Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy, Bans Strip Clubs

[Important update below -- scroll to bottom]

And to think that liberals and Leftists love to mock the Teabaggers for their outright looniness..we may not be able to laugh so long if this group of radfems get as much a hold of the Obama Presidency as they have apparently overtaken the ruling government of Iceland.

The story from the UK Guardian:

Iceland: the world's most feminist country

Iceland is fast becoming a world-leader in feminism. A country with a tiny population of 320,000, it is on the brink of achieving what many considered to be impossible: closing down its sex industry.

While activists in Britain battle on in an attempt to regulate lapdance clubs – the number of which has been growing at an alarming rate during the last decade – Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down. And forget hiring a topless waitress in an attempt to get around the bar: the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold." When I asked her if she thinks Iceland has become the greatest feminist country in the world, she replied: "It is certainly up there. Mainly as a result of the feminist groups putting pressure on parliamentarians. These women work 24 hours a day, seven days a week with their campaigns and it eventually filters down to all of society."

The news is a real boost to feminists around the world, showing us that when an entire country unites behind an idea anything can happen. And it is bound to give a shot in the arm to the feminist campaign in the UK against an industry that is both a cause and a consequence of gaping inequality between men and women.


[excerpted from full article here]

It should be noted that the author of the Guardian article that practically gushes with praise for this most wonderful "feminist" action is Julie Bindel, a long time antiporn/antiprostitution activist and a favorite within APRF circles.

Of course, my guess is that Ms. Bindel probably would get a slightly different opinion of her favored government from the women who are now unemployed or threatened with not only the loss of income, but perhaps even jail time, thanks to the enlightened leadership of such "feminism".

Or, the women who now will face the prospect of even greater risk of sexual assault or harrassment in the streets due to the closing down of safe and formerly legal venues of adult entertainment.

Or....even those who will now hang their heads in shame that the term "feminism" has been now officially hijacked and smeared through the actions of women whose only incentive is to indict, convict, and even execute men for the evil thought crime of thinking about women as free and equal sexual beings....or simply having erections. (Would Ms. Bindel be so exercised about the supposedly boorish behavior of gay men towards each other??  Or, do they need to have gay bars and other potential places of hooking up closed down, too, just to satisfy her (and the Icelander government's) newly created fear of male erect penii???)

Also...I'd wonder how many of the votes for this strip club ban came from right-wing fundamentalist conservatives who share Ms. Bindel's concerns, yet from a more "religious" perspective of "immorality":rather than the cover of "protecting women" from the evil male gaze?? Of course, no feminist worth her title would EVER ally themselves with such right-wing people to pass legislation....no, ma'am, only those evil pro-porn rapist MEN would portray them as conservatives out to use the State to regulate sexual choices!!!

Unfortunately, in the bizarro world of "left" antipornradicalfeminism, which seems to be taking over whatever's left of "the Left" in Europe, everything old is new again. Rumors of MacDworkinism's death appear to be badly mistaken and unfounded.

And if we're not too careful and don't start fighting hard, we'll have to face this shit here within our own borders. Remember, Cass Sustein could very well be our next Supreme Court Justice....Glenn Beck's ravings notwithstanding.

Update by Anthony (4-1-10):  As noted in my latest comment, I have gone ahead and closed comments for this entry, for the purpose of not extending the drama any further.  I have gone ahead and crossposted this entry over to my SmackDog Chronicles blog. All who had participated in the debate here are more than welcome to move over there and continue the discussion; I will be in a better position to respond to critics there.

Here's the link:

Forget The Swedish Model...Iceland Goes APRF Crazy And Bans Strip Clubs (The Remixed Version) -- The SmackDog Chronicles

Feel free to go there and fire away.

When David Duke Meets Radical Feminism: The "Porn Stars Shouldn't Be Having Children" Debate

I've gone off at my own venue about the absolute fuckwadery of that pronouncement...but I will explain here why this shit really hits me hard.

It's not just because I've met and befriended (online) more than a few porn performers and erotic artists who happen to be mothers (and I mean REAL mothers, not just MILF's), and both they and their kids turn out to be as happy and healthy and normal (all of the usual stuff that goes with raising kids aside) as anyone else.

It's not just because of the general principle of not sticking your nose in other people's private lives and pretending to know how to live their life for them without even making an attempt to listen to them speak for themselves.

No....what really burns me up to the point of going "nucular" is the fact that a putative FEMINIST.....nay, a RADICAL FEMINIST, would have the unmittigated gall to make a statement that would be more telling of neo-Nazis against Jews, or Klansmen against Black women.

I am not that far removed from the time when David Duke was running for governor of my home state of Louisiana, and one of his might racist planks of his campaign was to pay poor (read that to mean, poor Black) women in exchange for them taking permanent drugs like Norplant to prevent them from having children.

How is this nonsense any different now merely because it comes from the mouth of a presumed "progressive"??

But, then again, all standards fade when it comes to sex, and the threat of a naked nipple, a soaked thong, a hard-on, a scream of orgasm....can do much to turn even the most putative liberal into a fearful, skirt-clutching, "Not in front of the children/ladies!!" spouting Mrs. (or Ms. Grundy).

Considering all the talk about how sexually free we have become, the old repressions and reactions are still as strong with us....ask Tristian Taormino or Audacia Ray or Melissa Gira, whom have seen how the long arm of sexual censorship can strike even in the most supposedly "liberal" venues.

Sex may be the last vector of social reaction, since race and gender oppression are slowly fading. It's about high time we took it seriously...and defended sex for its own sake, as well as the women and men who produce sexual media. They don't deserve to be treated like human beings; they ARE human beings by right. And so are their children.

An Oldie From 1990 : David Brock Whacks Pro-Porn Leftists (With A Special Sheldon Ranz Sighting!!!)

One of the beautiful things about this Pro-Porn Activism blog -- well, other than the founding badassssss souljah sista who created this blog herself (Happy 2008, Henchwoman!!!) -- is the fact that the main contributors of this blog come from different perspectives. There's the independent Libertarian POV (Renegade Evolution). There's the new-school pro-sex feminist perspective (Amber Rhea). There's the male traditional progressive perspective (Iamcuriousblue). And then there's moi, representin' the Black Male Independent Sex Pox Left.

The latter perspective was at one time one of the only representing pro-sex viewpoints with much pull in political circles...until the likes of Robert Jensen came along and allowed antiporn repression and male guilt-tripping to dominate most of the intellectual inner circles of progressive activism. But at one time, it seemed that the greatest bit of activism for more open sexual expression and sexual media came almost exclusively from those who also called themselves socialists and Leftists. And just as usual, their main detractors were mostly old-school right-wingers defending the purity of the State and Chruch against such "communist" infidelity.

Here is one of the more...shall we say, interesting attempted assaults on one such attempt to merge pro-sex activism and socialism that took place in 1990. The attack took place in the form of an article in the old right-wing magazine American Spectator during its heyday in the 1990's as the main attack dog of the Right. The author of the hit piece was none other than David Brock, who at that time was cutting his teeth in the "politics of personal destruction" and preparing himself for his grand day in the sun and his "nutty and slutty" attack on Anita Hill for blowing the lid on Clarence Thomas and his harrassing ways. Of course, the world now knows that Brock is now using the Media Matters website to turn the tables on the very forces that he was so representing back then....but let's not let that fact ruin the beauty of this brief drive-by.

And you will notice that the name of a certain regular commentator to this blog appears frequently in this essay. It was that commentator (Sheldon Ranz) who first discovered the essay and posted it to Nina Hartley's forum as part of this thread.

The first part of the article consists of the usual boilerplate right-wing analysis of certain Leftist commentators at the height of the fall of the Soviet Union and the alleged final victory of "democratic capitalism" surmonting Francis Fukuyama's "end of history". (To which Hugo Chavez has recently responded, "Not so fast, my friend.") It's further down that Brock gets to the really good stuff:

In keeping with the weekend's secular tone, I spent the better part of Palm
Sunday at a workshop called Pornography with a Human Face: Toward a Sexual
Glasnost. Last year, the pornography panel was dominated by febrile feminist
censors; this year it was the socialist pornographers who got their say. The
panel far outdrew the others, and with the exception of some nervous snickering,
the audience proved quite pro-porn. This came as no surprise, given the limits
to which the left is pushing the notions of artistic relativism and free
expression these days, insisting that the production and exhibition of
homoerotic and pedophiliac images be not only constitutionally protected but
federally funded."

Adult video consultant" Sheldon Ranz warmed up with a comparison of
Gorbachev's economic reform program to the masturbatory act: "What do you call a
pair of Soviets watching porn under Gorbachev? A pair-of-strokers." Claiming to
have viewed more than 10,000 flesh-baring films, the aesthete went on to
delineate the "liberating" qualities of porn: "You see things Hollywood won't
show, like the Lady Godiva position, which has the woman dominant. They show
older women getting it. The Devil and Miss Jones stars a flat-chested woman. Men
ejaculate outside the body, eroticizing birth control. Pornography undoes
stereotypes. Bull-dykes look like the girl next door. Gay men are not punished
for being gay; they're rewarded with orgasms. Debbie Does Dishes is about a
Jewish housewife who does it with anybody who comes to the door, with no
postcoital regrets." As "People's Libido Exhibit A," Ranz introduced Shades of
Ecstasy, a "socialist film about a group of women factory workers who have
orgies on their lunch break. They find out their boss is secretly taping them,
and they take control of the factory in anger."

Sharing the dais with Ranz were "feminist-socialist" Vivian Forlander, a
kind of bubbly, bosomy Susan Sontag, and Ame Gilbert, of the "Carnival Knowledge
Collective." A writer of naughty novels, Forlander reveals the complex
intellectual history behind her pen name, Katie Nipps. Apparently, it started as
a high school nickname, owing to her ample chest size. One salutary result of
this adolescent trauma is the ease with which she slips into the point of view
of "a repressed man with a breast fetish." After reading a poem about the evils
of the male sex organ, (by way of introduction, if you will), Ame Gilbert began
to illuminate the world of "alternative porn." It seems that a group of about
100 "feminist artists" of the lesbian persuasion slink, when the urge moves
them, into a Greenwich Village basement to produce and watch their own
flagellating fantasies on film. Said the grisly Gilbert: "My own fantasy
involves tying up two women and a man . . . " No, I better not go on. This is,
after all, a family magazine. Besides, today it might ultimately be the decent
thing to let the left wallow in its own depravity.

Yeah, that was from that same "family magazine' that would make such an issue of "The Clenis" and Monica later on.

Sheldon, needless to say, had a slightly different take on Brock's impression of his project, as he mused over at Nina's board:

I purchased this article from the American Spectator web archive for just
$2.95, but it made my month, because of what it got right as well as what it
didn't. Brock cites me saying 'bulldykes' as if I were some bigot hurling an
epithet when in actuality I was referring to the mainstream media's stereotyped
depiction of lesbians as 'bulldykes'. I said the factory workers in 'Shades of
Ecstacy" acted out of revenge, not 'anger'. He screwed up the set-up to my
Gorbachev joke: It's "What do you call two Soviet citizens watching..." The
previous year's 'febrile' panel, which I also organized, only had one anti-porn
speaker.[Note: The only time he physically describes any conference speakers,
those speakers were women. Paging Ariel Levy...]But the most important thing is,
besides the fact that he reported my evidentiary firepower correctly, was that
this was a time when there were no Dworkinites claiming to be on the Left.
Ideological labeling was more honest back then. Everone's ducks were lined up
all in a row, and that's the spirit of those times, the 'zeitgeist', that Brock
captured accurately.

It's a pity that Brock missed next year's (1991) conference, when Nina made
her debut at the "Debbie Duz Democratic Socialism" panel. If I had known about
the American Spectator back then, I would have sent him an engraved
invitation!

I wonder what the present day Brock would think today of pro-porn activism?? Only he knows....

More of AK Getting Off on "Getting Off"

Having now read Chris Hall's excellent review of Robert Jensen's Getting Off over at Sex in the Public Square (and greatly anticipating the lovely Amber Rhea's forthcoming review of same) has really brought up some points that I failed to address in my initial "review".

For starters, to quote this excerpt from Chris's review:

He does not, of course, ever say that we should just cloister ourselves and live lives of sexual abstinence. But when he does try to give solutions to the nightmare world that he depicts, Robert Jensen’s words lose their fire. His description of a positive sexuality is vague and bloodless, and speaks little of sex as a physical act but in semi-mystical terms about light and mystery and touch. It’s bland and dull, but even worse, it gives little in the way of practical advice. In the 90’s, I came away from reading sex-positive writers like Carol Queen and Susie Bright with sophisticated ways of thinking about safer sex techniques, talking honestly about limits, and what consent was and wasn’t. All that I get from Jensen is an admonition that we should try to make sex be more about light, and less about heat. (And god help me, I’m still not sure what that means.)

It took until this morning before reading that graph when it really did hit me: what Jensen means by his version of a "bloodless sexuality" that contains "more heat and less light" is similar to what the cultural feminists of the 1980s described as a "feminist sexuality" that would be imposed as much on women as on men. In that vision, sex would be concieved as much less a physical pleasure and more of a transcending, supernatural presence which would somehow go beyond the experiences and sensations of the individuals; more of a sprirtual and universal experience in communal bonding than any individualistic physical act. Of course, such a transcendent phonenom would be totally shorn of such "patriarchial" nonsenses as erections, body fluids, or even orgasms; such trite physical sensations would be whisked away by the sheer revolutionary outer-body experience that "feminist sex" would produce in men freed from their evil "patriarchial" ideas of power and domination. It's almost as if Jensen and his radicalfeminist mentors see his crusade against "masculinity" and the porn that he alleges is the foundation behind it as the key to ending world war, hunger, economic and social inequality, and most other ills of the world.

The problem with such a utopia, though, is that it comes dangerously close to an equally restrictive and "transcending" view of sexuality: that of the Religious Right.

It is no accident that the social conservatives have so appropriated much of Jensen's core theory about male sexual rapicity towards women; albeit with the aim of supporting and abetting their own traditional sexual morality of restraining sex within the act of procreation within marriage. The contraposition of the "liberating" and "beautiful" and "uplifting" power of what they call "the marital act" when "two become one" (or "when two become one") in the conception of a child, with the "ugly", "selfish", "compulsive", and "addictive" acts of sex for physical pleasure alone; has been a stable of conservative and traditionalist thought about sexuality since time immortal. Strangely enough, it has now been appropriated by the most sexually conservative feminists as a means of "protecting" women from the "male gaze", but with an added twist: "personal intimacy" and "emotional integrity" within codependent monogamy has replaced hetero marital procreation at the top of the privileged and sacred pyramid.

The emphasis may differ with each movement: the antipornradfems seek to regulate the supposed out-of-control nature of male sexuality at the hands of the "patriarchy"; while the fundamentalists target what they perceive as the threat of unbridled female sexuality in defiance of "God's law" (or "Allah's", or "Yawheh's" or any other deity of choice). But the effect is nevertheless the same: to inprision and restrict men's and women's sexual choices and impose a rather strained, exclusive, and repressive system of sexual regulation and choice by the use of shame and guilt (and with the full power of the State as a backup just in case the "gentle persuasion" and "conciousness raising" doesn't elicit the changes sought).

That such a reactionary concept of sexuality can be passed along as "progressive", even "Leftist" is one of the utter tragedies of this book....almost as much as the complete denial of female sexual agency that lurks just underneath the surface of Jensen's jerimiads.


The other thought that reared its head at me was about the individualistic approach that Jensen takes in his activism towards men who might be suspect to his illogic. He seems to see progressive activism as most of the culturalist Left and liberals of the 1970s do: as a means of consciousness raising of people already with "privilege" to confront, accept, and then repudiate such privilege and see the world as their apparant "victims" of such racial or gender or imperial privilege would. (Call it the "Walk a mile in their shoes" type of movement, if you will.)

This kind of activism sounds all well and good at first...but it ultimately suffers from the same flaw that most culturally-based movements falter on: the inability to take on fundamental physical institutions of inequality; and the confusion of individual acts of cruelty with institutional acts of inequality. Rape may be a universal crime of sexual anger and rage directed by men towards women (but don't forget anti-gay hate, either!!!), and certainly may be exploitable as part of larger hate campaigns against certain groups; but that doesn't change the basic fact that rape is for the most part an act of extreme violence done by an individual (or group of individuals) against an individual person.

Conversely, as much as many people might find facials or double penetration or anal sex "demeaning" and "filthy", the fact remains that even loving and caring and committed people can engage in such activities and find them personally upliftiing, or simply arousing. The difference is in the overall political and cultural outlook of whomever is making the prejudgment about such acts; not in the acts themselves.

On the other hand, though, laws specifically created to restrict and constrain sexual expression and behavior amongst consenting adults do far, far, far more damage to progressive activism than any of the dire consensual sex acts that so excise Jensen and his radfem mentors. Not only do they literally invite the State to intervene in matters of personal sexual tastes and asthetics that are better left to individual choice and free will; but they are the ultimate gateway to justifying more explicit political censorship.....the kind that has been traditionally used against the Left and against liberals in general for time immortal. Can't Jensen see the connection between McCarthyism and the anti-"homosexual menace" movements of the 1950s?? The intimate links between White supremacism and religious bigotry and sex crime so starkly seen in the castration and lynching of Black men (and rape of Black women) during the Jim Crow years??) The undercurrent of sexual bigotry and fear underlying the current memes against "illegal aliens" (read, anyone Latin@ who isn't a paid agent of the GOP or not useable as a slave for multinational corporations)?? The antiabortion movement and the attack on basic women's control of their own reproductive systems and all the "sluts get what they deserve" rhetoric??

Maybe Bob Jensen with his doctorate and his upper-middle-class background can overlook all this...but I as a working-class Black man certainly can't.

There are far, far more important issues of racial and gender and economic inequality -- and the institutions of capital and State that buttress and reinforce such inequality -- for liberals and Leftists to tackle; it is a distraction and a ruse and a dead end to get caught up in baiting and hating men for having impromptu erections (and women for getting damp panties and engorged clits) at the mere sight of imagery that doesn't fit a narrow ideologue's personal squicks. Save the hate for the rapists and true misogynists who earn it....and work the energy someplace else more fruitful than getting into every man's boxers....and every woman's panties.


[Cross-posted to The SmackDog Chronicles]

Chris Hall Dissects Bob Jensen's "Getting Off"

Chris Hall over at Sex in the Public Square has now posted his review of Robert Jensen's Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity;

A couple of excerpts follow:

Jensen, on the other hand, sees pornography as part of the “sexual exploitation industries” which include stripping, phone sex, and prostitution as well as the McPorn that comes out of the San Fernando Valley and the amateur sites that pepper the web. Jensen is a well-known activist and writer on other progressive causes, specifically racism and anti-war politics, and he sees his opposition to porn as the logical extension of that work (and vice versa). Men who are interested in social justice, he argues, can’t use pornography or patronize sex workers without betraying those principles at a fundamental level.

To Jensen, pornography is a mirror, a dark and violent one which few can bear to look into without flinching or deceiving themselves about what they see there: “Pornography forces women to face up to how men see them. And pornography forces men to face up to what we have become.”

The first two-thirds of the book are spent looking deeply into the mirror of pornography and the ethical problems that Jensen finds in its creation and its use. It is a personal narrative as well as a political treatise. For any man writing on pornography, either pro- or anti-, it could hardly be any other way; one thing that most men have in common is that we started out our sexual lives with porn. However we feel about that, it’s almost an inevitability, and now with the internet, is even more so than when Jensen saw his first pornographic magazine in the early sixties, or when, in the seventies, I found my dad’s Playboy magazines, filled cover-to-cover with naked Farrah Fawcett wannabes. It is, in a way, a language that we all speak, no matter how we feel about it, and so it’s even more urgent that we be able to speak honestly and openly about it.

[...]

Jensen starts immediately with some sleight-of-hand regarding pornography. In explaining where he wants to go with the book, he says very specifically that he's going to focus on a textual analysis of the content of mass-produced heterosexual pornography. In short, the main product of good old Porn Valley. In itself, that seems like a fair strategy. It wouldn't be illegitimate for a literary critic to write a book focusing on post-war hard-boiled fiction instead of writing about every subgenre of mystery fiction from The Murders in the Rue Morgue to Carl Hiassen's latest. But we would expect such an author to draw conclusions about the style of Jim Thompson vs. Raymond Chandler — not about Arthur Conan Doyle's place in Victorian culture. The conclusions that Jensen draws from his narrow survey, in contrast, are sweeping in nature about how sexually explicit imagery affects our views of ourselves and others. Jensen's conclusions are not a critique about the mentality of Porn Valley, or of the specific kinds of porn that Porn Valley pecializes in, but are an assault on porn as a genre. Porn isn't a good thing made bad by greedy and stupid people. It's just rotten to the core.

Thirty years ago, Jensen might have been able to get away with that. Both the production and the audience for porn were more homogenized before every American home was equipped first with a VCR and then with a PC linked up to the Internet. More importantly, the conversation about genders and sexualities was much more homogenized. In those days, there were men and there were women; there were gays and there were straights. But some remarkable things have happened in the last twenty years or so; sexual politics has become radicalized in a way that Jensen and his ideological allies couldn't have imagined back then, and seem unable to appreciate even now when they're staring those radical notions straight in the face. We're now faced with the notion that gender isn't just x and y, but z or xy or yz *x or any number of other combinations. The notion of orientation as binary and immutable is considered by many of us not only as antiquated but repressive. Sex workers now demand the right to call themselves feminist without calling themselves victims of their work. Queer and feminist activists now look at power play of all kinds as a part their sexuality that enhances, rather than opposes, their radical politics. And women actively create and critique porn, not just for men, but for themselves.

[...]

Robert Jensen's passion is reserved for visualizing women's sexual pain. Never once does he turn that passion the other direction to look at the possibilities for women's sexual pleasure. There is not, in the end, so much difference between Jensen and the most misogynist, exploitative porn director; neither can imagine the sexual role of men as being anything other than to fuck, nor can they imagine women's roles as being anything other than to be fucked. And that's why, regardless of my doubts about mainstream porn, I can never, never imagine aligning myself with Jensen and his ilk. Because at the heart of his arguments, I see the same misogynist bullshit that I want to excise from pornography.

By all means, go and see the full review ASAP.

FOXNews Porn: Right-Wing Hypocrisy Meets Left-Wing Puritanism

There are a great many ways to hate on the FOX News Channel if you happen to be a political progressive like I am.

There's the consistent browbeat of right-wing propaganda thinly cloaked under the brand of "Fair and Balanced News". The revolving door between certain luminaries and commentators of that network and the Bush/Cheney administration-cum-Mafia. Bill O'Reilly. Sean Hannity. Tony Snow. Bill O'Reilly. Bill "Bomb the shit out of Iran and Syria" Kristol. Neal Cavuto. Bill freakin' O'Reilly.

But...for some progressives out there, that alone isn't quite enough....they would like to expose Fixed Noise (to use Keith Olbermann's classic gloss....although for this particular story, Bina Becker's acronym of "FUX Snooze" would be more appropos) for something entirely different.

As a peddler of porn.

What's that, you say??? How can a right-wing media outlet like Faux News be even remotely involved with an industry that most of their base viewers would find beyond the pale???

Easy, says Robert Greenwald, who was the producer of the documentary Outfoxed which was one of the first exposes of FOX News' corrosive impact on the public at large: They use gratituous sexual images and "misogynous and innapropriate" sexual media to attract their audience to their news and information programs.

Greenwald has been a busy man of late pushing his "FOX News peddles indecency while attacking it" meme: he has released film clips over at YouTube (one example of which appears here) depicting how everyone there from BillO to Neal Cavuto to the regular news programs splatter gratituous T&A (and even the occasional blurred XXX image) into their news coverage. He has developed a spoof website (foxnewsporn.com) to promote his efforts; He recently wrote an article for the "progressive" daily Alternet.org promoting his efforts (and claiming that his video clips were "censored" by both YouTube and Digg by not being linkable; kinda not true since I just linked his clip two sentences ago); and he has gotten significant airtime, even to the point of scoring an interview segment on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann.

Most of his case consists of replaying clips of where some FOX luminary prattles on about the "sexual decline" and "moral decay" of the country...while images of pretty risque and suggestive sexual activity (or merely sexy images) fill the background screen.

For instance, there is BillO moaning and groaning about the infamous Carl Jr's hamburger ad featuring Paris Hilton doing her Jenna Jameson imitation and nearly mounting her car and having multiple orgasms over their hamburgers....while Paris winds and grinds uninterrupted in the background.

Or, in another BillO segment, another attack on "secular progressive San Francisco (read, "homoSEXual") values", as represented by the annual sex freakery known as the Exotic Erotic Ball....complete with detailed coverage and footage of said acts of freakery from a journalist who was there. (Apparantly, BillO skipped last years Folsom Street Fair, so he wasn't able to report on that particular alleged atrocity of "secular progressive" values.)

Or...there is a "breaking" story about an alledged sexual assault over at the Playboy Mansion in Los Angeles...a perfect excuse for gratituous T&A shots at Hugh Hefner and his stable of bikini beauties frollicking about nearly nekkid.

Or...how about another "breaking story" scaring the viewers about rapists running amok during Spring Break....featuring strippers and thong-clad dancers flashing their naughty bits (pertinent parts electronically covered, of course).

Or even today, on Cavuto's program: a warning about strip clubs "enticing pre-teens"...complete with some pretty saucy pics of said patrons to entice....errrrrr....scare them.

All this, Greenwald asserts, proves how corrosive FOX News is to the body politic; and they must be stopped by any means possible, up to and including media boycotts.

Now, being a prime Fixed Noise hater myself, I normally would be willing to add my support to anything that piles them on. But I just can't hitch myself on this campaign, for the following reasons.

First: This is nothing new with Rupert Murdoch. He is well versed in the art of using skin and sex to bait the trap to get consumers; how else did he make his millions with his tabloids in Great Britain (see the Page 3 Girls) or with his FOX cable network (Married....With Children, anyone???). And as for BillO....well, we'll just leave him to Andrea Mackris' tell all book (which probably won't appear on FOX News anytime soon).

Second and more importantly: Although it is certainly right and proper to spell out the hypocrisy of Fixed Noise playing both sides of the sex media street (remember, Murdoch paid Judith Regan big bucks to sell Jenna Jameson's tell-all biography two years ago, even as he also paid BillO and other assorted columnists to diss her as an ignorant slut), I'm wondering whether Greenwald's real beef is with FOX News or with the sexy images they appropriate...for he doesn't make too clear that he's really not more offended by the behavior of the images than he is by FNC. There are loads of loaded commentary about "indecency" and "gratituous sex" in his documentaries, and there is a not-so-subtle plea for the viewers to "do something" about the images...as if Fixed Noise's more normal political crimes aren't worthy of censure enough.

And thirdly: most of the "pornographic" images that so grieves Greenwald aren't really that porographic or even softcore: they range from refined Girls Gone Wild video excerpts of young girls carvoting, to women lounging in bikinis, to brief titty flashes and thong-clad booty shaking, to women kissing (the Madonna and Britney Spears liplock at the 2002 American Music Awards is featured as one example of FOX "indecency"); to the occasional interview with porn starlets. One wonders from watching this whether Greenwald is really condemning FOX for being right-wing hypocrites...or for showing such evil "misogynistic" and "objectifying" images in the first place. I tend to think more of the later..which would make him only one step removed from antipornfeminist "leftist" fanatic Nikki Craft, who attacks more hardcore porn with pretty much the same theme (though with Larry Flynt as her primary Great Satan rather than Fixed Noise).
The way I see it, why is it that some liberals and "progressives" are so willing to play the Puritan protectionist card as a means of promting themselves and their pet causes?? The notion of attempting to split your enemy amongst genuine Puritan populist and "libertarian" lines may be one attraction (read that to mean getting the real religious Right folk foaming about the "conservative establishment"); perhaps Greenwald really wants to attract authentic social conservatives to progressive causes as well; and sees attacks on establishment outlets like FOX News and their "indecency" as a bridge to such a right-wing populist constituency.

But this is a dangerous game of tit for tat that not only legitimizes and reenforces the most reactionary sexual beliefs as "progressive"; it also mistakes scapegoating of legitimate consensual and harmless sexual imagery and expression with more effective political analysis and organization.

All this campaign proves to me is that conservatives have no monopoly on using sexual fear and loathing as a wedge to import their particular ideology; and that some progressives and liberals need just as much to check themselves and their antisexual myopia. FOX News is bad enough as a politically obtuse, racist, right-wing media organization as it is; there is no need to pile on at the expense of innocent sexual expression.

[Cross-posted over at The SmackDog Chronicles (BTW, memo to Ren and Belle: Update the SmackChron link in this blogroll..please??? OKThanxbye. :-)]