tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-214463652024-03-13T09:45:16.346-05:00The SmackDog ChroniclesThe rantings and ravings of a sex radical/sex-positive feminist male/libertarian socialist/Black progressive.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.comBlogger80125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-39208076211845719302011-08-19T00:15:00.000-05:002012-07-31T16:04:05.689-05:00Breastfeedinggate Update: Maggie Mayhem FTW!!Maggie Mayhem just posted at her blog <a href="http://missmaggiemayhem.com/2011/08/18/sex-workers-breastfeeding/">a comprehensive and powerful rebuttal</a> to Furry Girl's <a href="http://www.feminisnt.com/2011/why-i-am-against-sexy-breast-feeding-and-using-a-baby-as-a-marketing-gimmick-to-sell-porn/">vicious smear of Madison Young</a> for the crime of using her breastfeeding of her child as a "porn prop". The entire piece is worthy of a read because it gives the important background for the event in which Madison was maligned for, and a complete analysis of why it's not just a matter of she said/she said.<br />
<br />
I will simply requote the final paragraphs of Maggie's blog entry, because they say what needs to be said about this matter far better than I ever could say them.<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
If we want to be totally logical about it, someone with a <i>sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children</i> isn’t hanging out on an <i>adult porn star’s twitter stream</i> hoping for the golden chance that they might see a glimpse of a child. <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia">Pedophiles</a>
are going to be hanging out in the family friendly spaces like
playgrounds, swimming pools, child beauty pageants, churches, etc. It’s
an odds game. If you are into children you’re going to go where there
are a lot of children. Pedophiles aren’t heading out to the strip clubs
to kidnap victims, they’re going to Chuck E. Cheese. People aren’t
suddenly converted into dangerous pedophiles lusting after infants from
watching a woman breastfeed or shall we go arrest the romantic partners
of breast feeding women for watching a breast feeding and fucking
immediately after? Human beings are perfectly capable of holding these
concepts together without children being harmed for it. It is not
“pedophile courting” behavior to share these pictures on personal
blogging and micro-blogging services outside of a XXX porn site.
Boogeymen don’t advance the argument, credible threats do.<br />
<br />
The number of people fighting back are listening to those words,
recognizing their significance, and unwilling to allow them to be used
as synonyms for “my opinion is that this person is annoying.” I am
deeply concerned about the sex worker revolution and that is why I’m not
going to perpetuate the myth that the children of sex workers are in
constant and unending danger of sexual exploitation and should be
governed under a special set of laws about what they can and cannot
depict when the set is closed, safe, and protected and no harm came to
the child.<br />
This has nothing to do with anyone’s affiliation or non-affiliation with feminism, it isn’t because Madison Young
is getting a special pass, this doesn’t even have anything to do with
San Francisco other than that it was largely people from the Bay Area
who were present at these events and can speak up about their context
and non-sexual nature. We <i>have</i> to respond. If we do not, then
we are allowing an allegation that we are sexualizing an infant to go
unchallenged and be accepted as truth. Speaking as though there were
people openly masturbating to this infant is not a matter of opinion or
perspective. You can’t state and imply that it is or does and act
baffled when people correct the record. Putting that infant at <i>risk of being taken away by police</i>
and subjected to that process to express a personal distaste of
someone’s politics or PR is a far, far greater expression of child
exploitation than posing for that photograph ever had any reasonable
potential to be.<br />
<br />
Say what you mean and mean what you say. Don’t put that child in
danger to express your opinion about the mother. It’s not just the
hypocrisy of using the machinations of a system you are trying to erode
to hurt someone standing beside you in the battle. It’s the fact that it
carries on to someone who didn’t get a say and chills a group of people
into hiding for no good reason. Don’t throw another sex worker under
the bus as a lesson of the power of the system posed against sex
workers. This is not a claim that you should not disagree or challenge
people’s beliefs. <i>Pedophilia</i> means more than <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines">Gail Dines</a> writing a shitty article in the Guardian. Accusing Madison Young
of hosting erotic breast feedings is not merely “pissing off the mommy
bloggers.” It is suggesting that a child is being molested and that
compels action. It’s like fighting for a sensible drug policy and
planting crack cocaine and a machete on another activist but <i>worse</i>. I can’t sit back and let an accusation that extreme stand without correction. I cannot.</blockquote>
It's one thing to say that you don't like a performer using breastfeeding a child to promote her website. It's another thing altogether, though, to throw the charge of "pedophile" at her and explicitly throw her under the bus and call on the very same authorities who would no sooner go after you as well next to sacrifice her merely to fit your personal pique. But to sacrifice the innocent child and separate her from her mother based on an obviously false charge?? That is the lowest form of viciousness you can go...and anyone worthy of those depths does not deserve to be called a progressive sexual rights activist or a sex worker advocate. In fact, it is one degree of separation from Melissa Farley....or Laura Schlessenger.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-37119243392276442572011-08-18T15:07:00.000-05:002011-08-18T15:07:28.782-05:00Memo to Furry GirlL Breastfeeding Is NOT A Sexual Fetish; It Is Nourishing A Child!! A Definse of Madison Young<i>[Note: this is a mirror of a post I originally published on Saturday to my Red Garter Club blog, expressing my personal opinion on the controversy between sex worker activist blogger Furry Girl (of Feminisnt and SWAAY.org) and alt.porn performer/feminist Madison Young. The issue that has FG bunching her panties was that Madison had posted a picture of herself breastfeeding her young infant daughter that was used for an art exibit.</i><br />
<br />
<i>I am reposting it here because my original blog is now temporarily inaccessible for viewing due to a lapsed subscription with my webhost (my bad), so in order to make the post accessible, I am reposting it here. </i><br />
<br />
<i>Since the time I originally posted this, Furry Girl has responded with a post of her own defending her opinions, and I have posted a rebuttal thereof. -- Anthony] </i> <br />
<br />
It’s never easy when you have to be critical of someone you respect
and admire…but so sorry, Furry Girl, but you are waaaaaaaaaay <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a> to lunch here.<br />
<br />
The background, for those not knowing: Furry Girl — of Feminisnt and
SWAAY.org — has several burrs up her butt because alt.porn starlet <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> had the termidity to promote her <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3390" title="Look up this term.">pregnancy</a>
and her birth of her daughter, Emma, as a means of supporting the
somehow still radical idea that porn performers were human beings and
not just <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3428" title="Look up this term.">sperm</a> receptacles or <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> dolls. <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> had been including pics of her pregnancy and of her daughter at her site (in vastly <a class="sspg term" href="http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/%3Ca%20href=" title="Look up this term.">asexual</a>.htm”
class=”sspg term” title=”Look up this term.”>asexual positions, of
course), and even included her in an art exhibit…which also had a photo
of <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>-feeding Emma.<br />
<br />
Apparently, that is too much for FurryGirl to handle, because
according to her, using a child anywhere near a porn scene is
essentially the equivalent of kiddie porn…or at the very least, an
enabler and <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3399" title="Look up this term.">trigger</a> for pedophiles and other “creeps”.<br />
<br />
Now, FG hasn’t yet posted anything at Feminisnt on this little smack war yet…but oh, has she been using up <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl">her Twitter stream</a> to lambast <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> for her heresy. Some examples:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>Am I the only one in the perv community who is creeped <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a> by those who fetishize <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding? Since when is an infant a sexy accessory? <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/101874866516529152">(Aug. 11th,)</a></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>I am so happy I don’t live in San
Francisco. I would hate to have to pretend that borderline pedophilia is
transgressive and revolutionary. (<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/101876058474819584">Aug. 11th)</a></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><a data-screen-name="nuwishas_tail" href="http://twitter.com/nuwishas_tail" rel="nofollow">@nuwishas_tail</a> Adult women who <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feed their infants for the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a> gratification of other <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3404" title="Look up this term.">adults</a>. That’s fucking creepy. <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/101876491784159232">(Aug. 11th)</a></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em><a data-screen-name="madisonyoung" href="http://twitter.com/madisonyoung" rel="nofollow">@madisonyoung</a> That’s funny coming from a semi-pedophile like you. Infants aren’t <a class="sspg term" href="http://sexuality.about.com/od/sextoys/a/butt_plugs.htm" title="Look up this term.">butt plugs</a> or a kink accessory. (<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/102119480792064001">Aug 12th</a>, response to <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/madisonyoung/status/102113817336619009">this</a>)</em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>I’m so glad I live in conservative
uptight small-town Seattle where the kink community doesn’t involve
small children in their turn-ons. (<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/102120949008179201">Aug. 12th)</a></em></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<em>I am SO PROUD of being a prude when
it comes to the issue of involving non-consenting babies in one’s kinks.
BIG TIME PRUDE. Loud and proud. (<a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/furrygirl/status/102135166197182464">Aug. 12th</a>)</em></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
Some other sexpro celebs and limelights have rallied to Madison’s defense, including Maggie Mayhem (whom has used her own <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</a> stream to rebuke FG), and Epiphora, who today linked this <a href="http://charliespats.com/blog/archives/183">blog post</a> from an unrelated site defending <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> as a pioneering <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>+ artist.<br />
<br />
I’m not going to speak for them, or for <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>, whom <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/madisonyoung">has spoken quite eloquently</a> and defended herself well.<br />
<br />
All I’m going to ask is this to you, FG:<br />
<br />
If a pic of a woman breastfeeding her child in a non-<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a>
format at a non-sexual art show is enough to get your panties bunched
up like Bill O’Reilly at a Playboy Club dinner, then how in the hell can
you call yourself a sexual rebel??<br />
<br />
Even if someone may get sexually aroused by the sight of a woman
nursing her child, as long as (s)he manages to treat the nurser with
enough respect to respect her space, there is NO issue. Most pedophiles
aren’t going to go after 2 year old kids, you know.Besides, it’s not the
kid they are sexualizing, FG..it’s the WOMAN’s BREASTS and NIPPLES. You
have got it totally bassackwards.<br />
<br />
And this “San Francisco kink values” crapola?? Gee, like they don’t make porn in Seattle?? Like, women don’t <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>
feed there, too? And, how the hell would you know if men looking at
women nursing their children are walking around with instant boners
going after them?? As if there aren’t enough legitimate sexual triggers
there to begin with??<br />
<br />
And, really, Furry Girl…we get it that you don’t like feminism. Fair
enough. There are plenty of women who call themselves feminists who
aren’t so likeable. But, who the HELL are you to smear everyone you
don’t like as pedophile enablers and “feminists” merely because they get
under your skin?? Spoken like a true MRA enabler.<br />
<br />
You can squawk all you want about “<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3340" title="Look up this term.">consent</a>” and “using a baby as a <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>
prop” until the cows come home….but I don’t think that Madison’s child
will suffer any bit of damage foe wanting to get her dose of mother’s
milk off her mom. Actually,, I really don’t think that Emma, not being
ol enough to even comprehend anything than “Feed me, Mommy”, is the
least concerned about much of anything. I mean, do you ask your <a class="sspg term" href="http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/vibrator.htm" title="Look up this term.">vibrator</a> for its consent when you shove it up your orfices??<br />
<br />
I’m sure that right-wing fundamentalist sex fascists around the world
will be praising you, FG, for doing their dirty work for them in
slamming women who breastfeed their children as mindless sluts deserving
of being treated as less than human. Well freakin’ done.<br />
<br />
Another example of how sex workers need to put aside petty bullshit and work together.<br />
<br />
And understand that a woman’s breast is more than just the sum of her nipple and her cleavage.<br />
Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-50663479562150741272011-08-18T14:48:00.000-05:002011-08-18T14:48:43.518-05:00Why Breastfeeding Is STIILL NOT A Sexual Fetish: My Rebuttal to Furry Girl Re: Madison Young<i>[Note: This a mirror of a post I did over at my Red Garter Club blog involving a rebuttal to sex worker activist blogger Furry Girl (from Feminisnt), who laid what I consider to be a highly wrongheaded and outright libelous attack on porn performer/sexual rights artist Madison Young over a photo of the latter breastfeeding her daughter. As you will read, I got pretty heated up at the end, because I find FG's response to be simply unconscious nonsense.</i><br />
<i>My original post was kinda nuked because my webhosting account is currently under suspension (I let my sub lapse too long, go figure), so I am reposting it here thanks to Google Cache. -- Anthony</i> ]<br />
<br />
<br />
Well…<a href="http://www.feminisnt.com/2011/why-i-am-against-sexy-breast-feeding-and-using-a-baby-as-a-marketing-gimmick-to-sell-porn/">Furry Girl has finally seem fit to respond</a> over at her Feminisnt blog to the firestorm of criticism raining upon her for busting <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> for allegedly using her <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">young</b> child as a porn prop. I will go ahead and break down her rebuttal line for line.<br />
<br />
To her credit, I guess, FG’s not backing down one bit from her fundamental beef of <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> that she is dead wrong to use her baby in that way.<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>The big take-home point that some people are missing: <em>It’s all about context</em>. I am against <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding in places where people go to masturbate.</strong> Madison’s posting of <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding photos and videos in her <a href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</a> stream and on other <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>-themed web sites is appalling to me. It’s no different than <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding on stage at a strip club. <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>
has spent her career making everything she does about sex. There’s
nothing wrong with that, of course. I’m a sex-loving pornographer
myself! But you can’t spend most of a decade purposefully building an
environment where people come to masturbate and then feign confusion
when someone like me “mistakes” that environment for being <em><a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a></em>.</div>
<br />
<br />
Now, that would be a legit critique if <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> was using her child as part of her live <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> shows, or making explicit content including her child. Problem is, that;n not what <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> has been doing. The only time she has even featured her child was in the explicitly non-<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a>
context of an art show, or in non-sexual general posts about her life.
That hardly counts as exploiting her child to sustain her career…unless
you happen to think that no mother should ever even be in porn to begin
with. Or, they should keep their life as a mother totally separated and
private from their porn personas.<br />
<br />
Funny, but I really don’t think that people going to Madison’s
website or blog to get off on her nude pics are going there to gawk
after her child.<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>It’s hard to plead “there is absolutely nothing <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a> about these photos/videos” when they are posted in sexualized spaces and/or crafted to look sexy. </strong><a href="http://titsandsass.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/marilynprint.jpg" target="_blank">The most famous image</a> shows <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> as a Marilyn Monroe knockoff. I’ve seen photos of other women <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>
feeding, and none of them bothered to put on a sexy dress and get their
hair and makeup done first. For most moms with breast feeding photos, I
bet they’re probably wearing yesterday’s sweatpants and looking
exhausted, not trying to liken themselves to a famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_symbol">sex icon</a>.</div>
<br />
<br />
So, an art gallery where no <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>
is happening automatically becomes a sex space now?? Merely because a
porn starlet decided to breastfeed her child there?? Or, she decides to
emphasize a fundamental aspect of her life as a woman outside of her <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a>
persona?? I guess that according to FG, if you are a porn star, you
must BECOME a porn star 24/7, and any other aspect of your life must
either be shunted aside, hidden in private and apparently in shame, or
completely segregated to a point that no porn fan ever finds <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a>.<br />
<br />
And…so funny that Furry Girl goes straight to the “Marilyn Monroe knockoff” card as a knock on <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>. Goodness..she’s doing a freakin’ ART EXHIBIT. What does FG expect her to dress up as…Dorothy of <em>The Wizard of Oz???</em>
I reckon that you just can’t look sexy when you are with your child,
then, because people will say stuff..and impressionable newborns might
get infected with…THE <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3436" title="Look up this term.">SLUT</a> GENE!!!!<br />
<br />
Oh…I’m guessing that real live porn starlet mothers like Holly
Halston or Cindy Taylor (aka Jesse Jane) or Stormy Daniels would
probably want to have a word or five with Furry Girl on the realities of
being sexy and still managing to raise a child while doing porn.
Considering that FG is in fact still single, and is NOT an active porn
performer, she’d probably learn a thing or two.<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I’ve been told that it’s beyond Madison’s control if sick people are aroused by her sexy <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>
feeding images. But if she would never want to encourage people to
jerk off to photos of her baby, she should stop posting them in a place
where she typically posts porn. </strong>Aside from all the innocent masturbators who clicked a blind link because they thought it was going to be <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3425" title="Look up this term.">kinky</a> <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> pics, who wants to see sexy <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>
feeding? Most of us would call them pedophiles. Best case scenario,
Madison’s sexy breast feeding schtick is an attention-getting ploy to
sell her persona’s “realness” so people will buy her “real” porn. Worst
case scenario, <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> is knowingly creating <a class="sspg term" href="http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/masturbation.htm" title="Look up this term.">masturbation</a>
material for pedophiles. Either way, it’s revolting. (At what point
does one cross over from sexualizing having a baby to sexualizing the
baby?)</div>
<br />
<br />
Uhhhh….Furry Girl?? You do know that children are usually made through <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>, right?? Therefore, it’s kinda hard to say that <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> is “sexualizing” her daughter any more than anyone else.<br />
<br />
But here’s the stupid part: a person who masturbates to the image of a
newborn baby being nourished by her mother naturally most certainly has
some personal issues. In nearly all the cases, though, the
sexualization is NOT of the baby; but rather of the WOMAN nursing her.
It is the nipple, the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a>, of the woman doing the feeding, that is the real <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a> stimulant, and the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3393" title="Look up this term.">desire</a> to suck on the nipple of the woman, which is the center of <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3508" title="Look up this term.">arousal</a>.<br />
<br />
And, I’m pretty damn sure that Madison’s website is clearly marked so that those who are expecting to see the usual <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3425" title="Look up this term.">kinky</a>
sex pics and videos will be gracefully sent to the appropriate place,
Those who merely surf through to see other aspects of Madison’s life as a
mother who happens to be porn as a side hobby, will be able to tell the
difference between adult sex play and respect for a mother caring for
her child. Or….does Furry Girl always treat her own paying clients with
as much disrespect as how she assumes <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> treats hers??<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>This issue is also about <em><a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3340" title="Look up this term.">consent</a></em>. The baby is not consenting to being used as a marketing gimmick for her mother’s porn persona.</strong> There is a huge difference between consenting <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3404" title="Look up this term.">adults</a>
engaging in exhibitionism, and forcing creepy, pedophile-courting
public voyeurism on a non-consenting baby. I am an exhibitionist
myself, but I would never drag anyone into my kinks who isn’t consenting
to be a part of a scene. For all anyone knows, Madison’s kid will be
traumatized by her upbringing in public, and end up feeling extremely
violated by the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a> attention <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> subjected her to as a child. Would you have wanted your mother <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding you for attention from horny adults, and for evidence of that to be online and linked to you forever?</div>
<br />
<br />
OK, so it squicks the hell <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a>
of Furry Girl to see a porn performer “use her baby” to promote herself
and her website. Fair enough…and actually, there is an honest concern
here abuut the welfare of the child being served…or at least there would
be IF the child was used in any explicit <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a>
nature. But, since the only confirmed use of Madison’s daughter was for
the art exhibit, in an mostly nonsexual context, I’d say that FG was
seriously overdoing her concerns. As far as I know, <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> has NEVER used her daughter as part of any <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> scene, so that argument is simply bogus on its face.<br />
<br />
And as for the concern about the emotional well being of the child:
well, newborn children probably aren’t that interested in anything other
than eating, sleeping, and dirtying their diapers for the first year of
their lives, so I’m guessing that unless the sounds of live sex is that
disturbing to her, she’ll probably make it out OK. Most of those who
subscribe to Madison’s site are there to see her first, not her child.<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I am against people using their children as props to serve an agenda. </strong>Madison’s use of her daughter to push her politics is no different than when anti-<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3309" title="Look up this term.">abortion</a>
protesters or the Westboro Baptist Church uses their own unwitting
small children as props. Kids aren’t political tools to leverage for
shock value, they’re actual human beings who will one day be <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3404" title="Look up this term.">adults</a>
with their own set of opinions. To assume that Madison’s baby will
grow up and be thrilled that her mother used her to get attention for
her porn persona is offensive and sad to me. Several have pointed <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a>
that I’m “no different,” since I tweet photos of my cat. But, here’s
the key nuance they can’t grasp: my cat will never be a sentient adult
human with his own beliefs and a non-interest in being caught up in my
pervy internet trail.</div>
<br />
<br />
Oh, really??? You mean that breastfeeding your daughter at an art
exhibit is the full equivalent of rounding up your kids and going to a
protest sponsored by Westboro Baptist Church protesting that God really
hates homosexuals that much that even good people who do no harm
deserve to die and should not be celebrated for their life on earth??
Or, having your kids carry placards saying “Get A Brain, MORANS” in
order to defend troops who are paid to kill others in battle?? Now, kids
can be persuaded or even brainwashed into some very nasty political
groups and causes…but other than learning through osmosis that <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>
can be pretty damn neat, just how in the HELL is a toddler harmed by
being exposed to the IDEA of nudity? (Note: I said IDEA of nudity.)<br />
<br />
I can’t predict what will happen to Madison’s child when she grows up
to be a talking, breathing sentinent being, but I will assume that <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>
is enough of a responsible adult that she will teach her basic
fundamental morality and critical thinking skills so that she will be
able to make informed decisions and avoid harm. That’s what being a
parent is all about.Again, I’m not sure why Furry Girl, who is single
and has not raised a child (or, at least, she hasn’t publically said
so), thinks she can lecture anyone else on that effect.<br />
<br />
Having dispatched <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>, FG now goes after those whom have defended her.<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
The sexy mommy mob doesn’t like these “anti-<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> worker” and “sexist” arguments, so they’ve turned it into a matter of rebutting things I never said.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I never said that no woman should be allowed to <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feed.</strong> I am not against <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding in public or private, I am against doing it in <em>sexualized contexts</em>. I would feel the same way if someone whipped <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a> a baby at a swinger’s club, so it’s not just about the internet or porn.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I never said that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker">sex workers</a> (or kinksters) should not be allowed to have children, or that mothers can’t be sexy.</strong> I have a number of <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3425" title="Look up this term.">kinky</a> and <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> working friends who are parents, and I know some sexy moms. They, however, possess <em>good sense</em> and <em>boundaries</em> and don’t force their offspring to be a part of their exhibitionism and work. The <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3425" title="Look up this term.">kinky</a> and <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>
working parents I know create separation between their lives, they
definitely don’t seek to combine them at every turn to prove how
transgressive they can be. Not because my friends are prudes, but
because they understand that it’s deeply <em>inappropriate</em> to mix small children and horny <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3404" title="Look up this term.">adults</a>.</div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I never said that no one should be allowed to photograph their kids or photograph <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding.</strong>
I didn’t comb through the Flickr pages of strangers until I found a
random mother to criticize. I’m specifically talking about a porn star
who is using her baby as an attention-getting prop in <em>sexualized contexts</em>.</div>
<br />
<br />
Riiight…the “I’m not really a racist, since I have lots and lots of
Black friends, BUT….” card. Some people might then think that this is
merely a slightly more personal grudge due to prior dealings between you
and <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>, since you give many of your “friends” the benefit of the doubt that you simply won’t give <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>…but I’ll leave that thought for others to decide on their own. (And NO, FG, I use the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3468" title="Look up this term.">racism</a> analogy only in a figurative way here, I KNOW that you are not a racist.)<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<strong>I hate what stuff like this does to the credibility of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker">sex workers</a> and pornographers as a whole. </strong>People like me try to tell regular folk that porn and <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> work is about consenting <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3404" title="Look up this term.">adults</a>, not weird stuff with kids and/or the non-consenting. To the sexy mommy mob, <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> is the greatest hero of her generation, but what about the <em>other</em> 99.999999% of America, the <em>majority</em> we need to get on our side in order to make any advancements for <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> workers? If you seal yourself in the safe bubble of San Francisco, surrounded by adoring fans, then<em> of course</em> you’re not going to care how you might be damaging the movement for acceptance of <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> workers and porn.</div>
<br />
So now Furry Girl switches over the the issue of credibility of <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a> workers in public, because Madison’s actions, if not her very existence, is such a cosmic threat to the makings of <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker">sex worker</a>/porn activism that she must be ostracized, stigmatized as a dirty <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3436" title="Look up this term.">slut</a>
and pedophile enabler, if not a pedophile herself, in order that the
other “normal” sex workers (like, I assume, Furry Girl) can get on with
the business of destigmatizing sex workers alike. Yet, why should it be
the need for sex workers to justify their existence to the other 99.999%
of society…many of which will never be convinced of the full humanity
of porn performers or sex workers even if they performed acts of super
human strength or cured all diseases?? Indeed, the very goal of what <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b>
is doing is as much a part of the destigmatization process as any
billboard or protest; by showing that porn performers and sex workers
are capable of being far more than the sum of their <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a> personas.<br />
<br />
You would think that a devout activist and libertarian like Furry
Girl would understand that and give at least some bit of respect to <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> for being upfront about attempting to balance the scales between being a mother AND being an active and activist <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker">sex worker</a>.
Alas, it seems that FG is either more concerned with imposing her own
narrow constrictions about what sex workers should be..or this is just a
continuation of a personal vendetta.<br />
<br />
But, it’s this concluding graph that has me climbing the walls with stunned open-mouthed astonishment:<br />
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="padding-left: 30px;">
I’m surprised that people like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines">Gail Dines</a> and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley">Melissa Farley</a> haven’t seized upon Madison’s baby <a class="sspg term" href="http://sexuality.about.com/od/glossary/g/fetish.htm" title="Look up this term.">fetish</a> as yet another way to attack all of us. This is <em>exactly</em> the sort of thing they live to hold up as a non-representative example of how we’re all horrible people. Anti-<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>
work activist Donna Hughes threw a fit a year ago when a small
sexuality conference apparently allowed in a high school senior. For
this, the organizer was branded, basically, a dangerous predator going
after America’s helpless children. If letting a consenting 17-year-old <em>hear</em>
about sexuality is enough for the antis to launch a campaign that says
kink bloggers are basically child molesters, I wonder what they would
think of a porn star sexualizing the <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3457" title="Look up this term.">breast</a> feeding of a baby? But of course, if the antis get wind of the controversy that <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b>
and her fans are so desperately trying to publicize, she will not be
the one addressing the hard questions. She has her feminist porn
“revolution” to worry about, and the rest of us – especially her baby
girl – can go eat cake.</div>
<br />
<br />
WOW…just plain freakin’…WOW.<br />
<br />
Here we have a supposed “<a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3311" title="Look up this term.">sex</a>-positive activist” and sex worker
advocate, someone well respected and prolific and supporting to back to
the hilt the fundamental freedom of women to explore their own
sexuality, openly and deliberately throwing another sex worker under the bus and offering her to the most bitter reactionary fascist enemies of her own values….merely <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3532" title="Look up this term.">out</a> of personal pique and pettiness out of merely prejudging minor offenses. And all that on the basis of…a two year old child.<br />
<br />
Damn, Furry Girl, what fucking GALL have you to say that another
woman should have to give up her right to tell another grown woman that
she must live her life to your narrow standards just to keep her
livelihood?? Who the FUCK made you the judge, jury, and executioner of
how another sex worker should care for her child? And, most importantly.. HOW FUCKING DARE you invoke the words of <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines">Gail Dines</a> and <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley">Melissa Farley</a>
(hell, FG, why not go for the gold and invoke Michelle Bachmann or
Anita Bryant or Maggie Gallagher or Laura Schlessenger??) .to shame <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b> for the mere crime of choosing to express herself as a full woman and a human being??<br />
<br />
That “feminist porn revolution” that you so decry happens to be the
legitimate right of women to be seen and respected as complete and full
human beings, and not to have their personal <a class="sspg term" href="http://www.scarleteen.com/glossary/term/3348" title="Look up this term.">sexual</a>
lives and experiences used against them to deny them their full human
rights. Yes, yes, FG, we know how much you hate and despise feminism;
that’s why you named your blog “Feminismt”, and I can see why you pit
your home base of Seattle against the supposedly “leftist” insanity of
San Francisco (and that in and of itself is a whole other issue); but
that is still no excuse to demonize a woman or her infant daughter and
project your own myopic fantasies on her out of personal vitriol.<br />
<br />
I do not know <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b>
that intimately, except as an prolific alt.porn starlet, a progressive
feminist, and an eloquent spokesperson for the erotic genre. I do know,
though, that she does not and did not deserve the kind of absolute
slanderous, hate-filled, and fundamentally untrue nonsense that Furry
Girl unleashed on her <a class="ml-smartlink" href="http://twitter.com/">Twitter</a>
stream…and this attempted reply has only reenforced my view that if
anyone represents the true positive nature of sex work activism, its <b style="background-color: #ffff66; color: black;">Madison</b> <b style="background-color: #a0ffff; color: black;">Young</b>, not the pretender and chameleonic double agent known as Furry Girl.<br />
Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-156623002160096672011-05-27T19:24:00.002-05:002011-05-27T19:38:00.161-05:00He's BAAAACCCCK!!!!!<object classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0" height="270" id="flashObj" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=962364598001&playerID=946155613001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAA3B3xrZk~,HJshEnrCBsS0C4iE6IhctLZ3YR2QgVHO&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=962364598001&playerID=946155613001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAA3B3xrZk~,HJshEnrCBsS0C4iE6IhctLZ3YR2QgVHO&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><br />
<i>Countdown with Keith Olbermann (Online Edition): Worst Persons of the Day </i>for 5/27/11 (via Current's <a href="http://draft.blogger.com/goog_1321591717">official </a><i><a href="http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/worst-persons-for-may-27-2011">Countdown website</a>)</i> <br />
.<br />
<br />
And some have said that the move from MSNBC has mellowed and humbled him.<br />
<br />
Yeah, right. <br />
<br />
June 20th can come too soon for this 'Dog.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-10273764767528954702009-02-02T22:07:00.001-06:002009-02-02T22:07:31.117-06:00The Media's Sexual IrresponsibilityExcellent essay, Rachel....and sad to say, what you, Tracy Clark, and Violet Blue experienced is only the tip of the iceberg for those who challenge the traditional conservative sexual mores in this country.<br /><br /><br /><br />Somebody needs to remind Mr. Atkinson that it's mostly the "moral" and "responsible" folk who are leading us to death and economic ruin; while it's mostly the "rebels" and the "sinful" who will ultimately lead this country out of such darkness.<br /><br /><br /><br />Anthony<br/><i>About <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com:80/news/sex">Sex</a></i><br/><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-kramer-bussel/the-medias-sexual-irrespo_b_163347.html">Read the Article at HuffingtonPost</a>Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-90286549505371347092009-01-13T09:50:00.007-06:002009-01-13T13:26:19.094-06:00Ahhh...Lookee Here....."Yvette Doll" ExposedTurns out that our "all sex pozzies are pedophiliacs" troll isn't quite what "she" says she is.<br /><br />Actually, "she's" more like a "he".<br /><br />An anonymous poster to <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2009/01/and-todays-wtf-award-goes-to.html">Renegade Evolution's blog</a> <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2009/01/and-todays-wtf-award-goes-to.html?showComment=1231810260000#c8282897637210849659">commented</a> that she had done some research on the style of "Yvette Doll's" mass posts, and found it to be particularly similar to a male antiprostitiution activist out of Ireland named Gregory Carlin.<br /><br />Well...I decided to do some Googling of my own; and oh, look what I found.<br /><br />This is from <a href="http://www.legalbanter.co.uk/uk-legal-legal-issues-uk/48532-ceop-make-claim.html">a thread</a> from a UK legal message board called Legal Banter, from October of last year. The subject line was "CEOP make a claim".<br /><br /><blockquote>On 2 Oct, 01:59, Robbie wrote:<span style="color:blue;"><i><br />Blah wrote:<span style="color:green;"><i><br /> wrote:</i></span><br /><span style="color:green;"><i><span style="color:darkred;"><i><br />CEOP claimed to me on the telephone that they campaigned against the<br />use of the term 'child pornography' on legal advice ( they actually<br />said that) and that it was not a legislatively defined or enacted or<br />ratified (UN) term.</i></span></i></span><br /><span style="color:green;"><i><span style="color:darkred;"><i><br /><a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/" target="_blank">http://www.opsi.gov.uk/</a></i></span></i></span><br /><span style="color:green;"><i><span style="color:darkred;"><i><br />That has a search engine.</i></span></i></span><br /><span style="color:green;"><i><br />Ishtar 4?</i></span><br /><br />He certainly sounds like as fruit loop...<br /><br />--<br />Robbie</i></span><br /><br /><br /><br />I'm a reformed cult musician. I'm the fruit loop formerly known as<br />Yvette Doll.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.abalis.co.uk/sudetencreche/archive2_5.htm" target="_blank">http://www.abalis.co.uk/sudetencreche/archive2_5.htm</a><br /><br /><br />Who is Ishtar 4?<br /><br />Gregory</blockquote>Hmmm....<span style="font-style: italic;">formerly </span>known???<br /><br />Now, following the link above goes to an article about an 80's British pop group that "Yvette Doll" was cited as a former member of (which also included two other members who broke off later and became part of the successful US pop group The Thompson Twins. Whether Mr. Carlin really was "Yvette Doll" back then and simply reverted to his original name for his latest activism, or whether he just borrowed that pseudonym for jerking people off, is not mentioned anywhere.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the style that Carlin uses in his own rants posted in his own name match perfectly with those done of late by "Yvette Doll" in his recent troll farts. Meaning: We have a WINNER!!!<br /><br />Gee, Mr. Carlin....why not use your real name??? Afraid that the radfem womyn will see through your nonsense?? (Certainly Cath Elliot has; she has now publically repudiated and exposed him, and basically told him to fuck off.)<br /><br />On the other hand, some of the more wingnuttier abolitionists aren't so willing to repudiate him.<br /><br />Take, for instance, this woman named GreenConsciousness, who is your typical GenderBorg radfem activist; she <a href="http://www.greenconsciousness.org/weblog/2009/01/many-of-sex-worker-rights-activists-are.html">recently re-posted</a> some of the F-Word thread over at her place...and added one particular comment that might give you some notice:<br /><br /><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-style: italic;"><blockquote>"Where on our website does it say anything about having sex?" asked<br />Douglas, one half of Newcastle's premier executive escort agency"<br /><br />So no sex, and therefore no sex worker credentials!<br /><br />I targeted Jerome Brennn for years, and eventually he went to prison<br />for trying to procure children for a le chic enterprise in Spain.<br /><br />I target all the pedophiles and pimps using Jobcentre.<br /><br />"Douglas's attitude to the cover story seemed to be one of weary<br />exasperation. Of course they're going to have sex, his expression<br />said, but if we talked honestly about it I might be busted for<br />immoral earnings and the police would have to waste time pushing<br />working girls back on to the street. John's denial, though, was much<br />more interesting: an odd hybrid of legalistic game-playing and<br />genuine psychological resistance to the notion that he was selling<br />sex. It wasn't that he didn't know perfectly well what was going on<br />(otherwise why squirm so uncomfortably about the headmaster who rang<br />up requesting the youngest escort on the books to dress up as a schoolgirl?"<br /><br />http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n16657627<br /><br />I congratulate the radical feminists on this blog who are following<br />in the footsteps of Andrea Dworkin<br /><br />A pimp has to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once.<br /><br />In solidarity<br /><br />Gregory Carlin<br />Irish Anti-Traficking Coalition</blockquote></span>Notice...no "Yvette Doll" histrionics here, just his own real identity.<br /><br />Gee....projecting much, Mr. Carlin??<br /><br />And what does that say about the GenderBorg and their attitudes about men...I guess that some men are less evil than others....especially when they march in perfect goosestep with their ideology???<br /><br />Typical. So damn typical.<br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">UPDATE: </span><br /><br />Here's another example of how so far off the batshit Gregory Carlin is regarding his obsession with pedophilia.<br /><br /><a href="http://lists.becta.org.uk/pipermail/safetynet/2008-June/000502.html">This</a> is from an education listserv in Great Britain called SafteyNet. The respondent, a John Hackett, is attempting to debunk some of the more classic claims of Carlin regarding pedophilia and the Internet.<br /><br /><br /><pre>I have read Mr Carlin's last five messages with interest and a growing sense that<br />he has a very anti-European stance where everything in the US is good and we are<br />obstructive and perhaps a little simpleminded. This may be from the best of motives<br />but it does little to advance his case. I will not go though all the messages in<br />detail but there are some points that i think worth putting forward for debate.<br /><br />All forms of child pornography and exploitation are to be deplored. That said,<br />Mr Carlin's seeming anti-British and anti-European rhetoric will do little to<br />protect the children he clearly feels passionately about.<br /><br />Of course most abuse is by adults on children and no one would say otherwise - but<br />the original post could have been read as saying that most abuse was taking place<br />in schools. If that is not what was meant (as you have clarified) then just say so.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Serious offending via the internet as it relates to British educational</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> establishments is almost exclusively connected to adult employees.</span><br /><br />Just so. And clearly (potential) offenders will gravitate to the type of activity<br />(employment, hobby, etc) where they are in contact with children - this is<br />obvious and needs no explanation. But the next sentence -<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The British have problems, and they are apparently not</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> getting any better.</span><br /><br />- is to both to state the obvious (we ALL have problems) and to imply that this is<br />something particularly British. What evidence is there for this? I do not have any<br />evidence for or against but I would be very surprised if it were so. And I would<br />also be surprised if many - if not - most pornographic sites are just as "popular"<br />in the US as they are elsewhere. What proportion, for example, of sites are hosted<br />and/or mainly funded from US sources and customers?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">It was obvious to some of us that the pornography industry ( US & Europe)</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> and pro-pedophiles ( Europe) were trying to damage Senator Shelby's career,</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> it was a trick.</span><br /><br />So the US does not have any pro-pedophiles?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">So, don't discuss it. To return to the point, to complain of children doing</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> X, Y or Z, on the internet, and to apply funding, public relations, and a</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> raft of measures to address that particular problem is one thing.</span><br /><br />To what "raft of measures" are you referring? The ones that try to educate them about<br />the dangers of the internet? Or cyber-bullying? Would you NOT fund such project to<br />help PREVENT child on child bullying?<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">In relation to the criminal use of the internet as it relates to the</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> educational establishment, then for every schoolchild arrested for child</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> pornography etc, there will be quite a few teachers. To put it as mildly as</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> possible</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">'Luton Crown Court heard Graham Conridge, 59, admitted posing as a teenage</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> boy to contact 261 girls aged 11 to 15 through MSN and</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> chatrooms.'<</span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6552437.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6552437.stm</a><span style="font-style: italic;">></span><br /><br />Mr Carlin implies here that Conridge was doing this in an educational institution.<br />However, as the article cites makes clear, he was actually banned from teaching<br />five years previously by Beds CC "following serious allegations of misconduct." and<br />is described in the first paragraph as a "former music teacher". So to imply that<br />this shocking case is related to the eduction system is simply wrong. While I do not<br />know the full facts of the case it may be that although there was not enough evidence<br />for a criminal prosecution five years ago he was prevented from teaching. <span style="font-weight: bold;">And he was </span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">finally brought to justice by CEOP who Mr Carlin seems to deride.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">'Fred Brown, incoming president of the NASUWT teachers' union, claimed it</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> would not be long before a teacher was "raped, filmed and on the internet",</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> and he called for all mobile phones to be banned from schools across</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> Northern Ireland.</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> '<</span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2356788.ece">http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2356788.ece</a><span style="font-style: italic;">></span><br /><br />As the president of the NASUWT one of his concerns is rightly the protection of his<br />members from physical abuse whether it is filmed or not. Whatever you feel about the<br />internet and/or banning of mobiles this is a legitimate stand for him to take. This<br />does not mean he does not care about child abuse any more than your concern with it<br />implies (I hope) that you are unconcerned about teachers being attacked by pupils.<br /><br />This type or argument is both fallacious and damaging to your case.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Japan is awash with images from British schools. I can leave you with that</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> thought.</span><br /><br />What is you evidence for this? And what, exactly, do you mean by "from British<br />Schools"? Saved on their servers? Photographed there? British students or teachers<br />taking part? And what about the demand for "asian" pornography? As someone involved<br />in web-filtering I know that there are lot of sites featuring Japanese models.<br /><br />Lets just face up to the problem - it is international. International co-operation<br />is required. The problem will never be "solved" - all forms of abuse have been going<br />on for hundreds of years as a superficial study of history and literature will<br />confirm. Child abuse was not invented by the internet - it is just one more<br />communication channel.<br /><br />I do not know Bill Henson's work but I did go to the link - perhaps Mr Carlin would<br />like to read this posting on the thread:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">i think bill henson's work is fabulous. my school went to the national art </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> gallery in sydney along with other schools and he answered all our questions </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> and he is really nice and had interesting answers. his main answer was that </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> his artworks were how the individual saw it. so therefore, the indiviadual </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> could decide whether the art is porn or art. i love his works because they </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> are so raw and naturl.[sic] his other works captivate me as well because </span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;"> they leave me wondering about the story behind them.</span><br /><br />This is just one of the positive comments - in fact reading all the comments the<br />one Mr Carlin quoted was BY FAR the most negative. Most of the comments (many from<br />yr11/yr12 students) were thoughtful and positive about his work. Perhaps more<br />thoughtful tha Mr Carlin's knee jerk reaction. I wonder if he has seen them? As I<br />haven't I am not in a position to say much about them as works of art/porn but the<br />reactions certainly lead me toward the latter view.<br /><br />--<br />Regards,<br /><br />John Hackett</pre><br />Consider yourself outed, Mr. Carlin.<br /><br />[Now crossposted to the <a href="http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/2009/01/13/yvette-doll-exposed-outed/">WordPress SmackChron</a>]Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-77242296398888671702009-01-12T10:44:00.004-06:002009-01-12T12:07:53.362-06:00The "NAMBLA'izing" of Douglas Fox, ISUW, and Opponents of Jacqui SmithIt's a tactic that most reactionary propagandists simply can't help themselves to avoid.<br /><br />When you are losing the argument intellectually, paint your opponent as beyond the pale.<br /><br />Such is exactly what is happening with the most recent debate on sex work coming out of Great Britain.<br /><br />It all started with the brave and yeoman work of <a href="http://ohbastard.workpress.com/">Caroline Shepherd</a>, who has dedicated <a href="http://ohbastard.wordpress.com/2008/12/26/what-do-you-make-of-this/">plenty</a> of sweat, <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/a-feminist-perspective-on-jacqui-smiths-proposals-to-change-the-prostitution-laws/">time</a>, and <a href="http://wordpress.com/tag/jacqui-smith-proposals/">bandwidth</a> to her belief that proposed changes in sex work legislation proposed by the likes of Jacqui Smith are simply wrongheaded, counterproductive, and even dangerous to the women whom this legislation pretends to want to protect.<br /><br />Well, that didn't sit very well with certain radical anti-sex work abolitionists, who have been all over the Internet countering Caroline's obvious facts with nothing more than the usual claptrap about "pimp enabling".<br /><br />But baiting Caroline as an "enabler of pimps" is a softball as compared to the radioactivity that is thrown at any MAN who dares to challenge abolitionist ideology....and woe to him if he happens to be a sex worker himself.<br /><br />Such is what is happening to Douglas Fox, who happens to be the spoken representative of a group known as the <a href="http://www.iusw.org/">International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW)</a>, a group dedicated to protecting the rights and safety of existing sex workers, and who have been active in opposing Ms. Smith's legislation from the start.<br /><br />He also happens to a gay man whose partner happens to run an English escort agency.<br /><br />A fact, of course, that is now being exploited by a few abolitionist radicals to smear and demonize him as a "pimp"...and that's just the beginning.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/2009/01/11/betraying-sex-workers/">One such article</a> comes from Cath Elliott, who used the pages of the Liberal Conspiracy blog to all but call out D Fox as a pimp profiting off the suffering of sex workers and claim that he cannot represent all sex workers due to his position (or simply because he happens to be a man, I figure).<br /><br />According to Elliot, the very existence of D Fox's escort agency using clients to protest the laws (funny, isn't that just like consumers defending legal agencies who do them no harm to resist legislation that would wipe them out for no reason??) should disqualify him and justifies the legislation sought after:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-style: italic;">And it gets worse. In another recent discussion forum, this time over at <a href="http://www.punterlink.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=101470">Punterlink International</a>, a contributor named Elrond posted this suggestion when discussing threats to the sex industry: <blockquote><p>I would again suggest all write and complain to your MP. You all should either donate and join the IUSW as an escort or a friend if you are a punter.</p></blockquote> <p>And it’s as simple as that.</p></blockquote><p></p>"Punters", BTW, are the English slang for clients and others who patronize sex workers.<br /><br />Indeed, according to Elliot, the mere inclusion of agency owners, "punters", and "pimps" in advocating against her favored legislation should disqualify their attempts, since apparently only sex workers themselves (at least, only those who favor Elliot's ideology" should be allowed to represent "sex workers" overall:<br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">If you look at the GMB IUSW </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.iusw.org/files/IUSW%20GMB%20mem%20form%204A.pdf">membership application form</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> it’s easy to see how anyone claiming to be an escort or claiming to work in any area of the sex industry can take up membership. Confidentiality is obviously at a premium when signing workers up from such a sensitive industry, but as the comment on Punterlink shows, this also means that membership of IUSW branch is open to abuse: anyone can join.</span> <p style="font-style: italic;">If the the IUSW is populated with pimps, agency owners, and punters, then it shouldn’t have any credibility in the prostitution debate.</p></blockquote><p style="font-style: italic;"></p>Yeah. Right. So, the people most affected by this legislation should have no right, according to Ms. Elliot, to even have a voice or to protest in this debate. But, this isn't really about censorship, isn't it??<br /><br />But even Cath Elliot is dwarfed in the myopia department by one Yvette Doll, whom has made it her personal trolling campaign to taint anyone who dares to challenge the Smith legislation with charges of "pedophilia". Basically, she has used the pages of almost every blog debating this topic to go off on tangents that would make even the "9/11/01 Truthers" take notice. Some examples of her Tin-Foil Hattery:<br /><br />[from the thread at Shriaz Socialist]<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22186" title="Permanent link to this comment">9:19 am</a> </p> <p>“From reading this and other threads, it seems clear to me that if sex workers are going to make any gains in terms of rights and safety, it’ll be done without the help of radical feminists.”</p> <p>With all those creepy and pervy web-sites and people pretending to be schoolgirls, </p> <p>or other doing child age role playing, I think the IPCE, PNVD or NAMBLA may be more reliable allies.</p> <p>I’ve never met a pimp who wasn’t a pedophile, if we are talking personal experience.</p> <p>“I really like the plain grey skirt,white blose, small chest in a training bra, black tights and M&S white knickers look. Anyone any suggestions?”</p> <p>I think that is far too sick for feminist acceptance.</p> <p>Yvette Doll</p></blockquote><p></p>---------------------------------<br /><br />Yup...that was a NAMBLA reference she brought in....and in case you don't get the point:<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22197" title="Permanent link to this comment">11:41 am</a> </p> <p>In the USA, pro-sex feminism is in (open) alliance with pedophiles, it is the same in Britain and it was certainly the same in Holland. The most vile & violent pornographers are supported by Douglas Fox’s union.</p></blockquote><p></p>------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />And then, she breaks out the Max Hardcore case in the US as proof of complicity of porn with pedophilia. Never mind that Hardcore was convicted not of pedophilia but of classic obscenity on the basis of scenes performed by consenting adults (not one of them underage or illegal), and that some of the members of the jury openly stated that their guilty verdict was forced on them by the prosecution (and that the case is currently under appeal).<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22200" title="Permanent link to this comment">11:49 am</a> </p> <p>“Although the actresses in Little’s movies sometimes appear to be under the age of consent and even as young adolescents, it has never been proven that any of them actually were. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress stated during one verbal exchange that she was 12 years-old, according to Adult Video News magazine.”</p> <p>School uniform territory - that is were the money is. He lost his web-site to our friends.</p></blockquote><p></p>Ahhhhh.....yeah. Right. And Brooke Shields played a 17 year old prostitute in the movie <span style="font-style: italic;">Pretty Baby.</span> Which means....nothing to you and me. Acting out a scene is probably not the same as actually having sex with an underage performer, which is already a crime....but why let truth and honesty get in the way of a good rant??<br /><br />And..."our friends"??? I thought that radicalfeminists didn't want anything to do with the Bush Justice Department and the Religious Right??? Except, of course, when it suits their agenda.<br /><br />Oh. but there's more...when Renegade Evolution decided to chime in that not all (or even most, or damn few if any) "sex-positive" writers think of Max Hardcore as anything more than an asshole with a cracked view of women and sex who nevertheless was wronged as a means of sexual censorship, Yvette responded with this crap:<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22213" title="Permanent link to this comment">12:57 pm</a> </p> <p>His endorsement is via a lobby, iincluding pro-sex feminism</p> <p>As it happens, in the USA, UK and Holland, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pro-pedophiles. They go out together.</p> <p>But the pornography industry ( in the USA) was using children for years and 2257 is after 1990 if I recall.</p> <p>In Europe using kids was completely normal.</p></blockquote><p></p><br />Even Larry Flynt and Hustler is brought into Yvette's conspiracy theory (what?? No "Chester the Molestor" toons??)<br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22215" title="Permanent link to this comment">1:03 pm</a> </p> <p>Do you think that happened?</p> <p>Recurrent cartoon and composite photo themes picturing blood-soaked castration are seen in the reality of child rape and mutilation. In October 26, 1990 a nine-year-old boy in Norman, Oklahoma was raped, his penis cut off and eye gouged out causing Hustler to be removed from local stores — where a current Hustler depicted a young boy similarly tortured.</p></blockquote><p></p><br />And, in response again to Ren, she makes the point as explicit as you can get:<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22203" title="Permanent link to this comment">12:24 pm</a> </p> <p>“Oh look, the nazi comparision again. You know, as a Jew and a Sex Worker, I find that damn odious” <span style="font-style: italic;">[Response by Ren Ev]</span><br /></p> <p>I meant it, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pedophila, there are tens of millions of child porngraphy transactions in Britain and that scale of abuse is an unfixable atrocity against the children of the world.</p> <p>So they’re as bad as Nazis, pedophiles and their supporters. And ( anyways) sex workers are always calling the Pope a Nazi </p> <p style="font-weight: bold;">A pro sex feminist is a Jew the Nazis allow to live to trap other Jews. I mean look at the sex worker web-sites, they’re degrading, a crime against women.</p> <p>So I really meant that, absolutely and for sure.</p></blockquote><p></p>So special that it justifies bolded emphasis.<br /><br />That just about says it all, doesn't it??<br /><br />Well....not quite.<br /><br />There is this bit about US child porn prosecutorial history, regarding the infamous Traci Lords case (again, in response to Ren Ev):<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22217" title="Permanent link to this comment">1:24 pm</a> </p> <p>Traci Lords. </p> <p>That’s a dime a dozen in Europe, the Brits just leave it on the shelves. If you ask the Brits to take U18 child porn out of retail, they just can’t see the point.</p> <p>The customs work OK, the age-checking is three years behind. The other thing is, Brits, well nobody wants to do it.</p> <p>You have a heap of agencies, none o them will do it, it stays in retail or whatever.</p> <p>It is not the USA, the Brits also have areas of immunity. It can take a decde to get one child pornographer and the FBI will probably have to do that for them.</p> <p>A teacher for example, will have a long run. So 261 schoolgirls proxy child porn or whatever, is not going to zilch too many myspce accounts. </p> <p>The USA does more teachers in a day, than the UK wants to do in a year.</p> <p>The feminists (of all shades) allow the teeachers <span style="font-style: italic;">[sic] </span>to get on with it. It is their culture & history.</p></blockquote>And she quotes in that same comment a case of a 61-year old man using MySpace to generate a fake ID/profile to befriend 15- and 16-year olds....as if that proves that "child porn" is so pervasive in "their culture".<br /><br />And so on, ad nauseum. And pretty damn nauseating, too.<br /><br />I'll just let Yvette close it out, since she does more damage to herself and her cause than any reasoned arguments to the contrary could ever do.<br /><br /><p class="commentmeta"></p><blockquote><p class="commentmeta">January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22210" title="Permanent link to this comment">12:46 pm</a> </p> <p>So pro-sex feminists, who like Max Hardcore, and that is seemingly most of them, are not really feminists. They use the tag ‘feminism’ but really they’re just in the pimping junior league.</p>January 12, 2009 at <a href="http://shirazsocialist.wordpress.com/2009/01/11/of-prostitutes-and-prohibitionism/#comment-22211" title="Permanent link to this comment">12:49 pm</a><p class="commentmeta"> </p> <p>I’m giving you a lesson anyway, I think you need it.</p></blockquote><p></p><p>Lesson duly noted.....asshole.</p>Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-52132389342870993912009-01-12T10:40:00.002-06:002009-01-12T10:43:25.130-06:00OK....I'll just post here until Bluehost gets its act together...It seems that Bluehost, who is the host for my regular SmackChron blog, is having some issues; I can't even log into my control panel there or post anything.<br /><br />So, for the time being, I will use this Blogger space to post what I need until things clear out over there.<br /><br />So nice to have a backup plan.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-77154107978559781012008-04-01T12:32:00.002-05:002008-04-01T12:53:41.922-05:00It's About Damn Time!!! Feminist Sex-Poz Carnival #1 @ UnCoolHow I managed to miss <a href="http://un-cool.blogspot.com/2008/03/feminist-carnival-of-sexual-freedom-and.html">THIS</a> I'll never know....<br /><br />Great job, Lina....and thanks for the love and the linkage. (Original post <a href="http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot3/2008/03/05/more-agit-prop-from-the-ex-slut-feminist-factory-maggie-hays-latest-bs-mountain/">here</a>.) I promise you, I'll have something fresh for the next one.<br /><br />Oh....and Ren, IACB, Belledame, Ernest Greene, Amber, Dacia, the Bound, Not Gagged syndicate, Daisy and all the rest of the "Sex Pox Brigade" gang are well represented. Not to mention, Kim's all time righteous blast of the <a href="http://bastantealready.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-little-tally-hos-visual-critique.html">Not-So-Great "My Little Pony" Pornification Conspiracy</a>, some excerpts from the recent discussion of sex work from <a href="http://sexinthepublicsquare.com/">Sex in the Public Square</a>....and so, so many other goodies.<br /><br />Just go there and check it out....like, yesterday.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-22317517616961705342008-04-01T12:29:00.000-05:002008-04-01T12:32:01.906-05:00Any Port In A Storm....OK...I'm having some major issues with the SmackChron at WordPress.org...so until further notice, this will be my main domicile where I will post my new stuff until further notice.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-2826195214560050222007-11-09T11:10:00.000-06:002007-11-09T11:15:04.335-06:00Now, An Even NEWER Location For The SmackChron!!!OK...so here's an update:<br /><br />I went ahead and updated the SmackChron at a new address, because WordPress wouldn't allow me to export all of the links from either here or the old WordPress.com site over to my new host.<br /><br />The link title here should lead you to the new location of the SmackChron..but in case you are lazy, I will repost it here:<br /><br /><a href="http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot3/">http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot3/</a><br /><br />Feel free to adjust your blogrolls accordingly.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-35575810944418690852007-09-11T12:31:00.000-05:002007-09-11T12:35:02.772-05:00New Location For The SmackChronFor those of you who haven't gotten the news, I have found a new host for the SmackChron (Bluehost.com), and have set up a new blog over there:<br /><br /><br />http://ajkenn-rgclub.com/sdchronblog/index.php<br /><br />I will still be keeping this blog and the old blog at WordPress.com open as archives, but for the most part, I will be posting exclusively at the new location.<br /><br />Just adjust your bookmarks accordingly.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-41441074078341576772007-01-26T22:28:00.000-06:002007-01-26T22:34:33.503-06:00Because It's Always Good To Have A Backup Plan...I noticed that Blogger has now totally rebuilt itself with their 2.0 version; since they were the ones to offer me space to begin with, I'm going to test their new version out.<br /><br />I am going to attempt to export some posts from the <a href="http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/index.php">WordPress version</a> of the SmackChron over here; if it works, then I may decide to use both blogs simultaneously, or at the very least use this one as a backup in case WP fails me.<br /><br />Cross your fingers and wish me luck.... :-)Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1154849442647459832006-08-06T02:20:00.000-05:002006-08-08T00:40:25.943-05:00MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!!!!!!!And unlike our selected President, my accomplishment is for real!!!<br /><br />I was finally able to get my Laughing Squid web hosting account set up properly so that I could install the blog publishing package from WordPress.org (I had originally installed the set from WordPress.com which only allowed for the publishing of a blog); so now both my Red Garter Club website and this blog will be hosted on Laughing Squid's servers...with significant advantages to both me and you.<br /><br />Not only will I be able to take full advantage of WP's full features (as well as some kewl plugins that will enhance the redability of the blog)...but now I will finally be able to completely upgrade the Red Garter Club site to make it look a lot less spartan than it now is.<br /><br />Just go over there and check out the results:<br /><br />The new Red Garter Club addy: <a href="http://redgarterclubwebsite.com">http://redgarterclubwebsite.com</a><br />The new SmackDog Chronicles blog: <a href="http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/wordpress">http://redgarterclubwebsite.com/SmackChron_Blog/index.php</a> (for now)<br /><br />With that, I will probably shut down this Blogger account for good and do all my updates at WP from here on out.<br /><br />UPDATE 8-7-06: I have updated the link to the new SmackChron blog to a better site that actually works (thanks, Belledame!!!). I have adjusted the link in the previous statement to reflect the change.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1154284131613314652006-07-30T13:24:00.000-05:002006-07-30T13:28:51.876-05:00The SmackChron @ WordPress NOW OPEN!!!I went ahead and opened up the WordPress.com version of this blog...I will be keeping this Blogger version and the WP version open and updated for a while while I decide which one to keep.<br /><br />You can reach the WP blog by clicking on the title of this post...or by clicking the following:<br /><br /><a href="http://anthonyk.wordpress.com/">http://anthonyk.wordpress.com/</a><br /><br />Check it out and tell me what you think.<br /><br /><br />:-)Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153973402102824402006-07-26T23:02:00.000-05:002006-07-26T23:10:02.873-05:00Doubling Up The SmackChon: Coming Soon to Wordpress.comBegging your patience, but I want to try something a bit different.<br /><br />I am NOT shutting down this blog AT all...but I want to see if it will work in another venue. So I am in the process of getting an account with WordPress.com, and will open up a version of the SmackChron over there.<br /><br />For a while I will be updating both the WP and this Blogger version, to see which one is superior. Note that I am NOT moving the blog, just hosting it in different locations to see what will happen.<br /><br />The reason; I'm a bit jealous that Kevin at <a href="http://www.slanttruth.com">Slant Truth</a> has gotten all these cool new widgets, like the one that automatically turns words into embedded links (<a href="http://blog.pulpculture.org/">Bitch Lab</a> has that feature, too)..and I want to test them out myself.<br /><br />When the WP version opens for business, I will give out the addy. And I will be updating BOTH of them for a short time while I decide which to finally choose.<br /><br />So...pardon the construction here...just experimenting, as usual.<br /><br />:-)Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153968637471748162006-07-26T20:48:00.000-05:002006-07-27T20:02:28.366-05:00The (Renegade) Evolution of an Unapologetic "Pornstitute" (Who Just Plain Kicks ASS!!)There are many women who are in the sex industry or women who simply defy the sexual double standards who would crumble from the weight of massive loathing, disgust, fear, and shame thrown at them like pure cow dung from feminists and conservatives (and conservative feminists, too) alike.<br /><br />Thankfully for us, Miriam (aka Renegade Evolution) just isn't one of them; she believes in giving back in kind to those who would throw hate at her for being an openly and unabashedly sexual person...and <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/">her latest blog</a> is one of the finest defense of sex positivism from an individualist female standpoint this side of Wendy McElroy.<br /><br />One of her entries there ( <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2006/07/language-of-radical-hate.html">"The Language of Radical Hate"</a> ) contains a nice collage of all the "endearments" that she has had thrown at her by antiporn "feminists" when she attempts to defend herself as a pro-"pornstitution" woman. Some of these are simply mind-bending.<br /><br />First, there is this on the issue of women producing porn)<br /><br /><blockquote><em>"No. I think you expect me to take you seriously, so let me placate you by repeating what you have/will hear/heard from the others. On top of feminist reasons for opposing pornography, <strong>there is a greater humanitarian reason that stands for the sexuality of humans being treated as in-depth and whole, not just objectified jerk-off material.</strong> As for female pornographers, I would go as far as to say that they are more to blame and be held accountable, since they are <strong>traitors to their own sex and gender</strong> when they capitalize off of the objectification of feminine sexuality, homosexual or heterosexual.” <br /></em></blockquote><br /><br />Funny, but I thought that sexual desire and "jerking-off" was in fact part of being human and in-depth....but I'm a man, I guess, so what do I know??<br /><br />Then there is this series of responses when Miriam makes the mistake of revealing her desire for rougher sex:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>“You call yourself a woman? You are a pig.”<br /><br />“It’s people like you that are a disgrace to females everywhere.”<br /><br />“You do not act the way a woman should, and at that, MEN shouldn't even do the things you do. <strong>You don't act like a human being, you act like an animal.</strong> You enjoy being degraded, you enjoy being a piece of meat, that is what makes you a disgrace. <strong>REAL women do not enjoy being called names and ejaculated upon, REAL women do not allow just any guy to enter her, and finally REAL women respect themselves and their bodies. None of these apply to you.”</strong><br /><br />“You should be <strong>ashamed</strong>, but "shame" is a word that is certainly foreign to someone like you.”<br /><br />“You shouldn't ever be allowed to breed.”</em></blockquote><br /><br />My, my, my...you'd think that Miriam was calling for bombing the New York Times building from all that bile??? But Ann Coulter is antiporn and female, so she gets more respect from such "feminists" than an independent woman like Miriam??? Eeeeeeeee-yeah.<br /><br />And dig the response when Miriam breaks out that she actually LIKES porn and sex, and chooses to strip:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>"How clichéd and simplistic are you?”<br /><br />“You make me ill. Everything about you is just wrong. <strong>You have this great mind & skill at writing and you choose to be a slut? Why? Do you have antisocial personality disorder or something?</strong> It sounds like it. You have an education, could work wherever you want, make good money, but you would rather take off your clothes for a bunch of idiots or let people fuck and objectify you on film? Not normal. <strong>Even your friends on your blogs are shocked and somewhat disgusted by you. They may not say it outright, but you can tell.</strong> They may be pro-sex or okay with sexually eager women, but you are beyond that. <strong>You’re a whore. You’re not strung out on drugs or short on money, you have things other people wish they had, except a soul and ANY sense of decency.”</strong></em></blockquote><br /><br />WOW. Don't you just love teh sisterhood??? I especially loved the part how the shitthrowers not only deem themselves able to psychoanalyze Miriam for her "illness" of being a slut, but also determine her friends' reactions as well. <br /><br /><br />Oh, but there's plenty more in the original piece, including where Miriam is even accused of not just pandering to men, but BEING a man!!! <br /><br /><blockquote><em>“By the way, this may be common knowledge, but I suspect that you're a man hiding behind a woman's given name. That would explain a few things, such as:- Why you feel that _______ responses to you are "uncivil" (how dare a woman talk to you like that!?)- Why you aren't hesitant to share your e-mail with strangers- Why you didn't think that ______ would be leery to give you her e-mail address by sending you a message, or...- Why you've attempted to trick _______ into giving you her e-mail address by e-mailing you- The bullshit you're making up to defend porn ("Oh, my precious!").”</em></blockquote><br /><br />Oh, yeah....never mind that antiporn activists share email addies all the time to promote their messages, but when SHE....uhhhh, HE...does it, it's nasty solicitation, or even stalking!!!! <br /><br />Oh!!! The (w)horrrah!!!<br /><br />Thankfully, Miriam just laughs her ass off at such insanity and keeps on keeping on being the woman she is.<br /><br />Bottom line: Just go to <a href="http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com">her blog</a> and learn how an unapologetically sexual woman should respond to the Puritan haters. She does it well, she does it right, and she does it with class and kick-ass.<br /><br />Brava, my dear....way to layeth the smack down on those fools. I kneel down to you.<br /><br />And while I'm down there.... ;-)<br /><br />(She's racked in the Blogroll, too, in case you don't know.)Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153719337835397672006-07-24T00:23:00.000-05:002006-07-26T09:27:35.626-05:00Sex Positive Radicalism 101 -- (Smack)Doggie StyleSince many of you who view this blog may not know or understand the underlying philosophy that underlays this little blog project; I will take time out from the Sex Wars and entertain you with a post that I placed at Bitch | Lab a few minutes ago. It was in response to Miz K sweetly and with much jest suggesting that my advocacy of porn and sex positivity as a litmus test for feminism was "annoying". Since I do happen to have a reputation to uphold; I sent this post in response (actually, it was broken down into three posts, but I am consolidating them here for brevity's sake. Hopefully, it will give you a inkling of the methods of my madness....or the other way around. <br /><br />Just try and blow this one, Ms. Bitch. heheh :-P <br /><br />Adapted from the "Erased" thread at Bitch | Lab, which can be found <a href="http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/07/19/erased/#comment-9176">here</a>.<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><br /><em>Perhaps a clarification of my fundamental views on sexuality and feminism is needed so that people can understand why I can get really annoying…..errrrrrr, passionate at times about the issues:<br /><br />I’m not an academic like B|L; I deal in the empirical world with regular working people. (Not that you don’t, Miz B; I’m just saying that I’m not academically trained.)<br /><br />My belief as a sex radical and a socialist and a free-thinking feminist is that people should be given all of the resources and all of the leeway to make informed decisions about themselves and their bodies based on factual and non-judgemental information…and that the masses should be willing to accept that individual’s decision (whether it be based on an individual or part of a collective decision process) as long as that decision doesn’t negatively impact, injure, or irrepably harm others. To me, a free and equal person is more than able to make informed and capable decision; and whether you like that decision or not; as long as it doesn’t affect you personally, it shouldn’t be really any concern to you what (s)he does. <br /><br />Now, there are limited conditions to that basic belief where I do think that government or the state can step in in the name of the common good and intervene in personal behaviors that may become ultimately destructive to others..but the burden of proof lies with the government or the other institution to prove that they are acting in the proper interest and that their actions are limited to the scope of the danger, and not just to increase government power for the mere sake of power itself.<br /><br />Therefore, I have no problems with government inducing citizens to pay their fair share of taxes to fund infrastructure improvements or public health care or living wages or supporting legal and fair unions to improve the well being of the working class and the poor, because that represents a common, collective good of equality and social and economic justice. <br /><br />On the contrary, I have a really BIG problem with using tax dollars financed through regressive taxation to fund a overbloated military and a repressive social structure (jailing citizens for “victimless crimes”; using prisoners and undocumented “illegals” for cheap labor to undercut wages and benefits for working people; repressive surveillance (sic??) used to snoop on people to use their personal failings against them; and other similar issues); as well as giving all sorts of benefits to the wealthiest portion of the population at the expense of the working class and poor majority.<br /><br />[Note that I use the term "working class" in the traditional old-school Marxist sense of meaning anyone who depends solely upon their labor for their wages.]<br /><br />In short, my belief in free will and self-determination has always been rooted in the ideas of fundamental Leftist notions of equality and social justice and redistribution of resources and popular control of the means and ends of production. <br /><br />Similarly, as to my views on porn and sexual expression: I’m not arguing that porn is the utopia of ultimate personal sexual expression, or even that those who consume it regularly are the vangard of the new socialist (or feminist) revolution. Of course, all porn is not neccessarily asthetically pretty or promotes all love and peace and flowers; real live sex reflects the attitudes of those human beings who make it, and so does porn. (And like any other medium, porn is not immune from all the motivations and frailties of the profit motive; that more than anything else is the source of why so much of it really sucks (and not in the good way, either).) <br /><br />Yes, most het porn is tuned to male fantasies of women; it is the collorary of romance novels and soap operas that are geared to women. (Ignoring, of course, gay male, bi, and lesbian porn or porn featuring transsexuals.) Yes, porn sells a certain hyperrealistic fantasy about a woman or man who is always ready to drop his or her drawers whenever (s)he desires sex (not to say that such women or men don’t or shouldn't exist, mind you; people who aren't afraid to follow their hardon or clit and enjoy sex to the fullest is definitely NOT a bad thing); that’s not that much different than lotteries which sell the opportunity for escape from middle-class drudgery into the level of the rich, if only for a while until the money eventually runs out. And yes indeed, porn can also be a reflection of the worst in people’s behaviors; it reflects the broader sexism and racism that exists in this unequal capitalist, racist, patriarchial society. <br /><br />But just because sexist people may produce sexist porn to sell to other sexist people and make a small fortune on it at the expense of the talent (the male and female performers) who does all the “dirty work”, or that are some really nasty people who do exploit and abuse prostitutes or erotic dancers for their own purposes, does NOT neccessarily translate always into porn or sex work being solely the essence of patriarchy and "sexual slavery"; and that its total abolition through censorship and replacement with a “feminist” -made sexuality is the only solution to mitigate for the negative effects. Here is where I particularly and directly part company with the radfems and their “leftist” allies. Human choices are indeed conditioned by the societies they live in; but intimate human sexual desires are not so socially constructed that they would totally fade away if the societies were transformed radically.<br /><br />Besides, porn and sex work can be and has been used just as much as a tool of progressive, feminist, positive transformation as it can be and has been used for reactionary purposes; and in this world where sex is still treated as nuclear waste outside of the narrow definition of procreation for religion or monogamous “intimacy” within marriage, it is more than important that we understand why porn and sex work remain so popular, even in spite of their illicitity. As important as sex education books and reproductive freedom is to the progressive development of human beings (especially considering the issue of world overpopulation and women’s rights); learning about and understanding the functioning of their sexual bodies and their desires is simply essential….and how can people effectivly understand others if they are so ignorant about their own bodies and feelings?? <br /><br />This is where the traditional Right’s (and the Puritan Left’s) crusades against sexual discovery and enlightenment (and physical acts such as masturbation or non-procreative sexual acts or preventative measures against unwanted pregnancy) really come into focus; it’s as if an orgasm or a man spilling his “seed” is considered to be such a cosmic threat to the social order that huge institutional weight must be sent down to enforce the overall Puritan social order.<br /><br />Now, I do not deny one bit that being sexually assertive and open doesn’t have its risks and pitfalls by any means, especially for women. There are indeed men who will take the generosity and openness of sexually assertive women as a license to do all kinds of harm to them (including rape, assault, forced prostitution, and even murder). Plus, there is the usual “slut’/”whore”/”harlot” stigma that has always been attached for ages to women who defy the traditional sexual standards of the “good girl/woman/feminist” pedestal; thusly earning them all the typical abuse and slander for “bringing women down”. And there is the threat of STDs such as HIV/AIDS, herpes, gonnorrhea, chimydia (sic??) cervical cancer, and other health risks that go with unprotected sex that those who choose to act out on their sexual urges have to confront. <br /><br />Given all of this, it is not too surprising that within feminism and the Left there has emerged a counter-Puritan-like movement similar to the Religious Right to condemn sexual experimentation and greater sexual openess as damaging and harmful to women, and to revive all the restrictions of older, more conservative sexual morality as protecting women from “the patriarchy”. Their motives are true and they mean well…but their tactics still do not allow for the basic fact that sexual media and other sexual institutions can be reformed and transformed for more progressive goals, that the primary sex institutions do serve a legitimate social need of venting sexual desires; and that total and complete abolition of sexual services would not in any way change the attitudes of men prone to reactionary beliefs about women and sexuality. <br /><br />Plus…their open hostility and elitism and sheer disgust towards women and men who don’t share their absolutist views about the innate criminality and rapicity of male sexuality or the absolute equivalence of “pornstitution” with rape and violence, serves to divide and polarize and ultimately weaken progressive activism in general at a time when such activism needs to be more consolidated than ever. This isn’t to say that there is absolutely nothing true about antiporn activism or radical feminism; but their explotiation of certain realities to manipulate emotions and slander their critics (while collectively indicting and punishing innocent men as rapists merely because of their erections, or women who disagree with them as “sluts” and enablers of rape) ultimately does as much or more damage to the cause of women’s rights than any antifeminist Rightist could ever do.<br /><br />The point of all this, Miz B, is that however I may place my defense of consensual sexual expression and media under the guise of “determinism/free will”, as you so put it; my more fundamental underpinning lies not in the mere defense of free choices, but the radical notion of sexuality being a progressive and a positive force for human empowerment and equality, and that people of the Left should not overpoliticize human sexual desire merely to proscribe human choices that do not coerce or physically harm others. In other words, sex and the erotic shouldn’t be taken too seriously that it becomes an obsession at the expense of more fundamental issues of institutional inequality, but should be taken seriously enough when it is used as a source and a media for enforcing inequality and injustice. Merely attaching sex media, sex work, and the study of sexual desire as the pinnacle of racism, sexism or capitalism, then promoting an essentialist model of “transformative” sexuality as an alternative that has no relation to the reality of women’s or men’s desires and actual behaviors is simply insufficient; one must interact and analyze the real world with real people as they exist; not in the utopias invented in some fantasy world of the future. (Although, such fantasy worlds can be genuine motivations and targets to push for.) <br /><br />In the real world, men and women will dance, kiss, grind, grope, suck, lick, and fuck; that won’t change one bit one day, one month, or a thousand years after “the revolution”. Maybe it’s time for Leftists and progressives to acknowledge that fact and stop attempting to ape the Right in attempting to put down legitimate sexual urges and desires; and instead work to make sexual relationships and outreach more humane, more equal, more progressive, and more mutually pleasurable for all.<br /><br />That, sister K, is my fundamental belief on sexuality. Call it “annoying” or call it whatever you wish; but it’s my story and I’m sticking with it.<br /></em></blockquote><br /><br /> -- Dedicated to Nina Hartley, Shauna O'Brien, Vicky Vette, Avy Scott, Susie Bright, Dr. Susan Block, The Real Violet Blue, Theresa "Darklady" Reed, Rachel Kramer Bussel, Tristan Taormino, Dr. Carol Queen, Dr. Betty Dodson, and all the other sexy and intellegent ladies who helped me to shape my sex-positive pro-feminist radicalism to the fullest.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153702279893762762006-07-23T19:49:00.000-05:002006-07-25T03:19:02.416-05:00Feminist Elitism (The Series): The Lynching Of NubianOh, lookee here....just when I thought that the blogosphere was safe to venture out, here comes another hit-and-run on the White Elitist Feminist Ain't-Got-A-Freakin'-Klew Train...and one more time, it's Nubian of <a href="http://blackacademic.blogspot.com/">Blac(k)ademic</a> who gets the "honors" of being the chosen victim.<br /><br />The setup: Nubian agrees to do <a href="http://feministing.com/archives/005415.html#more">an inpromptu interview for Feministing</a> in which she specifically clears up her ennui about the past couple of weeks, where she has been taking all sorts of potshots from White feminists who don't quite understand her beliefs that "woman of color" feminists need their own space away from the noise of traditional feminist space. (Remember: first there was the rumbling over her story about being accosted over whether Black skin burns easier; then there was the crackbacks over the last Women of Color Carnival where some White feminists were put off by her comments that they shouldn't complain about not being a part of the WOC space.<br /><br />Some tidbits from the interview:<br /><br /><blockquote><em><strong>Do you feel that this is true of the blogging environment in general? Or do you feel that if you were a White woman or a White man, you’d receive a different kind of treatment?</strong><br /><br />Oh, no. I noticed this treatment is coming to a lot of women of color. For example, I was on Feministing, and Samhita wrote something about the Duke [rape] case and people were just hurling: “You’re the most unintelligent blogger on this site!” The attacks were about her character, and “you’re a horrible writer.” I’ve gotten called a horrible writer, whiney, and a token. I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers or White male bloggers. People would disagree and say that they disagree. But they don’t say that you’re stupid and you’re unintelligent.<br /><br />But I also think that this is possibly the blogging world in general. It’s the way it’s set up. It’s just so anonymous and you can write something and not have to have someone protest your argument in real time. So, you have the time and the media to be rude, or what they call “snarky.” [Laughs] Or whatever that word is. [Laughs]<br /><br /><br /><strong>Do you think this kind of attitude comes from all around, no matter what race the commenter is? Have you received “snarky” comments from people of color readers as well?</strong><br /><br />Not really. There’s this one guy who comments, and he’s always challenging what I say. I think he just does it because he’s this Black Nationalist that believes that women have their role and basically, Black women, and Black lesbians, shouldn’t say anything. So, his comments will call me out on what I say, but it’s still very respectful. It’s not condescending or rude. And maybe I’m biased in saying that, but I really haven’t gotten that negativity from readers who come out and say that they’re people of color.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Do you think these comments also reflect what you face in academia, and in your life in general?</strong><br /><br />Most definitely. When I started blogging, I noticed that the big popular feminist blogs are run by White women. They’ll have this discourse about the same issues—like abortion or sex-positive—or whatever everybody else is talking about. And so when someone comes out and challenges them and says, “Hey, you didn’t include a race analysis. Or you didn’t include a class analysis. Or what you’re missing out on…” My guess is they then feel offended, or say, “Who are you as a woman of color to come and tell me, a blogger, what I’m missing?” And that happens in academia as well. You’re supposed to know your place.<br /><br /><br /><strong>Do you have any examples from academia?</strong><br /><br />I took this class last year called “Black Women Feminism.” The title alone represented what was going to be discussed in the class. And there were quite a few White feminists in the class who wanted to control the conversation. There was a specific example where we were discussing what exactly Black feminism means. And this one White woman in the class said, “Well, as a White feminist, I feel that I should be able to call myself a Black feminist because the tenets of Black feminism center their analysis around the lived experiences of Black women in a White supremacist society.” And I challenged her, and I said, “No, but that’s not all of what it is. There’s a special lens through which you view your life that can only come from living your life as a Black woman.” Then it turned into this huge argument of what exactly is Black feminism, and who is allowed to be what. I felt like I couldn’t really say much because the argument got heated and if I raised my voice then I would take on the stereotype of this, you know, angry, loud Black woman. [Laughs]<br /><br />I have to figure out how to navigate trying to get my voice heard, and trying to explain to some people that certain things apply to certain people. That doesn’t mean it’s exclusive or racist or anything like that. It’s just that some things, other people, no matter how much they want to [Laughs], will never be able to experience. Even if, out of respect, they allow certain people their own spaces. But it just turned into this argument of me coming out to look like I’m angry and loud and I don’t know what I’m talking about with all my emotions [Laughs] and not being capable of intellectual engagement.<br /><br />[...] </em></blockquote><br /><br />There's so much more that she says in the full interview.<br /><br />Now, you would think that that would be as simple as that. No controversies, no flaming, everyone agreeing to disagree.<br /><br />You would be wrong.<br /><br />Seems like the ambush was lying in wait, and about 3 comments in, the attack begins.<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><br /><em> [From nubian in the original] I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers or White male bloggers. People would disagree and say that they disagree. But they don’t say that you’re stupid and you’re unintelligent. [/nubian]</em><br /><br />I have to call absolute, complete and utter bullshit on that one. <br /><br />I could point you to a zillion examples but it seems pointless as they are so easy to find you'd have to be deliberately avoiding them to miss them.<br /><br />Posted by: xyz | July 22, 2006 07:09 AM <br /><br />---------------------------------------------------- <br /><br />What is "complete and utter bullshit" is that the only person to "get it" so far is a woman of color. It perfectly illustrates what Nubian is talking about.<br /><br />When are we, white liberals, going to understand that the change we are looking for cannot be achieved by looking at issues narrowly? If we want wage equality, for example, the solution cannot be found without looking at how class and race play into wage inequities. We can't fight one type of discrimination without seeing how they are all interrelated. Let's not do what the blue states have done and say "things are black and white" and never allow any questions that complex or threaten our view of the world (and the privileges that go along with it).<br /><br />True equality requires giving something up: our privilege. Until we're ready to do that, forget equal wages or any other equality.<br /><br />Why are we (white people) so defensive? Why do we refuse to listen to what we are told (but should be able to see on our own)? Because we can't accept the personal responsibility that comes along with it. We don't want to take responsibility for a world of so many inequities and so much waste.<br /><br />Nubian and Celina, until you are finally heard, I hope you will keep blogging/interviewing/writing.<br /><br />Posted by: luci33 | July 22, 2006 12:33 PM <br /></blockquote><br /><br />Actually, luci33 was NOT part of the ambush of nubian...she is listed only responding to xyz.<br /><br />Then our old friend Alon Levy decides to add more kindling to the roast:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />What is "complete and utter bullshit" is that the only person to "get it" so far is a woman of color. It perfectly illustrates what Nubian is talking about.<br /><br />The problem is that (white) radical feminists have no trouble giving you examples of how people take race more seriously than gender, and of how men in general don't really listen to them, regardless of race or class. A few months ago there was a kerfuffle on, I think, the comment pages of The Countess about how men freely comment on women's writing style instead of on their substance.<br /><br />Now, I don't really think that gender trumps race, or anything like that. Nor do I buy Nubian's claim that race trumps gender in a way, because everything she says in the interview about race has been said by other people about gender.<br /><br />For example, let's consider the point about the racial wage gap. It's true, a lot more people talk about the fact that American women make 77 cents on the male dollar than do about the fact that African-Americans make about 79 cents on the white dollar (don't quote me on the latter figure - I calculated it from gender-differentiated figures).<br /><br />But that's not necessarily because the blogosphere is insensitive to racial oppression. I've seen several times the figure that on average, an American with a black-sounding name has to send half again as many job applications to get called in for an interview as an equally qualified American with a white-sounding name. If I wanted to sell affirmative action to my readers, I'd concentrate on that figure a lot more than on the racial wage gap, simply because it's harder to contest.<br /><br />Posted by: Alon Levy | July 22, 2006 01:48 PM </blockquote><br /><br />----------------------------------------------------------- <br /><br />Later on, Alon elaborates:<br /><br /><blockquote>Prairielily is right, I meant blacks have to send in 1.5 times as many applications as whites do in order to get an interview.<br /><br />BlackAmazon, I'm not saying Nubian's wrong because other people have said the same thing. My criticism of her boils down to two things, really.<br /><br />1. It's possible that she mistook plain assolishness for racism. If the same white idiot writes the same caustic comments on my blog and on Nubian's, it's possible she'll interpret it as a sign of racism whereas I won't. Of course, it's just as possible that she encountered real racism and that Steve Gilliard, who has attacked people who claim that the blogosphere is a whites-only club, was simply lucky not to encounter any.<br /><br />2. The interview gets dangerously close to race-trumps-gender. I know that Nubian's had to deal with gender-trumps-race shit in the past, and I know the feminist movement has a race problem. But at the same time the civil rights movement has a gender problem.<br /><br />Posted by: Alon Levy | July 22, 2006 05:43 PM <br /></blockquote><br /><br />At this point, nubian comes forth to respond initially:<br /><br /><blockquote>at first, before this interview was gonna go up, i almost cancelled it. it was done over 2 weeks ago, before i decided to throw in the towel. <br /><br />alon, you are taking my words and saying something that i din't say. don't bring in that race trumps gender bullshit. did i ever say that? i could have talked about how most of the big white feminist bloggers are also straight---then you would have just pointed out that i'm complaning that straightness trumps queerness or whatever. you disgust me. instead of appreciating what i had to say, you just go an nitpick, manipulate and take the negatives out to once again, make kortney look like a racist, complaning, angry black woman. criticize me all you want, really, i don't care.<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 22, 2006 06:36 PM</blockquote><br /><br /><br />Which motivates this response by xyz:<br /><br /><blockquote>Nubians' argument is argument is corrupt. Unforuntately that is the way things seem to go.<br /><br />Stick to the facts, present issues clearly and you'll find that the majority of people will listen to you,(that's if you want them to).<br /><br />Don't exagerate, don't bullshit, just make coherent arguments. It can be as simple as that if you want it to be.<br /><br />Posted by: xyz | July 22, 2006 08:02 PM</blockquote><br /><br />Yeah....way for a White feminist to lecture a Black woman on her blogging abilities.<br /><br />But hang on...here's where we inject the blowtorch....in the form of a post from a "msjane" with obvious issues with nubian from the WOC carnival:<br /><br /><blockquote>Not to be "snarky" (I agree with you, I have no freakin clue what that means either)...but I'm sorry Nubian, I have just one word for you:<br /><br />Hypocrite.<br /><br />Here's a quote from this interview:<br /><br /><em>"I’ve gotten called a horrible writer, whiney, and a token. I don’t see that kind of attacking towards White women bloggers."</em><br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Here's you on July 10th attacking white feminist Winefreid Breines:<br /><br /><em>"the professor ignored the history of black womens activism that existed WAAAAAY before the white womens feminist movement.<br />how arrogant is it of her, to claim that women of color, specifically black women, started a movement after white women did. Isn't anyone else upset by this interview??<br /> -- Posted by: nubian July 10, 2006</em> <br /><br /><br />I think you just called her arrogant. In addition, you negated her individual experiences, as you complained others do with you, and you proposed an outrageous claim that black feminists came "way" before white feminists.<br /><br />Here's you and Rossana complaining that white feminists talk about Reproductive Rights apparently just way too much for your liking:<br /><br /><em>"...the big popular feminist blogs are run by White women. They’ll have this discourse about the same issues—like abortion or whatever."<br /><br />"Why is the anti-choice movement being talked about so extensively?</em> <br /><br /><br />I don't agree with that position. I think it is very, very important. Enough to be talked about, enough for people on this very blog to march in Mississippi for. But as you said, everyone should be respectful of other people's experience and priorities. Why can't you do that?<br /><br />It's very sad that you're so educated, young, interested in making a difference, bring to the table unique experiences of being black, female and gay, and you choose instead to create divisions and make mocking statements. When you made this comment I was floored:<br /><br /><em>"I’m tired of people writing, “I’m a White feminist and I’m learning so much from you.” And I want to write back and be like, “I’m not here to teach you!”"</em><br /><br /><br />That is so pompous, and very nasty. What a waste. We are all here to learn from each other. We are all teachers. Although some of us need to grow up first before we can teach.<br /><br />Posted by: MsJane | July 22, 2006 10:47 PM</blockquote><br /><br />Which elicits this fire-breathing response from nubian:<br /><br /><blockquote>msjane....<br /><br />i am not here to teach white feminists about race and racism. i don't like being put into that position. it puts more responsibility on me and less on them--my goal in blogging was not to be someones teacher. sorry. yes we all learn from one another, but i think it is telling that i have been postioned as the "race teacher"--how is that fair? it isn't.<br /><br />second, i did not attack the professor. her research was shoddy and i pointed it out.<br />people do not point out my shoddy arguemnts, mainly, because i go to great lengths to make sure they are logical and coherent. her argument wasn't.<br /><br /><br />mrsjane, really, what is sad is you. you just want to embarass me and like i said, everyone wants to just point out how racists i am to make themselves feel better. but honestly, you just make yourself look foolish.<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 22, 2006 11:23 PM</blockquote><br /><br />Which is then followed by this reenforcement from BlackAmazon:<br /><br /><blockquote>Ms jane first off show me why teh claim black feminists came before white feminists is outrageous with honest facts and examples and then maybe you can be rude and dismissive of nubian. <br /><br />Also pull quoting one or two lines from thousand word essays that had to do with multi lyaered issues doesn't prove your point. Especially if one of them is a question. Rather than engage nubian in maybe answering or discussing you choose to stage a n underhanded un supported attack.<br /><br />ANd its sad you are a condescending women who would rather try and instruct someone else on their responsibilities to you and others than actually adress the issues they have and are discussing.<br /><br />Finally it is most intriguing to me that in a post about a FEMALE blogger whose unique experience illustrates something about the workings of the blogosphere almost any and every tactic is being used to avoid engaging and treating her experience with actual respect both intellectually and emotionally. INstead peopel want to get there " i knwo how we should be talking to each other" condescension and talk about anything but this diversionary tactics.<br /><br />yet we're all here to learn form each other right<br /><br />Posted by: BlackAmazon | July 22, 2006 11:32 PM</blockquote><br /><br />But now comes the post that brings the house down...from someone called "Eshew Obstration" (and I've bolded the money phrase):<br /><br /><blockquote>Wow. This got really weird really quickly.<br /><br />BlackAmazon, could you please explain to me in what way Winifred was arrogant?<br /><br />I was thankful to Nubian for adding information to an informational article, but at the same time there was no evidence provided as to how Winifred was being arrogant.<br /><br />To be fair, Nubian hasn't been blogging for very long. I wouldn't say that six months experience is anything to bow down and worship or even truly respect.<br /><br />As far as her writing is concerned, <strong>I'm almost 110 percent sure that you, BlackAmazon, are in fact Nubian trying to ghost up support for her in this commentary. You both have the same atrocious writing style (misspelled words, incoherent grammar and shoddy support for your arguments).</strong> That has nothing to do with your politics, point of view, race, gender or sexual identity and everything to do with your writing style. A blogger, by nature should be prepared to defend their writing style and their arguments if they allow and encourage comments. <br /><br />And I'm sorry that you are sick and tired of white women learning from your blogging, if education isn't part of the reason that you were inspired to blog, I'd like to know what is? When information is exchanged people are always teaching and learning, and for you to be frustrated that someone was learning from your thoughts, emotions and experiences is confusing at best. And, if I allow myself to dwell on the implications of your frustration it becomes rather insulting.<br /><br />Are you be similarly frustrated when black women write you to tell you that you've educated them about your politics, beliefs and their historical implications? <br /><br />If not, perhaps you are missplacing anger. I'm not a psychologist, however, so probably not.<br /><br />Posted by: Eschew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 12:55 AM </blockquote><br /><br /> <br />WOW. Just freakin' WOW. Just because of a few misspells and typos, and some irregular punctuation, BlackAmazon isn't really human....she's just nubian using her race to artificially inflate her standing and intimidate Whites into submission. After all, we all know that all those nig.....errrrrr, uppity Black women sound the same and are quite inferior to us experienced White feminists, now do we??<br /><br />Uh-huh.<br /><br />Eschew then attempts to crawfish himself away from his nuke shot a bit:<br /><br /><blockquote>Oops my bad.<br /><br />Upon rereading comments, BlackAmazon has a distinctly different (and in my opinion poorer) writing style than Nubian.<br /><br />Sorry, they are probably not the same person.<br /><br />However, if you're going to complain that people complain about your writing, it might be wise not to unintentionally make grammar or spelling mistakes. Then, you can't tell if referring to "Ms.Jane" as "Mrs.Jane" is an honest mistake or a bitchy passive agressive put down.<br /><br />Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 12:59 AM</blockquote><br /><br />Absolutely. Because only racist jackasses who are grammatically correct matter, eh.<br /><br />Obviously, nubian seen this act far too many times before, and chooses to bail out:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>I'm almost 110 percent sure that you, BlackAmazon, are in fact Nubian trying to ghost up support for her in this commentary.</em> <br /><br />wow. <br /><br />now i'm being accused of lying and posting as an alternate identity, because no one could possibly REALLY support my ideas.<br /><br />are you fucking kidding me?<br /><br />where are the moderators of this blog? where are the readers who are suppossedly anti-racist feminist who are sitting and watching this spectacle take place?<br /><br />can someone please remove this interview? i am ashamed that it is even on this blog.<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:28 AM</blockquote><br /><br />And it gets even better (or worse)....I'll just freepost a series and let you read for yourself:<br /><br /><blockquote>Nubian, is your friend 12?<br /><br />Anyway...in response to your post:<br /><br />I am not trying to embarass you. I was calling you out on your blatant misrepresentations. <br /><br />I didn't recognize who you even were at first, then I remembered your posting from the other article. You attacked not just Winifred but me too. And I didn't write a book, or ask you to teach me anything, or claim that I'm a black feminist, or do anything to justify pissing you off. I was having a dialogue and you went in attacking.<br /><br />You have to take some responsibility, and if you're under stress because of being black or gay, then find a way to deal with it. Do workshops, write a book, talk to people, network, or blog. But getting an attitude and saying you're not here to teach anyone is useless.<br /><br />If you're not willing to listen, not willing to learn, and not willing to teach, then what good are you.<br /><br />What else can you do other than say stuff like this:<br /><br /><em>"people do not point out my shoddy arguemnts... because i...make sure they are logical."</em><br /><br />And this:<br /><br /><em>..."maybe I’m biased in saying that, but I haven’t gotten that negativity [condecending or rude] from readers who...say that they’re people of color."</em><br /><br /><br />When you make unbelievable statements like this, that you are mistake-free in your blogging and that no person of color on this planet has responded back to you in any negative way, that black people are apparently incapable of being rude,....you will have people wondering what planet you are on. <br /><br />Posted by: MsJane | July 23, 2006 01:30 AM<br /><br />----------------------------------------------------- <br /><br />1.where the hell did i attack you msjane. because i disagreed with you? i never attacked you. <br /><br />2.black people do not equal all people of color. <br /><br />3. why are you so condescending and rude. my friend [BlackAmazon] is not 12. SHE IS A GROWN ASS WOMAN.<br /><br />4. from my own personal experiences in blogging, yes i have gotten the majority of shit from self-identified white people (an example is from you and a number of other people on this blog and other blogs like it). i never stated that black people or other people of color are mistake-free. stop taking my words and twisting them around.<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:41 AM<br /><br />---------------------------------------------------------- <br /><br />Yes you did attack me. You falsely claimed that I was bragging that I started the thread when a blogger obviously wrote it. I never claimed that I did that. I was the first to post to it. A whole day in fact went by to my recollection. You didn't post to it and you didn't post to Jill Scott's thread either. No experiences to share or words of wisdom. Just complaining.<br /><br />But you want the last word, so go ahead, get the last word. I won't perpetuate this by responding to all of your numbered points. <br /><br />You already did enough damage by making me and EO agree on something!! aaahhh.<br /><br />Have a nice day.<br /><br />Posted by: MsJane | July 23, 2006 01:51 AM<br /><br />--------------------------------------------------------------- <br /><br /><em>You falsely claimed that I was bragging that I started the thread when a blogger obviously wrote it.</em><br /><br />i didn't falesly claim anything. you explicitly stated that you started the discussion thread:<br /><br /><em>No one posted on this thread, so I went ahead and started the conversation. I opened it up to discussion - not competition.</em><br /><br />does that ring a bell?<br />yeah have a nice day to you, too.<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 01:58 AM <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />This has gotten really, really insulting on so many levels. EschewObfuscation, what the hell are you going at accusing BlackAmazon & nubian of being the same person? Two black women are saying the same thing and you can't wrap your head around it so you accuse nubian of being a sockpuppet? WTF???<br /><br />Anybody who's reading this thread is getting an object lesson in what nubian and blackamazon and dozens and dozens of other women of color bloggers have been saying about trying to dialogue with white feminists. <br /><br />Immediately throw your hands up and deny racism, deny its impact, deny that there's any double standard, and then put on your 3rd grade school teacher's hat and nitpick grammar and typos. <br /><br />This is disgusting.<br /><br />Posted by: kactus | July 23, 2006 02:30 AM <br /><br />-----------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Alon, you can actually follow the link and find the data. Read the title of the post, the second box (especially the first and third columns) and click on the 2005 Census data link at the bottom of the post?<br /><br />Ms. Jane, I don't know what to say to you except you're a racist second wave feminist. There is so much wrong with what you said on that Breines interview thread it's not even funny and your misinterpretation of what was said there and on this thread is not even worth discussing. Read a book. Not on white feminism but on intersectionality. Perhaps the one I recommended above.<br /><br />Posted by: nonwhiteperson | July 23, 2006 02:31 AM <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Oh, and nubian I think this interview should stand, if only for the thread's validation of just about everything you've been saying. Don't let your words be stolen from you.<br /><br />Posted by: kactus | July 23, 2006 02:32 AM <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Kactus, where did I say or even imply that? Your defensiveness speaks volumes about your attitude and your skewed perception (I'd imagine). The reason that I was so sure that they were both the same person was because both posts<br />contained a number of unintentional grammar mistakes and both posts occured within 10 minutes of each other.<br /><br />I then reread the suspect comments (like I said), and not less than 4 minutes later offered a retraction.<br /><br />It had nothing to do with the fact that someone agreed with her and everything to do with the fact that the person that agreed with her featured grammar and spelling mistakes that I had thought I saw nubian make.<br /><br />I see you've conveniently used this strawman to ignore the rest of my post which points to the combativeness and hypocrisy displayed by Nubian in the course of this discussion.<br /><br />Of course, it's much easier to accuse me of racism (which couldn't be further from the truth).<br /><br /><br />Posted by: Eshew Obfuscation | July 23, 2006 02:59 AM <br /><br />-------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br /><em>I see you've conveniently used this strawman to ignore the rest of my post which points to the combativeness and hypocrisy displayed by Nubian in the course of this discussion.</em><br /><br />this will be the last thing i say here: <br />this has been no discussion. there has been little room offered for any discussion. <br /><br />i am not a hypocrtite. no one here has actually logically pointed out any specious statements on my part. instead, they have presented themselves as hypocrites. funny how that works.<br /><br />i think what's happening here, is exactly what i mentioned in this interview, i won't even go into further explanation. <br /><br />peace<br /><br />Posted by: nubian | July 23, 2006 03:37 AM </blockquote><br /><br />It does goes on and on (even Bitch | Lab gets her licks in..and she elaborates further in her own blog <a href="http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/07/23/buy-klew/">here</a>)..but you get the general picture.<br /><br />What strikes me most of all about this exchange is the utter hubris and arrogance of these folks who think that being so "liberal" allows them to lecture Black feminists on their blogging skills or whine about how they are being so "persecuted" by WOC feminists. It's kinda like the old "We've done so much for you nig---s, so why are you all up on us, when the Right is doing so much damage to you" mantra that is used so often by "liberals" to keep Blacks and other POCs in the Democratic/Liberal fold when the threat of a more radical critique is raised. It's as if they are really afraid that most Black women really do see through their nonsense and do see establishment feminism (both in its "liberal" and "radical" variations) as completely irrelevant to the actual needs of real-life working class women; so they get rather defensive about genuine criticism. But, I guess that they are so molded by their struggles against "patriarchy" that they fail to see the other privileges (race and class, among them) that they receive.<br /><br />The main point of all this is that this simply proves nubian's main point about WOC feminists needing a free space of their own to work out their problems and issues; as well as the limits of mainstream "second wave/third wave" feminism in confronting direct issues of inequality not directly associated with gender. If White liberal feminists aren't willing to actually open their minds to what WOC like nubian have to say, then how in the living hell can they claim to speak for all other women...especially in a world where the majority of women are non-Whites??<br /><br />In any case, the blogosphere needs more women like nubian and Blackamazon who are willing to call BS on the presumptions of White feminists to attempt to speak for their views. Silence them, and you don't just hurt WOCs; you hurt feminism and progressivism in general...and you give the Right just one more weapon in their arsenal that they just don't need.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153286587018668402006-07-19T00:01:00.000-05:002006-07-21T21:34:30.400-05:00One Last Side Note on Feminist Elitism and Sex BaitingIn all my ranting and raving about R Mildred and the Feminist Sex Police, I missed a couple of links:<br /><br />As is the usual, K at Bitch Lab is having a blast deconstructiong RM's slipshod analysis; you may feel free to check out her rebuttals <a href="http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/07/18/confused/">here</a>.<br /><br />Also, on a related but slightly different angle; Bint Alshamsa of <a href="http://bintalshamsa.blogspot.com/">My Private Casbah</a> has posted <a href="http://bintalshamsa.blogspot.com/2006/07/privilege-arrogance-insecurity-and.html">a very long but very succinct essay</a> on her personal struggles with feminist arrogance, elitism, and snobbery; but of a slightly different kind than Teh Sex Wars. (She is more interested in how "establishment" White feminism tends to silence, coopt, and thusly silence and intimidate women of color; she channels all the grief that Nubian (of <a href="http://blackademic.blogspot.com/">Blac(k)ademic</a> took for defending her right to maintain a private space for feminist women of color, and how the ensuing firestorm of pettiness from some White feminist bloggers ultimately <a href="http://blackademic.blogspot.com/2006/07/frustration.html">drove her (Nubian) out of the blogosphere</a>. An excerpt to feed your brain:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>[....] <br /><br />Though they won't admit it, many white feminists resented the fact that women of color, poor women, and disabled women refused to settle for second-class membership in the mainstream feminist movement. After all, mainstream feminists weren't women who had just recently arrived from outer space; These were women who lived in a country that was only able to form and flourish thanks to the long-term subjugation of people of color. If they could obtain the rights that they wanted without having to give up their privileged status as white people, then that made their mission even easier to accomplish and left them with all of the perks that traditionally came with being able to stand on the backs of people of color. This option proved to be too tempting for some white feminists to forego.<br /><br />If you fast forward to today, this situation has not disappeared and the blogosphere reflects that. There aren't many women of color who have feminism-centered blogs, so when people of color look for feminist writings that they can relate to and they find such a blog, it's a lot like finally reaching an oasis in the desert. Having sites like blac (k) ademic on the internet means that people don't have to settle for whatever bones white feminists are willing to throw at them. Some of us don't think that whether a woman keeps her maiden name or wears makeup matters nearly as much as figuring out how to navigate public assistance programs when you're working two jobs but still don't earn enough to make ends meet. To me, it seems like such a simple thing. Mainstream feminists can keep doing what makes them comfortable and people of color feminists can just write about and work towards solving the problems that we face. However, I've come to see that things aren't that simple.<br /><br />Every time a non-mainstream feminist like Nubian dares to write about her reality, it challenges the notion that mainstream feminism is what all women need to subscribe to in order to fix the world. That's a problem because mainstream feminism is really faltering. As a matter of fact, I'd say it's a complete flop. The reproductive justice that mainstream feminists thought they had won now needs to be fought for all over again thanks in no small part to their complacency. Their justification for imperialism (e.g. We need to go and rescue those poor third-world women and bring them freedom) meets with increasing opposition from women that have their own ideas about liberation and see no reason to adopt American customs in order to feel free.<br /><br />[....]</em></blockquote><br /><br />There's plenty more where that came from at <a href="http://bintalshamsa.blogspot.com/2006/07/privilege-arrogance-insecurity-and.html">Bint's blog</a>....it is more than worth a visit.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153274779687793532006-07-18T20:42:00.000-05:002006-09-17T20:46:09.390-05:00...And Continuing On The Subject of Feminist Sex Radical Trashing......since it seems that today must be the unofficial day for the Carnival of Feminist Sexual Reactionaries:<br /><br />....Take a gander at Pinko Feminist Hellcat's <a href="http://pinkofeministhellcat.typepad.com/pinko_feminist_hellcat/2006/07/status_quo_posi.html">contribution to the lynching party</a> for RKB and all other sex-positives who apparantly are contaminating and poisoning the feminist movement:<br /><br /><blockquote>Some of us are dog tired of hearing about how we've got problems if we're bothered by the fact that women are almost always put in submissive positions, degraded, and derided in the name of sex. Some of us are not particularly jazzed by the rigid and puritanical sex roles assigned to women--women sell sex (and get power! Whee! Nothing like that kind of power, George Bush, eat your heart out!) and men buy it. <br /><br />You'll just have to forgive me for noting that it's practically unheard of for the reverse to happen, even though women do like sex, do like sex without commitment, and do appreciate hot men. <br /><br />What's seen as sexual for women is a bore. Am I oppressive and mean for saying that? Tough. Cope.<br /><br />A blog post by Twisty (who was trying to stir things up and succeeded) does not make this a world that forbids the kind of sex you want to have, though, as Amanda points out, it sure would be nice if "sex" for women included more than forgoing it or being submissive, enthusiastic about facials, or so male centered in the act that you may as well not have a sodding clitoris. That's the "full range?" How unimaginative. How stale. How boring.<br /><br />Not that there's anything wrong with that! Oh, lordy, heaven forbid I maybe mention that many women are dissatisfied with the dearth of options available to us in the world of sexuality. But for once, I'd like to see an acknowledgment from supposed sex radicals that women can be sexual without being submissive, that it's okay to not particularly like or want to engage in some of the sex acts out there (facials come to mind), and that in fact, not liking them doesn't make you frigid, or anti-sex, or whatever, and that the diversity of sexuality should extend to women and our pleasure. Instead, we're treated to finger-wagging over oppressive and mean feminists who would take your right to get on your knees away from you. It's pretty telling that articles that focus on feminism and sex focus on submissiveness, and our right! hard won right! to be submissive and degraded.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Because, really, why acknowledge that some women--hell, a lot of women--are left unsatisfied, marginalized, and derided in the world of status quo sex? Since when is critiquing the small box reserved for women in the world of sex a bad thing?<br /><br />I'd like to see some acknowledgment that porn is male-centered, the so-called "sex" industry is male centered (it's not like Heidi Fleiss is getting a warm welcome by Nevada brothels, since women paying for sex is just so! unheard ofl! but men paying for it is just ducky) that the sexual double standard is poison to women and influences our choices and desires, and that we'll never be truly open and sexual and free as long as sexual women are derided as whores, raped women are dismissed, and women who want sex on our terms (not Hugh Hefners, Larry Flynt's, or Joe Everyman's) are marginalized.<br /><br />Wanna know one reason why [Heidi] Fleiss is having such a problem with her dog house for women (besides the brothel association flipping out)? Prostitutes are defined as she in Nevada. Think about that. Women as servers, men as consumers. That's not completely messed up? It's what, radical to accept this? To say that women serving and men consuming is the norm and acceptable and questioning it is oppressive? Forgive me for being feminist and calling BS on that.<br /><br />All of this blathering on and on about frigid feminists out to oppress the free-thinking radical bohos out there--enough already. It's tiresome and stale. (As is the insistence that all feminists are total sluts--antifems, please get your stories straight. You scamps are funny when you froth, but the rhetoric is getting old).<br /><br />This kind of pseudo-sex positivity is stifling. I mean, what are my options, exactly? Pulling trains, getting dominated, and getting facials, or celibacy? No thanks. It's getting a little stuffy in the box you'd like to lock me into. And you can bite me if you don't like it and want to declare me either frigid or a slut for looking askance at this messed up set of standards for women.</blockquote><br /><br /><sigh> <br /><br />And the <a href="http://witchy-woo.blogspot.com/2006/07/to-all-pro-pornstitution-feminists-out.html">coup-de-grace</a> comes from Witchy-Woo, who finally reads sex positives their pink slips from the feminist movement without the two-week notices (This nuttiness deserves a full reading in its entirity):<br /><br /><blockquote><br />To all pro-pornstitution 'feminists' out there...<br /><br />...The best way to stop the global scourge of sexual slavery of women and girls is not to reduce men's slavering for warm, wet fuck holes but to offer oneself to the task.<br /><br />How does that feel....thinking about that? Would you?<br /><br />Would you choose that as a way to feed your kids, pay your bills, keep your particular wolf from the door?<br /><br />No?<br /><br />Why not?<br /><br /><strong>So how come you kind of 'elect' and hide behind those women/girls who don't have the same level of choice that you do? Poor women, women of colour, drug/alcohol addicted women, girl children, teenage runaways, sexually abused in childhood women, etc. Women and girls whose humanity you should actually be fighting for - as feminists.<br /><br />Instead, it seems to me, you're saying it's ok that these women/girls are in sexual slavery because it's somehow their choice. They're somehow 'living their dream'....or is it your dream? The phallic dream? I don't know. Whatever.<br /><br />All I know is that you're not fighting for them. You're complicit in their destruction. You're colluding with patriarchy in dividing women into 'them' and 'us'.</strong><br /><br />So.....<br /><br />I want to see every pro-pornstitution 'feminist' put her money where her mouth is (hah) and do a six month stint in the job (or send her daughter in if she's 'too old') before she tells me that it's 'ok' for any other woman/girl to go through it. And I want a report about how great it is to command such power and how it's touched and released her innate sexuality and re-formed her as a woman and made her feel sooooo good about herself she does talks about it to girls in junior schools.<br /><br />Actually, I don't want any woman on this Earth to go through it but, hey, seems to me that some women need to properly understand exactly what feminism means.<br /><br /><strong>If you're pro-pornography or pro-prostitution you are NOT a feminist. These institutions are the props of patriarchy and have nothing to do with women's self determination, ergo they are NOT feminist.</strong><br /></blockquote><br /><br />And to think that at one time I thought that I could have a reasonable debate with some people. (I was once accused by the very same Witchy-Woo of "butting in" to a debate over at Antiprincess' Paleofeminist blog on porn and feminism because I dared to respectfully criticize W-W's basic beliefs. Apparantly, being a man attempting to defend a feminist woman's right to choose her own sexual habits amounts to defending "sexual slavery" and rape.)<br /><br />I'm not going to speak for other sex-radicals, but you can consider this Black Leftist man to be considered finished with these people. If this is what liberal feminism is becoming, then I want nothing to to with it any longer. <br /><br />Memo to Witchy Woo and PFH: just join your ally RMildred in the "Fuck you" section of this blog. If you can't respect our beliefs, then the hell with you.Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153263891693600792006-07-18T16:34:00.000-05:002007-01-18T23:42:03.256-06:00The "Punkass" Bitchslapping of RKB (Continued)For those of you just joining in, this is Part 2 of my fisking of a particularly slimy blog post from RMildred of Punkass Blog savaging Rachel Kramer Bussel for her latest Lusty Lady column Fucking and Feminism. I have added my own annotations within the post where needed.<br /><br />Let's get back to the fun now, shall we??<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>Oh, and then she blah blahs for a while, men are mentioned, this guy (who I assume is never giong to be invited around her parent’s place for dinner ever again) tells her he wants be fucked up the ass, because men are oppressed too you see.<br /><br />Which is nice and all, especially as she’s spent the entire thing telling us that all the things that women do, including the various deeply self harming things, are all A-OK and nothing to worry about, because there is no patriarchal oppression, there is merely Twisty, oppressing women with her mean old cock mockage.</blockquote><br /><br />Yeah, all those "self-harming" things like anal sex and blowjobs and kissing other women and tattoos and clit piercing and breast enhancement and high heels (more on that later)....all that is far, far more threatening to the cult of radicalfeminism than one blogger spilling her loathing of women who like sucking a cock.<br /><br />And let's not include the oppressive act of men wanting their girlfriends to fuck them in the ass with a dildo, because that is so oppressive and patriarchial...even when gay men do it all the time. (But that's because they are MEN, you know.)<br /><br />Let's move along to the next bit of RM myopia:<br /><br /><blockquote>anyway, here’s the next interestingly stupid bit;<br /><br /><blockquote>Sara DeKeuster is one of my heroines. In 2005, in The UWM Post, an independent student newspaper, she ran a photo essay exploring her rape fantasies. The uproar was instantaneous. One blogger, Kyle Duerstein, wrote (but later deleted), “Sara DeKeuster ought be[sic] raped today. And after that, she ought be [sic] raped tomorrow, by someone else . . . she might be killed by her attacker. Maybe then, she’ll get it, and if not, she’ll be dead, and the world will be a less f*$!ed up place.” The Women’s Resource Center claimed the spread created a “hostile campus” and was “an active act of harm.” In response, DeKeuster evoked Cindy Sherman: “I am not sorry for my art! It would be like saying I’m sorry for being a woman and that I like sex (or to be fucked rather).”</blockquote><br /><br />Of course, while DeKeuster is pissing around with her, ahem, “rape” fantasies (which are nothing of the kind, they’re just standard BDSM roleplaying fantasies in which she’s an “abused” sub), there is a whole world full of men who, having been told by the patriarchy that no doesn’t really mean no, are raping and murdering and abusing women.<br /><br />But have fun with your “Rape” fantasies, I mean, there’s no possible reason why people would find that offensive, especially not on a college campus (where 1 in 4 women ARE NOT raped, remember). I love how she basically just pulled the “I’m entitled to be a selfish asshole who doesn’t care about anyone’s feelings but my own” justification after she got critiscised (but she dressed it up in “sex positivity” so it’s okay).</blockquote><br /><br />Now, here is where things may get a bit confusing. What Ms. DeKuester defines as her "rape fantasies" are really what I would call "ravishment fantasies", where a woman is willingly overpowered by a man or a group of men. The difference between these kind of fantasies and a real rape is the difference between night and day: a real rape involves direct force and coercion as well as serious physical and emotional injury and a deliberate intent to hurt and harm; while in the ravishment fantasy, the woman "gives in" to an extent, but there is no pain or injury, and the woman gets the full amount of pleasure in the fantasy. It may be a touchy issue amongst feminists due to the nature of the ravishment fantasy, but many women -- including some very powerful feminists -- are admitting publically to having and enjoying such fantasies; and some are even prone to enact such fantasy roles with their lovers in their "loveplay". It is similar but not quite the same as BDSM or D/s play in that it usually remains just a fantasy not to be enacted.<br /><br />But, certainly, acknowledging ravishment fantasies is IN NO WAY an endorsement of rape, and even Ms. DeKuester acknowleges that much, even when defending her photo essay from people like Kyle Duerstein, who all but reccommended that DeKuester was enabling rapists....and even went as far as to recommend that she be raped to prove his point!!! Certainly, RMildred isn't recommending that women who act out or acknowledge having "patriarchial" fantasies deserve to be raped, is she??? Hmmmm...<br /><br />Strangely enough, Amanda Marcotte, in her own critique of RKB, implied that Duerstein's statements (which basically match the criticism of both Amanda and RM) were an implication of a hidden compulsion to rape. I'll leave it to you the viewer whether that statement should be taken in whatever context was intended.<br /><br />In any case, none of this has anything to do with Rachel's main point...which was that even powerful women and feminists can admit to having such submissive fantasies, and still remain strong enough to defend their rights as human beings in the real world.<br /><br /><blockquote>Oh and next week I’m going to germany so I can goosestep through a few holocaust memorials while wearing an SS uniform, but it’s a “choice”, and therefore above reproach, and no one is allowed to critiscise me or I’ll call them “Politically correct” waaaah!</blockquote><br /><br />This would be actually funny if Rachel had actually even mentioned SS troops or the Holocaust or Nazis anywhere in her article. And a nice touch with comparing sex-positive feminists who disagree with RM's analysis with genocidal Nazis.<br /><br /><blockquote>God, how old is this woman? Is she planning on growing up anytime soon you think? Or is she a baby boomer?<br /><br /><blockquote>The feminist sex wars were largely fought before I was born, yet sadly, women continue to battle each other over what we do in bed, as if coming up with the most politically correct form of orgasm will automatically solve other inequities. I believe in advancing the cause of sexual freedom for everyone, by increasing our knowledge and offering room for fantasy and safe, nonjudgmental experimentation.</blockquote><br /><br />Of course, your vapid justifications for every single abusive sexual act possible, from rape to het women kissing each other has just enabled god knows how many asshole men to go out and abuse their partners and call it “liberation”.<br /><br />Well done.</blockquote><br /><br />Well done indeed....from merely defending blowjobs and "submissive" sex and sex fantasies and...<gasp>...het women kissing in public, right to enabling sexual abuse and rape!!! And I thought that only right-wingers engaged in this kind of "slippery slope" illogic?? <br /><br /><blockquote>What I love about this sort of thinking though, is it’s totally disengenuous, why have feminists been critical of many of these sexual acts that bussel feels the need to defend? What’s the motivation behind such “attacks”? Who knows, because the unsourced strawfeminists presumably engages in total sophistry (as far as I can make out), which just handily means never having to actually engage anyone’s arguements about anything.<br /><br />And there’s the problem with these “don’t mock the penis” types who have been trying rather lamely to kick Twisty while she’s dealing with her operation, they cannot admit that there’s valid reasons why all sorts of “choices” are wrong, the only important thing is that they’re “choices”, and as long as women choose something, including patriarchal oppression, well no one’s allowed to criticise because Oppression is Empowering (as orwell would say).</blockquote><br /><br />Now...this is a real laugher. Apparantly, Rachel must be a secret blogger at Twisty's site to know that she is dying of cancer (actually, Twisty has been posting about that publically), so Rachel chose this exact time when Twisty is near death to add the final nail in the coffin.....by attacking her supposedly brilliant innovative feminist ideas. Why, in that case, we must suspend all our thoughts of accountability and meekly accept Twisty's beliefs as proven fact (even in the abscence of evidence to back them up), out of sheer pity...errrr, solidarity...for her condition. <br /><br />And as for the notion of "engaging the arguments": well, it's kinda hard to have a real engagement when one side chooses to lob stink bombs and ad hominens at the other, and professess their chosen views as THE ONE AND ONLY acceptable feminist view; while wrapping themselves in the skirts of "sisterhood" and rapping their critics as "girls", "dupes of the patriarchy", "oppressiors" and so forth. It's one thing to say that you don't like another woman's choices; it's something entirely different to impose those personal dislikes on others as "feminist doctrine" and disrespect other women for making that choice.<br /><br /><blockquote>And the anti-fems do this because they have no real response to the charges of oppression, pretty much most of the examples Bussel provides of contentious sex is all heavily patriarchal, from strippers and the porn industry (both of which are unwaveringly demeaning towards women), to DeKeuster declaring that all women want to be raped (the other side to that nasty quote up there), Bussel, like wonkette before her, wants you to come away from her screed with the impression that, not only have feminists been simply declaring some things bad without good cause, but that you can engage in any sort of deeply misogynistic and self harming act, and not only is no one allowed to tell you that you are harming yourself (and thus stopping you from actually dealing with your problem) because it’s your “choice”, but you’re then allowed to go around telling people that the self abuse is “empowering” you as a sexual creature.</blockquote><br /><br />Note the nice channelling of the former Wonkette (Ana Maria Cox) and her review of Katha Pollitt's book that stirred up quite a shitstorm among the feminist blogosphere...as if Cox's review had anything to do with RKB's column or renouncing radfem either. But, with all the references to "self abuse" (does that mean that masturbation is also a plot of the "patriarchy" too) and "self harm" (as if an individual act of sexual arousal by and individual woman was a cosmic threat to the entire feminist Borg collective), I tend to wonder whether the kind of feminism that RM favors is more appropos of the ex-gay fundamentalist revivalists than any classic feminism I know. Oh, I forgot....feminism can't be linked with the right wing; that too is a fiendish plot of Teh Patriarchy and "the pornographers" to divide and conquer feminism!!! <br /><br /><blockquote>Of course this is nothing new, all oppressive systems do something like that, usually masking the oppression with talk about “culture” or “tradition”, both of which are inherently “good” things despite the oppression and hate and violence that such words end up associated with them. In America it’s most obvious with the homobigot fundie types, but in <a href="http://punkassblog.com/2006/07/17/sex-positivity-doesnt-mean-sex-stupidity/">the last post</a> I added something that, I admit, was an intentional provocation, designed to probe harshly at the edge of the Highheel spot, that place where way too many feminists will fight for their right to fuck their leg muscles, tendons, toes, ankles and spinal column up, more often than not in the name of attracting the attention of objectifying men. That’s not why all women wear highheels, but it’s certainly why the abuse positive women like Dowd and Wonkette and Bussel wear them.</blockquote><br /><br />Now...does RM have any evidence that Maureen Dowd or Ana Cox or even Rachel Kramer Bussel wear highheels for any extended length of time??? (Funny, but MoDo doesn't seem to be the "slut" type, being quite busy with more earthy affairs like condeming Bush's wars and such.) Rachel might indeed wear highheels herself (even as props for her sex fantasies..but what the hell does that have to do with anything here...other than just another means for RM to smack down sex-positives???<br /><br /><blockquote>Of course, with trolling comes people who get trolled, and Erica provided a perfect microcosm of the whole Bussel bullshitfest with this neato little comment:<br /><br /><blockquote>I’m not sure what to make of this kind of attack against femme women. For one thing, it reminds me of men who make these claims against feminists. We must all be ugly sows for wanting equality. For another, it reminds me of anti-feminist prudes who say, “No, no. Nice girls don’t do that. Only bad girls with low self-esteem wear slutty clothes or sleep around.”<br /><br />I used to have real self-esteem issues. I was worried about what everyone thought of me. Now that I’ve grown up, I believe that doing what you want, with little or no thought of the opinion of others, is a truly feminist act. It really disturbs me that at least one commenter on this thread has asked for R. Mildred’s permission to wear high heels. Fuck that.</blockquote><br /><br />Now you have here the problem, the paradox that allows otherwise good feminists to get shipwrecked on the craggy metaphors of anti-feminist rationalisations for patriarchal abuse, the first, most important step anyone under patriarchy has to do is say “goddammit, bullshit to hell yah, I don’t take no orders from anyone about my behavior!”, but this aspect of liberation does not mean that “I like this, therefore it’s not patriarchal” is a true statement.</blockquote><br /><br />So, in other words, just because some women say that they like certain things that some radicalfeminists don't particularly like, that allows the radfems to dump their myopia on them and call it "feminist theory"??? And to declare those other women's beliefs to be illegitimate and dismissable because....well, they're not "feminist"??? And they wonder why feminism is so marginalized and weak these days???<br /><br /><blockquote>Highheels are painful and debililtating, they also are the only shoe in exisence that leave the wearer <a href="http://static.flickr.com/49/129680296_73abcc3691.jpg?v=0">unable to cross cattle grids</a> without getting stuck.<br /><br />They’re patriarchal, objectively so, if you do wear them for non-sexual reasons that actually are kinda empowering, that still doesn’t change their harmful and patriarchal nature, and there’s probably an alternative out there somewhere that isn’t (though I’m already tall enough to loom over people who dare oppose me, so I’ve always gone in for floor level footwear and don’t know anything in particular to help you ks, sorry).</blockquote><br /><br />Wait a sec, RM....are you saying that wearing high heels is antifeminist because they can get rather painful to wear; or are they antifeminist because it turns men on?? It's not as if "the patriarchs" are requiring women to wear them all the time; or that even those women who do wear them don't get any pleasure from wearing them on occasion. I guess that wearing thongs and push-up bras and makeup should be condemned for elevating the "slut culture", too???<br /><br /><blockquote>The lesson we can learn from highheels is that some objects and behaviors are just plain downpressing to women, you can fuck around and try to co-opt them all you want, but the patriarchy is laughing at you while you do.<br /><br />This is true of Bussel’s “submissiveness”, it’s not roleplaying, BDSM, feminist freindly submission, she’s saying that women can be a man’s chew cum stress relief toy in the bedroom, and that is bad, because she invites the power differential on which all abuse and oppression exists, into her bed and asks other women to do the same because “I like this, therefore it’s not patriarchal”.<br /><br />Got a newsflash for you kid; the patriarchy can trick you, no really, and sometimes what you think you like, is actually just a result of conditioning.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />Because, unless it has the "feminist" seal of approval, it must be "patriarchial" and no self-respecting woman or feminist would ever do such self-abuse on herself and her sisters.<br /><br />------------------------------------------<br /><br />My goodness....what a journey into nothingness.<br /><br />If this is what passes for "liberal feminism" these days, then from now on, count me the fuck out. At least Biting Beaver and Dim have the decency of being up front and honest with their antisex bigotry, rather than painting a "feminist" gloss all over it.<br /><br />Rachel Kramer Bussel is as accountable to criticism as any other woman....but she does not deserve this bullcrap. Thankfully, she is classy enough and woman enough to rise above this. <br /><br />I'll take a classy slut like Rachel over an arrogant, elitist, sex-hating, male baiting, proto-fascist hack like RMildred any day. <br /><br />Two words in parting, RMildred, on behalf of all the progressive men who are NOT rapists or sex fiends: <br /><br />FUCK. YOU.<br /><br /><br />/end of rantAnthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153258385428372102006-07-18T16:32:00.000-05:002006-07-18T23:05:42.276-05:00The "Punkass" Bitchslapping of RKB (When "Liberal Feminism" Just Isn't)You know..it was my intention to keep my defense of Rachel Kramer Bussel's column on "Fucking and Feminism" to the high road, since Rachel is more than capable of defending herself from criticism from all angles....including the type lobbed by Pandagon's Amanda Marcotte that I fisked last night. And I figured that there was still some hope that the discussion would not degenerate into a flame fest on which sexual acts were considered poltically correct or "feminist" enough. At least Amanda tended to be amicable, if passionate, in her criticism of Rachel as a closet sexual submissive.<br /><br />Apparantly, even that was not quite hostle enough for some feminists, though....because today while skimming through Bitch Lab's comments on the issue, I came across a link to what amounts to a virtual lynching of RKB which consolidates and distills every urban legend and strawwoman stereotype about sex radical/sex positive women as traitors of feminism and enablers of "patriarchy" into one massive fireball of hate, arrogance, resentment, and hypocritical elitism.<br /><br />To save you the trouble of linkage, I will just repost the (long) essay in its entirity, and I will offer my usual annotations and emphasis as I go along. Trust me, Clones....it is more than worth the time to read this.<br /><br /><blockquote><p><br /><br /><a title="'Permanent" href="http://punkassblog.com/2006/07/18/oh-smug-sense-of-cultural-superiority-how-you-love-your-footbinding-female-circumcision-shoes/" rel="bookmark">Oh Smug Sense of Cultural Superiority, How You Love Your Footbinding Female Circumcision Shoes</a><br /><br />Published by <a title="Posts by R. Mildred" href="http://punkassblog.com/author/r-mildred/">R. Mildred</a> July 18th, 2006 </p><p>Oh baby, yeah that’s it.</p><p>In case anone hasn’t noticed, I haven’t actually tackled the OMGsporkitdeadSPORKITDEAD! <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0629,bussel,73845,24.html">Village Voice</a> piece yet. </p><p>That last post, that was just my initial reaction to some of the comments in the various threads that the peice has spawned in the blogosphere, and now that the various threads have had an opportunity to mature somewhat, I have to doff my hat to Twisty again, the number of tools and straight guys who she offended is most impressive, she has earned her Oppressed Minority To Watch Out For status ten fold, and I can only parrot <a href="http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/07/14/boobalectomy-06/#comment-23217">bitchPhd</a> in the Boobalectemy ‘06! thread over at IBTP: Twisty, I would so mess (around) with you. (though my hetereosexuality would now doubt leave me unable to mess you properly). Any lesbian who can make so many heterosexuals so incredibly uncomfortable with two very short posts, deserves a crown and an ermin robe which she can wear as she rules over the earth as its queen.<br /><br />But enough about Twisty’s amazing ability to turn the heads of easily swooned het women, what about the Bussel peice?<br /><br />Well where should I begin really? The gawd aweful picture of a pasty white pseudo-goth crack whore wannabe, her eyes sort of not quite squinting at the camera, her body resting back on her elbows because her boobs are about to pop out of the butt floss she accidently put on the wrong end of her body.<br /><br />Seriously, where does one begin tearing this sort of crap apart when that’s the accompaning photo? The caption to which is nothing less ironic than “no one has the right to tell you how to fuck”, which is precisely the sort of caption you should have under a photo of a woman who’s obviously been jammed into that faux-vampirella top (Cuz it’s sexy, bitch) and told to find the most ungodly uncomfortable position possible (cuz it’s sexy, bitch) by the photographer, who one can only assume had somewhere better to be that day because MAN, does it look rushed. But remember kids, being horribly abused and demeaned by the porn industry is “empowering”, a word that is quickly losing what meaning it once had thanks to its current use as prime anti-fem doublethink, doesn’t matter what it is these days, if it’s abusive and disempowering, some anti-fem is calling it “empowering”, as bussel is detirmined to prove over and over again<br /><br />Oh sweet chocolate Cthulhu, I just wrote two paragraphs just on the photo that goes with the piece, God Help Us All…</blockquote><br /><br />Ah, yes...nothing quite like a highbrow criticism of Rachel's ideas, 'ya think??? We start right off the bat with a deconstruction of her faceshot (actually, part of a personal photogallery that Rachel did about a year ago). I mean, you'd think that RKB all but called out RM and other feminists personally with just the photo alone!!!<br /><br />And the "pasty white pseudo-goth crack whore wannabe" smack is especially delightful in its insanity, too...I mean, it really strengthens your feminist critique of someone's ideas be referencing her looks....but I thought that was only what antifeminists and patriarchs do, ehhh???<br /><br />Anyways....that out of the way, on to the main piece....but not quite yet:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote>No wait, can’t start on the actual piece yet, there’s more horrors on the page aside from the actual main peice.<br /><br />For instance here’s two of the ads* in the side bar:<br /><br /><em>[Description of escort ads snipped by me for brevity]</em><br /><br />*HeadDesks* yes folks, we have officially reached primo grade DEEP HURTING, a piece about how liberating sucking the patriarchy’s cock is, unsurprisingly, bracketed by ads for Prostitutes Escort Agencies, because whoring is fun and always entirely voluntary!</blockquote><br /><br />Of course, RM seems to ignore the fact that RKB's column happens to appear in the "SEX" section, along with other pro-porn and pro-sex columnists (including Tristan Taormino and Dan Savage); and that escort service ads are just a general portion of the VV's daily offings. But I guess that all that is just more worship to Teh Evil Patriarchy which warps women like Rachel to believe that sexual slavery is really freedom....riiiight???<br /><br /><blockquote>Soooo anyway, on to the piece itself…<a id="more-372"></a><br /><br />Let me jump right in at the beginning, but ignore the intial start where she plugs some books for what sound like some anti-fems who I neither know nor care about. They’re anti-fems, there’s twenty more money grubbing assholes for every one with an actual book deal, and they’re all very careful to be pretty interchangable, so it doesn’t matter if she does lambast them, they’re anti-fems, you’re supposed to lambast them, what do you want? A medal?</blockquote><br /><br />Actualy, the books that Rachel allegedly "plugs" are the Ariel Levy, Pauline Paul, and Rabbi Shumbley Boteach books which have been debated in the feminist blogosphere for months...and I hardly think that RM would cal Levy or Paul "antifems", either. Besides that, RBK doesn't even call them "anti-fem"; just points out their general criticism of women who pursue sex for its own pleasure. (Boteach is a bit more problemmatic, since he has written for Christian Right wingnut outfits like WorldNutDaily..but his critique is chock full of the usual antiporn boilerplate about how women have been "objectified" and "degraded" by the pursuit of sex outside of marriage and "love". Hmmmm...kinda like, you know, some liberal feminists I know??<br /><br /><blockquote>This bit is the first bit that jumps out and pisses me off personally:<br /><br /><blockquote>[quote from RKB's article] These well-intentioned prudes proffer a false choice: Be the next Jenna Jameson or support Hillary for president. There’s no room for a lusty woman in office (never mind Mary Carey’s political ambitions), and certainly no credence given to strippers or adult performers, who they see as airheaded sluts.</blockquote><br />… now what bugs me is that Hillary is, and always has been, nothing more than an expression of the misogynistic left-of-centrists’ barely functioning sense of shame about their unwillingness to actually support feminist causes or politics, she exists as a candidate and politician only so that these Kos-holes can pretend that they’re treatment of women is in some way different from the repugs. She is in short the left wing’s equivalent to Condileeza Rice, a total tool who’s ownership of a vaginal token has gotten her to places that other toilet cleaners just can’t reach. She is in short, a perfect mirror image of Jenna Jameson, as both have achieved what they’ve achieved by being vaginas first and people second.</blockquote><br /><br />Funny, but doesn't much of Hillary's power come mostly from having been former President Bubba Clinton's vagina for so long??? At least Jenna actually gotten real pleasure from her pussy, and she's managed to even become quite a saavy and successful business woman...and she doesn't pander to right-wing fascists, either.<br /><br />And no, having been a professional corporate lawyer and getting on Wal-Mart's Board of Directors doesn't change that fact that Hilliary's (and Condi's) power is mostly from the institutions she has exploited. A big difference between that and Jenna, who happens to be very much respected as a human being and a woman for her rise to the top of her profession...even by those who get the privilege of fucking her.<br /><br />Oh, and Hillary is no Leftist by any means, but a consistent center-right Democrat, just like her husband....and is a consistent supporter of antiporn legislation, too...as is most Repubs....why bite the hand that feeds you, RM???<br /><br /><blockquote>And the thing about giving credence to strippers and “adult performers” (of course adult performances often involve pretending to be jailbait in school uniforms, but hey! Nothing wrong there!), I mean, Wtf? They’re victims, even those who aren’t physically assaulted in their profession, I mean, come on! Their jobs involve being sexual objects who pander to the patriarchal sense of entitlement men have which tells them they all deserve pussy on demand, and how do they feed this sense of entitlement? By paying hard cash for pussy.<br /><br />Nothing wrong there, so men are buying women like they’re inhuman commodities? So what? That’s normal isn’t it? Like honor killings in modern islamic countries, it’s a cultural thing, you’re not allowed to criticise it!</blockquote><br /><br />Oh, RMildred, where to begin??? For the last time (today): Men and women do not buy sex when they buy porn; they buy the right to watch men and women have sex with each other. And for someone who professes herself to be such a "moderate" feminist, as opposed to the Dworkin/MacKinnon school of eternal porn-as-primer-for-male-rape feminism; you certainly seem to have adopted their ideology in total about heterosex being nothing more than men forcing their hard dicks on "submissive" or resistant women. <br /><br />And on this "modern Islamic countries" favoring "honor killings" nonsense...great to see that your bigotry and ignorance extends beyond sex; you can bash and bait Muslim culture with the best of neocons. <br /><br />Still looking hard for any relevance of all this to what RKB actually wrote...keep reading while I search this dark closet....<br /><br /><blockquote>Oh boy oh boy, I love this next sentence, Love it to pieces!<br /><br /><blockquote><em>We’re in the middle of a culture war around sex, and it goes beyond left vs. right. Many of the voices quick to excoriate you for buttfucking, baring your boobs, having a threesome, or <strong>public sapphic smooching</strong> come from the left.</em></blockquote><br /><br />Emphasis mine.<br /><br />Now why I emphasised that is for the very simple reason that I’m pretty certain that Bussel (named after a form of victorian asspadding for high society ladies, because it’s silly names month at Punkassblog) is not actually referring to lesbians kissing in public, because that would in some way not reinforce heteronormativity, and every single one of these would be counter-twistylutionary polemics are all about the heteronormativity reinforcing (except my ones of course, because I am the God Shi-halud, and free from heterosexual privelage of course, teehee).<br /><br />No, what “public sapphic smooching” refers to in this case is two het girls (and with women this immature, the term girls is appropriate in this case) kissing each other in front of some het guys, to show them all that these two women are willing to do anything to display their unwaivering allegiance to the patriarchy, including gaying it up with their friends. It is of course crap like that that gives Bisexuals such a bad rep in the LGBT community, but I guess that if the act wasn’t hurting some women somewhere bussel wouldn’t have mentioned it.</blockquote><br /><br />Ahhh, I see...a 30+ year old woman is now reduced to an inmature "girl" for stating the obvious fact that some het and bi women might like the feel of kissing, sucking, or even fucking another woman without rejecting men outright. She may call it "unwaivering allegiance to the patriarchy"; most of us not blinded to radfem sophistry are more prone to call it personal growth and development. I mean, there just might be the idea that young women might be attracted sexually to other women simply because IT FEELS DAMN GOOD TO THEM, and not merely out of a desire to join a radicallesbianfeminist group or to "put out" for men..right??? Naaahhh, it's just the evil patriarchy warping girls' brains again to succumb to Teh Cock. <br /><br /><blockquote><blockquote><em>Levy argues that women have to (and want to) out-’ho ourselves to fit into our increasingly raunchy, male-identified sexual culture. She cites Paris Hilton as a lead “pig.” That the devil-may-care heiress wasn’t chastened for her slutty ways irks those who think women should never flaunt their bodies�even voluntarily.</em></blockquote><br /><br />Oh save us from the “voluntary” patriarchy victims! I’ve been thinking alot about multicultural feminism recently , and the thing I’ve stated to notice is a pattern that keeps reoccuring across all the various cultures that opress women, what happens is that a feminist will start talking about the nastiness in a foriegn culture and inevitably someone will whip out some variant of “but the women think that female genital mutilation is a good thing! Who are you to intervene?”, which of course instantly shuts down any discussion. Now of course western society is superior to all others, it is more enlightened, and of course feminism is no longer needed in the west for it has achieved its aims. This is bullshit, the “who are you to intervene” canard has kept large aspects of feminist critiscism silent all over the world, first and third world both, feminists are never allowed to actually criticise any culture for its abusive nature towards women, because there’s this culture and the women really want to be oppressed, really.<br /><br />Do you know what? When a friend of mine turns into a total alchoholic, do you know what I’m obligated to do? Stage an intervention, irregardless of how much he really likes drinking til he pees himself, I’m supposed to stick my big fat nose into his “choice” to be addicted and gently kill himself with booze, because he needs help, and he needs to be made to realise that he has a problem.<br /><br />But if it’s a woman, addicted to patriarchal self destruction, well that’s different, that’s a different sort of self-destructive “choice” all together, one she’s allowed to “choose” and if she’s being gently killed by her husband, well that’s an issue between man and wife and nothing for us to be concerned about.<br />Alchoholics get interventions by their family and friends, patriarchal abuse victims get bussel’s gentle rationalisations for their oppression.<br /><br />Makes sense to me.</blockquote><br /><br />Me, too....I mean, we really shouldn't differentiate between a social drinker who dabbles in a couple of glasses of champagne or wine cooler and a stone-drunk alcoholic who could get behind the wheel of a car...so why should we do the same with a woman who "degrades" herself and her sisterhood by having "patriarchial" sex which by RM's edict automatically degrades and threatens her sisters??? (/snark) That's what feminism by RM's account should be, I guess; sort of an "Sluts Anonymous" that rescues women from their own evil baser instincts. <br /><br />I really don't think that the phrase "We die a little with each orgasm" was meant to be taken that seriously....and WTF is "killed gently"???<br /><br />And...it's so nice to see consensual sex acts be redefined as "patriarchal abuse", too.<br /><br /><blockquote><blockquote>Blogger Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy (blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com) incited feminist ire when she wrote, “There’s a reason that deep-throating a funk-filled bratwurst makes a person retch.” Holier-than-thou pronouncements of sexual superiority don’t scream “sisterhood” to me.</blockquote><br />Yeah, and you know what? Uptight little asswaste little heterosexual women doing their best to marginalize lesbian viewpoints doesn’t exactly scream “sisterhood” either, in fact the word “sister-fucker” comes to mind, along with the other term “anti-feminist”. FFS, Twisty is never Holier-Than-Thou, Twisty just doesn’t fuck around and pretend that she doesn’t mean precisely what she means. strange how when it comes to women sucking patriarchal cock, you’re free to do whatever but Oh. My. Gosh. As soon as someone actually blames the patriarchy for shit and Dares to mock the holy phallus no less, well, that’s just not on.<br /><br />LOL, look at me getting all upset by this, like I’ve never seen a lesbian being marginalized before…</blockquote><br /><br />This is the most hilarious point of RM's analysis...I didn't know that Rachel was baiting and attacking all lesbians with the statement that ALL women should have the right to pursue sex for their own meanings and pleasure; I would assume that that principle would also include lesbians as well. But what do I know...I'm one of those evil patriarchial men who exist just to get into women's panties as often as possible. (Not.)<br /><br />And this defense of Twisty's original anti-blowjob smack is fascinating, since it was this very blog that produced a particularly stong critique of Twisty's ambush. I guess that defending blowjobs is only legitimate when radfems criticize other radfems; but when those outside the charmed circle do the same, it's defending patriarchy?!?!<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><blockquote>There’s a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one under certain circumstances.</blockquote><br /><br />Umm, the net result if that you’re still a sex object, so that world of difference is not really all that different or good, is it?</blockquote><br /><br />Yup...only women who have sex with only one other partner for their entire life (hopefully only with a woman), and only in a certain "sisterly" kind of way without any mention of sex toys, lust, orgasms, or other "patriarchial" interference, can be accepted as a true feminist; any deviance from that and you fall from the pedestal into the profane world of "sex object". Tell me again, RM, that you are any different from the Religious Right or the MacDworkinites???<br /><br /><blockquote><blockquote>Recall Tad Friend’s classic 1994 “do-me feminism” Esquire article, in which Lisa Palac said, “Degrade me when I ask you to” (emphasis mine). Women’s true desires may not make for perfect propaganda, but sex is justifiably complex. I may like to get spanked until I scream, but I still deserve to be treated as an intelligent human being. Submitting sexually doesn’t equal becoming a doormat outside the bedroom.</blockquote><br /><br />Yes, except this brand of “there’s nothing wrong with being abused” sexuality does kind of require you being a doormat with a vagina.</blockquote><br /><br />So, it doesn't matter if you are respected in the real world as a human being; once you cross the line into accepting or even tolerating such acts, you have fundamentally sinned into becoming a "doormat". Who's objectifying whom here???<br /><br />OK....so this will have to take two posts for a proper fisking. Just hang on, and I'll finish this. I appreciate your patience.<br /><br />[to be continued in next post]Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1153114471000614082006-07-17T00:34:00.000-05:002006-07-18T22:20:55.360-05:00The Smearing of "Lusty Lady" Rachel Kramer Bussel: or, When Sex Liberationists Become "Anti-Sex" SubmissivesIt's bad enough that those of us who are sex radicals get whacked from the Christian Right and the usual conservatives as being beyond the pale....but what can you say when it is supposed liberals who simply can't get the idea in their heads that women can be free to make their own damn choices in matters of sexuality??<br /><br />Case in point: <a href="http://www.lustylady.blogspot.com/">Rachel Kramer Bussel's</a> latest Lusty Lady column in the Village Voice titled <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0629,bussel,73845,24.html">"Fucking and Feminism"</a>, whereas she lays out the defense of the full program of sexual freedom and liberty for women from the attacks from the latest round of neoliberal feminists such as Ariel Levy (<em>Female Chauvinist Pigs</em>), Pauline Paul (<em>Pornified</em>), and Rabbi Slumbley Boteach (<em>Hating Women: America's Hostile Campaign Against the Fairer Sex</em>). (Actually, Boteach is more of a wingnut Rightist than a feminist, but he was included in Rachel's column.) Some nice excerpts:<br /><br /><blockquote><em><br />There's a world of difference between being branded a sex object and choosing to be one under certain circumstances. Recall Tad Friend's classic 1994 "do-me feminism" Esquire article, in which Lisa Palac said, "Degrade me when I ask you to" (emphasis mine). Women's true desires may not make for perfect propaganda, but sex is justifiably complex. I may like to get spanked until I scream, but I still deserve to be treated as an intelligent human being. Submitting sexually doesn't equal becoming a doormat outside the bedroom. <br /><br />Men are also unfairly judged—as brutish horndogs selfishly out to get as much sex as they can. The truth is, they're confused and constrained by the "macho" role too. Recently, a man asked me whether wanting to get fucked up the ass by a woman was "normal." Men have plenty of desires that aren't sanctioned by popular culture, leaving them to wonder if any woman will embrace such kinks as men wearing women's panties, getting tied up, or being penetrated with a dildo. On the other hand, women often question whether our dirtiest dreams (especially those involving BDSM) make us unfit as future leaders. <br /><br />Feminists are just like any other women, with a range of sexual desires and practices from doggy-style to bukkake, and it'd be a shame for us to hold back in a misguided attempt to live up to the legacies of Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem. We can choose to be celibate or to have someone come on our face. Having a full range of sexual options should be a high-priority feminist goal.<br /><br /><br />[...]<br /><br />I encourage all men and women to make the sexual choices that are right for them, regardless of what's "cool." I can't tell you how to fuck. Instead of looking to gurus, activists, porn stars, and how-to books, you'd be better off looking inside, spending some quality time with your fingers around your cock or pressed against your clit figuring out what sets you off. Forget about the judgments of your friends and neighbors (who are probably just as wild in the sack as you are). <br /><br />The feminist sex wars were largely fought before I was born, yet sadly, women continue to battle each other over what we do in bed, as if coming up with the most politically correct form of orgasm will automatically solve other inequities. I believe in advancing the cause of sexual freedom for everyone, by increasing our knowledge and offering room for fantasy and safe, nonjudgmental experimentation. <br /><br />Sexual freedom is not the only, or the most pressing, issue facing American women today, but it's vital to any true feminist movement. Excoriating other women and berating them for a host of erotic sins creates unnecessary divisions and puts people on the defensive. No one has the right to tell you how to fuck.<br /></em></blockquote><br /><br />Sounds reasonable and radical, and definitely pro-sex, you think???<br /><br />Apparantly not to Amanda Marcotte of <a href="http://www.pandagon.net/">Pandagon</a>, who decided to drop her supposed "porn liberal feminist" cloak to attack RKB in <a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/07/16/hope-the-strawfeminist-is-a-submissive-so-at-least-shell-enjoy-all-this-beating/">one of her latest entries</a> as a not-so-closet "submissive" who only want to liberate women to serve men. Indeed, Amanda derisively retitles Rachel's essay "I Really Like Being Submissive" to prove her supposed point that RBK is really, like apparently so many sex liberationists, just another sellout to THE MAN and his penis. Some <s>low</s>highlights:<br /><br /><blockquote><em>[...]<br /><br />...[RKB's] thesis is that feminists need to quit telling other women that we’re hurting the feminist movement by having sex wrong, and her evidence is that Twisty trolled her own blog, that a non-feminist rabbi wrote a book where he argued that women’s sexual freedom is hurting us, and that Ariel Levy wrote a book criticizing the Girls Gone Wild trend (particularly those manifestations of it where girls seem to be doing stuff that has a whiff of being less than fully consensual). But this column is an example of how not to convince people that you’re a pro-sex radical feminist. For instance, this paragraph:</em><br /><br /><blockquote> [from RKB's column] Feminists are just like any other women, with a range of sexual desires and practices from doggy-style to bukkake, and it’d be a shame for us to hold back in a misguided attempt to live up to the legacies of Susan B. Anthony and Gloria Steinem. We can choose to be celibate or to have someone come on our face. Having a full range of sexual options should be a high-priority feminist goal.</blockquote><em><br /><br />The full range of sexual options, from her examples provided, appear to vary from sporting a patriarchy-approved purity ring to sex acts that are about men humiliating women. Awesome. I feel so empowered. I hate to sound like a sex-hating strawfeminist, but when coming up with a bona fide full range of options, I’d like to at least imagine that there’s women who aren’t religious nuts or sexually submissive might enjoy. And not to sound like a man-hater, but it seems a little more fair if the range of options involves women who are dominating as well as men who are. She does include examples of men who like to be humiliated in bed, too, but otherwise, despite her claims to sexual radicalism, she avoids the larger issue of whose sexuality is actually considered a threat in this society—you know, the non-submissive sluts of the world.</em></blockquote> <br /><br />That's kinda interesting, since nowhere in RKB's essay does she even mention that she in fact is that submissive, nor does she explicitly say that submissiveness is the only desirable thing in sexual freedom for women. All Rachel says is that women should be allowed the full freedom to engage in consensual sexual acts that provide them with much pleasure, while still insisting on their rights to be respected as human beings. But I guess that for Amanda, only "non-submissivess" who follow her "porn liberal" feminist analysis should be allowed to engage in sex for pleasure; all others are simply tainted by male patriarchy, apparantly.<br /><br />But wait...that's not all. Not satisfied with smearing Rachel's personal sex beliefs; Amanda goes on to fundamentally distort RKB's beliefs on so-called "rape fantasies" (actually, more like "ravishment" fantasies, because the woman only surrenders out of and recieves only pleasure rather than violence or injury as in real rape).<br /><br /><blockquote><em><blockquote>(From RBK)Sara DeKeuster is one of my heroines. In 2005, in The UWM Post, an independent student newspaper, she ran a photo essay exploring her rape fantasies. The uproar was instantaneous. One blogger, Kyle Duerstein, wrote (but later deleted), “Sara DeKeuster ought be[sic] raped today. And after that, she ought be [sic] raped tomorrow, by someone else . . . she might be killed by her attacker. Maybe then, she’ll get it, and if not, she’ll be dead, and the world will be a less f*$!ed up place.” The Women’s Resource Center claimed the spread created a “hostile campus” and was “an active act of harm.” In response, DeKeuster evoked Cindy Sherman: “I am not sorry for my art! It would be like saying I’m sorry for being a woman and that I like sex (or to be fucked rather).”</blockquote><br /><br />(Amanda's response) Very selective quotes from the Women’s Resource Center that make me wonder what the full statement said. But more interesting to me is that she uses for evidence of some sort of feminist anti-sex crusade a blog post from a young man who seems to have rape fantasies of his own. I would point out that men who really get all wound up imagining raping women is indeed something that we feminists are concerned about. But generally speaking, our main concern is the large numbers of men who actually act on the fantasies and go ahead and rape someone.</em></blockquote><br /><br />Funny, but I saw Duerstein's commentary as more typical of a radical feminist attack on DeKeuster for making public and acceptable such "rape fantasies" and encouraging and enabling men to actually rape women....hardly a thinly veiled desire to rape anyone. But, since Duerstein is a man, and men are innately, according to some radical feminist doctrine, compelled to rape and attack women, I guess that I could understand Amanda's conclusions. Of course, Rachel's point was NOT to even mention Duerstein, but to defend DeKuester's right to explore and speak openly about such fantasies, which many powerful women -- even feminists -- admit to having without any harm to their feminist credentials or any assaults by men. Nothing about dismissing the problems of real rape anywhere.<br /><br />And the fact that Rachel doesn't include female-dominant/male submissive sex in her analysis does not translate into dismissal of those acts; what I got from Rachel's essay is that a full defense of sexual freedom requires an acceptance of ALL consensual and mutually pleasurable activities, whatever the personal taste or variety. Unfortunately, that tends to cut right across the general radical/liberal feminist goal of regulating and controlling sex that doesn't meet their standards of non-"patriarchial" purity....not to mention the personal dislikes of women who use feminist language to justify and sanction their own personal sexual myopias.<br /><br />Oh, but the real charm comes in the ensuing comments to AM's column, where her sister and fella feminists are wating in the wings to pile on poor Rachel as a evil male submissive who is also -- get ready for this one -- "antisex and anti-women's sexuality". Witness this series of gems:<br /><br /><blockquote><em><br /><br />Amanda Marcotte Jul 16th, 2006 at 8:51 pm<br /> <br />PR, let me make it clear. She was thrashing a strawfeminist. And the reason is because she’s extremely defensive of something that she couldn’t even find feminists attacking. If she’s so damn proud of her sexual submissiveness, then why is she defending it against imaginary attacks from fake feminists? I think sexual submission is fine, and indeed completely understandable in a male dominated society. It’s not my thing, but I certainly get it. But if it’s no big deal, why is she defending it against attackers that she couldn’t even find?<br /><br />I should write for the Village Voice. “I think women should be able to have orgasms and I don’t care what all these imaginary feminists say!”<br /><br />And PR, you’re the one selectively editing, as I say in my post that she does include examples of men who like sexual submission, but while she takes the time to praise men who have non-male-dominated desires, she can’t bring herself to mention women who do. Some radical. Women like me don’t even fucking exist. <br /><br /><br /><br />14 sophonisba Jul 16th, 2006 at 9:11 pm<br /> <br />but there very much are real, flesh-and-blood women who claim the label ‘feminist’ and do sometimes advance arguments that seem to be very anti-’some women’s sexuality’<br /><br />Damn right.<strong> Women who write and talk as though the only interesting and edgy forms of sexual exploration are the ones involving female submission are both lying and doing harm. Women like that, like Rachel Kramer Bussel, are profoundly anti-sex and anti-women’s sexuality.</strong> <br /><br />And although Amanda’s absolutely right about this being primarily a gesture of contempt and erasure towards women who like to do non-submissive sex, <strong>it’s also anti-submissive-women’s sexuality even as it pretends to be supportive of it. It’s really shitty to be unable to know if you really like what you think you do, which is what happens when the entirety of the popular discourse is trying to push you into liking it. The slutty/kinky=submissive model for women fucks up sex for all of us, including submissive women.</strong><br /> <br /><br />15 Amanda Marcotte <br />Jul 16th, 2006 at 9:27 pm<br /> <br />Thanks, soph. I think there’s a weird issue of people thinking that discussing sexuality will somehow de-magic it, but I don’t find that to be true. I think you can be thoughtful about how power is eroticized in our society without destroying your ability to enjoy your kink. In fact, I’d think a thoughtful approach to any kind of sexual experimentation makes it hotter, because you are capable of articulating your desires so much more when you actually think about them, where they come from, and how you can repackage them for your own pleasure. <br /></em></blockquote><br /><br /><br />I was so moved by this piling on to post a rejoinder to the Pandagon board defending Rachel, which I will not repost here; but considering such Orwellian nonsense as the previous comments (sexual freedom is "anti-sex"; opening up oppurtunities for women to safely experiment for themselves is "anti-women's sexuality" and "submission to men"...I guess that that means that Andrea Dworkin is truely a sex-positive, then??), I think that I will seperate myself from such "liberal feminists" from here on out. I just find it really sad that those who speak so passionately for women's rights and freedoms in all other areas are so tone-deaf and blind and so reactionary when it comes to respecting women's sexual choices. <br /><br />Sometimes a blowjob is just a blowjob; and a bratwurst is not the same as a penis....and some women really do love sex and can still remain feminists. Although, if this shit keeps up, there might not be too many feminists -- or Leftists -- around.<br /><br />P.S. -- Rachel has some followup to her VV column posted at her Lusty Lady blog <a href="http://lustylady.blogspot.com/2006/07/fucking-and-feminism-feedback.html">here</a>...just to show that not all feminists or women are so ignorant or dismissive. Feel free to check it out.<br /><br />UPDATE (7-18-06): Amanda has since posted <a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/07/17/for-people-who-are-determined-to-be-dense/">a rebuttal</a> that clarifies her position on RKB's article; and I hate to admit it, but I may have been more than a bit harsh on her originally. She sounds now a lot more openminded than I first figured, and she even made some legitimate points about how some women are forced into doing acts that they may not like..which I can't argue against. As much as she maddens me sometimes, she is usually more right than wrong..and I do respect that. So, she's back on the positive side of the wall here....though I'm figuring that she'll go off and say something to rile me up again...lolAnthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21446365.post-1152218173836298992006-07-06T15:35:00.000-05:002007-01-02T21:02:37.903-06:00St. Tammany Sheriff to NOLA Black"Trash": Not In My Parish!! (or, Why David Duke Really Won)Oh, but y'all are going to love this....this fool happens to be the Sheriff of St. Tammany Parish just east of New Orleans, which suffered a lot of the brunt of Hurricane Katrina last year. You would think that he would have too much on his mind for tending to his own needs to worry about the suffering in New Orleans proper...but noooooooooooo; he has to riff to the New Orleans media (in this case, TV station WDSU) on the threat of "trash" and "thugs" invading his fair parish.<br /><br />Just listen to this clip, and tell me that David Duke still doesn't have any pull here in Louisiana.<br /><br />(From <a href="http://www.wdsu.com/video/9449345/index.html">WDSU-TV</a> via <a href="http://www.crooksandliars.com/posts/2006/07/06/sheriff-of-racism/">Crooks and Liars</a>, also check out <a href="http://www.pamspaulding.com/weblog/2006/07/i-dont-know-what-to-say.html">Pam Spaulding's blog</a>.)<br /><br /><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5aqsFUK12I0" width="425" height="350" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"></embed><br /><br />I especially liked the "Chee Wees" and "dreadlocks" smack, along with the threat of "a visit from one of my deputies"...,funny, don't most NO gangstas wear do rags these days???<br /><br />I guess that Sheriff Strain would much prefer all the "trash" to be left in NOLA to be washed away clean by the next storm, ehhh??<br /><br />He better have more than a few Black deputies, because if he doesn't, I will make my journeys down I-10 or I-12 eastbound as brief as possible. Such bigotry already killed Black folk before (see the Gretna/Jefferson Parish police blocking the Crescent City Connection from Black evacuees attempting to escape Camp Abu Gumbo (aka the Superdome) during the height of Katrina); I'd rather not be a casualty now.<br /><br />It doesn't ever stop, does it???Anthony Kennersonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00103420620416144653noreply@blogger.com6