Conflating consenting adult porn with rape doesn't work. At all. Here's why.

[Warren DeMontague]

As far back as the 70s and 80s, Dworkin, MacKinnon, Brownmiller, etc were breathlessly warning everyone who would listen that the avalanche (for the time) of smut represented by Penthouse and Playboy and even (o no) Hustler would -HAD to!- lead to increases in sexual assault. Statistically. Definitely. No question.

This was part and parcel of the narrative. Stitched right into the Meese-allied DNA, as it were.

So what has happened? Well, as astute observers of the culture are no doubt aware, the internet (otherwise known as the most efficient pornography distribution mechanism known to man) has led to a level of images of consenting adult fuckery being available, 24-7, that would have caused Old Mr. Comstock's head to explode a Googol (or a Google) times.

Now how does that gel with the old Dworkin-MacKinnon-Brownmiller narrative? Answer: It doesn't.

Because FACTUALLY, STATISTICALLY, SCIENTIFICALLY and UNCHALLENGEABLY, numbers of sexual assaults have declined.

This is not some "falsified MRA statistic". This is according to the FBI. The USDOJ.

Porn is up, Rape is down. Now, I don't think that porn prevents rape, because I don't actually think porn and rape have jack diddly shit to do with each other. But at the very least, the FACTS blow a gaping hole in the side of the good ship S.S. "Porn Causes Rape"

The reaction is sort of like HAL the computer trying to process conflicting instructions. It doesn't compute. Either porn doesn't cause rape, or porn isn't more prevalent. But porn MUST be more prevalent, because decrying the ever-increasing "pornification" of society propels an entire cottage outrage industry and single-handedly keeps Gail Dines and Wheelock college afloat.

In fact, to preserve the narrative, there is only ONE argument that can be made, counter to reality as it may be- and that is, that the statistics (from the FBI, and the DOJ) are lies, made up by "porn peddlers" and "MRAs".

[4th law of robotics]

1. Insisting that people follow your conclusions and ignore the data in front of them

is not a science.

It isn't even a soft or pseudo science.

That is outright religion.

"I don't care what some rocks say. The earth is 6000 years old and not a day longer. Don't believe the lies put out by Satan to distract people from the war on evil!"

"I don't care what some national impartial database says. Porn causes rape. Don't believe the lies put out by MRAs to distract people from the war on the Patriarchy!"

/the other option they've come up with is to claim the definition of rape has changed drastically (so sort of like calling the FBI liars) or that for some reason the rate of unreported rapes has gone up astronomically and thus there has been an increase, just not a recorded one. That one could be plausible if they had more to back it than "but but but it must be true!" and "why do you hate women!?!?".

[Major Nikon]

2. Apparently stating these things in HoF is grounds for getting bounced

What I find interesting is the usual suspects complain incessantly about being associated with fringe nuts like Dworkin, but then proceed to parrot out the exact same narrative on the subjects like "objectification" and "rape culture". All Dworkin did was offer predictions based on the application of her (and their) particular flavor of feminist "theory". So even though the theory itself has been proven to be 180 degrees out from reality, they still want to apply the exact same "theory" as if it has any validity whatsoever.

Then you have those who believe down is up.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. I particularly think coming over here & simultaneously complaining

Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2012, 10:21 PM - Edit history (1)

that

1) "people aren't paying attention to what I'm saying"

and

2) "I can't read that because I have that person on ignore"



really sums the whole thing up.

[Major Nikon]

4. The truly funny part was I actually agreed with her somewhat

The only real difference between us is she seems to be convinced Gardner is absolutely wrong (even though there's certainly no consensus for that within the mental health community), while I said I wasn't prepared to accept his version of PA. Both of us essentially said the same thing, but I just left out the egocentric nonsense.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. She'll never know.

Which is why I dont "ignore" people.

[opiate69]

6. Ditto that.... I don't have anyone on ignore either...

Although, one could argue that my "DU Experience" would be considerably less annoying if I made liberal use of ignore, it would certainly be exponentially less entertaining too!

[Major Nikon]

8. I have a few on ignore

Some people are just annoying and lack anything in the way of entertainment value. I haven't found that to be completely true for the usual suspects.

[4th law of robotics]

13. Stop ignoring me and shut up when I talk to you!

Well, what do you have to say for yourself?

LALALA I can't hear you!

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

7. Wait, I thought all sex on a porn set was in effect, rape?

Clearly, if all these women are being exploited by the patriarchy, even if they don't realize it and even reject the notion in their own words, that's still rape, right?

So hard keeping up with all this, trying to be an acceptable, educated, good liberal man.

[4th law of robotics]

14. Under the Patriarchy consent is not really possible

Internalize that nonsense and claiming porn is rape and porn users are all rapists makes sense.

Just like if you accept that the Bible is entirely literal then a bunchof crazy claims make sense.

You can't get a sensible argument when you base it on flawed assumptions.

Of course anyone who questions those assumptions is a rape apologist and MRA radical.

[Upton]

9. All very logical..

but what the anti porn crowd does when faced with rape statistics they don't like is just go with hand picked studies that broaden the definition of the crime or claim a certain percentage is unreported until they get the numbers they want....

I don't get why some people are so opposed to porn that it's become an obsession. Just as I don't understand this need the anti porn radfems have to treat women who happen to work in the sex industry as children who aren't able to think for themselves. They seem to feel they have an exclusive patent on what's good for all women and any female who doesn't agree with them can be easily dismissed by just claiming they've been conditioned by the patriarchy.

Demonstrates arrogance and a lack of respect for the choices made by their fellow women....doesn't some of that fall under the definition of misogyny?

Btw, according to this study, younger women are far more likely to use and enjoy porn. Which not only bodes well for the future, but tells me the Dworkin/Mackinnon followers along with their authoritarian ideas about sex are continuing to be discounted as they slowly wither away...



http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2011/10/19/porn-research-younger-women-more-likely-to-use-porn/

[Major Nikon]

10. It seems apparent that most new feminists subscribe to 3rd wave ideas

2nd wave radfems are mostly middle aged and older white women. Although they tend to be the most vocal, their numbers peaked a long time ago. Younger feminists seem to not have much stomach for ideology that is divisive at best.

[Upton]

11. It certainly appears that way..

which I assume accounts for much if not all of the animosity sex negative 2nd wavers direct towards sex positive 3rd wavers as they see their ideas rejected and they themselves supplanted as the future of feminism.

[Major Nikon]

12. Here's the really sad part

I've seen radfems complain on their blogs that younger 3rd wavers just don't get it and they are pissing away all the gains made by them. The reality is that radfems divided a strong and vibrant feminist movement and were completely counterproductive. Other than Dworkin testifying in front of congress on behalf of Ed Meese, I can't think of much they have actually managed to accomplish. Now their mission seems to be to divide the 3rd wavers and reduce their effectiveness as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. I suspect it's very.. well, maybe frustrating IS the right word.

If you've somehow set yourself up with an entitlement mentality that says it's your job to stop people you've never met from masturbating or otherwise having consensual adult sex in a way you find sociopolitically 'problematic', and yet people keep doing it despite your never-ending lectures, demands, and foot-stomping exhortations....

Well, it's probably sort of like being the Pope.

[hrmjustin]

16. Porn is not a crime, rape is.

You may not like porn, but it is not rape.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. I've noticed that some folks are constitutionally incapable of arguing against consenting adult acts

without falling back, reflexively, upon arguments dealing with non-consent or non-adults, or both.

Drug War, Porn, what-have-you. Simply saying "My life is incomplete unless I am entitled to stick my authoritarian proboscis into the business of people I've never met" apparently isn't good enough.

So, yes. Consenting adult porn has nothing to do with "rape". My point, exactly.

[hrmjustin]

18. i can not understand how they could argue they are the same.

[Major Nikon]

21. Lots of ways

Back in the 80's they argued that women were being forced into porn. As evidence, they paraded around Linda Lovelace, who by most accounts was crazy as a shithouse rat. She claimed she was forced at gunpoint to do porn. Other porn actors and actresses said she was a freak who would do anything sexually, including bestiality. The very best they could claim was a case of consent being removed after the fact.

The argument hasn't changed much really. Now the big thing seems to be sex trafficking, and feminists claim that many (if not most) sex workers are being forced into it. The problem is that there's no shortage of women who want to work in the sex industry, and criminologists can't seem to find all these women they claim.

Ronald Weitzer, a criminologist at George Washington University and an expert on sex trafficking, said that trafficking is a hidden crime whose victims often fear coming forward. He said that might account for some of the disparity in the numbers, but only a small amount.

"The discrepancy between the alleged number of victims per year and the number of cases they've been able to make is so huge that it's got to raise major questions," Weitzer said. "It suggests that this problem is being blown way out of proportion."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/22/AR2007092201401_pf.html

[Major Nikon]

20. But, but, but...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1267767

[loli phabay]

19. you could argue that porn provides a release and the multiple hook up sites

Provide people who have non vanilla fantasies and fetishes with an ability to hook up with like minded individuals. So its easier to live out the needs and fantasies than to keep them deep until the damn bursts. Plus it provides a tool for the law to track and catch some of the molesters in our midst.

[4th law of robotics]

22. Apparently the problem with porn is

That some people don't find it erotic therefore nobody should and it doesn't take in to account the historic plight of women, whatever that means in this context.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125513087

[Major Nikon]

23. I found that mostly incoherent

[4th law of robotics]

24. Mostly?

Basically it comes down to: I don't like porn. I don't want others enjoying things I don't like. If I say this I will be ridiculed without mercy. So I must flail about for other justifications.

For some its Jesus crying. For others its the patriarchy.

[Major Nikon]

25. Just from a literary standpoint

Most of the words formed complete sentences, and each sentence taken on its own appears to form some kind of thought. But taken altogether you get the feeling you're dumber for the experience.

[opiate69]

26. I would also add to this:

Taking an extreme example, such as Max Hardcore, and trying to paint that as the norm is the height of intellectual dishonesty. It's like saying that since Varg Vikernes murderd his band mate, and they were metal musicians, murder and Satanic ritual are rampant in the Metal industry. Ultimately one has to come to the conclusion that the people who make this fallacious argument are either smart enough to know better, but just don't care as long as it advances their extreme ideology, or that they really just aren't that damned intelligent to begin with.

[4th law of robotics]

27. "Satanic ritual are rampant in the Metal industry"

Is isn't?

That's it, I'm going back to Hanson.

but just don't care as long as it advances their extreme ideology, or that they really just aren't that damned intelligent to begin with

I'll take C) not smart enough to figure it out AND don't care once someone else points it out to them.