Posts Tagged ‘pornography’

Catharine MacKinnon

Today I declare the Save the Vagina's Before it's Too Late initiative in honor of Catharine MacKinnon, feminist legal scholar, and author of the Vagina Monolith's, and the Soccermom Diatribes. Now make sure you get home before midnight, Cindy!

Let’s get the the dull, academically fraudulent, sex negative, sexist stuff from two notoriously angry, manipulative, controlling women, out of the way right from the start.

But first! A public service message: Do you sit awake nights, worrying about hungry, sick, starving vaginas all over the world?  You CAN make a difference in the life and health of vaginas.  SAVE A VAGINA TODAY!  by donating to women’s cervical cancer research.

Now back to the porn wars: Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon got an anti-pornography statute passed  that is still lurking on the books in the City of Minneapolis:

Pornography and Civil Rights
A NEW DAY FOR WOMEN’S EQUALITY by ANDREA DWORKIN and CATHARINE A. MacKINNON
Copyright © 1988 by Catharine A. MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin
“Pornography is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes. Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women. . . .”  Their completely new legal approach–in which pornography is defined as sex discrimination and therefore a violation of civil rights–would allow anyone injured by pornography to fight back by filing a civil lawsuit against pornographers.
—————————————————————————————————————————-
Wheeew, smells like a cat box up there–reeks like the turds of  little captive animals that claw furniture and ask you for food all day long, and then snuggle all night. MeeeEEEow till I get what I want, claw furniture if I don’t….

So dualistic–so negative–so typically feminist, but indeed, undeniably, pornography IS differential in the treatment of the subjects involved. Civil rights? Meh.

I better go to the dictionary on that one. Not Civil rights, silly–we know how hard feminists work against those!

But Pornography–wha tis it? The free download of the Sage Dictionary , a dictionary for linguists, gives me a common working definition of pornography: Creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire.

Pornography depicting coitus, cunnilingus, felatio, sodomy, BDSM, and the many other etcetera’s of sexual action is everywhere you look–three mouse clicks or less  from every man, woman and child in the ‘civilized’ world of cyberspace.

 [warning: you are three clicks away from free, virus- free, relatively harmless adult sexual material here ]

That may or may not be a bad thing, but the dialogue about porn is important, and definitely headed in the wrong direction–because it is actually a dialogue about speech. You can decide for yourself. I will wait as you peruse the hundreds of various links–after all, their actually is something for every-BODY.

Straight, LGBT, TS, hard and softcore bodies everywhere you look–we are all different.

But the more important dialogue about pornography has yet to take place, and that dialogue has its roots in the same definition of pornography that is in common use, a dialogue that is the most important dialogue of our next decade; one that hasn’t taken place yet because it has been constrained, AND restrained.

War pornography. War pornography is how we bully young males into submission, and objectify them, via images of men as tools, objects, and perpetrators of violence. Good men, bad men: soft-core, and hard-core males. Either way, men are more disposable than used condoms, and always presented in dualistic terms.

It begins with shame. Male shame. Shaming males into submission.

Pornography, by the definition, involves ‘creative activity’; that portion of the definition is not really in dispute by anyone. Porn is a created product, and is often quite creative as well. The big bone of contention seems to be the next part “other than to stimulate sexual desire.”

What does THAT mean? We are all different–stimulation begins in the brain.

But I have a bone to pick with such a vapid generalization [Sage… dictionary, definition 1, not 2, because definition 2 at least uses the words ‘flavor’, and ‘tang’ to describe ‘vapid’? The use of the letter V anywhere can arouse me, by design of the current feminist propaganda [V-day and the Vagina Monologues are sooo in your face every year, whether I want it or not].

But ‘flavorful tang???’  I am blowing my top…Even the propagandists missed that shameful naughtiness in the word ‘vapid,’ while they were hyper-focused on ‘vaginas’ [ Sage, vagina: definition 2 a moist canal in female mammals]. Western propagandists make their money from pandering to vaginas.

Flavorful tang…I am going full bore boner!  My penis is suddenly a weapon of thought! An underwear-agent in a propaganda war!! Tang, is like ‘poontang’; and then,  by a stretch, the coochie is tangy??  I am dick-dog rape crazy, according to the feminist literature.  I gotta run out, and rape all of the holes in Coochie right now! Holes, plural, IN coochie?

 Poontang and coochie  are words that likely have Chinese or Korean origins, as their form mirrors Korean and Vietnamese language structures. But the popularity and use of these words directly mirrors American imperialism in Asia. Cu Chi, a city in Viet Nam, is most likely where we get the word coochie. Ouch–look out for the booby traps, and holes full of bamboo spikes…but I digress.

No wonder all the boys, and radical feminists, are lost on Asian porn..

I apparently can’t help myself, according to the rhetoric of the current crop of feminist propagandists. I am a natural born rapist. Engendered male, porn is only one of ‘my tools’  for oppressing ‘all’ women, and especially gender feminist, lesbian academics–both male and female– who feed off of them. These people actually, physically,  wage war on me with the rhetoric of ‘men and porn’, by making me a sexual suspect in their rhetoric, and then, an actual suspect under the law.

Then, they invest in Hillary Clinton’s war chest, so she can save America from the Libyans. Either way, it wasn’t, and it won’t be anytime soon, me raping women overseas, for male or female warlords, or anywhere else to feed American women’s children with a soldiers pay.

But full-bore boner-words, phrases, ideas, and pictures that make me horny–even if no one is around!? I might make my own money off of that–and I will fight to be able to use words, images, pictures and text to understand my world.

Me–all by myself, drowning in the Onanist impulses of symbols and language, I can conjur fantasies of sex–without those ‘real’ women like Kate and Dre!  I really don’t need pictures–they are just nice accessories to remind me exactly why I prefer my own company over the company of weirdo’s who want to interpret what I feel for me, and extrapolate what it ‘could’ mean–or try to  tell me what ‘my’ mind is thinking, before they sweep out their own heads.

Nurse Ratched: Aren’t you ashamed?
Billy: No, I’m not.
[Applause from friends]
Nurse Ratched: You know Billy, what worries me is how your mother is going to take this.
Billy: Um, um, well, y-y-y-you d-d-d-don’t have to t-t-t-tell her, Miss Ratched.
Nurse Ratched: I don’t have to tell her? Your mother and I are old friends. You know that.
Billy: P-p-p-please d-d-don’t tell my m-m-m-mother.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073486/quotes

Shame on me. More shame on me….guilt, guilt, guilded male–and then more shame on me. They did all the thinking for me, and porn is killing, and oppressing everybody, most of all, women, children,  and vaginas. Shit–what do I do now to assauge my guilt?? Do I combat the capitalists who drop depleted uranium on children? Do I just vote for Hillary in the next election, because Dick Cheney supports her?

No! I should run out and save a vagina today! Blame it on da pornz! War is all about oppressin’ da wiminz.

Dear Woman: Here’s some free or low cost sperm–hell, you can have my nuts–but please raise a cop or a soldier who will protect the vaginas, and your vagina! Here’s a pedestal–keep your vagina up there! I will even cross the street if it helps you to trust me again, and makes you feel less scared of my weiner!

There’s some stainkin’ thankin’…

Think for yourself, and everything turns out o.k. I promise; but let them inside your sexuality? Let them define you? They will wage war.  You become the deviant in their construct–because you let them inside!

And they will tell you more about themselves in one sentence about their own construct of a purely hypothetical construction of ‘you’ than you could ever learn about them by torturing them to death in a snuff porn film. Just don’t tell them that even idiots know the CIA is the only American talent agency that actually makes snuff porn.[Nick Berg: poor dead guy; and here, too.]

What is striking in every way is how narrowly focused the gatekeepers of knowlege are in attempting to limit my full-bore brain-boner: academics, militarists, feminists,  and anti-feminists have been  limiting the discussion to thoughts about ‘womens bodies’ for centuries, instead of the vagizillions of other forms of pornography that don’t seem to ruffle their feathers.

My first full-bore boy-boner was the dictionary.

We should regulate the sale of dictionaries to children–because if even words can make us horny, what is next?  ‘It’s for the children‘, they always say–then they shut them up early, and keep the kids illiterate.  Besides, they rage, one of them damned Webster’s dictionary people supported the Fugitive Slave Act a hundred and fifty years ago!(1)

What next?? The children?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, in the feminist paradigms, language is the true oppressor. It’s high time to outlaw dictionaries. And apparently, boners kill women and children, and are big enough to intrude on civil rights.Never mind the inherent contradiction when they tell you men have tiny dicks…

How easy it is  to obliterate, or ‘snuff’  from the definition of pornography the portion of the definition that talks about “creative,” and focus instead on “stimulation of sexual desire,” and in so doing, to create the appearance that everything, and every image with a woman is potentially pornographic, and thus, every image without a woman is somehow NOT pornographic, or that images that lack women are nearly snuff porn.

So what ARE those type of images, devoid of patriarchy? Oh, yeah–empty headed Fabio…or Pat Califia’s dick…

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men.

What is commonly called "girl porn",--romance novels-- aren't even close to the 'meat' of the issue of women's actual objectification of men..

Just try to imagine, an image without women. Next thing you know, imagination is imagery, according to them, time to clean your mind of it’s filth–your mind, I remind you, not their projections.

These folks are counter-productive in the least, snuffing themselves out like that. Counter-productively snuffing me, too, with their preemptive, eternal rhetoric of objectification.

It leaves  the nasal impression–the stench– that images of men ‘with’ women have a lurking and deviant sexual intent; images of women with women is ‘slavery’ performed before patriarchy–despite kyriarchal advancement; images of BDSM,or leather boys and girls  in Hitler gear, schtupping each other; ‘ one  is re-enacting ones own subjugation,’  but mostly, the actual stench is the carcases of dead heterosexual men, and ‘othered’ men and women not worthy of eroticism, mere bodies, filthy, and pornographic in or of ourselves, tossed into a dumpster, or a heap of fire in yet another war zone that was created to feed hungry western capitalists, both male and female.

Men have been denied the truly erotic–they tell us that images of women and ‘others’ are objectifying and pornographic, and images of men are not. You don’t have to be gay to figure out that cuntnundrum*

But simple analysis of any and all images tell’s us with certainty–that you must ask yourself, or ask the image,  not those who tell you that the moon is made of Swiss cheese, and poke holes in you for impact. Images provoke thought, and thought can produce desire. Words do that too–ALL WORDS. Humans have evolved to communicate with each other.

Hence, communication in any form is the essence of the erotic; the seeds of desire, regardless of the method of transmittal.

But what IS that desire?  Is it exclusively physical and sexual, a thought that leads only to action related to that thought, as they try to force us to believe? Each and every word, image or filmic representation spoken or shared one person to another is a symbol, a communication of some form of desire, a piece of the bigger desire. Yet a desire to talk about the meaning of words does not equate with any action other than to talk to someone about desire, or it’s opposite.

Add images and films? They are just word enhancers.

And words that we say only to ourselves about actions, or non-actions are certainly meaningful as well; if not the singular most important thing, they are the second. Our inter-persona, intra-psychic communication doesn’t necessarily equate with a desire for actual ‘sex,’ at all, any more than a desire for ‘communication’ of our ideas, some of which are about sex, but some of which are about other things too.

Does looking at the expensive dress in the window equate with buying the dress? Sure–for the rich, the hedonistic, the bored, the selfish, or the foolish. Those who are bought, buy as well. But what if you can’t be bought?

So, if anything IS or can be pornographic, it isn’t the ‘creative’ portion of the definition. We are all producers of creative impulses, and many enjoy the intellectual processes caused by viewing  porn . But definitions of porn are in fact the relational, superimposed and interpretatational, relative, objectification of intentions  by others with whom we interact, and communication which takes place, or could take place from those objectifiers have the explicit intention of preemptively circumventing your personal interpretation of your own intentions.

It is not a concrete, monolithic absolute that porn hurts viewers at all, or even most actors involved.

Porn is fantasy communication, like thoughts one could have for a conversation with Gandhi, Dworkin, or Freud. Porn creates a psychic space that is an intellectually, or emotionally safe distance from which to have a fantasy dialogue with others–and with yourself. THAT is where you stand the largest chance to begin fulfilling the ‘desire’ that images can create–in defining for yourself what you are perceiving, and then communicating that desire–in words to others, if it all works out.

And viewing idealized body images increases personal satisfaction for some people.It’s no stretch to imagine similar things about naked bodies and sex.

Adding the gross misrepresentations and anecdotes of abuses that have taken place in some forms of sex pornography is akin to adding hot-pepper to your morning oatmeal, and telling you that’s what oatmeal is.

Viewing images of dogs can invoke feelings of affection, security, comfort, and a thus, a whole host of other feelings potentially related to sexual expression that could take place in a home  (and which I suspect can also stir up the oxytocin releasing, orgasm producing mechanism in the brain). Emotions are, at their base in the lymbic system,  related to those that produce sexual feelings; images of families, or images of children ( see dogs and families), are no stretch if one wished to conflate images and political agendas.

If we accept the paradigm that viewing pornography does NOT equate with having actual sex any more or less than images of dogs equate with family, home or security, we cannot say that images and video’s of nude people are pornographic any more than the word ‘vapid,’ snapshots of Fido, or militaristic  propaganda pictures of flags waving.

Those who are in porn enter the psychic space by our own consent–whether they are ‘victims’ or not is a separate issue entirely.

Yet if we accept the feminist and militarist, and by rote and association, the judicial definitions of pornography as a tool facilitating ‘rape, power, or sexual violence, that enslaves, or steals from women and children’ ( a common pro-war feminist trope*),  we must also then say also that sexualy stimulating pornography for them are the body counts in the news, the stories of conquest of ‘othered’ men, images of ‘othered’ men cleaning up dead male bodies,  images of men at Abu Ghraib, or images of dead babies who have been exposed to uranium, because these images stir up feelings of ‘power,’  whose only relation is to ‘desire’.

Patriarchy and modern feminism are inseparable mates in the creation of pornography.

Images of power relationships cause arousal, according to the definition, and MacKinnon- Dworkin, and all other sex negative feminists. So, the  images of disemboweled, oppressed, enslaved, or dead men, women and babies, whether written or photographed or filmed, are not merely ‘vacant’ images [vacant, ala Sage: definition 1 , cancel officially; definition 2 ‘leave behind, empty], but also images that cause dialogue;  leads to creative impulses, and hence, as per the puppy= security paradigm, can cause female arousal which can be termed sexual.

The debate has been constrained thusly: it is most always limited to discussing women’s bodies, women’s sexuality or women’s perspectives about sex; it is always spoken from one monolithic feminist to another; and it has in recent years engaged the gay community, and sex positive feminists in other dialogues about other forms and perceptions of sexual stimulation through pornography; it has informed the discussion that there are many perspectives of what is sexually stimulating.

But it is the actual communication that has provably opened the doors to sexual liberation–talking to each other makes us horny.

Yet the dialogue has never sufficiently addressed every day images of men that on the surface are not  prima facie sexually stimulating; by THEIR definition.  Yet images of men, dogs, and families have the wider effect of being ultimately, sexual in their evocation of sexual possibility, sexual power, and their portrayal of the myth of home and family, where masculinity and femininity in union, and in dialogue, ‘create’.

These types of images cause dialogue–and  oxytocin levels to rise in the brain.

The soldier in uniform; the basket ball player in sweats; the  cop beating a peace protester or a mentally ill man to death is especially dear and stimulating to militarists and “radical” feminists who openly call for the exertion of power to cause male death; and images of  men conquering men certainly causes some pornographic dialog window to pop-up for these ‘domestic’ types.

And words which women use to describe men, writing what they have written about men– entire women’s studies departments at any major university that discuss, or employ images of men;  any ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ blog which employs competitive themes,  and any discussion where power is present, is a hotbed of pornographic representations of masculinity. The spaces wherein definitions of pornography or men are debated, are urgent, hormonally charged, verbose environments full of pornographic illustrations–and thus, are also pornographic by definition.

Which is why I am NOT a feminist–nor an anti-feminist, or a militarist: because according to the truth of MacKinnon and Dworkin, “exploitation and subordination based on sex which differentially harms women, “ is what porn is.

That might be true indeed, if I were a woman.  Differentially only means different. And if I could choose, and not let them continue to choose for me, or pursue me against my will? I choose NOT to have my body photographed at Abu Ghraib; photographed while being water-boarded,  have a mugshot taken, or be photographed dead.

Differential? Of course, by definition, nude representations can be sexist–differential only means different. That certain forms of pornography consume the dialectic? Preferential in the dialogue? Definitely. Men are over-represented in most imaginings of male–represented in a pornographic manner–dead, and truly voiceless–we expect that of men.

We expect that by their definition of men, and patriarchy, without ever discussing women who are pro-war in the dialectic and in their votes, whether feminist or not is subsidiary to the fact that they conceive men for war.

But I might add, theirs is a literally vapid, vacant definition, too, because male voices are missing in that discussion–prohibited from openly declaring any ideas thatrelate to themselves as exploited persons; voices missing even in their own bodies, which are conceived as war objects, while female voices, their panderers,  and their patrons just bitch about camera angles and perspectives.

It leaves ME feeling used, and counting days till I pass on into the next life–if there is one.And there isn’t.

[ cue the oompa-doom-papa porn music]

Given the choice, I would give those murderous fuckers–those voyeuristic, predatory  bitches and bastards–all the boner shots they want of me reading my dictionary–into eternity, if photos, and pornographic representations in words can live that long.

And get ready–where are those sun-glasses? But here’s the cum-shot: You can all go fuck yourselves for awhile (but in a sex positive way, of course), until you figure out if you are able to know what porn even is: as the Felix Frankfurter once said in  Butler v. State of Michigan about obscenity, and which applies to current feminist ideation in this area”you burn down the house to roast the pig.”

Or the sows who capitalize on your ignorance–your silence– in this dialogue.That perverse, feminist, domestic-war-mongering has been conflated for decades with naked, living people and pornography, and today seeks ownership of the industry–not moral high ground, but pure profit potential.

And limiting the definition of pornographic representation to women’s bodies? Now that’s obscene, even by the early definitions of pornography.

But you aren’t. I am not.

War is.

Yet no one really see’s it, ever, much less ‘get’s that’, because of all that pussy in your face. And now, I am not talking about the raging Coochie, or the Poon Tang,  either. I am talking about you. Walking talking porn of one sex or another, even if you never lifted the cover of Playboy magazine–a magazine that CIA feminist, and publisher Gloria Steinem is attempting to own and control right now.

Now go cast some stupid vote for Them or theM, a vote that kills, maims, or chemically alters the DNA of some actual babies, and  ‘othered’ men– their fathers no matter which side you are on.

But stop worrying about internet porn. It will outlive you. Your son, if you have one,  may not.

*trope: language used in a figurative or non literal sense. In this case, a myth of culture that is espoused by militarists, feminists, and so forth, which is encouraged and enhanced by the presumption that only women and children comprise a ‘literal’ family, sans males or fathers.

*cuntnundrum: the illogical logic that is employed in feminist rhetoric. Like Christian rhetoric that says “first their was G-d,then everything eklse, so, everything =G-d,”  radical feminists posit “patriarchy, thus it’s all mens’ faults.’

1) Peoples History of the United States, Zinn, Howard. pg.177 (1995 edition, chap 9, ‘Without Submission’ )

Naomi Wolf at the 2008 Brooklyn Book Festival ...

Naomi Wolf

For Stephanie, and Naomi Wolf.

So who is ‘more’ messed up? What is a mess?

She is standing before me, a bloody panty shield wagging in her hand, asking me in rageful tones if I know what that means.

Jericho, like an echo, or glossolalia; her walls, and wars for independence from femininity.

Little joker, I feel. I adore stupid questions.
Yup, I say, with my whole heart in her.

You fucker, she says, with memories of only my dick–apparently- in her too.

Naomi Wolf, ap-parently, adores looking into households, and seeing exactly what she wants to see, her teeth bared at the site of flesh.

Never mind the dissension, or the lie in, and at the door.

I think she was named correctly; Naomi.

et, al: Inspiring White Female Privilege.

A critique of an introduction, which functions as a rationalization of late-term post-partum white female privilege, abjection,* separatism cloaked in rape anxiety,and feminist cowardice.

This article is written for academic, “school educated” people, but I think it is important to write for non-academic people who should come first. For anyone reading this, who has never been to college, go here ** below the second line down.

For Nell, from Brooklyn–and feminist men: here below, is Nikki Crafts phallic totem.

———————————————————————————————————

Nikki Craft deserves more of the ear than most of her white female, feminist peers.

Why? Because Nikki Craft has ovaries ( I just thought I would see how that sounds–like if I said, “she has balls”-doesn’t carry the same ooomph, does it?).

No: Nikki Craft had balls–no, the gonads, in the sense of the phallus as a metaphorical and transferable human-family totem to actually take on the system. That is, before she located, and centered herself squarely, and interestingly in the middle of groups of naked children–but then changed her course– in order to argue against pedophilic sexual voyeurism of males, a curious position to be in indeed.

Nikki Craft was a warrior, not a whiner.

And Nikki Craft wasn’t a coward in her early activism, sniping from academic turrets of police and state mechanisms of pure power, like Russell[.], or from behind fire-walled, lap-dog guarded pseudo-feminist blogs like Skepchick.com which has recently had quite a discussion about Richard Dawkins, atheist, and sexism.

Most feminist men and women can’t help themselves, stuck as they are in Julia Kristeva‘s “borderline,” structured over a ‘lack’ of something rather than a possession of something, or cowering in the binary disconnect of self and other, like most modern entitled, privileged white feminists who lack the gonads to truly protest, or risk shattering the prolonged period of privileged female abjection.

Ms. Craft once took REAL risks–the same kind of risks that men face every day, and in doing so, was inherently believable, understandable, and respectable in her protests, unlike those who employ themselves merely as female ‘minds’ but inhabiting primarily, female bodies enmeshed in post-structural feminist narratology; and she transcended fear, and ‘her’ self.

She literally risked going to jail ( with all of it’s implied, potential, egalitarianism enhancing potential violence, and potential rape), and was actually jailed 17 times during her protests against misogyny.

You definitely can’t say that about any of the modern, entitled white women who talk, blog, and march in SlutWalks, and cry wolf at the mere possibility of male attention–who equate being spoken to in an elevator with rape , like white young feminist and religious skeptic Rebecca Watson, or joust at penises who have heretical gametes instead of right wing or power structure males.

However, the history of women’s protest in modern times is the history of differential and lesser-charged treatment by authorities in comparison to criminal offenses charged against men, and women of color.

The slap on the wrist is the norm in prosecuting white female criminal acts, and has been throughout the millennium–not the exception–which is not to minimize the effect of not being taken seriously by authority, but to point out the nature of second, third, and 17 th chances for those embodied white and female.

Craft was mad about men looking at pictures of naked women, which took their attention off of her, and other women she knew. She marauded in book and magazine stores, destroying magazines which portrayed naked women, which she felt threatened women’s safety–she took actual as opposed to imagined risks:

Unprivileged men don’t get 17th chances,stomping into stores and shops and wreaking havoc on merchandise; non-white women do not get second guesses, and second chances are rare, even for privileged men.

Black and brown or non-privileged white women are being locked in American prisons at an increasing rate[..], and all of them have historically faced harm that white women have NEVER faced.

However, white women have never faced prison, or the primary violation of their bodies as mere orthographic descriptions denoting criminality, unfathomably above and beyond the cold descriptors of ordinary humanity.

Further: imagine the absolutely unimaginable: that any man who acts in the agency of male, protesting the violence against the male body not just from authority, but from its constant companion of white female privilege that negotiates each male and other identity against racial and sexual pardigms of white female engendered or upholding power–should ever be nominated for an award by his arresting officer!

It could NEVER happen. Male protest, and other bodies for whom male protest attempts to speak, has been co-opted, essentially, at the site of a white woman’s womb.

To even attempt to create a list of men who have been imprisoned, beaten, jailed, and ruined by criminal records compiled by cops would be an exhausting project that would require a multi-billion dollar endowment, because the male body–regardless of race– is and has always been the center of the primary battles of discrimination between privileged men, and privileged women who compete for a voice in their ranks ( those ranks birthed, and upheld by mothers who birthed such men).

The use, control and abuse of male bodies is an agreement between the privileged of both genders; and male embodiment for most men is in and of itself ‘potentially harmful’ to society–men are punished merely for being male, because definitions of crime itself is proscribed male.

The male body that the privileged woman reaches into for phallic energy, and sperm donations is not the same male body that privileged females squeal to, or appeal to in their quest for justice.

In Russel’s introduction, she goes on to state what has become the driving mantra and the essential position of white female privilege-and by using the term white female, I by no means preclude brown, or black contenders for the white female influenced voice of privilege.

Russell admits her cowardice to some degree when says:

And likely, the lesson she speaks of brings her closer to comprehending what it is that keeps white female privilege arguing up the asses of male politicians, police, professors, and feminist lap-dog men, while purporting to care about brown and black women around the world– because jail is a very real possibility for all men, every day, and actual rape, death and harm a fact of life for non-white women.

But white women? C’mon…they are way too scared to take risks like talking to someone in an elevator, much less go to jail for insurrection.Fear of crossing from ‘abject’ reality to “actual reality”*** is what motivates the modern white feminist–fear of losing their entitlement, not fear of actual rape.

Unlike Craft, a primary cowardice that stops white women at the door of actual risk, and perpetuates their privilege, while minimizing the effects of their abject fear projections on men, and leaning on the backs of ‘other and othered’ men and women for actual stories of suffering and inequality.

Or, in the words of Russell:

This dialectic of “fancy” preemptive dialogue is “limned with the abject loss” of white female privilege–a murderous impulse against growing up, being truly equal, or at least facing the violence of ‘reality’ that most men, and non-white women face. It eludes reality, and eludes the presumptions of ‘othered’ male innocence in every discussion, and merely tokenizes actual violence that non-white women face.

Unimaginable, utopian, unavailable, and unattainable as white female perceptions of abject reality is, it is seductive in the least, for privileged, and compliant males, but it borders no reality known by the rest of men, or non white women.

White female abjection is so fetishized, and so normalized that egalitarian options are demonized and co-opted by the collaboration of cowards; the white female abject is a tool to diffuse and disorganize ‘other’ and ‘othered’ male protest, diminished as much by the actual arrests and subsequent brutality that non-white women and othered men face, without letters of recommendation, or commendation from police authorities.

* abjection in Julia Kristeva’s conception: “On the level of archaic memory, refers to the primitive effort to separate ourselves from the animal: “by way of abjection, primitive societies have marked out a precise area of their culture in order to remove it from the threatening world of animals or animalism, which were imagined as representatives of sex and murder” (Powers 12-13). On the level of our individual psycho sexual development, the abject marks the moment when we separated ourselves from the mother, when we began to recognize a boundary between “me” and other, between “me” and “(m)other.”[ needs citation]

But instead of art, or literature, white feminism gives us regurgitation’s of Plato, a structuralist, and Socrates, a pedophile, and always posits her place as an innocent, vulnerable, and unaware of conflict, holding her place at the mirror image abject, never quite seeing, or admitting to seeing, but always looking at herself, and projecting upon others whatthey, not she, sees there, in HER unbroken mirror.

____________________________________________________________

**What I am saying up there above the line where the book-smart but street-dumb paper-people live.

But for everybody else: Don’t white women act like they are a threatened species, and claim they have not enjoyed freedom because white men were in the way? White women have imprisoned white men and black men for generations, with social morality campaigns, and social scares, claiming black men “looked at them, ” assaulted them, ” raped them,” etc., while making black women nurse, and watch their babies while they ran around.

White women negotiate from a perspective of entitlement, but once, some white women, who kicked ass, did cool things that helped all women, like what Nikki Craft did, before she became incredibly fascinated and obsessed being near nudist children.

Yet sadly, modern white women are cowards,who want you to keep them in the position of power that they are used to (listen to them, pay for them, enable them, believe in them, and at all times spoil them like little girls, but never talk about it): and, unlike most people, and most women, especially black, brown, or non-white women, they want you to think that they have a hard time in life, despite the fact that white women have been the primary living, breathing, financial beneficiaries of all of histories wealth, all of histories dead men, and all of histories power.

In fact, white women want you to help ensure their breeding success, against your own, and want you to believe that mixing with them will help protect your childrens future–it won’t. The problem is, you cannot protect your children from them–look at American laws, look at ‘modern’ history–everywhere there is a white woman, there is child rape, slavery, death of fathers, subservience of ‘colored women’, and kidnapping or “adoption” of your non-white children]

*** actual reality is what non-white women, and unprivileged men everywhere face due to the un-modulated voice of white women and their fears, as opposed to the rest of people and their realities.

Porn KeyWords: eight year old girl sucking, eight year old girl tits, prepubescent girl likes mothers tits, under ten year old sexual training, seven year old girl and breasts, eight year old sucks hard, seven year old wants it, eight year old needs training, seven year old needs some cream, young girl needs some cream, eight-year-old girl wants screams for cream, pre-pubescent girl eats cream in moms lap, eight year old girl eats cream while mother looks on.

Mother breastfeeding an eight-year-old girl. Is this child being used by the mother for pleasure? After all, women experience orgasm during breastfeeding.  And I don’t call this an educational video, I call it radical feminist child pornography.

I wonder why any woman would encourage her grown child to suck on her when the kid is eight years old. And I say encourage, because if you notice in the video, the ‘home’ is a virtual cult of mothers orgasmic breasts.

An unplanned orgasm during breastfeeding is one thing- quite normal, healthy, and expected for up to three years of life or so. But eight? How about eleven?

And setting boundaries between adults and children is fundamental to raising healthy children–I won’t even cite that. Boundaries are good, at least, according to ‘society’. As if society is to be believed….”It’s for the children,” they say.

Hmmmmm. According to the video,  “Veronica believes children should decide for themselves…”

Veronica, the mother coos to the child “little monkey…”

I have known a woman who called her vagina ‘her little monkey’; I have known another woman to call her vibrator a little monkey, and called my genitals little monkey as well.

Then to the viewer, Mother Veronica says “She has a soft…strong attachment to it”, speaking about her breastfeeding, near-pubescent daughter. Then she rationalizes the behavior by stating that children who breastfeed longer have higher IQ.

The mother exhibits two rationalizations similar that pedophiles who abuse their children often use: she has a special coded language of cuteness and objectification calling the child her “little monkey,” and also the rationalization that she acts out of love. I am sure somewhere in the literature, you can even find the claim that sex with children makes them smarter, too.

“They may blame the children for being too attractive or sexually provocative. They may also maintain that they are “teaching” the child about “the facts of life” or “love”; this rationalization is frequently offered by pedophiles who have molested children related to them”

Read more: Pedophilia – children, causes, DSM, functioning, therapy, adults, person, people http://www.minddisorders.com/Ob-Ps/Pedophilia.html#ixzz1RQg4PcuO

Yukki, sexually abusive, and inappropriate, says I. And how can the child possibly ‘decide for ‘herself? The mother wields ultimate decision making, power, and influence over the girls mind.

If pornography is actually about power relationships and control, or even if equality was a goal, I wonder what the world would think if men had eight year old girls sucking on their tits while they masturbated, or assured us that eight year old boys need their penises held every time they went to the bathroom. We know where that would go…

Breastfeeding grown children is a betrayal of the parents responsibility, and a glimpse of one of the ways that female sexuality–and female abuse of children–takes a different form than sexual abuse of children by males.

Sadly, women feminists, and the actors within the women’s movement are hesitant or dismissive of any suggestion or attempt to categorize this and other inappropriate objectifying or abusive acts that women commit against children as criminal.

Yukki and age- inappropriate, in the very least, says I. But a potential clue about the nature, and difference of sexual abuse of children by women.

Related articles

Rape culture is a concept that nobly, and rightfully challenges the co-option of our bodies, and the existing social order, and attempts to describe a social condition of oppression of women by the co-option of their bodies and choices, and often rightfully asserts that American society, and western society in general, is a society based on the control of womens bodies, and women’s choices in reproduction, and sexual expression.

But this one-winged philosophy denies male experience within that same rape culture, and stifles male voice that could actually enable the tilting of the world —in one great direction–, ensuring the end, not of patriarchy, but of dominance and control models of social and sexual interactions.

That is, dominance and control is what turns these women on and gets their sexual wheels turning, which is likely why they make appeals not to common men, but rather, they constantly appeal to police and state authority for “protection from rapists.” Perhaps womens sexuality is embodied as an object for those who are into voyeurism, rather than objectified as objects of ‘sexual conquest’-an actual physical action, rather than a reaction, to female exhibitionism.

That women are upset at the disjointed reality of the potential actualized and sexual male gaze, rather than the sexualizing female gaze and its voyeuristic, tacit approval of sexual displays, becomes evident whn exploring the formative years of powerful feminists.

Feminist theory stands directly in the way of ending patriarchy, basing its argument from semi-supported, a priori evidence, and studies—endless studies—of purported male sexual behaviours, rather than a posteriori evidence of its own longings, tendencies, and desires in unison or cohesive agreement with human nature, or their own.

In doing so, they have inserted themselves very much like rapists via the vehicle of police state social mechanisms, into a dialogue that is divisive, non-inclusive of reality, and sexually harmful.

Some militarists and extremists in the feminist camp have taken an extreme posture that all sex between men and women is forced or coerced sex, and that all interactions between a man and a woman are exploitative of what women essentially are.They have also suggested that all representations of women and sex that take place in such a sytem are pornographic, and that these images of women do not represent the actual sexuality of women.

They also have implied in most cases, and stated at times that the penis is a tool of oppression, a weapon of control, and also have theorized a world where women rule, and that such a world would give women access to men’s penises for the purpose of sperm production, and conceiving children.

Their views also hold that rape of women–and by extrapolation—children, is the primary aim of men in general, and the particular and specific aim of men in power—the patriarchy. They were not all wrong, and especially as concerns that eras Feudian hypotheses that held that girls engaged in fantasizing about being raped by their fathers, when in fact girls were experiencing actual sexual molestation and abuse; yet they have yet at any length explore abuse of sexual abuse of children by mothers, or particularly by their own mothers.

America is protecting children from exploitation by warning them about the dangers of American bombs dropped on their playgrounds.

Caricature on "The great epidemic of porn...

Image via Wikipedia

Recognizing that we [exist] are trapped in a society that circumscribes, coerces, violates and exploits our bodies as obstacles or as commodities through the co-option of our consent; and recognizing the inherent corruption and co-option of human nature due to the social compact of religious, ideological and capitalist systems, we protest.

We identify two kinds of pornographic representations of the body that the human being is forced to interact within. War porn and Sex porn—although a possible third kind of pornography exists, which is the co-opted academic debate and scholarship that seeks to rationalize, capitalize, or justify its existence through argumentation in favor of one or the other types of pornography.

We refer to this type of possible porn as “Academic porn,” the kind of dialogue that incrementalizes the urgency for liberation and human rights of one person over another person in an attempt to justify grants, fellowships, and academic notoriety, while quashing of other types of dialogues.

Definitionally, we use the term pornography derived from the freeware, open source dictionary “The Sage” to mean “creative activity (writing or pictures or films) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire”. However, we suggest that all alleged pornographic imagery is literary and potentially artistic, but most importantly, discussion worthy, which is our intended act against the confines of a definitionally murderous, war based society.

In light of that definition, we believe that there is no such thing as actual sexual pornography, but rather, only debates about social control and power structures that limit the discussions about the co-option of our bodies, and the bodies of others who have been used by such a systemic, dualistic and war-pornographic culture.

We suggest a moratorium on the pursuit or prosecution of sexual pornography related crimes to limit the scope to actual perpetrators, their associates, and their accomplices, and in its place a deeper analysis of the under-explored topic of war pornography. As well we are suggesting prosecution for war crimes by nations, and leaders of individual nations that commit them, instead of shaming human beings for sexual choices, portrayals, discussions and displays.

The issues of consent, patriarchal versus matriarchal values, child versus adult sexuality, and especially homo versus hetero sexuality are constant themes that are routinely brought up in discussions of sexual pornography, and I maintain that cannot be properly analyzed in times or in places where rulers use our own and others sexual bodies and sexual shaming against us, while they and their warporn oriented minions commit the ultimate attrocities of war-pornographic murder, death, actual disease, and “otherness” perpetuation.

We rebel at complicity with their definition and adherence to the idea that human images, portrayals, and discussions of sex in all of its forms has no ‘literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire,’ because such a definition draws a false and arbitrary line between our bodies and ourselves. Sexuality is not seperable from humanity, yet neither is all sexual thought, ideology, or feeling a stimulation—it is also inseperable from our experience, imaginations, and our bodies.

So, definitionally, we take the stand that warporn is their means of primary control over our bodies, and that sexporn is merely a tool of delineating a boundary through that body—of dividing and conquering—of discerning those who will or won’t comply with the capitalist murder agenda; that defining the sexual body is in itself a primary abrogation against individual will and intention, whether sexual or not.

Additionally, we take the stand that males are primary victims of warporn, and females the primary victims of sexporn, each with their own forms of danger and suffering attached, but that warporn is the more dangerous and socially maladapted and malevolent of the two, as death, torture, rape, imprisonment, and lifelong physical and mental injury is more lasting, and acknowleging its effects is more detrimental to the health of our society.

I suggest that their war on our bodies cannot be avoided, but that we can be understood between ourselves, and eventually remove them from power. The lens which we employ is analytical from a literary sense; sociological, sexological, anthropological, psychological and evolutionary from an academic perspective.

But the war on our sexual bodies is pure propaganda, aimed at distracting us from the horror of what our nation is doing to other bodies with bombs, guns, depleted uranium, and death. I hope to help others defeat death, and live more vibrant life by recognizing how pornography affects us all.