HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Gender & Orientation » Men's Group (Group) » "They pleasured them...

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 09:50 PM

"They pleasured themselves to death"

Last edited Thu Nov 28, 2013, 09:33 PM - Edit history (1)



http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/the-slut-shaming-kind-of-feminist/

31 replies, 9709 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 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply "They pleasured themselves to death" (Original post)
Major Nikon Nov 2013 OP
rrneck Nov 2013 #1
TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #2
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #3
RiffRandell Nov 2013 #4
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #6
HappyMe Nov 2013 #5
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #7
nomorenomore08 Nov 2013 #16
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #20
Gore1FL Sep 2014 #30
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #8
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #9
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #10
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #11
Warren DeMontague Nov 2013 #12
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Nov 2013 #13
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #15
ElboRuum Nov 2013 #22
Eleanors38 Nov 2013 #19
TreasonousBastard Nov 2013 #14
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #17
PumpkinAle Mar 2014 #26
Major Nikon Nov 2013 #18
loli phabay Nov 2013 #21
Warren DeMontague Mar 2014 #23
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2014 #24
In_The_Wind Mar 2014 #25
the_working_poor Mar 2014 #27
hifiguy Oct 2014 #31
MicaelS Mar 2014 #28
marym625 Sep 2014 #29

Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 10:56 PM

1. Sounds familiar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Sun Nov 24, 2013, 11:01 PM

2. Reminds me of listening to one of the Sirius comedy channels and...

some guy said the Baptists who raised him were adamantly against premarital sex because it may lead to dancing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 02:18 AM

3. You mean another anti-porn "scientist" is actually shilling for the Religious Right?

Wow. Shocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 10:12 AM

4. "Who is this lady?"

That was my husband's question as he is working from home this week and heard me play this.

Then he walks over and says "she looks like a church lady."

The ending is the best and twisted part...something about how normal men who view porn start having affairs, treating their partners and daughters differently...wow.

ETA: Also loved the part about comparing porn to other drugs...you know since there's no detox it's always with you. An alcoholic/addict can detox 20 times and they're still an alcoholic and an addict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RiffRandell (Reply #4)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:42 PM

6. Same "lady" claims women who watch porn are more likely to be raped (slut shamer)

Seems to make shit up as she goes along with little or no scientific basis for her hypothesis (bullshit monger).

Follows Judith Reisman around on the erotoxin tour, begging for millions in federal grant money to fund their shit for brains "studies"

Appears to receive funding and support from homophobic groups

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 12:39 PM

5. What a mess.



She's a science person?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #5)

Mon Nov 25, 2013, 05:53 PM

7. Yeah, just like Ken Ham and the Discovery Institute are.

Which of course means that I'm unwilling to hear the other side of the 6,000 year old Earth "debate" because I'm bigoted against church-goers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 11:51 PM

16. Not a "science person" but a "sciency person" if you catch my drift.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nomorenomore08 (Reply #16)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:33 PM

20. Thank Jebus for anti-intellectualism

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HappyMe (Reply #5)

Mon Sep 29, 2014, 05:35 PM

30. She is a science person in the same way that Creationism is a theory. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:48 AM

8. I simply can't take anyone seriously who puts scare quotes around "free speech"

or clearly has to grind their teeth angrily while uttering the phrase.

I'm like, excuse me. I had relatives die in Buchenwald. So sure, tell me this is some abstract intellectual exercise. Because I can manage to get those words out around Nazis marching in Skokie, and even manage to donate to the ACLU in the process. Why? Because I lurrrrv Nazis? No. Because I understand that the 1st Amendement and Free Speech - no scare quotes, even - is a far more potent weapon against Nazi shitheadism than any bans or censorship could ever be.

Someone wants to have a fit because they can't put a stop to films of "physically aggressive acts" such as blowjobs?


Give me a break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:38 AM

9. I was wondering where they got that 88% figure from

At least this time it's a peer reviewed study instead of a homophobic shitbag group sponsoring a far right wing social conservative slut-shamer's self-published "study".

Their standards seem to be improving a little although not by much it seems. This time it's a group of self-identified anti-pornographers that nobody has heard of sitting around watching a stack of porn DVDs they self selected with a clicker incrementing each time someone got a hummer, published in an obscure women's studies journal with an impact factor of 1.3. Kinda reminds me of the "family" groups watching prime time TV and marking each time someone said "damn". One can only wonder what the peer review process consists of.

Counterpunch published an interesting article on how objective one of the authors is and I don't think any of the rest are any better. Appears to be a group of influence peddlers bumming for anti-porn grants and not making much headway.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2005/02/02/feminists-for-porn/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:47 AM

10. Okay, so.. you're a smart guy. Is it just me? Look at this definition:

This is the #2 most frequent "physically aggressive act" in the study, and combined with "spanking" pretty much comprises the lion's share of that 88% figure, as near as I can tell.

So here's the definition they used:

(g) gagging (defined as when an object or body part, e.g., penis, hand, or sex toy, is inserted into a character’s mouth, visibly obstruct- ing breathing);


What am I missing here? Do they not understand that people can also breathe through their noses, or that almost ANY time something goes in someone's mouth, it "obstructs breathing" through the mouth? Did they find porn with oddly shaped penii that could obstruct nose AND mouth breathing at the same time? (Do I even want to know, about that?)

Or, as I suspect, are they categorizing ALL insertion of anything into a mouth (and concurrently, "obstructing breathing" as "physical aggression"?

And who'd have thought such things - you know, things going into mouths, and all - would turn up so frequently in porn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 10:02 AM

11. Remember that the people making these determinations are all fervent anti-pornographers

Last edited Wed Nov 27, 2013, 12:46 PM - Edit history (1)

So it's not as if you have a non-biased evaluation of any of the criteria they specified. Who knows what they mean, but clearly they already had an idea of what they wanted to say and they patterned everything to fit that notion. The study, if you can call it that, does nothing more than feed red meat to anti-pornographers and completely ignores all the relevant questions they should be trying to answer, but aren't.

The methodology of this study has obvious flaws, and even if it didn't it provides no useful information to anyone who is interested in answering questions about cause and effect. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if dozens of similar "studies" exist, but the impact factor demonstrates that even among Women's Studies journals, few are citing what's in it and those who do are probably a small circle of others who are producing similar studies of dubious methodology.

So why would someone produce a study that isn't answering the right questions? I have no idea, but the simplest answer is influence peddling. People like Reisman are hot tickets on the speaking circuit and if they are able to snag grant money with your tax dollars, they can sit back comfortably and make all the junk science they want. It's a racket if there ever was one. The scientific community realizes they have a serious credibility problem with exactly this kind of thing and it isn't just limited to anti-pornographers. There is currently an effort underway to filter out all of the gibberish masquerading as science, but given the thousands of scientific journals out there with more appearing every day, the task is not an easy one. Until then, if then, there's going to be no end to this garbage and laymen and even policy makers who have no idea how to tell a relevant study from one that isn't are going to be holding these things up pretending they mean something. Even among Women's Studies journals, this one ranks at the bottom of the pile. That alone should tell people something.

Edited to add:

One more thing. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the 88% figure is correct. Hell, let's just say it's 100%. Think about how the dots connect here. Remember the hypothesis is, 'porn causes rape'.

So if

A) All porn is violent
B) Correlative evidence is inversely proportional to the hypothesis
C) Causal evidence is inconclusive or supports (B)

What is this telling us?

I'm not sure the anti-pornographers are going to like where the logical conclusion leads us.

The very best you can say about it is it's banal nonsense. I can make a better case for Rock-n-Roll causes devil worship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 02:32 PM

12. I seem to remember reading somewhere that Gail Dines's anti-porn work is the only thing that

"Wheelock College" is known for.

Which is fascinating because her primary, sole credential as an anti-porn luminary is the bit on her resume about being a "Professor at Wheelock College"

Nice deal for both of 'em, apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 03:00 PM

13. Margaret Hamilton went to Wheelock

The Wicked Witch of the West.....

I'm not kidding.

But having gone to school in Boston I knew the college. My alma mater played them in sports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #12)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 08:11 PM

15. Honestly I don't read much of their work anymore

It's all banal nonsense that hasn't changed since Brownmiller, Dworkin, et al were trying to get Playboy banned. Point out the worst of it, pretend it's all that way, ignore cause and effect data, lather, rinse, repeat. Back then they were promising if internet porn took off, sexual assault would go through the roof. Now Hefner is lauded as a central figure in the sexual revolution, which did have a significant role in the sexual freedoms of women and men, while Brownmiller and Dworkin are on the ash heap of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Sat Nov 30, 2013, 12:35 AM

22. The Y axis makes me smile.

Of course, an incurious or perhaps careless mind might see the peak in 2000 and say "SEE!!! END TIMES!!! DEVIL WORSHIP AT AN ALL TIME HIGH RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MILLENIUM!!111!11!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #10)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 01:06 PM

19. Insertion: I can't remember a time where I inserted

 

my penis (or anything else) into any woman's mouth: rather, there were many times when a woman acted to surround, gather in, or purse her mouth around my member. To be clear, there was no coercion, payment or even persuasion involved. Perhaps I was just irresistible or maybe defenseless in the face of such unbridled female aggression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #8)

Wed Nov 27, 2013, 06:17 PM

14. Sometimes I wonder if those behind these "studies"...

have ever been laid. If they had, they might know something about what they were watching.

Note that there was no closed fist hitting or weaponry, as there is in much real abuse. And most women I've known let you know in short order whether that slap on the ass was a turn-on or not. You think porn directors made that part up?

Penetration with a finger is aggression? Most people call it foreplay, but to each his own when making a point.

And what's with that tiny percentage of times they couldn't tell who was the aggressor?

Wouldn't you just love to see any of them in a room with Nina Hartley?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #14)

Thu Nov 28, 2013, 12:18 AM

17. Here's the takeaway I got from the article I linked upthread

For many years, right -wing ideologues have co-opted the language of feminism in their on-going, nefarious attempts to erase all forms of sexual choice. Prof. Sun plays into the hands of these enemies of women. Does she not know that making common cause with those whose most treasured ambition is the reversal of Roe v. Wade will always be suicidal? How is Prof. Sun different from Phyllis Schlafly? From Anita Bryant? From Beverly LaHaye? From Judith Reisman? From Lou Sheldon or Jerry Falwell? They all want to eliminate my choice in the disposition my body. If I have the right to choose abortion, then I have the right to choose to have sex for the camera. Sexual freedom is the flip side of the coin of reproductive choice. Make no mistake, Professor. When they’ve got rid of me, they’re coming for you next.


"To suppress free speech in the name of protecting women is dangerous and wrong."
-- Betty Friedan

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TreasonousBastard (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 04:16 PM

26. Sometimes I wonder

Sometimes I wonder if those behind these "studies"... have ever been laid.

I think that is the trouble - they may have been in a dark room, no lights, fully dressed and only to procreate - absolutely no fun is allowed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 12:04 AM

18. Junk scientist citing junk science

Some researchers today suggest that the electrodes never caused intense pleasure or ‘liking’ after all, but only a form of ‘wanting’ or motivation to obtain the stimulation (see discussion in Green et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2010).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3008353/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Fri Nov 29, 2013, 03:50 PM

21. if you are going to go, pleasuring yourself is as good as any way to go.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Mon Mar 17, 2014, 07:23 PM

23. I admit, i have similar worries about people who push the button obsessively

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #23)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 01:11 PM

24. Yeah, but if they do it as their alter ego, they feel nothing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #24)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 01:55 PM

25. But

It was only a sock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to In_The_Wind (Reply #25)

Tue Mar 18, 2014, 08:58 PM

27. It was still a brilliant piece of marketing that died way too soon! n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #23)

Thu Oct 2, 2014, 05:58 PM

31. Time to try some REAL science

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Wed Mar 19, 2014, 01:34 PM

28. Hayden looks a great deal like Judith Reisman.

I guess birds of a feather applies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Original post)

Sun Sep 21, 2014, 02:52 AM

29. like the Robin Cook book. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread