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.

Oh, WOW….Maggie Hays is getting her zealot freak on again.

First off, Mags…did you get permission from Twisty to steal from her tagline??

Secondly…..“porno-iarchy”?!?!?!?! Don’t you know that “porno” as a suffix and a noun went out with the 70’s?? Wouldn’t “porn-iarchy” be a better term???

Now, I’m not going to fisk through the entire thing, since Ren Ev has already done so magnificently. But, let’s just go through some highlights:

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the misogyny, degradation, abuse, and racism that are inherent and blatant in the content of mainstream pornography.

Which means the all the misogyny, degradation, abuse and racism that take place outside of “mainstream pornography” — that is, in the wider world — are perfectly OK with you, Maggie?? As long as they all can be blamed on “the porno-iarchy”??

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the harms caused by pornography to women and children (and sometimes to men) in this unjust male-supremacist society.

Oh…so she actually admits that some men might be harmed by porn?? I thought that all men who used porn were simply innate rapists??

And change “male-supremacist” with “secular” or “Godless” society…and then tell me there’s much difference between this and the Religious Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for so many women and girls having to make themselves look “sexy” or “fuckable” to men in the goal to achieve a false sense of “empowerment” (been there myself when I used to go clubbing).

As if women weren’t doing such before porn became popular?? And what about the idea that the reason some women might dress to make themselves “fuckable” or “sexy” to men (or, perhaps, to other women) might be because she’s actually looking for sex for her own pleasure??

Oh, but of course not….everybody knows that sexual pleasure not redeemed by “deep intimacy” or “radicalfeminist” politics is simply male-defined and invented by the “porno-iarchy” to enslave women in their own selfish orgasms!!! It must be true because Maggie said so!!

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls have to force themselves to have sex when they don’t necessarily want to in order to please their boyfriends and husbands.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls are sexually coerced into sexual acts (coming from the ‘domination/subordination’ pornographic mind) they do not really want to practice.

Oh..and who are you to determine whether women want to or not want to engage in such “domination/subordination” practices?? Even when the woman is in the dominant position?? Of course, even if a woman says outright that she chooses for herself what position she favors, we all know that in a “porno-iarchy”, there is no such thing as mutual consent or even pleasure; it is all nothing short of rape…even if the individual participant insists she was never coerced and that she was never raped; and that she actually wanted to do it.

And….why, Mags, is it only women who are forced to have sex against their will?? Do you assume that men don’t have the same right of refusal when women insist on getting it on??

Oh, I forgot…men are simply coarse animals who can’t control their sexual instincts (unless given the proper radfem treatments of “john schools” and Bob Jensen/Kyle Payne/John Stoltenberg/Richard Leader seminars where they are taught that their penises are nothing short of dangerous weapons to be castrated for the good of society). Therefore, they aren’t capable of self-control….right??

Again…substitute “homosexual” for men and “ex-gay treatment centers” for “john schools…” and you are precisely into crackpot Paul Cameron/NARTH territory. How fitting for a “progressive feminist”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for blaming the victims of rape (saying that’s “her fault, she’s responsible for what happened because blah, blah, blah. . .”) and not the rapists.

Oh, nice one, Maggie…too bad that you can’t find one single example of a leading “pro-porn feminist” ever blaming a woman for being raped. On the other hand, I could find countless examples of antiporn “feminists” going so far as to say that women who dress “sexy” not only deserve to be raped or beaten; but that their very existence triggers men to rape innocent women in response. But…it’s all about the ‘porno-iarchy”, not the scapegoating, slut-shaming, hateful slanders of your side.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the (usual) censoring and demonizing of radical feminists in the malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for accusing us of “siding with religious zealots”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for not letting us rad fems educate enough people on the harms of pornography ’cause of the malestream media being tied to the pornography industry, ’cause pro-porners are endlessly trying to silence us and ’cause of ‘leftist’ liberal stubborn pornography-protecting mind (as Gail Dines & Robert Jensen say ‘Pornography is a Left Issue‘, not a right-wing one)

Too easy, Mags….I don’t see anyone shutting down Gail Dines’ workshops or attempting to censor Bob Jensen’s slideshows or beating down antiporn activists. (Unless you consider Maxine Doogan an antiporn activist, that is. Errrr…OOPS.) And last time I checked, wasn’t Wheelock College a “malestream” institution?? What about the Justice Department, which has funded plenty of Melissa Fairley’s studies that you use to buttress your arguments?? Or the significant support from the Bush Administration that your side has received??

And please….you just don’t get to define what the Left is or should raise as issues, given your close ties to the Farthest of the Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for some women defending pornography and prostitution in the name of ‘feminism’.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the pro-pornstitution ‘feminists’ being unfairly magnified by malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for slandering us, radical feminists, and totally misrepresenting our views or simply not understanding why we’re so angry at the pornstitution industry (because of the HARMS!!!).

Because only tried and true, pure, antiporn “feminists” like Maggie Hays are assumed to be telling the truth; everyone else is merely apeing the “porno-iarchy” in deep denial of the real “HARMS!!!!”) And of course, the “malestream” media simply eats the “pro-porn” lies up….note the big fat $400 MILLION contract that Nina Hartley just received to promote her book on talk radio…..ahhhhh, wait, hold up…..that wasn’t Nina??? That was really that anti-porn feminist activist Rush Limbaugh?? Oh…never mind, so sorry.

The rest of it I will defer to Ren Ev, since she debunks so well.

Actually, this was only the second most whackoid rant that Maggie has produced…the winner I will tackle with a full fisk anon. Hint: Think of broken records and building sock sand castles to knock down.

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.)

[Updated: scroll down to the bottom.]

Oh, how nice….I was so busy answering Nine Deuce’s inquiry that I glossed over the rest of her essay….and it’s even more loaded and leading of the question than the questions:

Where are the men who want to argue vociferously for women’s “right” to participate in their own exploitation? Where are the men clambering to convince me that (women) getting naked for money is empowering? Where are all the dudes who want to tell me that feminism is about “choice” and that women who are making the “choice” to suck a bunch of dicks for money are leading the charge toward some future utopia in which women will be safe, free, and human? Not many of these men exist, because most men know that they’d have a hard time keeping a straight face while making such claims. So why are women making the claim for them?

Of course, all this is just a figment of ND’s vivid imagination, since no prominent sex-pozzie male has ever, at least as far as i have seen, ever claimed the universal that sex work is innately “empowering” to all women (other than those women who have testified personally that it was empowering for them….but you know that their voices don’t count in the minds of radicalfemiinists like ND); or that there is anything “utopian” about “making the ‘choice’ to suck a bunch of dicks for money”. And of course, the idea that women can’t speak for themselves (at least, not the women who don’t think like Nine Deuce and Heart(less) and Maggie Hays and Witchy-Woo) but need men to carry their water, tends not to get through the microcode implants in their brains.

But even that does not compare to the greatest weapon that ND brandishes in her assault on pro-pornie men…..namely, this cartoon:

Uh-huh. Nothing says “exploitation” quite like gawking, leering men staring down a scantily-clad woman.

Except, ND…that it isn’t quite exploitation if the woman actually likes it. Or the guys actually respect her. And they are willing to tip her graciously. (Yes, ND, she’s the one getting paid, and they’re doing the paying. So, who’s exploiting who here???)

But, it’s the racial mixture of the gawking men that should really squick everyone here: does Nine Deuce really understand how depicting men of color as mouth-dripping, sex-obsessed adolescents just might feed into charges of racism???

Errrrr…..just sayin’.

Update: Get a load of how Nine Deuce attempts to dismiss criticism of using this cartoon:

“I think the picture is of a bunch of old white dudes that are outside the reach of the spotlight. If the artist intended them to look like men of color, I’m not backing that, but I doubt it. In any case, with regard to the post it’s a tertiary issue at best. Back to the point.”

Oh, really??? Well, bless her heart…..or, to be more accurate, BULLSHIT.

Notice, for example, the guy at the forefront who’s staring directly at the stripper’s ass. Looks Black to me….or else that must be one powerless spotlight.

Or…the two men standing next to the man who’s talking about “Enough exploitiation, let’s have the empowerment!!!” Most definitely Black…especially the bald-headed one.

But, of course, all of that is merely tertiary to the main point of…what?? That sex-positive men only want to get into women’s panties?? That their respect for women who perform sex acts on stage or screen (or even those who simply strip in night clubs) are simply “Freedom to Rape With Impunity” cards to assault women with?? That we all are simply Ted Bundys in training??

How very antiracist of you, Nine Deuce….I see that Jon Justice isn’t the only one needing a trip on the Klew Train.

Update #2: Leave it to Amber Rhea to bring down the bolt of truth onto such haters:

Yes, no surprise, shit like this and this (check the comment from “L”) downright enrages me. And even that word, I think, does not do justice to the pure RAGE I feel when I see people DENYING MY AGENCY AS A HUMAN BEING, denying my very existence, denying that I am an intelligent, capable, self-aware woman who is CONSTANTLY examining and reflecting on my own life and the choices I make. It hurts the most when it comes from other women, in particular other feminists.

[...]

It enrages me, and it makes me feel sick, and sad, and just awful about humanity, actually. Because why is it such a difficult concept to convey, that my life is mine, my choices are mine, and just because they differ from yours that does not mean I’m damaged or stupid? Why is it so hard to see that accepting the same old stereotypes of women who are openly sexual (not to mention women who work in the sex industry!) as stupid or damaged or victims or villains is nothing more than some seriously OLD-SCHOOL PATRIARCHAL BULLSHIT? It HURTS to have that same old double standard inflicted on me by other women, by other FEMINISTS.

This post gets the “hypocrisy” tag because, as I said to Elisa the other night, that’s what it is, plain and simple.

Pole dancing, for example? The smug characterizations of it as “empowerful” or “degrading” and whatever other bullshit so-called feminist bloggers (not to even mention non-feminists, especially anti-feminist men; holy shit, I can’t even go there, I would get damn near suicidal) say about it, talking OUT OF THEIR ASSES, assuming I must be doing it for my boyfriend (!!!!!!) or whatever else… holy fucking shit I cannot take it anymore. But guess what I DO know, assholes? That when I’m pole dancing, I feel joyful and whole, I feel a happiness that I rarely feel at any other time that permeates my entire being, I feel ALIVE - and the last thing on my mind is what “Teh Menz” might be thinking (especially because nine times out of ten, there AREN’T ANY MEN PRESENT anyway).

And Amber’s not even a paid sex worker….just a civilian who does pole dancing for the sheer fun. Is she one of the “exploited”, too, ND???

This is getting dangerously close to a “Kiss my ass” moment, so I will stop here.

Update 8-4-08:

Well, now….seems that Nine Deuce has decided to take down the pic from her blog, claiming that she doesn’t want the allegations of racism to distract from the point about the “subjugation” of stripping that she was attempting to make. There’s an extended exchange in the thread between ND and Bint Alshamsa (of My Private Casbah), with the usual drive-by smack from the GenderBorg Peanut Gallery (mostly Gayle), where they hash out the debate on racism.

But never fear…seems like Heart(less) and Witchy-Woo have now taken up ND’s slack in full defense of the pic….and especially get a load of what Witchy did to attempt to counter the racism charge: (this captured and smacked down so well by Caroline over at Uncool):

Yup…..that clears it up real good. No racism at all. Nothing to see here, just move along, losers.

Hey, Witchy…..I really do hate to break this to you, my lady (actually, I don’t), but you do know that brightening up a pic via Photoshop or The Gimp does not eliminate differences in flesh tones, right??? Problem is, even with “the spotlight” turned on as you attempt to do, you can still see the Black faces staring at the dancer…thusly, the pic can still be perceived as promoting the usual racist stereotypes of oversexed, drooling, raging hormonal Black men targeting dimwitted, bubbleheaded slutty White women for abuse and rape.

Oh…and the insulting way you put quotes on the dancer isn’t too bright and progressive, either….just ask some actual dancers on that one.

Never say that I’m not hip to answering a challenge.

Since Nine Deuce asked so politely, and Witchy-Woo laid down the gauntlet so forcefully (now, I can’t speak for Jack Goff or IACB, only for myself), I will do my best to answer all of ND’s questions about how we sex-pozzie men aren’t the ogre rapists and demonizers that she and W-W think we are.

Let’s go by the numbers, shall we??

1)  Do you believe that women would participate in sex work if we did not live in an oppressive, misogynistic culture? If so, what would the sex industry look like in a world in which women were seen as possessing the same humanity men do?

Probably, yes…because I believe that misogyny is not just an element of porn but endemic in the entire culture; thusly, a more democratic and egalitarian culture that distributed wealth and resources more equally would allow women more freedom of choice and thought…and more access to safer and more sane sex work and media. And with better rules and regulations to ensure the safety and consensuality of client and worker alike, and the more corrosive puritan attitudes transformed and vetted, sex work would become itself more sane and safe. It won’t be perfect, since there will always be assholes who will attempt to push themselves and their myopias onto both workers and clients, but at least it will be so much easier to isolate and contain them from the general population.

2)  Do you believe that pornography and prostitution negatively affect some women’s lives (obviously some sex workers suffer abuse, but I am referring to women outside the sex industry here)? If not, why not? If so, does any of the responsibility for that lie with sex workers, or does it lie solely with the producers and pimps? Or somewhere else?

When it is enfused with sex negative and antiegalitarian values?? Sure, porn and prostitution can indeed negatively affect the lives of outsiders.  BUT…so can so many other factors, such as income levels, socioeconomics, race, access to basic human resources.  The difference between we sex-poz radicals (both men and women) and the antiporn “feminists” is in how we would resolve such inequities.  They favor censorship and imposition of a narrowly based sexually conservative vision on everyone; we favor greater access to more choices and developing safer environments for such choices.

3)  Why aren’t there more men out there arguing for women’s “right” to participate in sex work? What do you make of the fact that very few men call sex work a feminist choice? I’d also be happy to discuss the arguments of men who do make such a claim.

Gee, ND, I thought that men were universally FOR women’s “right” to participate in their own subjugation?? Doesn’t that kinda make your argument kinda moot???

And I thought that feminism was a women’s movement that didn’t concern itself with what men thought about them???

But to answer your question more directly: Because a great deal of men have inoculated themselves with the dominant cultural beliefs about sexuality being redeemed only through “intimacy” and procreation through marriage?? Even though they tend to violate these vows with regularity??

4)  Can women like Jenna Jameson can be considered feminists for taking leadership roles in the production of pornography? Why or why not? If the answer is yes, how can we reconcile the negative effects pornography has on women’s lives with referring to a producer of mainstream pornography as a feminist?

Well….I don’t see Jenna calling herself a feminist, any more than Carly Fiona or Whitney Houston or Cindy McCain calling themselves “feminists”. But considering how successful she has been in her profession, whether she calls herself a feminist or not, she is still a woman deserving of respect and admiration for her success and her leadership.

Now…I would consider someone like…say, Nina Hartley, definitely a feminist, and definitely a leader in revolutionizing the production of porn and sexuality. Her legacy of bringing progressive values (not only feminist, but also anti-racist and anti-ageist and pro-pleasure) simply can’t be dismissed as readily….and as to “negative effects on women’s lives”: well, we’ll have to just agree to disagree on that.

5) How can sex work empower individual women when it requires that women submit to being objectified and performing acts for money rather than out of genuine desire to do them?

Well….people are “objectified” every day to do things that they normally wouldn’t do for the paycheck…and they do learn much from the experience that they can use later on in their lives. And who says that the women don’t already enjoy those acts they get paid to do in their private lives for free?? And as Nina has said consistently, sexual objectification isn’t always that bad in itself.

6)  Alternatively, if one genuinely enjoys something and gets paid for it, does it become a feminist act?In other words, does feminism exist to advance the cause of women as a whole or for individual women to use as a justification for their personal choices?

It depends on how you describe “feminism” to be, ND. If feminism is defined as to maximize the humanity of women to equal that assumed of men and enlarge the choices and resources that women should have, then I guess that doing something that you love and getting paid well for it would count as being the ultimate goal of “feminism”. But then again, I’m a man, and I don’t feel myself suited to define what a movement of women should be like; that should be up to women themselves. I tend to judge political movements by their actions, not by their labels or gender…or their private sexual practices.

7) If sex work is a valid, feminist choice, what are we to make of women who say that their participation in sex work resulted from dire poverty, drug addiction, etc.?

I have a novel idea: ATTACK THE POVERTY AND THE DRUG ADDICTION AND THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED SUCH, NOT THE OCCUPATION. Why should sex work have to be the scapegoat for problems that are so much more universal??

8)  I see sex work as a reductionist commodification of human sexuality. Do you think that the reduction of sex to a commodity has a negative effect on our ability to explore and express the potential of human sexuality? If not, why not?

Well….since I don’t quite see sexuality as you do, ND, I’ll just have to pass on that loaded question.  And EVERYTHING in capitalism is commodified; that’s capitalism’s nature. Of course, if you believe that “the potential of human sexuality” can be best realized by neutering, slut-shaming, and badgering women into submitting into your particular narrow view of sexuality, then be my guest.

9)  If you’re a sex-positive dude, tell me why. Why are you in such a huff to help women out? And why does it manifest as sex positivism? Why is your desire to help women out limited to arguing for their “right” to serve you sexually?

Ahh, yes…the most loaded question of all for last: the old “You evol ’sex pozzie men’ just wanna get into our freakin’ panties!!!” meme.

Now, ND….if I was in fact capable of meeting Renegade Evolution or Nina Hartley or Vicky Vette or Bridgett Lee or whomever sexy and intelligent woman I currently admire and respect, do you really think that I wouldn’t be in the least interested in jumping their bones??  But there is a distinct reason why I wouldn’t do such: BECAUSE I RESPECT THEM AS FULL HUMAN BEINGS.  First off, they are already taken. Secondly, they have the right of first refusal…remember that old meme “NO means NO!!!”  (Now, if they came to me and specifically wanted me to get it on with them, then that’s a different question altogether…but my stated principle is that unless they say yes, just assume NO. Not “Not now,” not “Maybe later”…but “NO.”

Trust me on this, ND…..sex isn’t much fun or pleasurable to me if the person on the other end isn’t enjoying herself as much.  That’s the fundamental difference between a genuinely sex-positive male and a boorish, MRA-ish lout who really doesn’t give a Hoover Damn how the woman feels. It’s not about a woman’s “‘right’ to serve me sexually”; it’s about her right to serve HERSELF sexually…and if she prefers to serve herself with one man or the entire roster of the New York Giants team; or one woman, or the entire Los Angeles Sparks women’s pro basketball team, or just by herself with her favorite toy…then that’s all right by me.

The only means in which such a woman “serves” me is that she is an active participant in her own pursuit of safe and consensual pleasure…and that she is open and honest and willing to share that pleasure with others.  That, in the end, is what turns me on, gets me off, and earns my respect.

And no, ND…I don’t have to want to have sex with a woman to respect her for her humanity.  I was brought to this earth by a woman; was raised by a woman, have bosses and supervisors who happen to be women, and look up to and admire several women whom I have no intentions of ever having sex with. There are more than enough willing sexual subjects who celebrate my sexual desire for them willingly to satisfy me. (Even if only in fantasy.)

Hopefully, that fulfills my end of the challenge…probably not enough to change ND’s opinion of us sex-poz men (and definitely not enough for Witchy to lay off the claws….but then again, I don’t blog to please them in the first place.

here are people who just don’t know when to let go of their myopias.

And then….there are FeministAnonymist and Ginmar, who don’t even know how to begin to admit their myopias to begin with.

Both of them call themselves \”radical feminists\”….even though their core vision of sexuality is probably closer to the radical RIGHT than to any feminist I know.

Both of them are obsessed with the appearance and personal, private sexual habits of other women…..in the name of \\\”protecting\\\” women from the threat of \”the patriarchy\”. Even if that means denying the agency and humanity of those other women who don’t agree 110% with their beliefs.

And both of them, in not only my opinion, but proven by events and facts, are purified assholes.

Ginmar, of course, you already probably know about….the former Army soldier who served in Iraq, then formed her own LiveJournal blog to rant about her experiences, then converted to the school of \”radicalfeminist\” thought as expressed by the prophecy of Catherine McKinnon, Gail Dines, and Sam Berg, then proceded to use her soapbox as a ramrod against every woman who disagreed with her. (And quite a few men as well.)

FeministAnonymist, on the other hand, is a relatively new addition to the radfem crank crew; she apparently cut her teeth fighting the good fight agaiinst Islam (not just the terrorists, mind you, but the religion as a whole) before, like Ginny, turning her fire on the evil \”fun feminists\” and \\\”sex pozzies\\\” who are so polluting her precious air space and perverting a perfectly good feminist movement.

But both also share a common goal: they dislike independently sexual women with a passion.

And they especially despise women who talk back at them.

Which explains their continuing obsession with…..yeah, you got it…..bashing Renegade Evolution to shreds.

Ginny’s personal stalking of Ren Ev is more than documented (from \”She’s an college-educated SLUT who kneels at the Patriarchy’s COCK!!\” to \”Ms. Plastic Tits\”), and I’ll just refer you to Ren’s blog for the background…..but in a recent comment thread over at I Blame the Patriarchy, Ginny decided to reup the war by attacking Ren for the 456th time for \”trashing feminists\” and lying about her true condition in defense of her profession as a sex worker/porn performer. This time, it wasn’t Ren Ev’s rack that became the object of derision for Gooney Ginny, but her nose:

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.

The \”picture of her ass\” reference, BTW, is to Sarah over at Season of the Bitch, who did a nice nuclear vent on Ginmar and the rest of the GenderBorg Collective’s bashing of women for their appearance…tapped off by a \”Kiss my HUSTLER panty-clad ass\” moment at the end. (I guess that if the label had been Playboy or Victoria’s Secret or Trashy Lingerie, it wouldn’t have mattered, anyway. And…how ironic for HUSTLER….granny drawers?!?!? Isn’t that a bit…well….modest for the flagship mag of Larry Flynt??)

Ahh..anyways, back on topic….Ren got word of Ginny’s smack and answered back, both through IBTP and her own blog:

RenEv Jul 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical.

Now, my broken noses? Talked about in my old LJ, which was “gathered” as part as the infamous Stormy file. But you know, I know I never mentioned getting a broken nose as part of my stripping experiences, because you know what? That’s not what happened. Two of them happened before I even started dancing. Not sure who decided to destort the truth on that one, but hey, what can I expect, right? It’s not like the truth of the situation matters, right?

Now, you would think that that would end that issue, right?? Wrong.

Apparently, the word of a sex worker can’t be accepted as fact amongst certain \\\”feminists\\\”…especially those with long-standing vendettas. This is Ginmar’s reaction to Ren Ev’s revelation about her broken nose:

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.

Oh, I get it….Renegade Evolution is incapable — in spite of her college education — to speak for herself and defend her life as a sex worker, but Ginmar, merely for being a radical feminist and a opponent of Ren’s existence as a human being, gets not only to define Ren’s experiences, but also her basic emotions about her experiences. Oh…and only she lies about \”radfems\”…not like Ginny’s friends and allies who threatened to out her personal life in front of her family; who have attacked her for her looks, her implants, her skin tone, her heritage, her private sexual preferences…well, simply for being her and not being one of Ginny’s allies, and who have never even deviated one bit from the libel of Ren Ev being the mastermind of the grand plot to destroy radfems now and forever.

This is feminism the way Phyllis Schafly would love to go up against.

But, at least Ginmar has a method to her madness.

FeministAnonymist, on the other hand, is simply like a monkey flailing his own shit at anything that moves…..she just locks and loads.

FemAnon was first discovered when she attempted an ambush on Natalia Antonova (Ukranian native who definitely ROCKS, BTW) because she dared to defend the human rights of Ukranian Arab Muslims. Then, at a blog hosted by an Pakistani emegre who hated Islam as much as she did, FemAnon continued the assault on Natalia, so much so that she got banished from the blog.

On Tuesday, though, FemAnon decided to rent out blog space to defend herself….and while most of her firepower was drawn at Natalia again, she did manage to fire a foul Scud Ren’s way:

The nudity and showing off brings me to the subject of Renegade Evolution. I see that she has quoted me on her infamous blog. I am beginning to think she finds my comments amusing.

I’m not afraid to say that I hate Renegade Evolution. First she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face but then she is surprised that others get angry with her and dehumanize her. HONEY YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF. You dehumanized YOURSELF. No one in the feminist community owes you anything after what you chose to do.

Yes I believe in older women having authority to use in teaching the younger women a thing or two. I’m not much older than Renegade Evolution but I have more experience and have obviously read more books. I was willing to educate myself a long time ago and have been educating myself for years. I’m not an anti-inellectual like Renegade Evolution. If you come to a bad end, Ren Ev, remember that the real feminists saw it coming. No it’s not a threat. It’s a simple reality check. You let men use you, so don’t be surprised if and when it goes too far.

Once again I DO NOT LIE though. People have suggested that Ren Ev made death threats. She didn’t. She’s too smart for that and her smarts are what make her dangerous to the feminist movement in its whole. But her readership is disgusting and I am afraid of them as any woman with any intuition would be afraid of a mob.

Oh…so nice of you to give Ren that benefit of the doubt, all your other smack aside, FemAnon….and why in the hell would you be so afraid of one blogger??? Because she is a stripper who happens to like sex on her terms?? Because she doesn’t run to the nearest GenderBorg Political Correctness Center to attack every single man with an erection merely because one or two happen to act like assholes??

But that’s not even the most hilarious part of FemAnon’s rant….witness this blast towards someone named \\”Apostate\\” merely for the crime of flashing a bit too much skin for FemAnon’s ideological taste:

I liked The Apostate’s blog but I became angry and upset when I clearly saw she had also posted a suggestive picture of herself. Apostatepakistani doing it is understandable as she is an unwell woman, but a woman of sound mind and with a job doing it is awful and sad.

She’s says she’s doing it because she wants to appear un-Islamic. It might seem like a good idea to those that do not dig deeper, but she is playing into the patriarchy’s hands all over again. Just from a different angle. The “i’m a perky-titted young thing and I’m rebellious” line is as antifeminist as is Islam. You’re no better than a Suicide Girl if you do it.

Put some clothes on, Apostate.

If you care about women at all.

We must have the same standard for everyone. No one is special. Either feminists are equal or they are not. Got it, Apostate?

How nice….so I guess now that opposing the sexual restrictiveness towards women that Islam supposedly represents for \\”radicalfeminists\\” by merely showing \\”a suggestive picture\\” of yourself is as much \\”antifeminist\\” (read that to mean MORE antifeminist) than even the supposed \\”antifeminism\\” of Islam. And it certainly makes \\”feminist\\” like FemAnon look really bad. So, for the good of womankind, Apostate must COVER UP!! Stop showing that nipple!! Hide that midriff!! No skirts above the knee…that would inflame men to rape and pillarage even more than \\”Islamofascist\\” rants from Osama bin Laden!!!

Talk about beating the Right…by outflanking it even further to the Right.

And how nice for FemAnon to speak about feminists being \\”equal\\”…but I guess that some \\”feminists\\” are a bit more equal than others, since those who don’t cover themselves up and spout the \\”not-so-fun\\” radicalfeminist line about not encouraging those EVOL penises aren’t quite allowed to control their destiny like those more \\”educated\\” and \\”informed\\” in the real \\”feminist\\” ideology.

And in case you don’t get the point, FemAnon makes it pretty damn explicit later on, when she decides to whack yet another supposed \\”fun feminist\\”, namely Jill at Feministe (who has a special place on FemAnon’s (s)hit list for not only allowing the dreaded \\”sex pozzies\\” room to speak freely, but even allowing Ren Ev to guest blog without the usually required derision and censure)::

Jill Fillipovic is the original Fake Pretty Feminist. It’s all based on looks it’s all vapid it has nothing to do with women’s liberation. UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON’T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN. Actually these are the women who will never see THEMSELVES as human beings. They’ll be too busy buffing their nails and deodorizing their vaginas, ha!.

Because, of course, only TWUE RADICAL FEMINISTS like Feminist Anonymist are capable of telling such non-women whether or not they deserve to be fully human. Forget about equal pay or domestic violence or economic parity….it’s only about flashing panty and bare midriff and cleavage.

Yeah, right.

Being one such man who happens to LIKE women who show cleavage and thigh (and a whole lot more), and still manages to respect them when they show off the other aspects of their humanity, such as their brains, their intestinal fortitude, and their compassion for other human beings and living carbon life forms, I can attest to the fact that compared to them, the likes of Gooney Gunny Ginmar and Feminist Anonymist just don’t add up. There is more humanity in the left nipples of Caroline, Ren, Apostate, Natalia, and any other of the women FemAnon and Ginny slandered, then there is in the collective human bodies of the GenderBorg and their allies….perhaps that explains why there is such an obsession with constantly ridiculing and libeling them as sluts, whores, trollops, and \\”traitors\\”.

Or, to put it another way: The \\”scoreboard\\” always sucks worst to those on the wrong side of the ass kicking…..and right about now, the \\”sex pozzies\\”, as I see it, are intellectually wielding the boot.

Try not to hate too much, fools.

Well…I’m behind the crunch again….had to go offline a bit due to the same old issues.

I’m doing my best to get back online ASAP..so bear with me.

In the meantime, I couldn’t help but comment on the Cat 5 blogstorm currently ongoing in the feminist blogosphere over the legend of Kyle Payne: self-identified male feminist, hardcore antiporn activist…..and convicted sex predator.

Renegade Evolution, as usual, has been the point woman for exposing Mr. Payne’s dual life and hypocrisy (starting here and moving on to here, here, here, and here; although Belledame should get first credit for initially discovering this slimeball).

It seems, though, that Payne has managed to do what two years of Porn Sex Wars couldn’t do: unite antiporn radfems and sex poxxies together in shared mutual outrage. (See Ren’s blogroll of posts on the matter.)

All I will say for now is this: if the GenderBorg is so willing to accept this sleazoid so easily into their midst due to his “activism”, while slandering people like moi who use porn and still manage to treat women with respect and humanity, then they are so much worse and closer to the Radical Right than I ever, ever feared.

I’ll probably have more to say on this when I’m able to get back online regularly.

Oh….and show some love to the God Emperor, too, when you visit there: getting burnt really does suck. Seriously. Ouch.

As if there wasn’t enough reason to heart Renegade Evolution for being as brainy and passionate as she is sexy:

Gail Dines, Her Porn Training Program, and Me

It’s VERY long, but every word is worth the read….a total debunking of the antiporn “feminist” nonsense from pillar to post and back again.

This almost makes up for the passing of that bad-ass motherfucker George Carlin this morning….

I’m sure that you have heard of the Showtime original show Penn and Teller: BULLSHIT!, in which the legendary comedic/magic duo of Penn Gillette and Teller (don’t know his surname) basically exposes what they see as urban myths, rumors, and other assorted fictions.

Well…for the beginning of their sixth season, they decided to train their BS meters on The War on Porn, and all the myths from both Christian Right and radicalfeminist “Left” about the innate evil thereof. And lookee here….one of the skewered antiporn “experts” just so happened to be our dear friend Dr. Gail Dines; professor at Wheelock College and promoter of the usual “porn is racist/sexist/promotes degradation of women” meme.

Now, as you plainly know, Dr. Dines is well known for her habit of intimidating and refusing to debate women who don’t march in perfect step with her ideology; she has steadfastly refused to share even the hint of a microphone with the likes of Nina Hartley (except in venues where Dines could, in the typical Bill O’Reilly fashion, ambush and entrap women like Nina and distort their responses to their “inquiries”). Plus, she is legendary for her use of porn material without the permission of the actual models or performers featured to sell her beliefs about the innate evil of said expression. And, she is quite vocal about how she believes antiporn “feminist” voices are basically “shut out” and “censored” by the evol Male Liberal Patriarchial Media who simply doesn’t want to admit their sin of masturbating to the “death and destruction” of women and children.

Problem is, though, for someone who is so disgusted with the “male media,” Professor Dines also craves the media spotlight like any other demogague….which is why she agreed to appear on the aformentioned episode of P&T: BS! concerning porn.

Now, you would have guessed that knowing how Penn and Teller can be when it comes to driving their points home and being as agggressive as pit bulls when it comes to debunking their favored topics, Dines would have probably thought better of appearing knowing that their audience would probably not be accomodating to their views. And indeed, it wasn’t: the show basically debunked and smashed all of her mythologies about the dangers of porn and its impact on women and men….to the point that Dines and the other antiporn panelists who appeared were reduced to sputtering in anger when their talking points fell on deaf ears.

Funny how it feels to be on the other side of the rout…right, Professor Dines??

But, oh, Gail Dines is nothing if not perseverent…..she decided to take her case against Penn and Teller directly to the people, using an essay posted directly to CounterPunch this morning titled “Penn, Porn, and Me”…with the suggestive subtitle of: “How Some Men React When They Think You Want To Take Away Their Porn”. (As if Penn and Teller were themselves porn addicts for not totally buying into Dines’ ideology.)

Mostly, Dines’ rant is that Penn and Teller totally misinterpreted her stance about porn…namely, the kind of porn that men supposedly truely want to see; mistaking the soft core that is Showtime’s/Vivid’s fare for the real “Shock-n-Awe” gonzo that really rings up the registers and drives the degradation complex. Mostly, though, Penn’s just an angry, bitter man who just wants to keep on wanking to porn that damages women, according to Ms. Gail:

I have seen a lot of upset men, but few get close to the level of rage Penn exhibited on the show. As he yelled and screamed into the camera, I thought he was going to have a stroke. He was especially upset with me for suggesting that mainstream porn, which is increasingly cruel and degrading, has a real effect on the men who use it.

The interesting part of this story is not Penn’s out-of-control anger, but the way the show framed the story on porn. As was expected, the producers used the topic as an excuse to show lots of porn; a quick and cheap way to pull in the audience. But the porn they showed was the soft core kind that is mainly girl-on-girl sex, the type that is not the main moneymaker for the industry.

The porn that makes most of the money for the industry is actually the gonzo, body-punishing variety that shows women’s bodies being physically stretched to the limit, humiliated and degraded. Even porn industry people commented in a recent article in Adult Video News, that gonzo porn is taking its toll on the women, and the turnover is high because they can’t stand the brutal acts on the body for very long.

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…..and of course, we all know that women are leaving in droves due to the “abuse” of such acts. Ahhhh, Gail….would it be just a little effort to actually ask some female performers who have left the industry — well, at least those not already integrated with antiporn ideology like Shelley Lubben — if they felt “degraded” or “humiliated” by the experience of doing porn?? But oh, nooooos….that would mean actually accepting the social agency of such women as actual human beings rather than just plain suckers for Teh Patriarchy, or just mindless sluts needing reeducation or redemption for their sin of liking cock or twat..or both at the same time. We “leftist” feminists can’t be having that, can’t we???

Ahh, but Professor Dines has more to bitch about….

While I doubt that Penn is any stranger to this type of porn, I know for sure that the lead producer is aware of it. In preparation for the show, he spent several hours with me as I carefully explained the different genres of porn, and he also came to one of my lectures, where he saw in clear and sharp focus just what happens to women in the industry. He himself expressed shock and anger as we talked, yet when it came down to it, he ended up just like the rest of media producers: cowardly and untruthful. The story they told about soft-core porn is only part of the story, as what really needs to be explained is why men are, according to the industry, seeking out harder and harder porn.

Oh, yeah…..”according to the industry”….not according to her biased opinions, you see.

I initially declined to do the show, as I had no faith in Penn and Teller doing anything that remotely looked like serious journalism. In the end I agreed because they promised to give me some serious time to talk about porn. They also promised not to edit me to look like a fool. They kept their first promise and reneged on the second. They introduced the three anti-porn activists as the “Three Stooges”, setting us up as idiots before we had said a word. Of course, every time one of us said anything, they cut back to some soft porn and Penn, who was at times having a hysterical fit. It was both scary and comical, his red face contorted with rage as he yelled at the camera that porn doesn’t cause men to be violent!

Now..the fact that maybe the reason why Penn was going off on Dr. Dines and the other antiporn panelists (no doubt including a more traditional Christian Rightist, I’ll bet) might have something to do with countering her own beliefs that men who jerk off to porn inevitably move on to doing all sort of nasty things like bestiality and rape and pissing on women and pedophilia and all other such depravities..but then again, I’m not a regular view of that particular show. But never mind that, it just proves Dines’ point that porn must be censored for the good of all men!

Yeah. Right. Really,

The show is scheduled to air as a repeat tonight at midnight Eastern Time (check your local listings for exact time in your area); so you can see for yourself whether Gail was indeed ambushed or whether she just got owned by superior talent. Given her history, I’m vouching for the latter.

P.S.: The Renegade Henchwoman (aka Maximus Sexeeemus AssKickumus, Grand Emperess of Modern Rome) is a HUGE P&T fan, and she had a word or five hundred to say about Gail Dines and the show today at her blog, too.

For those of you who think that you are an ally of sex workers, here’s a reality checklist from Renegade Evolution that you might want to read up on. There will be a quiz later on on this.

Some of them aren’t big names. There are writers, bloggers, so on, out there who like to say or think they are allies, but they aren’t. Being an ally has some guidelines, after all. I mean, let us look at this logically and such:

-If you support anything that might endanger the health of a sex worker, you are not an ally.
-If you support anything which might affect the legal standing, legal rights, and legal recourses of a sex worker, you are not an ally.
-If you actively seek to silence the words of sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you advocate anything that impedes progress for sex workers rights, you are not an ally.
-If you support anything that keeps sex workers engaging in business in unsafe, criminalized, unregulated conditions, you are not an ally.
-If you infringe upon or disrupt a sex worker’s ability to earn a living, you are not an ally.
-If you patronize, mock, insult, judge, presume to speak for, speak over, lie about, threaten, slander, hack, make assumptions about, or belittle sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to alter your terminology to suit terms sex workers prefer, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize sex work extends beyond street prostitution, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize the humanity of sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize many sex works are adults with a level of autonomy, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize that many people in sex work would choose other options if they were available, you are not an ally.
-If you actually do nothing to help sex workers in the here and now, you are not an ally.
-If you take on a savior, superior attitude towards sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you use sex workers words, images, ideas, writings, or experiences without their consent or knowledge, you are not an ally.
-If you use sex workers to further your wider agenda or goal without their consent, you are not an ally.

Got it? Hey, you might pass the “you’re not a feminist if” tests, but if you fail here, you are no fucking ally to sex workers.

Excerpted from here.

I have mentioned how much she kicks serious ASS, haven’t I?? And her’s isn’t half bad, either….