No, really, I’ve had enough.
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, from the anti-side to explain how and why it is okay for anti-pornography proponents to use pornographic images on their blogs and in other contexts- without the consent of the performers or the women posing- and in some cases actually profit or charge for this- as in the case of the slide show CD?
Warning, potentially triggering content, including imagery, ahead.
An image used on Melissa Farley’s Traffic Jamming Blog:
I am still waiting for someone, anyone, from the anti-side to explain how and why it is okay for anti-pornography proponents to use pornographic images on their blogs and in other contexts- without the consent of the performers or the women posing- and in some cases actually profit or charge for this- as in the case of the slide show CD?
Warning, potentially triggering content, including imagery, ahead.
An image used on Melissa Farley’s Traffic Jamming Blog:
Edit: Image removed/2257. To see of what I speak, please visit here.
These come from Charlie’Grrl’s Blog of Feminist Activism:
These come from Charlie’Grrl’s Blog of Feminist Activism:
(also no warning)
(um, yeah, and my logo is soooo bad?)Why is this okay? It’s showcasing porn. It’s exploiting the women (and men) in the images without their consent, without payment, and for ones own reasons. No one using the images has asked the participants for their feelings on the matter. They probably don’t even know their names. Porn companies know their names. They have consent on file, as well as proof of age. They also pay them. The anti-porn side has done none of this. So, this is okay for the cause? It’s okay to do exactly what you hate- exploit the sexualized, objectified human form- with NO concern for the person in the image or their feelings, for your own reasons? A few poster casualties in the name of the war on porn?
Hey, guess what? This is me having sex on film. I even censored it for you!
I am of age. I consented. I have records on file. I got paid. I know, as do those who work with me, and those who read here, how I feel about it. Might make a damn good photo for your anti-arguments, eh? Never mind if I consented to being an anti argument, or how I feel, or if I am not being compensated…Funny, yes? In an utterly ironic way which is not funny at all. Really, please, I beg of you…explain this. Justify this. Tell me why it is okay?
Face it, in your anti-porn fight; you’ve become pornographers, exploiters, and users with no concern for the women (and men) whose images you are using.
Even Joe Franics gives away t-shirts…
74 comments:
First, Ren, nice picture. You definitely are in shape and are much more flexible than I'll ever be.
Second, just had to state this (the lawyer in me) - if you comply with fair use, you don't need to compensate someone for using a portion of their work, even if you profit from your own work. Also, where copyright DOES apply, it applies even if you do not make any money. Their fair use argument would be along the line of a critique - like for instance, you can put a movie review in a newspaper and include images from the movie even though the newspaper makes money and even without the permission of the owner of the film's copyright. Though you may ask for permission anyway, just for good form.
Now, legalities aside, Ren, you are 100% correct on moral grounds - they complain about porn images and then they seem to profit by using them and they did NOT get the performer's permission to use them, which rather cuts against the grain of their arguments. Rail against 'using' women in images by using women in images. Particularly ironic when the original use was totally consensual and the only non-consenting use of the images was by the anti-porn folks.
What a bunch of wankers. In fact, I do wonder if some of those anti-porn folks whack off to their little slide shows when they are alone in the dark (then of course feel terribly guilty about it afterwards). Ok, maybe that's obnoxious, but I thought it and here my fingers go typing it.
Oh, WOW.....I'm totally surprised. NOT!!!!!!!!
So...in the eyes of Melissa Farley, a group of women engaging in safe, consensual BDSM kink play is the equivalent (if not WORSE) of Iraqi detainees getting tortured at Abu Ghraib. Really, they are. Never mind that the torture of the latter involved NO SEX WHATSOEVER.
Oh....and I guess from the second photo that a group of naked women engaged in a lesbian orgy (notice the lack of men with penii in the pic), still represents the ultimate violation and degradation of women.
Oh....and showing a cover of a bondage mag with the caption "BRING THE PAIN" says absolutely NOT A DAMN THING about whether the woman actually likes a little stimulation with her sex...but why let the truth and a woman's free will get in the way of a good crusade against sluts and whores and male erections??
Sex sells. Anti-sex sells even better, it seems.
Anthony
Gee, Ren....given that, I can see why they would condemn you as beyond the pale;
dbb:
It's not about legality...it's about bullshit. I would still, were it me being used in those slide shows, PAY a lawyer to waste his or her time making an issue of it...on principle.
Ren - you are right, it is total bullshit. And I should have put in a disclaimer - while profit doesn't preclude fair use, it doesn't mean that their slide show was all necessarily fair use - and it may be worth exploring the legal options on that.
I'd love the headlines from the case - "Anti-porn conference sued for exploiting images of women without their permission." LOL
"I am still waiting for someone, anyone, from the anti-side to explain how and why it is okay for anti-pornography proponents to use pornographic images on their blogs and in other contexts- without the consent of the performers or the women posing- and in some cases actually profit or charge for this- as in the case of the slide show CD?"
I'm really hesitant to comment on the slideshow without having seen it myself, which is one of the reasons I haven't commented on the anti-porn slideshow. I'd say that technically it falls within fair-use, but I believe that ethically, if they didn't, they should have blacked out the performers faces, breasts, and genitals. Selling it for profit is completely out of line, I agree.
The image from Melissa Farley's site is also out of line since she did not black out the woman's face (although I assume that was likely so you could see the gag...but still, she could have at least blacked out her eyes.) and since she does not have a trigger warning. I am going to go leave a comment about that now.
Faith, what about consent? Think Farley asked if she could use that womans image at all, or asked how she felt about it? Think she cares? Think the feelings of these ACTUAL REAL WOMEN involved in the acts used for these reasons matter?
Gah.
(sorry, between this and the latest post over and antiprincess's, I am UNTHRILLED with people today)
in the eyes of Melissa Farley, a group of women engaging in safe, consensual BDSM kink play is the equivalent (if not WORSE) of Iraqi detainees getting tortured at Abu Ghraib.
Is the BDSM worse BECAUSE it's fully-consensual? That it'd be better if the women were forced victims - because then the fems could easily blame the patriarchy?
But because they aren't forced...now they must either accept such behavior as "OK" with no blame...or don't & blame it on the women? Which would then break the #1 rule of feminism: NEVER BLAME THE WOMAN!
What dbb and Faith said. That's just...wow. and yeah: they don't even fucking bother to black out the womens' faces? What, they just figure the women are totally soiled by what they've done anyway, so a little more publicity won't hurt, horrible as they think it all is?
and what a bunch of crap, using the Abu Gharib photo for that second shot. i mean--what is the comparison? lazy; i'm sure they could've found someone wearing a hood if they'd worked at it; but then, again, you wouldn't have been able to see her face. and hello, torture is not frigging BDSM? what is it that they think is happening to the woman? what is it that they think is happening to the (male, btw) Abu Gharib victim? and yeah, once again, CONSENT? CONTEXT? for the love of christ.
and yeah, the fact that the woman includes that on her blog WITHOUT warning and that's just fine but your image is "triggering"--well, what a pile of steaming--i already said that.
Faith, Belle, ext...
If this pisses you off as much as it does me, I'd honestly appreciate it if you posted about the matter yourselves or mentioned it somehow. THis is really, really making me angry. I want an F'ing answer.
Ren - that's a good idea - I put up a short post about it on my own blog, though I doubt I could possibly be as pissed off about it as you are, it is the sort of hypocritical moralizing crap that gets my goat.
Of course, hardly anyone but me reads my blog, but hey, its the thought that counts...
Done (scroll to the end)
The use of these images for anti-porn arguments is a lot like being anti-Nazi and wearing a red armband with a swastika. It may get people's attention, but at the end of the day, it's just wrong.
"Even Joe Franics gives away t-shirts…"
As an aside, he's in jail again
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
yep. for contempt of court; but hey, it's a start. with any luck, he's such a charmer, he'll continue to piss people off and just keep adding onto his sentence.
love y'all, and yes, I mentioned him, but I'd rather not this become Joe Franics thread if it's at all possible. Yes, jail, he deserves, I think we all agree there?
Excellent.
no prob.
just went over to check IBTM, p.s. yeeesh.
i think that charliewhosis is in over her head, just at a glance. i can totally dig why people are enraged at her, though.
Well, charlie...I don't often read her blog really, though she did stop by here once to wonder aloud about why I, or any other woman, would "turn my body into a sex toy for the patriarchy" or something like that...hippies post has been just quite the little amusement factory in a few places...lots of nice anti BSDM'ers calling those who partake "psychos" and "sick fucks" ect,. Lovely really.
Mellissa farley's is objectionable even on the plain ol' fact that comparing abu ghraib and institutional torture to BDSM, even if BDSM is bad, downplays exactly how fucking horribly abu ghraib is.
And that's coming from someone who could actually point out ways to make abu ghraib worse, the amount of fucking research I've done on sensory perception and sensory reactions means I know exactly how fucking amateurish the crap we're pulling in the torture camps is, that it is largely just about vengeance and cruelty, and a damn sloppy kind at that.
But here's the thing:
No BDSMer does anything to do with stress positions, nor sleep deprivation, nor audial torture and abuse, and those are the three major forms of torture that we not only employ but which we teach in places like the schools of the americas, and they are the sort of hting subs and bondage fetishists have safe words for - they're horrible and torture in a way that could not be pleasurable or even bearable, that's why they're the key aspect of our torture manuals and "counter" interogation techniques we hardly ever use as a way to teach and study torture methods without it being illegal or skeevy looking, the beatings are amateurish and symptoms of a general laissez faire attitude towards cruelty in our torture camps and culture on the part of the guards and those who support htem that puts them right up there with their historical peers in the death camps and those who enabled them, because beatings and waterboarding have to escalate to aboid the subject becoming acclimatised to them and figuring out how to cope with them and they become fatal and/or meaningless pretty quickly anyway becuase of that ability for the victims to adapt to them or because you can only escalate them so far without killing them.
And water boarding has only ever been used, even back in torquemada's day, as a means to extract false confessions, which we're not bothering to obtain atm, though we're probably doing them anyway for kicks becuase they're a really lazy way to hurt people.
Ugh, that conflation is offensive on so many levels beyond mere breach of copyright and exploitation of the sex workers who's images they're using, it shows a rampant ignorance of the subjects they're displaying with their pictures on par with black or hamsher's use of black face last year AND/OR a lack of empathy that is truly frightening.
I can't really focus on the other stuff... you've finally found some images that trigger me ffs ren.
What is wrong with these fuckstains?
(Joe Francis thread here btw)
But Ren don't you understand that the Patriarchy has so damaged you that you are unable to give consent!
Also all other females involved with pawn are similarly damaged and also unable to give consent.
*runs away*
Sb
What RM said.
And that second pic seems to be merely a portrait of some pretty hot naked women lounging around within close proximity to each other...without even a penis present. Question for charliegrrl: What in the fuck does that have to do with rape and brutality of women??? Unless you consider mere nudity to be part of the "patriarchy", then???
And oh, gee..how touching...two lad mags side to side; one a typical (probably softcore) boob-heavy wankfest, the other a typical BDSM playacting tome. That really does prove that porn causes men to want to rape women. Really, it does.
Even spooge stains have more intellect than this foolishness.
Anthony
AK: of course naked breasts are porn, what are you thinking? and they may not cause rape, but oh, how objectifying!
exactly how fucking amateurish the crap we're pulling in the torture camps is, that it is largely just about vengeance and cruelty, and a damn sloppy kind at that.
well, the bits we know about anyway. i've no doubt at all that much worse goes on that we haven't yet and maybe never will hear.
comparing abu ghraib and institutional torture to BDSM, even if BDSM is bad, downplays exactly how fucking horribly abu ghraib is.
mhm.
well look, you're talking about vastly ignorant people here, for the most part; either their experience of BDSM has been at the hands of abusive fuckstains justifying their abuse in the name of BDSM (i have seen a couple of specific entries i am thinking of here, don't know if this includes anyone currently blathering at Farley's or IH's); more likely and more often they get their info from popular media and stereotypes and their own weird-ass fantasies and ideas, just like so many other people.
i mean, whosis, CM, had that one piece where she refers to wire hangers and a box of salt. astonishingly clueless as she demonstrably is, i have a feeling that in that instance she probably isn't actually that more clueless than a lot of people. just creepier about expressing it.
By the way. per fair use, this occured to me:
yes, what dbb (among others) has said is true.
that said, i am now wondering:
at least in academia, with written work: it is customary to -cite- one's sources.
and in most film clip anthologies that i've ever seen--i mean that were for sale, you know, not just some fangirl making Buffy homages on the Internets (which they could probably swoop in on anyway, often enough): they do have a bit at the end where they refer to the titles used, and other such bibiographical or i guess filmographical info.
does this little compilation have any such creditting? does it say, made use of I don't know "Debbie Does Dallas" or "Wall to Wall Rimjobs #7" or whatever? because, if not...I wonder.
I don't see the problem with reproducing the lads' mags cover images and the poster - they're already in the public eye. However, I think selling the slideshow is totally fucking disgusting and hypocritical.
In other "what the fuck were you thinking of" news, I DO NOT understand how certain anti-porners can sign the UK petition composed by the right wing, homophobic, sexist and downright fascist group Mediawatch. I also do not understand why they think censoring ALL FORMS OF SEXUAL ACTIVITY ON CAMERA is going to help anyone.
Head/desk.
Well fuck me with a switch, I'm late to the party as usual.... I'll have to blog about this tomorrow. Ren, seriously, fucking grrrr.
R. Mildred doesn't seem to know much about BDSM. It is very often about causing actual real pain, even causing injuries (bruises and such, which I consider injuries). It is also about sensory deprivation and stress positions and anything else a 'Master' may think up for his 'Slave,' including preventing them from using the bathroom, forcing them to overeat, leading them through a public fair with a complex gag and a leash (naked), etc.
It's about everything and anything. Comparison with torture is not absurd, but it's out of place, because of the critical component of consent.
And Ren, I just read this and it's past my bedtime so I'm not going to post on it now, but I will if I get the time and if you don't get an answer to your legit question.
I'm with DBB - they probably get off on this stuff in secret. You're right to be outraged.
"i mean, whosis, CM, had that one piece where she refers to wire hangers and a box of salt. "
Huh? How very...DIY.
She seems to be totally missing the ritualistic aspects. People LIKE their toys. They spend money on their toys.
comparing a BDSM video to Abu-Ghraib? what a bunch dummies.
I noticed Dan Savage had a little bit on BDSM videos this week: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove
"Wall to Wall Rimjobs #7"
because "Wall to Wall Rimjobs #6" left so many unanswered questions...
apostate:
R. Mildred doesn't seem to know much about BDSM. It is very often about causing actual real pain, even causing injuries (bruises and such, which I consider injuries). It is also about sensory deprivation and stress positions and anything else a 'Master' may think up for his 'Slave,' including preventing them from using the bathroom, forcing them to overeat, leading them through a public fair with a complex gag and a leash (naked), etc.
Apostate doesn't seem to know much about BDSM. It involves negotiation and safewords, and what bruises are caused are usually reminders of a very, very good time. Also it involves safewords, you know, words that you say where either everything pauses for re-negotiation or everything stops immediately.
It also often involves female Master's/doms/tops and male slaves/subs/bottoms.
Honestly. *eyeroll*
It is very often about causing actual real pain, even causing injuries (bruises and such, which I consider injuries). It is also about sensory deprivation and stress positions and anything else a 'Master' may think up for his 'Slave,' including preventing them from using the bathroom, forcing them to overeat, leading them through a public fair with a complex gag and a leash (naked), etc.
Oh dear oh dear, you realise I'm a sexual masochist right? You realise I have scars on me from really rough sex - and I'd get them again becuase the sex was really fucking hot for me right?
You realise also I spent a few years in the UK working for human rights organisations which means I've seen the first hand accounts of what goes on in a wide variety of torture camps, prison systems, rape camps and just plain old domestic abuse, right?
Who knows what evil lies in the heart of man? I fucking well do.
No. legit non-abusive BDSMers are NOTHING like Abu Ghraib or what goes on in our torture and death camps. No. Bruising in and of itself is not enough for it to be equivalent to torture, I've bruised the hell out of myself so much during martial arts training and exercises that I do not bruise anymore, and just exercising heavily makes my body feel bruised all over yet exericing is rarely considered a form of abuse - and the funny thing is that only the exercising actually counts as self abuse because it's part of my eating disorder, but I fucking dare you to say that an eating disorder is equivalent to abu ghraib.
No. Being tied up or being "made" to wear a gimpsuit intermittently and complient with your will is not the same as being tied to a floor for several years in a pool of your own excretions against your will and having your only means of exercise in your life being when your jailer ties a rope around your neck and drags you about the jail on all fours.
No. being tied up or down or sideways for a few minutes or an hour or two is not the same as being chained to the floor until your joints dislocate and your spine warps and you're left with seriously neuromuscular damage as a result of being kept in a single position for seemingly ever.
No. The use of hoods to disorientate a prisoner or a sub is not a form of abuse - playing britney spears so loud that it causes physical damage to your ears all day and night so that you can't sleep from the pain is torture.
Yes. Duration of the abuse matters. Yes. Consent matters. Yes. the fact that no sub spends more than a few hours a week tied up or tied down or dressed up or spanked matters.
They are not alike in kind, in severity, or even in the basic social dynamics that underpin them.
you know what's weird to me?
there are plenty of "BDSM vs Abuse" lists and other such resources available online. they're easy to find, mostly even work-safe - there's no excuse for ignorance on the subject.
yet. here we are. again.
I am of anti-porn persuasion, but I can see your point. I must say, I do actually like reading your blog, because it's good to hear from other perspectives.
I just don't think that they necessarily thought "uh-huh I know...let's use these images to exploit women ourselves."
And dbb, in your first comment...
"In fact, I do wonder if some of those anti-porn folks whack off to their little slide shows when they are alone in the dark (then of course feel terribly guilty about it afterwards)." Mayte, I think that's totally uncalled for, and a bit childish.
"R. Mildred doesn't seem to know much about BDSM."
Running and ducking...
"Yes. the fact that no sub spends more than a few hours a week tied up or tied down or dressed up or spanked matters."
Oh, boy...I agree that what you are describing is not abuse. But I've heard of at least one case in which a male sub was confined to a cage (i'm assuming he was allowed out for bathroom and showers, etc.) for like 40 days. There are also apparently slaves (which are different from subs.) who apparently sleep in cages at night or restraints every night.
So, yea, while in general I agree that BDSM isn't anywhere near what non-practitioners paint it to be, there are some really hard-core peeps out there doing some stuff that I really have trouble seeing as anything other than abuse even if they are consenting. I've heard of some subs/slaves claiming their only limit was death, for fuck's sake...
Amy: Hello, welcome and thanks..
You know, I am sure they did not think of it as exploitive either, but it is. And I have, at least here in bloglandia, pointed that out to a few radical/anti porn feminists, and one...exactly one...even thought about the matter. Other than that? Nothing. Not even (as of yet) an answer or theory as to WHY it's "okay".
I get a little frusterated (understatement) when people who are not anti-porn, or worse yet (apparently) actually consentually involved in porn are always questioned...asked to examine their inner selves and motivations, how their actions affect others, how they promote exploitation, so on so forth, but when they are asked the same, or similar questions...well, mostly there is a lot of avoiding, spit and bile in return.
You see it lots of places: this issue being one, BDSM being another, right on down to what clothes people wear.
It gets old.
I've heard of some subs/slaves claiming their only limit was death, for fuck's sake...
I've heard a lot more tops speaking about such people in utter scorn.
"Whatever pleases you, Master."
"Great! I'm gonna go watch TV in the other room. 'later bye."
I get a little frusterated (understatement) when people who are not anti-porn, or worse yet (apparently) actually consentually involved in porn are always questioned...asked to examine their inner selves and motivations, how their actions affect others, how they promote exploitation, so on so forth, but when they are asked the same, or similar questions...well, mostly there is a lot of avoiding, spit and bile in return.
You saw trin's latest response to that, right?
I don't see the problem with reproducing the lads' mags cover images and the poster - they're already in the public eye.
Of itself, I don't either--but it's pretty rum for the same people who're just fine with that to demand that Ren put a trigger warning on the image of -herself- on -her own blog- for fuck's sake, when they don't seem to need any such warnings for similar and "worse" at their buddies'.
I just don't think that they necessarily thought "uh-huh I know...let's use these images to exploit women ourselves."
They didn't have to. They didn't have to think about what the actual performers did or didn't -really- want at all. That's kind of the whole point. And people point the irony out to them, and they still don't listen. They refuse to listen to -the actual women- if they don't confirm their already-existing worldview; they find any justification under the sun to explain why their "consent" really isn't, to not post their responses or letters, to invalidate or minimize their voices or experiences, and if all else fails, to demonize them by calling them selfish, aberrant freaks, or pimps themselves, or fuck knows what-all. It -bites.-
preventing them from using the bathroom, forcing them to overeat, leading them through a public fair with a complex gag and a leash (naked), etc.
People negotiate for that shit. The former two things you mention are fairly hardcore by most peoples' standards, and a lot of -tops- won't do it, let alone bottoms; and if people do play with such things...the difference, the HUGE difference between this sort of thing and abuse/torture is, the bottom's safety is the erm bottom line. There is no "safeword" in torture; and the goal is not to get mutual erotic or some other sort of pleasure; the goal is to gratify the torturer's wishes at the expense of the victim. It's -different.-
As for leading people naked through a fair--there is a -really big difference- from taking a consensual exhibitionist through Folsom street and using such tactics to humiliate devout Moslems in Abu Gharib, yanno?
But I've heard of at least one case in which a male sub was confined to a cage (i'm assuming he was allowed out for bathroom and showers, etc.) for like 40 days.
I don't know about that, but I have talked to one very hardcore sub/mascoschist "girlfag" who spent...well, it was more than a day in a cage, I don't remember exactly what she said. I do remember her talking about it as a spiritual experience, definitely not some sort of endurance test/abuse put up with; she definitely wanted it.
I'll admit, on the rare occassions I venture into BDSM land, I do and like some pretty hardcore shit. This should not be a shock really, but it is NOT torture, and I can say "Enough"...or when being dominant, i LISTEN if and when they do.
yeah. boundaries are key.
and that's what finally nails it for me about these zealots: of -course- they don't understand about consensual BDSM or consensual anything sexual (that doesn't agree with their notion of what's kosher already) for anyone; they don't respect other peoples' boundaries, period. God knows why.
I see people misunderstood what I was saying about BDSM. I wasn't equating BDSM and torture, and I know all about safe words, etc. That wasn't the point. R. Mildred specifically excluded stress positions and a couple of other things from BDSM and included them in torture. They may be present in either or both. That was my point.
R. Mildred was wrong, no matter how much of a masochist she is. shrug
Belle said...
"I've heard of some subs/slaves claiming their only limit was death, for fuck's sake...
I've heard a lot more tops speaking about such people in utter scorn.
"Whatever pleases you, Master."
"Great! I'm gonna go watch TV in the other room. 'later bye."
Mwah! I really need to buy her a drink one of these days.
Note - I am a dom and I avoid people like that as if they were carrying Ebola. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
And about the BSDM equals Abu Ghraib thing...Get some fucking perspective, people.
Consent is not some waffly, vague, irrelevant issue. Consent is important. Is this not what we've been saying about rape for a very long time? So why is it irrelevant in this one particular context.
And about the comment about leading a hooded person through a fair...the level of religious bigotry and cultural ignorance in this country astounds me sometimes.
OK, breaking it down...public nudity is a big taboo in Muslim cultures. Nudity in the presence of large numbers of people of the opposite sex is a REALLY big taboo. Now add in the fact that those men were very much not consenting. Now add in the presence of aggressive dogs which could at any moment lunge at one's exposed flesh.
Looks a little different to a happy exhibitionist being led through a group of like-minded kinksters by someone they trust, doesn't it?
PS You are an idiot.
They may be present in either or both. That was my point.
You still are negating the aspect of consent. Pain within the context of BDSM is specifically negotiated and understood, whereas you cannot say this about torture. Negate the importance of consent all you want, but it's everything to us bottoms.
Not that it matters, but I hope you realize that rapists don't care about consent either.
From the admittedly limited amount of antiprOn feminists I've met the major impression I've gotten is that they're totally into D/S.
Not exactly direct quotes but when I hear "My partner and I only have sex when I want to"
and
"I don't allow my partner to have penetrative sex with me"
I'm usually thinking dang thats kinky, not how totally feminist of you.
R. Mildred specifically excluded stress positions and a couple of other things from BDSM and included them in torture.
Actually I excluded stress positions from BDSM for valid stated reasons, namely that when their erzatz equivalent are used in BDSM or slave play, they're not used for the durations nor to the extremes that are used in incidents of torture, nor do they do the sorts of damage we're talking about.
I also guess that, judging by that example of a man being kept in a cage (which isn't neccesarily a stress position, and was probably used to make the slave feel controlled and dominated), people are not neccesarily aware of what exactly a stress position is - keeping the subject in a position that is physically painful is only a means to the end of setting the victim into a position whereby they torture themselves, with the idea of making the torture victim feel responsible for their own suffering - a psychological effect that makes NO sense within the context of BDSM - a tertiary effect is that the stress positions themselves usually cause severely painful and serious damage, dislocations, spinal warping, neuromuscular disorders etc... which mean that the torturers can hold access to medical facilities and treatment over the head of the torture victim.
So for those who don't get why I exluded it: Anything that explitly and intentionally causes serious bodily harm to someone is illegal and not done by any responsible dom or master.
Anything which is designed explictly to say "why do you keep hitting yourself?" to the victim makes no sense within a BDSM context, which is all about one person being dominated by another, and knowing they're being dominated by someone else at all points.
And anything which pretty much relies on the victim being kept in a very real fear of them being killed or dying at any moment - and probably will be killed - is nothing like what goes on in BDSM communities or in their bedrooms.
The fact that consent is absent is a side issue - what is done to torture victims, not least of which is Murder (which I think, though do correct me if I'm wrong here, is illegal slightly), does not occur within the BDSM community, and to say it does downplays, and shows an ignorance of, what is actually done to torture victims, who ARE rape victims, and deserve respect as any other rape victim's ordeal does.
"people are not neccesarily aware of what exactly a stress position is"
I think the reason the government has made stress positions the torture of choice is precisely because of that lack of understanding. Electric shocks, water boarding, etc – that's very obvious torture, because it inflicts overwhelming pain that nobody would want to experience even for a second. Stress positions aren't particularly painful for short periods and don't really sound like torture, yet being kept in those positions for hours on end amounts to exactly that. The use of stress positions rather than more overt methods of torture help maintain the "we don't torture" facade of the last several years.
dr_depravo said:
"From the admittedly limited amount of antiprOn feminists I've met the major impression I've gotten is that they're totally into D/S."
I've thought this too for a long time. Specifically, APRFs often have a very dominant style towards other people's sexuality, being very quick to tell people what the can and can't do sexually or even fantasize about. Its that lack of self-awareness and lack of boundaries that makes the behavior and politics of many APRF so creepy.
Susie Bright once wrote that she considered Andrea Dworkin to be a severely repressed sadist, even going so far as to call her the modern reincarnation of the Marquis de Sade. Although I'm not a literal believer in karma and reincarnation, there is a certain poetic truth to that description.
a tertiary effect is that the stress positions themselves usually cause severely painful and serious damage, dislocations, spinal warping, neuromuscular disorders etc... which mean that the torturers can hold access to medical facilities and treatment over the head of the torture victim.
which right there takes it out of the league of "safe and sane" never mind "consensual." if someone DID do that in a supposedly BDSM context...that would be abuse right there. at the very minimum (causing that kind of injury that is, obviously deliebrately witholding medical treatment is unquestionably and grossly abusive all by itself) it means the top is irresponsible and fucked up and needs to be held accountable for it the same as anyone who tries to do something potentially dangerous to another person without having the skills for it.
well, a couple of things to that last (iacb)--one, whatever study it is that the brain does not process negatives. as in, this is why "don't think of a pink elephant" doesn't work. it's the pink elephant that yer gonna think of; it's not perversity, it's just how the brain works. the "don't" doesn't factor in that context. "Don't" only matters wrt the logical brain, as in "don't do such and such an action, or x will follow." Sane, rational adults can do that much. with regard to -action.-
but if you eat breathe sleep pr0n, regardless of the context (just "studying" it, uh huh), and expect it -not- to saturate your consciousness, well...
"look into the abyss," etc.
there is also the sermon a UU minister once gave, where she said, basically, where you put your energy is what you worship. then asked, how many of you are wearing a watch? how many of you are carrying money?...
it was a good sermon.
The thing you all forget is that anti-porn side deals with porn survivors all day and all night. Putting a lovely teddy on the horror of porn and the pyschic damage it causes does not actually make it any better. It just helps you sleep at night.
If you don't want out, don't get out. If you do want out, it is possible to leave porn and survive quite well.
But just because your experience with porn has been all clean and shiny, that does not erase the reality of most porn production and the porn lifestyle. It is a brutal and horrible thing to survive.
Finally, if you don't understand that getting a hard on when you see women being tied up and shocked with a cattle prod is a problem, then you need to take a deep breath think again.
Anony:
One, I am ALL for helping women who want out to get out. I'VE EVEN DONE IT.
Two: don't tell me about shiny happy.
THree: who are you?
RenEv - just a slight piece of info! The zoo and nuts covers are available in pretty much any newsagents when you walk in. They are on low shelves. Anyone can see them. This is Charlie's point - that anyone can exploit these women and their images. Most of the stuff on her blog is freely available for ANYONE to see when they walk in a newsagent and also go to the magazine's respective websites.
So please don't say that us 'anti-porners' don't give a crap about women and how these images are used. And Dbb I take offence at your little comment at the end of your first comment. You are so out of line.
I'm sorry if you don't agree with me, but I just think this entire argument is slightly pointless as the whole thing is that these images are available to anyone anywhere and can be exploited MUCH worse than trying to HELP women that DON'T want to be in porn but ARE.
Also, why do you include comments from MRA's and trolls when you purport to be a pro-women feminist?
Annony:
I am aware lads mags can be seen by anyone. That doesn't change the fact that an anti porn advocate has them on her blog, it's "okay" because she is anti porn, and she (nor anyone else, apparently) does not CARE how the models MIGHT feel about it.
Now, I don't care what you think of my argument, because it is apparent to me the feelings of the women in porn and their consent only matters to you (and others) when it suits you.
And I allow MRA's and trolls because I think it is important for women to see a lot of the views and ideas out there. Educational purposes and all....
anonymous said:
"The thing you all forget is that anti-porn side deals with porn survivors all day and all night. Putting a lovely teddy on the horror of porn and the pyschic damage it causes does not actually make it any better. It just helps you sleep at night."
All I have to say is – name three. Three porn models/actresses who your movement has actually dealt with directly and helped out of porn, maybe even become activists for your side and have stories to tell. (You can use their stage names to keep their anonymity.) Surely if your side is helping "porn survivors" "all day and all night", it shouldn't be hard to come up with some concrete examples.
"Finally, if you don't understand that getting a hard on when you see women being tied up and shocked with a cattle prod is a problem, then you need to take a deep breath think again."
1) Name where you've seen a porn image of a woman being shocked with a cattle prod, because that isn't even a common image in SM porn.
2) When you see a movie like Reservoir Dogs, do you think somebody actually got their ear cut off in the production of that movie?
anony, did you read my post right above your first entry? What do you imagine constant immersion in the stuff does to your own psyche? Seriously, I think y'all watch a hell of a lot more porn than I do...
and yeah, the MRA's and other trolls (on very rare occasions there have been MRA comments that were actually engaging honestly, but on the whole) have served primarily as whack-a-mole fodder. which frankly is no different from a number of other feminist sites; if that hadn't been the case i'd not even have known what "MRA's" were, onc't.
'Nony,
Allowing people to comment does not mean you agree with them. I too get tired of the MRAs that comment here on occasion, but whether those comments show up or not, what is said is the fault of said MRA, not Ren.
Let me get this straight.
Charliegrrl not publishing comments she does not allow on her site is okay because it's her website, she can do as she pleases.
RenEv publishing comments she allows on her website is not okay, because Ren does not agree with you, and you need to further obfuscate the issue by implying she agrees with every single one of her MRA commenters and is not a feminist.
Right, that's logical and consistent reasoning. Did you miss where the most vocal person against MRA lunacy from ByrdBrain et al has been, get this, Ren? Oh, but you don't read her site, so you couldn't possibly know that. Which didn't stop you from coming on to verbally harangue Ren.
Also, why do you include comments from MRA's and trolls when you purport to be a pro-women feminist?
Because covering your eyes doesn't really turn the lights out, sweety. You know, I find it REALLY nauseating how so many feminists are opposed to free speech and use censorship to counter any dissenting opinions. It seems to be a cheap womanipulation tactic.
I mean, I even had one feminist here delete a comment after she read another one of mine on another blog that she didn't like. Even though the one on hers was "just fine." But, I guess it was wrong merely "by association" to me? You see how unfair, OCD, emotional and irrational women are about debate?
Which is maybe not that big a deal on a blog...but given power, I sure hate to see this Stalinesque mentality imposed on a society as a whole.
And ultimately, it's a form of mental isolationism that you may find protective...but will really progressively leave you out-of-touch with the real world out there.
I have not censored a SINGLE comment on my blog yet. And I've had a few feminists post dissenting opinions - which I fully welcome. Because I stand behind the truth and welcome all challengers. I don't need censorship to discredit other opinions - I can do that with plain logic. :D
Anyhow, bottom line is what NERVE you have for "shaming" Ren for merely allowing a semi-degree of free speech...when YOU should be shamed for being a CENSORSHIP NAZI. Who must suppress the truth because you can't logically debate it!
I mean, I even had one feminist here delete a comment after she read another one of mine on another blog that she didn't like. Even though the one on hers was "just fine." But, I guess it was wrong merely "by association" to me? You see how unfair, OCD, emotional and irrational women are about debate?
Doubtful as I am that I'm the only one, I did do that, because, frankly, it's my virtual house and, having observed quite a bit of your behavior, not just "a comment," you were not a guest I wanted in it. Period end. You've got the entire rest of the Internets; but then, we've been through this.
As for "OCD:" I don't think that term means what you think it means.
^ And its patterns of feminist behavior like this why I fight AGAINST them taking societal control.
Holding such personal grudges, emotional biases, intolerence of diversity, authoritarian rule, censorship of all dissenting free speech, etc etc. Really, a Stalinesque nightmare.
If you think you're working towards a progressive utopia by supporting feminism...you are sorely deluded folks. Just like female micro-relations - on the macro level it's also a very cliquish, my way or the highway, intolerant censored hierarchy.
You really think this is better than the old world "patriarchy?" Wrong. It's unbalanced and 100X worse...and not just for Men - but any women who don't march in lockstep with these goosestepping powermongers.
uh huh. do you think the whole "no shirt no shoes no service" deal is "Stalinesque" too?
that's pretty much my own deal. "no shirt no social skills no service"
--oh, shit, you almost had me going for a second there. right-o. keep on fighting the good fight, then, you rebel, you...
that's pretty much my own deal. "no shirt no social skills no service"
So, if a guy walks in shirtless to one store...he should be banned from all other stores even with a shirt on?
Yes, that's very Stalinesque...if not moreso.
Anyhow, there are no hygiene issues in cyberspace so nice try toots but no cigar. Simple fact is that you must censor the truth because you can't logically dispute it.
"logic," he says.
it's sort of like talking to Humpty Dumpty after the fall -and- scrambling in the noon heat...
you must censor the truth because you can't logically dispute it.
Why would we need to do that? Your "truth" largely consists of you wanting to fuck children.
uh huh. do you think the whole "no shirt no shoes no service" deal is "Stalinesque" too?
Well I'd have thought a clear "no standing J/O" policy would have been more deleterious to byrdysong's trolling.
It'd be a more apt way to exlude his scaley ass at any rate.
six of one
RM: nah, it's more like:
"Women suck! Women suck! Women suck!! Why are you wimminz being so MEEN to me? HELP HELP I'M BEING OPPRESSED (mmmmMMMMMmmmm, attention)"
oh yeah, and the Zionist International Conspiracy. and the aliens. don't forget the aliens.
I'm the second anonymous commenter (aka the one talking about ladsmags images etc). I didn't 'verbally harangue' RenEv. I was just stating my point - that although you obviously don't agree with me about Charlie using ladsmags images on her blog, I think it is in some ways necessary, and we are going to see these images anyway when we walk into any shop selling them in the UK.
I understand the point you make about consent to use images, but at the same time, I think that Charlie isn't profiting from using these images to illustrate certain points.
I personally don't use such images on my blog (mostly because I don't want my blog to contain pics that may trigger some women) but I can see why Charlie would use them.
And I don't think selling the slideshow (or whatever it is) is right. I meant that I don't think the creators saw it in terms of being used to HARM women, more in terms of trying to help the situation.
I also get your point about allowing MRA's/trolls etc to comment but at the same time, some of the comments they make are very out of line (which I think, is what these attention seekers want to do - to make people unhappy). I get a lot of trolls and MRA's but I don't allow them through because their comments are generally very childish and smacking of privilege (I got someone calling me a dumb bitch the other day just for blogging about my cat!!).
Also, they make sweeping generalisations about Feminists and Women generally. Especially Byrds Eye, dbb and apostate. That comment about wanking to images in secret? Definitely out of line.
Putting everyone in one box (saying anti porn feminists are all the same, etc) is asking for trouble and is just determinism.
"Anyhow, bottom line is what NERVE you have for "shaming" Ren for merely allowing a semi-degree of free speech...when YOU should be shamed for being a CENSORSHIP NAZI. Who must suppress the truth because you can't logically debate it!" - Byrdseye
I don't exactly think censorship is the issue. A lot of MRA's take offence and kick up a fuss when their comments don't get through moderation. I have a right to moderate comments on my blog, especially comments that attack me personally (I have no objection to comments that are just opposing views that are CIVIL, but a lot of comments I get are less than civil).
My intention was not 'shaming' RenEv! I just asked the question because I felt as though certain comments have been out of line. And I am sorry Ren if you felt that way.
'Censorship Nazi'....whatever next :) I have no problem logically debating whatever views you would like to shove in my face, Byrdseye (because none of your arguments surprise me).
Post a Comment