oppose it for reasons of “religious morality”.While this does have limited relevance to the US or even the UK, I think it helps to notice the strain of thinking that does look at porn this way. (It’s also worrisome to write this off, IMO, because we run the risk of doing that typical White US-ian “oh, we’re so much more EVOLVED than THOSE (brown) people!”)

We often like very much to hide behind veneers of theory. And to many of us: why shouldn’t we? We live in a wealthy country. Many of us are white, middle class, highly educated, comfortable. It’s very easy for us to think that we can dismantle an industry through “radical” means, at which point anyone formerly “enslaved by” it has a better life, presto change-o.

Too often our “radical” dreams can’t be achieved without nasty alliances. And too often we think of our “radical”ness and our “revolutionariness” and ignore what we deem collateral damage.

It didn’t work in the Iraq War. Why should it work in the Vice War either?

The subsequent thread went haywire when the usual suspects (read, Sam and gayle) decided to intervene with a defense of the “Swedish model” of controlling prostitiution, among other distractions…but that is a different story for another time.

But, it does go to show that in our efforts to dive in head first into any given controversy, we sometimes forget to understand exactly who we are diving with. The enemy of your enemy today could well turn out to become your enemy tomorrow…which is why it’s best to stick to principles as much as humanly possible.

As for me, I see no conflicts whatsoever between not supporting the ruling government of Iraq and simultaneously opposing a military invasion of that country by others.  In the end, the same rule of self-determination that defends individual sexual autonomy (whether it be for LGBT’s, feminists, or porn) applies just as much for whole countries resisting war and imperialism.  Ultimately, Iranians must decide what government they want, not the US….and certainly not by bombing them into submission. If you are that opposed to their sexual fascism as I am, then the better solution is to offer those women and men facing such repression a place of sanctuary until the laws are changed to reflect some decency and common sense.

As the old saying goes: An eye for an eye ultimately ends up blinding everyone.

Test for Technocrati Profile

Technorati Profile

The Ransom Note As Art (Or…”Give Me Back My Blog!!”)

You can blame, in the following order:

joshuarey.com for designing the perfect fun toy for lazy bloggers;

and Violet Blue for extending it to such heights.

First off, Violet’s ransom call for better blogger etiquette:

 

 

 And now, my own ransom, channeling the original Prince of Smack, Jim Rome;

 

                            

            

                                             

                                             

                                            

                                          

                                      

MRAs, fascists, and troublemakers….you have been warned.

 

 

….And Here They Come

Did I or did I not say that the dropping of charges in the Duke rape case would bring out the "poor White men, assaulted by evil racist Blacks and ‘feminazi’ sluts" lobby in earnest??

Case in point: this comment that showed up here in response to my own thread, from a "UncleWeirdNoise":

I’d imagine due to the obvious being very clear that the alleged “victim” simply figured she could get paid for fabricating this supposed rape. Just think of how much money the girl who accused Kobe Bryant of raping her was paid out of court. She’s most likely a very rich girl right now. People make up bullcrap lies just to “settle out of court” and retire early and live the life of a king or queen. It was interesting watching little boy malik zulu shabazz rip to pieces anything relative to white people and raise to the high heavens in praise anything to do with blacks. It’s further interesting that he went to and graduate? from a black school. Most likely he’d have been kicked out at any other school. He’s completely disrespected and spit in the faces of his parents who named him when he changed his name. He called the duke situation “altered and manipulated” by whitey. Racism will never go away with people like him in this world. A federal prosecutor , who is black and female, even referred to the “victim” in the duke rape case. That slip of the tongue told the true story because a person’s innermost feelings are the first to pop out of their mouths in words. Michelle Milkan caught her on that and it was absolutely comical watching this black female prosector dance around like she was on a hot tin roof trying to back step out of clearly showing her racist attitude.

Bark like a dog.

Gee…like your own racist feelings, Unc??

First off…how in the hell do you know what the accuser in the Kobe Bryant case got out of her settlement? And since there was no trial, do we really know if Bryant really did rape her or whether it was simply a case of a wanted sexual encounter gone badly wrong?

Secondly, settlements require the approval of both sides…..and I’m guessing that if one side felt that their case was strong enough, they wouldn’t agree to settle.

Now, onto this "little boy" smack:  I don’t know Malik Zulu Shabazz, and I don’t remember quoting him either….but he only speaks for himself and his organization, not for all Black people. He no more represents the mass opinion of  all Black folk than David Duke represents all Whites…and last time I noticed, he was an adult entitled to his opinions, just as you are.

But what fascinates me sooooo much, Unc, is that you make such a big deal of Shabazz attending a Black college, as if they all are so inferior and incubators for "anti-White racism".  Uhhhh…you do realize that you are posting to a blog hosted by a Black man who attended a HBCU (Southern University), do you?? If HBCUs are so inferior to your chosen school (Louisiana Tech, perhaps?? Since that’s in your email addy), then why are they accredited by the same authorities as the PWCs (predominantly White colleges)??

And oh, please spare me the waterworks about the "racist attitude" of the prosecutor: real women do get raped more than on occasion, and they get raped a second time in the judicial system by shysters who use the victim’s/accuser’s private sex affairs to demonize her and allow her perpetrator to get off. Maybe not this case or the Kobe Bryant case, but it does happen far too often.

Oh, and one last thing before I show you the door, Unc: When Black folks retain the power to forcibly immigrate whle countries of White folks from their home country to exploit them as slaves; when Black folks form private bands of hooded and robed militias to intimidate and beat (and even kill) White folks; when Blacks retain 80-95% of all the political and economic power in this country and use it to extend their privileges; and most of all; when White folk are strung up en masse on trees, stung with cattle prods, dragged on roads, and otherwise assaulted in the same way that Black folks have been and are still being assaulted……maybe then, you’ll come across as anything other than a White racist asshat.

Yes, I do bark, Unc…..and now, I show my bite.  Your stay here is done. 

This will be my new policy towards trollers with an agenda: you get one chance to show yourself.  If you are up for genuine humane conversation, then we can talk further.  If you are only here for drive-by agitprop or gratituous insults, then I break out the buzzer. To use the former Bitch|Lab’s saying: This is not a free carrier.

   

Time For A Little Catch-Up: COPA Struck Again; Dems Flash Cut-n-Run Asses…Again

First some good news on the sex war front:

Judge strikes down ’98 law aimed at online porn

Associated Press
San Jose Mercury News
Article Launched:03/22/2007 06:35:49 AM PDT

PHILADELPHIA – A 1998 law designed to keep pornography away from children on the Internet infringes on free-speech rights and is easily sidestepped, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The judge blocked enforcement of the Child Online Protection Act, Congress’ second attempt to protect children from online porn.

The law, which has never been enforced, is unconstitutionally vague and fails to address current concerns about online predators, social networking sites and chat rooms, Senior U.S. District Judge Lowell Reed Jr. wrote.

"Even defendant’s own study shows that all but the worst performing (software) filters are far more effective than COPA would be at protecting children from sexually explicit material on the Web," said Reed, who presided over a monthlong trial in the fall.

The law would criminalize Web sites that allow children to access material deemed "harmful to minors" by "contemporary community standards." The sites would be expected to require a credit card number or other proof of age. Penalties include a $50,000 fine and up to six months in prison.

Sexual health sites, Salon.com and other Web publishers backed by the American Civil Liberties Union challenged the law on grounds it would have a chilling effect on speech. Reed agreed it would.

"Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit fully, are chipped away in the name of their protection," he wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a temporary injunction in 2004 on grounds the law was likely to be struck down and was perhaps outdated.

Daniel Weiss of Focus on the Family Action, a lobbying arm of the conservative Christian group, said it would continue to press Congress for a workable law.

"The judge seems to indicate there’s really no way for Congress to pass a good law to protect kids online. I just think that’s not a good response," Weiss said.

To defend the nine-year-old law, government lawyers attacked software filters as burdensome and less effective, even though they have previously defended their use in public schools and libraries.

The plaintiffs expect the Justice Department to appeal. Justice spokesman Charles Miller did not immediately return a phone message Thursday.

"I would hope that Attorney General Gonzalez would save the U.S. public’s money and not try to further defend what is an unconstitutional statute," said lawyer John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology, which wrote a brief in the case.

"That money could better be used to help educate kids about Internet safety issues," he said.

The plaintiffs argued that filters work best because they let parents set limits based on their own values and a child’s age.

Reed concluded that filters have become highly effective and that the government – if it wants to protect children – could do more to promote or subsidize them.

The law addresses material accessed by children under 17, but only applies to content hosted in the United States.

The Web sites that challenged the law said fear of prosecution might lead them to shut down or move their operations offshore, beyond the reach of the U.S. law. They also said the Justice Department could do more to enforce obscenity laws already on the books.

Judge Reed noted in his 83-page ruling that, since 2000, the Justice Department has initiated fewer than 20 prosecutions for obscenity that did not also involve other charges such as child pornography or attempts to have sex with minors.

While the government argued for the use of credit cards as a screening device, Reed concluded from the evidence that there is currently no accurate way to verify the age of Internet users. And he agreed that sites that require a credit-card to view certain pages would see a sharp drop-off in users.

The 1998 law followed the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Congress’ first attempt to regulate online pornography. The Supreme Court in 1997 deemed key portions of that law unconstitutional because it was too vague and trampled on adults’ rights.

COPA narrowed the restrictions to commercial Web sites and defined indecency more specifically.

"This is the second time Congress has tried this, and both times the courts have struck it down. I don’t see how Congress could write a constitutional statute," the ACLU’s Chris Hansen, a lead attorney on the case, said.

In 2000, Congress passed a law requiring schools and libraries to use software filters if they receive certain federal funds. The high court upheld that law in 2003.

Joan Walsh, Salon.com’s editor-in-chief, said she was deposed at about the same time the magazine was deciding to publish photos of naked prisoners at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison.

"This law would have let any one of 93 U.S. attorneys … (say) our Abu Ghraib photos were harmful to minors, and the burden would have been on us to prove that they weren’t," Walsh said.

Somewhere, on this earth tonight, Barbara Nitke is celebrating….but I’ll hold my breath until Abu Gonzales loses the expected appeals to the higher courts.

Not so good news, though, is the final resolution of the Great Democratic Party Cave-In on funding the war in Iraq and any future adventures in Iran..and as before, Richard of American Leftist has the story:

The supplemental funding bill has cleared the House with exactly the number of votes required for passage:

The House of Representatives voted today, by the narrowest possible margin and after an unusually emotional debate, to set a timetable for bringing American troops home from Iraq.

The bill received 218 votes in favor, the minimum needed for passage in the 435-seat chamber. There were 212 votes opposed. The Democratic leadership held the voting open for two additional minutes past the originally scheduled 15 to lock up the majority. Vote-counters had predicted beforehand that the outcome would be very close.

 

Of course, the timetables are not binding upon the President, as he now has the funds to continue to do as he wishes in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, even, when the mood strikes, Iran, assuming, of course, that they survive the Senate, which is doubtful.

Who made this victory for the proponents of perpetual war in the Middle East possible? It’s shocking, and should never be forgotten:

With Democrats holding 233 seats and Republicans with 201, Democrats were able to afford only 15 "no" votes. Accordingly, Pelosi, and her leadership team spent days trying to convince members that the bill was Congress’ best chance of forcing Bush to change course—an argument that was aided when they added more than $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

They got a breakthrough Thursday when four of the bill’s most consistent critics said they would not stand in its way. California Democrats Lynn Woolsey, Diane Watson, Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters said they would help round up support for the bill despite their intention to personally vote against it because it would not end the war immediately. "Despite my steadfast opposition, I have told the speaker that I will work with her to obtain the needed votes to pass the supplemental, but that in the end I must vote my conscience," said Rep. Diane Watson, D- Calif.

 

Is there any need to comment upon such self-serving personal and political expendiency? No doubt all four forcefully went about the task of persuading others to vote for the bill, because, if they failed, they would have then faced the prospect of drawing straws to determine who would be required to vote against their conscience for Pelosi. Rarely has there been such a compelling example of the much maligned situational ethics associated with some Californians.

Woolsey, Watson, Lee and Waters, the Gang of Four that rescued funding for the President’s wars in the Middle East, while keeping their own voting records scrupulously clean. The Iraqis and the Afghans will have to liberate themselves, as there is no prospect that the American political system will relinquish its grip upon their countries. A revolt within the US military is possible, probably more so as a consequence of this vote, but remote.

War with Iran is now a near certainty, as it provides an escape route for those who voted for this measure as well as those who only worked for its passage. Defeat of the bill was not only essential for the ongoing vitality of the antiwar movement in this country, as discussed here yesterday, but to also impair the ability of the President to expand the war. The Iranians, like the Iraqis and the Afghans, have been left to their own devices. We will have nothing to say about the decisions they make as to how to best defend themselves. No doubt the Gang of Four will express appropriate sentiments of sadness as violence in the Middle East intensifies as a consequence of their actions.

Naturally, much of the A-list liberal blogosphere has a slightly different view of the supplemental bill’s passage. Raw Story headlined their article of the bill’s passage "House Passes Iraq Pullout Bill" (conveniently ignoring that the "timetables" set were entirely voluntary and negotiable based on the word of Dubya…who has renewed his threat to veto the bill anyway as another "liberal cut-and-run" measure); and Chris Bowers of MyDD was waxing enthusiastic about the great victory of "progressives" (despite the shameful political ball-squeezing and heavy-handed tactics used by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to jerk those progressives wanting a more solid bill for pullout into line).

Problem is, this bill probably won’t even get to Dubya’s desk in its current form anyway for the veto, because the Senate (49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman) will more than likely gut even those weak "timetables" and force the Dems to accept a "clean" bill fully supporting and enabling Dubya’s war games….and I won’t even get into the atrocious surrender to the right-wing Israeli lobbyists in not including wordage seeking Congressional approval for any invasion of Iran..basically giving a green light to any such action. 

So much for progressive principles within the Democratic Party.  I guess that not even Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee can avoid the ultimate folly of attempting to reform a centrist (and rapidly rightward-tacking) party from within. The money and the power of the corporate warmongers are simply too great.

The only way for true "progressives" and legitimate Leftists to really change the Democratic Party is to get the fuck out and form a REAL Left independent party…or better yet, a real movement.  Cold-War liberalism just won’t cut it anymore.

 

Some Quick Hit Link Bytes For “Phat Sunday” (Before Fat Tuesday)

1) Oh, Nezua, Nezua, you magnificant SOB….how do you throw such potent bombs?? First, you lay out and whack the pretentousness of "WHITEPROGRESSIVES"; and then you dig from the archives a powerful interview with an old-school radical expatriarch on the current state of this country.  As if your Photoshopping game wasn’t prime enough…

2) Witness Chris Clarke of Creek Running North using the pages of Pandagon to thoroughly wax Americablog’s John Halitosis…errrrrrr…Aravosis…for his Custer-like crawfish act against the University of Illinois retiring their mascot due to NCAA and Native American pressure against offensive Indian-mocking mascots. Considering his act in joining the lynch mob against Cynthia McKinney last year, he’s fully earned it.

3) And speaking of the Panda(gon), the old "Bloggergate scandal" is finally beginning to wind down somewhat: Amanda decided to write a nice long piece for Salon.com moaning about the right-wing assault on her and Shakespeare’s Sister lead Melissa Ewen (P.S.: Spartacus Rocks!!) for joining John Edwards’s campaign staff. Not everyone was so convinced, though; both Dennis Perrin of Red State Son and Joe at American Leftist posted interesting rebuttals about how Amanda’s resignation affects the difference between liberals and Leftists amongst the blogosphere and beyond.

4) A special two gunned, middle finger salute to the fine folks who make up the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, who recently ruled to uphold Alabama’s ban on the sale of sex foys and other self-pleasure devices; quoting the lack of any "right to privacy" inherent in the US Constitution allowing such defiling of God’s law that sex should only be to procreate His babies.  (OK, they didn’t say that last part explicitly, but you do get the drift of their ruling.) Of course, weapons designed to kill and maim are still protected under the commerce clause. (For the moment, though, possessing dildos and vibrators are still legal….but for how long?)

5) Ahhhh, Violet Blue (the Tiny Nibbles sex blogatrix, NOT the porn starlet)….<sigh of lust>….how I love how you represent sex positive women…as in, this smackdown over at your regular San Francisco Chronicle/SFGate.com "Open Source Sex" column whacking your fellow journalists for their antiporn pretensions and biases on the Kink.com buyout of the SF Armory.  (And you openly ogling nekkid sex dolls [Warning: NSFW] doesn’t hurt my blood flow southward, either..if you catch me drift.)

6) Finally…..Hey, Britney: Pardon my French, but WTF has happened to you???  The cooch flashing and fake lesbian partying with Paris Hilton was kinda cute while it lasted….but shaving your head and getting a tat????  What’s that all about….you trying to hook up with Michael in the insane asylum???

OK, so it’s not like Fleshbot’s Wet Spots or Morning Wood columns…but I’m new at this.  Give me time to focus…;-)

ADDENDA: Elizabeth Wood over at Sex in the Public Square has an excellent riff on why recent attempts to "protect children from exposure to sex and/or sexual material" (read that to mean, exploit children to prosecute adults for having sex or viewing sexual material) is a very, very BAD idea.

Because It’s Always Good To Have A Backup Plan…

I noticed that Blogger has now totally rebuilt itself with their 2.0 version; since they were the ones to offer me space to begin with, I’m going to test their new version out.

I am going to attempt to export some posts from the WordPress version of the SmackChron over here; if it works, then I may decide to use both blogs simultaneously, or at the very least use this one as a backup in case WP fails me.

Cross your fingers and wish me luck….

Queer Dewd Layeth The Bitchslap Down For Sex-Positive Feminism

There are times when you turn the other cheek….and then there are times when you just gotta lay out and grab the football bat and just bust ass.

The Queer Dewd (formerly known as Bitch|Lab) just decided that when it comes to battling the Radfem Caucus, she’s just reached the boiling point….and thusly, she has broken out the definitive bustout to end all bustouts.

The foundation of all this was a comment thread at I Blame The Patriarchy which started as the usual dissing of makeup and lipstick as Tools of Patriarchy ™…which then quickly dissolved head-first into a hatefest against transsexuals and transgendered people as male double agents attempting to get into "women’s spaces".  And as these highlights from some especially nasty comments go, the bigotry got pretty ugly (hat tip to Lucy at Shouty Woman for saving these tidbits; I’ve added the originators of the comments to indict the guilty) :

• “I’d like to take a piss in a public can knowing for a fact there are no boys in there whining “I was born in the wrong body” for fucksake, insisting I refer to him as “she.” Phobic? Hardly. Resentful that women lose yet another space of their own? You betcha big time.”  — Mar Iguana
• [....] “Why is it every time women tell men to get their foot off our necks, men cry we’re manhaters and claim they’re being oppressed? “Transphobia” is the new version of this very old game. Same shit, different label. “  — Luckynkl*

• You want to know how men can hurt women? **chuckle** You’re joking, right? Oh wait. I’m supposed to believe men in drag are women. And if you put on a werewolf mask, will you also expect me to believe you’re a werewolf?
  Well shoot, if that’s the case, if I go in drag as Napoleon, do you think France will hand their country over to me and hail me as their new leader? Can I cry I’m being discriminated against and I’m oppressed if they don’t?

  [Comment by another poster] What bathroom is she supposed to use instead, since if she uses the men’s bathroom she very well could get attacked.

  OIC. And trans boys would like to maintain the position they’re use to — being the fuckers instead of the fuckees? Can’t say as I blame them. But I’m afraid their issue is with men, not with women. So take it up with men instead of demanding that women be your mommy and take care of you. I owe you nothing, boy. You’re not entitled to a damn thing from me. Get that through your thick, dense head. — Luckynkl (added here by me)

• “Well if men can now use the women’s bathroom, wouldn’t that make the women’s bathroom just as dangerous as the men’s? Or do trans boys imagine they’d be the only man allowed in there? Ooops, sorry. Didn’t mean to use logic. And ruin that trans boy harem fantasy they have going on in their heads.” —  Luckynkl (Notice the trend, Clones!!)

The rest (unless noted) are strictly from Luckynkl, who added her special brand of high-octane bigotry to the mix:

• [Another commentator] Go ahead, come up with a single instance of a transwoman attacking someone in the bathroom. Hint #2: You can’t. Who told you these big fibs? Actually, there are many cases of men dressing up like women and not only just attacking women, but killing them. Trans assault women regularly. Both verbally and physically. Boys will be boys, ya know. They don’t get brain transplants with SRS.

• “Oh, I have no problem with trans using the right bathroom. The one with the sign that says “men” on it.”

• “Now let’s cut through your load of bull. Ask yourself one question. Who benefits? Women? Do women benefit when men use their bathroom? Do women benefit when men pass themselves off as women?” 
• “So, do I get to be whatever race I choose? Do I get to be an woman of colour or a black woman because I *really* feel like one (even though I’m white as the freshly driven snow)?” — Mary Sunshine
• “Sex is static. It cannot be changed. Men cannot be frogs, they cannot be giraffes, they cannot be trees, they cannot be rocks, and they cannot be women. Get over it.”
• “Just for the record, I do not fear or hate these psychologically damaged boys. I pity them. I do hate that “professionals” can say they are able to magically turn these pitiful guys in a woman. As I said before, they should lose their license to practice medicine by praying on and profiting off the mental problems of these unfortunates.”

• Ah, it’s the invasion of the body snatchers.
  As I said before, every time women tell men to get their foot off our necks, they scream “foul,” call us manhaters and claim we are oppressing them. Oh, and I forgot one. We’re “biggots.”
  Trans are no different than their knuckle dragging brothers. Men are raised and conditioned in this society with an enormous sense of entitlement towards women. Women’s purpose on earth is to serve men and take care of them. No matter how bizarre their wishes and desires may be. Basically what all men want are mommies without any authority.
  Trans objectify women even more so than their knuckle dragging brothers do. Trans look at women as “things.” Nothing more than a suit of clothes for men to try on.
  Ever see “Silence of the Lambs?” 

• [Comment from another poster] That sounds so familiar, somehow. Oh, right. “Gay people do have the right to get married. They can marry someone of the opposite sex.”
  [Luckynkl] Gay people? Oh, you mean really, really happy people?
  Besides the fact that your ANALogy is at best, bizarre, I oppose ALL marriage, happy or not. Marriage is a barbaric institution, sanctioned by the church and state (which contrary to the lip service we’re given, is one and the same), which grants men legal ownership of women, their assets, their services, their labor, their bodies, as well as anything that might pop out of those bodies. You know, sorta like the way men own dogs and their pups?
  One doesn’t dismantle the house by adding another room onto the house, silly.

   

 Oh, but having genitals of both sexes or cross-dressing isn’t really being transgendered, nor is attempting to avoid being beaten or even killed (do the names Brandon Teena and Gwen Arroyo ring any bells, Rustednkl??) by using the women’s restroom an act of self-defense; it’s just more men trying to get into "our" space and violate "us"!! Just like those damn "feminist pornographers" and "butch lesbians" with their dildos and vibrators invading "our sacred spaces", I guess.

Anyways…that series of comments sparked a genuine firestorm amongst the feminist blogosphere with more progressive bloggers condemning the height of such hatred from the likes of Luckynkl, and some went even further to condemn Twisty for tolerating such vile, crypto-Nazi bullshit in a feminist blog. (Considering the history of Twisty’s blog generating such a tempest (remember the blowjob controversy a while back, it wasn’t necessarily unexpected.) A few bloggers even went as far as to delist IBTP from their blogrolls in protest.

This is where Bitch|Lab….errrrr, Queer Dewd…..came in with a post at her blog documenting, using her typical detailed analysis and academic mind, the pitfalls of how radfem thought can easily produce the likes of Luckynkl.  (Brownfempower at People of Color Blog added her own perspecive about how WOC bloggers were also being harmed by such rhetoric; and Belledame, as is the usual, added her nickel’s worth. That elicited some reaction from a couple of radfem bloggers (mostly Heart of Women’s Spaces) who didn’t take too friendly the idea of being lumped together with Ln; she responded with a heated exchange with BfP where she noted that not all radfems share Ln’s prejudices towards transpeople; and that it was merely "bashing radfems" to lump them all in the same bag.

 Another blogger, AradhanaD of Leftist Looney Lunchbox, decided to just come out and explicitly target B|L, Belledame, and Amber Rhea as mere moochers who tagged on to defend "dissident feminists" like Nubian and BfP merely for the purpose of scoring brownie points against radfems…as per this blast she posted at her blog (though slightly edited later):

PS. If you’re from the pro-pornstitution feminist tag team (you know who you are) that somehow miraculously appears to suddenly ‘befriend’ every dissenting feminist voice on the net, to support them with their ‘radical feminist bashing’, there’s no nice way for me to say this ‘don’t bother’. Seriously, on any other post I’d love to hear your comments – just not this one. Pornstitution is racist, it harms WOC and I have no desire to get support from any of you – just because you think ‘I’m bashing your enemy’. No thanks. I do however, encourage you to comment on my other posts if you ever feel like it because like “white radical feminists”, I do know that we have things in common – just not as many as I’d like.

Aradhana did go on to partially repudiate that last paragraph, but the damage was already done.

First Queer Dewd got pissed.

Then, she got prophetic.

And then…she got busy.

Just run your asses over to her blog (via the last link) and free your mind a bit.

Welcome home, Dewd.

…And Speaking of Ass-Kickings…(or, I Really, Really [Heart] RenegadeEvolution)

Miriam (aka Renegade Evolution) over at The Fine Art of Free Speech and Dissent has been as of late doing a lot of excellent dropkicking and orbit-launching of antiporn feminist alchemy.  Two of her latest masterpieces have been posted at her blog, and they are worth the trip:

1) MacKinnon causes tension headaches 
Whereas RenEv responds in depth and thoroughly debunks and smashes to little bitty pieces classic antiporn theory about sex and violence being the ultimate hallmark of male/female relationships

2) The dark side of sex
Whereas RenEv offers up a sterling and decisive defense of her right to enjoy both BDSM (or what she calls S&M) and “rough sex” (offered consensually); against all the classic antiporn/radfem loathing and disgust thrown at her consistently.

Well said, Souljah, and said well.

A trip there to see the entire entries would be worth your while here, too.