Warren DeMontague's Journal
Name: Ward Mordentague
Hometown: This un
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 50,949
Hometown: This un
Member since: Thu May 20, 2004, 05:02 AM
Number of posts: 50,949
Put pepper in my coffee, i forgot to bark on command
I realize we can't all die soon enough for some people, but that's not going to happen.
Yeah, I know, we suck
...yeah, there's no point
....and yeah we're all sinners, too (which is what that shit all really gets back to, if you dig deep enough)
Still, life- of which we ARE a part- spreads and reproduces. It doesn't give a shit about "good" or "evil", it gives a shit about flourishing. Oh, people are so bad! People are destroying the planet! People are causing a mass extinction! You know what caused the last mass extinction? A big fucking rock from space. No corporate greed, SUVs, or anthrocentrism involved. Know what didn't stop it? The extremely successful class of large flightless birds known as "Dinosaurs" who, for all their success, didn't have brains, space travel, or technology enough to, yes, notice and divert a giant fucking rock from space.
So maybe- just maybe- this planet that we're supposedly so inimically opposed to, that we're "destroying", that we have blasphemed against with our technology and our space travel and our iphones and shit, knew exactly what it was doing when it took the gamble- including the environmental gamble- of churning out a species intelligent enough to develop planetary civilization and ALSO intelligent enough to act as a planetary self-defense mechanism.
Or, maybe it's just evolution working its blind magic, but in that case, yeah, we're going to spread our glorious race across the universe, because that is our evolutionary imperative.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Mon Aug 27, 2012, 01:52 AM (2 replies)
Or societal conditioning?
Cats are bombarded daily with thousands of messages through the Patriarchal media. Cats are given gender-specific names and, often, forced to wear undignified collars with, many times, pink or blue depending on their sex.
Cats are well-known consumers of Cable TV, according to some research making up at least 70% of the viewing demographic on such popular shows as "Terra Nova", "Kim's Fairytale Wedding, A Kardashian Event" and "The Wealth Channel Presents a half hour of Dancing Red Laser Dots, Shiny bits of tin foil, and succulent cubes of Tuna in HD".
This has been confirmed repeatedly by numerous independent studies.
All this media programming has an effect on the impressionable feline mind - it MUST! By the time a cat is old enough to hide in the linen closet for 3 long, urine-soaked-towel days, his or her brain has been thoroughly saturated with pernicious messages about expected gender roles.
So don't fall for that evo-psych nonsense about how "male cats are more likely to do risky things than female cats"!
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Aug 7, 2012, 06:35 AM (7 replies)
Meta Thread Cage Brawl!
If you're sick in bed, need a call-out thread
Meta Thread Cage Brawl!
It's sunday morn, and people still like porn
do a Meta Thread Cage Brawl!
Ask the return trolls, they know to go
when they've just been banned an hour ago
(big show tune finish)
time for a
Meta Thread Cage Brawl!
Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all week.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sun Aug 5, 2012, 06:38 AM (1 replies)
In addition to having this horrible thing happen to him, he's got half the world thinking it's good for a snicker.
Imagine; someone came into your house at 4am and chopped off your foot... then all over the intertubes people were going "BWAHAHAHAHAAAHAAAAA!!!!!!" about it.
That said, I am a disciple of many credos; one is the Dalai Lama's wisdom of compassion for all beings.
Another is the maxim that if it's in the strike zone, one faces a certain, shall we say, duty to take a swing.
So I'm gonna go over to that thread and post two posts.
Or, as Walt Whitman once said,
"do I contradict myself? Well, then, I smell home cooking!
It's only the river! It's only the river."
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Fri Jul 27, 2012, 06:44 AM (0 replies)
hasn't gotten off their butts to do, for the past few decades, namely develop a reliable rocket which can most likely be man-rated, along with an economical, multi-purpose capsule that for now can be used for cargo and most likely soon will be able to ferry crew to and from, again, LEO.
This is not a slam on NASA; there are lots of good reasons for them not to re-invent the wheel. Low Earth Orbit is increasingly becoming a place where we live and work and do business, so that's not where NASA should be focusing their energy. And the Ares-1/Orion Capsule arrangement wasn't due to come online and take people into orbit until 2017, or so.. and even under the best-case scenario, the design had serious potential problems that several engineers had pointed out. Elon Musk is basically ready to do it, right now.
To my mind (barring further budget cuts) NASA is at least spending the meager resources they're still given where they can best do some long-range good; most importantly developing a heavy lift rocket which can be used in the boundary-pushing manned exploration (asteroids, the moon, eventually Mars) that is, really, NASA's mandate. For putting people on top of that, they can use the substantial work already done on the Orion capsule.
But I actually think the current plan is a good one, given the political realities. Of course, I strongly believe NASA -and science and exploration in general- needs more funding. You will not find a stronger proponent of both unmanned and manned, publicly funded space exploration than myself. I just don't think that is mutually exclusive with private development of space and space-related resources.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Sat Jul 21, 2012, 05:05 AM (1 replies)
and who isn't, then?
Here's my proposal and request: Make a list of all of the "multiple accounts" you've got, including this one- all the names, and put them in the PROFILE of EACH of your "multiple accounts". That way, the process is transparent and everyone who interacts with "you" knows who "you" are, and no one has to be bothered with, for instance, telling "you" the same thing twice.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Jul 11, 2012, 06:06 PM (0 replies)
Even though it sometimes gets mistaken for other stuff, like the all-important springboard upon which stage history will write that the giant overthrow of The Dread Space Phallus Patriarchy™, here, once began.
"First, we take Manhattan!"
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Jun 26, 2012, 11:55 PM (2 replies)
Hmmm. Good question, I've got some ideas as to what the answer may be. Let me put it this way:
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:00 PM (0 replies)
Of late I've noticed several threads decrying the bouts of misogyny on DU. Maybe it's just my own gender getting in the way , but I can't say that I've seen a whole lot of it - but I've learned to trust people when they say "this is offensive to me." And the truth is I've seen a lot of misogynic replies to these posts - mostly low-key stuff about "radical feminists," or whatever, but it's there. And one of the more persistent memes presented as a "rebuttal" is that since feminists "hate porn," that's why they're outside mainstream and nobody likes them and all that.
Yes, people are defending porn to attack feminism. Weird, huh?
And in your sincere effort to make things better around here, you decided the best, most effective way to do that would be to rehash the porn wars.
Here's an idea; if you want to take on misogyny on DU, why not bring it up with the low post count trolls who posted clearly misogynistic flamebait in the past week? Oh, you can't, because they're banned. So, as a surrogate, you've decided to pick a fight with the majority here -including many self-described feminists- who DON'T have a problem with films of consenting adults nude or fucking, who believe free expression is a force for good, and who think that sexual repression and religious fundamentalism are the problem in our society, not "too much sex" or "hypersexualization"
First off, a definition. What IS pornography?
Okay, so you have come up with a couple totally arbitrary categorizations and sub-categorizations, which conveniently put many things that the members of your audience who might be sympathetic to your argument might themselves like (i.e. sexy stories) in the "non-porn" category, and things that they might not like (i.e. visual depictions of actual sex) in the "porn" category. Then, further on in your post, you pursue the standard trope of conflating the categories of "all graphic depictions of actual sex" (i.e. "hardcore") with things like violence, etc. also -with no statistical basis in fact- implying that it is a "known fact" that one is "becoming more and more like this".
Why not be straight up, and say that it is any pictures or films of sex that you have the problem with (or that is "problematic")?
The problem is, it's become so much more than that.
...according to YOU.
...And so on. Bitch, freak, slut, whore, cunt, noticing a pattern here? Some of the sites allow comments on the videos in youtube syle; I'll spare you details, but I'm sure we all know how mind-numbing and offensive youtube comments can be, now multiply that by ten minutes of "schoolgirl slut fucked in all holes" and I'm sure your imagination can fill in the blanks.
And then there's another aspect as well. I apologize to those who are already in need of smelling salts, I have more titles for you;
"Cute babe has a hot pussy," "bouncy brazilian bubble butt," "nice white dick in big-boobed black girl," "big white booty," "teen perfect ass doggyfuck sex," "double D lesbians I see"
Okay, one, if you're going to a porn video site to read the comments, you're doing it wrong. Second, as has been pointed out, these tags are indicative of little except maybe the low-brow mentality of most porn. And yeah, it's lowbrow. What's the "answer" to that "problematic" situation? I will get to that shortly. But, certainly, those descriptors to tag the videos could be different. To be sure, the videos could be tagged "Thoughtful soul-merging tender intercourse act performed by two sociology grad students" But, that's not how porn videos tend to be tagged. Nevertheless, your assertions on what these labels or words imply or what their sociological import or effect is, are completely speculative and not backed up by anything beyond the fact that you don't like the way the videos are tagged.
Perhaps "bouncy brazilian bubble butt" should be "effervescent spheroidal gluteal region on an individual of South American descent"?
the notion of women as "sluts" and objects of gratification is possibly even stronger now than in the "bad old days" before feminism was making any real gains.
Yeah, that's possible. A lot of things are possible. Is there any evidence for that assertion, other than the fact that there's a lot of porn on the internet and you don't like it? I don't think so.
The next problem we see is violence. First off, allow me to say that I do understand there are people, men and women alike who enjoy "playing rough," and more power to them. By my criteria, violence is non-consensual, or implied to be non-consensual. Just for the most obvious, rape is often presented as a method for sexual gratification of both parties - this seems to be especially true in Japanese pornography for some reason. The woman is taken and forced into a sex act; most often by a man, bur lesbian rape seems to have pretty frequent pornography depiction too. Variations on these theme are kidnappings, coerced sex (the masseuse who won't take 'no happy ending, thanks' for an answer), power domination (the "prisoner fucked by guard" angle) taking advantage of drunk, drugged, or sleeping women, and of course, "going too far," such as, well, surprise buttsex or insemination. You name some variety of non-consensual sexual engagement, and it's right there waiting for you on redtube.
It's worth noting that Japanese laws on censorship and "obscenity" are a Dworkin-Mackinnon paradise. They are much, much more strict about depictions of actual sex (or as you put it, "hardcore") than the US is. So, by your logic, the violence and sex-related horrible dehumanization problem should be LESS in Japan, right? I mean, if the free and everywhere-porn-problem is driving violence and causing it to be sexualized.
Um, except, that doesn't seem to be borne out by reality, now, does it.
Beyond that, again, I don't know what porn you've been watching. The vast majority of it (you've made totally unsourced claims about "the vast majority", so will I) is exactly what you talk about upthread: Graphic depictions of two (or more) consenting adults having consenting adult sex. Period.
One of the most-cited problems cited with the horror film industry these days is that so many movies are asking the audience to identify with the crazy serial killers rather than empathizing with their victims.
It is? One of the most-cited problems with the film industry in general these days, to me, is that most movies suck. Some of the BEST movies- and tv shows- are ones where the characters aren't cardboard. Empathizing with serial killers? You mean like "Silence of the Lambs" where, by the end, the audience is sort of chuckling about the fava bean thing? Sure, that Oscar Winning film of 20 years ago is a prime example of how THE CULTURE IS GOING WRONG O NOOOOOOO!!!!!!
Oh, did I mention "the horrible culture" and "how horrible the culture is"? You're conflating and mixing up things for the benefit of your audience, so will I:
These guys also think the culture is going horribly, horribly wrong. And porno is bad!
However, it's my stance that it is the dehumanization that allows this to flourish and spread; hentai wouldn't be able to tell us that schoolgirls like being raped, if we hadn't already been told that it doesn't really matter if they do or not.
That's YOUR stance (again, subjective opinion despite your OP claiming that this was "the Truth™ about Porn".) MY stance is, maybe if the Japanese would let public hair and penetration be shown in smut, they wouldn't be having all this weird cartoon porn.
Or, maybe they still would.
A weird blending of these two aspects had led to the idea that men "deserve" sex - it's often derided on feminist blogs and news sites as the "nice guy syndrome" where a fellow believes that his action or words somehow give him a "good for one fuck" coupon, and he feels shorted or abused if he doesn't get it. This attitude, I believe can in fact be traced towards porn and the ideas it creates that women are "things" which can be "possessed." Like they're some sort of vagina vending machine. Insert helpful words of support, receive night of sweaty monkeysex.
That's not just "derided on Feminist Blogs", it's, like ONE OF THEIR FAVORITE ALL TIME THINGS TO TALK ABOUT! Oh, my god- if you haven't checked out "I blame the patriarchy", you TOTALLY SHOULD, MAN! It's written by this cranky lady down in Texas or New Mexico or something, I think by day she's a lizard farmer or something.. and she doesn't actually have anything to do with any real man-types herself but she's COMPLETELY an EXPERT on them (men, I mean.. or as she puts it, "teh menz" or "Dooodely doods" or "Dudebrobrodudes" .. she's got all these clever expressions... it's GREAT) well, anyway, that pesky Nice Guy™ who thinks women are "pussy vending machines"... she LOVES TO TALK ABOUT THAT GUY! Well, I guess there's more than one. But anyway, yeah, it MUST be internet porn that is making that happen, because lord knows that horny guys trying to have sex with women are a totally new phenomenon, like the last 15 years tops.
Speaking of porn and your nights of sweaty monkeysex, how many people here have tried to have porn sex? Show of hands? Mine's up. I've done something so foolish. This isn't so much a social ill as it is a relationship problem. Porn is a formulaic, visual medium. Like any other film, the people in it are actors and, generally, aren't really living out what you see in the shot. We've all seen the one position where the two lovers are on their sides, and the man is holding her leg up and coming in from behind? Yeah, you can hurt someone's spine with that one, and the truth is it apparently feels like lightly frotting a cardboard tube - from both sides of the experience. Porn sex raises unrealistic expectations in people's sex lives, and it can be a problem for both sexes. While I'm not er, "widely experienced," my understanding is that no, most people aren't screaming and groaning and flying around the bedrooms and changing positions every five minutes. Porn presents sex as a marathon - even sometimes with the competitive edge retained - and deludes teenagers and young adults into believing "that's what it's like."
And remember where I said the big ol' porn penis is a power fantasy? Yeah, this one actually does cause various insecurities in young men. I'm sure I don't have to go into too much explanation here, but penis envy is a real thing, and porn is the #1 cause of it. Since porn is primarily depictions of well-oiled women pretending that Peter North is a good lay, with the obligatory bucket of oil of olay shooting everywhere, it can lead to a guy feeling deficient. Laugh all you want, but being insecure in your own body is damaging regardless of gender.
Even if nothing else, porn sex is bad sex, and bad sex can ruin intimacy, which takes its toll on relationships.
Wait a minute. You claim to have seen a sex position in a porno, then tried it, it didn't feel good, and that's the porno's fault?
Most adults tend to be able to figure out what they like, in their relationships, and that pertains to sex, too. If the idea here is that "someones gonna watch a porno and decide they HAVE to have sex that way and its gonna destroy their relationship" I don't think anyone with that caliber of brainpower is qualified to operate a tv remote, frankly.
The last two paragraphs are, again, more speculative generalization based upon what you personally (presumably) have seen, a rehash of tropes pertaining to the same, then generalizations about how this applies to "all porn" or "most porn" or "how it's so much worse now" (the argument which, again, sounds an awful lot like the argument drug warriors use to convince aging boomers to continue to support criminalization of a plant they, themselves, smoked as youths: "it's so much worse now, you seeeeee") ... and finally, the plea that "we're just pointing it out, we're pointing out how terrible it is" and my favorite "no one wants to censor anything" (except maybe the people who grind their teeth when forced to talk about the first amendment, or otherwise DO want censorship)
So, I promised some solutions to this "problem" which is apparently bugging ya, the solution of "don't watch it if you don't like it" not being good enough (it never is, is it?) .. Here's my solution, and it applies to all bad art, all bad media, all bad horror movies, all bad porn: IF YOU CAN AND WANT TO, DO IT BETTER.
The answer to low brow writing is highbrow writing. The answer to lowbrow movies are better movies. Different movies. Make porn that isn't objectifying, assuming of course one does not buy into the Dworkinite line about how ALL hetero sex* is oppressive and objectifying. Bad art? Make better art.
*"Under Patriarchy", AKA "on Planet Earth"
Beyond that, no one is taking away your right to complain. However, people can also complain about the complaining. And people can complain about that. If history is any guide, they will.
Look, guys, we all watch and look at porn, if not now then we have in the past. And we all know what the number is. Probably none of us would be proud of our daughters or sisters - or for that matter, sons and brothers - if they took a career in pornography, because we already know it's degrading both to the actors and to the viewers, and through them society as a whole. So why do we pretend otherwise when feminists simply point this out and say, with all correctness, "this needs to change"?
I'll tell you why: Because, one, lecturing people to stop masturbating, or stop looking at pictures of people fucking while they masturbate, is not productive. The people who like porn aren't going to stop liking it. The people who want other people to stop liking porn, probably aren't going to change their minds, either. You aren't going to "educate" anyone out of enjoying looking at attractive members of the opposite (or same) sex, or as the "feminist blogs" put it, "objectification" (I have yet to recieve a workable definition of what the PRECISE difference is between "acceptable" sexual attraction on the basis of physical appearance or characteristics, and the "unacceptable, objectifying" kind). "This needs to change"? How, if you're not advocating censorship? My proposal, again, is that the answer to art you don't like is art you DO like. Don't like porn? Make better porn. As I've pointed out previously, the worst thing to happen to the porn "industry" has been the internet. So maybe MORE freedom, not less, is the answer.
Posted by Warren DeMontague | Tue Jun 19, 2012, 04:24 PM (3 replies)