Thursday, April 9, 2009

A "Stench" of Anti-Porn Myopia: Starring Gail Dines and Featuring: "Damaged Genitals"?!?!

[Also crossposted to The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.6)]

It's one thing to witness the usual myopia of antipornography "feminists" on a daily basis.

It's quite another thing altogether to see it in as concentrated form, as in the following "essay".

It was originally posted on Thursday to a site called wickedlocal.com (unfortunately, the site seems to be out of service), then transferred to AdultFYI.com, where I discovered it. The "essay" is apparently in response to all the brohaha over college campuses across the country screening the feature porn movie Pirates 2: Stagletti's Revenge. The movie, whose original has won numerous awards for its theme and plot as well as representing what many critics see as the potential of erotica featuring high level art, has generated a bit of controversy; the University of Maryland at College Park cancelled a planned screening of the film due to protests from conservative activists and right-wing politicians threatening to cut off funding for the university. Not so with the University of California at Davis, which allowed Pirates 2 to be screened without much in the way of controversy there.

At least...not on campus.

However, someone -- more than likely an antiporn "radicalfeminist" activist -- took grand exception to UC-Davis allowing the film to be shown on their campus...hence, the following "essay". Normally, I wouldn't use this site for full fisking, but this article is so concentrated in its myopia that it more than deserves the in-dept treatment.

Plus...it features our favorite antiporn "feminist" activist, Dr. Gail Dines of Wheelock College, who brings her own special brand of wingnuttery into the mix, as you will see.

I will give some annotation as I go, as usual.

"Stench of eroticized violence": Actresses in Porn Have to Stop Working because of Damaged Genitals
I'm sure that you will get the gist of their point right away. But read on...

Students at several universities, including U.C. Davis and U. Maryland, recently planned to show a XXX “hardcore” porn film on campus, not as an educational event but as a form of entertainment. Maryland pulled the plug on showing the film for kicks and played a small part of it, instead, as part of an educational panel (albeit after the state legislature threatened to take away hundreds of millions in state funds). But U.C. Davis gave it the green light as a rip-roaring good time for students, citing “free speech” and calling the film a “safe alternative” to drinking.

I’m afraid to read the school’s definition of “safe.”


Now, the writer tends to ignore (or, more likely, wants the reader of his/her essay to ignore) the facts as to why UM-CP "pulled the plug" on the screening of Pirates 2...probably because it would have raised a particularly thorny question of collusion between antiporn "radicalfeminists" (of which the reader all but openly describes his/herself as) and more traditional right-wing Christian anti-feminist fundamentalists (whom mostly led the opposition at Maryland). And we all know that such collusion just doesn't exist, don't we??

And I'd say that compared to other hijinks on most college campuses, watching a basically moderate-core porn flick certainly does constitute "safe" by most people's definition. But, I guess that most people don't have the special perspectives that only radical antiporn "feminists" can offer.


Colleges well understand the multiple ways that porn is harmful. According to Oklahoma State Professor John Foubert, men who use porn are more likely to commit sex crimes than those who don’t.

No surprise there because porn normalizes and eroticizes violence against women. It hurts men, too. Porn addiction is a huge and growing problem that has destroyed the lives of many men — and studies show that men who use porn have worse sex than those who don’t. Other human relationships are also negatively affected. 75 percent of men in prison for child rape admit using child porn — and 75 percent of men in prison for child porn — admit sexually abusing numerous children.


I've bolded the more outrageous "statistics" put forth by our anonymous "essayist"....do they sound like they come from the same identical sources that gave Melissa Fairley her "95% of all 'prostituted women' want to get out of the business" meme?? How whacked out do you have to be to believe this crap??

I mean...isn't John Foubert kinda biased..and where does he get his "stats" that say that men who consume porn are more likely to commit "sex crimes" than those who don't?? Yeah...if you consider solo masturbation or seeking consensual sex with other willing adults to be a "sex crime". Or...if you merely consider getting an erection in the wrong place at the wrong time to be considered to be a "sex crime", too.

And how nice of our "essayist" to go the extra mile to interview all those child rapists in prison -- and all those pedophiles, too -- and trust their opinions that it was that evil PORN (especially the kind featuring consenting adults) that caused them to go after kids and rape young girls. Oh, wait, (s)he didn't do any research or interview any men in jail?? (S)He just lifted these "statistics" out of his/her as....piring ideology?? Oh, never mind...read on, MacDuff:

All these reasons explain why an “official” university showing of porn would violate Title IX as a form of sexual harassment. And while an “unofficial” presentation by students isn’t prohibited by federal law, schools can and should forbid all showings of such films on campus.


Oh, really??? I didn't know that Title IX could be used as a form of censorship?? I always thought that that was a mandate of protecting discrimination against women in college campuses...and that showing porn on campus in restricted areas didn't quite reach the level of discrimination. (And what about the women involved in the actual making of the film, or the women who flocked to see the movie...shouldn't they have the same rights of non-discrimination to see the film themselves??

We're not talking about “Sex in the City” here. According to Wheelock College pornography expert, Professor Gail Dines, the vast majority of “mainstream” porn sold in this country depicts women being brutalized — often by multiple men — with objects and weapons. And it isn’t “fantasy.” Real women are really hurt while men experience sexual pleasure. “Actresses” in the “industry” often have to stop working after only weeks because their genitals are so damaged and their bodies so mutilated they are no longer “valuable” in the business. If this is what “mainstream” porn is like — just imagine the “hard core” stuff they showed at U.C. Davis.


Ahhh, yes...Gail Dines....such an unbiased and openminded authority on pornography and its impacts on women. The woman who says that interracial porn is innately racist merely because it depicts Black men with huge penises. The woman who says that even "mainstream" girl-girl porn is harmful and must be banished because it reflects "male-centered" values imposed into female sexuality. No surprise that she would just as thusly label any and all depictions of porn as "women being brutalized" by men....because in her cracked mind, a man with an erection is one small step removed from a rapist...if not an actual rapist. Therefore, by definition, any sexual contact between a man (or group of men) and a woman depicted in porn automatically counts as "brutality" and "women being harmed while men experience sexual pleasure".

Oh....and I'm guessing that UC-Davis doesn't show "hard core" stuff at all, since most students there can easily get enough of that online through their own damn laptops.

But, it's this "actresses" in the "industry" being "brutalized" with "weapons" and "objects" (gee, you mean that dildos and vibrators are weapons of mass destruction more dangerous than even knives and guns????) meme that deserves special mention. Now, it's clear that women in porn are more than suspectable to personal injury on occasion; that's the occupational hazard of their job. Anal tears, anal lapses, vaginal tears, yeast infections...all are the possible hazards that come with the occupation. (The threat of STD's is not too far from the horizon, either...though thanks to the modern regimen of standardized STD testing, it is far less of a threat than assumed by outsiders.)

How this is that much different, however, from the possibility of physical injury from other athletic endeavors that are far more socially accepted than porn is, is a legitimate question. After all, football players, basketball players, ballet dancers, gymnansts, and even bowlers are just as much of risk to injury to their person, but I don't see anyone calling for the banishment of Football Division major college football or baseball or basketball..let alone calls to ban ballet. But, you know...sex is different.

This has nothing to do with morality or censorship — it’s about the serious damage caused to an entire society when sexual degradation of women is celebrated as pleasurable entertainment.

Instead of knee-jerk free speech excuses, universities should use this controversy as a teaching moment.


Yeah. Nothing at all to do with morality at all....despite the claima of "sexual degradation" of women. No claims of censorship, either....disregarding three paragraphs earlier, where our "essayist" directly calls for college campuses to simply not allow such films to be shown on their campuses.

And of course, none of those "knee-jerk free speech excuses"...that's only reserved for radical antiporn activists who are totally "censored" and overwhelmed by the full financial power and weight of "pornographers" and their evil puppets in the media.

Institutions of higher education enjoy an honorable place of leadership in this country — and they’re not the government — which means they aren’t beholden to the “real world” laws that allow the systematic degradation of women through the lawful proliferation of even the most vile pornography.

Schools should take this opportunity not only to rise above the “real world” but also to collapse the ugly hierarchy of isms that too often allows hateful material directed at women to be protected as free speech — while similar “speech” directed at other “types” of students is prohibited.


Ahhh...hate to break this to 'ya, Mr./Ms. Sparky, but most institutions of higher learning are publically owned and financed by the state, which means that they are still bound by the laws of their state's constitutions...the very ones that protect the right of their students as citizens of America and of their respective states to view certain media and content. And that would include even the right of material that some would consider to "allow the systematic degradation of women through the lawful proliferation of even the most vile pornography". Of course, we could debate whether Pirates 2 even comes close to the level of "vile pornography" or whether it promotes "the systematic degradation of women"...but that would require an actual debate, which seems not to be on the agenda of this "essayist".

And about those "other types of speech that are prohibited"...if by some chance (s)he is referring to "hate speech" codes used against particular kinds of speech directed at racial minorities (Blacks, Latin@s) or GLBT folk; well, we can also debate whether these codes really do protect such people, or whether they merely provide a crutch for those who are in power (and BTW, the latter still tend to be White men) to play divide and conquer. Besides, there is a fundamental difference between targeting actions directly going against certain groups and censoring individual thoughts....not to mention the idea that thinking about women (and men) as free and autonomous sexual beings is somehow at the same level as, say, burning a cross in a Black student's yard or marching around a Jewish neighborhood wearing Nazi gear. Most of us are capable of seeing the difference. Most of us, that is.

This point cannot be overstated. U.C. Davis thinks the brutal abuse of women in film is protected speech — but presumably they don’t feel the same way about films that celebrate the violent abuse of blacks, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Any school that indulges such a hierarchy should prepare itself for an uprising. Women are tired of the unequal enforcement of free speech principles on college campuses. It’s time to showcase this injustice by demanding that schools also show other movies that celebrate the violent abuse of blacks, Jews and Muslims.

If schools forbid these other films, women will at least have successfully unveiled the pernicious ways universities have participated in the subjugation of women in higher education and larger society.


Oh, now wait a minute.....hold the fuck up here. OK....so the alternative to simply not showing such "degrading" and "damaging" porn flicks as Pirates 2 on college campuses is to simply have supposedly progressive radicafeminst women on campus rise up and demand that schools show....Birth of a Nation?!?!?! Oh. now I get it....better to have racism, anti-Muslim bigotry, homophobia, and all the other isms to thrive so that "women" can get rid of the evil that is porn, right??? How mightily progressive of you, Sparky. NOT.

And what delicious irony....universities who open their campuses to women, who give out scholarships to women, who, thanks to the aformentioned Title IX, have given so many oppurtunities to women, and who contain all those nice Women's Studies curricula which produces such "radicalfeminists" as Gail Dines....they are all just part of the evil Male Conspiracy. All due to one feature porn flick.

The remaining option is for schools to allow all styles of violent, hate-filled movies to be shown as entertainment — in venues where core American values such as civility and equality are forming roots in newly developing minds. And then what will happen to our communities of young people — when campus air becomes a pungent fog of “hatred as pleasure,” seeping into the brains of our next generation of leaders as they learn about politics, science, business, the arts, law and human behavior?

“Safe” alternative to drinking, indeed.


Yup, yup, yup....we must not allow impressionable minds to be polluted by bad ideas...especially the idea that consensual sex can actually be an enjoyable thing to ease the burden of college life. Especially the idea that anal sex is something other than the main transmission of HIV/AIDS among gay men. Especially the idea that women might just discover that sex -- especially sex with men -- could be an actual pleasurable and mutually satisfying experience. Or that explicit sex can be reconciled with high art and thematic values.

Such evil, hostile beliefs must be purged from our universities pronto, so that our women can be raised with integrity and honor, and with the total ignorance and blindness and wilfull repression that only pure radicalfeminists can provide.

And this is why "we" must prevent films like Pirates 2 from being screened at college campuses. And why people like Sasha Grey must be outed for the dirty slut and perverted trollop she really is.

Congratulations, Professor Dines...you've created another Frankenstein.

Now..pardon me while I take a cold shower to wash the stench of horseshit off my body. Ugh.

(Much props to our fearless Henchwoman God Emperor for discovering this essay mountain of crap first, for giving it the business it deserves, and for issuing the challenge.)

10 comments:

  1. I don't think labeling this blog post with "fuckheads" is going to open any form of discussion. You need a lot of words to prove whatever point you are trying to make. What I think is this:

    It's all getting a little out of hand don't you think? Genuinly concerned people are trying to put the porn back in the box.

    ReplyDelete
  2. osc:

    Genuinely concerned about what, beyond advancing their own careers by peddling lies and playing on people's guilt and shame over their own sexuality?

    Porn is not going back in the box and its professional opponents both know and count on this reality to secure their university jobs, book deals and lecture tours.

    As for what's getting out of hand, I'd say the fulminating rhetoric of those "concerned people" who make the outrageous claims that inspired what was, admittedly, a splenetic response here would definitely qualify.

    The important difference between what those great humanitarians who make their livings pimping off porn bashing believe and what those of us who robustly defend freedom of expression cherish is that, unlike them, we don't think anyone's civil liberties need to be put back in the box.

    So now that we know what you think, is there anything you'd care to add by way of amplification, or was this just an isolated drive-by?

    Unlike the blogs administered by those "genuinely concerned" folks, you won't be censored here. But you will have to defend whatever arguments you choose to make and your good intentions will not be taken for granted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Uhhh...no. osc, I don't think so.

    In case you've forgot it, this is a pro-porn blog, and we reserve the right to call out in our own way what we see as lies and distortions coming from the antiporn side.

    And in this case, the label "fuckhead" may be a bit extreme, but considering the level of insanity built into that particular rant, I think that the term is more than legit.

    What else can you say to describe someone who calls what is effectively an art film that happens to also feature hardcore sex to be the equivalent of rape??

    Or pulls out of his/her ass such statistics as "75% of all male child rapists admit to using porn" and 75% of all child molestors use porn"..as if that proves that the even greater majority of men who don't molest or rape children but who do consume porn for their personal pleasure and enjoyment should be held responsible for such crimes more than the actual rapists and child molestors??

    Or who glibly our of one side of his/her mouth calls for colleges to outright censor sexual images from their campuses in the name of defending Title IX antidiscrimination...while all along denying that (s)he's practicing "censorship"??

    As for "putting the porn back into the box"...well, how in the hell does censoring Pirates 2, a feature porn that contains no violence whatsoever, help that particular goal??

    The only thing that I see that is getting out of hand is antiporn myopia.

    This isn't about starting a conversation..this is about defending legal and consensual images against slander. Maybe "fuckhead" was a bit extreme, as I said before, but it certainly doesn't match what the other side has done.


    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  4. Also...what Ernest said.

    But...."splenetic"?!?!?! LOL Definition, please.


    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anthony:

    From Webster's:

    sple·net·ic

    Pronunciation:
    \spli-ˈne-tik, archaic ˈsple-nə-(ˌ)tik\
    Function:
    adjective
    Etymology:
    Late Latin spleneticus, from Latin splen spleen
    Date:
    1697
    1. archaic : given to melancholy
    2: marked by bad temper, malevolence, or spite
    — splenetic noun
    — sple·net·i·cal·ly \spli-ˈne-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

    I'm applying definition 2. here. I'd say the spleen is not an inappropriate organ by which to be guided when addressing the bile spewed by Dines and her friends. No criticism intended.

    After meeting Dines in person, it took several days for my own spleen to settle down.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why the use of quotation marks around the word "feminist" in referring to Dines?
    Hopefully not because she is anti-pornography? Are the feminist credentials of Alice Walker, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Kate Millett and Naomi Wolf also called into question?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Since those happen to be MY quotation marks, Travis, I'll be more than happy to respond to your inquiry.

    No, I don't believe Gail Dines to be that much of a feminist...especially the kind of feminist that most people would espouse to believe in. Most feminists I know of are not so obsessed with other people's personal sexual choices that they have to make up tales and stats about how anyone not of their personal belief is either a traitor or a dupe of men.

    But, then again, this is only my opinion, reflected in my own words...it doesn't reflect the position of anyone else here at BPPA. You are perfectly free to agree or disagree...doesn't bother me one bit either way.

    Gail Dines can call herself a feminist however she pleases...I just tend to disagree.


    Anthony

    ReplyDelete
  8. Travis,

    Still lurking and trolling I see. Things a bit slow in Northhampton these days?

    I don't come around here much anymore, but seeing as how you continue to do so, and to toss the occasional grenade while passing through, I might as well toss a few back for you.

    First of all, there's something fairly absurd about men arguing over which women might rightly be considered feminist, no less those who agree with your position than those who agree with mine.

    That said, there's no reason to let your rhetorical question go unanswered with one just like it.

    Are the feminist credentials of Alice Walker, Germaine Greer, Gloria Steinem, Kate Millett and Naomi Wolf also called into question because they're pro-censorship? Not by the likes of me.

    But then again, how about Betty Friedan, Faye Wattleton, Karen DeCrow, Anne Bernays, Judy Blume, Barbara Ehrenreich, Nora Ephron, Nancy Friday, Mary Gordon, Susan Isaacs, Molly Ivins, Erica Jong, Jamaica Kincaid, Kate Millett, Katha Pollitt, Anne Rice, Adrienne Rich, Alix Kates Shulman and Wendy Wasserstein, all of whom signed the amicus brief against the MacKinnon ordinance on behalf of The Feminist Anti-Censorship Task Force? This group includes the founder of NOW, one of its past presidents and a past president of Planned Parenthood. Would you claim they're not feminists because they rejected the manic ravings of huckstering mountebanks like Gail Dines and her ilk?

    Since we're already engaged in the absurd business of men declaring this or that to be the definition of feminism, I'll just go ahead and add my own to the mix.

    Try this on and see if it fits: radical feminism is to feminism what National Socialism was to socialism – a fraudulent neologism meant to deceive naive believers into accepting the exact opposite of something as the thing itself.

    Gail Dines, in her crazed determination to undermine the fundamental importance of informed consent to any rational notion of feminism in the service of denying the agency of that consent to women who engage in the making of pornography, characterized economic motivations as coercion that deprives sex workers of the ability to grant such consent in what I'll generously describe as an unfriendly conversation we had a couple of years ago at AdultEx in Las Vegas. When confronted by the statistical fact that the reason most commonly cited by women who get abortions for doing so is economic necessity, Dines said that she was "prepared to take on the issue of consent where abortion is concerned."

    In other words, she was ready to throw reproductive choice under the bus if that would enable her crusade against the evils of sex commerce.

    Is that your idea of feminism, Travis? If so, I know a few women who might think you shoud SFTU on the subject.

    However, since they're not here and you are, invading the space of those whose views are diametrically opposed to your own, I'll go ahead and make that invitation for them.

    Now shoo. You've got your own soapbox.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ooooh...didn't know that Travis was connected to NoPornNorthHampton. That kinda explains things, doesn't it??

    Oh..and the quotes around "feminist" regarding Gail Dines is not a reflection of saying that antiporn feminists cannot be feminists. Heck, Gloria Steinem and Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon are all considered antiporn feminists, and I can accept that. It's her sexual fascism that I disagree with.

    And please pardon me for reserving my right to judge people by their actions and policies which I believe are destructive to the basic cause of feminism. When your side acknowledges the feminist creds of all the people Ernest cited (and I would also include the definite feminist creds of people like Carol Queen, Nina Hartley, Tristan Taormino, and other sexual progressive women who deserve the feminist label), then maybe I can consider you and your movement serious enough.

    Until then, you're just blowing hot air...and I don't mean out of your mouth, either.

    BTW....any time Ernest comes out of the basement dungeon to smack down idiots is a good time here indeed. Even if it is only on brief occasion.
    Anthony

    ReplyDelete