OMF’nG….Heart(less) Sweeps The Lunacy Sweepstakes…Again

Just when you think that she couldn’t find new depths of lunacy in her crusade to defend “radical feminism” from the scurge of erection-wielding men, transfolk and sexbot women, Heart(less) digs deep into her yoni (or would that be the other end??) and breaks out this nice little rant at her place against the latest in “radfem slogging” (to steal Stormy’s apt phrase) and trashing of her “critique” of transfolk who pollute her sacred womynspace.

Interpretation and added emphasis by me is included just for entertainment purposes only.

A Few Words About the Latest Round of Anti-Radical Feminist, Pro-Men’s Rights, Propaganda

A few responses to the latest anti-radical feminist tactics, screeds, attacks, propaganda:

Radical feminists are no more “transphobes” than we are “manhaters.”  To allege that we are is to indulge in sexist, misogynist, anti-feminist propaganda.   The herstoric position of radical feminism is that those who are born male into this world enjoy male privilege, for all of the years they live as males and as men.  It is never “_phobic” for an oppressed people group — which females certainly are – to castigate its oppressors, even in harsh and mean-spirited terms, with name-calling, swearing, and hyperbole.  It might be mean-spirited, we might be generalizing, we might be stereotyping, we might — and likely are — angry, but we aren’t “manhaters” because we denounce what men do or because we denounce male privilege, which again, all who are born male into the world have or have had.    Male to female transsexuals/transgendered persons have enjoyed male privilege, for all of the time that they have moved and lived in the world as males or continue to.  To call them out for their sexism whenever we see it, find it, hear of it, know of it, are targeted by it,  are impacted and affected by it  is not “transphobic.”  It is feminism.

Ahhhh…eeeeee-yah. Of course, when “radical feminist” women trash transsexuals as simply rapists and “chicks with dicks” trying to get into real womyn’s panties, it surely isn’t bigotry or hatred or even “transphobia”…it’s just decent classic feminist critique of “male privilege”. Now, the fact that most transsexuals don’t have the choice to lop off their dicks and become real womyn (not that even that would suffice in the deranged den of cobwebs that consists of Heart(less)’s brain, since only “biowomen” can be truly oppressed as women by the patriarchy), or that such “privilege” that they are alleged to retain usually comes at the steep risk of getting beaten down by other men of “privilege”, doesn’t seem to register at all with her radfem manifesto.  And besides…some of those evil transfolk happen to be born with vaginas, too; but never mind that….just having a dick makes you powerful enough. So why am I not a freakin’ millionaire, Heart, just by osmosis??

 Female-to-male transsexuals/transgendered persons are situated much differently than male-to-female transsexuals/transgendered persons.  Transmen have not enjoyed male  privilege for any of the years they lived as females and as women, and they never enjoy male privilege as men do.   When radical feminists call out transpersons, we are calling them out on their sexism.  This means that most of the time, we are calling out transwomen or trans-identified men, not transmen. 

Ahhh…hold up a sec……so, FTM “transmen” (I assume that Patrick (nee Pat) Califia would be an exception, because he’s against everything Heart(less) stands for), who now live as men, are exempt from being part of the evol patriarchy because they lived as women prior to their surgery and their change in sexual orientation?? But by that logic, shouldn’t they be the ultimate sellouts to womynhood for abandoning their natural “sex” and taking on that penis??? Why should they get a free ride??  Oh, and if male power is so overwhelming, then shouldn’t MTF “transwomen” actually get some credit for rejecting and repudiating such “male privilege”??  Oh, but nooooooooosiree…..it’s all about their schlongs attempting to distort and destroy the purity of natural womynspace.  Oh, and the fact that they might attempt to seduce real biowomyn in bathrooms out of the sisterhood doesn’t help their cause, either.

Were that the worst of Heart’s rant, I could barely let it slide…..but then she attempts to seperate herself and her transhating minnions from the Religious Right….and only ends up making things that much worse.

To compare radical feminists to the Religious Right is propaganda, it is a smear campaign, it is disingenuous, and it is transparently and hatefully misogynist.   Shame on “progressives” who can’t find more positive ways to articulate their perspectives than to engage in down and dirty cheap shots of this nature.

Oh, but she must be right…..I mean, giving the nod and wink to the likes of Luckynkl and MarySunshine and delphyne comparing transsexual women to evil gay men cruising public restrooms is certainly much different than the lunacies of NARTH or the ex-gays.  Really, it is. And woe to such “progressives” who simply attack the fundamentalists who rip on the perversity of “the gay/tranny lifestyle” without understanding the subtle nuance of radfem theory which is at least more “positive” in its willingness to suck up to….errrrrrr, criticize traditional conservatives for their beliefs against sexual dissidents.

I was personally put out of business by the Religious Right.  I sued eight fundamentalist organizations including several fundamentalist churches in federal court in 1997 and I won by a unanimous jury verdict.   It’s silly to attempt to lump me in with the Religious Right.   Having said that, I would much rather deal with the open and unapologetic misogyny of the Religious Right than with the veiled and unapologetic misogyny of white leftist liberal men.  At least with the Religious Right, all the cards are on the table, and I do not have to, for example, deal with someone who is calling himself a “feminist” who prostitutes women, makes, uses, or benefits from the making of pornography, and engages in other acts of male oppression and privilege while pretending to be my ally .

Translation: “No, I’m not a fundamentalist antisex hatemonger, but when fundies happen to share my fear and loathing of evil ‘white leftist liberal men’ (hey, Heart, I’m not a liberal or White; so am I exempted from your wrath??) who defend porn, prostitiution, and other evil “male oppressive” sex acts, I can work with them anytime.”

There are plenty of transgender/transsexual people who are religious fundamentalists and the Religious Right does not take any unified  or unitary position as to transgender/transsexuality.  To suggest that it does is to participate in, and be guilty of, the willful ignorance around issues of religious fundamentalism and religion in general of which far too many liberals, self-identified feminists, and “progressives” so-called are guilty, which ruins whatever shreds of credibility remain so far as the Left goes and clouds the credibility of progressive movements in general.  

Ahhhhh….I get it now; Heart’s brand of antipornradicalfeminism is really a page from her conception of the “Religious Left”; a nice means of retaining political credibility while appealing to social conservatives. But I guess that “credibility” amongst the Left can only be found by parroting the Right on social policy and making sexually Puritanical women the new vangard of the progressive movement.  Didn’t the Democratic Leadership Council already try that tact for the last 20 years, and fall flat on its face??

People need to do their homework about the Religious Right if there is to be any productive confrontation or challenge to fundamentalisms (as opposed to tickle-for-a-nickle demonizing and scapegoating).  There are female persons, girls and women, being horrifically oppressed by fundamentalist men.  They deserve and need our educated and intelligent SUPPORT.  Women and girls in fundamentalist religion are not similarly situated with men in fundamentalist religion and should not be lumped in with men in fundamentalist religion.  Women in fundamentalist religion are an oppressed people group .

Yeah….Phyllis Schafly and Kathleen Parker and Mona Charen really are radicalfeminists, however they may deny it. They just don’t know it yet…because they are soooo oppressed.

Mary Daly did not “compare transsexuals with Frankenstein.”  This is a lie.

Well, we’ll just let Daly’s own words be the judge of that. From a comment (which was altered by Heart for “snarkiness”) by nexyjo, quoting directly from GYN/Ecology (pp. 70 – 71):

“Today the Frankenstein phenomenon is omnipresent not only in religious myth, but in its offspring, phallocratic technology. The insane desire for power, the madness of boundary violation, is the mark of necrophiliacs who sense the lack of soul/spirit/life-loving principle with themselves and therefore try to invade and kill off all spirit, substituting conglomerates of corpses. This necrophillic invasion/elimination takes a variety of forms. Transsexualism is an example of male surgical siring which invades the female world with substitutes.” 

[Emphasis added by me.]

Remember, this is the same Mary Daly who proposed “Misterectomy” as a cure for all of womyn’s ills.

Going back to Heart(less), who’s never, never out of control (often):

Male-to-female transsexuality/transgender is really about men’s rights.  It has nothing to do with feminism.  As such, as feminists,  just as we oppose men’s rights, in general,  we oppose this manifestation of men’s rights as well.

Because, of course, in a perfect womynhood, men would have no rights that womyn would be bound to respect…in fact, men would probably be reduced in population for the survival of the human race and the good of society in Heart’s grand vision of “progressive radicalfeminist” society. And, of course, transsexualism would not even exist, since technology and womyn’s wisdom will be able to nip any such deviancy in the bud through “natural selection”…or merely trashing “male nanates”.

And finally, Heart concludes with the grand finish:

One more.  Critiques of transgender/transsexuality are no more meant as attacks on individual transgender/transsexual persons than critiques of prostituting women are meant as attacks on prostitutes or critiques of pornography are meant as attacks on women in pornography or critiques of motherhood are meant as attacks on mothers or critiques of marriage as an institution are meant as critiques of married women or critiques of high heels are meant as critiques of those who wear them or critiques of lipstick are critiques of those who wear it or critiques of shaving are critiques of those who shave or critiques of boob jobs are critiques of those who have them, and on and on and on, infinity.   Some ought to get over themselves and learn the difference between critiques, analysis, opinions, politics and them.  I can critique the hell out of your politics and your theories and ideas and go to the mat for you,  love the hell out of you, and be willing to lay down my life for you.   This is what any mother knows.  This is what any lover knows.   If you want to know how to critique and analyze the hell out of something without making it personal, try unconditionally fucking loving somebody, would you?  Then you’ll understand.  Maybe unconditional love is just so goddamn rare right now, nobody knows what it is any more.  And if people don’t learn, then there will not be any revolution, not any time soon.

So, now, all you funk-filled bratwurst lovers, you lipstick faux-lesbians, you stripper prostitute sexbots, you patriarchy/mixed gender fuckers…listen up; Mama Heart has only your best interests at heart (sorry for the pun) when she tells you that you are betraying the sisterhood by getting those implants or dabbing on lip gloss or shaving your legs or putting on those stilettos for your oppressors. How can she show such unconditional love for you if you don’t reciprocate by adopting her ideas to the hilt?? If you’d just stop taking yourself so seriously and just give in to her and her whacked-out beliefs, then she and her Womyn Nation will love you forever and ever….and all will be right with the world. After all, it’s only analysis and science, it’s not personal.

Sure, Heart.  Nothing personal about The Bell Curve or Birth of a Nation, either.

Ann and Nancy Wilson (of the 80’s rock group Heart) oughta sue this woman for libelling their good name. Most decent progressive people should do the same out of general moral principle.

“Pro-Porn Activism”: It’s Our Time Now!!!

Ahhh, lookee here…guess who got really fed up with being misinterpreted and distorted??

And look what she has created in response??

And who in the hell is that whom she invited to guest host there?? Gee….who’d thunk it?? 😉

YeaPornies of the world, go there and unite!!!!  You have nothing to lose but your inhibitions…..and a foe of those heavy chains.

Renegade Evolution: Pro-Porn Activism

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.

While RadRightFems Pontificate, Nina Educates

The following is a passage excerpted from the Introduction of Nina Hartley's latest book, Nina Hartley's Guide to Total Sex. Although the book as a whole is more of an "how to" guide on manuevering through the maze of roses and thorns and ultimate pain and pleasure that is human sexuality; this particular excerpt is where Nina lays out her basic philosophy of sexual freedom from a definite progressive, sex-positive feminist, and sexual liberationist perspective. I post this as a response to all those who continue to insist that those of us who call ourselves "sex-positive" are simply the negation of those we call "sex-negative".

Sexual Liberation: In and Out of Fashion but Always in Style (pp. 5-9)

If there is one thing we've all found out during the past half-century, it's that sex doesn't exist in a political vacuum.  As a woman and a feminist, I developed my own sexual politics from the ideas of others and my own life experiences.  They're simple in theory but not always easily applied.  They require rigorous honesty and a willingness to learn.  I believe the body's innate capacity to experience sexual pleasure is an inherent good, requiring no validation by external authority, but I also understand its power commands respect.  My core position is that, between consenting adults, nothing short of physical harm is forbidden, no form of sexual activity inherently immoral.  For that to be true, consent has to be real.  Consent is not the absence of "no." It is a statement of shared intent that must be continually renewed.  Every party to an act must fully understand and wilingly choose to participate.  Within these parameters, all choices should be honored.  That's been my message for more than twenty years, and I'm sticking to it.

These beliefs have broad implications from which I don't shy away.  I believe that all womnen must have complete access to the full spectrum of reproductive choice.  Without control over fertility, women cannot be equal partners in sexual self-realization, as nature makes the stakes so much higher for us.  I believe all consenting adults have the right to private pleasure without fear of government intrusion or hostile social scrutiny.  As you would expect, I consider the viewing of erotic materials part of that sacrosanct zone of private pleasure.  I do not believe that all sexual relationships are, or should be, struggles for political power.  We all have a say in how political we allow the personal to be.

Sexual liberation requires that we take full responsibility for our actions and that no outside agency or church, state, or social organization should be allowed to do that for us.   I believe that sexual jealousy is not "natural" but learned and that it can also be unlearned. I believe that we each have within us all the love and joy we need (with plenty left over to share with others), and that only fear and conditioning prevent us from accessing those feelings.  I believe that our bodies and our feelings, if honored and trusted, can lead us to our best lives, despite our diverse backgrounds.  I realize that these ideas have been vigorously challenged from many quarters.  Though I've submitted my own thinking to the test of daily life and the ongoing examination of what Zen calls "the beginner's mind," I remain an unabashed sexual liberationist in the broadest sense.  My agenda is not hidden.

Sex, in its purely physical expression, has no intristic meaning.  We, as adults, must give it meaning each and every time we choose to be intimate with one another.  The beauty of the body is that it has its own wisdom, its own language, and its own timetable.  Physiology has no "right" or "wrong."  Friction on the flesh produces the release of neurotransmitters that, in turn, stimulate regions of the brain.  Our skin is our largest organ.  Not only does it keep our insides in and pathogens out; it also transmits sensations….and some square inches are more sensitive to attention than others.  Caring touch keeps infants healthy, and lack of touch will create a condition called "failure to thrive," a potentially life-threatening syndrome most commonly seen in institutionalized children….though it can occur in any child lacking adequate care.

Only though touch do we learn at the most basic, nonverbal level that we are loved, safe, and important to our caregivers.  How we are touched in infancy and early childhood directly affects the development of our brains, particularly the ability to form healthy attachments in later life.  It's not just essential in childhood; we need it all through life.  In adulthood, one form that need takes is erotic desire.  It's inevitable, eternal, purposeful, and precious.  It's also anarchic, distracting, subversive, and frequently quite selfish.

Every culture has rules and limitations surrounding sexual behavior, though we often fail to take that into account when our own choices are in question.  In our search for personally satisfying erotic lives, we must understand how the culture of our childhood affects us today.  Was it particularly modest? Free and open about nudity? Judgmental of unconventional sexualities? Shame based? Fear based? Did it stress comformity or encourage individuality?

All through life, emotional connection starts with physical contact, through the dominant "romantic" conception of relationships as constructed by our culture insists otherwise.  When we open up our exploration of sex, we find it infinitely more complex and nuanced than we ever imagined.  Many forces are in play when we allow ourselves to be sexual, and we need to be aware of their influences.  While sex itself may be "natural," in humans, all sexual behavior is learned.

In order to be whole, we can and must learn what kind of sexual expression is authentic for us and own it, choose for ourselves what restraints to put on it, and ultimately make peace with it.  I believe that this happens anyway, whether conscious or not….which is why consciousness is so important.  Human beings  have proven miraculously resistant to ferocious external pressures on their sexuality.  Western civilization has inveighed against the sinful excesses of sexuality for centuries and seen no reduction in them whatsoever.  Clearly, like it or not, individual sexual choice will always be in individual hands….and that's exactly where I think it belongs.  I put my faith in the basic good intentions and good sense of human beings when it comes to sex.

It's worth every tear, every struggle, and every heartache to make peace with our sexual selves, even if we never choose to share our bodies.  When we are truly centered in this way, we no longer fear the opinions of others or need to judge what others do.  Our first and most important relationship is that with ourselves, and coming to terms with our bodies is the cornerstone of that relationship.  Grounded in self-acceptance, we can build healthy relationships based on love and respect instead of desperation and deceit.  There is so much more on the line than momentary pleasure.  When total sex is a legitimate end to itself, its most important function is as a strong foundation for emotional intiimacy.  That is its ultimate satisfaction.

When I talk about "total sex," I don't just mean "totally hot sex" or "totally rockin' sex," though these are certainly desirable goals in themselves.  I mean sex that involves us totally, encompassing all the biological and emotional forces at work inside that remarkably sensitive envelope through which we feel the physical world. 

That's the kind of sex I've learned to have….and you can, too.

[Slight varations in syntax by me, but the words are all Nina's, posted with her permission.
Copyright 2006 Avery Press, with addition permission from Nina Hartley/Ira S. Levine]

And they say that all we care about are our erections and "moist pussies"?? Ahhhh…yeah.

 

A Hater Bigot At The Hands Of A Pissed-Off Henchwoman

Oh..but you just HAVE to go over to Renegade Evolution’s blog today, and read where she just broke off Witchy-Woo in the proper way.

Apparantly, W-W, in all her finest arrogant assholery, decided to post a comment in this thread in defense of the manager at the domestic violence shelter who decided that Ren wasn’t good enough to volunteer there due to her chosen profession as a sex worker. An excerpt of one of the jucier bits:

[…] 

2. Many of the resident women and children are seeking safety from the effects of what you do – the effects that it has on their own lives. Sexual violence? Ever heard that that ‘fun’ thing you do has repercussions on the real lives of real women (and children)? Well, yes, I know you have because I’ve told you. 

As the manager of a Women’s Refuge (shelter) there’s no way I’d accept a pornography performer as a volunteer because pornography harms women and anyone who has women’s interests at heart would know that. Ergo: porn performers have a somewhat different agenda. Refuges (shelters) don’t exist to help the volunteer’s feel good – we exist to help stop women and children from being killed and to enable their recovery process.

Perhaps the former director’s boundaries were a tad blurred – whatever, I don”t know – but, for all your suck-up’s, saying “asshole – how awful for you”, maybe you should prioritise the life-safety of abused women and children above the needs of a comfortable and wealthy prostitute who has no idea of the damage she does to other real live women…Totally behind the new shelter manager – that’s how things should be done – if you’re a feminist with women’s interests in mind.
 

Feel free to note the “I’ve told you” bit…as if W-W has, by self-decree of her being a radicalfeminist, given herself the all the powers of presuming to represent all of womanhood in her reading the Scarlet Letter of “slut” and “sexbot” onto Ren…and her dictates that even all the good that she has done can’t erase the permanant taint of her apparant stain of being a porn performer and a sex worker….which, in W-W’s twisted mind, automatically disqualifies Ren from ever blackening the doors of any true “feminist” women’s shelter.

And of course, there’s the usual explicit vent (quite unlike the implicit, thinly-veiled assaults of alisalives, if you will remember) that by virtue of her mere existence and her profession, Ren and any other sex worker who does not completely dance in total unity to the radicalfeminist antiporn hymnal, is responsible for all the evil acts that men impose on women for all eternity.

And…”comfortable and wealthy prostitute”.  Goodness, is Ren hiding her mansion from us??

Anyways…after removing the knife from her back (since W-W had been previously playing the moderate “good cop” role in the side while folks like StormCloud and Heart and delphyne launched the real stinkbombs), Ren went on full “red alert rage” mode and read the full Riot Act at W-W. 

Witchy:

And to think I EVER considered you someone worth making bonds with…Here’s the deal, Witchy. I never told, she fucking asked. I worked my fucking ass off at that shelter, and MY EVIL male driver sent a few abusive male boyfriends, ex’s, pimps and whomevers on their way AWAY from those women. AND FUCK YOU, you think what you do and say doesn’t have repercussions on me, on Kim, on Amber, good women all shot to shit by things you’ve said? Don’t talk fucking woman-hating without looking in the goddamn mirror. Shit, you, someone I actually DARED to believe in as a damn middle ground burned me on feminism, period. I never DID this to feel good about myself, Witchy, you fucking forget that I WAS ABUSED, but by a WOMAN so I guess that was okay? That does not MATTER? I had no help, I grew up with not a whole lot and no one was there to HELP me when I needed it? When my arm was a mess of bloody burns or when MY ribs were broken AND MAYBE I want to help people because NO one was there to help me?

SO NO, WITCHY, FUCK YOU. I have HAD it with this…I grew up with NOTHING, in case you fucking MISSED that, and I want to help people, and more than ANYTHING I am damn burned that you DARE speak ill of the old director, Vi, who, sorry, unless you have LIVED in DC…well, cupcake, you have NO idea of what you speak.

[…]

All your fucking work? Shit, woman, I spent time in Kenya setting up space for raped children and OTHER abused people, I’ve marched on DC, I’ve helped women who do not enjoy the work I do out of the business, and I’ve fucking cleaned blood and grey matter of of floors where I would one day sleep….so don’t you tell me. Don’t you ever tell me ever again. I do what I do because I have to, I want to, and it’s right, everything I do. So no…don’t you tell me.Unless It is to say what a fucking FOOL I was for EVER believing in YOU.
 

You know…if people fascist, sex-hating smug asshats like Witchy-Woo are the future of feminism, then I may have to do as Queer Dewd ended up doing and just say: “Fuck feminists”.  (And not in the sex-positive meaning of that phrase, either.)

 

Radical[Right]Feminism Rears Its Head Again

[Written in social solidarity with Ren]

I guess that the moral to this is simple:

In the APRF world, all women are created equal.

That is, until some women decide to engage in professions that become anathema to APRF ideology.

Then, of course, they become pariahs, and slightly less equal….and must be purged to protect the purity of the "sisterhood".

Regardless even if they volunteer their time and effort to help actual victims of the very abuses that radfems want to abolish.

Because, you see, freezing out women for the sin of getting paid for sex is so much more important than having effective workers who help victims of domestic violence.

Just like it’s far more important for the Boy Scouts to maintain their "Christian" purity standards and purge out gay men.

Or for a "women’s only" rape crisis center to deny services to a transsexual so that "women-identified women" can get special privileged treatment…at the expense of other rape and DV victims.

But, I’m sure that the likes of Heart(less), Stormcloud, and the rest of the posse are nodding their heads in agreement.  That’ll show that sexbot bitch how not to mess with "us".

So much for antipornradicalfeminism being anything other than a clone of the Christian Right.

Fight on, Henchwoman…and just fuck ’em all.

 

The “Janet Parshall” Doctrine (APRF Update)

When the facts don’t jibe with your particular faith, attack the messenger as unpatriotic/patriarchial/radical.whatever.

Case in point: This shorthand of an online rumble:

Anti-Porn Radfem (aka Faith of Feminist Nation): Oh, rats….look at all those nasty Google search terms loading up my other blog about what men surf for in porn; just proves why we oughta wipe it out!!!

Sex-PosFem (aka Trinity of The Strangest Alchemy): Oh, really?? You do know that most of those "searches" could have been generated through spam bots, right??  And that that says nothing about the overwhelming majority of porn surfers who go towards legal adult consensual porn, right??  Try being a bit less emotional, OK??

Faith: Emotional???  I’m being emotional???  Why, you no good pro-porn sellout, I have PROOF of how porn destroys women and distorts men; get the fingers out of your damn ears and listen, you Janet Parshall wannabe!!

Trinity: Oh, please….that’s your proof??  And, OMG….thery’re all from right-wing antifeminist Christian fundamentalist right groups and right-wing think tanks!!! You know, the ones who want to destroy feminists like you???  For shame!!

Faith: What???  You calling me a right-wing fundamentalist?? Look, now…you just don’t want to admit that in your heart, I’m right and that porn really is evil and should be banned. And stop lumping us radfems with the Christian Right; we are fundamentally different!!

Pro-Porn Supporting Men (played by Iamcuriousblue and moi): Ahhh, Faith…is the shoe fitting a bit too comfortably here?? the complicit alliance between APRF’s and the Christian Right isn’t a figment of the imagination; it’s proven FACT and HISTORY.  Who’s doing the denial now??

Faith: Oh, there you pornified liberal men go again! Of course you’d defend porn….what would you say about defending Larry Flynt’s racist, misogynist ass?? Don’t blame us radfems….ahhh, I mean, feminists if we want to protect women and children from you men!!

Moi:  Ahhhh…Flynt has not a damn thing to do with this…unless you have proof that other than some nasty book covers and  a few satirical cartoons, Flynt and HUSTLER represents the heart of "trafficking of women". And what about those women who fight against everything you say you are against, but stop short of endorsing your brand of sex-shaming and male-baiting…I guess that they aren’t feminists now?? But the likes of Judith Reisman and Alberto Gonzales are, their antifeminism on other matters aside??

Faith: OK, OK…I changed the links to a less homophobic and more neutral source.  Happy now??

Moi: You call that "neutral"?? You do know that the founder of that group was the very one who prosecuted Mapplethorpe and Flynt on obscenity charges, right?? And that he once said that even softcore simulated sex scenes in cable and satellite TV should be prosecuted and banished under his interpretation of obscenty law?? Hell..James Dobson would be merely "conservative" in your mind??

Goodness. With "feminists" like Faith, who needs Pat Robertson???

 

 

 

 

The “Janet Parshall” Doctrine (APRF Update)

When the facts don’t jibe with your particular faith, attack the messenger as unpatriotic/patriarchial/radical.whatever.

Case in point: This shorthand of an online rumble:

Anti-Porn Radfem (aka Faith of Feminist Nation): Oh, rats….look at all those nasty Google search terms loading up my other blog about what men surf for in porn; just proves why we oughta wipe it out!!!

Sex-PosFem (aka Trinity of The Strangest Alchemy): Oh, really?? You do know that most of those "searches" could have been generated through spam bots, right??  And that that says nothing about the overwhelming majority of porn surfers who go towards legal adult consensual porn, right??  Try being a bit less emotional, OK??

Faith: Emotional???  I’m being emotional???  Why, you no good pro-porn sellout, I have PROOF of how porn destroys women and distorts men; get the fingers out of your damn ears and listen, you Janet Parshall wannabe!!

Trinity: Oh, please….that’s your proof??  And, OMG….thery’re all from right-wing antifeminist Christian fundamentalist right groups and right-wing think tanks!!! You know, the ones who want to destroy feminists like you???  For shame!!

Faith: What???  You calling me a right-wing fundamentalist?? Look, now…you just don’t want to admit that in your heart, I’m right and that porn really is evil and should be banned. And stop lumping us radfems with the Christian Right; we are fundamentally different!!

Pro-Porn Supporting Men (played by Iamcuriousblue and moi): Ahhh, Faith…is the shoe fitting a bit too comfortably here?? the complicit alliance between APRF’s and the Christian Right isn’t a figment of the imagination; it’s proven FACT and HISTORY.  Who’s doing the denial now??

Faith: Oh, there you pornified liberal men go again! Of course you’d defend porn….what would you say about defending Larry Flynt’s racist, misogynist ass?? Don’t blame us radfems….ahhh, I mean, feminists if we want to protect women and children from you men!!

Moi:  Ahhhh…Flynt has not a damn thing to do with this…unless you have proof that other than some nasty book covers and  a few satirical cartoons, Flynt and HUSTLER represents the heart of "trafficking of women". And what about those women who fight against everything you say you are against, but stop short of endorsing your brand of sex-shaming and male-baiting…I guess that they aren’t feminists now?? But the likes of Judith Reisman and Alberto Gonzales are, their antifeminism on other matters aside??

Faith: OK, OK…I changed the links to a less homophobic and more neutral source.  Happy now??

Moi: You call that "neutral"?? You do know that the founder of that group was the very one who prosecuted Mapplethorpe and Flynt on obscenity charges, right?? And that he once said that even softcore simulated sex scenes in cable and satellite TV should be prosecuted and banished under his interpretation of obscenty law?? Hell..James Dobson would be merely "conservative" in your mind??

Goodness. With "feminists" like Faith, who needs Pat Robertson???

 

 

 

 

Where “Reefer Madness” Meets “Raunch Culture” (Or, Radfems Gone Wild…Again)

Dig, if you will, this picture:

A putatively "liberal feminist" writer for a neoliberal website writes an essay for the website of the not-so-liberal Wall Street Journal Op-Ed section decrying the antics of Girls Gone Wild creator Joe Francis (who is still, in my book, a grand insult to assholes everywhere for using young women for his profits)….and, as a means of granting protection to young adult women from such sexual predators, calls for legislation raising the legal age for consenting to perform in adult sexual media from 18 to 21….for their own protection, of course.

It is true that teenagers become legal adults at the age of 18, right around the time they graduate from high school. The age of consent to serve in the armed forces is also 18 (17 with parental consent), as is the minimum voting age since 1971, when an amendment to the Constitution lowered it from 21. But the federal government is already happy to bar legal adults from engaging in certain activities. Most notably, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 raised the drinking age to 21 (by threatening to withhold highway funds from states that did not go along). In practice, the age limit is flouted on college campuses and in private homes. But it has still had a positive effect, not least by driving down fatalities from drunk driving.

A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery–that is, for participating in pornography–would most likely operate in the same way, sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world’s next Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of "talent." And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself–long since routinized–but its "barely legal" category. "Girls Gone Wild"–like its counterparts on the Web–is treated as a kind of joke. It isn’t. There ought to be a law.

— excerpt from Garance Franke-Ruta: Age Of Innocence Revisited (OpinionJournal.com)

Never mind that most of the regulations on alcohol she cites deal not with private consumption or even age limits, but with blood-alcohol level and purchasing of alcoholic beverages, or that the law she quoted did not legislatively raise the age but simply threatened to pull highway spending to those states who refused to go along. But that’s moving away from the main topic here…

Anyways….said writer gets deservedly whacked for her proposal as a infantilization of otherwise legal adult women who are simply not to be trusted with their own judgement and free will on such matters; as a gross paternalism that dictates that young women old enough to be drafted to die in war and old enough to be executed as adults for capital crimes simply can’t be allowed to make basic decisions about their sexuality; and as an ineffective solution that ignores the modern technology that allows such "hostile" and "damaging" imagery to show up without the aid of GGW cameras.

How does said writer respond to such criticisms??  By breaking out the old "my critics are evil liberal men who care more about their dicks than the damage of raunch culture to women" card:

If I had intentionally set out to write an article intended to provoke a backlash that made liberals look like a bunch of leering louts eager to ogle 18-year-old girls and transform society into a deregulated libertarian paradise where low-income women are routinely exploited, I think I could scarcely have come up with a better approach than the Wall Street Journal piece I published on May 4 arguing for raising the age of consent for appearing in pornography to 21. Such a backlash was, perhaps, entirely fitting, given that the topic was a soft-core porn company that has cut deals with major Democratic Party donors and preys mainly on young women in red states But it was also disappointing in the extreme.

Critics of my article have raised some good points, but by and large the responses were disturbingly marked by a far greater concern for access to pornographic depictions of teenagers than for the exploitation of young women. “I Want My Barely Legal Porn!” Matthew Yglesias trumpeted at his eponymous blog, boasting his argument “befits a man whose blog was once featured in Playboy‘s ‘Girls of the Pac Ten’ issue (really!).”

[…]

Other[s] liberals, finding the present raunch culture wanting, posited a need for an even more sex-saturated media environment. “If the brain-damaged idea of sex as explotation [sic] is the problem, I say let us militate against that idea,” wrote thespian Roy Edroso at Alicublog. “Let us have wide and unapologetic dissemination of sexual imagery.” And yet others called for a loosening of existing laws intended to prevent the exploitation of the young. Avedon Carol, a UK-based founder of Feminists Against Censorship, argues that existing child porn laws go more than far enough. “As if being treated ‘like a child’ when you are a child – and therefore not recognized as owning your own sexuality – were not bad enough, Garance wants to treat us as children when we are well past childhood,” she objected.

[…]

Sadly, in the rush to defend raunch culture, neither Yglesias nor the other critics closely examined the record of “opportunities” provided by Joe Francis’ firm (or others in its genre), the cases against them, and the long history of failed legal attempts to prosecute firms like his for abusive treatment of 16-21 year olds under existing laws. Nor did they look at the major Democratic donors who have helped Francis expand his reach and normalize his approach of creating “gratuitous nudity, end to end,” even though such efforts have helped fuel the backlash against “Hollywood liberals” that has been so successfully used against would-be Democratic office-holders.

— excerpted from Garance Franke-Ruta: Porn Again (CampusProgress.com)

…and recruiting a well known antipornradicalfeminist to her side.  Entree’ vous, Ann Bartow:

Can the harms that attend our new raunch culture be resolved, as some suggest, by amending the consent waiver process? Or will it require something more?

The proposal — first suggested to me by Ann Bartow, author of the Feminist Law Professor blog and a professor at the University of South Carolina Law School — to build a waiting period into the consent to participate in pornography is an intriguing one, and would do much to mitigate the impact of alcohol on the burgeoning porn-star for a day phenomenon. Yglesias also suggests this, as a counter-offer to my proposal that the age of consent to participate in porn be raised to 21. It’s a fine idea as far as it goes.

Revising the consent process, unfortunately, does not get to the heart of the problem, which is about the right to privacy and the costs to young women of the cultural and technological changes of the past decade.

And in the next paragraph, Franke-Ruta gives the game away….it’s really all about protecting young women’s privacy and "intimacy", regardless of whether they want such protection or not…..and mostly, it’s about wiping out "rauch culture":

The issue is only partially about consent, or even impaired consent. The issue is also that over the past decade and a half there has been a massive decline in the space of life that is private in the sense of being undocumented for all posterity, even if publicly conducted — and that there has been a simultaneous increase in media outlets, distribution channels, and commercial interest in the “scandal” of young female nudity.

Yglesias pretends that a young woman’s “decision” to have nude pictures of herself floating about without her consent is no different than picking a college major or “getting tattoos.” But he’s wrong. People don’t lose their jobs – or become permanent public spectacles – over “buying lottery tickets” or choosing to major in chemistry rather than physics. The difference is that there is an active harm being done to young women when pornographers take control of their images, without their consent (but with the consent of the courts), and that what people are choosing to do when they pose for pictures and what ultimately becomes of the images they choose to be in are often very different things. Miss Nevada Katie Rees lost her crown after pictures of her, bare-chested and kissing other girls, surfaced on the internet. She was 19 when they were taken, grown in form, but clearly not yet a mature individual. Or look at the case of the friends of American Idol contestant Antonella Barba, 20. Semi-nude pictures of her surfaced soon after she joined the show, leading her to say, “The pictures that were released of me – the ones that are of me – they are very personal and that is not how I intended to portray myself nor do I intend to portray myself that way in the future.” And it wasn’t just pictures of her, either. There were plenty of shots that exposed her young friends, too — women who were not looking to become famous or trade on their figures, and whose momentary goofing around at a beach outing is now public for all posterity.

Should such women have the right to control their own images? And do young women have an interest in not being manipulated, whether through drink or through peer pressure, into situations where they sign away what rights they do have? Those are the real questions at stake. The laws, as they currently stand, err too greatly on the side of protecting pornographers’ rights to transform unwitting or intoxicated young women into sexual commodities, and favor men like Francis, who reportedly earns $29 million a year, over the impecunious 18-year-olds off whom they have become rich. Raising the age to consent to be in porn to 21 may seem like an overly broad solution; alternative proposals that would address the issue of involuntary distribution and publication of private images, in addition to the questions of drunken consent, may ultimately prove superior. So far, however, I haven’t heard them.

Now, I could go into the basic fact that Franke-Ruta completely mistates and distorts Avedon Carol’s objection to her proposal as "loosening existing laws designed to protect the exploitation of the young", even as she herself further down decries those existing laws as woefully insufficient (she does the same to Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon by quoting her in support..ignoring the fact that she goes on to state her ultimate opposition later on); or that she completely takes out of context various male liberal commentator’s glib snarkiness as tolerance for kiddie porn predators….not to mention that she doesn’t even bother to post links to Lance Mannion (who has a nice rebuttal to GF-R’s lunacy here) or Roy Edroso to show what they really said (or didn’t say) about her proposal); or that she basically uses the old APRF slam of "(male) liberal Democrats" as essentially sexual slavers and child traffickers (she quotes several Democratic politicos who recieved money from Joe Francis’s enterprise as proof that liberal men are covering up his rape and pillarging..perhaps that explains why the WSJ Op-Ed site managers were so quick to promote her column.

But it’s Ann Bartow’s entry into this that fascinates me most of all. Of course, you’d expect her to rise to the defense of wiping out porn and all things "raunchy", but really, Ann….how in the hell does soft-core kissing and panty flashing and boob flashing lead directly to "trafficking in women" or double anal or other "degrading" activity??  And how would limiting the rights of 18- to 20-year old women to willfully engage in such behavior help protect the rest of womenhood, anyway?? And what would prevent you from moving the goalposts further and saying that 22 year olds aren’t mature enough to make such decisions, either, and thusly the age of consent should be moved up even further to "protect" women from their own actions?  After all, they don’t need GGW to get them drunk or even to flash their goodies; anyone with a decent digital camphone and access to the Internet can put out compromising photos on the ‘Net…and for free, no less. 

After all, if Jessica Valenti’s bare midriff book cover for Full Frontal Feminism and Teri Hatcher’s "see my panties" cover for her feature article last year at Vanity Fair was enough to raise Bartow’s pressure about "raunch" images, why should we think that she would rise to the occasion and diss pictures of young inebrieated women flashing and kissing as "damaging" to their future career?

Fascinating how sexual conservatism makes for strange bedfellows, ehhh??

(For the ultimate defense of the girls who do such dastardly deeds of posing for porn or such; see Greta Christina’s seminal article here.

“Bound, Not Gagged”: Where Sex Workers Defend Themselves

It seems like some people are finally getting tired of being beaten down.

Please go over to the new blog Bound, Not Gagged, which is run by sex workers and their supporters who are simply fed up with being silenced, distorted, and intimidated for standing up for their rights to be heard and accepted for their profession.

The contributing authors list includes such heavy hitters as Jill Brenneman, Scarlot Harlot (nee’ Carol Leigh), Robin Few, Melissa Gira, and Karly Kirchner; and they even got Annalee Newitz as a liveblog contirbutor.

Already, they’ve posted some righteous and thoughtful missives on the DC Madam case and the future of sex work.

And just as already, the usual love letters of support from the radfem caucus has been rolling in, too.

Just go there and give your support.