Saturday, July 14, 2007

A question has been asked...

“Well, using her (that would be me, RE-) own logic and sense of morals I do want to know… did she ask the radfems and anti-porn activists whether she could link to their websites?”

So I’ll answer. No. I used to be careful about asking for permission to even comment on anti-porn spaces, quoting or linking anywhere if I was going to identify the person or persons I was talking to or about if I was going to be critical of their opinion. When I realized that sort of consideration was not a two way street and never would be, I stopped with the consideration myself.

With specific reguards to NPNH, the first time I linked to their site was as an example of how if you are going to protest porn stores and other sex related businesses /gathering in your area…well, how to do it right (and legally). It was not a critique of them in the least.

When I began to discuss this matter with Adam of NPNH, I informed him I would be making the conversation public, he did the same, and at no point did I demand he remove his link to my blog. I wanted an answer to my question as to why this tactic is used, and he gave one.

I still do not like that anti-porn advocates use the words, and specifically the images, of porn performers/sex workers without their consent or knowing- even asking- what their feelings are on the matter, but I cannot stop them from doing so, and just as they will use those things to make their arguments, well, fine, I will do the same…

With one very big difference….when linking to or quoting an anti-porner, I already know how they feel about the issue: They are anti-porn. The anti-porners do not know if the same can be said of the women they are using…and I still find it ironic that people claiming to fight the exploitation and use of women do the exact same thing they claim to oppose in order to make their arguments…and I will continue to point that out…

So, there you have it.


  1. There's a huge difference between linking to somebody versus using their words and images out of context to support your own case. The latter is what is deeply problematic, and the fact that anti-porn types don't even seem to understand the argument speaks volumes about what's wrong with their whole mentality.

    And its compunded by the fact that these people are always going on about "objectification". These idiots clearly don't even understand what the larger concept of "objectification" is. I guess for them it means "sexual attraction" – something they're evidently against.

  2. IACB: exactly...I mean, wrt to that box photo of Melissa Lauren...obviously no concern how she (owner of creator of the Hellfire Sex Website...) feels about her job...

  3. yeah, it wasn't a question of just -linking.- or even if thingie had gone, "and here is one of those awful pro-porners, just listen to this tripe," that'd be more cricket than trying to make you out to be saying something you weren't.

    also, unlike some people, you didn't, like, tell him to shut himself down on account of -you're making us look bad.-

  4. These idiots clearly don't even understand what the larger concept of "objectification" is.

    I bin sayin'.