Install this theme

Posts tagged: antiporn


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal
A tweet of mine about pro-sex worker rights advocates on YouTube attracted an angry apparent anti-porn feminist comment. The full conversation (up to the point I blocked her from my stream; I don’t need the nuisance) is pictured above.
I garnered some interesting takeaways about anti-porn feminist mindsets from this exchange:
According to anti-porn feminists, masturbation isn’t sex. (“sex to me is mutual pleasure, not just penetration. Otherwise everytime I finger myself I would consider it sex.”)
Anal sex followed by vaginal intercourse isn’t just bad safer sex practice, it’s also barbaric. (This makes me wonder how many other non-safer sex enacted sex acts are also “barbaric,” in their view.)
Stepping on a woman’s head—presumably regardless of whether or not her smiling about the situation is genuine—during sex is rape. (FWIW, I love it when my head is pushed or stepped on when I’m getting pegged. I wish I could find more porn where men bottom like that.)
Oh, and of course, what happens in porn is not sex.
Did I miss any? Much of this is simply so ridiculous it doesn’t warrant consideration.
As an aside, if you look at our Twitter pages, you’ll see that many of her tweets showing up in Twitter search aren’t displayed on her Twitter page. When you delete a tweet, it doesn’t get shown at Twitter.com, but it is still archived at search.twitter.com. One wonders why the tweets that no longer appear on @cathcincotta’s Twitter homepage are gone. (Do these people enjoy censorship so much that they do it to themselves?) Then again, she did betray some obvious misconceptions about the definitions of words like “sex” and “porn,” so maybe she just got embarrassed and hit “delete” quickly. Or maybe Twitter’s acting up again.
Update: No, Twitter’s not acting up. It seems @cathcincotta really does enjoy this tactic of deleting her own remarks. She’s done it to others. Her explanation?

A tweet of mine about pro-sex worker rights advocates on YouTube attracted an angry apparent anti-porn feminist comment. The full conversation (up to the point I blocked her from my stream; I don’t need the nuisance) is pictured above.

I garnered some interesting takeaways about anti-porn feminist mindsets from this exchange:

  • According to anti-porn feminists, masturbation isn’t sex. (“sex to me is mutual pleasure, not just penetration. Otherwise everytime I finger myself I would consider it sex.”)
  • Anal sex followed by vaginal intercourse isn’t just bad safer sex practice, it’s also barbaric. (This makes me wonder how many other non-safer sex enacted sex acts are also “barbaric,” in their view.)
  • Stepping on a woman’s head—presumably regardless of whether or not her smiling about the situation is genuine—during sex is rape. (FWIW, I love it when my head is pushed or stepped on when I’m getting pegged. I wish I could find more porn where men bottom like that.)
  • Oh, and of course, what happens in porn is not sex.

Did I miss any? Much of this is simply so ridiculous it doesn’t warrant consideration.

As an aside, if you look at our Twitter pages, you’ll see that many of her tweets showing up in Twitter search aren’t displayed on her Twitter page. When you delete a tweet, it doesn’t get shown at Twitter.com, but it is still archived at search.twitter.com. One wonders why the tweets that no longer appear on @cathcincotta’s Twitter homepage are gone. (Do these people enjoy censorship so much that they do it to themselves?) Then again, she did betray some obvious misconceptions about the definitions of words like “sex” and “porn,” so maybe she just got embarrassed and hit “delete” quickly. Or maybe Twitter’s acting up again.

Update: No, Twitter’s not acting up. It seems @cathcincotta really does enjoy this tactic of deleting her own remarks. She’s done it to others. Her explanation?


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal

Sex-positive feminists collaborate to bust just about every single argument anti-porn feminists make. And they do it well. Very well.

Watch this. Share this. Do this.

Transcript:

Until recently, I was pretty damn sure that feminism stood for equal rights and protection of women. And under those criteria, I would call myself a feminist.

» However, there is a certain group of feminists, some of them active here on YouTube, who seem to think that you’re not really a feminist unless you subscribe to their particular values

» which include opposing pornography, stripping, the legalization of prostitution, and anything else that is part of the “sex industry.”

» According to them, in order to be a “real” feminist, you must believe that in today’s society all women are victims of an oppressive patriarchal system that must be fought against.

» This whole accusing people of not being “real” feminists kind of reminds me of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, where you have these born again Christians accusing Catholics of not being “real” Christians, and moderate Muslims saying that the real Islam is all about peace.

» This movement is all about telling women what’s bad, and shielding them from the so-called “evils” of the world. If any movement is turning women into victims, it’s the current militant feminist movement in the West.

» I’m labelled an anti-feminist because I believe women can make their own choices regarding their sexuality and the use of their bodies. How ironic is that?

» We decided to make this video as a response to the feminists here who are opposing the legalization of prostitution and militant against pornography and stripping.

» But please keep in mind, we’re not talking about sex slaves.

» Or people being forced into the sex industry by third parties.

» Or people dragged into it without their knowledge, like being unaware that they are being videotaped during sex.

» And we are not talking about child pornography.

» Or bestiality.

» But only about legal, consenting, adults.

» I know there is abuse going on in the porn industry. Some sex workers are forced to do things they didn’t sign up for or are pressured into taking drugs, and they don’t benefit from proper medical checkups, and I’m all for changing that, and improving their work conditions, just like I am for improving work conditions in general. There are people in China working 16 hours a day—circumstances we would call inhumane. Does that mean that the sales industries are inherently bad? Because this is what this group of feminists think about the sex industry.

» To me it doesn’t make much sense to completely oppose an industry because it has problems that haven’t been corrected yet. If that was the course we as a society were oppressed into taking, then no industry would exist. In fact, everything would have to be banned. We’d even have to ban peanut butter. Aside from the scores of people who are deathly allergic to peanuts, there have been outbreaks of salmonella caused by contaminated peanut butter. And yet we don’t campaign against it simply because someone, somewhere was harmed by it. We fix the problems to make the products safer. So why should the sex industry be any different? There’s only one alternative, and that is prohibition. And that course of action has never succeeded.

» One of the things these anti-porn feminists rely on most to support their position is the suggestion that an increased availability in pornographic material has a positive correlation with instances of rape and sexual violence. However, the evidence overwhelmingly negates this position, and in fact the opposite frequently holds true. For example, a 1996 study found that as the amount of pornography increased in 5 US cities over the course of 10 years, instances of rape either declined or remained relatively stable. The exact same thing was found by an individual in Denmark who studied 4 separate countries over another 10 year period. It has also been conclusively proven that non-rapists in detention facilities use more pornography than rapists and child molesters. All this barely skims the surface of the available, reputable information on this topic.

» The ones who oppose pornography often say that that it’s a sexist job that objectifies women especially. What about the men? On average, the adult actress makes 2 and a half times the amount a male performer will make. In fact, the pay rate is so pathetic for men that they often turn to “Gay for Pay” porn, which offers a much larger sum of money. Also keep in mind  that men have a considerably harder time preparing for scenes, considering that they have to maintain an erection and ejaculate on cue. Sometimes the man’s face isn’t even shown. So who exactly is being objectified here?

» Another argument often used by those feminists is that being a sex worker is degrading. Many people would also consider scrubbing toilets degrading. The fact is some people would rather fuck other people or take their clothes off for money than do another job. There will always be some jobs that some of us will never do. And there will also always be people willing to do those jobs. And even if at the time those sex workers are not that happy in their job, they’d still prefer to take it rather than other work that might require longer hours and shittier pay.

» The war on prostitution is just like the war on drugs, and ultimately doomed for failure because here you have willing sellers and willing buyers, and as long as you have those 2 elements, you can’t shut a market down. So here, keeping it illegal, we have billions and billions of dollars ultimately wasted that governments could take advantage on by taxing them. Now, prostitution is arguably one of the oldest professions around, and people who try and ban it are some of the oldest attempts to control people’s sexuality. This has absolutely no place in a free society because it violates each individuals rights—some of their most basic rights—to do what they want, when they want it, with their own bodies. And people need to keep in mind, prostitution’s not going anywhere anytime soon, whether it’s legal or not.

» It all comes down to choices: choices a person can make, and choices a person should be able to make. This is my body. This is the only thing I learned I am ever going to truly own, and I should be able to use my body as I see fit regardless of whether you, or anyone else, find it morally or ethically wrong. The right to choose what happens to one’s body, and the right to control what happens to one’s body is a fundamental right that I and others are extremely passionate about. The moment we say, ‘No, you can’t do this to your body,’ is the moment we step foot on a slippery slope that ends up with people—not just women, men included—being denied their most basic right: the right to body autonomy.

» The anti-porn feminists claim that pornography has a negative impact on women, couples, and on society in general. However, there is no conclusive data or statistics proving this.

» And while it may be true that consuming too much porn can have a negative impact on you, so can consuming too much sugar! Abuse, as a general rule, has bad consequences.

» They say that being a sex worker is damaging to your body. Well, yeah, maybe in some cases—some extreme cases—it is. But, uh, so is being an athlete. I mean, my cousin plays soccer. She’s 3 years younger than me. She’s already wrecked both her knees. But she loves her job. Yeah, you got coal miners, firefighters, police officers. Goes to show you: some people actually do risk their bodies and their health to perform a job.

» There is also the claim that pornography inspires or glorifies violence against women and that male viewers will treat women like objects as a result, which is just as ridiculous as saying that people who watch boxing will go out and start beating the hell out of each other or that kids who listen to death metal will shoot up their schools. It’s just a scare tactic.

» And, while most of them deny that they actually want porn banned, they scream victory when banning does happen such as the recent ban on stripping in Iceland.

» But that’s because they’re not just against exploitation. They’re against the actual transmission of money for sex. But then where is it that we draw the line? Do we draw it at the girlfriend who refuses to get married to her boyfriend unless he gives her a nice big diamond ring? Or the housewife to, y’know, have sex with her husband unless he takes her out for a nice dinner or a night on the town?

» Instead of trying to redefine what feminism is about, maybe you need to consider the fact that you are the one militating against womens’ rights.

» Do you really think that women are incapable of making their own decisions without some organization telling them what they should or should not do?

» ‘Cause if you don’t believe that, you may want to stop opposing the industries they choose to be part of and instead militate for better working conditions and equal protection for women.

» With prostitution being illegal, do you know what happens when sex workers are raped, beaten up, or robbed? Nothing. They benefit from zero legal protection as there are no laws to regulate the work they do.

» You may want to consider for a moment, too, that a woman’s sexual liberation should be about a group of people telling her when she can, and can’t, and under what circumstances, have sex.

» We have a right to choose what happens to our bodies and we will not accept your skewed morals onto us. We are not the victims here.

» If the idea that sex for money seems morally repugnant to you, then you may need to come to terms with the fact that this is just your own personal bias and in no way constitutes grounds for prohibiting consensual sexual acts.

» Please post a comment or a video response sharing your thoughts on the legalization of prostitution, pornography, or stripping. Also, if you enjoyed this video, check out the video responses of all the other ladies in this collaboration, which are gonna be linked around here somewhere. And thumbs up if you support our message. Until next time, stay safe!


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal
Mashable reports on The State of Mobile Video:

Our video consumption tends to peak around 10 p.m., at which point bandwidth takes a nosedive and stalling cripples our viewing experience.
In other words, we get the worst possible experience exactly when we want most to have a good experience.
[…] the stats on adult content; four of the top 10 video sites accessed from mobile phones contain only adult content. So much for “freedom from porn.”

This proves that eradicating porn would have an obvious benefit: better mobile bandwidth. Of course, there are many other ways to improve mobile bandwidth performance, so calling for an end to porn based on this finding doesn’t make a lot of sense.
What’s noteworthy is that this is exactly how anti-porn activists justify their “Stop Porn Culture” arguments: since porn is de-facto sex education for young people due to its prevalence, we should eradicate porn. Arguments in favor of comprehensive sex education are too rarely considered as an alternative.
Anti-porn activists’ routine failure to advocate for sex education is a tacit acknowledgement: anti-porn is pro-censorship. Censorship is not protection. Only education is.

Mashable reports on The State of Mobile Video:

Our video consumption tends to peak around 10 p.m., at which point bandwidth takes a nosedive and stalling cripples our viewing experience.

In other words, we get the worst possible experience exactly when we want most to have a good experience.

[…] the stats on adult content; four of the top 10 video sites accessed from mobile phones contain only adult content. So much for “freedom from porn.”

This proves that eradicating porn would have an obvious benefit: better mobile bandwidth. Of course, there are many other ways to improve mobile bandwidth performance, so calling for an end to porn based on this finding doesn’t make a lot of sense.

What’s noteworthy is that this is exactly how anti-porn activists justify their “Stop Porn Culture” arguments: since porn is de-facto sex education for young people due to its prevalence, we should eradicate porn. Arguments in favor of comprehensive sex education are too rarely considered as an alternative.

Anti-porn activists’ routine failure to advocate for sex education is a tacit acknowledgement: anti-porn is pro-censorship. Censorship is not protection. Only education is.


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal
Anti-porn logic would censor anti-porn websites

Getting people talking to each other is a really important part of fostering positive change. This includes talking to those you disagree with because it’s the best way to hear about opposing views. What better place to hear about anti-porn activists’ logic than from anti-porn activist leaders themselves?

Iamcuriousblue made a brief video discussing the recent removal of the political pro-porn Facebook page that attracted the attention of leading anti-porn campaigners. Here’s some of their conversation:

Comments section of Iamcuriousblue's video.

PornHarms: The link in the first facebook post found in the first link of google caches provided in your description is to pornographic images. There are no age requirements, no way of stopping a young child from clicking on that and being forced to see porn. We did not report your page, but are very happy that such easy access to porn has been restricted by Facebook.

Iamcuriousblue: First, I’m not able to find the link that you’ve described.

Second, you’re saying that if somebody can trace a chain of links back to a page with adult content, that should be enough for a page to be flagged down? So how about when Gail Dines mentions Gagfactor(dot)com? All one has to do is put that into the address bar and you’ve linked to some very extreme imagery.

[…]

Also, I don’t appreciate the thinly-veiled threat you make regarding my supposed chain of links to adult content. Do you really want to play that way? I can certainly find *plenty* of such link chains at anti-porn sites, and graphic descriptions through people like Gail Dines. You *do not* want to open this Pandora’s Box.

So, according to the “Porn Harms” group lead by former Bush-era chief obscenity prosecutor Patrick Trueman, if a website links to another website and that second website has links to “pornographic images,” a definition that consistently varies by time and place and sometimes by mood, that first website (like the political pro-porn page) should be removed. That sounds a lot like an even stricter DMCA, doesn’t it?

If such a policy were law, I’m pretty sure I would be a criminal today. Maybe you should go check your website and blog right now, follow every single link, and then follow every single link that the pages those links point to link to. Would you be a criminal, too? Would you even know how to update your site if the pages on the other sites change? (You could, of course, try Cleanternet.org.)

By the same token, it seems anti-porn groups are not so fond of the idea of removing their own content or censoring their own speech based on the same logic. After all, wasn’t it anti-porn activist Gail Dines who earned the dubious honor of “perhaps becoming the first person to utter the words ‘cum dumpster’ at a Capitol Hill press event?” Amanda Hess, who attended the press event, reports:

The porn bashers, like [maymay and other] kink educators, quickly upload videos of their day of speeches, placing the content just a Google search away from kids. Dines’ lecture in particular reads like a road map to hard-core porn consumption: “If you go to Gagfactor.com, you’ll see a 20-second clip of a scene with a young woman they call Scarlett.” The “clip opens with Scarlett sitting on a toilet, having a penis thrust down her throat, while the man attached to the penis pulls her head back and forward.”

(Emphasis mine.)

So why, pray tell, if we are to follow anti-porn logic, should only politically oppositional content, like mine, be removed?


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal
Anti-porn is pro-censorship, even if they say they’re not

The worst part of censorship is [CENSORED].

There’s an(other) interesting brouhaha in digital anti-porn versus (IMHO inappropriately named) pro-porn debates. But instead of a porn site, this time the battleground is Facebook.

Violet Blue’s “Our Porn, Ourselves” Facebook fan page, a carefully patrolled page where over 3,000 people (including myself) discussed the issue of pornography in the context of the anti-porn and pro-porn arguments, has been removed. Exactly why that happened is known only to Facebook at the moment, but here’s what the anti-porn activists behind the @Porn_Harms twitter account said:

#facebook removed very innapropriate #proporn page. Thx FB for enforcing your no-obscenity rules. #children shouldn’t have open access there

Ah, yes. Children. Won’t somebody think of them? Please?

Noticing, @DodgerWA made a very simple, obvious point:

Interesting. According to @porn_harms even simply talking about #proporn ideals is “innapropriate” (sic).

.@Porn_Harms Links on the #proporn FB page were to articles about porn, not porn itself.  It’s called social discussion & education.

This is a very telling example of anti-porn being pro-censorhip. It is perhaps the most blatant example of the embodiment of anti-porn ideals on the Internet, which clearly forbid not merely the distribution of imagery that anti-porn zealots like Gail Dines find offensive, but simply ideas that they find offensive.

Make no mistake: anti-porn is pro-censorship. They may say they’re not, but read closely and you’ll see references to MacKinnon-style censorship laws that would suppress access to the kinds of ideas that were on Violet Blue’s Facebook page. And they make these (sometimes subtle) references all over the place.

To wit, this recent Boston Globe article about Gail Dines:

Having viewed countless images as part of her research, Dines says there should be legislation that would define pornography as a violation of women’s civil rights and would entitle women to sue the industry for harm done to them.

Arguments like this have earned her […] the inevitable accusation that she favors censorship (Dines says she does not) and that she is an anti-sex prude. At that, she just rolls her eyes.

(Emphasis mine.)

Well, Ms. Dines, some accusations are true.

Update: Sometimes, the anti-porn contingent is not so subtle. Here’s them crowing about the pro-porn fan page’s removal. Comments include “Its all Gods mercy. More are yet to be removed God must rule” and “Thanks, FB. GOOD JOB…WA HOO! LOVE IT…PRAISE GOD!!!” (Click to enlarge.)


This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!

PayPal