HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » Why Gail Dines Is About A...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 01:04 AM

Why Gail Dines Is About As Leftist As The Tea Party

http://www.redgarterclub.com/AJK-Multisite/blog/2011/02/23/why-gail-dines-is-about-as-leftist-as-the-tea-party-and-as-marxist-as-rush-limbaugh/

70 replies, 14339 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Gail Dines Is About As Leftist As The Tea Party (Original post)
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 OP
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #1
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #2
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #3
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #6
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #13
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #14
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #15
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #16
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #17
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #18
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #21
proverbialwisdom Aug 2012 #19
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #20
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #23
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #31
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #32
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #47
opiate69 Oct 2012 #48
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #49
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #5
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #7
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Aug 2012 #8
4th law of robotics Aug 2012 #9
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Aug 2012 #10
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #11
Warren DeMontague Aug 2012 #12
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #22
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #24
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Oct 2012 #25
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #26
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #27
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #28
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #29
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #30
proverbialwisdom Oct 2012 #33
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #34
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #35
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #37
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #36
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #38
opiate69 Oct 2012 #39
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #40
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #43
hifiguy Oct 2012 #55
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #56
opiate69 Oct 2012 #57
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #58
msanthrope Oct 2012 #41
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #42
fishwax Oct 2012 #44
Warren DeMontague Oct 2012 #45
fishwax Oct 2012 #46
Major Nikon Oct 2012 #50
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #51
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #52
fishwax Oct 2012 #53
lumberjack_jeff Oct 2012 #54
opiate69 May 2014 #59
Major Nikon May 2014 #60
opiate69 May 2014 #61
Warren DeMontague May 2014 #62
Warren DeMontague May 2014 #63
maddezmom May 2014 #64
ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #65
Warren DeMontague May 2014 #66
ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #67
Warren DeMontague May 2014 #68
ProudToBeBlueInRhody May 2014 #69
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 27 #70

Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:01 PM

1. Some of the people who push her ideas here....

....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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 02:21 AM

4. I agree. Its a song that only contains one note

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue Jul 31, 2012, 12:20 PM

2. I would say she is solidly in the authoritarian right

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #2)

Wed Aug 1, 2012, 09:21 PM

3. Authoritarian left or right? Rhetorical question only.

http://gaildines.com/category/blog/

Should We Worry Whether Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality?
By Sonali Kolhatkar, Uprising Radio
Posted on September 11, 2010, Printed on September 11, 2010


http://www.alternet.org/story/148142/

<...>

Sonali Kolhatkar: I have to say it was very difficult to read your book, and I had to skip parts where you describe mainstream pornography. This is not your father’s Playboy or Penthouse magazines and videos. What we’re seeing in porn today, and mainstream porn, is completely bizarre. I mean, how do you handle it in your research?

Gail Dines: Well, what’s interesting is that I, like the viewers, get desensitized over time. I mean, obviously I couldn’t have the visceral reaction I had in the beginning to it. But I put those descriptions in because often people say to me, you know, why are you getting so upset by images of naked women? And what I want people to understand is that pornography now looks nothing like it did 10, 15 years ago — that it is now brutal and cruel and is absolutely based on the degradation of women. So this is why I walk people through the porn industry. Also, often anti-porn feminists are accused of picking the worst of the pornography. What I wanted to do was go into the mainstream pornography that the average 11-year-old would get once he put “porn” into Google.

<...>

SK: Because of the Internet.

GD: Absolutely. The Internet changed the industry. It made it accessible, and it made it affordable. So remember, when the average age of first viewing pornography is 11, when the 11-year-old boy puts “porn” into Google, he’s not looking at your father’s Playboy, he’s looking at a world of cruelty, and a world of brutality. So what I ask in the book is, “What are the long-term effects of bringing up boys on violent images when you think about pornography as being the main form of sex education in our society?”

<...>

Even the industry said that many women have a hard time being in the industry for more than three months. Why? Because of the brutalization of the body.

SK: Three months?

GD: That’s what the article says in Adult Video News. Also, I’ve interviewed somebody who worked with AIM, the health care organization that takes care of the health of porn performers, and he was telling me just what happens to the bodies of these women...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #3)

Thu Aug 2, 2012, 07:51 AM

6. One, if I had a walnut for every subjective OPINION that Dines tries to pass off as universal

Last edited Thu Aug 2, 2012, 04:15 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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 07:51 PM

13. When challenged on her sources, Gail Dines has been repeately shown to either misrepresent

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 03:23 PM

14. AVN isn't readily searchable via google, as I discovered after briefly attempting to provide a link.

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.

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst//transdoc.html

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:42:57 -0400
From: Gail Dines <gdines AT WHEELOCK.EDU>
Subject: Documentary on Transgender Issues
I am teaching a section on Transgender politics and I am looking for a good
documentary. Suggestions most welcome.

Thanks,

Gail Dines

Gail Dines
Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies
Chair of American Studies
Wheelock College
35 Pilgrim Road
Boston, MA 02215
gdines AT wheelock.edu




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #14)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 04:36 PM

15. It was NOT for "purposes of debate", clearly. Nice try.

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:

we are not satisfied it conforms with the Equality Act (2010), or reflects our ethos regarding issues of discrimination.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=6468

This was all very well documented in the media and progressive blogosphere, as well as LOUDLY complained about by the event organizers themselves, in the process of defending their bigoted stance and weaving elaborate conspiracy theories (again) about men getting sex change operations for the sole purpose of "invading womynspace".

There is NO WAY Gail Dines could have had anything to do with this event and not been aware of the bigotry and discrimination. Yet, she spoke anyway.

"for the purposes of debate"? Hah. It was for the purposes of promulgating her falsehood-laden gibberish about porn, of course.

http://radicalhub.com/2012/07/22/london-radical-feminist-conference-july-2012/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #15)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 09:06 PM

16. Extreme porn is illegal in the UK. Dines describes and questions the parameters of legal in the US.

http://calebposner.com/tag/max-hardcore/

Sections 62 through 67 of the 2008 Criminal Justice Act (UK) makes it a punishable offense, for which one may receive three years in prison, to possess pornography that meets the outlined definition of extreme. Legally, pornography is regard as extreme if any action depicted therein “(can) threaten a person’s life, results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to..."

It turns out however that as many as 9.5 million UK residents could be guilty of violating this law, or so claims Backlash (the chief opponent of this law)... But in the age of the internet, there exists an ample online supply of such material courtesy of Brazil, Japan, the United States, and a great multitude of European nations...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gail-dines/adventures-in-pornland_b_636381.html

...Using interviews with hundreds of college-age students, Pornland takes a close look at what it means for young women and men to grow up in such a culture and how it shapes their identities, sexualities, and ideas about intimacy, relationships, and connection.
"One problem I knew I had to deal with as I was writing the book was the inevitable accusation that, because I am anti-porn, I must be an anti-sex prude who is out to police people's sex lives. To criticize porn today is to be seen as criticizing sex, because--thanks to the porn PR machine--porn has now become synonymous with sex.

The way I address this in the book is to ask the reader what would happen if this book were a critique of McDonald's for its exploitive labor practices, its destruction of the environment, and its impact on our diet and health. Would I be accused of being anti-eating or anti-food? I suspect that most readers would understand that the critique was focused on the large-scale impact of the fast-food industry and not the human need, experience, and joy of eating. So I say in the preface that this book should be read as a critique of the industrialization and commodification of sex by corporate predators, and not as an attack on sex itself.

It is this industrial setting that often gets ignored in the heated debates over porn..."



Google: forbes extreme porn revenues
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=forbes+extreme+porn+revenues&oq=forbes+extreme+porn+revenues&gs_l=hp.3...3187.9345.1.9608.14.14.0.0.0.0.661.1901.3-1j2j1.4.0...0.0...1c.GXg61VJqFT4&psj=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cead04954accb9ad&biw=1725&bih=850

Don't like Dines? Forget Dines then. Read FORBES http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2012/07/30/the-porn-convention/3/ and see derek miller 5 days ago (comments, p3) ignoring the 2nd paragraph for a remarkably Dines-like opinion. Breslin states, "This is very dramatic, but not entirely true." Time will tell.

Or see more of Breslin's own writing where she takes on libertarian defenders like Glenn Greenwald.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susannahbreslin/2011/07/21/adult-director-max-hardcore-released-from-prison-2/

7/21/2011
Adult director Max Hardcore released from prison

...In response, I wrote a post about the very hardcore realities of a Hardcore movie. (Warning: This post contains graphic language.)



Breslin presents objective observations. This corroborates Dines minus any spin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #16)

Sun Aug 5, 2012, 11:15 PM

17. You're avoiding answering my questions. And this thread is ABOUT Dines.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:27 AM

18. Nice try. My guess is that anyone actually informed doesn't equate porn and extreme porn.

Someone 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.


Don't like Dines' editorializing? Fine, read Breslin (Forbes; previously reversecowgirlblogspot) who documents the emergence and abuses of extreme porn as a former industry insider, essentially functioning as a whistleblower (see WayBackMachine 2005 2006).

Your points about Dines? Irrelevant, the argument she makes stands WITHOUT HER.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #18)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:36 PM

21. Your guess? Your guess would be wrong, because that sort of conflation is exactly the basis

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #17)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 10:37 AM

19. RE: You're avoiding answering my questions. And this thread is ABOUT Dines.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #19)

Mon Aug 6, 2012, 04:05 PM

20. If Dines is discredited, AND her methodology is Discredited, and her source material is discredited

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #16)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:56 PM

23. UK citizens don't enjoy a institutionalized right to free speech.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:46 PM

31. RE: AVN article. Her presentation below contains a slide with the source material plus discussion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #31)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 02:01 PM

32. Gail Dines is a transphobic bigot. Bigots are not welcome in this group and transphobia is not

tolerated.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:26 PM

47. I found you your information, Warren!

...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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #47)

Tue Oct 9, 2012, 04:40 PM

48. Knock me over with a feather!!



Good catch, LadyHawk! Thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #48)

Wed Oct 10, 2012, 02:24 AM

49. It's been a nice visit...

even if y'all do leave the seat up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 02:14 AM

7. Gail Dines was just a keynote speaker at an event headed by transphobic bigots

http://radicalhub.com/2012/07/22/london-radical-feminist-conference-july-2012/

The "london radical feminist conference" is the SAME event that was banned from Conway Hall for their discriminatory stance against Transpeople.

http://lettersfrombluehaven.com/2012/06/01/conway-hall-slams-hateful-radfem-2012-conference/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=6468

So, now we not only have Gail Dines in cahoots with the radical religious right, she is sharing a stage with bigots like Shiela Jeffreys and endorsing this group's exclusionary, anti-trans bigotry.

Can't say I'm surprised. Way to go, Gail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 10:40 AM

8. That should seal it

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #8)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 11:14 AM

9. It's been pointed out already

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #9)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 07:01 PM

10. I admit, I held back in my post....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #7)

Fri Aug 3, 2012, 09:23 PM

11. More on the allegations of transphobic bigotry at the conference Dines endorsed w/ a keynote speech:

http://transgriot.blogspot.com/2012/06/transphobic-radfem-2012-hatemongers.html

The July 2012 conference ran into trouble because it specifically sought to exclude transwomen from the venue in violation of Britain's Equality Act and is featuring longtime transphobic hatemonger Sheila Jeffreys as a keynote speaker.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Aug 4, 2012, 07:36 PM

12. Scented Nectar: Gail Dines Further Exposed

http://scentednectar.blogspot.com/2011/06/gail-dines-further-exposed.html

The guy who did the video ould have made it about 1/8th as long IMHO.

Brevity is the source of wit, man. But still, some good points.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 03:30 PM

22. Gail Dines lecture on "Neoliberalism and the Defanging of Feminism."

Last edited Thu Oct 4, 2012, 01:55 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/neoliberalism-and-the-defanging-of-feminism/

October 03, 2012

Neoliberalism and the Defanging of Feminism

by WEBSITE OF THE DAY




Video deleted as requested and available at original counterpunch link or here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/12557664#post25

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 3, 2012, 05:37 PM

24. This is not an open forum for right wingers and their enablers to broadcast propaganda.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:29 AM

25. I wouldn't bother watching....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #24)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:23 PM

26. And yet she's a hero in some other groups

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #26)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:33 PM

27. I am not going to allow this group to be a forum for bigots of any stripe.

I expect that post to be removed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #27)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:34 PM

28. My post?

 

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #28)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:39 PM

29. No, I'm talking about posting an hour long video of Gail Dines opining on whatever.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 12:42 PM

30. A fine sentiment but

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #22)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 08:26 PM

33. Professor Gail Dines and Professor Sheila Jeffreys are being misrepresented on this thread.

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.") and demands for censorship.

http://www.amazon.com/Industrial-Vagina-Political-Economy-Global/dp/0415412331/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1305224011&sr=1-1

Look Inside Ths Book

Review
'The strength of Jeffreys' new work lies in just how many aspects of the sex industry she covers, and her understanding of their intersections.'
Julia Bindel, The Guardian


About the Author
Sheila Jeffreys is a Professor in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Melbourne. She is the author of six other books on the history and politics of sexuality, including Beauty and Misogyny (Routledge, 2005). She is the founding member in 1994 of the Australian branch of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

She has a considerable reputation both in the academic world and in the world of feminist and lesbian and gay politics for her work on sexuality, including 6 single authored books. Sheila Jeffreys' work is heavily referenced in academic journals and books, with 30 citations in international refereed journals in 2003 according the Web of Science citations index. Her work has been republished in French, Spanish, German, Norwegian, Swedish, and in many anthologies of feminist thought over the last few years.


Book Description
Publication Date: December 25, 2008 | ISBN-10: 0415412331 | ISBN-13: 978-0415412339 | Edition: New Ed
The industrialization of prostitution and the sex trade has created a multibillion-dollar global market, involving millions of women, that makes a substantial contribution to national and global economies.

The Industrial Vagina: The Political Economy of the Global Sex Trade (RIPE Series in Global Political Economy) examines how prostitution and other aspects of the sex industry have moved from being small-scale, clandestine, and socially despised practices to become very profitable legitimate market sectors that are being legalised and decriminalised by governments. Sheila Jeffreys demonstrates how prostitution has been globalized through an examination of:

- the growth of pornography and its new global reach
- the boom in adult shops, strip clubs and escort agencies
- military prostitution and sexual violence in war
- marriage and the mail order bride industry
- the rise in sex tourism and trafficking in women.

She argues that through these practices women’s subordination has been outsourced and that states that legalise this industry are acting as pimps, enabling male buyers in countries in which women’s equality threatens male dominance, to buy access to the bodies of women from poor countries who are paid for their sexual subservience.

This major and provocative contribution is essential reading for all with an interest in feminist, gender and critical globalisation issues as well as students and scholars of international political economy.


http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/radfem2012

Radfem 2012 Gets a New Home

So a bunch of transactivists succeeded in getting July’s two-day Radical Feminist Conference (Radfem 2012) booted from their location at Conway Hall in London. (Never heard of Conway Hall before, know lots about it now.) It happened a few days ago and the twitters are still tweeting with self-congratulations and unmollified expressions of radfem hate. They use the #radfem2012 hashtag, rather than a #stopradfem2012, because, you know, dogpiling to shut down communication is free speech. The issue is that the conference is open only to “women born female and assigned female at birth.” In other words: women only, and no men or transwomen. Apparently people who come into the world with child-bearing capability can’t talk about their political issues from that perspective without being monitored.

So let’s take stock of what transactivists won by throwing a monkeywrench in an event they “wouldn’t have gone to anyway” as many of them claim.

~ The event will still take place, according to the website, at a different location.
~ A lot more enemies have been made for transgender people where there were none before. These would include women who are not radical feminists but like the idea of women-only space.
~ According to the program, gender identity politics was only one of many workshop topics, but you can bet it’s going to be talked and talked and talked about at the conference now, and not in a nice way.
~ Since the contract with Conway Hall was broken so close to the conference date, the financial and logistical impact was doubtless severe. A factor for transactivists to cheer, EXCEPT this also means a probable lawsuit. The result may not be what the transactivists would want.
~ This has a potential to be a precedent setting legal issue for women’s rights in the UK, if it does go to trial. The result could also be a factor where the issue is addressed under different laws elsewhere in the world. This is long way of saying: transactivists better hope Conway Hall offers beaucoup money to keep this out of court, because this is not an ideal test case, from their point of view.
~ In fighting this battle, a bit of alliance-building has happened between transactivists and Men’s Rights Activists (MRA) who have been identified as hate mongers by the respected Southern Poverty Law Center. This may be an association to haunt transactivists for a long time to come.


So why are transactivists patting themselves on the back? Are they delusional? This is one battle that can only hurt their cause, win or lose, and they were asinine to take it on.


"...RadFem 2012 is women only. We respect that discussion spaces are needed free from oppression and dis-empowerment, and we assert our right as women to organise a women only space. As Radical Feminists we recognise that patriarchy dominates personal and political spaces across the globe. In turn we ask that RadFem 2012 be respected as a space where women born women living as women are able to meet and share information in a peaceful and safe environment. ”


http://radicalhub.com/2012/07/22/london-radical-feminist-conference-july-2012/

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_7_7XIZq1dUJ:conwayhall.org.uk/statement-regarding-radfem-2012+cancellation+radfem+2012+http://conwayhall.org.uk/&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 10:50 PM

34. You have been informed that the mens group is not a place for the promotion of transgender bigotry.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Thu Oct 4, 2012, 11:26 PM

35. DU Feminists Group Thread on RADFEM2012 Trans Bigotry:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1139&pid=6468


As for Sheila Jeffreys: Here is just one of many lovely quotes from known bigot Sheila Jeffreys:



"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression…"

That sort of bigotry and hate is not welcome in this group. Not now. Not ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #35)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 09:11 AM

37. Female orgasms serve the patriarchy!

 

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 12:43 AM

36. Another DU Feminists Group (Catherina) Thread on Jeffreys' trans bigotry:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:27 PM

38. "The act which men commonly perform on prostituted women is penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse.

Last edited Fri Oct 5, 2012, 08:19 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.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #38)

Fri Oct 5, 2012, 07:32 PM

39. Don't run off on our account, LadyHawk! Your input is welcome here!

Great post

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #38)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:54 AM

40. Apparently, from what I've heard, this is a awful horrible pit of pure horrible awfulness.

Not to mention awful. And horrible.

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



Still, you're welcome here any time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 02:17 PM

43. Rumor has it that there's cooties

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!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #38)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 10:27 AM

55. I wonder how our species - homo sapiens - would have propagated

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #55)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 03:50 PM

56. I think Jeffreys has trouble thinking outside her own box,

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #56)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 04:09 PM

57. To expound on your question about becoming experts in human behavior...

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #57)

Thu Oct 18, 2012, 04:34 PM

58. Exactly.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 10:42 AM

41. Not misrepresented--hoist on their own petards, but not misrepresented. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 11:18 AM

42. These folks are often "unfairly misrepresented" and slandered

 

by quoting back their exact words to them in full.

Weird how that works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:49 PM

44. I'm not a fan of Gail Dines, but I'm sure there have been more convincing/logical critiques of her

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:
Now, there are certainly plenty of predatory capitalists around….and far too many of them. I would guess, though, that the overwhelming majority of them are probably NOT pornographers. In fact, I’d even say that some of the most agreesive capitalists happened to be staunchly antiporn activists….like, say, the Koch Brothers who fund Tea Party activists or Rupert Murdoch, who practically runs FOX News Channel as the propaganda wing of the Right. Why does Professor Dines give the latter such a pass, while casting her laser-like ire solely on a small convention like AEE?? (Also, remember that AEE used to be part of the much larger Consumer Electronics Show, before the latter squeamed about being associated with “porn” and broke AEE off into its own seperate wing. And beginning last year, AEE and CES don’t even share the same venue. So much for the complicity of “predatory capitalism”.)


First, I think even the most zealous anti-porn advocate would readily concede that "the overwhelming majority" of predatory capitalists are not pornographers. But that doesn't give any information as to the number/percentage of pornographers who are. Similarly, the notion that some capitalists kicked some other capitalists out of their convention does nothing to dismiss the complicity of predatory capitalism in the latter.

Second, the examples that he gives undermine the argument. Are the Koch Brothers staunchly anti-porn activists? Or is this just based on an assumption that all right-wingers hate porn? I've never heard of them being involved in anti-porn activities, and their Libertarian-party past would suggest otherwise. As for Murdoch, he's a purveyor of pornography through his media holdings.

There are other such mistakes, like the "no true scotsman" fallacy in the paragraph that follows or the apparent assumption in the penultimate paragraph that porn is inherently a "form of progressive speech and action." (Though, to be fair, this might simply be a careless misuse of the word "other.")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #44)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 04:57 PM

45. I think left and right are labels, nothing more. I do think that the pro-censorship 2nd wavers, of

which Dines clearly counts herself a philosophical member, have traditionally done a TON of allying with right-wing and religious right groups, from the 70s and 80s to today.

You can see it with the cozying up to anti-gay bigots like Reisman. The agendas seem to dovetail nicely.

My point in posting this thread, what, 3 months ago? Was to defuse this idea that "you can't criticize good progressives like Dines and attack their good progressive positions, like censoring porn, on this PROGRESSIVE website"

I actually had someone tell me that being anti-Censorship and pro-1st amendment on the subject of films or pictures of consenting adults fucking, was a Republican, Right-Wing position-- until I pointed out the anti-porn plank in the GOP platform. Then, crickets.

So, really, which is the 'right wing' position? It's not the one that says consenting adults' sex lives are their own business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 7, 2012, 05:16 PM

46. I don't disagree with most of that

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 05:43 AM

50. I agree that some of the argument presented suffers from logical fallacies

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #44)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:11 AM

51. Don't agree with this

Second, the examples that he gives undermine the argument. Are the Koch Brothers staunchly anti-porn activists? Or is this just based on an assumption that all right-wingers hate porn? I've never heard of them being involved in anti-porn activities, and their Libertarian-party past would suggest otherwise. As for Murdoch, he's a purveyor of pornography through his media holdings.


Dine's use of the capitalist angle is a head-fake. Her problem isn't with the economics of porn, but the freedom of speech inherent in it.

She's wrapping her authoritarian-based complaint in a veneer of progressivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:20 AM

52. "She's wrapping her authoritarian-based complaint in a veneer of progressivism."

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #51)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 11:56 AM

53. It isn't clear to me what you're disagreeing with ...

Dine's use of the capitalist angle is a head-fake.


Yeah, I agree ... but I don't see how that relates to the passage you quoted about the article's claim that the Koch Brothers and Murdoch are staunchly anti-porn activists. I think that claim is dubious, and only undermines the argument he is trying to make.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fishwax (Reply #53)

Thu Oct 11, 2012, 01:01 PM

54. My post was unskillful.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Tue May 6, 2014, 02:29 PM

59. Kick for relevance.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to opiate69 (Reply #59)

Tue May 6, 2014, 02:47 PM

60. Some people are reallyquiet about their transphobic garbage

...or not.

If it quacks like a duck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #60)

Tue May 6, 2014, 02:52 PM

61. Truth.

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri May 9, 2014, 05:57 PM

62. The bottom line, really, as long as consenting adults screw and have cameras, porn will exist.

So the folks who have hung their careers on promising to "finally" "get rid of" or "do something about" it, have a fairly secure gig out until the collision of the Milky way and Andromeda galaxies, or beyond.

It's sort of like the drug war; build your career on 'fighting' the tides or the sunrise, and you've got a reliable gravy train that always runs on time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri May 9, 2014, 05:57 PM

63. Also from the article in the OP:

Especially when you are allying yourself with the very aggressive “predatory capitalists” who would bust not only porn, but every other form of progressive speech and action.

When you share the dais with the likes of Pat Trueman, you should lose your right to call yourself a leftist. When you attempt to defend the meltdown of Shelley Lubben, then that should seal the deal.


Right. Ed Meese? Charles Keating? Phylis Shlafly?

Need I go on?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #63)

Fri May 9, 2014, 10:12 PM

64. Nope....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sun May 18, 2014, 11:05 PM

65. Dines sighting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #65)

Mon May 19, 2014, 03:20 AM

66. Are you suggesting that, say, "Morality in Media".... has some sort of right-wing, religious agenda?

Good heavens! Imagine that!



http://moralityinmedia.org/history/


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #66)

Mon May 19, 2014, 01:49 PM

67. You're just pissed about their religion, Warren!

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #67)

Mon May 19, 2014, 09:56 PM

68. Yeah, that's one way to spin it, isn't it?

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!!!






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #68)

Mon May 19, 2014, 10:10 PM

69. Well, they finally got called on it in their own den....

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #66)

Sun Jul 27, 2014, 01:43 PM

70. Shout out to MIM!!!!

Bumped for the love being shown to them this weekend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread