The SCOTUS hands Pr0n lovers a huge victory
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Seriously, all straight men - everywhere and the estates of all the ones who have died ever - need to join together and file a class action defamation suit against that woman and anyone who bought any of her books.
I'm sick of people like her painting men as the "evil" gender.
To be fair any social movement has its loopy fringe. I think most women who regard themselves as feminist are plenty fond of sex.
Last edited:
Of course.
Unfortunately, there are still those on both "sides" who see it as a competition. Men who still don't care if their partners are satisfied and women who think that other women shouldn't be able to enjoy just giving pleasure for the sake of giving it. Being submissive isn't wrong if doing so is what you enjoy!
I was just clarifying. People like her give Feminism a bad name, and I want to make it clear that she is not a true Feminist.
Eh, she's just another fundamentalist ideologue, no different than a Klansman or a Gay Basher. Hatred makes weak people feel strong.
It has to do with you equating Augustus's petty moralism with the very real social concerns of feminism. A feminist provided with an example of pornography that was not exploitative of women in it's manufacture, and didn't depict subordination of females would not continue to insist that it is wrong as Augustus does.
Feminism, the shocking notion that people are equal
. But just for the sake of accuracy, most people nowadays speak of "feminisms". There are lots of strands of feminism, just as there are of any belief system.
Andrea Dworkin should have her own internet meme like Godwin's law. Playing the Dworkin card in a discussion of feminism ought to equal an automatic fail unless you can produce evidence that you've A. Read Dworkin*, B. Understood Dworkin, C. Read responses to Dworkin by actual self-identifying feminists and get that she's just one voice in the dialogue and D. Not been able to find a cat macro that could make your point more succinctly.
*Okay, this is the Internet, and we have limited time to do research for all our many fights. So it's totally okay to pretend to have read Dworkin while actually only having read a summary, but it has to be an actual intelligent examintion of Dworkin, not a scare-mongering tirade about how feminists wish death on all men (and not by snu-snu).
Agreed, sidious618. After all, aren't movies like Saw and Hostel truly pornographic? And they're legal, despite the fact those flicks are called "torture porn." -- RR
Captain X
Rear Admiral
Yeah, I happen to list myself among the people who hold that belief, in case you didn't notice.
Yeah, I happen to list myself among the people who hold that belief, in case you didn't notice.
I wasn't having a go. I was nodding along with you.
Well, I'd argue that sexual pornography has infinitely more value than films like Saw.
Well, I'd argue that sexual pornography has infinitely more value than films like Saw.
We're on the same page here. I say that films that glorify senseless violence do more harm to people than films or pictures that glorify senseless sex!
The word "pornography" IMHO is misapplied to sexual acts and nudity and is a more fitting description for violent, gory tripe. -- RR
Just like X-rated is technicallly not only for porn. Stuff like Saw, Hostel, etc. would fall under the oriignal intention of the X-Rated label.
Anyways, it's a good ruling whether you agree with pornography or not. The Bush government was bad enough with it's abuse of personal and civil rights (I know this goes back to before him but his administration rode the high horse with it regardless with "it's for the children" arguments).
Here's a simple way to address it: Don't want your kids to view it? Be a damned parent. Install the filtering software (whining you don't want to pay for censorship software is no excuse), stop asking for a nanny-government (not all of us want to pay for censorship for your laziness) and trying to force your ideals down everyone else's throat because you can't be bothered to parent and monitor your children. If you don't want to view it? Even easier. Don't.
Anyways, it's a good ruling whether you agree with pornography or not. The Bush government was bad enough with it's abuse of personal and civil rights (I know this goes back to before him but his administration rode the high horse with it regardless with "it's for the children" arguments).
Here's a simple way to address it: Don't want your kids to view it? Be a damned parent. Install the filtering software (whining you don't want to pay for censorship software is no excuse), stop asking for a nanny-government (not all of us want to pay for censorship for your laziness) and trying to force your ideals down everyone else's throat because you can't be bothered to parent and monitor your children. If you don't want to view it? Even easier. Don't.
