The FBI on Thursday arrested the revenge porn dealer Hunter Moore, who has often been described as the most hated man on the internet, for allegedly conspiring to hack people’s email accounts, in order to steal nude photographs with the intention of posting them online.
Moore, 27, and Charles Evens, 25, are charged with 15 counts including related to computer hacking, identity theft and conspiracy. If convicted on all charges they could face at least 42 years in prison.
According to the indictment, Moore allegedly instructed Evens to hack into the victims’ email accounts, to obtain nude or sexually explicit photos. Moore paid Evens for the photos, which were then posted on Moore’s website, isanyoneup.com, without the subjects’ permission.
We argue that BDSM is a sexual practice that hinges on degrading, humiliating, violating, and torturing people (usually women but it is unacceptable in any form). When performed against women it is a mirror of patriarchical violence against women which basically happens everywhere already, only now it is being praised and sexualized.
We don’t blame women who participate because women are raised and socialized in a system that encourages us to view ourselves as passive recipients, submissive, or even encourages us to view violence as sexuality. This socialization runs deep and begins from the time we are small children (listen to the discourse when a 5 year old boy hits a 5 year old girl, “he likes you!” “boys will be boys!”)
We view bdsm as the legitimization of violence against women.
Part of the problem is that no one can truely consent to violence done against them. We believe that the line for “she consented” being an acceptable answer is where violence begins. This has both legal and social implications.
On the legal side, making bdsm illegal would not really affect what individuals do in their private bedroom, there is no precedent for watching that and radfems don’t want that anyway. It would, however, allow rape victims or abuse victims to file a complaint against their attacker without worrying that he is going to tell everyone that she was okay with it. This is not something that only happens in fairly “vanilla” bdsm situations either. There have been cases of people eating one another and claiming consentuality, people have “consented” to being murdered (I am not talking assisted suicide here) by a man who has to strangle people to have sexual release, and consented to being tortured and strangled to death. These are things that radfems think can not be adequately consented to. There is no situation in which violence against another person should be acceptable.
On the social side of things, a public outcry against BDSM would allow for women to come forward about their abuse with at least slightly more encouraging results. As it stands, if a woman says she was tied up and raped she has to prove she didn’t want that. If there was a public outcry against the idea that violence can be consented to that problem would at least partially go away.
Some of the criticisms against radical feminists beliefs on bdsm include that we are sex negative, prude, frigid, or “slut shaming” (even though we also advocate for the recognition that no woman is a slut and actively decry the term “slut shaming”). We are told that we don’t respect the agency of women who choose to participate in BDSM (even though we never blame the women who participate in BDSM, we shame men who dominate women, not women who for whatever reason, choose/are made to participate in an abusive subculture). By blaming men we are called kink shamers (a title most of us gladly wear if it is code for “shaming men who get off to beating and raping women”).
Many radical feminists speak out against bdsm because of the abuse and subsequent silencing of our abuse by the bdsm community. We, and other women who have spoken out, are told that we should have sad the safeword or that our experience is just ours and reflects nothing about the community, or even that we weren’t REALLY in the community, that we were with an abuser, not a real dom, etc.
When your rape is entertainment, your worthlessness is absolute. You have reached the nadir of social worthlessness. The civil impact of pornography on women is staggering. It keeps us socially silent, it keeps us socially compliant, it keeps us afraid in neighborhoods; and it creates a vast hopelessness for women, a vast despair. One lives inside a nightmare of sexual abuse that is both actual and potential, and you have the great joy of knowing that your nightmare is someone else’s freedom and someone else’s fun.
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography Is A Civil Rights Issue, transcript of her 1986 testimony before the Attorney General’s Commission on Pornography, as printed in Letters From A War Zone.
“Sex-positive feminism,” as a movement, has as its objective to remove sexuality from the realm of feminist systemic criticism. It is therefore anti-feminist in practice, despite its proponents’ general commitment to feminism. It says that any issue which they deem sexual in nature, be it actual sex, BDSM, pornography or prostitution, must not be analyzed or criticized. Instead, they contend, we should fall back to the “default” position that “consent is the standard of morality.”
Sex-negativity, therefore, means opposition to this stance: that sexuality must be subject to systemic criticism like everything else, and that woman-hating in sexual areas must not be given a free pass. It is nothing more than the consistent application of feminist principles to actual sex, BDSM, consent in sex, pornography and prostitution. It is nothing more than the proposition that sex is affected by patriarchal norms.
QotD: “You wouldn’t want to exclude males from feminism just because male violence against women is the greatest human rights crisis in the history of the world”
You wouldn’t want to exclude males from feminism just because male violence against women is the greatest human rights crisis in the history of the world.
I once had a guy tell me that I ‘willingly’ gave him my body because of all the things he bought and did for me. He said it was the only way I could repay him. He then proceeded to do things to me I didn’t want over the course of 4 months.
I think that is one of the things we need to pay very close attention to. That the people we think we are building a relationship with might actually be exchanging objects with us, and we are one of the objects.
Without a collectivists analysis activism becomes ineffective. If an activist cannot draw upon a collective experience/struggle via socialization, conditioning, structural inescapable inequalities then the movement really is no longer a movement (There’s no collective push into one active and ideological direction to achieve a particular goal or set of goals with one definitive intent).
When post-modern liberal feminists ignore conditioning and socialization and re-frame structural inequalities that determine the course of our lives as “choice” and “empowering” we lose a concrete understanding of what feminism is fighting for. There’s no strict agenda. Nothing to strive towards because where we’re at is O.K and fun and sexy and an empowering choice.
There’s no such thing as a “shared girlhood”: of being forced into femininity because it is culturally compulsory and a piece to the patriarchal set-up of being born the second sex.
There’s no such thing as a “shared girlhood” or “shared womanhood”: of living with sexualization or of living with standards of sex role conformity that relies on female submissiveness or anything of that sort.
Even the point of acting out our “consciousness raising” is lost in the liberal third wave promise of not having to change due to barriers established by activists who appropriate language and slogans used in the fight for reproductive rights, such as ‘policing female bodies’ and “her body, her choice”. Choice feminism’s merit may have come with the fight for reproductive rights but it should have been left there.
Because now the idea of a rising, driven, collective consciousness amongst women that depends on us changing both how we think and how we act has been snuffed out by declarations of “kink-shaming” and “policing” (in response to discouraging the male domination of women and female submission under men, either publicly/privately or socially/sexually) or “slut-shaming” (and I do hope the counter-productiveness of women claiming an anti-woman, male invented slur in a system that is male controlled does not elude you).
friendly reminder (◡‿◡✿) communism is whatever you want it to be.
everything you do as a communist is a revolutionary act that will destroy Capitalism. (◕‿◕✿)
please don’t shame the bourgeois for exploiting the labor of the proletariat (✿◠‿◠)
weaponized materialism (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧
could you imagine lmao