Thank you. I am so tired of people with penises telling me that everything that I think, do, feel, and am is wrong. Transwomen with penises very much not excluded.
Brilliant piece. The antithesis of mansplaining. I am greatly reassured. I'm one of those anti-porn feminists who got into a whole ton of trouble with a gang of pro-porn feminists (and their male allies) in an online forum for journalists and writers back in the early 2010s (in NZ). I 'rage quit' (their term) that forum after being told, following days of heated exchanges in which 90% of traffic was in support of the pro-porn position, to 'get back on the horse', as if standing my ground against porn was the equivalent of taking an embarassing fall and being too proud or sheepish to admit it. The leader of that pro-porn pack now has a 'trans' daughter she calls son. My same-age daughter is a hardline trans ally and has effectively 'rage quit' our relationship for my RF stance on that. Patriarchy is stubborn (and sneaky) indeed. All hands on deck.
Love this, Robert. Thanks for your contributions to feminist critiques. Q: is it the problem liberal individualism or pomo individualism’s weakness in political theory? Or are you saying they are the same thing?
This is the same Madonna-whore complex of patriarchal religion. The justifications may be different but it's the same dichotomy of pure and fallen women which _always_ leads to nasty condemnation of those who fail to live up to standards of purity.
Some porn is gay men. Some porn has black women in positions of dominance over white men. A lot is watched by women. Victorian innocent victim ideas just don't represent most people.
Some musings: I’ve been exposed to a lot of pornography since childhood. My dad had a stash I read long before puberty, I had access to hardcore magazines (pre VHS era), and I stumbled on peep shows. And I was gay. It was entirely unproblematic to me. Quite the inverse. I found it hard to believe that people actually did those things, I could not believe heterosexual sex happened. What gay porn I found made perfect sense.
Being a logical child (a Sheldon) I found the treatment of women in general unfair and unsettling, as it was in flux over childhood. I was marinated in feminism in our household from early childhood on. Fair treatment and progress for women was ordinary dinner table conversation.
The word pornography is an odd one - it describes both a process and work products which require a subject to play out a fantasy, no matter how rough, to be recorded for distribution, and also describes fantasies which require no human participation at all except to record thoughts, for distribution.
If women buy visual pornography involving only men - quite a popular category, particularly women buying gay male pornography “solo” - is that somehow a Dworkin backflip of men ( who only like men ) raping women through time and space ( who don’t want sex with the men ), even though then two are not actually aware of each other?
In general it seems that there is always the claim that pornography is terrible, except when it doesn’t involve the photographic depiction of a woman, and except when women enjoy it while it doesn’t involve a photographic depiction of a woman. It is also ok if it involves a man who doesn’t like women sexually, but being paid to be enjoyed by them; it is also acceptable if the man is paid (exploited) to represent the most vile, cartoon-like version of a psychotic male devoid of humanity, self-consciousness, and and is ultimately snuffed out at the conclusion. Best of all, only the handsomest men are so represented.
Of course I mean the routine daily fare of Women’s television on BET, Lifetime, Oxygen, Hallmark and others.
(16) Years back when I had an incredibly painful and debilitating cancer I went into shock after a month of radiation and chemo with severe neutropenia - near zero white blood cells. In the hospital, I watched The Hallmark, Lifetime, Oxygen channels and others which have an extremely popular show model I’ll call “catch the hunk and kill him”.
Sarah (always biblical) a successful woman (natch) marries the charming Jack (it’s always Jack) who soon reveals his abusive nature (serial killer, pedophile, rapist, spousal battery, embezzler) leading her to discover his dark past (only now?) and plan a dangerous escape. With the help of friends and the police, she manages to break free (usually kill him, straight out of “home alone”) and Jack is arrested (or interred) allowing Sarah to begin healing and reclaim her life.
If you’re a smart, successful woman, the only role for a handsome man is to destroy you and your family and be killed for it, or if you’re Christian, go to prison forever.
The topic of pornography is so broad I really have lost the thread of whats ok and why and what’s bad and for whom, and when.
It always a seems to convolve exploitation with sex in some manner. It’s an old form of “intersectional” or the really old canard “transactional analysis”. It needs new thought.
pornography is where the imagination goes to die. Porn, aka fantasy, is just broken bodies reconfigured in endless, ultimately deadly, combinations for degenerates.
I've no time for pornified perverts and don't need to justify that to anyone and certainly not to dirty old men who spend their lives watching women and children getting raped and jerking off like chimps.
Excellent piece.
Thank you. I am so tired of people with penises telling me that everything that I think, do, feel, and am is wrong. Transwomen with penises very much not excluded.
I just call them trans identifying men and put "transwomen" in quotes.
Brilliant piece. The antithesis of mansplaining. I am greatly reassured. I'm one of those anti-porn feminists who got into a whole ton of trouble with a gang of pro-porn feminists (and their male allies) in an online forum for journalists and writers back in the early 2010s (in NZ). I 'rage quit' (their term) that forum after being told, following days of heated exchanges in which 90% of traffic was in support of the pro-porn position, to 'get back on the horse', as if standing my ground against porn was the equivalent of taking an embarassing fall and being too proud or sheepish to admit it. The leader of that pro-porn pack now has a 'trans' daughter she calls son. My same-age daughter is a hardline trans ally and has effectively 'rage quit' our relationship for my RF stance on that. Patriarchy is stubborn (and sneaky) indeed. All hands on deck.
Love this, Robert. Thanks for your contributions to feminist critiques. Q: is it the problem liberal individualism or pomo individualism’s weakness in political theory? Or are you saying they are the same thing?
This is the same Madonna-whore complex of patriarchal religion. The justifications may be different but it's the same dichotomy of pure and fallen women which _always_ leads to nasty condemnation of those who fail to live up to standards of purity.
Some porn is gay men. Some porn has black women in positions of dominance over white men. A lot is watched by women. Victorian innocent victim ideas just don't represent most people.
What? Most porn is men degrading and raping women. If you don't acknowledge that you are fucking lying.
Lucid and thanks.
Some musings: I’ve been exposed to a lot of pornography since childhood. My dad had a stash I read long before puberty, I had access to hardcore magazines (pre VHS era), and I stumbled on peep shows. And I was gay. It was entirely unproblematic to me. Quite the inverse. I found it hard to believe that people actually did those things, I could not believe heterosexual sex happened. What gay porn I found made perfect sense.
Being a logical child (a Sheldon) I found the treatment of women in general unfair and unsettling, as it was in flux over childhood. I was marinated in feminism in our household from early childhood on. Fair treatment and progress for women was ordinary dinner table conversation.
The word pornography is an odd one - it describes both a process and work products which require a subject to play out a fantasy, no matter how rough, to be recorded for distribution, and also describes fantasies which require no human participation at all except to record thoughts, for distribution.
If women buy visual pornography involving only men - quite a popular category, particularly women buying gay male pornography “solo” - is that somehow a Dworkin backflip of men ( who only like men ) raping women through time and space ( who don’t want sex with the men ), even though then two are not actually aware of each other?
In general it seems that there is always the claim that pornography is terrible, except when it doesn’t involve the photographic depiction of a woman, and except when women enjoy it while it doesn’t involve a photographic depiction of a woman. It is also ok if it involves a man who doesn’t like women sexually, but being paid to be enjoyed by them; it is also acceptable if the man is paid (exploited) to represent the most vile, cartoon-like version of a psychotic male devoid of humanity, self-consciousness, and and is ultimately snuffed out at the conclusion. Best of all, only the handsomest men are so represented.
Of course I mean the routine daily fare of Women’s television on BET, Lifetime, Oxygen, Hallmark and others.
(16) Years back when I had an incredibly painful and debilitating cancer I went into shock after a month of radiation and chemo with severe neutropenia - near zero white blood cells. In the hospital, I watched The Hallmark, Lifetime, Oxygen channels and others which have an extremely popular show model I’ll call “catch the hunk and kill him”.
Sarah (always biblical) a successful woman (natch) marries the charming Jack (it’s always Jack) who soon reveals his abusive nature (serial killer, pedophile, rapist, spousal battery, embezzler) leading her to discover his dark past (only now?) and plan a dangerous escape. With the help of friends and the police, she manages to break free (usually kill him, straight out of “home alone”) and Jack is arrested (or interred) allowing Sarah to begin healing and reclaim her life.
If you’re a smart, successful woman, the only role for a handsome man is to destroy you and your family and be killed for it, or if you’re Christian, go to prison forever.
The topic of pornography is so broad I really have lost the thread of whats ok and why and what’s bad and for whom, and when.
It always a seems to convolve exploitation with sex in some manner. It’s an old form of “intersectional” or the really old canard “transactional analysis”. It needs new thought.
Who is Peeping Tom excited by when he's peeping through the window?
When men watch hetero porn, who are they aroused by. The woman on the receiving end or the man doing it to the woman?
Does he or doesn't he, only a plesymograph knows for sure.
pornography is where the imagination goes to die. Porn, aka fantasy, is just broken bodies reconfigured in endless, ultimately deadly, combinations for degenerates.
Do you have evidence for your assertion, or is it just personal opinion? You seem to have limited knowledge of the subject.
I've no time for pornified perverts and don't need to justify that to anyone and certainly not to dirty old men who spend their lives watching women and children getting raped and jerking off like chimps.
Glad you agreed, no idea what you speak of.