All right, let us continue with our detailed fisking of Maggie Hays’ latest jousting of windmills. First part was here.

Porn Apologist: Advocating censorship is not a good thing. Pornography is free speech.

Rad Fem: Who’s talking about censorship here? You, not me. I’m talking of harms. Pro-porners often use the inaccurate word “censorship” to stigmatize any feminist work against pornography and to try to shut us up. Censorship or banning would never address the demand for pornography. Educating people on the harms and asking for an end to men’s demand for an industry that is predicated upon and produces sex-based exploitation and widespread aggression has nothing in common with censorship. Pornography is not free speech, it is hatred of women. The only freedom in pornography is the one for men to abuse women. In a male-supremacist, capitalist society, the First Amendment protects only those who can exercise the rights it protects. Where is women’s freedom of speech in all of this? Pornography keeps women and other people who have been harmed from exercising their rights to free speech.

Ahhhh…nice try there, Maggie…but I’d say that openly pushing for legislation that would effectively regulate sexual material and sexual media out of business by forcing them to endure impossible bookkeeping requirements (see the 2257 regulations), or force clients of sex work or consumers of porn to endure the threat of jail or “john schools” to humiliate or shame them for even having normal sexual thoughts, or even allow any woman under the guise of “civil rights” to sue anyone selling an adult video for triple damages for the thought crime of “degrading and harming women” for treble damages….that pretty much counts to most thinking people as censorship.

And I’d say that the First Amendment seems to be a bit different from your interpretation of it….since when did women become exempt from its protections?? Especially women who happen to disagree with your interpretation of what porn is and if it really does as much harm as you say??

Oh….and enough already with the “We are being CENSORED!!!!!!11ONE11!!” nonsense, Mags….when the government (or Blogger or WordPress) comes in and totally shuts down your blog, then you can make a case about being “censored”. Challenging the nonsense that you put out as untrue, biased, and slanderous is not censoring you; nor is saying that you should be held to the same standards of accuracy and decency as everyone else.

One more time: simply substitute “the homosexual lobby” ; the “homosexual agenda”, and “radical gays” in the proper places, and think about how this apes the Radical Right to a perfectly crossed T.

Porn Apologist: Feminists are often man-haters. That’s why they criticize porn.

Rad Fem: In a patriarchal society where misogyny is the norm, whenever you point out to the fact of male violence against women you’re accused of being a “man-hater”, while whenever a man says a misogynist comment or laughs at misogynist jokes he’s never accused of being a “woman-hater”. Feminists aren’t man-haters and they criticize porn because it is harmful and it is strongly linked to violence against women.

Now, let me see, Maggie…why on earth would we even think that you or some of your allies would be considered “man-haters”?? Gee, I don’t know…would it be because of rants like this???

I do not consider the “consent” I gave while under patriarchal delusions to have been legitimate. I believe that the males who took advantage of my training have as much responsibility to ensure that a woman is not submitting out of culturally instilled obligation as they do to ensure that she isn’t drunk or otherwise unable to give meaningful consent. But I understand that males will never behave in a manner that reduces the pool of “willing” women.

This is what makes men rapists. They will use any pretense as sufficient proof of consent, when the truth is that consent is impossible under patriarchy. That men and male-identified women continue to harp on the unverified existence of a few women on the planet who would seek out penile intercourse (which puts them at higher risk of STD’s than men, while simultaneously putting them at risk for pregnancy) in the absence of any training toward an obligation to engage in heterosexual PIV intercourse, is ridiculous to me. It’s not as if the men fucking those famed and fabled born-to-let-men-masturbate-into-them women aren’t also fucking a lot of women who’d reject them out of hand if not for the brainwashing.

A man’s not being a rapist in one highly unlikely circumstance (fucking a woman whose consent is not mitigated by social/individual coercion) doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not he’s a rapist in other more likely circumstances (that the woman he’s fucking is “consenting” to it out of obligation - to social norms or to economic interests). Because I believe the number of women not affected by socialization when making the decision to fuck men is very low, and because I believe that the men who are fucking those rare women are also likely to be fucking or to have fucked women who undeniably *are* affected by social training, I feel quite safe in saying that all men are rapists.

All men are rapists.

Now granted, not all radicalfeminists are quite as extreme as Justicewalks was there (well, there is Luckynkl)…but maybe a person reading this might have the slightest impression that there was at least a little bit of male bashing involved in indicting men for having erections and sexual thoughts?? As opposed to, like, violently assaulting women against their will?? But, I guess that even the latter is given a benefit of a doubt if the perpetrator confesses his sin and accepts St. Andrea and the Right Reverend Maggie and Bishop Bob as their personal savior and promptly reports to the proper authorities for castration and reeducation??? Even if he goes on to continue to violate women under the guise of “defending” them??

(Oh, Memo to Kyle Payne: to quote Bill Goldberg, your ass is next…right after I finish this fisk; you just don’t get to get away from your acts, fool.)

There is still a decisive difference between hating men who do abuse and violate women (and anyone else who violates and abuses anyone else, for that matter); and tainting ALL men with the lash of “rapist” merely because they have working dicks and fantasies in their brains. Just as there is a decisive difference between authentic radical feminists who actually believe in their theories and are willing to promote them with all respect for civility and debate; and unctuous, obnoxious, arrogant, vicious, and self-important cranks stealing the “radical feminist” label and using it as a crutch for their own personal myopias. You can guess which side I believe Maggie Hays to be on.

Porn Apologist: Isn’t it natural for men to watch porn? Pornography expresses sexual freedom and all men use porn.

Rad Fem: If it is natural for men to use porn, then how come some men have given up on their porn consumption and haven’t died? Not all men use porn. And pornography is not freedom; it is a mechanical, mindless, plasticized, inhuman, cruel and disconnected form of sexual imagery made by big corporations who only want to make big bucks. Besides, if pornography was so “natural” for men, why would it be so relentlessly misogynistic? Men have usually been socialized so differently from women that we can hardly claim anything about their nature. From an early age, males are typically trained to repress their feelings of sensitivity, care and empathy. It doesn’t have to be that way but gender roles both uphold and are maintained by male supremacist social order. And pornography typically reinforces gender, i.e. what it means to be “masculine” and what it means to be “feminine”.

Ahhh, Maggie, haven’t you said that nonsense about “Porn isn’t free speech; it’s violence against women” like about 50 times before?? Trust me, we get your point.

And…let’s look at the divergence here: “male supremacist social order” is so pervasive that it literally forces all men to be induced to wank to THE EVOL PORN that socializes them to commit such horrors on women….but it’s not so pervasive that men can kick their porn habits and convert to the good side?? Ahhh, it can’t be both at the same time, Maggie: either it’s insurmountable, or it’s beatable.

Oh..and people have been making sexually explicit media long before porn became a billion (or even a multi-million) dollar industry; and people have even been making such content for free. How exactly does that jive with porn as an evil capitalist corporate plot, Mags??

Porn Apologist: But, I don’t look at the bad and extreme stuff. Misogyny is not really inherent in pornography. And pornography is neither violent nor racist.

Rad Fem: Violence is pervasive in pornography; it is normalized because it is made to look like “just sex”. Any proper and clear-headed study of the content of the best-selling porn titles will reveal that violence and contempt for women are pervasive in mainstream pornography, as a comprehensive 2007 media research based on top-selling porn titles listed in Adult Video news (results of the research are revealed in this video here) has proven. As for the racism, pornography typically portrays black women as subhuman, dirty, primitive “ebony hoes”, black men as savage, animalistic beasts, Asian women as slavishly obedient, and Hispanic women as “hot-blooded Latinas”. If you don’t recognize these stereotypes as horrifyingly racist, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. .

Now…not even the most diehard proponent of sexual expression or sexual speech has denied that there is an subsegment of porn that does play into a darker side of racism and violence and even outright contempt of women. Contrary to the rants of Gail Dines; most of us “pro-porners” — especially the more progressive wing — are well aware of how porn can be used to promote reactionary ideas and beliefs. That, however, is a cosmic leap from Maggie’s notion that violence and racism and degradation is not only inherent in porn, but that the sole purpose of porn is to promote violence and rape and degradation in the guise of sexual pleasure. To put is simply, that is sheer bullshit….and no quoting of the Top 50 list of titles from AVN will justify this bogus claim any more.

And here’s a question for you, Maggie: ever bothered to actually ask the porn actors and actresses of color whether they believe that the porn they produce ever promotes the stereotypes you claim that they promote?? I mean, is Angel Kelly or Ebony Ayes or Heather Hunter or Midori or Vanessa del Rio lying through their collective teeth when they say that they are into porn to dispell and break through such stereotypes?? And as for the myth of “Asian submissiveness”, two words in response: Ava. Devine. Enough said.

Porn Apologist: Look, women are objectified everywhere, even in the media. How is pornography different? I simply cannot imagine a world without the objectification of the female body.

Rad Fem: While mainstream media has clearly been invaded by soft-core objectifying pornography and that’s certainly not a good thing, hard-core mainstream pornography is worse. Women are not human beings in pornography, just things. . . Dare imagine a world that would not rely on the objectification of women, dare ask for justice and real sexual freedom within a new world where women would have the right to their own bodies without having to force themselves to have sex with men, where we would have true intimacy and mutuality, and where our lives wouldn’t be invaded and controlled by pornography.

First off, Maggie; you get the theory all ass backwards: the idea is not that ALL objectification is OK; just that sexual “objectification” is legitimate and natural in some aspect….as long as the person being subjected is still treated as a full human being. I know that that is an alien concept to you, Mags, but for most normal people not quite as trapped in anti-sex microcode as you are, it does make some sense.

And secondly….I thought that softcore porn was in fact just as obscene and degrading as hardcore; there’s not supposed to be any difference at all between the two (other than the degree of naughty bits being shown explicitly, that is).

And how nice of you to show us your favored vision of sex after the Revolution….so freed of “objectification” and violence and racism and all those bad things….and also freed of individual choice, of mutual pleasure, of full autonomy, and of any vestiges of real life. In short, even more objectifying and inhuman than even the “porno-iarchy” you claim to oppose.

Porn Apologist: Women look at porn too.

Rad Fem: While women’s use of porn has somehow increased since the Internet, the VAST majority of pornography users are men and the industry knows it (but they’re not gonna tell you). Porn producers, when interviewed at the Las Vegas porn convention, said most of the consumers of their materials are men. That is why porn is so endlessly misogynistic and degrading.

Oh, I get it….because the majority of consumers of porn happen to be men, and we all know that men are innately violent and evil and only want to rape and abuse women with impunity (because Dr. Hays SAID SO), then it would be right to assume that porn for men is inherently “misogynoustic” and “degrading”. (Not to mention, violent.)

Once again, note the biased linkage to one of Bob Jensen’s rant columns, where he does his usual out-of-context quotes from porn producers and columnists. I’m surprised that Maggie didn’t go directly to Gail Dines’s ambush of Nina Hartley and the AbbyWinters girls at this year’s AVN convention…but then again, she probably didn’t want the threat of a slander suit.

Porn Apologist: Hey, do you know that there’s also feminist porn available out there, that is to say porn for women?

Rad Fem: Women-made porn is a smokescreen to protect the largely (mostly) male-run, male-led pornography industry. It is only a small portion of the industry. The solution to ending the harms of pornography is not to create “feminist porn”. As I said before, “[m]isogynistic porn (which is the type of sexual material that most men want to see and masturbate to) isn’t going to go away so easily, and women and children will continue to be harmed. There are so many more urgent things and so many more struggles to overcome before we are able to live in a non-patriarchal society and maybe think about such things as any “egalitarian forms of erotic arts”!!! Indeed, thinking about such things before the overthrow of the whole patriarchy itself happens, is nothing other than capitulation! And it is insane! Considering and confronting the harms of pornography and prostitution to women and children, and working toward the building of a new non-patriarchal world, are paramount causes!!! As Gail Dines pointed out at the 2007 feminist anti-porn conference, we live in an “image based culture” (i.e. any thing, to be valuable, has to be made into an image) and the answer to stopping porn culture is not more images. Personally, I feel A LOT MORE FREE without having images or so-called “art” control my life and/or sexuality!”

Translation here for you non-zealots: “We gotta break some eggs in order to make a perfect omlett, and before we can even consider making “erotic material” that isn’t merely an apeing or the evil male-centered porn industry, we must eliminate porn FIRST…and that includes this phony “feminist porn” for women that is nothing more than a Trojan horse for men to justify raping and degrading women. Sex will just have to wait until after the revolution happens….so sorry.”

But don’t worry…after the Revolution comes and goes and women are freed of their patreiarchial and porno-iarchial chains (and their autonomy) and are allowed to have sex the way the Goddess intended them to, then mutual pleasure will abound and freedom will ring and we will be welcomed with parades and flowers!!! And of course, men will benefit as well from their freedom, too. (Mostly because those who don’t comply will be either “re-educated” or jailed or…what?? Dead??) I believe that your Maoist slip is showing here, Maggie.

Porn Apologist: If you don’t like porn, just don’t watch it.

Rad Fem: If this could only be that easy! Women have to interact with men who use pornography every day without knowing about the harms. I walk in the street and see soft-core porn on billboards. I cannot watch T.V. without stumbling upon a show or a film within which a joke on pornography is being laughed about. I cannot go to a party without seeing a bunch of guys laughing at the porn pics on their phones they’re showing to each others. The list goes on. . . Pornography is everywhere. What you’re saying sounds so much like saying “If you don’t like the president, then forget he is the president!” or “If you don’t like pollution, then forget it also comes from cars”.

Never mind the conflation (again) confusing soft-core billboards and mainstream TV shows talking about men and porn with viewing hardcore; or how any man downloading porn on their iPhones would even allow someone like Maggie Hays to become the House Voyeur and sneak in on their viewing habits (and BTW, Maggie, you do know that certain jurisdictions do actually make it a crime to show adult material in public venues using iPhones). Also, most opponents of pollution from cars don’t call for banning autos; just making them more pollution free; why can’t porn be made less violent and degrading?? Oh, I forgot…that wouldn’t jibe too kindly with Maggie’s vision of porn being wiped off the earth.

And I now post the final argument in Maggie’s arsenal of idiocy:

Porn Apologist: Porn was the only sex education I had. I can’t give it up.

Rad Fem: Then you have been sexually “educated” by what is the mainstream sex miseducation for men, a form of media within which women are stripped of their own humanity and portrayed as sexual objects, as things to be penetrated. How original! Wouldn’t you be more free without having the corporate pimps mapping out your sex life? Besides, even if you’re not causing harm to women you know, by not giving up on pornography, you believe that there are acceptable losses, “necessary victims” in order to satisfy your self-centered orgasm to the sexuality of cruelty, the sexuality of disconnection from truly meaningful feelings toward another human being. By creating the demand for pornography, you generate, maintain or condone the harms it causes as well as submit to the self-objectification it creates when it controls you, shapes your sexual thoughts into a twisted manner and when you become addicted to it. So, why not giving up and have your own dreams for yourself? Why not accepting that your sex (mis)education did not involve sexual justice and equality between sexes?. . .

Yeah…why the hell not??? Why not admit that your personal, private orgasms are not really your own, that rather than reflecting your own fantasies and personal autonomy, they are just inventions of the “porno-iarchy” developed to imprison you to the evil of male oppression and rape?? Why not just give up those selfish and “self-centered” physical pleasures and join the real movement for group “intimacy” and fulfillment that only “radicalfeminism” (radicallesbianism???) can provide?? Why not just give up all that baggage of “male power” and “submission” to cruelty and disconnection from “meaningful feelings” (True LOVE?!?!?!) that authentic intimacy stripped of all that bad lust and power can bring???

Oh, now I finally get it. Maggie Hays is simply a combination of John “Men from Mars; Women from Venus” Gray and Pat Robertson wearing a “radicalfeminst” cloak.

Thanks, but no thanks, Ms. Hays…I and most sane and less whacked out men and women would rather remain on good old Earth, with all its diversity and color and freedom. Ban sexism…not sex.

OK….enough dilly dallying around; time to shake the trees and rake the leaves; mow the grass and kick some…..ahhhh, I mean, debunk some Maggie Hays lies.

You may remember that I commented that Maggie’s bombast about the “porno-iarchy” was only the SECOND whackiest post she had done on the subject.

As long winded and long that essay was, it doesn’t compare in sheer lunacy to an earlier essay that the Grand Sage of Antipornography Feminists had posted which supported to debunk what she perceived as “Bullshit Pro-Porn Arguments,” which she proposed that antiporn feminists could dispatch “With Confidence”.

Problem is, though, that most of Maggie’s inventive straw arguments that she claims to overthrow are simply inventions of her own cracked mind, pretty much used for the usual buttressing up of her standard boilerplate agitprop about porn’s capital offenses against “women and children”.

I will use the same methods and syntax as Ren Ev did in her debunking of the “Porno-iarchy” blast; but the words spoken by me are mine alone.

And no, I did not ask permission to paste this from Maggie’s blog; unlike her, I know what Fair Use is.

And a-waaaaaaaaay we go:

Begin with a photo of a broken record; then Maggie starts up:

See this? Yeah, that’s a broken record. I chose this image for this post because I sincerely believe that all the pro-porners, pro-prostitutionists, pro-sexploitation folks, pro-hate speech & pro-”sex work” activists (or whatever you rad fems wanna call them) sound like a fucking broken record with all their “same old shit” reactionary arguments that do nothing whatsoever to help women as a class, arguments that, on the contrary, bolster the patriarchal anti-woman status quo. Thus, I have decided to write a a list of the porn apologists’ bullshit arguments.

Ahhh, Maggie, dear…bad analogy; most of us now use CD’s and DVDs and iPods and mp3 players, now. Get with the program, please.

I’ll get to the delicious irony of Maggie Hays calling anyone out as “reactionary” and talking about “women as a class” soon enough.

I know these are all parts of the same broken record we hear every day; I know that some people (especially some men) are so stupid and stubborn in defending such a widespread violation of women’s bodies in order to maintain their own selfish sexual pleasure, I know all this. I also know that the pro-pornstitution folks are not only folks we meet online. The pro-porners we meet online are so easy to avoid or dismiss when we want to ignore them (thank fuck for that) while the pro-porners we meet offline are most often our co-workers, classmates, friends, even sometimes partners and so on. These offline people who defend porn aren’t so easy to avoid and, more or less often, we find ourselves in a conversation on pornography with them at some point.

It usually happens like this: They suddenly bring up pornography or prostitution for whatever reason, as part of a “joke” that we don’t find funny at all (but rather sad — as we do know that there’s a terrible sexual slavery going on out there and people keep on denying it) or simply because they’ve been influenced by pornified pop culture. Then we feel like we cannot tolerate these pro-porn arguments any longer so we start informing them on what we know about the sexual slavery industry. But, unfortunately, we’re feeling so upset that we just stop talking. There is just so much to say and we don’t know where to start. And, on top of that, there they go! Talking the same old reactionary bullshit arguments we’ve heard ten thousand times again and again, sounding like the same old broken record. . . And we start losing our confidence. . . so we stop talking.

Therefore I prepared this handy “Porn Apologists’ Bullshit Arguments List and How to Respond to Them with Confidence” collection in order to help myself and other rad fems to challenge those apologies confidently IRL. I constructed it as a dialog:

Just call it “The Official Maggie Hays Talking Points for Shouting Down Critics of Their Ideology” list, I guess. Perfect for witnessing those on the fence.

The list then starts rolling: I shall debunk each one as they come. “Porn Apologist” is the role played by the hypothetical “pro-porn” strawman argument; “Rad Fem” refers to Maggie’s response. (I’m also keeping all the links they use to their biases sources alive, just to prove the point.)

Porn Apologist: Women freely choose to sell their bodies in pornography and in prostitution. How can you criticize the women’s consent to be in porn?

Rad Fem: Contrary to myths, radical feminists have never criticized women’s involvement in the pornography industry as performers. Instead, we focus on the difficulties within which they make their choice to participate. Documentaries and articles on pornography in the mainstream media (which generally pick a very small number of performers out of the so much larger number of porn performers out there) typically show pornography performers as “happy women who have made a totally free choice”. However, the reality of the circumstances within which the vast majority of those women entered the porn industry are very much different from this whole mainstream media glamorization crap. A lot of thorough research on prostitution (based on interviewing hundreds and hundreds of prostituting women) has shown that child sexual or physical abuse or neglect, poverty, economic hardship, past experience of battery or rape, trafficking, socialization to the sexist and racist pornified culture, etc. are key factors for women who enter the ’sex’ industry. Feminists do not condemn the women who are in the industry, but we empathize with them. We understand that they are terribly exploited and harmed in this industry. As one woman who used to prostitute said that, while she was in prostitution, she would have yelled from the roof-tops how wonderful being a prostitute was, but that, while now she’s still healing from her prostitution experience, she has “found that the worse thing of exiting prostitution is seeing the real reasons [she] became a prostitute. Seeing it could of never been a choice. It was just a way to self-destruct.”[sic]

Hmmmmm, never criticized women’s involvement in porn, Maggie??? Really?? So this wouldn’t be considered criticism of women performers, in your mind:

“Look at the industry’s biggest star, Jenna Jameson, who appears to control her business life. However in her book [How To Make Love Like A Porn Star] she reports that she was raped as a teenager and describes the ways in which men in her life pimped her. Her desperation for money also comes through when she tried to get a job as a stripper but looked too young — she went into a bathroom and pulled off her braces with pliers. She also describes drug abuse and laments the many friends in the industry she lost to drugs. And this is the woman said to have the most power in the pornography industry.” — Gail Dines and Robert Jensen, Article Pornography is a Left Issue (2005).

[transcribed from "Jenna Jameson: Porn Star Myth" from AgainstPornography.org]

Who cares that Jenna has publically in the same biography that Bob and Gail quoted so lovingly made clear that she has never been coerced by anyone within the porn industry, and that all the choices she made within the industry — including the bouts with drug abuse — were solely her responsibility, not the industry’s?? In the mind of the antiporn “feminists”, it’s all the same.

Oh….and how can Jenna’s career in porn directly be related to her rape as a teenager?? Osmosis?? Karma?? The notion that only women who suffer such traumas as rape are the ones ending up in porn, if not becoming successful?? OK, then what does that say for women like Nina Hartley, who has, by my last recollection, never been raped?? Or women like Vicky Vette, who only started out in porn in her late 30s…and whom has also never been raped as a teen or young adult??

And no, Maggie…simply quoting a former prostitute-turned-radical antiporn antiprostitution activist (however her personal experiences should be respected and acknowledged) as if she represents ALL porn performers (never mind that Rebecca Mott never did porn to begin with, BTW) just won’t wash either.

But then again, when you are as much of an ideological zealot as Maggie is, nuances like the diversity of experiences and respect for individuals don’t tend to enter the picture.

And once again, notice the way that Maggie conflates porn and prostitution as the same entity. For the last time (today), Mags: Prostitution is when you pay someone to have sex with them; Porn is where you pay to SEE someone have sex WITH OTHERS or WITH THEMSELVES. There is a difference.

Porn Apologist: Women in porn make a lot of money anyway.

Rad Fem: Some research and testimonies have suggested that most strippers, prostitutes and pornography performers do not make a lot of money. Although some do, the idea that all of them make a lot of money is another part of the pornographers’ and the mainstream media’s propaganda. Most female porn performers do not get rich, particularly due to their brief “shelf lives” — male consumers often want to see new women being exploited — so even if pornstituted females initially command a high rate per scene or per movie, their market value as “fresh meat” declines rapidly. Thus, even if there are a few really famous porn “actresses”, the vast majority of the women in pornography leave that business feeling exploited, pained and ashamed by this terrible experience or after being considered “overexposed” by the consumers and producers. So, the pornography industry keeps using and discarding female bodies after having used those human beings as if they were pieces of meat. There have been words coming from people who have been involved in the industry to testify of this brutal reality. Besides, even if these women get paid for performing in porn, does it mean that it should excuse the extensive physical, psychological and emotional harms done to them? So, once a woman has been paid, the torture committed against her body is expiated, huh? Well, that’s an incredibly cruel and unfair way of reasoning! No amount of money whatsoever should excuse any harm done to a woman’s body.

Well…let’s see. Now, there are the few contract girls and former Playmates/Pets/Honeys who can make a ton of money through websites and feature dancing as well as porn performing, and some, with decent financial planning and a sense of what they want to do, can even thrive enough to get rich. And then there are the many in the majority who get in, get their hits in for enough to supplant their middle-class lifestyles, and then get out to do less strenuous and more mundane tasks for a living. How they actually leave the business, though, is mostly a reflection of how they entered the business and what attitudes and objectives and goals they went into the business with. Obviously, some experiences are more traumatic than others; but to say that “torture” and “physical, psychological, and emotional harm” should be considered the default experience for ALL porn performers is nothing short of libelous to the many performers who don’t share Maggie’s ideological bias.

And what a bias she does show, too. The one source that she cites to prove her position that porn is innately evil: An article from AgainstPornography.com citing quotes from Traci Lords (and remember, SHE lied about her age to get into adult videos), to the antiporn documentary Not For Sale, to even Shelley Lubben’s blog. (That would be Shelley Lubben, the former starlet turned born-again Christian. You were saying, Maggie, about your movement rejecting Christian Rightists???)

Also….see Ernest Greene’s breakdown of the typical porn pay structure taken from here:

In het porn, female players can and do charge by the specific act. A few make big bucks, but most have pretty standard rates. Lesbian porn, as distinct from girl-girl material made for male audiences, is mostly pro-am for small production companies and it commands the dead-lowest rate, somewhere south of five hundred dollars per scene.

I can’t resist wondering aloud if the poster here who suggested that straight guys who don’t like their rates should just bend over and spread for other men would make a similar suggestion to lesbians. Somehow I very much doubt it.

Pro GG with no extras (vanilla licky-licky with fingers and a small toy or two) brings in anywhere from six hundred bucks to a grand, depending on the performer’s current popularity. Use of an anal toy kicks that up another couple of hundred.

A BJ-only boy-girl is rarely more than five hundred for the girl.

A vage-only boy-girl for a female performer is typically around seven hundred, with a few players being able to command a thousand. Twelve hundred is the going rate for anal with one male partner, though fifteen hundred isn’t outrageous for someone with an established name. A first anal or a first BG might run up to five thousand dollars, but that trick only works once and only for a fortunate few who come in as former Penthouse Pets or whatever and can command a premium for existing name value.

Stunt sex – DPs, ATMs, ATOGMs, double anals, double vages, cream pies, gang bangs and so on obviously escalate the price, sometimes into the thousands, but there are plenty of female players who do stunt sex for a lot less. However, you can bet that whatever they’re making, they’re making more than the guys they’re doing it with.

This is not because, as someone on this thread has suggested in a display of breath-taking ignorance, there is such a glut of male talent just clamoring to get in here they’re practically a dime a dozen. That would be good for a laugh if it weren’t such a blatant insult to the few men who actually do try to make the cut. In fact, the reason you see the same dudes over and over and over and over in video after video is because they are the ones who not only will have sex for the camera, but can do so with predictable results. That is a very small group of men. Sure, lots of horny dudes think they’d make great porn studs. About one male civilian under thirty in every ten I meet asks me if I thought he could be then next John Holmes. It takes me two questions to sort them out. Does he have a dick that’s at least ten inches long fully erect? Can he get it fully erect, keep it that way for an hour and then have a visible ejaculation in front of a room full bored men with no other source of stimulation, visual or otherwise? If the answer to either is negative, he has no chance.

In other words, Maggie, it isn’t just a matter of Average Man with HYOOGE Dick reporting to the studios with his dick hard and having a woman picked off the streets to plow into. And it’s just a bit more than just evil looking men in trenchcoats riding along in SUV’s and Hummers tracking down young women and locking them up in dungeons to have their way with them. There are still consent forms and procedures and HIV/STD tests and pre-shoot preparations before anything even begins to happen.

Let’s continue:

Porn Apologist: Pornography is not prostitution.

Rad Fem: The fact is that pornography IS prostitution, plus a camera.

See the last paragraph responding to point #1 above. Plus….if porn is prostitution with the camera, then would married couples having sex for free but taping their “sexcapades” for their own pleasure be considered prostitution, or porn?? Or both??

Porn Apologist: Look, prostitution is the world’s oldest profession. It should be legalized and regulated. That would make it safer.

Rad Fem: Prostitution is NOT the oldest profession, pimping is! Countries where prostitution has been legalized have become Number One destinations for traffickers. There is no evidence that legalization in any way benefits women in prostitution — indeed it simply legalizes the harm caused to women. Prostitution is inherently a form of violence against women and a violation of women’s human rights and dignity as persons. The belief that prostitution is “sex work” is being a direct cause for the widespread international and domestic trafficking of women and children for prostitution. The Netherlands (where prostitution is regarded as “just a job like another”) remains one of the primary destinations for victims of human trafficking (as again recently reported in the article “Home Office goes to Amsterdam for prostitution ideas” in politics.co.uk) and half the window brothels over there have been closed since 2006 because of an exponential rise in organized crime and money laundering and also the trafficking of women and children. Legalization is, in effect, a failed experiment.

Oh, this be prime bullshit here….let’s break this one down, shall we??

Never mind that “trafficking of women” is far more likely to occur in areas where prostitution is expressly criminalized (ever heard of Thailand, Maggie?? Indonesia??? The Cayman Islands???) and where attitudes about porn and women and sexuality are the most conservative and reactionary and explicitly “antifeminist”….and nearly as zealous about “protecting women from pornography and prostitution” as Maggie is. And forget about the basic fact that the same people who are most likely to support criminalization of sex work and sexual media tend to be the biggest consumers of porn and the ones most likely to be busted doing the same damn activities they would put others in jail for…or worse. See Senator Larry Craig, Senator David Vitter, former Governor Eliot Spitzer, Jimmy Swaggart, et.al.

Now, it should be noted that Amsterdam does have currently a more conservative government that is now in the process of questioning their more liberal stance towards sex in general….but that in no way justifies Maggie’s view that legalization is so failed and that her beloved “Swedish Model” is the only solution to the problem. (And also note that New Zealand has its own experiment with legalization that is five years old; the book is still out on that one, I’d think.)

And of course, the idea that legalized brothels in Amsterdam have anything whatsoever to do with the lives and professions of porn performers and sex workers in the United States — most of which operate out of their homes in private with their own websites and mom-and-pop productions, is a mystery that only Maggie can solve in her own special fashion. Not even the legalized brothels in Nevada, all of Melissa Fairley’s and Bob Herbert’s slanders notwithstanding.

Porn Apologist: Sexuality is good. Why are you anti-sex?

Rad Fem: Being against pornography and prostitution does not equate being against sex, FFS. Sexuality is just a part of being human and may involve a lot of strong feelings of affection and connection to another person when a sense of genuine care is involved. But pornography is stripped of any empathy and it fuses sexual desire with the degradation and abuse of women. Being against pornography does not mean being against sex, it simply means having recognized that there is a sexual world of imagination based on equality & respect and that goes beyond sexuality as simple “domination/subordination”.

This be another good one: the old “We’re not prudes, we really do LOVE sex…just OUR kind of sex” meme that is thrown up constantly in the “You’re victimizing us!!” frame. As porn literally speaking simply means the depiction of sex acts between human beings, the question certainly can be asked of Maggie and her allies: Is there any explicit depiction of sex involving a man and a woman together that you wouldn’t consider to be “degrading” and “abusive” to women?? I mean, loving couples can indeed have anal sex, or oral sex, or pretend to play dominant/submissive roles or role play, and single women can indeed masturbate using dildos and vibrators for their own pleasure. But being against that doesn’t make you any more of a prudish, anti-sex bigot…now doesn’t it???

If the shoe fits comfortably, Maggie, why not just wear it with pride??

Porn Apologist: Only conservative right wingers criticize porn. Are you a religious zealot?

Rad Fem: Radical feminists have, for a long time, opposed Christianity by recognizing it as patriarchal religion. Mary Daly, for example, is a prominent radical feminist writer of the feminist critique of Christianity. Radical feminists usually see Christianity as patriarchal and oppressive to women. So, no, I’m certainly not religious and I’m very much of an atheist. Perpetuating the myth that radical feminists “are siding with religious zealots” just because we oppose pornography has always been one of the favorite pro-porn tactics of the so-called “sex poz” lobby.

Oh, Maggie, just stop it!! We are well aware that there has always been a grand tradition of Puritanism amongst not only the Left, but of secularists and atheists; no one group is immune to anti-sexual discourse and ideology. And just because “radfems” may reject the explicit piousness of organized religion and the specific rhetoric of direct slut-blaming of women (particularly “feminists” who defy the supposedly Christian role of the woman as wife and mother) for the social ills of society, doesn’t mean that they aren’t capable of confiscating antiporn and anti-sex rhetoric for their own purposes.

And as for the alliance between radicalfeminists and Christian/Islamic Rightists: well that is so well known to be dismissed; from the passage of Catherine MacKinnon’s famous Indianapolis antiporn ordinance in the mid 1980’s through a Republican majority council; to the Meese Commisioner’s Pornography report which basically appropriated the Dworkin-MacKinnon doctrine of “porn degrades women by reducing them to sex objects” (while rejecting their methods of attacking porn through “civil rights” ordinances, preferring the old school form of obscenity enforcement and jail sentences); to the Bush Administration’s funding of “anti-trafficking” activists like Fairley (with the full approval of leading antiporn feminist activists like Donna Hughes, who even called Dubya a positive force, regardless of his overall antifeminism).

Porn Apologist: If there weren’t any porn, there’d be more rape.

Rad Fem: Do we ever suggest that the availability of loads of films showing children being beaten up would reduce child physical abuse? Of course not, because we know it’s not the case. So why would it be different with pornography? Few rapes get reported to the police and correlational studies only based on reported rapes have limits. While a few studies have shown a decrease in reported rapes, many other correlational studies, as shown here, have shown dramatic increases in sexual violence with the availability of pornography. Pornography has no “catharthic” effect whatsoever. Also, this “catharthic effect” porn apologist excuse quite sounds like a threat: “We need pornography or we will rape more!” Blah-the-fucking-blah. . .

By the numbers here:

1) Aside from the lunacy of comparing depictions of children being beaten with images of consenting adults having sex, there is this nagging fact that actually taping the act of children being beaten is evidence of a crime (corporal punishment aside). Besides, no one has seriously argued that actively censoring depictions of children being beaten would in any way reduce the rate of child physical abuse (as opposed to, I don’t know, prosecuting the abusers themselves, maybe???)….so why should porn be held to that standard??

2) “Correlational studies”, Maggie?? Yeah, right….you think that we wouldn’t notice that your “correlational studies” are all tainted by bias towards your position….and all of them have been thoroughly debunked by more reputable research?? (No wonder you attack them as “anti-woman”, ehhh??)

3) And of this “carthartic effect”: the only such theory that I’ve heard from is that porn induces men to sexual arousal (Ahhh..duuuh!!!!), which is quickly relieved through masturbation (which, in case you haven’t heard, Maggie, rapes no one but the offending hand); thusly, porn offers a safe relief valve for sexual arousal that would otherwise be resolved in less safe ways (through the next door neighbor or the nearest alter boy or simply whomever’s availaable at the moment). But of course, masturbation is nothing more than a male-centered means of imprisoning women to the patriarchy/”porno-iarchy”..so that’s gotta go, too!!

And once again…consider the source that Maggie uses….which includes some activists once again from the Religious Right.

Porn Apologist: Pornography has no effect whatsoever. It’s only a fantasy.

Rad Fem: So why do corporations spend billions of dollars each year on mass-mediated advertising if not precisely because they know ads have effects on people? Why would it be different with pornography? Pornography HAS effects, negative ones! Besides, as I said before, “an industry which relies on the suffering of half the population in order to keep catering to its ever-expanding demand is not fantasy!” Fantasy is in the head. Pornography is mediated and mass-marketed. I feel a lot more free not having my fantasies being controlled by pornography. . . Freud argued that the sexual abuse that his female patients had been experiencing in childhood (and had been telling him about) was just a fantasy. Freud knew that child sexual abuse was pervasive in his time, but he kept on denying it as “fantasy” (Source: Testimony of Jeffrey Masson, author of The Assault on Truth, in “The Los Angeles Hearing, Los Angeles County Commission for Women, April 22, 1985″; in Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin Eds., In Harm’s way: The pornography Civil Rights Hearings; 1997.)

Ahhh, Maggie, but you forget that fantasy only becomes known when it leaves the head and is expressed through media, whether written, celluloid, video, or pixels. And why should porn take the hit for what advertising does in general: exploit general fantasies and emotions for the purpose of selling products. The only difference with porn is that sex IS the product they are selling as fantasy. Actually, porn is much closer to mainstream media in that it attempts to play on emotions that human beings already have. Comedy makes us laugh; drama makes us cry; action movies make us rise to the end of our seats in anticipation of what happens next (or what will blow up next; and so on. Why are the typical fantasies of getting filthy rich, or powerful enough to blow whole groups of people up considered less hazardous and damaging than porn?? Could it be because of all that SEX?!?!?!

And on the point of bashing Freud for denying the existence of sexual abuse of children: Aren’t there people a bit more qualified than Jeffery Masson (who happened to be Andrea Dworkin’s life partner and a former playboy himself prior to being converted to an antiporn activist) to
analyze Freud’s take on child abuse?? Does that mean that ALL accusations of child abuse (of girls, of course…Maggie could care less about boys being abused, except when it serves her cause) should be taken as proven as true, in absence of any evidence??

Porn Apologist: Where is the harm in porn?

Rad Fem: The first people who are harmed are the prostituted women constantly used, abused and discarded by the industry. Then, the harms extend to the women outside of the industry. The easiest way of making violence invisible is by sexualizing it, making it appear as “just sex” to the viewer. Pornography makes rape, sexism and racism sexy. It makes force look like a thrilling sexual experience to men. Pornography desensitizes its users to female degradation, it makes them believe that women enjoy all sorts of pain and humiliation. Pornography increases the belief in rape myths. Pornography is pure woman-hating propaganda! Many women are coerced by their boyfriends and husbands into sexual acts they do not want because of those men’s pornography use. Pornography also increases the violence perpetrated against prostituted women. As reported by former prostitute J.W. in Massachusetts, for instance, she “considered the men who were into pornography to be the most dangerous and potentially violent since that is what aroused them”.

This mighty rant assumes a variety of myths: 1) that women who perform in porn are innately forced into it against their stated will; 2) that the depiction of people having sex automatically in itself promotes rape, racism, and misogyny independent of the influences of the overall outside culture, the State, the church, and other social and cultural institutions; 3) that penetration of a woman’s vagina by anything resembling a penis or a penis itself not directly motivated by “intimacy” or procreation amounts to prima facie rape, and that any sex act not motivated by the same emotions preapproved by Maggie’s ideology automatically counts as “degrading”, “humiliating”, and “violent” in and of itself; and 4) that the very act of persuading women to even engage in sex with men (even trustworthy boyfriends, husbands, and significant others) is in itself an invitation to rape; as if otherwise, women would have no need for sex in the first place. And you still say that you are not fundamentally anti-sex, Mags???

The idea that watching a woman willingly engage in sex increases the belief that she “enjoys” being sexually assaulted against her will is a figment only in Maggie’s imagination….and the most hateful antifeminist, woman-hating man as well. Only those who would hate sexually assertive women enough to want to punish them for inciting such desires would even come close to believing that consensual porn amounts to “woman-hating propaganda”.

And…we all know that women and girls are certainly not capable of exercising power sexually against men…now don’t we???

OK….that’s enough fisking for now….we will continue this tommorow.

Having stated my fundamental disagreement with Nine Deuce over her basic philosophy and her use of that racist cartoon (and it should be noted that she has now gone ahead and taken it down, though the rest of the GenderBorg Posse, especially Heart(less) and Witchy,  still defend it with pride); I will now proceed to do the fundamentally contrarian thing and actually agree with her on something she posted today at her place

Funny, that…there is actually an issue or two where I as a sex rad progressive can actually agree with a antiporn radicalfeminist. So sue me.

Today, ND posted about her grave issues with the clothing conglomerate American Apparel, which is well known for not only its guarantee of sweatshop-free clothing designed for the young, hip, middle-class market, but even more for the…ummmm…innovative ads they run to sell their gear.  That would be innovative as in “Throw lots and lots and LOTS of SEX, SEX, and more SEX at ‘em; as close to porn as we can get without actual sex happening!!!”

It has gotten them and their CEO, Dov Charney, very rich and very successful…but it has also gotten them in a heap of controversy over the overtly sexual use of youngsters in their ads. Now, it is granted that none of the models in the AA ads actually have sex, so Charney and AA aren’t liable to the kiddie porn laws or even 2257…but still, they do kinda stick out there as going pretty damn far in the T & A department.

And it doesn’t help matters either that Charney has had the reputation of being either  — depending on which side of the fence you stand — a Reniassance Man with a unique and open-minded attitude towards sex in the workplace…or a creepy, skeezy pervert and near pedophile who forces his dick on every woman he sees and employees.  He was well known for the notorious act of openly masturbating in front of a female reporter who once interviewed him for a trade journal (the woman interviewer wasn’t offended and took it all in stride); and he openly boasts of sleeping with his ad models.

And even his company, despite its anti-sweatshop commitment, has come under fire from traditional unions for underpaying his workers; along with the accusations of sexual harassment. A bitter lawsuit was filed at one time by some female employees there, but it was soon thrown out.

Obviously, ND sees him in the latter light as a total pervert and asshole, and the perfect model of the corporate pimp who uses womwn’s bodies for his own pleasure, not to mention his theft of gritty urban fashion for petty gain.

I almost want to blame Dov Charney for hipsterism. His store is a mecca for people who think they’re making the world a better, hipper place by overvaluing ugly cotton clothing, and it’s the place people go when they’re ready to make the belated move from dance music to lame corporate “indie” rock. I definitely blame Dov Charney for the dorkification of some of the more interesting urban areas in this country. I mean, once you see an American Apparel store go up in a neighborhood, you can pretty much assume that any real counter-cultural activity going on in the area is over and that any interesting residents will be moving elsewhere, afterward to be replaced by Radiohead fans with Apple computers and sparrow tattoos who don’t mind paying triple the current rents.

Whether he made hispterism the asshole trend of the decade or not, he’s making sure it spreads and doesn’t go away, so fuck him to the floor for that alone.

[....]

But did I mention that he likes to sexually harass his employees, the women he does business with, and everyone else he comes across who owns a vagina (he’s been sued at least 5 times for it)? Did I mention that his company’s advertisements (which are done in-house and can’t be blamed on anyone else) are basically kitschy 70s porn? Did I forget to say that he coerces the “models” he hires to create that 70s porn into letting him pork them, often by warning them that their jobs depend on it? Oh yeah, he also jacked off on someone and he likes to walk around the office naked, firing anyone who doesn’t like it. He’s a bad guy.

I suppose it isn’t much of a surprising story. Total geek in high school (I mean, fuck, his name is Dov Charney… and did you see him?), hated by everyone, can’t get anyone to touch his wiener, gets rich and powerful, then takes it out on the women he has some authority over and pretends it’s just one big fun sex party.

For the sake of clarity, it should be known that Charney does have his defenders, including some present employees at AA who insist that no sexual harassment occured at all, that everything going on there is totally consensual, and that it is mostly disgruntled former workers with axes to grind who are responsible for his and the company’s bad rep.

Now….there was a part of me back in the day who would actually, in my more utopian moments, actually see the glass-half-full side of this issue; where the antics of American Apparel’s workplace could be actually seen as a model for a more open and progressive viewpoint of handling sexuality in the workplace. I mean, can you imagine a job where there would be no hangups about who’s sleeping with who; and where open sexuality would be treated with respect rather than ridicule??  It may make for wonderful wanking fantasy for erotic fiction and the “Sex at Work” section of the adult movie store; but could it quite work out for real in the workplace of today??

Ahhhhh…errrrrrrr..uhhhh….no.  Not even close.  Not in this lifetime. And not with the prevailing attitudes.

Don’t get me wrong, though…I would wonder whether a woman with the power (both corporate and sexual) of Dov Charney would be able to pull off such a feat; and it would make for an interesting experiment for the future should an openly sexual and intelligent woman ever achieve such power in the corporate world. Within the porn industry, indeed, there are women who are slowly getting that kind of corporate power, such as Lisa Ann, a porn performer who now runs her own talent agency for porn performers (Lisa Ann Talent Management, which manages some of the heaviest hitters in porn like Nina Hartley and up and cummers like Bridgett Lee), and who still does the occasional video and strip club tour.  And there are women like Vicky Vette, who have parlayed their years of experience in the corporate world in middle management into their subsequent careers in the industry (and in Vicky’s case, her highly successful website.

Problem is, though, the prevailing attitudes about sexuality being both private and not fit for public consumption, and the potential for abuse by  leering men (and women) who may take advantage of such an open attitude; not to mention the wandering eye of the vice cops; would probably squash  that experiment flatter than the Catrock in West Texas.

But while Charney’s personal perversions may be an issue only to those who feel offended by his act, his use of young girls for AA’s “sexy” ads is the main issue for me…and why ultimately I’m more than tempted to agree with Nine Deuce for a change. While I am all for much more adult sexual expression, I draw the line explicitly at using young underage girls and boys as hooks for selling sex to pimp clothing….and I’d much rather that I not see 15- and 16-year-old girls  and boys be put out in the ‘ho and slut fashion merely to make more money for Dov’s private sex parties. That’s why we have legal age of consent, fool, and why porn should be made by ADULTS.

Besides, if AA really wants to push the sex angle so much to pimp their gear, why not simply hire out actual and LEGAL women from porn for their ads??  I mean, they would be actually doing a service by giving these girls an alternative source of income, and providing actual benefits like insurance wouldn’t hurt their cause.  They could even team up with HUSTLER and their “Barely Legal” line of videos; it’s not as if they don’t share the same demographic. There is no need to go to the “Buy our clothes so that you can get seriously laid by fresh, hot, young ass” card…unless thinly-veiled pedophilia was part of the hook to begin with.

Sorry, Dov, but you represent open-minded sexuality the way Jim Jones represents Christianity. Very, very, badly.  And you’re still a skezy, slimy perv, too. (I don’t mean that in the sex-positive way, either.) Youz gets no love or support from me…only a grand “FAIL”. I’d shop at Wal-Mart before I ever touch one of your clothing.

Besides…Danni Ashe did it so much more better, and would kick your ass both professionally and sexually. And, she’s one hell of a lot sexier looking when she jills off, too.

(Note: Even Renegade Evolution, who knows a thing or ten about sex and taking charge, gives Dov Charney the big FAIL.)

(Note #2: Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon (nice upgrade!!) gets her forearm shivers into Charney and AA’s backsides, too.)

Update 7-28-08: ManEegee over at Latino Politico has a full list of blog reaction and protest on Jon Justice here.

Update #2: Ahhh, lookee here….seems that Jon Just-an-ASS isn’t quite as good at taking shit as he is as giving it out…and he’s getting plenty of it….hot, fresh, and consistent. From the Feathered Bastard blog at the Phoenix New Times site today:

In fact, in a recent blog post, Justice sounds like a whiny little bitch served with his own medicine.

“Welcome to the hypocrisy as Isabels Garcias [sic] group DERECHOS HUMANOS has launched a campaign against me!” he kvetches. “Do I work for the government? Does the taxpayer pay my salary? What what [sic] about my 1st Amendment rights? No one ever said that Isabel and Derechos never had the “right” to protest. It was and is still about a lawyer and public servant acting inappropriate per the AZ State Bar Rules and Pima County Policy.”

What a pant-load! Garcia didn’t threaten Arpaio with violence, which is what Just-An-Ass is referring to when he mentions Pima County policy. All she did was pick up a frickin’ pinata head. Even the piñata-beating itself is protected, symbolic speech. You may not like it, but that’s what the First Amendment’s there for, to protect the speech you don’t like.

I don’t really think Justice should be driven off the air, any more than Garcia should be fired from her position. But Justice drew first blood, and Derechos Humanos is counterattacking in defense of their gal Garcia. Justice brought this on himself. And if he can’t cowboy-up and take it, he should consider a new career as an Avon Lady.

Just like a right-wingnut bully, ehhh?? Attempt to shift the blame to the victim. I’m surprised that Just-an-ASS didn’t go to the “She’s a hot mamacita slut who got what she deserved” card.

So now, he’s trying to get Mrs. Garcia fired from her Public Defender’s job for “inappropriate behavior” (i.e., leading the protest against Sheriff Joe)?? Gee..and Arapio’s running around at taxpayer expense (unlike Just-an-ASS, last time I recall, Arapio is still Sheriff of Maricopa County and thusly a PUBLIC official) is appropriate??

As appropriate, even, as faking a drowning of a dog on air?? Which, BTW, was the stunt that got Just-an-ASS booted from his old radio gig in Michigan. I guess that the brain cells weren’t clicking then, either.

What a man. Really. May he burn in 500 pits of Hell.

Update #3: Oh, good Goddess Almighthy……just when you think it couldn’t get any better; I just caught the second video that Jon Just-an-ASS made regarding Isabel Garcia. WOW…this dewd is sicker and more racist than I ever imagined. Just try and get through this shit without either laughing yourself silly…or throwing up.

Make that 1,000 pits of fire in Hell for you, you racist dumbass.

Update #4:Oh, now he’s really gone and done it….he even got Blackamazon to come out of retirement to whack his sorry ass……way to go, bastard. Betwen the Latin@ Posse and BA’s machete, I’d strongly consider taking a permanant vacation…in Chile.

Oh…and even freakin’ Trinity over at The Strangest Alrhemy is bashing Just-an-ASS…with a transcript (pdf file, requires Adobe Reader to view) of Video #2 above. You not very bright, Jonny boy.

——————————————————————

Original Post:

I’m sure that you’ve seen this video going around the blogosphere:

The man featured in this video is a right-wing radio shock jock wannabe named “Jon Justice”, working out a station in Tuscon, Arizona.

The woman that he is slandering in pinata effigy is a Latin@ activist and public defender named Isabel Garcia, whose main offense in “Justice”’s mind is that she dares to see her people as a bit more than just human pinatas for tighty Whitey Righties like “Justice” to use and throw away as “illegal aliens”.

And what prompted this little lovefest?? Well, Mrs. Garcia led a protest against a book signing by Maricopa County (where the greater Pheonix metro area is centered) Sheriff Joe Arapio, the famed “Tough Justice” advocate known for his slightly unorthodox means of humiliating those unlucky enough to violate his laws. Arapio was pushing his latest book attempting to slander “illegal aliens” (read that to mean, Latin@s not “smart” enough to know their place and stay there, or rich enough to vote for Republicans like Arapio and glorify him on FOX News Channel) for creating all sorts of evil and sin on decent, law-abiding (White) America. The protest happened to include a pinata party featuring a likeness of Arapio (including the trademark pink undies that he regularly imposes on his inmates).

Of course, you can say that having young kids beat down a pinata image of an authority figure like Arapio is a bit suggestive. On the other hand, creating a similar pinata image of an older woman of color with all the usual “Mexican” stereotypes; making all sorts of snark about wanting to “take her home with me”, and then using the image to mock the real person’s heritage, language, and gender….I would guess that that would be considered to be a bit beyond suggestive. ‘ya think??

Uh-huh. Try excessively stupid. Fundamentally racist. Physically threatening. And without a freakin’ clue, either.

Dewd…you do know that those people are THE MAJORITY over there, right?? And that if you persist in pissing them off enough, they can unify themselves and wipe your sorry ass off the face of the earth?? And reclaim the land that YOUR ancestors actually STOLE from them?? (Yes, Mr. Justice, that land you assume to be your own was actually stolen from them, not the other way around.)

But then again, given the state of political education in the age of Limbaugh, Boortz, the Savage Weiner, and Tancredo, it hardly surprises me about how privileged right-wingnuts like “Justice” get free airplay.

This fool needs a serious neurological workup….and a swift ass-kicking to boot.

My fellow and sister Headbussas Nezua and Brownfemipower have so much more on this developing story; see also Belledame. Info on the good deeds of Mrs. Garcia can be found here; she deserves the support of all decent progressive people.

Ahhh..lookee here. It seems that my commentary on Gail Dines and her appearance on Penn and Teller: BULLSHIT! seems to have attracted some interest.

Particularly, the good folks at NoPornNorthhampton, who just so happened to break me off a comment attempting to refute my and P&T’s takedown of Dines’ fundamental makeup of porn and its supposedly harmful effects.

In particular, this section which I wrote in the original:

OK….so the fact that it’s mostly girl/girl sex and solo masturbation scenes and mostly “vanilla” hetero scenes found in most porn sites and movies which make up nearly 80 to 90 percent of the porn being viewed in the US means absolutely nothing to Professor Dines; it’s that nasty-ass gonzo and the circus-sex acts of facials and anals and gangbangs that really count… [....]

Apparantly, Adam or one of his groupies had an issue with that; using a “recent academic study” that attempted to analyze porn DVD titles from the Adult Video News website to prove me wrong.

Wosnitzer: “We went through Adult Video News every month. [It] publishes a list of the top 250 best sold and rented adult DVDs… [W]e avoided the issue of ‘What is pornography?’ because AVN defined it for us, in a sense… We took the top 50 from each month, went back over a six month period, randomly generated took the top 50 films. We coded by scene. We had a total of 304 scenes that we coded over this randomly generated list of the top 50 films…

Wosnitzer: “We can read aggression and violence defined as any action causing or attempting to cause physical or psychological harm to oneself, to another person, animal or inanimate object, intentionally or accidentally, whereby physical harm is understood as assaulting another verbally and nonverbally…”

Bridges: “…I’m going to begin to talk about what it is that we found after looking at these 304 scenes in these 50 top selling pornographic films. In total in the 304 scenes we coded a total of 3,376 acts of aggression. That ends up averaging…to an aggressive act every minute and a half. The scenes on average contained eleven and a half acts of verbal or physical aggression…”

Now first off: these folks do know that analyzing this “random generated” (more like, pulled out of their asses) list or “top 50 videos” ignores the main point that most of the more popularly consumed and produced porn comes directly off the Internet, not from the major porn studios…and that analyzing 50 videos out of nearly hundreds if not thousands of adult videos that are released every year probably wouldn’t reflect the true diversity of content of porn in the first place.

Then there is their quaint and very open definition of “aggression”. which could include anything from an overly aggressive kiss or an insertion of the digits into another person’s naughty bits (remember, in Dines and NPNH’s worldview, any means of penetration of a woman is de facto defined as near rape, regardless even of the woman’s stated wishes), to open-handed slaps on the face or breasts or buttocks; to direct physical attacks designed to maim or injure. Not to mention the “verbal aggeression”, which basically can be reduced to: “He called her a WHORE, a BITCH, a C*NT!! He said one of those seven dirty words!!! Oh, the humanity!!!” The notion that dirty talk is designed more as a turn-on for the woman as much as for the man seems to be absent from their “studies”…but then again, actually pursuing the opinion and thoughts of the actual actors in those scenes probably wasn’t in their minds when they cooked up this “study”, now wasn’t it??

Bridges: “We also coded for, what…we’re calling loosely in this talk, ‘extreme acts’ (of sex acts). The only sexual sequence that we coded, which is…when one thing follows another, was something called ATM…’ass-to-mouth’. This literally involves anal penetration followed by oral sex…she is literally eating her own shit. That occurred in 41% of the scenes that we coded…”

Ahhhh, dude…I’ve seen my share of ATM (and ATOGM) scenes, and I can attest with absolute certainty that there is positively, absolutely NO “shit-eating” involved at all. In fact, the performers of such acts are thoroughly prepared well in advance for those scenes through enemas and douching and all other precautions to insure that no “accidents” even remotely occur. Perhaps you got that confused with the “scat porn” study???

And considering how open your concept of “aggressive” sex acts are, how can we know that you have not taken liberties with your definition of “extreme” sex acts, too?? Would that include plain anal scenes (of course, taking a dick up the ass must be total rape, because no respectful woman would ever enjoy such a deviant…errrrr, patriarchial activity?? Or…gang bangs (read: sex with more than one man)??? Or blowjobs leading to facials (because REAL women prefer their sex strictly missionary, and with none of the nasty sperm present…eeeeeeeewwwwwwwww!!! How gross!!!)

And why deal with percentages, anyway…..why not just state the number of scenes you saw that contained the offensive acts….or, better yet, just name the movies and the scenes so that anyone wishing to analyze your study for accuracy can see them for themselves??

Bridges: “Slapping happened 30% of the time… Most of the aggressors in these films were men…73%. By far the most common recipient of aggression was a woman. Even when women were aggressing, they were generally aggressing other women…”

Bridges: “How did the person respond when they were aggressed?… In 95% of these 3,000 and some acts of aggression, the person was either neutral, as in no change of facial expression or verbal expression, or was sort of saying, ‘That feels great. Keep doing it. Right on.’ And in only 3% did we see some overt expression of displeasure or pain. Again, it seems to be very important to the people who are watching this to believe that the recipient of aggression is fact enjoying it, is choosing it at some level…”

Ahhh, but you do know that there is a fundamental difference between a mild to moderate slap to the butt or breast or even to the face designed to stimulate the nerves and enhance sexual pleasure, and a genuine slap intended to hurt, maim, or injure the person. I would guess that the women who consented to doing those scenes already know the difference quite well, and would probably not appreciated outsiders interpreting their views for them. Maybe there reason why they reacted as it there was no pain was because…well..there really wasn’t any pain, and that it didn’t get to the level of violence or injury??

But, so much easier for antiporn ideologues to believe that women are either lying about this or dupes of the patriarchy, right??

Bridges: “…in couples research we know that couples, even couples who fight a lot, as long as there’s a lot of good in the relationship, about five times more good than bad, they actually do pretty well.

“Less than 10% of the videos showed any kind of a positive act, and that included kissing… caressing happened maybe twice. Something like a verbal compliment, ‘Gosh, you look pretty’, not, ‘Slut bitch, come over here,’ that happened maybe five times in the 304 scenes. So we have a ratio of positive to negative behaviors of 1 to 9, which is not a sustainable, happy relationship.”

Oh, I see…because the kind of porn that you analyzed does not meet some arbitrary ratio of “positive behavior” (kissing, caressing, and such) to nasty, negative, degrading behavior (dirty facials, anal sex, slapping), that proves your point that porn should be banished from the earth?? Never mind that there really is a subgenre of porn that emphasizes exactly what you see as “positive” (do the names Tristan Taormino and Candida Royalle ring any bells??). Is your issue really with porn content, or is it really about women and men who don’t meet your narrow, hyperromanticized standard of sexuality as being only legitimate for “emotional intimacy”?? Does it ever enter your mind that these are ACTORS performing SCENES that may not reflect upon their own private sex lives; that these women and men may be perfectly capable of having strong emotional personal relationships while still depicting acts they may enjoy on the side for their own pleasure??

But even all that ignores the main point: this is still (however NPNH may attempt to spin and distort it) a small minority of the porn that is available for consumption in the United States; and most of it still remains quite vanilla: het couples performing mostly standard sex acts; single women masturbating; and girls sharing each other (sometimes with their BF’s or husbands watching). To emphasize this small sample and attempt to condemn the whole genre of adult sexual media is not only a big lie, but a huge slander on everyone: the performers, the consumers, and those who defend consensual sexual expression.

Sorry, Adam and NPNH, but your old dog still can’t get beyond the same old trick. Try again when you have something new.

Well….Nina Hartley’s website Nina.com is now officially back on line, after two weeks of being shut down after the hacking by those Islamic cyberterrorists. (Warning, Link NSFW)

As promised by Ernest, the free forums was a casualty of the upgrade; they will not be brought back. Ernest and Nina are currently working on creating an alternative means of interaction with her fans.

In the meantime, there’s been some flare up from some sources over the targeting of adult websites by these Islamic fundamentalist hackers. When Ernest posted over at BPPA his reflections on the motives of the hackings and how Nina is a target of a variety of ideologically diverse groups (from the antiporn radfems to Islamic fundies to the Christian Right) for her sex-positive feminist beliefs; a commentor from the right-wing libertarian blog Ace of Spades decided to lay into Ernest for apparantly slandering Christians while ignoring the real threat of “Islamacists”. Quoting a comment from the original BPPA thread:

“As usual, those on the left — here, the sexual left — can only spend a bit of time criticizing jihadists before rushing headlong to criticize those they really hate, “right wing Christian fundamentalists.” It really makes no goddamn sense. You’ve just been unlawfully harassed and cyber-attacked by Turkish jihadists, so of course you want to direct as much of your fire as possible towards people who didn’t do anything to you, besides criticize you, which is also their right as Americans.

“I find the left to be wearying and childish on this point. Their efforts to be even-handed against “all extremists” is not even-handed at all. They wind up classing those who haven’t done anything particular untoward with those who are actually illegally attacking them… which merely spares the culpable parties their proper measure of blame by dividing the load among the blameless.”

In other words, I guess that “the sexual left” should cease attacking Christian fundamentalists and focus their fire exclusively on wiping out “the Islamacists” who are the true source of all evil and the root of sexual bigotry. In short, they should wipe “Islamacists” — fundamentalist or not — from the face of the earth.

Never mind the slander on all who practice Islam — the same slander from whence the Iraq War and atrocities like the Fallujah massacre and the Abu Gharib prison, never mind the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the Occupied Territories) are born; or the arroganct attitude that cultural progressives should somehow accept “second class” citizenship behind their Christian “superiors” who basically “tolerate” them….

Of course, Ernest dispatches such bullshit with his usual clarity and depth:

For your information, our site had previously been attacked, trolled, hacked and harassed by a variety of right-wing religious extremists prior to the most recent incident. You can take whatever pride you like in having been at the head of the line when it came to trying to shout us down.

It is also your side that does its level best to put us in jail on obscenity charges, pressures government and private businesses to use all possible means toward the aim of making what we do impossible, supports “regulations” that would prohibit constitutionally protected expression by circumventing the First Amendment under the guise of mitigating so-called “secondary effects,” and on and on and on. You don’t just criticize us, which wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. Your side does whatever it can to silence us just like those you claim to oppose.

For you to come here and lecture any of us on the superiority of your way of thinking and operating to that of the other enemies of freedom would be funny if it weren’t so utterly nauseating, especially under the present circumstances.

Go back and tell your friend Ace that if I associate him, you and others like you with those you detest, it is because of the similarity of your behavior, as you have demonstrated it here once again.

Just to make this perfectly clear, I am not a moral relativist. I loathe those who oppose personal liberty regardless of their reasons or their methods.

As a Jew, I suggest you go shtup yourself.

Turns out that Ace of Spades is about as down on porn as it is with “Jihadism”: a few snippets from some comments about Nina from that site (and, my policy on linking hate sites standing, just Google for yourself):

Nina Hartley? Sounds like a rejected SNL skit. — eman

Pathetic stunt. This broad would, and has, done anything to get a little attention. I know. – “Ron Jeremy” (probably not the real one)

All these stars, ruining their entertainment with their politics. Shut up and [fuck]! I don’t know how I’ll ever watch her films again. And this DVD box set has to go! – Z Ryan [Of course, if Nina shared his right-wing politics, would he be so dismissive of her??]

More pearls of wisdom from Nina: “Christian evangelicals support the militant settlers on the West Bank, and the Likudniks accept that support without a blink, even though they know full well that these wonderful, new allies of theirs embrace religious teachings that require all Jews to ultimately convert or be damned. ” Maybe the Turks will quit bugging her now that she’s throwing the Jews under the bus. — David Ross

Nina’s still making a living with Ye Olde Vagina, huh? That snatch probably looks like it made a turn through the Rawlings factory by now. When are they going to understand that we like our pron made by braindead 19 year olds, and not forty-somethings with political opinions? — Abe Leamas

I guess ol’ Ernie’s not too comfortable with the fact that some people have less-than-full respect for a dishrag. Oh, well. Guess I’ll be one of the few guys in the world who hasn’t had her. Somehow I’ll get by. Just put one foot in front of the other, I suppose. — Fa Cube Itches

Yup…such wonderful visionaries, these men are. And this from a blog recommended by RightyBlogs dot com as a top conservative site, too.

Even Renegade Evolution, who happens to be a REAL conservative libertarian, was a but turned off by these guys, as this latest post to BPPA notes:

-No major religious faith is a friend to people involved in the Sex Biz, so really, it is safe to assume from the get-go that those of us who are in it will be skeptical of you. We have reason. A lot of legislation that makes our lives not only harder, but also more dangerous, has been rallied for and passed into law mostly due to the very loud voices of various Religious Right (ahem, Christian) organizations and Radical Leaning Feminists (which hey, is the oddest alliance I can think of, but I guess it works). When it seems to us that those factions are doing everything in their power to make our business illegal, or nearly impossible to be in, well yes, it makes us grumpy. I’m sure you all would feel the same way if it were your line of work that was being targeted.

-A couple of us have dealt with hacker bullshit and other assorted crap and frankly, we’re tired of it. Nina’s site? Islamic assholes. I got some similar kind of love and threats from some Radical Feminists. We’ve have trolls of all flavors (including Christian ones), so yeah, we’re cranky. It’s a natural human reaction to patronizing, childish antics.

-Nina herself is not a poster on this blog…though she is welcome to whenever she likes.

-Politically, the posters here vary a lot, from very left leaning socialist to somewhat right leaning libertarian to…well, a contributor from the UK who I’m not sure how she identifies. So please do not generalize our politics for us.

-Oh, and if you’re going to come here to talk or debate or what have you, sure, welcome, but save the insults on looks, brains, politics, whatever for other places. And the whole sex workers are all abuse victims/dumb/brain dead/retarded/junkie/at the mercy of a pimp crap? Don’t play that here.

And not here, either.

Let’s see: first the Repubs lose supposedly safe Congressional districts in Illinois, Louisiana, and Mississippi (well done, Rush….so much for Operation Chaos!!). OK, so the winners are mostly conservative Democrats, but in districts which averaged 55-60% majorities for Dubya, it’s still a bombshell.

Then…..Dubya decides to use the anniversary of Israel’s founding to attempt to smack down Barack Obama as the second coming of Neville Chamberlain playing “appeasement” to the modern-day “Nazis” called Hamas. And McCain decides to join in on the fun with his own slam. Which only results in doing what not even the Democratic Party appratus couldn’t do for all of three months: unite Obama and Hillary and Howard Dean and John Kerry and even Joe Biden (who called it “bullshit”) together in universal outrage.

And to make things so much better, the Repubs send a dimwit wingnutter to attempt to sell this “Obama = Chamberlain” meme on Chris Matthews’ Hardball…which only gets him smacked down hard by the host. And considering Tweety’s….ummmm, respect for McCain, you gotta go pretty low to earn that.

Hardball with Chris Matthews: Tweety Smacks Down Right-Wingnut Kevin James on “Obama = Chamberlain” Meme (via YouTube)

The moral: don’t come to a gunfight with only the same old Hannity talking points…and read a history book or five.

“But…but..butbutbutbutbut….we’re talking about APPEASEMENT!!!!!!” Yeah, right.

And finally….you have Keith Olbermann, once again applying the whupass to Dubya for his latest inanity of an interview; including the unfortunate quib about how our President-Select is more than willing to sacrifice his golf game for the solidarity of the troops dying for his wars. Even after their 17th tour of duty.

Countdown with Keith Olbermann: May 14th Special Comment on Bush Interview (Parts 1 and 2) (From YouTube)

Actually, I’d rather that Dubya NOT “shut the hell up”…the more he opens his piehole, the better the chance that his party gets rolled flatter than a pancake come November. At this rate, even Walter Mondale might be cracking a smile.

Oh, but this is getting really precious:

So, Luckynickl, fearless GenderBorgian and defender of Womyn Warriors everywhere against the evol male erections and transsexuals stalking women’s restrooms, decides to do an attempt at drive-by smack at Ren Ev’s place regarding Ren’s most recent post whacking the hypocrisy of certain “radical femininsts” on porn and sex work.

The resulting lunacy is an instant classic study on how Lucky has totally lost it.

Ren’s already done her own deconstructive fisking of Lucky at her place; but I thought that this deserved a special SmackDog touch as well. So, once more, into the breach, my friends, we go…and let rip the ‘Dog of Rebuttal:

Using Ren’s fisking as the template, of course (Ren’s excerpts in pink, Lucky’s rebuttal in blue):

Certain Feminists: Porn presents unrealistic images of women’s bodies and portrays all women as objects. It defines them solely as things to be used for male pleasure.

True.

Uhhh….not really, Lucky….and how in the hell can porn be both “unrealistic” in terms of body images (and apparently, she hasn’t been anywhere near the Internet often, or she would see a