....and those of others are not really interested in the Democratic political party or the struggle of progressives versus the right as they are the patriarchy myth.

Discuss.

Others are carrying water for the religious right and stealth fundamentalists.

on the political spectrum: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Just like porn-banners on here are solidly in the authoritarian left.

Right/left is less important to certain people than authoritarian/libertarian.

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2012, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Objective fact, I'd have a fuckload of walnuts.

Two, i guess she didn't get the memo from the DEA that the "oh noooez, you dont understand, its way worse now than it was when you did it growing up!!" bullshit didn't work with pot, and its certainly not going to work with pictures of consenting adults fucking; which, contrary to the breathless hyperbole of folks like Dines, is what "most porn" actually consists of, now as well as in the past.

Three, no, porn is not "markedly different" than it was 15 years ago, other than the fact that you can now get it on blu-ray or over the internet as opposed to on VHS at a video store.

Which brings me to Four, namely, the same clucking moralists and puritanical would-be censors were trying to ban porn 15 years ago, too. When, as they claim now, it "wasnt bad". Why? Because to the Gail Dines, Judith Reismans and Rick Santorums of the world, it is ALWAYS bad because it's ALWAYS SEX, and SEX IS BAD.

Ask Dines what sort of graphic depiction of a sex act she wouldnt have a problem with... She will hem and haw and equivocate,but the real answer is, there isnt one. Its not about the sorts of porn or the messages in the porn or the content of the porn, its about the fact that its porn.

Period. She should stop the disingenous games and just admit it. Her pals in the religious right know what she's really about, shame she can still (for now) sucker someone at a place like alternet into giving her airtime.

Or simply refer to stuff that isnt actually there.

Here is one response fom AVN to Dines. I would be greatly interested to see the ACTUAL "AVN Article" she repeatedlyreferences, but i will not hold my breath.

http://business.avn.com/articles/legal/Analysis-Deconstructing-Dines-404545.html


Also, since you have referenced her, are you aware that Gail Dines was recently a main featured speaker at an event that was barred from another venue in London for bigotry, and that unapologetically reaffirmed that same bigotry before proceeding to feature Dines along with Shiela "every time a woman orgasms with a man she is eroticizing her own oppression" Jeffreys?

What is your opinion on that?

There are probably other ways to locate the article, but the subject is a tangent I am not interested in pursuing. The article exists or doesn't. It is online, was scrubbed or is from a print AVN publication. Anyone interested should probably contact Professor Dines directly. If she appeared on a stage with an anti-transgender bigot (as described upthread), it may for purposes of DEBATE. Link below first hit from google search: gail dines transgender.

The article "may exist or may not"? Okay, so maybe shes full of shit, maybe shes not? Funny, that SHE couldn't be bothered to provide the source quotes or material, despite repeatedly paraphrasing it.

Yet you're clearly going to try to continue to hold her up as a reputable source... Why?

Here are some FACTS: the radfem 2012 conference was kicked out of Conway hall for its bigoted stance against transpeople, a stance about which the venue management had this to say:

Dines endorsed a conference that was roundly criticized for bigotry against transpeople. That is the point your are studiously avoiding.

If Dines isnt anti-sex, why is she appearing at a conference held by people who make being "PIV Critical" a core part of their agenda?

Why was she headlining the thing with Shiela "every time a woman orgasms with a man, she is eroticising her own oppression" Jeffreys?

I will warn you that tired tactics of derailment others may feel an entitlement mentality to engage in elsehere on this site, will not work here. If you want a place where you can just continually cut and paste anti-porn arguments instead of actually addressing the points raised, this is not the group for you. Try going into HoF and just continually cutting and pasting opinion pieces from Larry Flynt or Susie Bright- they wont stand for it, over there, will they?

Likewise, over here, we arent going to play the game where fusillades of links, excerpts, and propaganda sub for actually staying on topic and engaging in logical, linear discussion. All you've done here is dug up someone you think sounds like Dines. While ignoring Dines's bigotry and the well documented position that her "facts" are full of shit. (not to mention the folks shes palled up with, from the anti trans bigots to the religious right)

Somone is against porn? Great. For every one of those, there re 10 who believe in free speech and the right of consenting adults to watch other consenting adults fuck. We can play that game all day, but THAT IS NOT THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD.

So please, address the previous point.

for all of these 'anti-porn' arguments.

I've said before, I'll say again, I think the answer to bad art is good art, not censorship.

Apologies. Although I doubt it, you might be right about Dines. I don't know and don't have the time or inclination to investigate. It appeared to me that you were attempting to discredit Dines' work by discrediting Dines. You're wrong on that one.

or shown to be a misrepresentation or nonexistent, then both she AND her work are discredited.

She's plainly lying about being "anti-sex moderate" when she shows up at the conference held by transphobic bigots with the "anti-PIV" agenda, so her disingenuousness as a person about who she is and what she stands for relates directly to her credibility professionally.

In fact they didn't have one at all prior to 1998 and adoption of the european convention, and even then, the list of exceptions is so long as to make it arguably meaningless.

Regarding speech, I don't see any compelling reason to be more like them.

tolerated.

You have been asked to delete your post. Bigots do not get air time in this group.

...and guess what!


Brace yourself,



I'm sure this will come as a shock...




You were right on both counts. She both misrepresented the information contained in the document she was using in the video, and referred to stuff in it that wasn't there:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240151464#post50

even if y'all do leave the seat up.

Anyone quoting her as a source should be asked if they wanna quote Pat Robertson while they're at it.

to those who would quote her and other fundies.

They . . . don't respond well to such factoids.

Standard response is to alert on you then kick you out of their group. I guess if you can't mention these facts to them they cease to be facts.

....what I really meant to say was if you quote right wing hate groups, you need to face alerts and TOS.

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:55 PM - Edit history (1)

As well, Gail Dines has endorsed transphobic bigotry through her appearance, and keynote speech, at the Radfem 2012 conference in london, an event which was barred from another venue over said bigotry.

The DU mens group has a "zero tolerance" policy for homophobia and transphobia. Transphobic bigotry is not welcome on this group, nor do transphobic bigots like Gail Dines have free rein to opine for 40 minutes through youtube videos here. Please delete that post. If you feel the need to share it on DU, i would suggest you try posting it in a different group. Not here.

....but I'm guessing that video wasn't a "listen to her string up her own noose" moment?

whose members will, ironically, accuse people here of bigotry.

I expect that post to be removed.

Or the one you were referencing earlier?

To clear I don't like this lady or basically anything I've heard her say. I just think it's odd that she has such a following on here among certain forums (not this one obviously).

That was not directed at you.

It is worth reiterating, of course, that there has been an awful lot of scrutiny on this group- and We've made it perfectly clear that we will not tolerate, for instance, promotion of "MRA" sites or individuals, that kind of thing.

Like I said. I'm not gonna stand for giving known bigots airtime, here.

And that same logic applies to Gail Dines, who was a keynote speaker at a conference which was roundly condemned (and kicked out of a venue) for transphobic bigotry. She endorsed the transphobic bigotry of the radfem 2012 conference in July. She is not welcome here.

do you really think it'll matter to the usual detractors?

Didn't they say that we were in favor of rape jokes even though everyone explicitly said the opposite?

Or that we defended people being sexually assaulted in elevators by serial killers/rapists even though that had nothing to do with reality?

Being vigilant and clear in your beliefs is a good thing. But there will always be some who simply do not care what you actually say.

Is this about Jeffrey's work (see below) or the efforts to deny women the right to assemble without including men or transgender individuals (Radfem 2012 London controversy)?

Or this? http://flyingontherainbow.com/2012/05/30/the-oppression-of-ms-sheila-jeffreys-a-re-imagining-of-the-facts/

If the latter, isn't 'more speech' the solution to 'offensive speech' ( http://www.aclu.org/organization-news-and-highlights/aclu-fight-hate-speech-more-speech )? What a damn shame to resort to baseless name-calling ("This is not an open forum for right wingers and their enablers to broadcast propaganda.&quot and demands for censorship.

Your continual promotion of the words and arguments of known bigots against transgender persons, is not welcome here. You are not being silenced, however, you can't do it in THIS group. See if someone else will put up with it. We will not.

Does that mean men who are clumsy or selfish in bed are better?

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

There is nothing "natural" about that act." ~Jeffreys, The Idea Of Prostitution

Feel free to spin that as a misrepresentation. I'm dying to hear it.

They're not being misrepresented, they're being (rightly) disinfected by good old-fashioned sunlight, and possibly mocked. I'm not sure what you feel is being "misrepresented" in this thread: Jeffreys is a known bigot where transgendered persons are concerned (big hint: insisting repeatedly that transgendered women aren't women, or aren't quite women, or aren't women enough, is bigotry), and the sex workers she's trying to "save" from "prostitute abuse" (i.e. their chosen job) detest her and her ideas with every cell in their brains. Gail Dines feels women's sexuality is best expressed by not being expressed at all, lest some man find it erotic. All of this is completely verifiable via a simple Google search. They are not feminists, at least not where sexuality is concerned; they are antisex activists. Those two things are not only not the same, they are antithetical.

(my apologies for butting into your group, guys- blame Meta. I'll just be moving along now.)

Great post

Not to mention awful. And horrible.

And wait'll after 5pm, when they start cooking.

and the seat is never down. Also that there is a lingering aroma of dirty socks.

Cooking is where I draw the line though. You turn that stove on and I leave for good!

itself for the last couple of million years in the absence of PIV sex? How can the very nature of a species reproducing itself be "unnatural?" I have asked this question of the usual suspects and been met with clouds of obfuscatory word salad the likes of which would deeply and profoundly embarrass even Sarah Palin.

The scientific ignorance of some people on DU is just as pathetic and ludicrous as that propounded by right wing imbeciles like that fundy congressman/doctor (?) from Georgia.

pardon the bad pun. She's a lesbian, so to her, that IS an unnatural act. Unfortunately, she's decided to sell her own personal life experience as the only natural and scientifically valid one, which is ridiculous. Profitable, I'm sure, but still ridiculous.

It's not just her views on heterosexual sex, either; she does this with her views on transsexuality and prostitution too- paints her own opinion as the only valid viewpoint and ignores the very loud voices of the transsexuals and prostitutes telling her to go fuck herself. I would dearly love to know how one passes one's self off as an expert in a field of human behavior without actually getting anywhere near the people engaging in it or taking their opinions into account. It boggles my mind.

My personal opinion is that people who find it necessary to tell other people that they're doing their sex life wrong are people miserable in their own sex life, but that's just my personal opinion. All evidence is anecdotal, your mileage may vary.

I would actually like to know how they become "experts" when their formal education is in a completely unrelated field? Jeffereys` degree is poli-sci, others I have seen are Lit, English, Law... but not a one of them have a background in Anthro, Psych, etc.

Melissa Farley is a big glaring exception, but she's been tagged several times for failing to follow scientific controls, or when that failed actually lying about the conclusions of her own research.

Ignoring masses of relevant data, lying about relevant data and presenting opinion as fact does not say much about the validity of a cause.

by quoting back their exact words to them in full.

Weird how that works.

This one, alas, has several flaws that undermine the effectiveness of the overall message.

The post basically offers a three-pronged argument against the assumption that Dines is a leftist (or is representative of the left): first, some right-wingers use leftist rhetoric; second, she tends towards authoritarianism; third, she exaggerates the significance of some things. The first is a good point; however, while it works against the "assumption" that Dines is a leftist, one could deploy the same point (as a cautionary mechanism) against anyone who employs leftist rhetoric. The second ignores the fact that, alas, the "us or them" thinking he's specifically addressing is, while more frequently in evidence on the right, not exclusive to it. The third simply points out a flaw in thinking that is itself ideological neutral. So the structure of the argument doesn't really do what the title/thesis imply.

Aside from that, there are little things that undermine credibility. Like this:

Especially the point about the unfortunate alliances and about the logic of attacking critiques of Dines as anti-progressive. And, as I said before, I don't disagree with the blogger's general assessment of Dines. I just didn't think their execution is very good.

And, since I don't feel like doing the work I am supposed to be doing today (which involves critiquing student writing and argumentation), I figured I could sublimate with this article, which I didn't see until this afternoon.

However, I think there's inherent political danger of labeling any anti-pornographer as progressive. For one thing, it just doesn't fit into progressive or liberal ideology. I've yet to see a convincing argument against legal pornography that improves the social standing of anyone. Arguments that legal pornography increases violence against women have never had any sound basis. Arguments about 'self-objectification' are even more nutty. So it really just boils down to the attempts to control consensual sexual behavior, which has a tendency to alienate large groups of people who reject Puritan ideas regarding sexuality. So for zero political reasons you wind up turning people off to your cause. You also inevitably invite people into your tent that have misogynistic and/or misandric agendas and often give that agenda a free pass due to the label you've allowed them to use.

Remarkably common once you start looking for it.

I'm starting to think left/right is a less important distinction (although perhaps easier to discuss) than authoritarian/libertarian*.

*little L libertarian, not the party just the notion that people ought to have individual rights because that's the right thing to do. Rather than having to explain why they *need* those rights. It's usually pretty obvious: why do you need porn, why do you need guns, why do you need an abortion, why do you need to say those things . . . and so on.

I guess I see the passage you just quoted as my fundamental takeaway from the OP. I don't see the logical flaws you've identified to be materially undermining of that basic point.

Yup. She's still a worthless, pig-ignorant, transphobic bigot, two years later.

...or not.

If it quacks like a duck.

But then, when one lays down with dogs.... or is that ducks?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=275415&sub=trans

I bookmarked this in case someone posts this as a great feminist source.

Good heavens! Imagine that!



http://moralityinmedia.org/history/

Completely ignore the fact that said religion is their basis for wanting to remove a zillion other women's rights....

As opposed to noting the brain-breaking cognitive dissonance that must be required to transmogrify fundamentalist RW fuckos like Ed Meese, Judith Reisman or their pals, into "progressive heroes" because hey,

AT LEAST THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT SMUT!!!

Someone asked them if they were seriously backing an anti-choice group and suddenly....HUMMANA HUMMANA HUMMANA....YOU'RE DERAILING, YOU ANTI-CHRISTIAN!

Bumped for the love being shown to them this weekend!