Friday, July 07, 2006

 
I have got to get off this subject before I lose my mind.

But one more thing:

From Amy: In all the anti-censorship arguments, I have yet to hear anyone explain the social value of sexually explicit materials. I’m not saying there isn’t any; I’m saying I’ve never heard anyone discuss what positive effects “erotica” has, except of course as an aid to masturbation.

ok - in yesterday's post I tried to address the isssue of the "social value of sexually explicit materials" - probably not sufficiently by any means, but I did take a stab at it.

I'd now like to open the floor to antiporn people (or anyone, really) who might like to help me through (or over, or beyond) the part of antiporn feminism upon which I stumble.

In all the anti-porn arguments, I have yet to hear, and I am yearning to hear, anyone address the issue of where porn (that which is to be discarded, abandoned, ignored, forsworn, banned, burned, whatever) stops, and useful information (that which is to be kept, saved, protected, expanded upon, made widely available, whatever) begins.


This question goes beyond the okay/not okay list, because "okay" will always boil down to a matter of personal taste on a case-by-case basis, and I don't think any two "okay" lists will be exactly alike.

One might say "any vulgar and obvious display of woman-hating" or "any content focusing on sexual acts" or "anything someone could successfully masturbate to" should be considered porn; but each of those definitions are not really inclusive of what is truly pernicious, and may be construed to include stuff that doesn't really belong. I'm put in mind again of one of Heart's posts and this excerpt I quoted in a previous post of mine:

"If you haven’t had cock shoved down your throat until you gagged and vomited and bled and could not breathe, with ”bitch” and “cunt” and ”whore” ringing in your ears, then maybe you don’t understand."

Content focusing on sexual acts? check. Vulgar and obvious display of woman hating? check. And sadly, somebody somewhere is probably successfully masturbating to this paragraph (or one like it) right now.

But all it is, is a woman discussing a part of her human (unfortunate and painful, but human) experience. I strongly believe that this paragraph falls under the category of "Useful Information to be protected", and not under "Pornography to be discarded". I mean, nobody in the radfemblogosphere would even think of avoiding Heart's posts because they're "pornographic".

Is it just a matter of context?

One could probably argue that, if there was no such thing as porn, women would not have such experiences. Is that a chicken/egg issue?

A final rumination - in junior high we all read Fahrenheit 451. It scared me, scared me for some reason more than Philosophy in the Bedroom scared me. It scared me so much that whenever I hear that people would prefer a world free of certain types of books and printed matter, I stop listening to why they would prefer such a world, and they become THEY, the bad guys, the ANTIs - Anti-porn, anti-sex, anti-ME, anti-my-friends-and-loved-ones. This is unfortunate because I bet they have good reasons for wanting a such a world, which I will never hear as I am desperately trying to gather up all the stuff that they'd rather do without (even the stuff that I find objectionable), saving it from a pyre that maybe they have no intention of igniting.

I fear that the very relevant baby of people discussing their sexual experiences, in order to share information and celebrate such experiences, will be thrown out with the contaminated bathwater of what is so obviously damaging and harmful.

I would like that fear assuaged. It is the one obstacle between me and antiporn feminism. Any takers?

Comments:
I know you're specifically looking for anti-arguments here, antip.

but i just can't help thinking:

wrt erotica as "an aid to masturbation." Why is this a problem? I mean, what's wrong with an "aid to masturbation?" Seriously.

you know, Sheila Jeffreys came out against sexual therapy (for lesbians and presumably otherwise, too).

all i can conclude, from the body of this kind of "anti" writing/activism, is that it can be as graphic as ever you like as long as it's expressed with vehement disgust, or at least distaste.

it's only when it turns into the context of "say, you know what? this kind of turns me on, I like this"--whether it's BDSM or the basic blowjob (oral fixation and all that) that it becomes TMI and condemnable.

Carol Queen's theory of "absexuality" also comes to mind.
 
maybe if one needs help masturbating one ought not masturbate at that moment? I don't know.

will look up "absexual" forthwith.
 
bd -- the same thing here. i don't understand why, as an aid to masturbation, it isn't socially useful. i think that's the crux of the matter though and why I've decided that sex positive isn't such a bad phrase. you know what kids? some of you _are_ negative about sexuality -- certain kinds, like masturbation. fine. great. do what you want. don't masturbate. feel guilty. tell yourself that you wouldn't do it if you weren't getting it with a human.

and then i'll sit there and think about how _I_ actually masturbate more when i'm getting it all the time.

LOL
 
It's sort of, to my mind, equivalent to talking/writing about food, in addition to and even during eating. Appetite stimulant, shared and layered sensual enjoyment; what's the big damn deal? (well, maybe not writing while eating; one tends to stain the paper). Certainly TF and her followers don't seem to see any problem there, at least.

and there is a reason they call it "food porn."
 
BL: well yeah. I am thinking pretty much anyone who goes on and on about particular sexual acts or orientations as "ew! icky! disgusting! shameful!" or even *embarassed snigger*" is pretty much by definition sex-negative.

there is of course a difference between that and a casual "actually, I personally don't really care for (fill in the blank), but, you go ahead, enjoy."
 
you know, Sheila Jeffreys came out against sexual therapy (for lesbians and presumably otherwise, too).

Huh. Was that about the commodification of someone's body in a sexual way, or about speculative disparities in who would provide that therapy and who would consume it, or about the possibilities for legal prostitution...? I can think of a lot of ways to go with this, but I'm curious about her reasons. I've done some reading about sexual surrogacy etc., and it's interesting stuff.
 
all i can conclude, from the body of this kind of "anti" writing/activism, is that it can be as graphic as ever you like as long as it's expressed with vehement disgust, or at least distaste.

Presumably, one would argue that the socially redeeming aspect of graphic (and even triggering) anti-porn writing is that it fights social acceptance of porn.

I get a little edgy whenever the socially redeeming value of some form of entertainment is discussed. That sort of criteria tends to permit some lousy art, and to denigrate some wonderful art. While there is definitely brilliant educational and political art, a lot of it is...frivolous. Idiosyncratic. I mean, what's the social value of "Crazy Woman with Cats?" Art is interesting--some of it, anyway. It makes us happy--some of it, anyway. But gee, would humanity suffer horribly if Hollywood went up in a puff of blue smoke, or if Carmel fell into the ocean?
 
>graphic (and even triggering)

Hello. Thank you. Yeah, I have often thought at DOTBB's or even IBTP (we all know the infamous lines by now) excuse me, did I ask to have an image like this thrust in my virtual face? No, I did not.

per Sheila Jeffreys: well, you can get a taste of it here (excerpts from Anticlimax):

http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/climax.html
 
or this article (SJ knows all about Reich, o'course):

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/Porn/orgasmpol.html

>Dell Williams is quoted in Ms. as having set up a sex shop in 1974 with precisely this idea, to sell sex toys to women: "I wanted to turn women into powerful sexual beings.... I had a vision that orgasmic women could transform the world."

Ever since the '60s, sexologists, sexual liberals, and sex-industry entrepreneurs have sought to discuss sex as if it were entirely separate from sexual violence and had no connection with the oppression of women. Feminist theorists and anti-violence activists, meanwhile, have learned to look at sex politically. We have seen that male ownership of women's bodies, sexually and reproductively, provides the very foundation of male supremacy, and that oppression in and through sexuality differentiates the oppression of women from that of other groups.

If we are to have any chance of liberating women from the fear and reality of sexual abuse, feminist discussion of sexuality must integrate all that we can understand about sexual violence into the way we think about sex. But these days feminist conferences have separate workshops, in different parts of the building, on how to increase sexual "pleasure" and on how to survive sexual violence -- as if these phenomena could be put into separate boxes. Women calling themselves feminists now argue that prostitution can be good for women, to express their "sexuality" and make empowering life choices...>

and so on.

like i say: the sex-positive movement i know best in no way separates the reality of sexual violence from the desirability of autonomy and pleasure. while it is true that often a larger political context is missing from the most popular faces of "sex-pos culture," and it is also true that (i think) it often tends to not be especially survivor-friendly; honestly, the only little boxes i can see are the ones in SJ's (and those who think like her, or in ideologocially parallel ways) obsessive little mind(s).
 
Hello. Thank you. Yeah, I have often thought at DOTBB's or even IBTP (we all know the infamous lines by now) excuse me, did I ask to have an image like this thrust in my virtual face? No, I did not.

(I guess I drew the same distinction over at your place.) When I'm in safe space, I tend to be much more concerned with language and much more careful with my own use. I think that discomfort is sort of the point, and that in-depth discussions of sex will tend to be graphic. However, it seems as though this language is used to shut down discussion or to confound useful distinctions between the body and what it might or might not be doing.

...Wow.

It sounds as though her problem with sex therapy--although it doesn't seem as though surrogacy is part of her target--has to do with the patriarchal model of normal healthy sexuality that it enforces, yes?

This state of innocence and acceptance of the sexual-liberation agenda lasted until feminists began to work on the problem of men's sexual violence to women. Starting with rape, feminists dragged into the public arena plentiful evidence that sex was not an unproblematic joy for women. The result of uncovering the huge but hidden amount of abuse that women and girl children suffered in the form of sexual harassment, sexual abuse in childhood and marital rape, was that the sexual-liberation agenda had to be submitted to critical scrutiny. Not only was sex not always a positive good, but it looked as if women's fabled sexual repression and ignorance, and the double standard, were not the only culprits in preventing women from having a wonderful and abandoned time in bed. When women and girls experienced throughout life such systematic sexual aggression from men it was realistic and reasonable for women to be resistant to and suspicious of male sexuality. The focus moved away from women as the problem to a critique of male sexual behavior and an analysis of the ways in which men's sexual violence sustained their power.
 
...or here, specifically wrt lesbian/queer sex-pos:

>As a result, a small number of women who have had lifetimes of abuse and learned their sexuality in the sex industry serving men are now able, often with backing from male sex industrialists, to promote themselves as sex educators in the lesbian and feminist communities. Some of these high-profile women -- who are hardly representative of most victims of the sex industry -- have managed to set up sex magazines such as On Our Backs (for practitioners of lesbian sadomasochism) and stripping and pornography businesses. Many women have mistakenly accepted these formerly prostituted women as "sex experts." Annie Sprinkle and Carol Leigh, for instance, have recirculated into women's communities the woman-hating practices of the sex industry. These women have led the derisive laughter directed at those of us who have said that sex can and must be different.>

Again: okay, show us this mystical magical "different" sex of which you speak. Lead us to the promised land!

-crickets-

No, really; i want to know what SJ's vision of bliss entails. How exactly one gets from rageragerage sneersneersneer Spinster and her Enemies (note that the Enemies is at least as important as the Spinster) to this utopian new unpatriarchal sexuality. I mean, specifically. A map, a blueprint. Something. *Anything.*

because apparently *nothing* is acceptable, from (often far more feminist) neo-Reichian bodywork to sex toys in lesbian sex to *any* hetsex to gaymalesex to transvestism to women-written- women-prudced women-aimed erotica/porn. *Nothing.* *It's not good enough.*

Seriously, I want to know. How exactly do you get from SQUASH to ecstasy? Because in my world it's only been through constant experimentation and discovery, and the given permission to fuck up, and try something different when something isn't working.

apparently SJ has a totally different way of going about things.

which, if it works, then, o.k.; just, share with the class already.

because you know, if it looks anything like what i've seen at IBTP (again, big SJ fan)--masturbatory outrage and disgust sessions punctuated by the occasional "criticism" session--count me out.
 
Uhm, if I were a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I might well _demand_ some formal separation between discussions of my sexual development and other women's. I might want protection from insensitive bullshit and space to back away from anything I didn't find comfortable. I might also want to draw in women like me, so that I could talk about myself without having to explain myself. I might also worry about serving my need for caution and some other woman's need to speak candidly about sleeping around. Separate space for workshops in general is how moderators keep them from devolving into verbal mudpits--or snakepits.

What is she on, anyway?
 
>It sounds as though her problem with sex therapy--although it doesn't seem as though surrogacy is part of her target--has to do with the patriarchal model of normal healthy sexuality that it enforces, yes?>

Probably. anyway i rather think surrogacy is indeed on the Verboten list, although i don't have concrete evidence right now.

you also know about Janice Raymond's rantage against various forms of reproductive technology, right?

anyhoo, yes, there is certainly much to complain about wrt Reich himself in terms of heteronormativity--he was, i believe, homophobic (again, product of his day), and yes, the almighty penis blahblah.

what's striking here of course is that she positions such people as Annie Sprinkle (who is these days pretty much all about the wimmin-loving and sacred tantric sex) as tainted, also. again: it's never good enough.

i wonder if she ever mentions Betty Dodson. i expect she's all wrong too on account of she let men into her workshops and (gasp!) sleeps with 'em herself.
 
Well, Singer's mom's nurse aside, I'm not sure there is a way for Jeffries to have sex in keeping with her political vision. If Lesbian Bedtime Stories succumbs to pornographic convention, we're all...fucked.
 
you also know about Janice Raymond's rantage against various forms of reproductive technology, right?

Yes. Nancy Nangeroni uses it as evidence that her transphobia needs better context. I'm sure she's making a more subtle point than, "You see, she's off her rocker about many more things than transsexuals!" but I for the life of me cannot make it out.

what's striking here of course is that she positions such people as Annie Sprinkle (who is these days pretty much all about the wimmin-loving and sacred tantric sex) as tainted, also. again: it's never good enough.

I should blog about her and Les. She's got some issues.

Like I said, I'm not sure there _is_ a way for a woman to sexually inhabit her body, any more than there's a way for a transsexual to identify with a gender, in keeping with her political understanding of the pervasiveness of patriarchy.
 
>Uhm, if I were a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, I might well _demand_ some formal separation between discussions of my sexual development and other women's. I might want protection from insensitive bullshit and space to back away from anything I didn't find comfortable. I might also want to draw in women like me, so that I could talk about myself without having to explain myself. I might also worry about serving my need for caution and some other woman's need to speak candidly about sleeping around. Separate space for workshops in general is how moderators keep them from devolving into verbal mudpits--or snakepits.

Well--I keep going back to Body Electric as my template--but, again, there are structures in which to have people of all kinds of experiences in the same room and still keep the space "safe;" I've been in them. Survivors of all sorts, people who'd gone through debilitating diseases, sex workers, virgins, and people who were just mostly curious and exploring. Because the circle was all about healing. I have met a couple of people who weren't crazy about BE because it was too tame for them or didn't suit their particular needs; i have never yet (after about a dozen workshops) encountered someone who found it to cause more harm. although it is true that it's powerful work that stirs up old shit; and sometimes people need to come back two or three times before they're able to fully participate.

thing is--they many of them do come back.

Of course, BE was developed by gay men, so I'm sure that's no good either.

and frankly i expect that that particular complaint of SJ's is not terribly important; if it weren't that, she would (and has) just find something else.


>What is she on, anyway?

Excellent question. I'm thinking congealed rage, myself. Colder, but lasts longer.
 
>I should blog about her and Les. She's got some issues.

Yeah, I'm curious about that. I will say that her squeaky voice always did kind of give me the wig, esp. in combination with the XXX-treme pr0n! she keeps narrating.

(as I understand it, she wasn't a survivor of overt physical or sexual abuse; am i wrong about this? she talks about herself as having been extremely, painfully shy. i know this is true of Carol Queen, who also talks about the harm of growing up with extremely sex-negative, frozen parents).

I still think that her path, as with P. Califia, fucked up as I'm sure they may well still be in many respects, is/has been ultimately a more courageous and healing one than the one of staying stuck fast (in ideology or otherwise).

some people may just have too far to go in this lifetime.
 
>Yes. Nancy Nangeroni uses it as evidence that her transphobia needs better context. I'm sure she's making a more subtle point than, "You see, she's off her rocker about many more things than transsexuals!" but I for the life of me cannot make it out.

wait, are you saying she (Nancy?) needs a more subtle point than "you see, she's off her rocker about many more things"?

'cause you know, i get that ad hom=badbad;

but i also tend to follow the wisdom of an old childhood friend's mom wrt her fuckwit husband whenever he made a particularly assy remark:

"Consider the source."
 
and frankly i expect that that particular complaint of SJ's is not terribly important; if it weren't that, she would (and has) just find something else.

Yup. Julia Serano made that point when discussing anti-trans arguments and how none of them have any value--or any internal consistency, or any adherence in other contexts--except as ways to keep transwomen out. It's not the individual points, but the line they describe.
 
I mean that I get the sense that Nancy is making a point for a general political stance against cosmetic and reproductive technology: Raymond is very very afraid of what medicine has done to women's bodies, and sees transwomanhood as a proxy extension of that ethos.

In other words, she doesn't limit her argument to transwomen, and is at least arguably consistent.
 
>Well, Singer's mom's nurse aside, I'm not sure there is a way for Jeffries to have sex in keeping with her political vision

--ooh. I don't know this story. dish!
 
Well--I keep going back to Body Electric as my template--but, again, there are structures in which to have people of all kinds of experiences in the same room and still keep the space "safe;" I've been in them. Survivors of all sorts, people who'd gone through debilitating diseases, sex workers, virgins, and people who were just mostly curious and exploring. Because the circle was all about healing. I have met a couple of people who weren't crazy about BE because it was too tame for them or didn't suit their particular needs; i have never yet (after about a dozen workshops) encountered someone who found it to cause more harm. although it is true that it's powerful work that stirs up old shit; and sometimes people need to come back two or three times before they're able to fully participate.

These are good points. I think my problem with her argument is that separation is politically dubious. It's an organizational tactic that keeps workshops from running over. For the luvagod.

You know, I should look into that. Not that I'm desperately in need of sexual healing, but it would be nice to start thinking of community explorations of all of this stuff again. As a transperson, I've been so frequently forced into scenarios in which I'm the damaged one in need of validation by some kind, selfless (inevitably cissexual) lovah that I have very little patience for the support 'n' play model.
 
>I mean that I get the sense that Nancy is making a point for a general political stance against cosmetic and reproductive technology:

o i see. wasn't that familiar with NN's positions on such. weird. shrug.

btw: is it Jeffreys or Jeffries? I keep seeing it as both, even on booksellers' lists.
 
>These are good points. I think my problem with her argument is that separation is politically dubious. It's an organizational tactic that keeps workshops from running over. For the luvagod.

o well yeah; like i said, i think that's completely flimsy and bogus. if it weren't that way she'd be saying how awful it is that survivors are being lumped in willy-nilly with these good-time gals and traumatized all over again.

per BE: yeah, I feel like some sort of cheerleader, but honestly, i've gotten so much out of it. i think few people wouldn't, really. even in the "basics" workshops: stuff you'd really be surprised about. little surprises all the time.

one thing: if you do go, i recommend taking a residential workshop if possible (Wildwood in CA, which i've heard is lovely; Easton Mountain in NY, which is a wonderful experience. there are probably more options for men). it can be jarring to leave the space and go back out into traffic or whatever it is, i've found.

another thing is that at the moment, their language is not terribly TG-friendly. i know they are working on redesigning their "two-spirits" (i.e. men and women) as more gender-inclusive (and also ditching the title which has been criticized as appropriating from NA, I *think.* i could be wrong about that).

but there have been gender-fluid folks, albeit still ID'ing as women at least part-time, as well as TG women, in the womens' workshops.

i can't speak to the men's workshops, but i expect they'd be open to anyone ID'ing as male. talk to the local coordinator (you do that anyway before signing; they want to know why you're taking it and so forth).

actually the (poly-gendered) BDSM workshop was pretty cool, even if, again, rather basic in terms of actual technique.
 
--ooh. I don't know this story. dish!

It's not juicy gossip about SJ. I'm not sure there is any. I'm talking about Peter Singer, who has openly supported euthanasia for disabled people on either end of life. He makes some extremely dubious quality of life arguments--they seem to have been mollified a little bit by contact with disabled people, such that he no longer advocates euthanasia for newborn hemophiliacs.

His argument, more or less, is that we can keep so many other people alive with these resources that it's irresponsible to squander them on someone who can't *really* enjoy life. It's also irresponsible to burden their parents (or children, or society) with their care.

Anyway, come to find out that his mom is suffering from late-stage Alzheimers and various other health problems. I'm pretty sure she requires round-the-clock assistance. He is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars paying for medical and nursing care, because she's a sick old lady and his mother and he loves her and feels responsible and wants her to be safe and comfortable.

When someone pointed out that it was a wee bit inconsistent to advocate Spartan population control in public and demonstrate such filial tenderness at home--towards someone who is by his measure a non-person--he said something along the lines of, "Well. Um. I guess it's...complicated."

The TNR writer who wrote an article about this said that it boggled the mind that a philosopher and tenured professor of ethics at Princeton university was just starting to figure out that these questions of life and death were, y'know, complicated.

Here's the article:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~berkowit/otherpeoplesmothers.htm
 
anyway, their website:

www.bodyelectric.org (pretty straightforward)

if you do go, lemme know; i think i -might- still have a graduate's sign-a-friend discount (for you, i mean)
 
I mean that I get the sense that Nancy is making a point for a general political stance against cosmetic and reproductive technology:

I mean, on Raymond's part. NN is a transwoman herself; I don't think she agrees.

Here's the essay:

http://www.gendertalk.com/comment/political/sucking.shtml
 
ohhh, right, i gotcha. here i was imagining all kinds of scenarios with SJ and Singer's nurse.

oddly intertwined with the scene wherein Garp's (asexual, feminist) mother, while a nurse, impregnates herself by basically raping one of her semi-conscious war vet patients in "World According to Garp."
 
Yeah, anyway, the point I was making about Singer--fascinating guy, isn't he?--is that Jeffries' (sp? I'll check) sex life might occupy the same space as his family life.

Have we just totally derailed this thread, or what?
 
gotcha again. yeah I knew that NN was a transwoman, which is why i was like: really? she has a problem with reproductive tech? well...huh, it takes all kinds i guess...

there used to be a (very femmey, possibly gender-fluid) guy who ran a lamp store down the Village who was very very big on cloning. (no, he didn't mean Chelsea). don't know why. he was HIV positive; i don't know if there's any connection (rather cranklike) political stuff about both the cause of AIDS and cloning. strange guy. nice lamps, though.
 
oh, we left the tracks looooonng since. choo! choo!
 
I get a little edgy whenever the socially redeeming value of some form of entertainment is discussed. That sort of criteria tends to permit some lousy art, and to denigrate some wonderful art.

Nothing to add to this, save to note that it's wise and true, and worth repeating.
 
oh well and speaking of Singer, i forget where i was noting, i guess more on the (to me) ironic disconnect between TF's position on sex (distasteful and base at best) and her position on food (sublime, a delight). meat-eating included.

'cause, i was saying, wuz looking at a Singer-devotee board which had an eerily familiar feel in words, if not actual tune:

"Oh come on, it's not *that* hard to stop eating meat and dairy! You're just selfish and deluded. You and your decadent *gourmet* pleasures! And stop making fun of us. Clearly you're only so defensive because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!1!!!1! and feel guilty. as well you should."
 
and then there is Carol Adams, whose radical feminism very much connects meat-eating with objectification of women.

and just so we cover all the bases, i belong to a mailing list run by sort of A-list lesbians, i guess. they list all the hippest parties (sexy and otherwise), and design clothes; and they also are PETA supporters. and just now have come out enthusiastically supporting something or other called "skinny bitches."

they grate.
 
and just now have come out enthusiastically supporting something or other called "skinny bitches."

I blogged about that! It scared the crap out of me!

Here:

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/05/10/at-risk/
 
oy. are comments closed for that entry?...oh, yeah, i guess so, it's from May.

yeah exactly.

what fucks me up is i know i am TOTALLY vulnerable to that all-or-nothing thing, for my own wacky reasons, even as i am aware of it, work with it, try not to just lose my shit from sheer exasperation at unpicking the Gordian know.

gah.

also reminds me of the raw-foodists. stop eating cooked foods! eat "naturally," the way they did in the primoridal past, before they invented fire! you'll probably need a dehydrator and a food processor to make it (arguably) palatable, not to mention oodles of spare time, but c'mon! Back to nature, baybee!
 
what fucks me up is i know i am TOTALLY vulnerable to that all-or-nothing thing, for my own wacky reasons, even as i am aware of it, work with it, try not to just lose my shit from sheer exasperation at unpicking the Gordian know.

Yup! Same here! And I can't tell whether their purism is obliviousness or a cynical ploy. Messed up either way.

And hee.
 
hi piny! it is nice to see you here. I am honored.

how much do y'all wanna bet that if I actually posted anything transgendered-related, all-a-y'all would wind up talking about baseball or shopping or food...
 
I'm always overjoyed to see you over at feministe.

how much do y'all wanna bet that if I actually posted anything transgendered-related, all-a-y'all would wind up talking about baseball or shopping or food...

Probably. That doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate it, though. But: potential value of porn: discuss.
 
another thing is that at the moment, their language is not terribly TG-friendly. i know they are working on redesigning their "two-spirits" (i.e. men and women) as more gender-inclusive (and also ditching the title which has been criticized as appropriating from NA, I *think.* i could be wrong about that).

Yeah, their website doesn't mention us at all. I also see references to "all genders" paired with nothing but "men and women" and references to "male and female energy" that I have a _lot_ of trouble accepting with an open mind. It also doesn't look like they have any transpeople on staff.

Maybe I can send a letter expressing polite interest but confusion about their utter lack of inclusive language. I can ask whether I'd be welcome or not. Always fun to make progressives feel defensive.

Muahaha. Muahahahaha.
 
But: potential value of porn: discuss.

psst - other thread...this is the "discussion-of-sexual-experience-baby" vs "pornography-bathwater" thread. (lol)
 
psst - other thread...this is the "discussion-of-sexual-experience-baby" vs "pornography-bathwater" thread. (lol)

*cough* Don't mind me.

I should probably make this into a blog entry, but what about people who have needed sexual role-modelling in order to get back into their bodies? I needed frank discussion--in literature, primarily--about trans sexuality in order to know from trans sexuality that wasn't objectifying or grotesque.
 
Alex Jade id's as gender-fluid, i believe. but yeah. please do send them the polite letter. better yet: phone.

i have my own issues wrt a couple things viz women's stuff vs. men's stuff in the mixed workshops. thanks for reminding me; i owe them a note myself
 
>I should probably make this into a blog entry, but what about people who have needed sexual role-modelling in order to get back into their bodies?

Yeah, exactly. I'm pretty sure that the wealth of information on the Internet (some better than others) as well as erotica (mostly text-y back in the day in that my computer wasn't sophisticated enough to download pictures) was what helped me to (finally) come out. i expect i would've gotten there sooner or later; but most likely much later, knowing myself and the way i tend to go about things.
 
back to BE: how binary any given workshop is depends largely on who's running it, i've found.

the basic Two-Spirits i founds least interesting in that regard: it is basically about men/women. although it was definitely a learning experience for me.

the advanced mixed it up a lot more.

but yeah: because in fact the energy work they do *should* be very much not needing gendered bodies of any particular configuration to make it work, and they go out of their way to say so. at the same time: words mean things, yes.

yin/yang or giving/receiving more consistently would be better.

hell, even butch-femme, in some cases.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
thing about your posit here, antip, is that one person's damaging and hurtful may very well be someone else's healing and transformative.

can i just observe here what a strange metaphor the "baby with the bathwater" thing really is? when you stop and think about it. seriously, where'd that one come from?

particularly in this context, a tad jarring...
 
Back to SJ for just a mo':

>This state of innocence and acceptance of the sexual-liberation agenda lasted until feminists began to work on the problem of men's sexual violence to women. Starting with rape, feminists dragged into the public arena plentiful evidence that sex was not an unproblematic joy for women. The result of uncovering the huge but hidden amount of abuse that women and girl children suffered ...>

You know, you'd think from the way some people talk that men and boy children are never sexually abused.

Certainly it's not an unproblematic joy for scads of men, either.

speaking of overly binary.
 
>One could probably argue that, if there was no such thing as porn, women would not have such experiences.

One could, but one would look extremely silly.
 
There is also, btw, a book by Staci Haines (which i found useful myself) entitled "The Survivor's Guide to Sex."

http://www.cleispress.com/book_page.php?book_id=86

and an instructional (not graphically sexual, more like boundary and communication/assertion exercises) DVD entitled "Healing Sex."

http://www.healingsexthemovie.com/media.html

I wonder if either of those would be okay with SJ, or if she'd find some other reason to bitch about how they just reinforce patriarchy or some goddam thing.

probably; here, i can do it myself by now, i'll bet:

"'empowered' sexuality," sneer. published by a publishing house that also publishes nasty patriarchal-type porn-tainted authors, double-sneer. movie produced by lesbian pornographers, Dick Cheney-worthy sneer. and of course it utterly fails to put it into the broader context of how the Patriarchy (tm) really works. no thank YOU.
 
btw, antip: was just checking my sitemeter and a keyword trackback took me here:

http://www.scarleteen.com/forum/Forum8/HTML/000006-6.html

same debate, slightly different participant makeup; you might be interested.

(the keyword was "anti-pornstitution;" surprise, genderberg'd stopped in there for a drive-by).
 
"In all the anti-porn arguments, I have yet to hear, and I am yearning to hear, anyone address the issue of where porn (that which is to be discarded, abandoned, ignored, forsworn, banned, burned, whatever) stops, and useful information (that which is to be kept, saved, protected, expanded upon, made widely available, whatever) begins.

Anti-porn feminist into the fray....

At the current time this is an impossible question to answer.

The fact that the female body now = sex makes any deliniation between porn and useful information irrelevant because, in any 'useful information' the female body is reduced to sex by a pornified culture.

I'm not talking "okay for me" nor am I talking 'personal experience'. What I'm saying is that pornography has done a total Farenheight 451 on human sexuality so that everything is what they want us to think.
 
Including gay male porn?
 
C'est tres interesting, because WW's answer is the standard one that I've mentioned Sam gave on the old VS "antidote" endless thread. ie, that we'll only know an appropriate sexual expression After The Revolution, and otherwise its up to us to discover it in private for ourselves.
 
In other words, there is no baby, only bathwater.
 
Hi Witchy - thanks for stopping by.

The fact that the female body now = sex makes any deliniation between porn and useful information irrelevant because, in any 'useful information' the female body is reduced to sex by a pornified culture.

It does occur to me, inspired by your comments, that maybe we're born knowing what to do sexually and don't need any sort of instruction manual or illustrated guide or helpful hints, but over time society has TOLD us we need some sort of help and so we believe we do.

However, I get the sense that what you're telling me is that any content focusing on women and their sexual activity is so hopelessly infected and corrupt that no body of work with such content can help but be pornographic.

This does not do much to comfort me. I start to see the pyre building and matches lit. I start panicking and wanting to defend individual works and wanting to defend myself, which makes it hard to listen.

I'm not trying to clap my hands over my ears and scream "LALALALALA!" while you're talking. I'm really trying hard to focus and take in the meaning of what you say. And it's not your fault I'm having a hard time with it.

But I'm not yet convinced that a world without documentation of this human experience (female sexual experiences) is a better one.

I fear then that just mentioning the fact (via the written word) that women have sexual experiences at all could be considered Pornographic - but I think that information on female sexual functioning is Very Useful Information.

Is it only Useful Information if it is accompanied by a medical diagram?

Information on healthy (and pleasurable) sexual experiences is important - without it, how would you know if there's something amiss? (I don't mean "healthy" in a restrictive "if you like this or don't like that you're sick" sense. I just mean "healthy" as in "everything in working order" sense.)

And what does this do to "where babies come from"-type literature? If it discusses female sexual functioning, is it automatically contaminated and therefore undesirable?

(won't someone think of the children? lol)

See, I'm still pretty sure there's plenty of baby in the bathwater. (@ BD - you're right...eeew...what does that mean?)
 
>up to us to discover it in private for ourselves.

There's more than one reason why "Silence=Death" was the old ACT-UP slogan. it's not just about physical disease.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Funny you should ask. Have you asked those same questions of some of your allies? If the endless "criticism" and interrogation and sniping sessions had been limited to the porn *industry,* I seriously doubt antip would have this blog at all; or not in this form. Look closer.

or, you know, don't.
 
Hi Phemisaurus! Welcome!

I checked out your blog - dig your art.

Is it all an intellectual exercise to you?

(I suppose if I were smart enough to consider myself "intellectual", maybe I'd feel that way... ;) )

Since when is feminism about singling out a small group of people and criticising them incessantly?

As any member of the transgendered community can tell you, feminism is occasionally about singling out a small group of people and criticizing them incessantly.

As any member of the BDSM community can tell you, feminism is occasionally about singling out a small group of people and criticizing them incessantly.

Some critiques by feminism of other small groups are really spot-on and accurate and thought provoking. Some other critiques are based on inaccurate stereotypes and faulty reasoning. Either way, course examining critiques and considering other points of view help us all to grow and develop.

So critique is good. And I'm glad to have you here. Thank you for adding your voice.
 
Either way, course examining critiques and

should read - "either way, of course, examining critiques and", etc.
 
Since when is feminism about singling out a small group of people and criticising them incessantly? Is it all an intellectual exercise to you?

Whoa.

I can only assume that you are referring to AP and the content of her post, but I find this comment verrrry amusing and telling, because... well, AP isn't "ingling out a small group of people and criticising them incessantly" - she is defending herself against people who do exactly that to her and those who share her views. When people are backed into a corner and their views are misrepresented, they tend to want to defend and explain themselves, ya know? And AP does that with a lot more grace and patience that some of us have the time for; she should get mondo kudos from anyone who's actually interested in feminist dialogue, regardless of whether they agree with her viewpoints or not.
 
(blush) @ amber

It occurs to me I really didn't do justice to Phemisaurus' very legitimate questions:

So, what is your point? No really, what exactly is the matter? Which exact societal phenomenon are you opposing?

One point is in response to Amy's post re sexual content in written media - she seems to be saying to avoid it, all of it, whether pornographic or erotic, because even at its best it's invasive and destroys intimacy.

At least that's what I think she's saying.

One of my points is that I disagree with her, and think that some of this sexually oriented written material contains useful information.

What is the matter? the matter is that I get very nervous and tend to become defensive and overreact when I hear that one or another genre of creative work ought to be avoided or discouraged - my mind's eye leaps to giant bonfires of books, the idea of which scares me tremendously. I can't seem to help feeling this way, and was looking for some way to get through that so I could be better able to understand the antiporn feminist point of view.

The societal phenomena I'm opposing? Restriction of written communication in the assumed service of safety. Assuming that all material of a sexual nature is poisoned by patriarchy.

It doesn't mean I love love love Hustler or want to read nothing but porn all the time. Although I can sort of see why someone might think that.
 
It doesn't mean I love love love Hustler or want to read nothing but porn all the time. Although I can sort of see why someone might think that.

I think that mindset is downright ignorant - but then, I know I'm a little less tolerant of these types of things than you are, AP. I mean, if someone says they like sci-fi, do people automatically assume that they like nothing but sci-fi? That they want to spend their entire day reading and watching sci-fi? That they like all varieties of sci-fi? Of course not, because that's ridiculous. I don't see why porn is any different.
 
It doesn't mean I love love love Hustler or want to read nothing but porn all the time. Although I can sort of see why someone might think that.

I think that mindset is downright ignorant - but then, I know I'm a little less tolerant of these types of things than you are, AP. I mean, if someone says they like sci-fi, do people automatically assume that they like nothing but sci-fi? That they want to spend their entire day reading and watching sci-fi? That they like all varieties of sci-fi? Of course not, because that's ridiculous. I don't see why porn is any different.
 
>I think that mindset is downright ignorant - but then, I know I'm a little less tolerant of these types of things than you are, AP.

'fraid I concur.

especially when it comes from people who are themselves going on and on about how angry they are at being misrepresented, objectified, sneered at.

yes, you would think that if you were patient and tolerant enough with such folks when they turn around and do it to you, turning the other cheek and explaining, kindly and clearly, why they're hurting you, that they would get it.

And a fair amount of people do, in fact.

and some people might not even need that level of spelling it out.

but some people never will get it.

I just learned this lesson again the hard way this past week, btw; someone i had admired very much (IRL) and had sought out as a spiritual and nurturing mentor--she certainly had presented herself as such, and she certainly has the credentials--revealed, as I saw it anyway, her true colors.

or rather; they were actually there; it's just that for a number of reasons, some probably better than others, for a while now, i wasn't letting myself see them.

I could've accepted her attempt to put me back in my place, could've taken her harshness and lack of generosity, her self-absorption, her lack of warmth, her *unseeingness*, on board; could've kept rationalizing oh, she's still in shock herself from a recent death; she probably didn't *really* mean such and so; she this, she that.

Fuck that.

i deserved better. And I told her so. rather eloquently if i may say so. not abusively. not attacking. just: you know what, no. this was not on.

and then I put her email address into the junkfile, in the unlikely event that she does reply. there's nothing more to be said.

And then I made my own closure with the other people in the group.

yesterday i was teary and shaking and on the whole going back to very old places.

but i did what i did, i called my friends and my therapist and i asked for--and got--the nurturing and validation that i needed. i ate, i slept. (i finally got my goddam period). i played music. *I took care of myself.*

Today i feel like a window opened and i'm swimming in the clear blue sea.

Years ago, it would've been completely different. This has taken a lot of work. And it frankly sucks to have had to learn this lesson again at the hands of someone i thought was going to be helping me continue on that path of healing. Well in a way i suppose she did. (i told her that as well).

Bottom line:

You can't get water from a dry well.

But that doesn't mean you don't deserve or need the water; it just means you accept that that well is dry and go to other sources.

The water is there.

A whole sea's worth.
 
>But that doesn't mean you don't deserve or need the water; it just means you accept that that well is dry and go to other sources.

The water is there.

A whole sea's worth.<

BD, that made me a little teary. Well said.
 
thank you.

believe me, I'm needing to remind myself of that as much as anyone else.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Jesus Christ. well, there you go: as I was saying.

turn the other cheek, some people just slap you harder.

you know, antip has a policy against outright flaming.

I am honoring it.

Barely.
 
Oh, sorry AntiPrincess. Please rest assured that I wasn't calling you an intellectual (that's not to say that intellectuals can't be stupid too).

funny!
 
You know, after having looked at PT's blog, I am sensing a theme here.

Here's a question. If you've been dating abusive assholes? Didja ever stop to consider that just maybe the problem might not be so much with the porn they watch or the women who also say they like porn as, you know, the actual abusive assholes?

whatever. god, how much do i love me some hetrad feminists. nobody really likes anal sex! certainly no men do! riiiiiight.
 
for that matter: that maybe there might be some other way to deal with a personal pattern of encountering abusive assholes besides deciding, "oh, of course! this is how the ENTIRE WORLD WORKS. what a relief! ideology solves everything! now clearly, anyone who says they have a different experience from mine is PART OF THE PLOT AGAINST ME."
 
better yet: become an abusive asshole in your very own right! go flame women who haven't flamed you! who have their own stories of abuse! and who've gone out of their way to be courteous to you even in the face of your rudeness! it's all right! you're a FEMINIST. clearly this person is an ANTI-FEMINIST. therefore, go crazy, baby. go you, feminist avenger! POWER to the PEOPLE! w00t.
 
i mean, clearly it's all just a game, to antip; obviously she wouldn't have written about her own experiences at the hands of abusive men *and* women, repeatedly and rather nakedly, were it not for her need to undermine Twoo Feminists.
 
were it not for her need to undermine Twoo Feminists.

alas, my secret plan exposed.

curses - foiled again!
 
and, toots? Just so my own position is perfectly clear here:

I don't ultimately give a flying rat's arse about most porn, of itself.

I do give a flying rat's arse about freedom of expression, yes, which is pretty much what we were talking about (politely, and sensibly, till you tromped in on your little plastic feet). And about the people who blithely would throw it all away in the name of some sort of dubious "safety."

I think that might be a tad too complex, though. Primarily, what I care about here is: you are being nasty to my friend. Undeservedly. That makes me cranky. My friend, for her own honorable reasons, does not genearlly meet nastiness with nastiness of her own. That is her right. But that is also making me cranky. Because if were it me, believe me, I would have told you in no uncertain terms exactly what you could do with your little toy dinosaurs.
 
Don't be shy, Belledame - tell us how you really feel...
 
As wildly hypersensitive as I am, I didn't take offense at Phemisaurus' comment. I thought she was playing a little rough, maybe, but she's a tyrranosaurus rex - whaddaya expect?

I feel like maybe I should scold you a little, bd, for losing your shit and being snide, but that would make me look pretty silly considering you were speaking up for me at the time.

So, Phemisaurus and Belledame - consider yourself both soundly finger-wagged and scolded. Scolded! scolded within an inch of your lives!

But not silenced. I really want to hear what EVERYONE has to say, even if I don't always agree with it.

anyone want to talk about a re-imagined literature of female sexual experience? anyone?
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
oh, Phemisaurus - you totally have the wrong idea about me skinwise.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
green but slimy. like a frog.
 
Oh, sorry AntiPrincess. Please rest assured that I wasn't calling you an intellectual (that's not to say that intellectuals can't be stupid too).

WTF is that bullshit?
 
apparently not our problem.
 
you guys - seriously - it's totally okay.
 
If I was hurt, don't you think I'd let you know?

I know from hurt. I have a Ph.D. in Hurtology. I am the Empress of Hurtlandia.

but that particular remark didn't hurt.
 
fair enough.
 
as for me: that was not "losing my shit."

i know from losing my shit.

trust me. that wasn't it.
 
belledame - that's true. I've seen you lose your shit and this probably doesn't even rate.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
you know what: never mind.
 
Oh, sorry AntiPrincess. Please rest assured that I wasn't calling you an intellectual (that's not to say that intellectuals can't be stupid too).

Dude, is there some feminist purpose to this comment that I'm missing here?

In other news:

I could've accepted her attempt to put me back in my place, could've taken her harshness and lack of generosity, her self-absorption, her lack of warmth, her *unseeingness*, on board; could've kept rationalizing oh, she's still in shock herself from a recent death; she probably didn't *really* mean such and so; she this, she that.

Fuck that.

i deserved better. And I told her so. rather eloquently if i may say so. not abusively. not attacking. just: you know what, no. this was not on.


Good for you. I've been fairly lucky in my friendships. Most of the time, when I've had to teach myself to stop caring what someone thought, that person has been an enemy. But I have encountered personalities like this before.

Finally, going waaaaayyy back to the original point, are there any authors anyone can think of who might have managed this? Dorothy Allison comes to mind right away--and then there's Audre Lorde.
 
Yes, Dorothy Allison is a great example. Lorde, too. I think Aura Bogado had a good piece that I'd wanted to quote for something or other.

Per person in question: yeah, generally I've been lucky (or whatever it is) with friends, too; and usually faster about spotting this sort of thing. This was sort of unusual for me in that i had sought this woman out as a mentor/spiritual advisor.

well, live and learn.
 
for that matter, i have links to a number of fine bloggers who talk in candid, original ways about their own sexual explorations in the other blog (Sense and Sensuality). I'm sure there are many many others.
 
I'd like to point out a very clear statement by Yawning Lion in a very recent post that I think captures the impasse quite nicely:

Why do you want, or not want, penetration to be part of your sex life? Where does that desire, or revulsion, come from? Do you still want to be bound by that preference? Are you interested in reprogramming your mind and body to respond to something else? Desires are not permanent: we can change what we want at any time for any reason - and sometimes we should.

"We can change what we want at any time for any reason." Hmm.
 
and here we are back around again to (apparently) unavoidable comparisons to things like Exodus or Love In Action.
 
Your desires may not be the Right Desires! And if not, it's your fault - for not being responsible enough, strong enough, committed enough to doctrine and the True Way...

Yeah, it has a certain familiar ring to it.
 
I assure you, my desires are not even close to "right".

but who decides what "right" is?
 
My question to YL, or anyone who thinks along these lines:

Why is it important to you what other people do or don't do in bed? Why do you feel the need to suggest other people "reprogram" themselves? Have you examined *that?*

I particularly love how all this is done in the name of we don't want any more power trips getting all mixed up in sexuality, mkay.

So apparently, power trips that *aren't* done in bed are just fine. Even if they're pretty much nonconsensual.
 
Well, BD, I guess irony is lost on some people.
 
minor hijack - I sometimes wonder how the antiporn movement compares to the temperance movement.
 
Sade is given a line in Marat/Sade that goes something like, "I am capable of anything, and everything fills me with horror."

This is what bothers me about Changing Your Desires and Fantasizing Responsibly. I think it was over at BD's place where we got to talking about the Shadow, and what a dreadful disservice you do yourself by pretending you have no darkness in you. It's not long before you run out of places to accomodate that darkness. (Note that "accomodating" is not the same as "indulging in." There's a balance somwhere between ignoring it and giving it free reign - a space you give yourself to give all the unpleasant things a chance to run around and play.) I'm convinced that stuff doesn't just dissipate; it finds some other place to seep into when you're not looking.

And there's a big difference between what you're capable of, what you would do, and what you will do. Trying to cull everything from the first category that isn't in the last one is - and I can think of no better word for it - inhuman.
 
I sometimes wonder how the antiporn movement compares to the temperance movement.

I find the parallels to be striking, not the least because they both came from very sincere and conscientious desires to make the world a Better Place.

And more and more, I'm coming to feel like using pornography might have a lot in common with having a round of whiskey (or a cigar, or a fast-food hamburger) once in a while - it's probably not exactly good for you, but it might well be preferable to making yourself nuts trying not to.
 
Dan: that's funny; I am about halfway through a post on the temperance movement & Carrie Nation, and how it may or may not relate to the "babes in bikinis" theme of modern beer ads.

i really should finish that one already...
 
dan and antip, i should say.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Wow.

How is it that all this discussion has been going on over here and I've only just learned of this blog?

I blame my teeth and recent dental fuckery/stress for my ignorance.

Nothing to safely add right now as I need to read and think, not sure I'm capable of that due again to throbbing dental woes and a poor night's sleep. I have some knee-jeck thoughts, but best to read everything before jumping in, I'm thinking.

Hope to stop by for a long read later on or this weekend.
 
D. I stand by my earlier assessment.

kaka mak: ouch! dentistry: Not Fun. Hope you feel better soon...
 
(is that a Siamese kitten??)
 
Phemisaurus - Earlier this week, you said something that other folks found really insulting. I made it clear that I found it funny and not insulting at all, and people should lay off you. I guess no good deed goes unpunished.

But you do bring up an interesting discussion here:

Q1. What does one call a person that says one thing on their own blog and behaves quite differently on other people's blogs?

A. Two-faced
B. Double-dealing
C. Duplicitous


It looks like you wish to engage in the time-honored and noble tradition of Calling Someone On Her Shit. Very well.

One could simply dismiss this by saying: "hey, my blog/my rules, their blog/their rules -- don't blame me for following the native customs of other people's blogs, however savage they may be!" but that doesn't really satisfy you or me.

If you are really concerned about something I said that seems inconsistent, there's ways you can do that which show you to be a perceptive and intelligent grownup, and ways you can do that which reveal you have all the emotional maturity of a disgruntled third-string JV cheerleader.

The grownup way is to do this:

"Antiprincess, on your blog you frequently say 'blahblahblah', but on OthyrBlog's comments you said "wubbawubbawubba'. This seems inconsistent to me and it would be really helpful if you'd address this."

you can even add a link to the conversation for added context and deeper understanding.

From there, I can say

"Oh, that was a typo - HA!"

or

"Oh, wow, you're right - that is inconsistent! Thanks for pointing that out. I'm grateful to you for bringing this to my attention and offering me another opportunity for growth."

or

"Oh, wow, that was a lapse in judgment. I am so sorry. What a big mistake. Is there anything I can do to make it right?"

or

"I was so drunk when I posted that! no more tequila for me! I'm never going to drink and post again!"

or

"you have me confused with someone else"

or

"hey - I stand by that and here's why..."

or whatever is the truth.

But it's unlikely you'll get a legitimate, thoughtful, true and complete answer unless you ask a legitimate, thoughtful, true and complete question.

I suspect (though I could be wrong) that you're not really interested in bringing an inconsistency to my attention and offering an opportunity for growth - I suspect that instead you're far more interested in making me look silly and engaging in non-consensual blogosphere humiliation. I mean, if you were really really concerned, the most grownup way to handle it would to email me privately. (I don't know if I have my email in my profile - I should make it available for just this purpose.) But then you'd miss out on a chance to punk me in public.

If you can tell me a little more about what specifically troubles you, I'd be happy to look at it. If you deserve an apology, you'll get one. If you deserve an explanation, you'll get one.

If you deserve a hefty dose of non-consensual blogosphere humiliation yourself, well...truly, I do not have the stomach for that.

But as you know, some people do.
 
Hi Kaka! Welcome!

your dentist post was triggering . but I couldn't stop reading.

I think we're almost neighbors IRL - or live close by, at any rate.
 
If you are really concerned about something I said that seems inconsistent, there's ways you can do that which show you to be a perceptive and intelligent grownup, and ways you can do that which reveal you have all the emotional maturity of a disgruntled third-string JV cheerleader.

This totally made my morning. Flawless victory!

You are my new Internets hero.
 
dan- I'd be the world's most disgusting liar if I claimed not to be well pleased and deeply flattered by your comment.

that said, maybe I should have put down the pompoms myself before commenting on Phemisaurus's assertions.

that said, I am really wondering what I said that tripped her trigger. It's totally not beyond the realm of possibility that I shot my mouth off in some egregious fashion, lost my shit on someone, took some unnecessary cheap shot...I'm only human, after all.

However, one should never attribute to malice what is more appropriately ascribed to ignorance.

Unfortunately, until someone brings to my attention the exact nature of the offense, I won't know whether the appropriate response is "yeah, wanna make something of it?" or "OMG what was I thinking?"
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
I'm not sure I follow.

are you saying that you were insulted by the antiporn movement-temperance movement comparison?

is there something inherently insulting about that?

The temperance movement was wide-ranging, well-executed, highly influential and, let's not forget, EFFECTIVE.

forgive me if I don't see how insulting I've been in that comparison.

And, as no one was talking (at least recently, as far as I know) about antiporn as a movement, there was really no context for me to interject such a statement without being guilty of hijacking.

So I still don't get it. But I want to.
 
You know, no one really knows for certain why the dinosaurs became extinct.

One thing's pretty universally agreed on, though: the whole brain-the-size-of-a-walnut thing? Didn't help.
 
I see many similarities between the temperance movement and the antiporn movement. Many many.

If one wants to argue that booze is just fine but porn isn't, one is welcome to try to make that case; but it's hardly a universally agreed-upon given, even now.
 
and I gotta say, of all the possible scenarios that I imagined might have set off that latest troll-by, that one didn't even cross my mind. Wacky!
 
as no one was talking ON OTHER BLOGS, I mean. so I didn't interject it on other blogs.

Hey - you're entitled to say "I find this insulting, and here's why." you'll get no argument from me if you state your case clearly.

but I don't feel hypocritical for NOT talking about something on someone else's blog.

as far as other people being responsible for my growth - well, I don't know as others are responsible, exactly, but I can't very well pick the spinach out of my teeth unless I know it's there. One way (though by no means the only way) to learn there's spinach in your teeth is to listen when someone tells you.

So I'm listening. what else ya got?
 
So, er, you're not supposed to say something unless you say it everywhere and to everyone you're in contact with?

This is new.
 
You know what I find curious: that there are any number of anti-anti-porn (or however you want to definie it) folks who've been far more and blatantly aggressive, even insulting, than antip, moi included (right here for example); and yet Stompy Avenger Chick only chooses to address/flame the one person who's been unfailingly polite to her.

Why's that, I wonder?
 
some folks think I'm an easy target because I'm not normally a raving bitch maybe?
 
Could be!

Whereas many people think that -I- am a raving bitch; but in fact I have a squishy little heart like marshmallow Peeps.

no, seriously.
 
and I gotta say, of all the possible scenarios that I imagined might have set off that latest troll-by, that one didn't even cross my mind. Wacky!

See, I'm not sure I even believe in "trolls". I think people feel strongly about stuff, and want to be heard. I feel the same way, often, and I work really hard to make sure I don't come off "trollish" when I disagree...some days I succeed, other days I fail, I imagine. I also think people get a charge out of trying to humiliate others - there's a recent thread at The Den in which someone quotes whole passages of Dworkin in the attempt to make her look silly. And the whole radfem world went "omg I hate it when people do that, that's just wrong, etc..."

So - Phemisaurus, I don't think you're deliberately trying to be cruel just to get your jollies. (because that would be WRONG.)I'd like to think you just want to be heard.

I hear you. I do. I just don't agree that my sin of omission (not bringing up a random thought I had on someone else's blog) amounts to the height of hypocrisy.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
Dear Person Who Plays With Toy Dinosaurs:

What the hell is your problem?

love,

binkie
 
No, Antiprincess, it is not your skin that is thick.

I never claimed to be smart. I miss stuff. I don't get stuff. I'm pretty average most days. I'm human. So are you.

what's your point?
 
I don't know why, but for some reason I keep thinking of the movie "Mars Attacks!"

You know:

"We come in peace. We are your friends."

ZAP!!

(screaming, chaos, then:)

"Do not run. We are your friends."

"Oh, whew! See, it *was* just a problem with communica--"

ZAP!!
 
but binkie - I can support playing with toy dinosaurs.

even grownups need opportunities for recreation, exploration, etc...and I think in this case it's not so much play as an opportunity for artistic expression.

but if it's play, that's totally ok too, for me.

;)
 
...and now I have "It's Not Unusual" stuck in my head.
 
I loved that movie.
 
Well, as long as the toy dinosaurs are consenting, that part is fine by me, of course.

It's the other bit I find kind of troublesome.
 
Is an insult only an insult if it's directed at you? Is is defensible to make statements like that about people who's blogs you visit and comment on? Unless you are happy to post that statement on those blogs, you are:

A. Two-faced
B. Double-dealing
C. Duplicitous


If the subject comes up, I might mention it. Depending on many factors, I might not. I might mention it in a way that shows basic human respect for others, even despite a disagreement. that is also a possibility.

Is it that you think I'm being fake-nice on other people's blogs, because I don't come out gunz-a-blazin at all times?

I don't like taking giant dumps on the carpet in other people's living rooms. I don't like to borrow trouble.

how does that make me stupid and hypocritical?
 
It *is* too bad, and perplexing, that someone who can be funny as hell on her own blog is apparently determined to just be random and abusive on other peoples'. Me, I just chalk it up to the wondrous complexity that is human nature.
 
it's a weird weird weird weird weird-ass world.
 
And another thing -

Is is defensible to make statements like that about people who's (sic) blogs you visit and comment on?

I visit a lot of blogs - but several of them don't allow me to comment anyway. Maybe I would have addressed this very issue, if I thought my comment could get through moderation!
 
Antip, you give yourself far too little credit. Whatever else you may be, average you ain't.

You are also, I think - and do smack me down if I'm out of line - being far too nice. From here, it looks like you're going out of your way to be accomodating to someone who seems determined to insult, belittle, and wound you. Where I come from, we call those people "abusers."

You got nothing to learn from this creep. Diplomacy is over; there's a dagger in that sleeve. Don't show your throat.
 
The funny thing about abusers, regardless of gender, orientation, method: they were, to a person, all once abused themselves.

That doesn't mean that all who were abused become abusers. Or are in any danger whatsoever of becoming so.

It also doesn't mean that it is necessary (I believe) to show infinite compassion to the abused-turned-abusers, even though it is what one might imagine one would like shown oneself, were the situation reversed.

One of these things is not like the other.

in other words: what dan said.
 
dear antip:

i like your blog. from what i've read, i like you.

i have yet to see spinach in your (cyber) teeth.

thank you and good day,
midwestern chick
 
Oh, make no mistake: I have a great deal of sympathy for monsters, knowing they were made by other monsters.

Not everyone bitten by a vampire becomes a vampire. For that, there has to be an exchange - you take some of their blood into yourself. But it should surprise no one when a newly-raised former victim starts looking for prey of their own.

The best defense against the undead, of course, is to not invite them in.
 
je ne regrette rien.

that said, I am rapidly running out of other cheeks to turn.
 
I *heart* BTVS references, and the people who make them.
 
Antip, I have to say that I admire you greatly. You are, in many ways, a better person than I.

Nonethless - it may be useful to note that you only have so many cheeks to turn before you're just taking it up the ass.
 
BD, I'm always more than happy to be your Whedonverse obref bitch.
 
hey, what's wrong with taking it up the ass?

:)
 
HA!
 
Nonethless - it may be useful to note that you only have so many cheeks to turn before you're just taking it up the ass.

aw Dan. you're a helluva guy to worry about my ass like you do. My ass thanks you.

but I'm with MWT re taking in in the ass. sexually, at least.

and if I were to smack you down, you'd hardly even feel it. it would be like a gazillion little dragonfly wings smaksmaksmaksmaksmak...

Seriously, I'm not the smackdown type. obviously.

But every so often I do lean a little too far over. It's helpful to be reminded periodically. Thanks.
 
"Do You Take It?"

http://www.cassking.com/wetspotsmusic/music-videos.html
 
hey, what's wrong with taking it up the ass?

Oh, I got nothing against that in principal. Only as an act of, wossname, nonconsensual domination.

Except explaining that right off's not as funny, see. :)
 
Hurrah, that's what I was searching for, what a data! present here at this website, thanks admin of this site.

Also visit my web page ... Abercrombie & Fitch
 
Why users still make use of to read news papers when in this technological world
everything is accessible on net?

Check out my weblog ... Louis Vuitton Outlet
 
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and
wished to say that I have really loved browsing your blog posts.
In any case I'll be subscribing for your rss feed and I'm hoping you write once
more soon!

Look at my homepage ... Wholesale Jerseys Cheap
 
Link exchange is nothing else but it is just placing the other person's web site link on your page at suitable place and other person will also do similar for you.

my weblog :: http://wealthwayonline.com
 
Every weekend i used to pay a quick visit this website, because i wish for enjoyment, as this this website conations
in fact good funny information too.

Feel free to visit my page :: Nike Air Jordan
 
I really like your blog.. very nice colors & theme.
Did you make this website yourself or did you hire someone to do it for you?
Plz answer back as I'm looking to construct my own blog and would like to find out where u got this from. appreciate it

Here is my web blog - Tory Burch Outlet
 
Hello there, I think your blog might be having web browser compatibility issues.
Whenever I take a look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine however when opening in I.
E., it's got some overlapping issues. I simply wanted to provide you with a quick heads up! Apart from that, excellent blog!

Here is my page Christian Louboutin UK
 
Thanks designed for sharing such a fastidious opinion,
article is fastidious, thats why i have read it completely

Also visit my web site ... Cheap NFL Jerseys
 
I am in fact delighted to glance at this web site posts which consists of lots of useful data, thanks for providing these information.


Take a look at my blog post - Abercrombie Et Fitch
 
Hi, yeah this article is genuinely fastidious and I have
learned lot of things from it about blogging. thanks.

My homepage :: Discover More Here
 
Hi, i think that i saw you visited my weblog so i came to “return the favor”.
I'm trying to find things to enhance my site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!

Here is my blog: Beats By Dre Pas Cher
 
Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as I provide credit and sources back to
your site? My blog is in the very same area of interest as yours and my users would genuinely benefit from a lot of the information you present here.

Please let me know if this ok with you. Thanks!

My website; Sac Louis Vuitton
 
I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but your sites really
nice, keep it up! I'll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. Many thanks

Also visit my web-site :: Chaussures De Foot
 
I always used to study post in news papers but now
as I am a user of web therefore from now I am
using net for content, thanks to web.

Feel free to surf to my web page; Boutique Air Max
 
Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice whilst you amend your site, how can i subscribe for a blog
web site? The account helped me a applicable deal.
I were tiny bit familiar of this your broadcast offered vibrant transparent concept

my website - Air Max
 
Link exchange is nothing else except it is only placing the
other person's webpage link on your page at proper place and other person will also do same for you.

Take a look at my site ... Boutique Air Jordan
 
Admiring the persistence you put into your site and in depth
information you present. It's awesome to come across a blog every once in a while that isn't the same unwanted rehashed information.
Wonderful read! I've bookmarked your site and I'm adding your RSS feeds to my Google
account.

Also visit my web blog :: Sac Louis Vuitton Pas Cher
 
Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?