Category Archives: Anti-porn: you’re doing it wrong

QotD: “the presence of social conservatives … needs to be identified and assertively ousted if radical feminism is to maintain its integrity as a movement”

nofap

See women as women. Not as objects.

This is interesting. Hopefully it will serve as an object lesson in dangers facing radical feminism.

‘Fighting The New Drug’ is not advertised as such, but it is an anti-porn campaign by Mormons which explicitly seeks to target radical feminist niche and inject its own ideas. It’s worked, I’ve seen radical feminists reblog from it without investigating the source, which makes sense considering how fast this site moves and how ideas tend to be judged by how they appear on the surface.

Isn’t that interesting? The fucking Mormon church, which specifically preaches and practices the subservience of women, trying to disguise its agenda with platitudes against objectifying women.

No Mormon input on the topic of porn is needed. We know who it harms and how they are harmed, unless we have bought the porn industry’s PR. We know it is to be opposed and to be opposed on our own terms as radical feminists. Yet it’s clear that social conservatives have caught on and seek to stake their claim in this debate.

Notice the framing of this piece. What is ‘nofap’? It’s a redditor term originally. A lot of the redditor boys believed that they would unlock latent sexual prowess by permanently ceasing masturbation. ‘Nofap’ was the name of the challenge where they would stop masturbation for a while and preach about how much healthier and happier it made them.

So, from what I’m guessing here, some Mormon social media strategist fucks saw the term somewhere on the Internet, and had a eureka moment. They can package their social conservative agenda along with their anti-porn stance, using hip, trendy internet terms! There is absolutely nothing to suggest that masturbation leads to an increase in sexist attitudes or that it has harmful health effects. Pornography is not essential to masturbation any more than it is essential to sex. The only motivation for suggesting an essential connection between the two is that the Mormons fucking hate sex. They aren’t interested in healthy sexual boundaries and an end to harmful and coercive sex and the idea of sex as compulsory. They just think that sex needs to be strictly for procreation, between men and women only.

Honestly, the presence of social conservatives, envoys from patriarchal institutions like the Mormon church, needs to be identified and assertively ousted if radical feminism is to maintain its integrity as a movement. Eliminating the industries and practices that thrive off of the abuse and exploitation of women is our goal. Raising the next generations to hate themselves and be ashamed of their sexuality is not. Allying with virulent homophobes and transphobes is not.

Denounce ‘em where you see ‘em. That’s all I have to say.

Real Subtle

(found via Next Years Girl)

“Internet filters block websites of sex abuse charities”

The adult content filters being rolled out by some internet providers under a scheme championed by David Cameron are blocking the websites of businesses and charities and are a “distraction” for parents seeking to protect children from online pornography, claim campaigners.

[…]

But campaigners say that it is misleading to suggest these filters are just about blocking pornography, and that they block a range of content, such as drugs, sex, alcohol, tobacco and anorexia.

The Metropolitan police are currently producing a list of websites for the filtering services which they regard as terror-related.

A website discussing the legalisation of cannabis found itself blocked, as did several small wine dealers, said Pam Cowburn of the transparency campaign Open Rights Group. Last year research by the group found that 54 registered charities had their websites blocked by one or another of the filters.

Several were offering support and services to young people escaping abuse or alcohol dependency. One such charity, Alcohol Support, based in Aberdeen, called it a “big brother” approach.

“It’s still a problem; it isn’t being tackled in the rush to block what is deemed unsuitable.

“But it’s very simplistic: URLs with Sussex or Essex in them, for example, are blocked. It’s arbitrary and a blunt tool.

“There is no guarantee that all porn sites can be blocked, so parents can have a false sense of security that will actually stop them doing what they need to do, which is to talk to their children about the internet and about internet safety.”

Vicki Shotbolt, CEO and founder of social enterprise project the ParentZone, said: “Filters are at best a distraction from the most important way to look after your family online.” Open conversations and keeping informed were the way forward, she said.

(Source)

QotD: “there is nothing I want to hear less than a pastor and a fucking professional rapist’s thoughts on pornography”

Porn Pastor_Porn King

So, my city if holding a debate on pornography and as of this moment, both sides (for and against) will be represented by men. Although the demographic of mainstream pornography is men, porn’s affect is on women, and we need to hear their voices. I’m a radical feminism at 100% against pornography, but it’s women who matter in this debate. Please comment on this event and tell them we need to hear from women.

http://porndebate.citychurchevv.com/

Christ almighty there is nothing I want to hear less than a pastor and a fucking professional rapist’s thoughts on pornography.

From Next Years Girl

The presentation here is pretty disgusting – a ‘Porn Pastor’ and a ‘Porn King’ fighting it out over who has control over women’s bodies – like it’s all a big ironic joke; it’s being presented like a wrestling match, as something fake, as something where there is nothing real at stake (you know, like women’s lives?).

QotD: “Hugo Schwyzer, male feminist”

Hugo Schwyzer, male feminist

From Next Years Girl

I can haz trolls

I really do hope this is a troll, who thought they could trick me into letting that racist shit through by posing as a rape survivor (hey, maybe it’s one of Kitty Strykers friends trying to ‘prove’ her right!), as that’s easier to handle than the idea that a woman who really is a rape survivor, who can genuinely see the problems with ‘sex positive’ ‘feminism’, can also be so hatefully, ignorantly racist. (if it was just the first two comments alone (they go from bottom to top in chronological order), I might have given them the benefit of the doubt and tried to engage them in conversation, but the third comment is so rabid, I find it difficult to believe it comes from a genuine source – if I’m alienating white supremacists, then good, I want them as far away from me as possible, they are not, and cannot ever be, ‘allies’.)

The word ‘intersectionality’ * has been degraded by third wave feminists so as to be almost meaningless (what it’s used to do is argue that there is no social class ‘woman’, and that our experiences are so diverse there is no possibility of understanding or organising as a class – so that third wave feminism becomes about anything and everything except women as women), but the root concept is still useful. Rape isn’t ‘worse’ if it happens to a black woman or to a white woman, this isn’t me playing ‘Oppression Olympics’, but understanding that women who are not white, middle-class and able-bodied (which includes poor white women too btw) face extra burdens, burdens that make them more vulnerable to exploitation and violence, and less able to seek redress.

Also, for the record, porn is deliberately, explicitly racist. It plays on all the negative racial stereotypes of women (black women as animalistic, Latina women as undocumented workers, Asian women as ‘China dolls’) and of men (‘big black men’ raping ‘tiny white women’), (white) men get off on the affirmation of their racial superiority almost as much as they get off on the affirmation of their sexual superiority.

* Funnily enough, I was just reading up on this very subject at RANCOM! – I’ll post it as a quote of the day some time soom.

Sex education, you’re doing it wrong

MPs will debate a controversial bill [today] calling for teenage girls to be given lessons in sexual abstinence.

The bill, proposed by Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire, would require schools to offer extra sex education classes to girls aged 13 to 16 and for these lessons to include advice on “the benefits of abstinence”.

[…]

The bill has elicited considerable criticism from politicians in all three of the main political parties.

Dan Rogerson, co-chair of the Lib Dems education and family backbench committee and an MP for North Cornwall, said the bill would result in girls being given a “dire warning about their future prospects”.

“To single out girls is at best unhelpful and at worst damaging,” he said. He said boys and girls needed to be given high quality advice on all aspects of relationships.

Niki Molnar, chairman of Conservative Women, which has at least 4,000 members, said boys needed to be included in classes on sex and relationships to ensure that they learned to respect women.

[…]

The British Humanist Association (BHA) said the bill had so far been supported predominantly by socially conservative Christians and had little chance of succeeding.

However, Naomi Phillips, head of public affairs at the BHA, said it was “yet another attempt by a lobby on the religious right to promote and impose on others, a narrow, unshared and potentially damaging perspective regarding sex, sexual health and abortion rights”.

“All children and young people have a right to high quality, comprehensive and objective sex and relationships education in all schools, including ‘faith’ schools, which would and should equip young people – both boys and girls – with the information and skills to say no to sexual activity if that is what they choose.”

Dorries has also campaigned to reduce the time during a pregnancy when an abortion can take place from 24 to 21 weeks.

Darinka Aleksic, campaign co-ordinator for Abortion Rights, said the bill served to further Dorries’ “moral agenda, which involves restricting abortion and teaching teenage girls that they, unlike boys, must save themselves for marriage”.

Full article here.

‘Protecting children’ you’re doing it wrong, pt2

From: BNP threatens protest at headteacher’s home over sex education proposals

British National party activists have warned a primary school’s headteacher and chair of governors that they will face demonstrations outside their homes if they do not drop plans to extend sex education lessons to children aged four.

A delegation from the far-right party picketed Grenoside Community primary school in Sheffield over proposals that would see children aged between four and six being taught about reproduction in mammals. Older children would be taught about the human body, including naming the sex organs, as well as receiving guidance on “good and bad touching”.

BNP activists, who arrived as the school was preparing to close on Tuesday, demonstrated outside and handed in a letter warning the head: “We believe that your evil plans to introduce these children to sex at such a young age borders on paedophilia and that it is not acceptable.”

Anti-Porn, You’re Doing it Wrong, pt2

From Ai Weiwei investigated over nude art

Ai Weiwei is under investigation for spreading pornography, the Chinese artist has said, as the authorities turned their attention from political subversion and tax evasion to online images of nudity.

He said police had questioned his cameraman Zhao Zhao on Thursday over pictures Zhao had taken of the artist. “They clearly told him this is an investigation, now, they are doing on me, on pornography,” Ai told the AFP news agency.

‘Protecting children’ – you’re doing it wrong

Not, strictly speaking, one for our ‘Anti-porn: you’re doing it wrong’ files, but I think it is important that, as anti-porn feminists and radical feminists, we emphasise that we do not condone this puritanical, reactionary, anti-sex bullshit, and that we do emphatically support comprehensive, age-appropriate sex and relationship education for all children.

I think parents have the absolute right to protect their children from this sort of education which is so unhelpfully obsessed with destroying childhood innocence, in a way that’s reminiscent of paedophilia. To me, anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them.”

These words, from the lips of “family values” campaigner Lynette Burrows, were broadcast last weekend as part of a pre-recorded video package on the BBC’s Sunday Morning Live show to kick off a “debate” about sex education.

The comments were left unchallenged, and the show continued with a studio discussion in which Burrows was joined by a historian and a neoconservative lobbyist, rather than, say, a sex education professional or similar expert. The lack of a qualified speaker in the studio removed the possibility of any informed discussion, and things veered downhill from there.

Full article here.

Anti-porn: you’re doing it wrong

Disappointing, but unsurprising, story from Sri Lanka, where male dominated authorities have decided that the best way to ‘protect’ women and children, is to prosecute them.

Of course, such moralising behaviour has always been justified as ‘protecting’ women and children. It’s also unsurprising to note that of the 80 people who are being traced by the police, only three are men. It’s also unsurprising to note that ‘The mug shots have been obtained by a special police squad viewing films “round the clock”, officers said.’!

The adverts [in local papers, featuring the mug shots of] the porn actors, many of whom appear to be teenagers according to police, have been controversial. Several newspapers have refused to print them despite court orders to do so arguing that they breached the right to privacy of those pictured. Anti-prostitution campaigners and human rights lawyers have also objected, raising the possibility that many of those featured in the posters might be coerced, under-age or both.

“There are huge problems with pornography, child prostitution, trafficking but you have to respond to them in a sensible, measured and sober way. This is a kneejerk reaction to the problem,” said civil rights lawyer Rohan Edrisinha.

Recent crackdowns by police, critics note, have been focused on the burgeoning local pornography business and have left the international porn websites almost untouched. Some 300 local websites were shut down earlier in the year. Many featured very cheap films produced on mobile phones. Some footage was believed to have been shot without the knowledge of the subjects. However police respond that those who starred in the local films “acted completely against our laws and are therefore subject to punishment accordingly”.