I was wondering what Heart (aka 2008 Free Soil Party Presidential candidiate Cheryl Seelhoff) would do for an encore for getting run out of Wikipedia for massaging her sources……and it didn’t take long for her short fuse to get lit on the usual suspects.

Witness, in its entirity, complete with my personal fisking, her latest diatribe against the evols of porn and the suppossed assault on women that it represents.

I’m not providing any links here, since I have no need for fighting Trojan horse viruses; and besides, others have done so already.

To begin, she goes right for the jugular with a "typical" porn theme:

Blonde whore forced to suck c*** then f***ed!! View Movie!! http://***********

You may feel free to fill in the blanks for yourself.

Then you may ask yourself this question: How many women who willingly perform porn (or for that matter, those who don’t but who happen to actually enjoy the acts so portrayed in that theme would actually admit that they were being "raped" doing such acts as "sucking c**k" or "getting f****d" or being called a "whore" (whatever her hair color may be)?? What’s that, you say?? None would?? Why, they must be either complete tools of THE MAN who grovel at his crotch….or they are simply no-good stupid sluts who just don’t get how ignorant and "submissive" they really are….at least, compared to more sensible, more proper, more "liberated", more "feminist"…nay, more "radical feminist" women like Heart(less) Seelhofff .

But..I get ahead of myself here….let the Grand Inquisitor of All True Radical Feminism take the stage from here:

This is the first of a series of posts I plan to do illustrating the intentions of, and reasons for, pornography. I get thousands and thousands of spam comments day in, day out, almost all of them advertisements for porn. Right now there are something like 4,000-plus ”comments” — links to pornography, primarily – in my spam queue. Most of it is as vile as can be imagined.

I’m tired of talking to pro-pornography, pro-prostitution people, male or female, about pornography. I think I’m done with doing that. Discussions with those who are vested in this stuff — who make a living by way of it, who use it all the time, who sell it, who perform in it — remind me of discussions I used to have in my old world with religious fundamentalists who could not be separated from their ideological fixations, obsessions and dogmas by love, money, cogent debate, force, or any combination of the above. They stood ready to defend their beliefs — and that’s about it. They were pretty much incapable of even considering the possibility that they might have missed something, might not be seeing something, let alone that they might be wrong. I always find it perplexing, the way the pro-porn side invokes the spectre of fundamentalism in its arguments or diatribes or propaganda. My experience is, if there are fundamentalists in this debate, they are on the pro-porn side.

Keep in mind while you read this that Heart(less) used to BE one of those fundamentalists, prior to her supposed transformation to radical feminism…apparantly, though, she didn’t quite lose all of the fundamentalism on her journey. The sanctimonious arrogance of claiming to speak for all women as the One True God(dess); the sexual puritanism and shaming of those who don’t quite meet her standards of moral (and sexual purity); the willingness to form tacit alliances with the same fundies that she claims to repudiate when it suits her crusading purposes. And yet…she has the unmitigated brass (enough to impress the Ohio State, Michigan State, Florida A&M, and Southern University marching bands combined) to label her "pro-porn" adversaries as "the fundamentalists". Right…and Newt Gingrich really was a revolutionary, too.

And as for her being so tired of "talking with ‘pro-porn, pro-prostitution people about porn"….well, Cheryl, dear; it’s not as if it’s been a one sided debate, now wouln’t it?? After all, we all know which side steadily prefers to mount the adhominen attacks, threatens to out certain women and reveal their personal information as a means of destroying them, and even goes as far as to mount DoS attacks on their opponents. Not to mention, calling male defenders of women who do defend sex work (or at least would respect their choices) as "johns" and "perverts" with nasty fetishes.

The 11 words at the top of the page tell us what pornography is about. It is about men forcing their bodies inside of and onto the bodies of women. It is about men forcing women to do things they do not want to do. Especially, the words communicate the interest men have in watching women being raped. We all know a woman is depicted in the film those 11 words advertise, but she is a dehumanized woman. She has no name; she is a generic “blonde,” a generic “whore.” The understanding and agreement between the maker and advertiser and the consumer of pornography is that nobody cares about the names, identities or lives of “blondes” or “whores” or any other woman being raped by men in pornography and nobody wants to know any of that. The agreement is that the porn consumer should be free to order up a constellation of body parts and the pornographer should stand ready to provide them. The agreement is the pornographer will provide images of rape and violence which humiliate and degrade already-dehumanized women whose names we do not know. The agreement, especially, is that this will be sexually titillating and exciting to the consumer. This is what real men want to see: “blondes” and “whores” being raped. Available for cash, at the click of a link.

Ah..so much bullshit packed in one neat, tidy paragraph. So much so that we have to break it down to cut through the putrid smell and get to the root.

The 11 words at the top of the page tell us what pornography is about. It is about men forcing their bodies inside of and onto the bodies of women. It is about men forcing women to do things they do not want to do.

Of course…because as we all know, no self-respecting woman ever wants men "forcing their bodies" on them merely for sheer sexual pleasure. Heaven forbid that some women might actually want to "force their bodies" on men in the same way…but then again "Male s**d forced to eat b***h’s p***y, then takes it up the a** with a s*****n d***o" (to respect Heart(less)’s propriety here, I’ve blanked out the rough language, just read between the asteriks yourself) wouldn’t exactly make for a rally cry for busting men for having erections and dirty sexual thoughts about women, now would it??

It is about men forcing women to do things they do not want to do.

Yes indeed…all those women who say they like fellatio or anal sex or sex with multiple men or masturbating with vibrators and dildos are just LYING through their teeth…or just masking their true feelings of hate and disgust just to please their men. Such poor, pitiful delusional sluts.

Especially, the words communicate the interest men have in watching women being raped.

Oh, really?? I always thought that rape was defined as coerced sex with violent injury. I didn’t know that the simple act of putting a man’s penis in a woman’s mouth (with the full consent of the woman involved…since Heart(less) has kinda missed the fact that a woman does have teeth that can knock down any attempt as forced entry) would be considered as prima facie rape, even if the woman really, truly wanted it, asked for it, and fully enjoyed it. But you know those porn sluts….such great actors in pretending that they really like such stuff!!

Read my lips on this, Cheryl: Most normal, healthy men watch typical porn to get off on the woman’s PLEASURE, not her pain. A woman being raped is the exact OPPOSITE of pleasure, and for most men, only fuels anger and disgust and hatred…for the man who rapes. (Right-wing fundie men notwithstanding, of course.) Not to say that there aren’t men who really do think as you say (and most of them can be found more on your side of the issue, anyway), but they are probably not the prevailing majority of men who watch porn to get off.

Oh…and may I remind you, Ms. Seelhoff, of a litle thing called HYPERBOLE, which is a favored tool of marketers to overexaggerate their product a bit to make it more edgy and shocking than it really is?? Horror flicks do it all the time with blood and gore (which still ends up as fake as always)…unless you really, really think that all the actors in The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Carrie really did end up butchered or burnt. Repeat after me: "It’s only a movie. It’s only a movie. It’s only a…"

We all know a woman is depicted in the film those 11 words advertise, but she is a dehumanized woman. She has no name; she is a generic “blonde,” a generic “whore.” The understanding and agreement between the maker and advertiser and the consumer of pornography is that nobody cares about the names, identities or lives of “blondes” or “whores” or any other woman being raped by men in pornography and nobody wants to know any of that.

Eeeeeee-yeah. Right. "She has no name." Which is why there are so many freakin’ websites and videos featuring these same "nameless" starlets in which men pay good money for monthly memberships to see these "nameless" women perform their degrading acts of submission. I mean, what good does it do to name a movie like, say, Avy Scott: Filthy Whore or Deep Inside Vanessa del Rio or even Educating Nina since in the eyes of those men who view such videos, they are all just the same old sluts and "whores"?? Ignorance this pure you just can’t beat.

The agreement is that the porn consumer should be free to order up a constellation of body parts and the pornographer should stand ready to provide them. The agreement is the pornographer will provide images of rape and violence which humiliate and degrade already-dehumanized women whose names we do not know. The agreement, especially, is that this will be sexually titillating and exciting to the consumer. This is what real men want to see: “blondes” and “whores” being raped. Available for cash, at the click of a link.

But of course, when such male-hating and sex-baiting is quoted directly from the pen of the late Andrea Dworkin, women like Heart(less) are amongst the quickest to rally the troops to defend her from "distortions" of "radical feminists" against such "slanderous attacks".

And…isn’t she being a bit unfair to brunettes, red-hairs, and others of a different ethnic hairstyle?? Or is there a special "dumb slut blonde" meme going on here??

Quite naturally, after firing such a nuke, Heart(less) immediately retreats to the bomb shelter:

Comments, as always will be moderated. Men and women may comment, so long as they are anti-pornography. At some point, as anti-pornography activists, we are going to have to work to provide some sort of public counterbalance to the weight of the pornographic garbage passing for “discussion” and “debate” which we, and millions of others, find suffocating and deadly.

Now, this is really, really, funny…especially since Heart(less) and her allies are infamous for piling on every "pro-porn" or "sex-pox" blog or journal to complain profusely about being "censored"…all the while taking up reams of bandwidth and commentary rehashing the same old tired nonsense (take a gander at the comments sections over at Feministe or Jill Brenneman’s MySpace blog or even Renegade Evolution’s main blog for some illustrations of their tactics).

And on this matter of providing "counterbalance" to the absolute mountain of "pro-porn" propaganda: Let’s see here…..Cheryl Seelhoff defends and supports Melissa Fairley (who thinks that BDSM is eqyuvalent to Abu Ghraib torture and that all Nevada prostitutes are witless victims of rapist "pimps") who receives direct funding from the US Justice and State Departments led by….George W. Bush, whose record of support for radical feminism is certainly clear. (No, that is not, unlike most of the rest of this post, an attempt at sarcasm or snark, either, given the collusion between those exact fundamentalist Christians and sex work abolitionists like Fairley and Kathleen Barry and Judith Reisman (nee’ Judith Bath-Ada, mostly known for her attempt to whack Playboy for its cartoon images as "kiddie porn")).Most of the APRF luminaries such as Donna (Rice) Hughes, Gail Dines, and Robert Jensen, command five-figure honoraria when speaking at universities across the nation; and receive plenty of funding support, academic bearing, and other such perks for their activism. Not to mention that they have most of the dominant conservative/"liberal" media establishment clearly in their corner as well. Compare that to the likes of say, Nina Hartley, who can’t even get even a middle-level media figure to promote her latest book (highly recommended by me, BTW), Nina Hartley’s Guide to Total Sex…even with her 20+ years of experience as a porn performer and sex educator. And let’s not mention the difference between an aspiring Presidential candidate and a certain sex worker blogger who is constantly personally attacked for everything from her implants to her weight to her style of clothing….all in the name of "radical feminism". Yeah, I’d say that the tables are certainly pretty stacked…though probably not in the way Cheryl intended.

Since Heart(less) says that this is just the beginning of a series of posts outlining her opposition to porn, I’m sure that she’ll have more stink bombs to drop on the rest of us. Until she claims copyright of her blog (lotsa luck on that, dearie) or runs behind her firewall cocoon with her yeawomen, we’ll be here to deconstruct whenever possible. Unlike Heart(less) however, I will allow open comment response…to a point. If you want to debate the merits in an adult and mature fashion; whether you be pro- or anti-porn or anywhere in between; you are welcome to jump in. If you are coming here just to take dumps and potshots….well, my hammer and my can of SmackDog Whupass ™ is lying in reserve.

Oh…..and just in case anyone has any bright ideas of trying to run Trojan viruses on me….I have the latest antivirus software loaded and ready. And some special nukes on standby for anyone stupid enough to even try that shit.

Tags: , antiporn feminism, asshattery, fisking, porn, radical feminism