Here is some free speech for you....

[bloom]

...Like Flynt, these rapists and lynch mobs of angry white males blamed the people they oppressed for what they did to them. Black women were whores and Black men were sexual predators even though the raping of resources, lands, and people fell solely on one group: White Men. Black people were “asking for it” just as women are “asking for it.” Flynt enjoys expressing his hatred and rage at women by calling it "sex" just as the lynch mobs who terrorized Black communities called it "justice." Justice meant maintaining white power just as misogyny fuels the woman-hating spectacle of porn, defined as sex. White men directed their rage at enslaved and subjugated people even as those very people were left powerless to defend themselves without deadly consequences.

Woman hating as rebellion against a feared feminist onslaught on male privilege is nothing new. White men like Flynt who blame women for all their problems and who punish them are cheered on and rewarded as heroes in a woman-hating culture. Leftist males who are threatened by feminism or female leadership within progressive movements can find reassurance in the rhetoric of libertarianism used to justify the inevitability of the sex industry and that a patriarchal order of things is left unchallenged somewhere.

How dare a woman oppose a man's right to porn? Didn't we radical feminists get the memo that we are now in times when only feminists with “a sense of humor" get heard, white males are the new victims, and women choose to be objectified? ...Refusing and resisting pornography requires that women reject the new guises under which misogyny shields itself from criticism: free speech, libertarianism, the rights of angry white men, "female empowerment." In spite of the names we are called to berate us into fear and silence we still speak out and fight back. We are not the passive pleasing "girls" pornography wants us to be....

by Radical Black Feminist Jennifer McLune

(warning - there are images "reprinted from... Hustler as an act of political protest")
http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/mclune.html

from "Silencing Women's Speech" in The Price We Pay, The Case Against Racist Speech, Hate Propaganda, and Pornography, Laura Lederer and Richard Delgado, eds. (NY: Hill & Wang, 1995)

"... number of studies reveal a causal relationship between men's exposure to pornography and their insensitivity to women's speech. ...

"The subjects who viewed the pornography displayed in inattentiveness to the woman's speech and an overattentiveness to her body ... After viewing pornography only 4 percent of this group was able to recall what the female speaker had said. The results for the other participants were quite different--24 percent.

"That men scrutinize women's bodies more closely after viewing pornography is, at first blush, a neutral point in terms of free speech. But this scrutiny is not separable from the fact that, in a professional setting, men hear less of what women have to say after viewing pornography. Other studies confirm that pornography has the ability to delegitimize women. After viewing either traditional pornography or nonpornograhic slasher films, men have been shown to view women as significantly less than equal and to display less sympathy with statements about sexual equality than they had before. Exposure to aggressive pornography also inclines men to disbelieve survivors' allegations of rape, and to believe instead rape myths, including the myth that women tend to lie about sexual assault." (pp. 125-126) ...

by Michelle J. Anderson

---

from Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press, 1991)

... "--libel, invasion of privacy, blackmail, bribery, conspiracy, most sexual harassment, and most discrimination. What is saying 'yes' in Congress - a word or an act? What is saying 'kill' to a trained guard dog? What is its training? What is saying 'You're fired' or 'We've had enough of your kind around here"? What is a sign that reads 'Whites only'? ... What is 'Sleep with me and I'll give you an A'" These words, printed or spoken, are so far from legally protecting the cycle of events they actualize that they are regarded as evidence that acts occurred, in some cases as actionable in themselves. ... When acts are tantamount to acts, they are treated as acts." (p. 206)

by Catherine A. MacKinnon

http://www.wifp.org/pornography.html#anchor728262

And what the heck are Amy Goodman and Greg Palast doing in Hustler? See www.hustlingtheleft.com for more about that.

[PDJane]

1. Lord and Lady

That's just plain ugly. I don't know how anyone with an normal IQ can find that funny...........

[beam me up scottie]

2. Recommended.

Flame all you want, but asking people to THINK about this issue is not censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Quite the opposite, actually.


Thanks, bloom.

[mongo]

4. Yep. Cartoons are dangerous

Just ask all the rioting Muslims.

And asking people to read an article from a site that advocates censorship is not advocating censorship at all.....

[beam me up scottie]

6. Advocating education about the issue is only oppression to you, mongo.

Cry me a river.

[mongo]

13. If you want some education, why not read Nadine Strossen's book

Defending Pornography -- she was only the head of the ACLU, she must not know anything about it.

hustling the left is chock full of lies and misstatements.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Show me where I tried to stifle dissent.

Just because I dismiss your opinion due to what I consider to be an obvious bias and intolerance of women's opinions, doesn't mean I need balance, mongo.

Just because I am revolted by your attacks on DU women who dare criticize your industry doesn't mean I ignore the opinions of intelligent and enlightened men.

[mongo]

3. More propaganda

hustlingtheleft has many liableous statements about Flynt -- but lies for a higher purpose are GOOD lies, right?

And trotting out some old MacKinnon, too? Wow. Since she has been responsible for the siezure of so much gay and lesbian literture in Canada.

Yes, the only way to equality is by controlling what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

[beam me up scottie]

5. So those cartoons never existed?

Nice try, mongo, but your tactic of misrepresenting women who criticize your livelihood is as stale and nasty as your used movie archive.

Tell us again how the evil feminists want to throw you behind bars and burn the Constitution.

I never get tired of hearing it.

[mongo]

7. Did I say the cartoons never existed?

No I didn't. I was making an anology between *some* of the cartoons Hustler publishes and the Danish cartoons which caused so much violence.

Tell us again how the evil feminists want to throw you behind bars and burn the Constitution.

Well, maybe a handfull of people that would call themselves "feminists" anyway. But certainly not the majority of feminists, or the majority of DU. But certainly the first site posted in the OP.

C. To Urge All Women and Progressive Men to Action!!

* To protest those movie critics who are heaping praise, awards and accolades on The People vs Larry Flynt. For example, this movie was one of the runners-up for the best film of 1996 by The New York Film Critics Circle; it has been nominated for several Golden Globe Awards, and it is considered a serious contender for one or more Oscars at the Academy Award Ceremony in Los Angeles in March 1997.
* To recognize that Flynt's glorification of sexual violence against women is just as serious as the glorification of racist or homophobic violence.
* To join the ZERO TOLERANCE OF PORNOGRAPHY movement in recognition of porn's devastatingly destructive effects on women and children.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/russell.html

How is their movement any different than those that would ban violent video games or otherwise curtail freedom of expression?

[beam me up scottie]

9. Um, it's called free speech.

And your opponents have just as much right to their opinions as you do.


The way you attack critics of porn on DU, you really shouldn't whine so much.


I will defend freedom of speech because I believe in it, but to be honest, I could care less about you, mongo.


I don't care what happens to your business.


I wouldn't bat an eyelash if your store fell into a sinkhole tomorrow, with you in it.


You have attacked and maligned me and many others repeatedly for simply criticizing mainstream porn and wanting to discuss the issue from our point of view.


And you want to be treated fairly?


You want us to consider your side of the issue?


Don't hold your breath.




On second thought...

[mongo]

14. And who is attacking who in this thread?

I'm not the one making personal attacks in this thread.

Get a life.

[beam me up scottie]

21. "Get a life?" This from someone who does DU searches for the word "porn"?

:spray:

Priceless.

[mongo]

24. So did Bloom PM you before posting

or are you a free-lance attack dog?

[benburch]

27. I'd think bloom could stand up for herself, you know...

...might do her self esteem some good.

[beam me up scottie]

30. Why should she? You've already tried and convicted her.

Was your intention to intimidate her?

[beam me up scottie]

29. So I'm conspiring with the op because I disagree with you?

How original.

[bloom]

8. From Stan Goff:

Sonali: Do you think you would have any success talking to people like Greg Palast?

Stan Goff: I sure hope I would. This is probably one of the most painful things about this and I would also say that sister Bogado was repaid for this important article that she wrote that did change some relations with a concerted and coordinated internet attack on her that included all sorts of the typical allusions to sexual aggression that she needed to be subjected to sex by a violent porn performer. Very very predictable. I think the comparison between Hustler and Fox is not an accurate comparison, saying we want to get our message out. I mean if that is all we're I mean if that is all we are trying to do then how far have we departed from our principles? I think the closer analogy is the comparison between Huslter and Southern Partisan. If images that are as overtly racist as they are in Southern Partisan, which is a magazine published by former Klansmen, and sometimes current Klansmen. No one on the left would ever think of associating themselves in any way, or legitimating a magazine that supported white supremacy. Why is it we don't have the same hesitation about a magazine that becomes an idiological organ for male supremacy. I think it tells you how far the male left has to go. And not just the male left because I was just as disappointed to hear that Amy Goodman who I know, and like, and respect, was legitimating this magazine as well. I think this comes from this libertarian impulse which says we are defending Free Speech. And how Larry Flynt became an icon for Free Speech is a complete mystery to me. I think we've got to go beyond this notion. I think it's middle class, and I think it's abstract, and I think it's libertarian that automatically put a the minus next to anything the Christian Right assigns as a plus. I think that's very superficial. They're going to defend pornography on free speech grounds and then they fail to critique the misogynist content. This is exactly what Chyng Sun was saying and it seems to be completely lost on both the libertarian left and on the left in general which by the way is still dominated by males. I think we just have to be clear about this. That males on the left has not been willing to recognize how their own privilege, as males, their own social privilege as males, informs and creates this sort of myopia around gender. And I think it's time we start correcting this. God I hope it's possible.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/audio/index.html

From his blog ->

The Porn Debate

....But while no one reading this wants John Ashcroft, or his successor Alberto “de Sade” Gonzales, reading our emails, or spending public money to put linen drapes over the breasts of statues, or intruding into our bedrooms, we still need to be able to criticize the misogynist, slave-whipping, rapist founding fathers. And we need to talk about what the Constitution does and does not do. Because it sure gets hauled out into view every time privilege is endangered.

...Those founding fathers were smart slaveholders and Indian-killers and wife-beaters, and they understood perfectly well what they were doing. They were inoculating existing systems of domination from forceful intervention, and making it look like they were doing the rest of us a favor. The very idea of a right of privacy was originally used to protect men’s right to batter their wives....

http://stangoff.com/index.php?p=2

[mongo]

16. If you would like the other side of this story

you can find it here:

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=81

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=80

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=139

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=109

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=99

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=110

and lastly

The very idea of a right of privacy was originally used to protect men’s right to batter their wives....

No - the right to privacy was originally established to allow access to birth control. But hey, any lie in your favor is a good lie.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Why are you attacking bloom and misrepresenting her posts?

What are you so afraid of?

[benburch]

12. I don't think I am misrepresnting anything...

I have seen her debate this point many times, and it always comes down to women being degraded by porn produced for others that they themselves might never see,

And I find that ridiculous.

If you are secure in your own sexuality, then how can any of this effect you whatsoever?

[beam me up scottie]

17. She hasn't so much as opined about the articles.

I'm sorry that you have such low self esteem, Bloom, that what he does makes you feel degraded and abused, but it *is* ALL in your head.

Low self esteem?

All in her head?

Show me where bloom said she felt degraded and abused.

Women with intact self esteem just don't, in my experience, feel that way about it, even if they do think that Hustler itself is in poor taste.

Again, where did she say she felt "that way"?

And that appears to be your problem, too. You seek to avoid any counterexamples. You simply don't want to hear anything contrary to your deeply invested belief in the fragility of women. And they must be deeply fragile if they can be degraded by anything as trivial as words on a page or pictures in a book. Why does the concept of a strong woman who can take care of herself frighten you so? Why does true feminism frighten you so?

Her "problem"?

How can you possibly know WHAT her "problem" is when you're too busy telling her how she feels and claiming she is "frightened" of "true feminism"?

[benburch]

18. Selection of those articles is an expression of opinion.

And her other utterances in other threads adequately support my opinion about her point of view.

[beam me up scottie]

20. So your attacks on her are justified, in your mind?

That's all I needed to know.

[mongo]

22. Yes, anyone with a contrary opinion is "attacking"

and trying to silence you. Wow.

[benburch]

25. Just like I said in my response to bloom...

They avoid any contrary opinions or data. And, it seems, attempt to shout down any that they cannot avoid.

[beam me up scottie]

32. I'll let his posts speak for themselves:

I'm sorry that you have such low self esteem, Bloom, that what he does makes you feel degraded and abused, but it *is* ALL in your head.

Women with intact self esteem just don't, in my experience, feel that way about it, even if they do think that Hustler itself is in poor taste.

And that appears to be your problem, too. You seek to avoid any counterexamples. You simply don't want to hear anything contrary to your deeply invested belief in the fragility of women. And they must be deeply fragile if they can be degraded by anything as trivial as words on a page or pictures in a book. Why does the concept of a strong woman who can take care of herself frighten you so? Why does true feminism frighten you so?

The op never posted anything about any of that, did she?

[benburch]

23. They were not attacks.

They were criticism! When did criticism of another's point of view become an attack? If you cannot take a contrary political opinion, and some rough criticism, then DU really isn't the board where you ought to be posting ANYTHING.

[beam me up scottie]

31. It's not criticism if she never made the statements you attributed to her.

Am I mistaken?

Show me her posts.

[benburch]

34. Your are mistaken.

And it is against DU rules to link to articles in other sections.

However, Bloom may refute this merely by saying that does not feel degraded and abused by what Larry Flynt does, and that she has enough self esteem that pornography does not harm her.

Should she not refute this, then I'm obviously correct.

[beam me up scottie]

37. So if she offers no opinion and never posts in this thread, she's guilty?

If you need to resort to lowbrow tactics to win, don't bother.

Congratulations.

I declare you the winner by default.

We can all go home now, no discussion necessary.

[benburch]

40. Can't you have the patience to see what she has to say?

Or must all difficult questions be solved before the final commercial break?

[beam me up scottie]

43. I'm addressing personal attacks because they are the reason why

many women will not even attempt to discuss this in the main forums.

Did it ever occur to you that there are more women who have opinions about this, or are you so focused on neutralizing bloom, you can't see that?

[LincolnMcGrath]

44. Where were you when I needed defending?

You think only women face a gauntlet on certain subjects?


Just Saying

[benburch]

50. Amen to that.

But I am used to being attacked, and don't particularly want to be defended when I am.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Um, my cape was at the cleaners?

I don't just defend bloom, as a matter of fact, we disagree about MANY things.

I'm probably the last person she'd expect to see defend her.

But it's not ABOUT bloom, it's about being able to discuss this issue in GD, for christs sake.

[benburch]

46. If you post such a thing on a main forum here, don't expect safe passage.

Women can stand up for themselves.

I have never known an intelligent women with intact self esteem who needed a "defender" in a debate about politics, pornography, ANYTHING.

But don't expect to not be criticized if you post bits of radical anti-porn feminism theory as though they were some sort of authority on the topic.

If that bugs you, look to the repair of your own self-esteem before you jump into the fray.

[beam me up scottie]

52. She didn't say ANYTHING. You attacked her without her saying anything.

That's what makes it intimidation.

Christ on a trailer hitch, is it too much to ask to be attacked for the things we DO say?

[benburch]

53. When you quote an article, you DO say something.

How hard is that to understand?

[beam me up scottie]

55. No, people post articles all the time with just one word: Discuss.

Do you put words in their mouths and attack them for having opinions not in evidence?

Is this a rule about porn threads that I overlooked?

Can someone get me a copy of the handbook? I must have lost mine.

[Katherine Brengle]

48. I don't think that was fair--

As a woman and as a feminist, I do find pornography not only offensive in a general way, but detrimental to the fragile freedoms and rights women have fought for and won in this country in the past 100+ years.

Part of the point of the original article in the OP was that many women who, on the inside, do agree with the opinion that pornography that objectifies women and their humiliation and domination, will claim to DISAGREE because it is the "new" way to be a feminist--to pretend that absolutely nothing bothers you--to pretend to think the same way as a man would in the same position.

Any "counterexamples", as you say, are inherently flawed because of this. How can you take something seriously if the very person who is saying it is likely to be lying?

Protected "speech" or not (and I honestly think this is debatable), pornography is not a positive part of our society. The industry is abusive, the system is predatory, and the output is detrimental to our ability to continue social progress.

[benburch]

63. I firmly disagree.

I believe it is an unmitigated social good.

And I ask you, why are you so fragile? I don't believe any woman needs to be protected from ANYTHING.

If you think you DO need to be protected from it, I believe your self-esteem needs to be worked on rather significantly.

[Katherine Brengle]

89. You believe porn is an "unmitigated social good"???

I am not fragile, I never said that I was. That was a logic stretch on your part. I said the freedoms and rights we have won (women) are fragile, and I don't think that is debatable.

If you don't believe any woman needs to be protected from anything, you are simply turning a blind eye to our nation's social problems. Domestic violence, rape, restricted access to reproductive healthcare services (including emergency contraception, ordinary contraception, abortion, and general family planning services), lax child-support laws, unpaid maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare that would allow many of us to carry on in our careers rather than stay at home caring for children (which is a noble thing to do, something I do myself, but something that should be optional for all women), lack of equal pay for equal work--these are all very real problems facing American women, especially low income American women.

I guarantee you, there is absolutely nothing fragile about me. I am a woman who put myself through college, gave birth to a strong, healthy daughter, and am raising her on my own while my husband is overseas. Strength, both physical and mental, is not the issue. Self-esteem is not the issue.

Equality is the issue.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Thank you.

For not letting him frame the debate.

Every time this subject is brought up, opinions about the impact porn has on our society gets buried beneath attacks on our "self esteem" and accusations of censorship.

Which seems to be exactly what one of the articles was addressing, I believe.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. They're in Hustler because not EVERYONE on the "left" agrees with

Catherine Mackinnon and the Late Andrea Dworkin.

Not everyone on the "left" buys the ridiculous notion that looking at pictures of nude women magically turns men into drooling, violent, women-disrepecting cro-magnons...

And certainly, not everyone on the "left" has a pro-censorship agenda that is shared with the Christian right and the Bible Thumping busybodies and cretinous theocratic control freaks in our political life.

... but I should think some of the links above ought to educate everyone to one, particular salient fact that renders particularly disingenuous some of the arguments of our erstwhile anti-porn crusaders keep throwing out, here: if this were just about 'educating' people, that would be one thing. It's clear from, particularly the wifp site (I think the link in the OP has a problem, here's the site- http://www.wifp.org/pornography.html) that the agenda is NOT about 'education', it's about tearing down the 'broad first amendment shield' that supposedly protects porn.

And if the agenda isn't about censorship, then why are all these screeds written with that in mind?

[beam me up scottie]

19. More attacks and misrepresentation.

Tell me again what my "agenda" is, I do so love it when people read my mind.

I'm pro-censorship AND have agendas I share with " Christian right and the Bible Thumping busybodies and cretinous theocratic control freaks in our political life" ?

Tell me more.

This is fascinating.

[mongo]

26. Might not be your adgenda

but it is certainly the adgenda of hustlingtheleft

[beam me up scottie]

33. Honesty about my opinion?

From you?

I'm stunned.

Is it possible you were listening at some point?


Too bad most readers will already believe that I want to ban porn, thanks to the strawmen so hastily built in the first few posts.


This is why many won't bother trying to post in these threads anymore.


We get attacked and accused and nobody hears a fucking thing we have to say about the subject.

[Katherine Brengle]

56. I really don't understand how anyone can support an industry that makes

billions of dollars every year making women look like inflatable sexual objects. And I hate that bs about how women who do pornography make that "choice" for themselves--I think when you read something (and I use the word "read" extremely loosely here) like Hustler, maybe you don't see what the "adult entertainment industry" (personally, I like documentaries for adult entertainment, but then again I like using my brain...) really looks like--most of what is produced is not quite so... let's just say "high end" for lack of a better comparison. This stuff is shot in cheap hotel rooms and basements and god knows where else, often under extremely disturbing circumstances.

I also can't decide if I even believe that pronography is protected under the 1st Amendment--that exceptions barring the free expression of obscene material make their own exceptions for "entertainment" that is only directed at "adults." It's ridiculous.

It's like saying that corporations have the same rights as individual American citizens.

Oh wait, we already did that.

One thing I ask--next time any one here is watching an "adult" film or "reading" one of these putrid mags, say this to yourself, "That woman is someone's daughter."

Because she is, and imagine how much you would appreciate your daughter falling into that kind of life. These women are not alive in order to cater to the American public's desire for cheap thrills--they are living, breathing human beings with dreams and fears and problems and loved ones.

Pornography is something the world will look back on a long, long time from now as barbaric, archaic, and disgusting.

[porphyrian]

35. Hustler doesn't represent all porn.

There are racist policemen. That doesn't mean all police are racist.

[benburch]

36. Great observation.

In my opinion, Hustler SETS OUT to offend as many people as possible with each and every issue. Some people "get" that about it, others think that the offensive character of it is directed at them in particular.

Personally I don't care for it at all. I've only bought one issue in the last decade, the one my friend, Darklady was in. (The March 2006 issue.) And it hasn't improved much in the the last ten years...

[beam me up scottie]

39. So then why does it bother you that some people dislike it?

Women, in particular.

[benburch]

41. Doesn't bother me if they dislike it.

What bothers me is when they use that dislike to set the political agenda in ways that benefit the Religious Right, as MacKinnon has repeatedly done.

[beam me up scottie]

54. So why didn't you say that?

In the beginning.

Why did you start out by dramatically tearing down strawmen you built in the op's absence?


Why would we think you want to hear our opinion after witnessing that spectacle?

[beam me up scottie]

38. No, but it is representative of a lot of it.

Should we not address the issue of racist policemen because not all of them are racist?

[benburch]

42. On what basis do you form that opinion?

I don't think that Hustler is representative of anything other than Hustler.

[beam me up scottie]

45. They aren't considered mainstream?

I beg to differ.

There was a time when Hustler would have been considered shocking and controversial when compared to other pornography, but that was a long time ago.

And I don't base my opinions about porn on Hustler, or any other single source.

I don't know anyone who does.

[benburch]

47. How much other porn do you examine on a regular basis?

Or do you base your opinion on the third-hand reports of others?

[beam me up scottie]

57. Yes, as a woman, I am sworn to hate porn and never read or buy any of it.

It's a girl thang.

See how you put me on the defensive?

You have been on the offense from the first sentence.

Why the hell would I believe that you actually give a shit about what I think?

[benburch]

60. Because I asked your opinion?

And seems to me that it is you who have been trying (succeeding too) in being gratuitously offensive for no reason I can discern other than wanting to pick a fight.

But, you are changing the subject, a common debating technique, but not one I let go past; Answer the question, please? What is your basis for comparison? How much porn do you examine to determine what is "typical" and "mainstream"?

[beam me up scottie]

62. How did I offend you?

By highlighting your personal attack on the op?

Your attacks are what I was discussing with you, not porn.

[benburch]

67. You attack me personally when I ask significant questions.

I believe that the OP's point of view is directly relevant to why she chose to post these excerpts, and I believe that, based on other discussions in which she was a part, is because she believes that porn degrades her.

Personally, I don't think that a person with intact self-esteem CAN be degraded by it.

I don't think that women are fragile flowers that need to be shielded from porn, or defended from it in any way.

This effort to silence pornographers is an assault on the core principles of feminism itself.

Nina Hartley (a woman, incase you were wondering) has something to say on this topic;

----

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun - Feminists for Porn

By NINA HARTLEY

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?

Perhaps, like a number of anti-porn feminists these days, she chooses not to solicit the opinions of women engaged in or supportive of sex- work, rather than risk encountering a contrary-to-theory example.

<SNIP>

----

And so does my good friend Avedon Carol (also a woman);

----

http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm

The Harm of Porn:

Just Another Excuse to Censor

An article by Avedon Carol

In spite of a long-standing anti-censorship tradition in the women's liberation movement - and indeed, a specific hostility toward sexual censorship - the view has become widely accepted by the media and therefore the public that feminists uniformly accept that pornography should be banned. This view has intensified as an increasing number of purportedly feminist campaigners have presented highly emotive speeches and documents, often backed up by spurious representations of scientific data, in support of the case for censorship.

Interestingly, the media has generally proven to be entirely uninterested in consulting long-time feminists with respected credentials, such as the former members of the feminist Red Rag collective or the current membership of the Feminist Review collective in Britain, all of whom oppose censorship. In America, Congress and the media were startled to discover that an attempt to introduce federal anti-pornography legislation was opposed by some of the best known names in modern feminism, ranging from Betty Friedan and Kate Millett to Karen DeCrow, Wendy Kaminer and Jamaica Kincaid.

How, then, did the anti-pornography position come to be seen as the only possible feminist position? A look at the history might be illuminating.

<SNIP>

[beam me up scottie]

71. Ah, I see you didn't bother reading the articles in the op.

So much for dialog.

[benburch]

73. How dare you allege that?

You can take that back immediately.

[LincolnMcGrath]

76. You think that is over the top? See post #66

I would love a chance to whip out some of DU's finest posters PMs and Replies in certain threads.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Are you talking about MY pms?

Because I don't even know who you are.

[benburch]

80. Are you sure you don't?

People can have many names...

[beam me up scottie]

83. Ooooooooo, how cryptic!

Are we playing spy games now?

[LincolnMcGrath]

84. Maybe

[beam me up scottie]

87. So are you Sifl

or Ollie?

[benburch]

74. Oh, and, nice changing of the subject.

Would you care to address the question asked for once?

You want to know why this topic cannot be debated? It is because you will not play by the rules of debate and answer the questions raised.

[beam me up scottie]

91. Right, that's what it is.

Whatever you say.

I'll do anything to stop you from attacking me like you did the op.

I'm terrified.

Really.

[benburch]

93. LOL!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[porphyrian]

49. What percentage is "a lot?"

Racism should be addressed. However, singling out racist policemen over racist telephone pole climbers or racist backhoe operators or racist CEOs or racist political discussion board posters is unnecessary and suggests any doing so is pursuing an agenda (thus the term's use in other parts of the thread). Are you trying to damn racism or the police?

[beam me up scottie]

58. Well considering we have never been able to ONCE discuss racist cops

in GD without it turning into the fucking battle to end all battles, I think it's irrelevant.

[benburch]

61. Again, you change the subject to avoid answering the question.

What percentage is a lot?

[beam me up scottie]

64. What percentage of personal attacks are considered acceptable?

None, in my opinion, regardless of your personal issues with a poster.

[benburch]

68. Admit that you cannot answer the question?

And that you were pulling your data out of thin air?

Or, please, answer the question?

[beam me up scottie]

75. I gave you the answer.

No personal attacks are acceptable.

Too bad that seems to be the only thing you brought to the table.


We are discussing THIS thread, THESE articles in the op, NOT whatever issues you had with other posters in the past.

You attacked her for statements she never made and now you can't even admit you were wrong.

[benburch]

79. That was not the question, and you know it. You are now being dishonest.

You alleged that Hustler represented mainstream porn, and was representative of "A Lot" of it.

We called upon you to;

1. Say what percentage "A lot" is.

2. Say how much porn you examined to reach that conclusion, or if all of your information was third hand sources?

And you have studiously attacked me each and every time we try to get you to answer the question.

This is a form of dishonesty, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[beam me up scottie]

86. I don't see an admission to personally attacking the op in there.

Did you forget it?

I'll wait.

[benburch]

92. You won't, because it was not an attack.

It was a criticism of her motives based on other discussions you clearly were not a party to.

I think she, and any other feminist (yourself included) who is threatened by porn is so only due to low self esteem, and that no woman ought to have such a low opinion of herself that she would be in the slightest degree degraded by it.

You may still be Offended by it; That is a different issue entirely. Much of it is offensive. But you don't need to be protected or shielded from offensive things.

And you, in my opinion, have gone WAY over the top here, and are being a dishonest player in this debate.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Attributing motive IS AN ATTACK .

Especially when the poster hasn't made a single statement about the issue.

She posted excerpts from articles.

That's ALL.

Since when do you get to assign motive and attack a poster for posting excerpts?

[benburch]

103. I get to whenever I choose to.

It was up to bloom to tell me if I were wrong, not you.

I know for fact that she can defend herself with her own resources.

I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios, but you have no right treating anybody the way you have been treating me and the others on this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

106. You attacked bloom before she made a single statement.

Again, she has not made ONE SINGLE STATEMENT about the articles.

It's on the record, Ben, stop trying to make this about me.

And you say you're allowed to assign motive and attack whenever you choose?

So you are, but the mods will just keep deleting your posts.

How's that grab you?

[benburch]

108. You've made this about you.

Bloom chose those particular topics for a reason, and I am allowed to infer her motives from her choices.

Just as I am allowed to infer your character from your mode of argument.

And I don't like the inference I am drawing.

[porphyrian]

65. If you can't defend, disregard? - n/t

[beam me up scottie]

69. Are you paying attention?

Starting with the third post in this thread, and this is the norm, IMO, the op has been attacked repeatedly for the crime of daring to post an article that is critical of porn.

I have been accused of conspiring with the op because I took issue with the attacks.

I have received a pm from a poster who, I can only guess, is too afraid to confront me in this thread, so he chose to try intimidation instead.

And you think that somehow this thread is unfair to pornography?

[benburch]

72. Criticism is not attack. And does not excuse you from making up data.

Another word for making up data; A LIE.

Now, if you can substantiate your statement, do so.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Nice try, but we're not playing by your rules.

Until you admit your mistake, there is nothing to discuss.

You attacked the op, I called you out for it, and obviously others agreed with me.

[benburch]

82. Then you are admitting to being a total liar?

Because you are not playing by any rules that I can see, and are now just covering for your own dishonestly in citing data you cannot substantiate.

[beam me up scottie]

88. I don't discuss issues of importance with posters who attack others

especially when they're not here to defend themselves.

Perhaps you can rectify that before we meet again.

But relax, you won by default, remember?

[benburch]

94. Now you are being a complete jerk.

But you know that already.

[beam me up scottie]

99. Now you're calling me names.

I'm SHOCKED!

SHOCKED I tell you.

[benburch]

102. No, I'm telling you how you are acting.

And you should be ashamed of yourself.

[porphyrian]

90. I'm not defending pornography, I'm defending my post.

It is dishonest to declare Hustler representative of the entire porn industry, and I was simply making that true assertion. When I used a metaphor to explain this assertion from a different angle, you changed your position and declared my factual-assertion-in-metaphor irrelevant.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread yet.

I haven't accused you of conspiring with the OP.

I haven't PM'd you or in any way tried to intimidate you.

It is hypocritical of you to complain about other people reading your mind to ascertain your motives only to turn around and tell me (wrongly) what I think about the fairness of this thread to pornography.

[beam me up scottie]

96. Where did I declare Hustler representative of the entire porn industry?

Can you show me where I said that?

Actually, what is my opinion about porn?

How about censorship?

We never discussed the issue.

Why are you defending your post when I never attacked it?

[porphyrian]

105. Again, you are inventing what I've said.

Where did I say you declared Hustler representative of the entire porn industry?

I can't show it to you, but that is irrelevant - no one made that claim.

I don't care what your opinion about porn is.

I think censorship is cowardace, but I can't tell if you're asking what I think about it or what I think you think about it. I don't care what you think about it.

No, I made a statement, and I've been explaining how your responses to my posts aren't right ever since.

It's funny that you are pointing out my use of the word "defending" considering who's behavior here is defensive.

[beam me up scottie]

107. Let's recap:

You claimed Hustler wasn't indicative of the entire porn industry.

You used the racist cop analogy.

What WAS your point, if not that we shouldn't address racist cops?

Clarify.

Are we supposed to address the issue or not?

[benburch]

109. An honest debater answers the question asked.

And THEN goes onto other points.

You are being dishonest by skipping over a point you know you cannot defend.

[benburch]

97. My prediction...

She'll say you are attacking her now.

[beam me up scottie]

100. My prediction is that you'll start calling me names.

OH, LOOK AT THAT!

I was right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=543060&mesg_id=544581

[benburch]

101. You won't answer HIS question either?

I didn't call you a jerk... I said you were BEING one.

There is a major difference.

[benburch]

70. That seems to be what I am seeing here too.

She cannot substantiate her claims whatsoever, or if she can, she hides it well.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

85. No, it is you admitting to being dishonest. nt

[omega minimo]

59. "24%"!!!!!!!!!!11

:rofl:
:rofl: and that's a GOOD thing?

"After viewing pornography only 4 percent of this group was able to recall what the female speaker had said. The results for the other participants were quite different--24 percent." :spray: :wtf:

This sure sounds familiar:

"Leftist males who are threatened by feminism or female leadership within progressive movements can find reassurance in the rhetoric of libertarianism used to justify the inevitability of the sex industry and that a patriarchal order of things is left unchallenged somewhere."

[beam me up scottie]

66. Snort!

Does it say anything about the percentage of women who receive threatening pms from cowardly men who are scared of them?

I'd like to see the numbers on that myself.

Maybe I'll do a survey.

[Hello_Kitty]

95. Oh come on now, 24% is a LOT!

:rofl:

Imagine if we suddenly stopped paying attention to 75-95% of what men said to us? I think a lot of women could use a break from the expectation of wide-eyed rapt enthusiasm over their every utterance.

[LeftCoast]

110. Locking

This post has degenerated into a flame-fest.