This message was self-deleted by its author

[FirstLight]

This message was self-deleted by its author (FirstLight) on Thu Nov 28, 2013, 10:46 AM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Trillo]

1. Sodomy?

That's the only way two males would ever have intercourse, I presume. Correct?

[loli phabay]

2. yeah kind of wierd choice of words there.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. if it is not consensual then it would be rape, correct?

and I guess BJ's aren't sex ...

cos I don't know since I am not one but, I bet gay men give each other BJ's.

[Vashta Nerada]

3. What's wrong with sodomy?

Don't like sodomy? Don't do it.

[Blue_Adept]

4. And another from Psychology Today

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/200805/why-do-women-have-erotic-rape-fantasies

[gollygee]

5. I don't know why you put sodomy in the same category as rape

and I'm troubled by you pairing them like you did.

[Vashta Nerada]

7. Agreed.

[FirstLight]

11. because in my experience

I was raped both ways... sorry if that offends

[gollygee]

13. Then I understand why you're connecting the two

However you must understand that that's the way some couples have sex, and to put them in the same category makes you appear homophobic. If you aren't saying that gay sex is akin to rape, then please consider editing the "sodomy" out of there, because your problem is with rape, not consensual sodomy.

[dipsydoodle]

6. Great porn book here - GRAPHIC WARNING

Akira Tsumura's 1001 Banjos , aka the banjo porn book , copies of which rarely change hands for less than $1000. Couple of used copies on amazon.co.uk for just under £2000 each and one on .com for $1400. My own copy is mint.




Used to drool over and help identify the finest banjos ever made.

edit to add - I forgot the graphic warning

[loli phabay]

8. lol, i was thinking of 1001 toilets for some.reason.

[dipsydoodle]

14. Funnily enough the same guy did in fact publish a similar book on bathrooms.

and another on guitars. Neither of those cost much.

As far as I'm aware he'd used the funds of his family's pharmaceutical company to amass the banjo collection which following fraud charges landed up in the hands of the Japanese government. The publication costs of 1001 Banjos were c. $2300 each as a private run - the art work is exceptional. Some of his stuff including unopened virgin copies of the book and some banjos too stayed in the US, hidden away........

[GeorgeGist]

9. There is a journal: Porn Studies

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/cfp/rprncfp.pdf

[LittleBlue]

10. "Sodomy"?

Not sure about that.

[FirstLight]

12. clarification

I was raped both ways, that's why I said it like that...sorry to offend

[Sissyk]

16. I think you need to edit it.

You do know the right uses the word Sodomy to try and shame gay people, correct?

[opiate69]

15. Well.. Let's see...

The "Anonymous" article from the National Review is based entirely on the right-wing, homophobic Witherspoon "study".
Any bets on the rest?
Edit:The Weatherspoon Institute

[Kurska]

18. Social costs of porn is from the weatherspoon institute as well. n/t

[opiate69]

19. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

[Kurska]

17. " it is a dangerous game to play with regardless...and glorifying rape or sodomy" WTF.....

Sodomy? Glorifying Sodomy? What on earth on you talking about? Why are you citing studies from people like the weatherspoon institute who want to outlaw homosexuality?

I really thought I was on DU, this is insane.

[FirstLight]

20. jesus christ on a trailer hitch!!!!! @$#^&

I tried to locate studies because all kind of people jump on me and say they want studies.
Now I used the wrong words and cited someone who was *gasp* a RW group...WTF

come ON people...how am I supposed to know all these ins and outs and who is affiliated with who?

Shit, how many of YOU have NO problem jumping on and talking shit to a domestic violence survivor and saying that I it's MY fault for being in the relationship to start with...isn't that the same attitude the RW pricks you claim to hate take with women who are rape victims?

You all suck. I was trying to give you the "research" you all claimed that I was missing when I posted a PERSONAL anecdote of my horrific experience...and instead you ALL fucking pile on like a bunch of abusers yourselves!

seriously....I need to just stop even coming to DU anymore... this is not my progressive haven it used to be.

I shared something very gut wrenching because I was trying to make a point and was sick of seeing PORNPORNPORN on like every other thread here... but you ALL got it covered, it's ALL good...rape is fine, and sodomy is okay because it only means what you think it means & "if you don't like it don't go there" - ya very helpful

you have no fucking idea what it's like to be on the receiving end of the hateful violence and mysogynistic behavior promoted by the porn industry...but to look at that would mean you'd have to look at your own entertainment and behavior...

[RobinA]

21. There Are Many

outrageoholics on here nowadays. Pay them no mind.

[historylovr]

23. Sorry you're being jumped on.

People will latch onto anything to discredit someone who points out something they don't want to see.

And I'm sorry for what you went through.

[RainDog]

26. there are two problems with your position

the first is making sodomy a situation separate from rape. do you mean to say that all anal sex is wrong? if not, you should change your op, as several here have mentioned. Rape is rape and it doesn't matter if it's vaginal or anal.

So, to not change the OP indicates a willingness to align with anti-gay thought, at least in appearance if not in fact. Rather than acknowledge another valid pov, you are defensive and act as though the implication doesn't matter.

which is exactly what you are accusing others of doing regarding your understanding of porn.

the second problem is to conclude that your experience is everyone's experience.

this is where your dismissal of others is again part of your problem.

as prism noted, below, this is a common reaction of someone who has been subject to an alcoholic.

sometimes people who have had such an experience cannot view anyone who consumes alcohol outside of the lens of their experience with an alcoholic. however, people can and do drink alcohol without becoming alcoholics or having behaviors that alcoholics/abusers may have.

the same hold true in regard to porn.

for too many here, it seems to be a common occurrence to conflate their own negative experiences with everyone else's experience.

others are expected to allow the assertions of those who use their personal experience as justification, but not allow the same for someone whose experience differs.

Then there's a third problem.

When others mention you referenced right wing homophobic "research" as part of your post - you attack the persons noting the bigotry behind the groups financing the research. You, again, have no concern for the validity of the research as long as it confirms your bias.

This happens repeatedly on DU.

If you are sick of seeing porn threads, you can use the hide thread feature or you can add "porn" as a word you screen out for you at DU.

I am someone who understands and knows about abuse as a personal experience. I know that my experience isn't universal and I know it doesn't give me the right to claim that others' concerns and views have no validity when they explain the problem with, say, your sources or with the way you phrase an issue. Porn is one variable. Another could be alcohol, with no porn involved. Another person who has been subject to abuse may have had an abuser that used no substance other than their own brain chemicals to perpetuate abuse.

Based upon at least one source, and your refusal to alter your OP, people would not be out of bounds to assume you are a bigot. Others who support your claim here would be engaging in bigotry as well to not suggest to you to consider changing your OP.

Someone can be a victim of abuse and still be a bigot. The two are not mutually exclusive.

The use of right wing sources that are considered disreputable among those who don't agree with the bigotry that is part of them has been an issue in the past on DU, as well.

But the reality is that if your source's stated mission and stated beliefs are homophobic and spread lies about sexuality - then your sources aren't worth posting on DU and they deserve to be challenged.

I am sorry for the pain that you have suffered. I know such situations are not easy. But your experience doesn't give you the right to ignore others' equally valid concerns.

[PoliticAverse]

29. What a beautifully cogent post. n/t

[renie408]

33. I agree with most of what you have said.

I think automatically assuming the OP is a bigot because they haven't removed the word 'sodomy' from their post is a reach.

I think for many people, 'sodomy' is anal rape and 'anal sex" is anal sex. I am not saying they are accurate, just saying that's how they label things.

I also understand the OP's frustration. She posts a long list of reaearch, one of which is suspect, and instead of discussing what she posted; people are hung up on semantics and calling out one of her sources. Now that you have critiqued the OP thoughtfully, how about an equally thoughtful critique of the information they offered? I think that is what they are after.

[RainDog]

34. I read all the links

which I mentioned, below.

I didn't say the OP was a bigot. I said it's entirely reasonable to make the assumption and respond with that assumption - especially based upon repeated requests to change language that indicates a condemnation of all anal sex.

Sodomy is a sexual practice as defined by religious description that entered into legal jargon. It has nothing to say about rape. Rape is the word for rape.

The origin of the term "sodomy" is religious - and is actually less specific than anal rape because sodomy could include oral sex, beastiality and other forms of sex that were then (and some still are) considered deviant.

So, the use of the word in modern context connotes deviance from the hetero-norm, not rape.

Again after various people note the inaccurate description, to continue to proffer it says something about the person who made the OP.

As far as the links provided, they do not support the claim unless someone chooses to accept right wing religious sources that are linked to homophobic bigotry. As I noted -

The BBC link, the first one, does not support a claim about porn and violence as conclusive. The same goes for the wiki link. They note that research has found various results and the operative is any aggression was found in someone who was ALREADY considered a sexual aggressor. Others had no such response.

The NPR link cites the Witherspoon Institute...which is the basis for the physiological/psy link. Here's the wiki intro to the Witherspoon Institute: The Witherspoon Institute is a conservative think tank in Princeton, New Jersey. The group is opposed to same-sex marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion

iow, any research from this institute should be as suspect as research coming from a creationist group. They have no credibility. It ASTOUNDS me that women on this board will link to a group that is, basically, anti-feminist to make what they claim is a "feminist" statement.

Nothing feminist about passing along junk science from right wingers. Nothing feminist about that at all. It's anti-feminist, in fact.

the rat test link is an obit, basically.

So, I did address those issues and I find that anyone who uses discredited sources is him or herself discredited, and most especially when someone has been informed of the worthlessness of their source.

[Dr. Strange]

38. Excellent post.

When others mention you referenced right wing homophobic "research" as part of your post - you attack the persons noting the bigotry behind the groups financing the research. You, again, have no concern for the validity of the research as long as it confirms your bias.

By the way, would it kill you to use proper capitalization in your posts? I'd hate to have to put you on Ignore because of punctuation.

[RainDog]

40. i could make the effort

now that I know people are actually reading my posts. ...

[Warpy]

27. It's OK

The problem I've found is that publishing it instead of keeping it within the realm of private fantasies tends to legitimize the behavior.

That's probably what was at work with your ex.

Congratulations on surviving and getting away from him.

[last1standing]

30. "how am I supposed to know...?"

You could start by not posting any bullshit that happens to agree with your uninformed opinion and actually do some research before posting links as proof when you have no idea whether they are based on science or myth.

At least that's where I'd start.

[Jamastiene]

35. I HAVE been raped, in the name of God, simply because I am a lesbian.

So you cannot tell me I have not been on the receiving end of hateful violence and misogynistic AND homophobic behavior. And I don't appreciate you including sodomy and RW studies in your list of links. And I don't care where the fuck you put Jesus Christ. It doesn't change your negative attitude. Don't blame people disagreeing with your choice of RW sites and negative attitude toward consensual sodomy on misogyny. It is your lousy attitude that people are complaining about.

[BuddhaGirl]

37. truly sorry for your awful experience

but equating DUers who don't share your negative opinions on porn as "not progressive" is just ridiculous.

And you still haven't edited your OP to remove *sodomy*

[Prism]

22. Alcohol is bad sometimes, too

People who have experienced abuse at the hands of an alcoholic often will have a low opinion of it and avoid being around it.

So it is with porn. Some people abuse it. Some people cannot consume it responsibly.

But we don't ban adult pleasures because some people abuse them.

If we were discussing porn addiction, I think we'd all be having a much, much different conversation around here.

But just saying "porn is bad" doesn't go anywhere. It can be if used irresponsibly or by people who have no business consuming it. Same as alcohol.

I'm sorry you're getting flack for the sodomy remark, but the term being paired with rape was how the religious right used language to persecute LGBTers. It's a very loaded phrase in that sense.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. What's DU coming to when you can't criticize Sodomy while quoting Right Wing Sources?

[RainDog]

28. for the record...

I read every one of your links.

The BBC link, the first one, does not support a claim about porn and violence as conclusive. The same goes for the wiki link.

The NPR link cites the Witherspoon Institute...which is the basis for the physiological/psy link

the rat test link is an obit, basically.

Just to note that your links do not provide support for a claim about universal harm from pornography, unless you think it's credible to cite right wing religious homophobic sources.

It's really sad to me to see women repeatedly engage in this sort of propaganda.

[last1standing]

31. Right wing, homophobic, out of context, and just plain wrong on the facts.

Not bad. You managed to get four pieces of crap out of one squeeze.

[Democracyinkind]

32. More right wing bullshit.

The attacks on free sexuality always come from the right, it's just that some on the left are too scientifically illiterate to get that and jump on the bandwagon.

The claim that rape porn is prevalent on popular porn tubes is pure bullshit. As are the studies you posted.

[99Forever]

36. The Bible...

... pretends that magic is real. That absolutely disgusts me. Hence, no one should be allowed to read it.

[snooper2]

39. Thanksgiving PORN!

WOO HOO!

LOL