Here is some free speech for you....

And what the heck are Amy Goodman and Greg Palast doing in Hustler? See www.hustlingtheleft.com for more about that.

That's just plain ugly. I don't know how anyone with an normal IQ can find that funny...........

Flame all you want, but asking people to THINK about this issue is not censorship, nor is it a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Quite the opposite, actually.


Thanks, bloom.

Just ask all the rioting Muslims.

And asking people to read an article from a site that advocates censorship is not advocating censorship at all.....

Cry me a river.

Defending Pornography -- she was only the head of the ACLU, she must not know anything about it.

hustling the left is chock full of lies and misstatements.

Just because I dismiss your opinion due to what I consider to be an obvious bias and intolerance of women's opinions, doesn't mean I need balance, mongo.

Just because I am revolted by your attacks on DU women who dare criticize your industry doesn't mean I ignore the opinions of intelligent and enlightened men.

hustlingtheleft has many liableous statements about Flynt -- but lies for a higher purpose are GOOD lies, right?

And trotting out some old MacKinnon, too? Wow. Since she has been responsible for the siezure of so much gay and lesbian literture in Canada.

Yes, the only way to equality is by controlling what other consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.

Nice try, mongo, but your tactic of misrepresenting women who criticize your livelihood is as stale and nasty as your used movie archive.

Tell us again how the evil feminists want to throw you behind bars and burn the Constitution.

I never get tired of hearing it.

No I didn't. I was making an anology between *some* of the cartoons Hustler publishes and the Danish cartoons which caused so much violence.

Tell us again how the evil feminists want to throw you behind bars and burn the Constitution.

Well, maybe a handfull of people that would call themselves "feminists" anyway. But certainly not the majority of feminists, or the majority of DU. But certainly the first site posted in the OP.

C. To Urge All Women and Progressive Men to Action!!

* To protest those movie critics who are heaping praise, awards and accolades on The People vs Larry Flynt. For example, this movie was one of the runners-up for the best film of 1996 by The New York Film Critics Circle; it has been nominated for several Golden Globe Awards, and it is considered a serious contender for one or more Oscars at the Academy Award Ceremony in Los Angeles in March 1997.
* To recognize that Flynt's glorification of sexual violence against women is just as serious as the glorification of racist or homophobic violence.
* To join the ZERO TOLERANCE OF PORNOGRAPHY movement in recognition of porn's devastatingly destructive effects on women and children.

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/russell.html

How is their movement any different than those that would ban violent video games or otherwise curtail freedom of expression?

And your opponents have just as much right to their opinions as you do.


The way you attack critics of porn on DU, you really shouldn't whine so much.


I will defend freedom of speech because I believe in it, but to be honest, I could care less about you, mongo.


I don't care what happens to your business.


I wouldn't bat an eyelash if your store fell into a sinkhole tomorrow, with you in it.


You have attacked and maligned me and many others repeatedly for simply criticizing mainstream porn and wanting to discuss the issue from our point of view.


And you want to be treated fairly?


You want us to consider your side of the issue?


Don't hold your breath.




On second thought...

I'm not the one making personal attacks in this thread.

Get a life.

:spray:

Priceless.

or are you a free-lance attack dog?

...might do her self esteem some good.

Was your intention to intimidate her?

How original.

From his blog ->

you can find it here:

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=81

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=80

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=139

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=109

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=99

http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=110

and lastly

The very idea of a right of privacy was originally used to protect men’s right to batter their wives....

No - the right to privacy was originally established to allow access to birth control. But hey, any lie in your favor is a good lie.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

What are you so afraid of?

I have seen her debate this point many times, and it always comes down to women being degraded by porn produced for others that they themselves might never see,

And I find that ridiculous.

If you are secure in your own sexuality, then how can any of this effect you whatsoever?

Low self esteem?

All in her head?

Show me where bloom said she felt degraded and abused.





Again, where did she say she felt "that way"?





Her "problem"?

How can you possibly know WHAT her "problem" is when you're too busy telling her how she feels and claiming she is "frightened" of "true feminism"?

And her other utterances in other threads adequately support my opinion about her point of view.

That's all I needed to know.

and trying to silence you. Wow.

They avoid any contrary opinions or data. And, it seems, attempt to shout down any that they cannot avoid.

The op never posted anything about any of that, did she?

They were criticism! When did criticism of another's point of view become an attack? If you cannot take a contrary political opinion, and some rough criticism, then DU really isn't the board where you ought to be posting ANYTHING.

Am I mistaken?

Show me her posts.

And it is against DU rules to link to articles in other sections.

However, Bloom may refute this merely by saying that does not feel degraded and abused by what Larry Flynt does, and that she has enough self esteem that pornography does not harm her.

Should she not refute this, then I'm obviously correct.

If you need to resort to lowbrow tactics to win, don't bother.

Congratulations.

I declare you the winner by default.

We can all go home now, no discussion necessary.

Or must all difficult questions be solved before the final commercial break?

many women will not even attempt to discuss this in the main forums.

Did it ever occur to you that there are more women who have opinions about this, or are you so focused on neutralizing bloom, you can't see that?

You think only women face a gauntlet on certain subjects?


Just Saying

But I am used to being attacked, and don't particularly want to be defended when I am.

I don't just defend bloom, as a matter of fact, we disagree about MANY things.

I'm probably the last person she'd expect to see defend her.

But it's not ABOUT bloom, it's about being able to discuss this issue in GD, for christs sake.

Women can stand up for themselves.

I have never known an intelligent women with intact self esteem who needed a "defender" in a debate about politics, pornography, ANYTHING.

But don't expect to not be criticized if you post bits of radical anti-porn feminism theory as though they were some sort of authority on the topic.

If that bugs you, look to the repair of your own self-esteem before you jump into the fray.

That's what makes it intimidation.

Christ on a trailer hitch, is it too much to ask to be attacked for the things we DO say?

How hard is that to understand?

Do you put words in their mouths and attack them for having opinions not in evidence?

Is this a rule about porn threads that I overlooked?

Can someone get me a copy of the handbook? I must have lost mine.

As a woman and as a feminist, I do find pornography not only offensive in a general way, but detrimental to the fragile freedoms and rights women have fought for and won in this country in the past 100+ years.

Part of the point of the original article in the OP was that many women who, on the inside, do agree with the opinion that pornography that objectifies women and their humiliation and domination, will claim to DISAGREE because it is the "new" way to be a feminist--to pretend that absolutely nothing bothers you--to pretend to think the same way as a man would in the same position.

Any "counterexamples", as you say, are inherently flawed because of this. How can you take something seriously if the very person who is saying it is likely to be lying?

Protected "speech" or not (and I honestly think this is debatable), pornography is not a positive part of our society. The industry is abusive, the system is predatory, and the output is detrimental to our ability to continue social progress.

I believe it is an unmitigated social good.

And I ask you, why are you so fragile? I don't believe any woman needs to be protected from ANYTHING.

If you think you DO need to be protected from it, I believe your self-esteem needs to be worked on rather significantly.

I am not fragile, I never said that I was. That was a logic stretch on your part. I said the freedoms and rights we have won (women) are fragile, and I don't think that is debatable.

If you don't believe any woman needs to be protected from anything, you are simply turning a blind eye to our nation's social problems. Domestic violence, rape, restricted access to reproductive healthcare services (including emergency contraception, ordinary contraception, abortion, and general family planning services), lax child-support laws, unpaid maternity leave, lack of affordable childcare that would allow many of us to carry on in our careers rather than stay at home caring for children (which is a noble thing to do, something I do myself, but something that should be optional for all women), lack of equal pay for equal work--these are all very real problems facing American women, especially low income American women.

I guarantee you, there is absolutely nothing fragile about me. I am a woman who put myself through college, gave birth to a strong, healthy daughter, and am raising her on my own while my husband is overseas. Strength, both physical and mental, is not the issue. Self-esteem is not the issue.

Equality is the issue.

For not letting him frame the debate.

Every time this subject is brought up, opinions about the impact porn has on our society gets buried beneath attacks on our "self esteem" and accusations of censorship.

Which seems to be exactly what one of the articles was addressing, I believe.

Catherine Mackinnon and the Late Andrea Dworkin.

Not everyone on the "left" buys the ridiculous notion that looking at pictures of nude women magically turns men into drooling, violent, women-disrepecting cro-magnons...

And certainly, not everyone on the "left" has a pro-censorship agenda that is shared with the Christian right and the Bible Thumping busybodies and cretinous theocratic control freaks in our political life.

... but I should think some of the links above ought to educate everyone to one, particular salient fact that renders particularly disingenuous some of the arguments of our erstwhile anti-porn crusaders keep throwing out, here: if this were just about 'educating' people, that would be one thing. It's clear from, particularly the wifp site (I think the link in the OP has a problem, here's the site- http://www.wifp.org/pornography.html) that the agenda is NOT about 'education', it's about tearing down the 'broad first amendment shield' that supposedly protects porn.

And if the agenda isn't about censorship, then why are all these screeds written with that in mind?

Tell me again what my "agenda" is, I do so love it when people read my mind.

I'm pro-censorship AND have agendas I share with " Christian right and the Bible Thumping busybodies and cretinous theocratic control freaks in our political life" ?

Tell me more.

This is fascinating.

but it is certainly the adgenda of hustlingtheleft

From you?

I'm stunned.

Is it possible you were listening at some point?


Too bad most readers will already believe that I want to ban porn, thanks to the strawmen so hastily built in the first few posts.


This is why many won't bother trying to post in these threads anymore.


We get attacked and accused and nobody hears a fucking thing we have to say about the subject.

billions of dollars every year making women look like inflatable sexual objects. And I hate that bs about how women who do pornography make that "choice" for themselves--I think when you read something (and I use the word "read" extremely loosely here) like Hustler, maybe you don't see what the "adult entertainment industry" (personally, I like documentaries for adult entertainment, but then again I like using my brain...) really looks like--most of what is produced is not quite so... let's just say "high end" for lack of a better comparison. This stuff is shot in cheap hotel rooms and basements and god knows where else, often under extremely disturbing circumstances.

I also can't decide if I even believe that pronography is protected under the 1st Amendment--that exceptions barring the free expression of obscene material make their own exceptions for "entertainment" that is only directed at "adults." It's ridiculous.

It's like saying that corporations have the same rights as individual American citizens.

Oh wait, we already did that.

One thing I ask--next time any one here is watching an "adult" film or "reading" one of these putrid mags, say this to yourself, "That woman is someone's daughter."

Because she is, and imagine how much you would appreciate your daughter falling into that kind of life. These women are not alive in order to cater to the American public's desire for cheap thrills--they are living, breathing human beings with dreams and fears and problems and loved ones.

Pornography is something the world will look back on a long, long time from now as barbaric, archaic, and disgusting.

There are racist policemen. That doesn't mean all police are racist.

In my opinion, Hustler SETS OUT to offend as many people as possible with each and every issue. Some people "get" that about it, others think that the offensive character of it is directed at them in particular.

Personally I don't care for it at all. I've only bought one issue in the last decade, the one my friend, Darklady was in. (The March 2006 issue.) And it hasn't improved much in the the last ten years...

Women, in particular.

What bothers me is when they use that dislike to set the political agenda in ways that benefit the Religious Right, as MacKinnon has repeatedly done.

In the beginning.

Why did you start out by dramatically tearing down strawmen you built in the op's absence?


Why would we think you want to hear our opinion after witnessing that spectacle?

Should we not address the issue of racist policemen because not all of them are racist?

I don't think that Hustler is representative of anything other than Hustler.

I beg to differ.

There was a time when Hustler would have been considered shocking and controversial when compared to other pornography, but that was a long time ago.

And I don't base my opinions about porn on Hustler, or any other single source.

I don't know anyone who does.

Or do you base your opinion on the third-hand reports of others?

It's a girl thang.

See how you put me on the defensive?

You have been on the offense from the first sentence.

Why the hell would I believe that you actually give a shit about what I think?

And seems to me that it is you who have been trying (succeeding too) in being gratuitously offensive for no reason I can discern other than wanting to pick a fight.

But, you are changing the subject, a common debating technique, but not one I let go past; Answer the question, please? What is your basis for comparison? How much porn do you examine to determine what is "typical" and "mainstream"?

By highlighting your personal attack on the op?

Your attacks are what I was discussing with you, not porn.

I believe that the OP's point of view is directly relevant to why she chose to post these excerpts, and I believe that, based on other discussions in which she was a part, is because she believes that porn degrades her.

Personally, I don't think that a person with intact self-esteem CAN be degraded by it.

I don't think that women are fragile flowers that need to be shielded from porn, or defended from it in any way.

This effort to silence pornographers is an assault on the core principles of feminism itself.

Nina Hartley (a woman, incase you were wondering) has something to say on this topic;

----

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun - Feminists for Porn

By NINA HARTLEY

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?

Perhaps, like a number of anti-porn feminists these days, she chooses not to solicit the opinions of women engaged in or supportive of sex- work, rather than risk encountering a contrary-to-theory example.

<SNIP>

----

And so does my good friend Avedon Carol (also a woman);

----

http://www.fiawol.demon.co.uk/FAC/harm.htm

The Harm of Porn:

Just Another Excuse to Censor

An article by Avedon Carol

In spite of a long-standing anti-censorship tradition in the women's liberation movement - and indeed, a specific hostility toward sexual censorship - the view has become widely accepted by the media and therefore the public that feminists uniformly accept that pornography should be banned. This view has intensified as an increasing number of purportedly feminist campaigners have presented highly emotive speeches and documents, often backed up by spurious representations of scientific data, in support of the case for censorship.

Interestingly, the media has generally proven to be entirely uninterested in consulting long-time feminists with respected credentials, such as the former members of the feminist Red Rag collective or the current membership of the Feminist Review collective in Britain, all of whom oppose censorship. In America, Congress and the media were startled to discover that an attempt to introduce federal anti-pornography legislation was opposed by some of the best known names in modern feminism, ranging from Betty Friedan and Kate Millett to Karen DeCrow, Wendy Kaminer and Jamaica Kincaid.

How, then, did the anti-pornography position come to be seen as the only possible feminist position? A look at the history might be illuminating.

<SNIP>

So much for dialog.

You can take that back immediately.

I would love a chance to whip out some of DU's finest posters PMs and Replies in certain threads.

Because I don't even know who you are.

People can have many names...

Are we playing spy games now?

or Ollie?

Would you care to address the question asked for once?

You want to know why this topic cannot be debated? It is because you will not play by the rules of debate and answer the questions raised.

Whatever you say.

I'll do anything to stop you from attacking me like you did the op.

I'm terrified.

Really.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Racism should be addressed. However, singling out racist policemen over racist telephone pole climbers or racist backhoe operators or racist CEOs or racist political discussion board posters is unnecessary and suggests any doing so is pursuing an agenda (thus the term's use in other parts of the thread). Are you trying to damn racism or the police?

in GD without it turning into the fucking battle to end all battles, I think it's irrelevant.

What percentage is a lot?

None, in my opinion, regardless of your personal issues with a poster.

And that you were pulling your data out of thin air?

Or, please, answer the question?

No personal attacks are acceptable.

Too bad that seems to be the only thing you brought to the table.


We are discussing THIS thread, THESE articles in the op, NOT whatever issues you had with other posters in the past.

You attacked her for statements she never made and now you can't even admit you were wrong.

You alleged that Hustler represented mainstream porn, and was representative of "A Lot" of it.

We called upon you to;

1. Say what percentage "A lot" is.

2. Say how much porn you examined to reach that conclusion, or if all of your information was third hand sources?

And you have studiously attacked me each and every time we try to get you to answer the question.

This is a form of dishonesty, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Did you forget it?

I'll wait.

It was a criticism of her motives based on other discussions you clearly were not a party to.

I think she, and any other feminist (yourself included) who is threatened by porn is so only due to low self esteem, and that no woman ought to have such a low opinion of herself that she would be in the slightest degree degraded by it.

You may still be Offended by it; That is a different issue entirely. Much of it is offensive. But you don't need to be protected or shielded from offensive things.

And you, in my opinion, have gone WAY over the top here, and are being a dishonest player in this debate.

Especially when the poster hasn't made a single statement about the issue.

She posted excerpts from articles.

That's ALL.

Since when do you get to assign motive and attack a poster for posting excerpts?

It was up to bloom to tell me if I were wrong, not you.

I know for fact that she can defend herself with her own resources.

I don't know who pissed in your Cheerios, but you have no right treating anybody the way you have been treating me and the others on this thread.

Again, she has not made ONE SINGLE STATEMENT about the articles.

It's on the record, Ben, stop trying to make this about me.

And you say you're allowed to assign motive and attack whenever you choose?

So you are, but the mods will just keep deleting your posts.

How's that grab you?

Bloom chose those particular topics for a reason, and I am allowed to infer her motives from her choices.

Just as I am allowed to infer your character from your mode of argument.

And I don't like the inference I am drawing.

Starting with the third post in this thread, and this is the norm, IMO, the op has been attacked repeatedly for the crime of daring to post an article that is critical of porn.

I have been accused of conspiring with the op because I took issue with the attacks.

I have received a pm from a poster who, I can only guess, is too afraid to confront me in this thread, so he chose to try intimidation instead.

And you think that somehow this thread is unfair to pornography?

Another word for making up data; A LIE.

Now, if you can substantiate your statement, do so.

Until you admit your mistake, there is nothing to discuss.

You attacked the op, I called you out for it, and obviously others agreed with me.

Because you are not playing by any rules that I can see, and are now just covering for your own dishonestly in citing data you cannot substantiate.

especially when they're not here to defend themselves.

Perhaps you can rectify that before we meet again.

But relax, you won by default, remember?

But you know that already.

I'm SHOCKED!

SHOCKED I tell you.

And you should be ashamed of yourself.

It is dishonest to declare Hustler representative of the entire porn industry, and I was simply making that true assertion. When I used a metaphor to explain this assertion from a different angle, you changed your position and declared my factual-assertion-in-metaphor irrelevant.

I haven't attacked anyone in this thread yet.

I haven't accused you of conspiring with the OP.

I haven't PM'd you or in any way tried to intimidate you.

It is hypocritical of you to complain about other people reading your mind to ascertain your motives only to turn around and tell me (wrongly) what I think about the fairness of this thread to pornography.

Can you show me where I said that?

Actually, what is my opinion about porn?

How about censorship?

We never discussed the issue.

Why are you defending your post when I never attacked it?

Where did I say you declared Hustler representative of the entire porn industry?

I can't show it to you, but that is irrelevant - no one made that claim.

I don't care what your opinion about porn is.

I think censorship is cowardace, but I can't tell if you're asking what I think about it or what I think you think about it. I don't care what you think about it.

No, I made a statement, and I've been explaining how your responses to my posts aren't right ever since.

It's funny that you are pointing out my use of the word "defending" considering who's behavior here is defensive.

You claimed Hustler wasn't indicative of the entire porn industry.

You used the racist cop analogy.

What WAS your point, if not that we shouldn't address racist cops?

Clarify.

Are we supposed to address the issue or not?

And THEN goes onto other points.

You are being dishonest by skipping over a point you know you cannot defend.

She'll say you are attacking her now.

OH, LOOK AT THAT!

I was right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=543060&mesg_id=544581

I didn't call you a jerk... I said you were BEING one.

There is a major difference.

She cannot substantiate her claims whatsoever, or if she can, she hides it well.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:
:rofl: and that's a GOOD thing?

"After viewing pornography only 4 percent of this group was able to recall what the female speaker had said. The results for the other participants were quite different--24 percent." :spray: :wtf:

This sure sounds familiar:

"Leftist males who are threatened by feminism or female leadership within progressive movements can find reassurance in the rhetoric of libertarianism used to justify the inevitability of the sex industry and that a patriarchal order of things is left unchallenged somewhere."

Does it say anything about the percentage of women who receive threatening pms from cowardly men who are scared of them?

I'd like to see the numbers on that myself.

Maybe I'll do a survey.

:rofl:

Imagine if we suddenly stopped paying attention to 75-95% of what men said to us? I think a lot of women could use a break from the expectation of wide-eyed rapt enthusiasm over their every utterance.

This post has degenerated into a flame-fest.