Spartacus?? Who’s Spartacus?? Call Me Peter North van SmackDog!!

Just the thing to brighten up a mostly dreadful day at work:

It seems that Carolyn Hoffman is but a bit put off by my open letter dissing her for her antiporn viewpoints and her slaying of men for degrading women with their toxic sperm. She attempted on Queer Bitch’s blog today to justify herself, and then turned her Scud missiles at moi (mispellings included for accuracy):

[…]

And to the guy Anthony who says some young girls and women want and like to be gropped, this is *exactly* what most pornography says! And you think I just described a minority of porn sites,I have seen plenty and they all depict and describe women this way,and I have never seen one site that didn’t call women c-m eating sluts and bitches.

Of course, the fact that some real women might actually like eating cum or take the terms "slut" and "bitch" as either a positive term or not that seriously — at least, not as seriously as dear Carolyn would like them to take it — seems not to register in her MacDworkinite-fed biochip.

Ms. Hoffman later goes on to describe in graphic and eXXXplicit language — even language I probably wouldn’t post here since this is a public blog — the many ways in which porn makes men want to do dirty thngs to women.  Just follow the above link and prepare to cover your ears (or grab your crotch….it’s probably NSFW.

And later in the thread, she responds to some legitimate critique in the usual cult femininst way — by temper tamper:

WHY THE FUCK THERE I SAID IT THE WORD FUCK AM I EVEN TRYING TO GET THROUGH TO YOU? I NEVER SAID I AM AGAINST SEXUAL PLEASURE!!!!! YOU ASK WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE GUYS WHO ARE WATCHING PORNOGRAPHY SAYING THAT YES THEY DO EXSPECT WOMEN IN THEIR LIVES TO DO THE THINGS THEY SEE In THE PORNOGRAPHY?! WELL GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD THE POINT IS WHEN MANY WOMEN DO *NOT* WANT TO DO THOSE BUT PORNOGRAPHY SAYS MOST WOMEN *DO* WANT AND ENJOY THESE THINGS MANY MEN PRESSURE THEIR PARTNERS TO DO THOSE THINGS AND THE PORNOGRAPHY’s INFLUENCE IS A *BIG* REASON WHY!

AND QUEER DEWD I (TRIED!) TO DEBUNK THE MYTH IN GENERAL THAT ANTI-PORN FEMINISTS ARE In ANY WAY ANTI-SEX! AND IT’S REALLY SOMETHING HOW NOT ONE OF YOU EVEN SAID YOU FELT SORRY THAT I AND *MANY* OTHER WOMEN AND CHILDREN WERE VICTIMIZED BY PORNOGRAPHY! I SAY IT AGAIN IF YOU, YOUR MOTHER,DAUGHTER,SISTER OR FRIEND WAS SEXUALLY ABUSED AND PORNOGRAPHY WAS DIRECTLY INVOLVED, YOU WOULD FEEL VERY DIFFERENTLY! AND I JUST FOUND A POST ON RENEGADE REVOLUTION’s SITE ABOUT HOW MOST MAINSTREAM PORN IS MISOGINISTIC AND ANTHONY EVEN ADMITTED THAT A LOT Of IT IS BUT HE AND SOME OTHERS ON HERE SHOOT *ME* DOWN FOR POINTING OUT THE SAME FUCKING THING!

I HAVE SAID A LOT OF POWERFUL IMPORTANT TRUE INFORMATION HERE BUT IT JUST GOES IN ONE EAR AND OUT THE OTHER BECAUSE YOU *DON’T* WANT TO HEAR WHAT I’M SAYING IS TRUE! MAYBE ONE DAY SOME OF YOU WILL WAKE UP ON YOUR OWN!

My initial thought is that the best approach to Ms. H would be to take the high, formal road and address her (il)logic.  To with, the following:

All I will say here is this: for someone who protests (wrongly, in my view) that those who challenge your theology are smearing you as “anti-sex”, you sure put forth a lot of overbroad generalites and falsehoods about not only the majority of men who happen to view adult sexual media, but also the women who manage to survive with them. Your own personal experiences are to be respected and acknowledged; but to use them as a stalking horse to sell a basically reactionary social agenda and to scapegoat innocent people whose only “crime” is to have sexual thoughts about some women in their brains and get erections (or for women, damp panties)…is simply beneath contempt.

I will come right out and say it, Ms. Hoffman: in my view, you might not be “anti-sex” personally…..but your base ideology most certainly comes pretty damn close to being “anti-sex”…in that you basically try, convict, and execute millions of men and women who willingly and safely view adult sexual material as nothing more than material rapists and batterers; and your totally dim and negative approach about sexuality — totally free of any hint of mutual consent or mutual pleasure or basic free will and equality and diversity — more than justifies the term.

The rest of your “response” is simply more boilerplate that has been already answered by most here, so I won’t waste any more time on this.

The only demons that need to be slayed here, Ms. Hoffman, are your own private ones. Sperm on a woman’s face or breasts or on her butt didn’t cause your tormentors to hurt you, and censoring consensual adult sexual speech won’t resolve your issues, either.

All that does is to make her even madder…..and she immediately gets personal:

Anthony you are a pornography influenced bastard and you all really proved my case here and I really thank you for that! You have already been so influenced by pornography and it’s sick damaging messages and how it has been so mainstreamed and normalized, you can’t even see what I’m saying is true! Thank you again for proving my case!

Naturally, that induces me to respond with this:

First off, Ms. Hoffman….easy on the caps. We’re not shouting back at you; at least have the decency to respond in a civil tone. (And remember, this is Queer Dewd’s blog, not yours or mine.)

Secondly: Neither Renegade Evolution nor I ever “admitted” that ALL porn was misogynistic; we simply said that SOME porn could very well be. We both do say quite clearly, though, that the overwhelming majority of what counts as “pornography” consists mainly of depictions of consenting adults engaging in mutually pleasurable and freely sought after sexual activity, and that the overwhelming majority of men and women who regularly view such material do indeed go on to respect women as full and equal human beings. That is a bit different, Ms. Hoffman, from what you are trying to argue us down with.

You take great length to describe in explicit and graphic form the type of “abuse” that women are supposedly exposed to by men who use porn…but how exactly is being asked to perform fellatio or swallowing sperm or anal sex or ejaculating on a woman’s face or breast or another part of her body in any way abusive to a woman who explicitly asks for it?? Did those men you quote who press their women to perform such “degrading” acts threaten bodily harm or other sanctions on the women if they didn’t perform these acts?? Or did they simply accept the assumption of “No thanks, I’m not interested”?? Only if you are so convinced that the very ACTS of sex involving these things you describe is innately “degrading” and “damaging” would you so adamantly deny that some women might take some bit of pleasure in those acts or depictions thereof. And what would you say about men who would use the same tone as you do when asked by their female lovers about performing cunnilingus (or, as you would probably put it, “eating p*ssy”), or being on the receiving end of anal sex using a strap-on, or simply taking more time to focus on her pleasure rather than his own?? Would that be a different standard for women simply because they are the “victims of patriarchy”…or does your loathing and fear and hatred of any act of sex that doesn’t meet your narrow antipornradicalfeminist standards extend equally across the gender divide??

You can describe until you are blue in the face all the “studies” you’ve done and seen, and all the “testimonials” from women who mostly think like you; but once you escape the cocoon of the cult logic and actually engage real women and men, the paucity of your argument becomes clear. Maybe that’s why you can only respond to constructive criticism with more yelling and cussing and stomping of feet.

When you actually have a decent argument, Ms. Hoffman, I will take you seriously enough to have a genuine discussion. Until then, please don’t waste our time. This is not a free carrier, as Queer Bitch would say.

I guess I must have said the magic words…because this is how Carolyn responded…and why Peter North makes a cameo appearence in the title of this post:

FUCK YOU ANTHONY FUCK YOU! Overwhelming majority of mostly male viewers of pornography are really pretty sick and we live in a very sick male dominated pornographic woman hating society! I’m done arguing with your God damned ignorance. You just love to watch men ejaculate on women and yopu must love to do it to women so much yourself that what I’m saying is really very threatening to you!

Oh, yeah, Carolyn, you got me there!!!!  I just looooovvvvvve to blow my wad on women.  Hell, I’ve got so much spooge that even Peter North (the porn stud known for his consistent long-distance yanks [and his superior technique with his tongue and fingers, too]) couldn’t hold a candle to me and my 15-inch monster!!!

Wow….that even beats the one where RMildred and the gang at PunkassBlog accused me of being RenEv’s client!! (Not that that would be so bad, of course, considering that Ren’s as fine-ass as she is bad-ass and actually likes getting spooged on, among other nastiness…)

Oh, Carolyn, please don’t flatter yourself….I wouldn’t waste my puny effusions (those last two paragraphs were in jest, of course, in case you didn’t know) on you even if you pleaded with me for it..or even if you offered me a million dollars for the "pleasure".  (OK….hold that thought…LOL)  Like most men, I only blow my wad for women who freely ask for it….and remember, that unless it gets in the eyes or nose, sperm is mostly harmless.  (It’s hell to clean off the bedsheets, however.)

If this is the best insult you can fling at me for calling out your bullshit, then just go home and rest yourself….and quit wasting my time and yours and Queer Bitch’s bandwidth.

Oh….and women do squirt, too. And not just in jest, either.

 

 

In Memoriaum: Miss Molly Layeth ‘Da Smack Down Upon Camille Paglia

I’m not sure that I can ever do justice to the many kind tributes to Molly Ivins — journalist, progressive populist, humorist, feminist, and all around badassssss who left this mortal world almost a month ago – but rereading this particular essay flambeeing right-wing cultural critic/Ayn Rand wannabe Camille Paglia brought back such great memories that I felt the need to share it with the rest of ‘ya.

A grateful thanks to Avedon Carol of The Sideshow for pointing me to the column, and to Erich Schneider for having the forethought to save the original Mother Jones column and post it on the Internet (via his Caltech home page).

Erich’s original posting was done in 1990s Newsgroup syntax; I have altered it slightly to fit more modern standards.

 

From _Mother Jones_, September/October 1991, pp 8-10
(Italics are indicated like _this_.)

Impolitic, by Molly Ivins.

I Am the Cosmos

Austin, Texas --- ``So write about Camille Paglia,'' suggested the
editor. Like any normal person, I replied, ``And who the hell might
she be?''


Big cheese in New York intellectual circles. The latest rage. Hot
stuff. Controversial.




But I'm not good on New York intellectual controversies, I explained.
Could never bring myself to give a rat's ass about Jerzy Kosinski.
Never read Andy Warhol's diaries. Can never remember the name of the
editor of this New Whatsit, the neo-con critical rag. I'm a no-hoper
on this stuff, practically a professional provincial.


Read Paglia, says he, you'll have an opinion. So I did; and I do.


Christ! Get this woman a Valium!


Hand her a gin. Try meditation. Camille, honey, calm down!


The noise is about her oeuvre, as we always say in Lubbock: Sexual
Personae: Art and Decadence from Nefertiti to Emily Dickinson. In
very brief, for those of you who have been playing hooky from the New
York Review of Books, Ms. Paglia's contention is that ``the history
of western civilization has been a constant struggle between ... two
impulses, an unending tennis match between cold, Apollonian
categorization and Dionysian lust and chaos.'' Jeez, me too. I always
thought the world was divided into only two kinds of people --- those
who think the world is divided into only two kinds of people, and
those who don't.


You think perhaps this is a cheap shot, that I have searched her work
and caught Ms. Paglia in a rare moment of sweeping generalization,
easy to make fun of? Au contraire, as we always say in Amarillo; the
sweeping generalization is her signature. In fact, her work consists
of damn little else. She is the queen of the categorical statement.


Never one to dodge a simple dichotomy when she can set one up, Ms.
Paglia holds that the entire error of western civilization stems from
denying that nature is a kind of nasty, funky, violent, wet dream, and
that Judeo-Christianity has been one long effort to ignore this. She
pegs poor old Rousseau, that fathead, as the initiator of the silly
notion that nature is benign and glorious and that only civilization
corrupts.


Right away, I got a problem. Happens I have spent a lot of my life in
the wilderness, and also a lot of my life in bars. When I want sex and
violence, I go to a Texas honky-tonk. When I want peace and quiet, I
head for the woods. Just as a minor historical correction to Ms.
Paglia, Rousseau did not invent the concept of benign Nature. Among
the first writers to hold that nature was a more salubrious
environment fro man than the corruptions of civilization were the
Roman Stoics --- rather a clear-eyed lot, I always thought.


Now why, you naturally ask, would anyone care about whether a reviewer
has ever done any serious camping? Ah, but you do not yet know the
Camille Paglia school of I-am-the-cosmos argument. Ms. Paglia believes
that all her personal experiences are Seminal. Indeed, Definitive.


She credits a large part of her supposed wisdom to having been born
post-World War II and thus having been raised on television. Damn me,
so was I.


In addition to the intrinsic cultural superiority Ms. Paglia
attributes to herself from having grown up watching television (``It's
Howdy-Doody Time'' obviously made us all smarter), she also considers
her own taste in music to be of enormous significance. ``From the
moment the feminist movement was born, it descended into dogma,'' she
told an interviewer for New York magazine. ``They stifled any kind
of debate, any kind of dissent. Okay, it's Yale, it's New Haven in
'69, I am a rock fanatic, okay .... So I was talking about taste to
these female rock musicians, and I said the Rolling Stones were the
greatest rock band, and that just set them off. They said, `The
Rolling Stones are sexist, and it's bad music because it's sexist.' I
said: `Wait a minute. You can't make a judgements about art on the
basis of whether it fits into some dogma.' And now they're yelling,
screaming, saying that nothing that demeans women can be art.


``You see, right from the start it was impossible for me to be taken
into the feminist movement, okay? The only art they will permit is art
that gives a positive image of women. I said, `That's like the Soviet
Union; that is the demagogic, propagandistic view of art.' ''


Well, by George, as a First Amendment absolutist, you'll find me
willing to spring to the defense of Camille Paglia's right to be a
feminist Rolling Stones fan any hour, day or night. Come to think of
it, who the hell was the Stalin who wouldn't let her do that? I went
back and researched the '69 politburo, and all I could find was Betty
Friedan, Bella Abzug, and Gloria Steinem, none of whom ever seems to
have come out against rock music.


I have myself quite cheerfully been both a country-music fan and a
feminist for years --- if Camille Paglia is the cosmos, so am I. When
some fellow feminist doesn't like my music (How could you not like
``You are just another sticky wheel on the grocery cart of life''?), I
have always felt free to say, in my politically correct feminist
fashion, ``Fuck off.''


In a conversation printed in Harper's magazine, Paglia held forth on
on of her favorite themes --- Madonna, the pop singer: ``The latest
atavistic discoverer of the pagan heart of Catholicism is Madonna.
This is what she's up to. She doesn't completely understand it
herself. When she goes on Nightline and makes speeches about
celebrating the body, as if she's some sort of Woodstock hippie, she's
way off. She needs me to tell her.'' I doubt that.


Bram Dijkstra, author of a much-praised book, Idols of Perversity,
which is a sort of mirror image of Sexual Personae, said that Paglia
``literally drags the whole nineteenth-century ideological structure
back into the late-eighteenth century, really completely unchanged.
What's so amazing is that she takes all that nineteenth-century stuff,
Darwinism and social Darwinism, and she re-asserts it and reaffirms it
in this incredibly dualistic fashion. In any situation, she
establishes the lowest common denominator of a point. She says,
`This is the feminist point of view,' and overturns it by standing it
on its head. She doesn't go outside what she critiques; she simply
puts out the opposite of it.''


``For example,'' Dijkstra continues, ``she claims, `Feminism blames
rape on pornography,' which is truly the reductio ad absurdum of the
feminist point of view. Of course, there are very many feminist points
of view, but then she blows away this extremely simplified opposite,
and we are supposed to consider this erudition. She writes aphorisms
and then throws them out, one after the other, so rapid-fire the
reader is exhausted.''


Tracing Paglia's intellectual ancestry is a telling exercise; she's
the lineal descendant of Ayn Rand, who in turn was a student of
William Graham Sumner, one of the early American sociologists and an
enormously successful popularzier of social Darwinism. Sumner was in
turn a disciple of Herbert Spencer, that splendid nineteenth-century
kook. Because Paglia reasserts ideas so ingrained in our thinking, she
has become popular by reaffirming common prejudices.


Paglia's obsession with de Sade is beyond my competence, although the
glorification of sadomasochism can easily be read as a rationalization
of bondage into imagined power, a characteristic process of
masochistic transfer. Dijkstra suggests that the Sadean notion of the
executioner's assistant is critical to her thinking, though one
wonders if there is not also some identification with de Sade the
Catholic aristocrat.


Paglia's view of sex --- that it is irrational, violent, immoral, and
wounding --- is so glum that one hesitates to suggest that it might be
instead, well, a lot of fun, and maybe even affectionate and loving.


Far less forgivable is Paglia's consistent confusion of feminism with
yuppies. What does she think she's doing? Paglia holds feminists
responsible for the bizarre blight created by John T. Molloy, author of
Dress for Success, which caused a blessedly brief crop of young
women, all apparently aspiring to be executive vice-presidents, to
appear in the corporate halls wearing those awful sand-colored baggy
suits with little floppy bow ties around their necks.


Why Paglia lays the blame for this at the feet of feminism is beyond
me. Whatever our other aims may have been, no one in the feminist
movement ever thought you are what you wear. The only coherent fashion
statement I can recall from the entire movement was the suggestion
that Mrs. Cleaver, Beaver's mom, would on the whole have been a
happier woman had she not persisted in vacuuming while wearing high
heels. This, I still believe.


In an even more hilarious leap, Paglia contends that feminism is
responsible for the aerobics craze and concern over thin thighs.
Speaking as a beer-drinking feminist whose idea of watching her diet
is to choose either the baked potato with sour cream or with butter,
but not with both, I find this loony beyond all hope --- and I am the
cosmos, too.


What we have here, fellow citizens, is a crassly egocentric, raving
twit. The Norman Podhoretz of our gender. That this woman is actually
taken seriously as a thinker in New York intellectual circles is a
clear sign of decandence, decay, and hopeless pinheadedness. Has no
one in the nation's intellectual capital the background and ability to
see through a web of categorical assertions? One fashionable line of
response to Paglia is to claim that even though she may be
fundamentally off-base, she has ``flashes of brilliance.'' If so, I
missed them in her oceans of swill.


One of her latest efforts at playing enfant terrible in intellectual
circles was a peppy essay for Newsday, claiming that either there is
no such thing as date rape or, if there is, it's women's fault because
we dress so provocatively. Thanks, Camille, I've got some Texas
fraternity boys I want you to meet.


There is one area in which I think Paglia and I would agree that
politically correct feminism has produced a noticeable inequity.
Nowadays, when a woman behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable
fashion, we say, ``Poor dear, it's probably PMS.'' Whereas, if a man
behaves in a hysterical and disagreeable fashion, we say, ``What an
asshole.'' Let me leap to correct this unfairness by saying of Paglia,
Sheesh, what an asshole.

No one like her; and very few to replace her, too.

 

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 “Sluts” Simply Can’t Be Human: The Outrage of the David Alex Park Case

[ADDEDENA: Go quickly to RenEv’s, Belledame ‘s and Sylvia’s blogs for some serious and thoughful takes on the case, and what it says about the inequality and injustice of it all.]

Let’s suppose that you are a woman driving home after work.

Let’s say that you are driving alone on a deserted highway.

Suddenly, you are pulled over by who appears to be a cop.

Unfortunately, he’s not interested in any real traffic violations..he’s more interested in getting his certain sex freakery on….and uses the threat of jail to take full advantage of you sexually.

Now, he doesn’t actually rape you….well, not with his penis; but he does fondle your breasts, force his fingers between your legs, force you to stroke his…shall we say, "long arm of the law", and finally ejaculates on your body.

Then….much later, after the initial shock of this violation only begins to wear off, he decides to call you up at your personal residence (since he now has your real name and address and phone number as a result of his "citation"), and threatens you to keep your mouth shut about what just happened…..or else.

Now you get really angry….and find yourself a lawyer and press felony sexual harassment charges against the cop who violated you in this way.

Should be an open and shut case; a no-brainer; a boat race…right??

Ahhh….WRONG.

Not if you happen to live in Irvine, California.

Not if you manage to get Al Stokke as your opposing lawyer.

And especially not if you happen to be……a stripper.

The full story, courtesy of the Orange County Weekly with a (special bow of thanks to Radical Vixen)

From Orange County Weekly:
Illegally Park-ed

“No one disputes that an on-duty Irvine police officer got an erection and ejaculated on a motorist during an early-morning traffic stop in Laguna Beach. The female driver reported it, DNA testing confirmed it and officer David Alex Park finally admitted it.

When the case went to trial, however, defense attorney Al Stokke argued that Park wasn’t responsible for making sticky all over the woman’s sweater. He insisted that she made the married patrolman make the mess—after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.

“She got what she wanted,” said Stokke. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

A jury of one woman and 11 men—many white and in their 50s or 60s—agreed with Stokke. On Feb. 2, after a half-day of deliberations, they found Park not guilty of three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.”:

Read the full article here for all the gory details.

[Going into sarcasm mode here] 

Well…of course, it really must be all her fault for being such an "openly sexual person" and for having the gall to work as a stripper…after all, all the "teasing" and seducing of men that she does, she must have wanted that cop to get his rocks off at her expense…what with how she "teases" and temps men for a living.

And of course, all strippers (and by extension, all "slutty", "whorish" women) really do want to be violated and basically raped by stalking cops using their badges and their deadly weapons to cop feels and get free handjobs and facials….they just aren’t the same as real women who manage to keep their legs closed and their virtue intact…until we need their wombs to make lots of babies for the Church or the Corporation or the State, that is.)

[/sarcasm mode]

Sounds familiar, Clones??  Kinda like the same rhetoric being slung of late by certain MRA trolls towards such "skanky", "slutty" women as the Duke rape accuser??

Or, the same rationale of "prostituted woman as eternal victim" (and incapable of free will or autonomy) put out by certain radicalfemimistantiporn activists??

Or…the same tired rationalizations being used to destroy families by "outing" sex workers (go over to Renegade Evolution’s blog for a classic example of the consequenses of such lowdown betrayal) "for their own good"??

But of course, women who dare to exercise their right to be overtly sexual and openly defy "the rules" of compulsory monogamy and sexual propriety should always be willing to give up their rights to be free and equal human beings, since that only applies to the virtuous and true and pure woman who knows her place and stays there…or so I guess.

Until ALL women are accorded the same protection and assumption of equality and full humanity, than NO woman is truly equal.  Just because you dance on a pole or trade sex for money or enjoy sex for pleasure shouldn’t open you up to being violated….either by sexual predators or by the judicial/political system. 

 

Just Call Me Spartacus Van SmackDog…

 

 

In social solidarity with Melissa Ewen — aka Shakespeare’s Sister — against the loopy fascist wingnutter assholes who have now reached the depths of issuing death threats against her and Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon for the "crime" and "sin" of joining John Edwards’ campaign…and for simply being a strong, progressive woman who says the truth.

Not that she needs it with the full force behind her back, but I’m offering a free gallon of Concentrated SmackDog Whupass (TM) to her and Amanda for their full use against these bastards.

Fight on, ladies.

And a huge double middle fingered salute to you, John Edwards, for allowing them to twist so long. If you defend your principles as you defended these women, then you have no claim to be dogcatcher, let alone Senator..heaven forbid, the President of the United States.

Oh, and one last thing: Spartacus freakin’ ROCKS!!!!

 

 

 

An Open Letter to Carolyn Hoffman

[This is in response to the email that she sent to ‘Da Queer Bitch this morning, to which QD posted on her site. Since QD is currently occupied and could not reply directly, she asked if some of her allies would counter with a response. One look at the email was enough for me.

Since her private email was not revealed, I will treat this as an open letter.]

Ms. Hoffman:

To say that I was totally whelmed by your attempt to counter Queer Dewd (formerly known as Bitch | Lab) on the issue of pornography and women is an understatement. I do understand and appreciate your passion in defending your views about how porn apparantly is so dangerous to women…even as I totally disagree with your findings.  Unfortunately, it seems that in your zeal to publish antiporn agitprop…I mean, state your case, you seem to have missed some basic facts…which I will, at your indulgement, now expound upon.

First off…I totally respect and will not criticize you for stating your previous experiences as a adolescent facing the scrutiny of young boys….teenage years can be such trouble for most girls, especially with the raging hormones and all the open leering that boys often do.  However, to target Playboy pictorals as the main source of such attitudes is, to say the least, a stretch beyond imagination. What’s to say that a Sears catalog featuring women in intimate apperal, or a scantily clad (but not naked) pinup of a rock starlet in a bikini or halter top, wasn’t enough to feed into their developing lusts?  And while their behavior with you (especially the teacher who boasted about having his turn) was certainly at the least boorish and disrespectful (and, especially in the case of the teacher, crossed the line of ethics into outright sexual harrassment and probable statutory rape), it only proves that some boys will carry their lusts a bit over the line of mutual respect and mutual consent.  Attacking and censoring Playboy or even hardcore porn will do nothing to cure that; reporting such behavior to the proper authorities for immediate action would be far more effective.

Also, Ms. Hoffman…what would you say about the many young girls who don’t have as much a problem with consensual groping as you do?? (Note I said "consensual", meaning that they willingly seek and approve of such activity.) Would you say that those girls who choose to engage in such sexual activity for their own personal pleasures should have the same assumption of protection from nonconsensual acts and autonomy of free will as those who are put off by such activity?? Or are you likely to dismiss these girls in the classic antiporn radicalfeminist ideology as mindless victims of "patriarchy"…or merely, total "sluts" and harlots who feed the worst in men and boys?? One look at your letter reveals the answer to that question pretty quickly.

Next up…you drop names of various antiporn activist spokespersons (Gail Dines, Robert Jensen, et. al) whom you assume that QD needs to read to reveal "the truth" about how porn so degrades and damages women.  All fine and good for agitprop…but a bit incomplete for genuine study and analysis, which requires a bit more open and diverse point of view than what you would allow.  And it would also be a bit wiser, Ms. Hoffman, if you managed to check your sources a bit more; I’m sure that you do know that Bob Jensen is not only "a former porn user", but also an self-outed (yet self-hating) gay man whose strategy of humiliating and demonizing men not just for the collective sins of individuals, but merely for having erections and thinking about sex in the unapproved radfem way, has been revealed countless times. (This is especially cogent given the fact that you decided to impose your spam…ahh, I mean, your email…on the owner of a site (Queer Dewd) that openly embraces the type of homoerotic images that Jensen would say causes great harm to women.

Then we come to your vivid and quite explict depictions of what apparantly goes on in "typical pornography"…though, I tend to wonder how you got such experience that you can describe with such pinpoint accuracy what goes on in the making of porn films..but that’s irrelevant for this issue. To wit, this accounting:

Can you explain and defend all of the typical pornography I have seen including now on porn blogs that rate this sick damaging sexist woman hating degrading dehumanizing sh*t like they are rating songs,that describes women as sluts and bi*ches being fu*ked hard,and pounded banged,and slammed by huge monster co*ks,and videos called This Bi*ch Hates Facials? You see she’s a bi*ch that has to be taught a lesson because she feels like most women do that it’s degrading and disgusting to have men ejaculate on her face,and she’s seen as a bitch because all of the women in porn are portrayed as loving it! So they ejaculate on her face to spite her! And another video describes a woman f*cked so hard in the a*s until she screams,another has a stepfather who video taped his stepdaughter f*cking herself,another is a slut getting a facial in public,another is a slut getting slammed by 2 huge c*cks in her own home after she puts her 2 children to bed,other videos are throat f*cking and sluts gagging on huge c*cks,a whore sister getting f*cked hard etc etc.

Great prose, Ms. Hoffman..but probably a bit off.  You see, those promos for such porn sites tend to be a bit more hyperbolic in the rhetoric than usual..that’s just a hook to attract potential comsumers; nothing more or less. To take them so seriously as promos for rape is, to say the least, sophistry on your part.

Now, I don’t deny at all that there are attitudes amongst some porn consumers (and a few producers) that women who enjoy facials or anal sex or sex with more than one man (or woman) at once is inherently degraded and humiliated…but that is not so much a byproduct of porn than it is the classical antisexual attitudes put forth by mainstream culture to control and regulate women’s sexuality.  Far more likely, however, is the view that a "slut" who likes sex many different ways should be praised, even worshipped, for accepting both her and men’s desires…and that she remains a full human being deserving of respect even after engaging in such "degrading" activity. It may have escaped your mind in your rage, Ms. Hoffman, but there are indeed women who really do like and openly seek the type of sex you decry as "demeaning" and "degrading", and there are men who truly do enjoy that kind of porn, yet continue to give the full respect and humanity to women.  But I guess those views don’t count too well with you, since the only women allowed to appear in your mindset are those who are "prostituted" or victimized by porn.

Finally, Ms. Hoffman, some suggestions for alternative sources of material (since you are so willing to offer sources of your own to educate the unwashed masses…even those who really don’t need it such as QD):

"Caught Looking: Feminism, Pornography, and Censorship" by the Feminist Anti-Censorship Taskforce
"XXX: A Defense of Pornography" by Wendy McElroy
"Defending Pornography" by Nadine Strossen
"Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality" ed. by Carol Vance (in particular, Gayle Rubin’s essay "Thinking Sex"
"Whores and Other Feminists" ed. by Jill Nagle (especially Nina Hartley’s essay "In The Flesh")

And of course, no real analysis of pro-sex feminism would be complete without a visit to Nina Hartley’s forum..in particular the "Off Topic" and "Porn and Porn Performers" sub-forums, where such issues are discussed with regularity.

Now, perhaps listening and reading perspectives which run contrary to your own antiporn agitprop might hurt your brain initially from previous underuse….but on the whole, it will be all the better for being exposed to the real world, and to engage in actual discussion.

In the meantime, Ms. Hoffman, may I kindly and respectfully request that you use a bit more public and less obtuse method than harrassing emails to opponents of your philosophy to get your point across?  It really doesn’t do your side much credit when you call for "open debates"…while simultaneously intimidating the same opponents.

With that, I bide you a great day…and I welcome the discussion.

Anthony Kennerson
Lafayette, LA
http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/index.php (My SmackDog Chronicles blog)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Real Quote For This “Special” Day…

 

So the purchase of flowers, chocolate or underwear, or all the other bullshit that the shops are pushing men and women to buy for their partners doesn’t impress me. When it comes to someone expressing their affection for me, why should it involve spending money? Anyway, I want them to be romantic daily, not just one day out of 365. Give me an intelligent, funny man who cooks nice meals, gives me regular massages, and allows me access to his cock on a frequent basis, and I’ll show you a woman who’s happily loved-up. Love and romance don’t come from monetary expenditure and I refuse to buy into – or expect my partner to buy into – the philosophy that it does.

— Abby Lee, the "Girl With a One Track Mind",
talking the truth about Valentine’s Day 

Of course, if said sweetheart shows up at her house with a big glittering rock the size of a hailstone and a dick the size of Ron Jeremy (and the skillz to use it as well as his fingers and tongue), would Abby be singng the same tune??

Probably….but it’s worth asking.

Do something nice for your sweetheart today, Clones…as J-Lo sang, Love doesn’t cost a thing.  🙂

 

An Open Letter In Support of Amanda

[UPDATE: Shakespeare’s Sister lead Melissa just announced that she’s resigning from her position at the Edwards campaign as well.  Sad to see that, too.]

I know that I have had many differences with Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon….mostly on her incomprehension of liberal versus radical Left policies and her quite passionate advocacy towards feminism and women’s rights. (Her approach I’ve argued…not her base politics.)

There comes a tiime, though, where you have to suspend the pettiness and join in social solidarity in defense of a fellow or sista progressive who is under the barrel of a gun….and this is definitely the case with Amanda and the ensuing battle called "Bloggergate".

To reset; Amanda —  along with Melissa Ewen, the lead voice of Shakespeare’s Sister —  was approached by the John Edwards for President campaign to run their website and basically run interference with the A-list liberal bloggers.  Naturally, both accepted the offers, since it would give them major credibility and engage the progressive netroots with the larger political climate.

Not everyone was so happy, though — some from the further Left such as Dennis Perrin  of Red State Son decried the deal as a sellout of progressive principles; quoting some of Edwards’ latest statements implying that he would have no problems with bombing Iran or continuing the war in Iraq.  But that was mere politeness compared to the howls coming from the Right…and especially the Catholic wing of the Christian FRight led mostly by Michelle Malkin and William Donohue, chief spokesman for the Cathollic League for Civil Rights.

The latter two (especially Donohue, using his media cred on MSNBC and FOX News) then launched a bitter and brutal campaign against Edwards, mostly rehashing some past quotes from Amanda’s blog implying "bigotry" against Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, to taint Amanda and Shakes’ Sis as "dangerous anti-Catholic bigots" and called for the Edwards campaign to immediately remove these evil feminist radicals from their campaign.  There were also noises coming from the more traditional "centrist" media as well, with Fightin’ Joe Lieberman leading the verse that Edwards was pandering to the "far Left" by hiring such dangerous women on his payroll, and that he was risking alienating those key Catholic "swing voters" unless he relented and removed them quick.

For a while, it seemed to succeed; Salon.com on last Thursday released a story claiming that Edwards had indeed fired the two women (followed up by another story the next day saying that they had been rehired)….but this set off a firestorm in the progressive blogosphere in defense of Amanda and Shakes’ Sis as martyrs of freedom of speech and decrying Edwards as a craven chicken allowing a right-wing extremist to dictate his campaign strategy. 

On Friday, Edwards himself released a brief but terse statement at his campaign site basically admonishing the two women for stirring up controversy and asking them to cool it down…but allowing them to stay on. Seperate statements by both of the women apologizing for their ways were also released simultaneously.  

That sorta ended the controversy….actually, it didn’t, since Donohue announced that he would turn up the heat on Edwards and the two women for their "bigotry"….and some others (like Brownfemipower over at Women of Color Blog) openly asked if the actions of Amanda and Melissa amounted to back door censorship for past actions.

Finally, on Monday, Amanda announced at her blog (Pandagon) that she had resigned from the Edwards campaign, citing the wish to not inflame the campaign with excess baggage and the affect of squelching her own freedom of speech in responding in kind to the lynching antics of Donohue and his allies. The original note was released at Pandagon, but wasn’t accessible due to an Denial of Service (DoS) attack launched by Donohue’s allies to silence and shut down her blog. (It is currently open for the moment. Fortunately, Steve Gilliard of The News Blog reprinted Amanda’s statement at his blog, it can be found here.)

In addition to all that, Amanda found herself buried in an avalanche of hate email launched by Donohue’s followers…and most of it was pretty ugly and even explicit in its loathing and hatred for her stances. A couple of examples, as posted by Amanda recently to her blog:

[from "R.R." in Tallahassee, FL]
Amanda,
after reading your vile screed against Catholics and the Holy Spirit, I just had to see what you looked like. (I envisioned you eyebrow-less, with no visible pupils, and a blank, dead stare.) I see I was correct about the blank, dead stare, but other than that you’re not too bad. I then thought maybe you were mad at God (and by proxy Catholics) for making you ugly, but now I’m figuring you’re just mad at him for making you a woman.

 [from Vivian Thomas]
Catholics are concerned about killing unborn children, you stupid bitch. Chop away if it suits you, but we don’t have to accept that as moral. That’s why it’s called a religion. Look into it

 But those are virtual love letters compared to the more…..shall we say, expressive and explicit greetings thrown at Amanda from what appears to be sexually frustrated Christian men…or MRA wannabes. ByrdBrain would probably blow his wad be mighty impressed at the following screeds:

[from Andy Diggers of Dallas]
Problem with women like you, you just need a good fucking from a real man! Living in Texas myself, I know you haven’t found that real Texan yet. But once your liberal pro feminist ass gets a real good fucking, you might see the light. Until then, enjoy your battery operated toys b/c most real men wouldn’t want to give you the fucking you deserve b/c the shit that would come out of you ears.

I guess someone forgot to tell that asshat that Amanda is already hetero. 

 [from Paul Bernard of Scottsdale, AZ]
i like the way you trash talk i don’t particularly want to have sex with you but i would like a blow job.

Oh, but I thought that she was one of ‘dem radicallesbians that don’t do men, huh???

And then there is this typical wishful wingnutty greeting from someone named Bud Phelps (no relation to the "Reverend" gay baiter Fred Phelps, no doubt):

It’s just too bad your mother didn’t abort you. You are nothing more than a filthy mouth slut. I bet a couple of years in Iraq being raped and beaten daily would help you appreciate America a little. Need a plane ticket ?

Oh, goody, goody….does dewd know that most of the raping and beating in Iraq is being done by…you know..FREAKIN’ AMERICANS?!?!?!? And how about a Christian who is supposedly "pro-life" and "anti-abortion" openly wishing that Amanda was…well, aborted??  I guess that some fetuses are more sacred than others.

But the grandaddy of all roundhouse insults — at least the ones Amanda chose to print — comes from a fella named Romanco de Lorne who is so passionate about defending his church from "bigotry" that he resorts to all caps:

YOU RACIST WHORE. FAT UGLY BITCH. SUCK MY LONG COCK ASSHOLE I HOPE YOU KIDS NEVER LIVE AND YOUR PARENTS DIE A TRAGIC DEATH YOU ASSHOLE BITCH!
I HOPE YOUR WOMB IS BARREN AND YOUR CAREER PLUMMETS TO HELL YOU BITCH

Yup….nothing like  good, solid Christian men defending their religion, isn’t it??

Amanda herself hits the nail square on the head when she riffs:

Reminder: Donohue was claiming to be so hurt by my “bigotry”. Yet, for some reason, his supporters write me and they are more interested in telling me that my womanhood is repulsive to them. Interesting—almost as if his claims to speak for Catholicism were in fact dog whistles to scare people about women’s equality.

As I told some close friends in the days that Donohue was on the news, spraying code words about “get the feminists” (which explains why he roped Shakespeare’s Sister into this, even though she really had nothing to do with any of this—except she’s pro-equality, which is what is really what offends Donohue and all the people who gave that anti-Semite airtime), a good half of my hate mail could be summed up, “You have a pottymouth, you stupid cunt.” 

[…]

Right wingers right now are pretending like sexism has nothing to do with me, which is an argument that works if you think a) men get emails about how they need to suck a dick on a regular basis and b) that there’s nothing whatsoever sexist about allowing men to curse but hitting the fainting couch if a woman does.

Oh, but Amanda…try being a gay man, or someone who fits the type….I’m sure that they’d get the same treatment.

Time to wake up and smell reality—real bigots follow the siren call of the fascist right wing. Why would they even bother with liberals and all our equality and human rights and other tedious ideas?

[….]

But I shan’t belabor the point. I haven’t even begun to scratch the surface of the hate mail the Bill Donohue’s “Christian” campaign against me has inspired. This is all stuff from days ago—I’ve gotten more than 100 since. Hell, from the looks of my email from last night, I’ve had more than 100 in the past 12 hours from self-proclaimed Christians who want me to know that I have hurt their feelings and this has nothing, nothing whatsoever to do with their own misogyny and tendency to witch hunt.

In short, this is nothing more than the classic "slut-baiting" that happens to any woman who dares to challenge the wacky Christian FRight’s principles on sexuality or women’s position in society.  This could have been launched just as strongly and just as easily against Nina Hartley or Joycelyn Elders, or Dr. Susan Block or Dr. Carol Queen or Dr. Gloria Brame, or Renegade Evolution or the Queer Bitch or Brownfemipower or Blackamazon, or Vicky Vette or Bridgett Lee, or Kira Reed or Shauna O’Brien, or Annie Sprinkle or Susie Bright, or even Lani Guenier or Hillary Clinton…it’s just that Amanda Marcotte and Melissa Ewen happen to be strong women and feminists who dare to be open about calling the fascists out on their bullshit…and happen to get way too close to real politifal power for the wingnutter’s comfort.

This is what you get, Clones, when you don’t defend to the death the basic principle of "My body, my choice, my damn business and nobody else’s"…and that other principle "Keep your Jesus off my penis (or clit) and your morals off my balls (and wombs)". An injury to one is still, in the long run, an injury to all.

Well done, Amanda….go get that mountain of human crap, and don’t ever let him up when you get his ass. The can of Whupass is at your full disposal if you need it.

Like I said….sometimes you put principle ahead of personal differences.  I’m backing Amanda on this one.  How about thou7??

\

Mamacita Rosarose Joins The SDC Fightin’ 101st PHHB

Not only on the strength of this righteous blast at her blog, where she lays down the law on pretender feminists, antitransgender bigots, and  slut-bashing APRF’s, all in one blow (an excerpt follows):

Oh, okay, I know! Black Amazon, BFP and other women of color whom blog! Guess what? I am one of “those women” too, and the way a lot of you white women treat WOC’s is deplorable. It is wrong. Sorry, but I don’t care how many black women, Asian women, latina women, other non-white women you know, or how many Men of Color you’ve married, slept with, made babies with, or how you, as a white woman, might identify culturally, you are STILL a WHITE WOMAN. You do NOT know what it is like to really be anything but a white woman, no matter how much you think otherwise, and all the hip-hop, biracial babies, and spicy salsa in the world isn’t going to change that. Now see, I bet you think right now that I have a problem with white women, right? Actually, I don’t. I have no problem with white women. I have white friends! But I know I am not a white woman, no matter how often I shop in the Gap or say that Seth Greene is hot. I have no problem not being a white woman. I love my culture and heritage, even if some morons see it as not as good as white. What I have a problem with is White Women who speak for WoC, the whole wide range of us, when we can do it ourselves just fine. Or when they ignore us when we dare to do so, or dismiss our first person, in the trenches WoC words and theories in favor of their own creamy ones then act as if their white makes them right, because, well, they have this friend…

[…]

The Transgender issue. My roommate? M to F. I live in South Miami Beach, which is hugely accepting of all sorts of gender sliding and expression. It is, in many ways, a utopia for those of non-concrete sexuality and sexual identity and I love it. It is a festival of difference and tolerance in most circles. And transgender people are real people, with real emotions and experiences too, and I am sick of seeing feminists attack and degrade them. “It?” Where in the numerous Chinese Hells is it okay to call someone, a living, breathing, human being “it”? Mind then if I call you “stupid bigoted cretin?” Don’t like it? Too bad, mamasita. No, trans women are not biological, born women. They have had the opportunity to suckle at the teat of the Patriarchy (Ha, the Patriarchy has teats!), but do you think, oh wise womb bearing feminists, that when they become women that the HELL they go through, physically, emotionally, in their souls, minds and bodies, and via society does not balance out the Karma just a teensy, weensy bit? Of course you don’t, that is evident, because your pain is far more valid and the only pain that matters! Most trans women I have encountered tend to be caring, soulful people who care about all women, which is more than I can say for some who were born that way. For all the boiled down whining that basically amounts to “It sucks to be a woman” you’d think some respect for women who have the intestinal fortitude to give up the “boy privilege” to BECOME women…who are subject to rape and discrimination and hate just like born women, is in order… but then again, I guess that would just give some people one less cause and thing to hate.

[…]

And rounding out the list of grievances we turn now once again to that jackbooted slut Renegade, Belle, AP and the rest of “Them”. We’ll make this simple:

“A Radical Feminist warns, "Your resolution must never falter. No argument must lead you astray. Never listen when they tell you that the Pro-porn and the Anti-Porn have a common interest….we must not come to resemble them…”

"Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure. On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more than me that all women are equal. I would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"

One was deceiving the neighboring feminists as she was also tricking her own. The scapegoat was again “them”. "Whenever anything went wrong it became usual to attribute it to “them” ." In fact many of the claims begin to sound ridiculous to the objective mind. Of course, the mission is to keep everything subjective in the minds of the feminists.

So one, with the help of her allies, shames and silences anyone who is said to be disloyal.

The Seven Commandments:

1. Whatever alters, paints or displays its body is an enemy.
2. Whatever fully eschews the Patriarchy, or supports our causes, is a friend.
3. No feminist shall wear revealing clothes.
4. No feminist shall use her body for monetary gain.
5. No feminist shall partake of pornography or unapproved sexual practices.
6. No feminist shall shame any other feminist.
7. All women, all feminists are equal.

1. (revised) "All feminists are equal but some feminists are more equal than others."

Thank you, Mr. Orwell, a bit of tweaking and this was perfect.

So, some of you feminists, if you are going to ignore WoC, and Transwomen, and accuse others of privilege, and suggest other feminists censor or delete their blogs, perhaps you should install this Logo on you own spaces:

“True White Feminist Country; No Brown People, Non-Born Women, Non-Agreeing Females or Sluts Allowed”

….but also for this blast she just posted to RenegadeEvolution’s blog on the APRF’s obsession with bashing her (RenEv’s) new blog header logo (the one with the boxed out boobs and kick-ass boots) as "offensive" and "pornographic":

Okay, so I’ve figured it all out now, logically and everything. I, Rosa, mere student and minion of South Florida, have found the great truth of “Logogate”.

The whole problem is Ren, misanthropic evil little pornified instigator and thug that she is, just does not hate enough.

Startling, I know, especially with all that vitriol and aggressiveness she is accused of, but it is the truth!

Ren does not hate “non approved’ sexual practices, men, porn, sex work, nudity, conventional beauty, money, choice, crass and crude behavior enough. Most importantly, she does not hate herself, what she does, or what she has become nearly enough. That’s her sin. She’s augmented her breasts, shaves her body, poses nude, makes porn, gets naked for money, swings, dresses as a ‘sexbot’, and she has the nerve not to hate herself for it.

How the fuck dare she not hate herself for it?! How dare she not hate men and blame them for her “seedy, degraded lifestyle”? How dare she actually state that she is willingly this way, and wanted to be this way, and refuse to accept that the Patriarchy made her do it? How dare she take pride in the body she’s worked and paid for? How dare she show off the fruits of that work and money? How dare she enjoy the type of sex she enjoys? How dare she make a living in the field that she has chosen? How dare she do and say all these things without loathing her very existence every second of every day? How dare she not hate herself, her image, her industry, the horrible fucktoy she’s become, when all these other people say she should! How dare she?

How dare Ren not despise herself, her body, her sexuality and what men do to her? How dare she get off scott-free and in the clear when so many other women despise themselves, their bodies, their sexuality and what men have done them?

And THAT’S it, right there. She doesn’t have the solidarity of self-loathing going for her. That’s the real reason she’s offensive. The bod, the fake tits, the job, the rough sex, all of that would be fine if Ren just hated herself a little bit more. If she could weep and bemoan the evils of the Pornstitution, from a personal level, everything would be just fine.

Fuck you, Ren. Fuck you for not hating yourself. Fuck you for not crying over how the business made you starve yourself, paint yourself, shave yourself and get fake tits. Fuck you for finding that beautiful. Fuck you for not waxing on tragically about how many times you’ve been raped and forced to service men in the most dehumanized of ways. Fuck you for not crying out of sadness and despair every time you spread your legs or suck cock. Fuck you for not claiming dp and anal sex are not the most demeaning things in the universe. Fuck you for claiming to be anything other than the poor, used, dehumanized piece of meat you are. Fuck you for not being suicidal. Fuck you for not being a junkie. Fuck you for not being a single mom desperately and tragically forced into this life to support a family. Fuck you for not getting beaten. Fuck you for not having diseases. Fuck you for not being a victim. Fuck you for being alive. Fuck you for making it so hard for us. And fuck you for not being nearly miserably enough.

Like you SHOULD be.

Like WE are.

Fuck you.

2:41 PM

Or, to further condense and distill:  Fuck you, Ren, (and all other rebel feminist dissenters and heretics) for not assimilating into the APRF Borg collective.

The Official SmackDog Chronicles Fighting 101st Progressive Headslap/Headbussa Brigade(tm) just got a new souljah sista.  Welcome in, mamacita, and keep bringing it. 

BTW…I believe that with those killa boots and the new attitude, I’m adding RenEv to the team, too.

For the record, the charter members of the F 101st PHHB are (in no particular order of rank):

‘Da Queer Bitch (formerly be elle)
Rosarose
Belledame
Blackamazon
BfP
Nina Hartley
Kevin Andre Elliot
Ernest Greene (Nina’s husband and all around hellraiser)
Dennis Perron
Renegade Evolution
Ilestre
Doug Henwood/Liza Featherstone
Sheldon Ranz
Bruce Dixon and Glenn Ford of The Black Agenda Report
Shauna O’Brien (former softcore actress/model, retired)
Nubian of Blac(k)ademic (on hiatus)
Molly Ivins (posthumous)

I could have missed a few…when I think of them I’ll post them here.

 

 

 

OK, It’s Bob Jensen Fisking Time Once Again!!!

Now that there’s been enough time since my initial tease last night, here’s the down low on the lowdown tactics and verse of antiporn male "feminist" Robert Jensen and his latest attempt to slay the porn demons.

The background for the following is that Jensen is co-hosting (along with his long-time sidekick and porn slayer Dr. Gail Dines) an antiporn "feminist" conference later this month at Wheelock College next month; and as a promo for that confab (in which likeminded antiporn radfem crusaders such as Chyng Sun, Rebecca Whisnant, and Melissa Fairley among others will simply make the case as to why adult consensual sexual behavior and the porn that reflects such behavior is the foundation for all the evils done to society….ahhh, I mean, to women), he posted an article last weekend in AlterNet attempting to defend the nature of antipornfem from their detractors and critics.

The main topic of Jensen’s grip and moan this time is the meme that his objection to the legality and legitimacy of porn is tantamount to being "anti-sex".  Never mind the fact that radfem activists have consumed reams of paper and pixels of type to debunk that claim (or that perhaps that claim may have some semblance of truth, in that many antiporn activists — feminist or religious — do indeed have a personal disgust and loathing for certain sex acts, even when performed completely consensually); it is standard operational procedure for APRF’s to answer that challenge…even when it’s never offered to begin with.

Unfortunately for Jensen, this attempt causes more damage to him than his intended targets.  To wit:

At a progressive media reform conference dedicated to resisting corporate control of mass media, where many of the participants focus on gender and racial justice, it shouldn’t be difficult to interest people in the feminist critique of mass-marketed pornography.

After all, the pornography industry creates a steady stream of relentlessly sexist and racist films and web sites that undermine attempts to build a healthy sexual culture, while filling the pornographers’ pockets with substantial profits. A general critique of the effects of misogyny, white supremacy, and predatory corporate capitalism on mass media dovetails perfectly with the feminist critique of sexual-exploitation media.

Of course, the "feminist critique of pornography" consists entirely of the practicioners who will be hosting and shilling Jensen’s own personal views about sexuality and porn….those critiques, including those from pro-sex and sex-positive feminists  that don’t meet that level standard (that is, those who actually don’t back total censorship and shaming and humilation and objectification of men and women who don’t meet his rigid standards of a "healthy sexual culture") will be conspicuosly absent from such an "open debate".

And of course, in Jensen’s eyes, only hardcore porn is uniquely responsible for White supremacy or predatory corporate capitalism or misogyny….so much for the larger non-sexual media and their representations..or the forces of the Right.

Yet as I circulated at last month’s National Conference on Media Reform and distributed fliers for an upcoming feminist conference on pornography, the responses I got were often skeptical and sometimes hostile. The questions that were commonly asked of me that weekend revealed the need for the left/progressive political community to deepen its understanding of the issue.

Oh, gee, Professor Jensen….so people aren’t buying into your nonsense as much as before?? Call the Waaaahhhhhhhh-ambulance, please.

The most common of those questions was, "Is your conference an anti-sex project?" reflecting the common distortion that feminist critics of pornography share the right-wing’s obsessions about containing sexuality within traditional "family values."

My co-author Gail Dines has developed a clear response to the question, which I borrowed during the weekend in Memphis: When we criticize McDonald’s for its unhealthy food, environmentally destructive business practices, and targeting of children through manipulative advertising, does anyone ask whether we are "anti-food"? Of course not, because no one conflates McDonald’s with food; we recognize that there are many ways to prepare food, and it’s appropriate to critique the more toxic varieties. The same holds for pornography; pursuing a healthy sexuality does not mean we have to support toxic pornography.

Now let’s break this down brick by brick, shall we??

On the basic fact….errrrr, "distortion"…..that APFM’s share (if not totally embrace) the sexual fascism of the Christian FRight (*): I guess that sourcing the likes of John Court and Judith Reisman (aka Judith Bath-Ada); testifying in front of the Brownback committee on censoring porn; supporting the direct and indirect censorship efforts such as suing any producer or user of erotic material as a violation of ALL women’s civil rights…that would not be aiding and abetting the "antisex" project, now wouldn’t it??? Oh, but because we are soooooo progressive and "leftist" and don’t go around throwing the Bible at people, that makes our project "pro-sex" and OK by comparison???

But it’s this McDonalds analogy that has me in stiches.  I mean, really, not even the most renowned and strident critic of MickeyD’s cooking habits would ever go further than to petition them to change their cooking methods to become more health-friendly, or to simply get those customers who may diisagree to spend their money elsewhere. Not to mention the basic fact that using Ronald McDonald to attract kids to his restaurants is standard operational procedure for ALL businesses in capitalism….would Jensen be so down on McD’s if they switched to more enviornmentally friendly and worker-friendly policies?? Or…if they didn’t, but decided to make a serious financial/political contribution to his antiporn battles??? Asking McDonalds to switch away from using trans fats is one thing, giving obese people the power to sue them for treble damages on behalf of all overweight people who dined at that place (or simply ALL obese people) is something else entirely.

And let’s not gloss over this business of protecting "healthy sexuality" from "toxic pornography"….the latter phrase being a Trojan horse used to conflate bad Anabolitc/Meatholes/Rob Black "in your face" misogyny with Playboy/Penthouse pinups, girl/girl sex clips sold on MySpace and YouTube (until those organizations were bought out by the same "corporate cannibal capitalists" such as Google and Yahoo! and NewsCorp..and promptly filtered out and purged adult sexual content from those sites), and websites of single women masturbating to the delight of their male and female viewers.

Another common response was, "Do you support censorship?" reflecting a distortion of what feminists have proposed as remedies to the problem of pornography. First, the original feminist anti-pornography movement in the 1980s rejected state censorship that works through existing obscenity law and proposed a civil-rights approach that would give people hurt by pornography a chance in court to prove the harm. There are questions to ask about any legal strategy involving expression, and concerns about suppression of free speech are important; there are even disagreements within the feminist anti-pornography movement about this. But that discussion should start from an accurate account of the alternatives.

Second, at this point in the feminist anti-pornography movement the focus is on public education. The goal is to begin an honest conversation about the way in which "mainstream" pornography, the bulk of which is marketed to heterosexual men, is increasingly cruel and degrading to women and more openly racist than ever — at the same time that it is increasingly accepted as mainstream entertainment. It’s ironic to be accused of trying to suppress free speech when trying simply to exercise free speech in critique of profit-driven sexism and racism.

[Emphasis added by me.]

Oh, really, they did, Professor Jensen??? So a law that would basically bankrupt purveyors of sexual material into nonexistence by offering triple damages through lawsuits by ANY woman claiming to represent ALL women allegedly damaged by porn as a violation of ALL women’s civil rights is NOT state censorship by your definition???  Even when it is proposed in state institutions??  Even when they are passed by local councils and legislatures?? Even when they are approved as law by the judicial system??  The same judicial system, BTW, that are controlled by mostly the very same White male wealthy "cannibalistic" capitalists..many of whom are directly funded if not totally su;pported by the Christian FRight????  Did you manage to miss the Meese Commission hearings, Professor Jensen, where the committee packed with and backed by CFRighters directly integrated the very same rhetoric you use today about "healthy sexuality" and "degrading women" into their findings (while rejecting the "civil rights approach" proposed by your mentor Catherine MacKinnon)??

And I am sure that there is a very real debate amongst even antipornradfems about the use of the state in pursuing their goals…..then why is that not reflected in your conference lineup??  I mean, every single one of your speakers are not only rabidly antiporn, but openly support the use of the state to impose censorship on (not to mention to intimidate, threaten and smear) those not conforming to your standards. Of course, it’s your conference to invite whomever you want…but let’s get a bit more real about claiming to "exercise free speech" while supressing others.

Jensen concludes his article with this zinger:

There was much insightful criticism at the conference of the subtle sexism and racism that still pervades mainstream corporate-commercial mass media. Although men and white people — including in progressive circles — are sometimes resistant to that analysis, no one argues that it’s an inappropriate topic for discussion. Yet for some reason, many of those same progressives — men and women alike — don’t consider a left/feminist/anti-racist critique of pornography to be part of the media reform/media justice agenda. Why? I think it has to do with fear.

Facing the pornography industry forces us to acknowledge the deep misogyny and white supremacy that still exists in the culture, even with the gains of the feminist and civil-rights movements. Both women and men might understandably be afraid of confronting what pornography tells us about the cruelty of our culture, our own sexual socialization, and the difficult struggles we face to create a world free of sexual violence.

That fear is real, and all the more reason to confront the issue of pornography more openly.

First, notice the veil-like implied silencing of women and people of color who might have a problem with Jensen’s alnalysis….as if the only "progressives" who are "resistant" to Jensen’s crackpot analysis happen to be White privileged men who are only being addicted to their penises.  Of course, all women are down completely with antipornradfem agenda…even if they aren’t really, they are just victims of the patriarchy waiting for the speakers of this conference to give them the enlightenment to break free from their chains of repression.

But the final straw for me is Jensen’s insistence that the antipornradfem total abolitionist critique should be THE ONLY "left/feminist/antiracist" critique allowed. For someone who labeled his article as a call for open debate, he has a unique way of eliminating other real life critiques of porn….such as from insiders that seek to reform erotica and porn to become more humane and respectful of eroticism and sexuality as it actually exists and the people who do the "dirty work" in creating it (which is a bit different than the restrictive and reactionary "healthy sexuality" that Jensen and the APRF’s would impose on humanity).

There happen to be some of us Leftists, feminists, and antiracists, Professor Jensen, who think that totally obsessing themselves with shaming people who do no harm to themselves or to others by having erections and damp panties probably doesn’t make for legitimate or effective radical politics…indeed, it simply sells out to the same forces of reaction which have exploited the diversity of sexuality for their own purposes.  If you really want to talk about the cruelty of our culture or the caniballism of capitalism or White supremacy, it would be far, far better to aim your gun sights a bit higher up than people’s crotches and breasts….try the main boobs who currently occupies the White House and their wealthy benefactors currently making huge bank off the torture and murder of other peoples, for an real example. And misogyny didn’t start or end with porn, either….what about the traditional attempts by the State to take away women’s reproductive choices and autonomy, or the continuing attempt to shame and humiliate those who are victims of sexual assault and battery…or simply those who deviate from the "norm" of  seeking sex for "intimacy" or pumping more babies for The Church or The Corporation.

And if sexual violence managed to survive before erotica and porn became popular, I’m guessing that banishing porn from the face of the natural earth (while we still have one, that is) won’t rid the world of such violence, either.

But what the hell do I know….I’m just an underprivileged Leftist Black sex radical male who manages to respect women in spite of having a working dick…..so perhaps I may be in need of Robert Jensen’s unique perspective.

No.  I don’t think so.  I respect women and sexuality and Leftist principles waaaaay too much for that.

The only fear that I see is that Robert Jensen and the APRM’s are being revealed for the nonsense they are…maybe that’s the real reason why they called this conference. A few pro-sex feminists in attendence respectfully representing the truth would be welcome.

I am a feminist supporter and a Leftist..and I watch nonviolent, non-degrading, progressive porn. (And some maybe not so progressive). Deal with it.

[BTW…the comments accompanying Jensen’s essay contain plenty of heat from all sides of the debate…pro-porn, anti-porn, anti-censorship, and everywhere in between. Some links do require many clicks, but it is more than worth going through as a prototype of the real debate amongst progressives that Jensen goes so far to supress. Just scroll past the original article. (Warning: Over 250+ comments so far!!)]