or at least willing to agree to disagree. perfect example the religious video I posted, that demonstrated comparisons between certain feminists' positions and those of the religious right. I would still post the video but try to respectfully explain I was doing it to show that your position was the same as people who consider women chattel and LGBT Americans to be sub human. But what I did was just throw it out there - linking you to them. if I did it today I would put it in terms of "come on, these people are the ultimate preachers of oppressive patriarchy, do you really agree with them on this? that would have been more conducive to discussion. We still would have disagreed (probably) at the end but the back and forth would have been more worthy of the word "progressive.'

and appreciate that you put yourself out by extending the apology publicly. I know that isn't a popular thing to do on this site.

Positions that feminists take on pornography, however, are not the same as those of the right. The right opposes human trafficking. Does that make slavery okay? From what I can see, no one bothered to read the various views members here have on pornography (and they do vary quite a bit). So I don't know how you or anyone else could claim to know what our respective arguments are.

Disagreeing is fine. Thinking people will disagree. That is inevitable. What bothers me is dismissing everything anyone says by an appeal to HOF extremism and assuming we are a single horde here rather than individuals, like members of any other safe haven group. People blame all HOF posters for something one says. That's ridiculous. We don't get together and plot out a common response for posts. I am responsible for every stupid or inappropriate thing I have ever said but not for those of anyone else, whether they post in HOF or somewhere else.

Still, I welcome your OP and accept your apology.

but I didn't post this OP to argue the difference or similarities but rather to pledge to acknowledge those differences when I disagree with anti-porn sisters on the left instead of crudely lumping them together with right wingers. It is an apology for doing so in the past and a promise to refrain from doing so in the future.

But that isn't even the thesis of my post. In addition to being respectful of disagreements it is mostly a pledge to fight a common enemy; a party that thinks politicians should make medical decisions for women and that men can rape their wives and it not really be rape. It is a call to join together to fight those who would imprison women for following their doctors' advice and stone me to death for my choice of partners.

(and for reaching out)

I am a big fan of "no sex unless everybody is an enthusiastic 'yes!'".

Thanks, arely.

(I do have issues with some porn, and I also do understand the free speech / freedom of expression thing that complicates the discussion.)

I want everybody to be able to express their sexuality, and I also want to know that people aren't getting hurt. It is complicated.

and maybe my reaction to what I see as censorial is as visceral as others' reaction to the real or dramatized videos of women being slapped, cursed whatever during sexual acts. For the record I find those types of porn unnerving. But the fact is the porn I occasionally enjoy (seriously, not a big porn fan) would be a crime not so long ago because of the gender mix of the people involved). So that is where I am coming from. Like drugs, legalization, out of the shadows, but a regulated approach to porn is my suggestion. The details can be argued as long as there is democracy.

Last edited Sun Jan 19, 2014, 03:57 PM - Edit history (2)

I personally have never said it. That's what the "free speech" part of DU is claiming 'the hivemind' is saying, as far as I'm concerned.

What is often said is "let's look at the porn industry critically and discuss the aspects that are misogynistic. Let's listen to the victims of the industry, so that we understand how we can help them." And well, whether one support it after that is up to them.

Exactly. My view on the subject isn't all that different from the OP's, except that in the last few years I've become increasingly concerned about the uglier aspects of the material that's out there. And I've willingly sat through movies like "Last House on the Left," "Cannibal Holocaust," et. al., so no one can accuse me of prudishness.

Glad to know another Texan who'll be out there working to get Wendy (and Leticia!) into office.

have loved that woman for years! when Texas turns purple then blue our common enemy is done for.

and on that we disagree.

That you don't know what "rape culture" means does not mean there isn't a fairly concise definition. Failing to know a definition is perfectly fine. Legitimizing your ignorance is another story.

People often argue that definitional controversy exists because they want to debase a subject. Such is the case with many feminist topics.

I can find no agreement be they Durs, academics, random people, whatever.

What constitutes rape culture is almost universally accepted. To what extent such a culture exists is what's up for debate.

I can feel the soil falling over my head

I resisted the urge to mention this earlier but now that it's been picked up on, yeah, putting it in scare quotes is a problem.

It exists. That people don't give the exact same examples of what it is means exactly jack shit. You could say the same of terms like 'liberalism', 'progressive ideals', etc.

Try to get people to agree on a definition of capitalism, democracy, socialism, freedom, etc. ...
There are always disagreements over concepts. Very little if anything in the world can be reduced to simple explanations.

it means that by talking together and seeing each other's point of view, we grow from it. So I don't know what brought on this on, but I'm glad you posted it. As for the view on pornography, obviously we disagree on that. I don't see how it is like the right wing. Maybe you could explain to me your reasoning for that, because I'm surprised to be compared to the side that seems to hate women.

"Yes means yes!" Good to hear we agree on that. It makes the whole thing sound more positive, doesn't it? Sex should be about mutual enjoyment, not pressure.

Anyway, let's try our hardest to get Wendy the support she needs!

Have you seen these before?

http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-one-no/
http://radtransfem.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/under-duress-agency-power-and-consent-part-two-yes/

Must-read stuff, IMO.

the urls, so I don't think so. I will dive in and have a look now!

it's clear that saying "yes means yes" is a bit too simplistic for complicated situations like this. If we do start to talk about power hierarchies and such, then obviously yes can given after, for example coercion or under patriarchy, and it won't count as real consent. I will have to think a bit closer on this, to see what branch of feminism fits me best. I enjoyed how she broke it down with agency feminism, for example. "This yes means yes."

I think this quote was great:

I wish more people took the time to really think about these issues. It's clear a simple 'yes means yes' doesn't guarantee much of anything.

And isn't that what we've been saying with regards to the porn industry, anyway? Just because a girl signed a contract (effectively "saying yes&quot doesn't guarantee that there wasn't coercion involved, or that she even speaks English. In porn they sometimes ignore the "no means no" rule, however. There's no guarantee that her boundaries will be respected, or that her "yes" won't be used against her if she's raped on set.

There's a lot of instances where the "yes"s aren't actually a sign of an enthusiastic participant, true. We can't ignore their experiences.

... and as I understand it, here the service user rights movement and other disabled people's movements use the term "disablism" rather than "ableism" as they want to focus upon the way in which people are disabled by society (the social model of disability). Because when I write about disablism I'm always writing out of a national context (even if I often fail to make that explicit), I try to use the terminology and frameworks of my local movement(s) rather than evoke a non-existent globalism (which is really just US-centricism disguised).

Thank you for the other kind comments.

Lisa

Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 04:12 PM - Edit history (1)

I will try to keep the distinction in mind, so I don't mess up when I talk about the issues.

And welcome to DU!

...Oh my god, I am so embarrassed. I didn't realize that you were the author of those articles. Sorry, I am clearly sleep-deprived. They were great, by the way. I hope you write a lot more.

Thanks!

And repression. A prop as it were, and far to complicated to go into an argument in such a nice post.

I get updates from Wendy Davis and support her campaign from Washington state. Getting those disgusting Republican's out is very much something we can agree on.

It's the sexual (or erotic) equivalent of empty calories, which can never replace an actual fulfilling love life.

DON"T RAPE.

If you can unequivocally say that every person in a porn film is there completely voluntarily - free from financial need, free from drugs, free from abuse (current or past), free from coercion, free from a past history (for whatever reason you want to say) that has placed the person in the position - either emotionally, mentally, physically, or financially that has them believing (or want to believe) that hey - what a great career choice THIS is! I'm SOOOOOOOOO lucky to get to do "this" every day.

Have you EVER heard anyone say, I want to be a porn star when I grow up? Any parent want that for their child? Any person anywhere on the planet (who doesn't have their OWN issues) say - wow, I sure hope "that little girl" or "that little boy" gets to grow up to be a PORN star. Wouldn't that just be swell? What a great opportunity for them!

Have you? Can you? Really.

'does anyone hope their child will be a janitor' for instance. It's horrifying to me that so many can so easily ignore the fact that so many women (and men, too, possibly, I haven't heard much exited men) end up with PTSD, are raped on set, etc.

No matter how many women come forward and say they were raped (they agreed to do x act, but not y, and y was done anyway), no matter how many times this is attested to by third parties, I don't know... they just ignore it.

I don't know how it's possible to do that. It is a terrifying thing to consider how easily such abuse is just entirely ignored.

And I came across quotes like this.

industry.

Either that our outright lying. None of us is under the illusion that the party hasn't drifted significantly to the right over the last several decades.

The human male (in general) is simply more socialized to act that out.

but I would encourage you, if you are going to enter into debates about porn, to stick to the issue instead of the ad hominem guilt by association tactics. Your post in the other forum didn't say you would stop those, it instead implies you would use them in a thinly veiled way. Not "You are like Jerry Fallwell" but "you are agreeing with Jerry Fallwell, you sure you want to do that?"

No matter how you try to disguise it, it's still a logical fallacy. Yes, we hate Jerry Fallwell. I also hate Ron Paul and think he is a racist pig. Yet he opposed the Iraq War, and I'm not going to support bombing innocent people just because someone I despise and disagree with on most issues opposes bombing them.

Next time you are tempted to lump feminists who oppose the porn industry in with Jerry Fallwell, please take a moment to remind yourself that you are similarly aligned with Ron Paul, and therefore maybe you'd like to rethink your opposition to the Iraq War. Is that fair?

smh

Is simple fucking logic really that hard for some people? Is it?

I actually believe the person's trying to be sincere here with good intent so I don't want to bash them.

I'm having trouble with any new year's resolution being in part an attempt to get the men's group on board with a goal of rephrasing their continued ad hominem attacks on feminists with ever so slightly more polite wording. That isn't a productive move toward reconciliation or common goals.

The rest of it I didn't have a problem with.

Like you said, we agree with Ron Paul about some stuff too, why aren't they out trying to smear DUers who were against the Iraq war with that bullshit then?

I don't want to guess why because my guess won't be nice.

Admire your approach to just about any topic anyone cares to name. You know that, I think.

I can respect that you are trying to find common ground with those so profoundly different in opinion (hmm like Obama), but . . . I'm not sure the poster had the intent of serious discussion. I'm not sure there can be common ground on this topic.

Some people -including some women- want to believe porn is just hoookay . . Because they WANT to believe it (the real question is "why"?).

I understand your attempt at rapprochement, but truly, I believe it to be in vain. I can only hope I am wrong.