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

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 04:28 PM

Tatsuya Ishida's "Sinfest" - All Men Are Evil, Male Heterosexuality Is Inherently Oppressive

And The Highest Sexual Fantasy Women Should Aspire To Should Involve NO SEX AT ALL:



I'm sorry, but if I were a woman, I would be like "who the fuck is this MAN to tell me that the pinnacle of my sexual fantasy life should be to avoid sex at all costs!" Certainly, no means no.. but sadly in the puritanical radfem anti-sex 2nd wave circles, yes means "no", too- and especially when someone else says yes, it is vitally important to clomp into their life and demand that they cease and desist all their PIV "private" conduct immediately, because patriarchy meaningful consent impossible objectification dudebro heteronormative male gaze blahblah.

We've seen, over and over again, the eye-rolls, the grousing, the whining, over other peoples' so called "private" conduct. It's worth noting that "50 Shades of Grey" is written BY a woman, and the primary audience for the book IS women. And by all accounts, it involves CONSENSUAL behavior between adults, albeit behavior that self-appointed guardians of "Feminist" thought like Ishida find "problematic".

And Ishida, here, is clearly making (or attempting to make) a point about non-consent. About, well, rape. So how can this be at all relevant to the sexual fantasies of the millions of 50 shades of grey fans? (Who are, apparently, not as "Feminist" as Tatsuya Ishida) I'll tell you how. Because in Sinfest-land, clearly schooled in the cult of Dworkin, ALL sex is non-consensual (patriarchy, ya know).. Of COURSE the proper Feminist fantasy ought to be not to EVER have sex/rape, with a man- because... tadaa! all sex is rape. Remember, silly?

I would think that all women- not just fans of 50 shades of grey- would be deeply offended by the implication that, poor thing, you're not smart enough to figure out what you really want or like, you need this MAN to tell you that your proper feminist fantasy is to live chaste and free of icky sex-type stuff.

And another recent gem from Mr. Ishida-



Ha! Ha! Isn't that GREAT! I mean, Charlie Brown, what a patriarchal male gaze asshole! And he thinks he's a "nice guy™", to boot! Apparently the authors of "You're A Good Man, Charlie Brown" didn't understand the inherent oxymoron contained in the title, ha ha! (Good? Man?)

Anyway, obviously Charlie Brown needs a restraining order, because he is committing the crime of being attracted to a female. Sheesh.

In "Sinfest", ALL the male characters are some combination of stupid and evil, and the female characters are on an inevitable spectrum/trajectory from helpless waif-like victim to pissed off man-smashing motorcycle rider.

I'll say one thing for the reactionary, thinly disguised religious right-shilling anti-sex zealotry of Tatsuya Ishida, the man CAN draw.

Think? Not so much.





91 replies, 44611 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 91 replies Author Time Post
Reply Tatsuya Ishida's "Sinfest" - All Men Are Evil, Male Heterosexuality Is Inherently Oppressive (Original post)
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 OP
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #1
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #2
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #6
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #3
loli phabay Jul 2012 #8
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #11
loli phabay Jul 2012 #20
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #21
loli phabay Jul 2012 #22
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #25
loli phabay Jul 2012 #26
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #28
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #29
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #30
opiate69 Jul 2012 #31
Upton Jul 2012 #35
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #36
Upton Jul 2012 #39
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #38
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #40
loli phabay Jul 2012 #41
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #42
loli phabay Jul 2012 #57
loli phabay Jul 2012 #32
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #37
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #4
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #7
loli phabay Jul 2012 #24
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #27
eek MD Jul 2012 #9
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #10
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #12
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #16
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #18
loli phabay Jul 2012 #23
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #14
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #19
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #15
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #17
jorno67 Jul 2012 #5
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #13
loli phabay Jul 2012 #33
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #34
MicaelS Jul 2012 #61
redqueen Jul 2012 #43
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #44
redqueen Jul 2012 #46
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #60
Major Nikon Jul 2012 #45
MicaelS Jul 2012 #47
redqueen Jul 2012 #49
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #50
redqueen Jul 2012 #51
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #64
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #68
redqueen Jul 2012 #70
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #71
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #74
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #53
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #62
MicaelS Jul 2012 #52
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #58
loli phabay Jul 2012 #65
opiate69 Jul 2012 #55
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #63
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #66
ZenLefty Jul 2012 #67
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #69
redqueen Jul 2012 #72
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #73
redqueen Jul 2012 #76
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #77
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #80
redqueen Jul 2012 #81
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #83
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #75
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #78
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #79
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #82
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #84
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #85
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #91
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #86
Warren DeMontague Jul 2012 #87
lumberjack_jeff Jul 2012 #88
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #89
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #90
4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #48
jorno67 Jul 2012 #54
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jul 2012 #56
loli phabay Jul 2012 #59

Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:33 PM

1. Wait, is this a parody of radfem beliefs?

Because then, it's funny.

Then again, parody.....hmm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 13, 2012, 07:36 PM

2. Unless it's some sort of long running postmodern Andy Kaufman gag, I think the guy is serious.

I'm not sure what he's smoking, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #2)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:36 PM

6. I thought it's possible it's like Norman Lear's....

....duality of comedy....progressives liked All in the Family because Archie was an idiot, while the right-wing and bigots loved him because they thought he was right.

See, I actually laughed at the two cartoons you posted. I thought they were funny. But probably not for the reasons this guy's intended audience did. In fact his intended audience may not even laugh ha ha....just probably go "Yes....YES! THIS is what we mean!"

I've since remembered, I've looked at some of his other stuff posted elsewhere, and it's clear to me you are correct, he's white knighting for the patriarchal conspiracy cru, and it's not even trying to be funny, just making some clumsy "point" with no more tact or wit than the typical Mallard Fillmore entry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:11 PM

3. Isn't it pretty typical in the bondage based sub-culture to have a safe word?

 

That in fact means "no"? Granted this isn't my area of expertise an I haven't read (have no interest in reading) 50 shades of grey.

But if they were engaging in consensual sex and she had no interest in stopping it . . . what's the problem? People shouldn't be allowed to have sex that seems weird or gross to self-appointed guardians of women's virtue?

I would consider this more than an annoying quirk on their behalf. By explicitly or implicitly equating all hetero sex to rape they are pretty much making the term meaningless. Which is doing no favors to actual rape victims.

"I was raped" shouldn't be watered down in the common lexicon to mean "I had sex with a man consensually but now I kinda regret it some".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:29 AM

8. yup the safe word is used rather than no, as no and saying it can be part of the game

 

problem as i see it is everyone seems to think that what they do is bormal and anyone who likes somethig else is bad,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:15 PM

11. "People shouldn't be allowed to have sex that..." that's exactly it.

Exactly. Scare quotes must be put around otherwise non-ambiguous terms like "consent' and "private" to justify telling people what choices they're allowed to make about their own sex lives, the same sort of thing that would be instantly called out if it was, say, a fundamentalist Christian trying to tell gay people what not to do in the bedroom.

It's a weird conflation, but it belies the fact that this guy has been schooled in the dogma that says ALL sex is nonconsensual*

*under "The Patriarchy", of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #11)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:18 AM

20. is that all sex is nonconsensual, or just one facet of sex

 

there seems to be a lot of people who dont like other people having their jollies whether its on religious grounds or another bee in their bonnet. As long as its consensual who cares what adults do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #20)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 01:24 AM

21. There is a subset of self-described "radfems" that seem particularly upset about all penetrative sex

that involves a female and a penis.

I agree with you; if everyone involved is a consenting adult, it's their own business.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #21)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:21 AM

22. Im having problems getting my mind around this one, Are you saying that they believe that no hetero

 

sex is ever consensual, not sure what to think on that one but i presume lots of women like penises and what they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #22)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:46 AM

25. Yeah.

It's a small group, to be sure, but that's a core tenet of the dogma.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #25)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:11 AM

26. so its kinda nuts for want of a better word.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #26)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 11:41 AM

28. Ah, but you think it's "kinda nuts" because the patriarchy has conditioned you

As it has most people......

Obviously, it is nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 03:51 PM

29. "in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist." - that's a quote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 05:31 PM

30. There are all sorts of fun quotes....

....but when you confront people around here with them.....it's all satire and "get over it, I'm done here" spin.

Just like "Seduction is often difficult to distinguish from rape. In seduction, the rapist often bothers to buy a bottle of wine."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #30)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 05:48 PM

31. or the alternate canned response:

 

"Well, I never even heard of Dworkin before this thread"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #29)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:20 PM

35. Unbelievable garbage..

"Letting him use you as a toilet shows how much you love him.'

Nice. real nice..

Then the top two books from Twisty's reading list:

Andrea Dworkin. Intercourse

Andrea Dworkin. Right-Wing Women

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/extra-credit/

Dworkin..what a surprise. Anti sex 2nd wave radfems..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:25 PM

36. Does she think men have sex with toilets?

 

Or that ejaculation involves the release of urine?

If not then how does she equate sex with "using you as a toilet".

If so then where the hell did she get her information? Her biology/sex ed teacher should be shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #36)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:45 PM

39. She doesn't need information..

and fuck any facts too...for all women, whether they agree or not (those that don't will have to be reeducated) are victims of the evil oppressive patriarchy. Male privilege being symbolized by the penetration of our penises into the "giant Yes-vagina"..

I'm not sure whether to laugh at that crap or what..



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Upton (Reply #35)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:40 PM

38. It's very frustrating to get all fucking old and realize no one takes your shit very seriously.

These goobers had about 5 minutes in 1974 when a few people actually listened to what they had to say, and it's been downhill ever since... so they're like someone who is deeply invested in, say, the idea that the Member's Only jacket will eventually come back into style and stay that way. (It will! It will!)

They look around and see attractive young women taking their clothes off and screwing their "oppressors" and, worst of all, not stopping when ordered to by their elders.

So, they're pissed, and irrelevant. Bad combo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:23 PM

40. And they demand to know "why???"

Oh good lord, there MUST be some horrible reason, some evil dark hand behind it all.

It couldn't possibly be THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THE SAME VIEW I DO!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #40)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 08:46 PM

41. I am glad that we all dont think alike, would be kinda boring if everyone liked the same porn

 

or sex position, or toys. variety is what makes sex fun, would hate it if you had to perform to a fixed appproved gameplan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #38)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 09:07 PM

42. "So, they're pissed, and irrelevant. Bad combo."

 

Fundamentally no different than the Westboro Baptist church folks.

Both also rely on making intentionally outrageous claims to stay relevant and not be ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #38)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

57. lol at the imagery. i thought it was a religious objection to sex but it seems much more wierd

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 06:54 PM

32. I must just be around a different group of people, who enjoy sex and all its connotations

 

I would hate to think that anytime i touch someone or they touch me that i have to psycho analyse them and myself or feel dirty or sick if i have a sexual thought or think someone is pretty or hot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #32)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:25 PM

37. I think what is happening is people are either stealth religious fundamentalists, or are sublimating

that same deeply ingrained religious guilt and loathing for sex.

(I mean, "Sinfest"? Duh.)

It's just manifesting in a weird, different way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 03:22 PM

4. No sometimes means yes

I've posted this study a couple of times here on DU and interestingly enough not a single one of the usual suspects have offered a comment other than calling me a misogynist and a fan of date rape for referencing it, even though the study was authored by two feminists.

Citation

Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex.
Muehlenhard, Charlene L.; Hollabaugh, Lisa C.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 54(5), May 1988, 872-879. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.872

Abstract

We investigated whether women ever engage in token resistance to sex—saying no but meaning yes—and, if they do, what their reasons are for doing so. A questionnaire administered to 610 undergraduate women asked whether they had ever engaged in token resistance and, if so, asked them to rate the importance of 26 possible reasons. We found that 39.3% of the women had engaged in token resistance at least once. Their reasons fell into three categories: practical, inhibition-related, and manipulative reasons. Women's gender role attitudes, erotophobia–erotophilia, and other attitudes and beliefs varied as a function of their experience with token resistance and their sexual experience. We argue that, given society's sexual double standard, token resistance may be a rational behavior. It could, however, have negative consequences, including discouraging honest communication, perpetuating restrictive gender stereotypes, and—if men learn to disregard women's refusals—increasing the incidence of rape. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/54/5/872/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:22 AM

7. That's because the patriarchy tricks women in to thinking they want to have sex

 

when in reality no normal woman could ever lower herself to engaging in intercourse with a male. Any desire to do so is necessarily a sign of mental illness brought on by, you guessed it, the patriarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #7)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:27 AM

24. not sure if you are serious or not, hopefully it is a parody cause its kinda monty python esque

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #24)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 10:46 AM

27. Just channeling my inner Dworkin

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)


Response to eek MD (Reply #9)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 01:19 PM

10. Survey says......That's the #1 reason

However, there's actually quite a few reasons the study investigated. One of the things I found most interesting about the study is they proposed the idea that token resistance may actually increase the incidence of "surprise sex" (whatever that means).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 05:17 PM

12. Nevertheless, the message "No Means No" is important, as is a clear, unambiguous concept of consent.

Whatever anyone may or may not have done or may or may not have said, is beside the point. The only way to approach consenting adult sexuality in a sane way is to assume that people mean what they say. If someone is saying "no" but really means yes, they're going to either have to figure out how to communicate more clearly- or miss out on the awesomeness.



At least that's how I feel about it. No absolutely means No, period, end of story. But the reflexive corollary to that is "yes means yes", much to the chagrin of the busybodies who would tell women, for instance, that they minute they take their clothes off in front of a camera their brain has been sucked out of their heads and no matter what they say to the contrary, they CANNOT POSSIBLY 'consent'.

No means No.

And Yes Means Yes.


Unfortunately, the 2nd Wave anti-sex puritans are guilty of muddying that distinction, because they want to convince everyone that Yes means No, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #12)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:20 PM

16. From the male perspective, that's always the safest way to go

However, it's important to remember the survey was from the female perspective. Body language and context do play a part in that conversation (as is the case with most communications), at least with some women. If the woman says no the first time, and the man asks again and gets a different answer, that's still a yes. As you suggest, the anti-sex crowd may have a different point of view.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #16)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 01:22 AM

18. I think clear, direct and honest communication is vitally important in any relationship.

It seems to be difficult for some people to do, sadly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 02:26 AM

23. Best thing is to have a written contract it seems that needs to be witnessed by both sets of parents

 

all kidding aside there does seem to be people who cant either read the clear signals or choose to ignore them and this leads into all sorts of problems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:41 PM

14. The study shows that "No means no" is a good message for young women too. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #14)

Mon Jul 16, 2012, 05:09 AM

19. Maybe we are seeing the effect of 2nd wave dogma telling em they're not capable of really consenting

So, why bother to try?

Seriously, i think the sort of mushy wack-a-doo gibberish pushing these extremists go through due to their cultlike anti sex beliefs REALLY obfuscates what should be clear and unambigious concepts, like consent.

Of course, their religious right allies also dont think pople have much agency or should be permitted personal choice. So much easier to let "god" make all our decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #4)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 09:59 PM

15. Well, I generally don't play that game.

I don't like games. No means no. When they come back after and say they were just teasing or whatever, it generally tells me all I need to know about using sex as a weapon and whether I want to waste my time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #15)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 11:23 PM

17. I agree

Anytime sex is used as a negotiating tool, I'm out. Fortunately I've been married to the same woman for almost 30 years and at my age I get asked more than I ask.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Sat Jul 14, 2012, 09:19 PM

5. Shouldn't any mention of the patriarchy be grounds to move the OP to....

The Creative Speculation group? I mean isn't that where all conspiracy theories are to be discussed?
You can't talk about these things:
LIHOP
MIHOP
The Grassy Knoll
Knights Templar
Bilderberg
Chem-trails
Building 7
Area 51
etc...

But anybody can claim the patriarchy is fact in any group or forum...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jorno67 (Reply #5)

Sun Jul 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

13. When they tried to blame it for NASA's assault on the moon goddess, tho....

Well, you know many shades of screwed up that got.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #13)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 06:55 PM

33. okay i got to ask if this is from a word generator or is this something that really happened.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to loli phabay (Reply #33)

Tue Jul 17, 2012, 07:06 PM

34. really happened.

Long story, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Warren DeMontague (Original post)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 02:19 PM

43. Right. I had hoped someone else would point this out...

The first comic isn't saying "avoid sex at all costs", it's simply presenting a fantasy. I'm sure plenty of attractive men have experienced the situation wherein a "no" response is not respected and an interested party insists on bothering them.

The second comic isn't portraying someone "being attracted to a female", he is spying on her in her back yard. That is an invasion of privacy.

That's all I wanted to do, is point out where the OP misrepresents the situations portrayed in these comics. It is not my intention to stick around and disrupt in this group. I got the message loud and clear after posting that video.

Also, Tatsuya Ishida frequently lampoons religion. If I had to guess I'd say he's a secular humanist. Then again religious motives are ascribed to many people by some in this group for some strange reason, so... whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 07:01 PM

44. Okay, great. A couple things.

First off, please note that you found something you felt you should challenge on a factual basis, and you have been permitted to come in here and challenge it. No one has blocked you from this group or otherwise tried to stop you from expressing your opinion, here.

Conversely, all manner of dubious assertions are made in the History of Feminist group, which many of us particularly "hope" someone will challenge on a factual basis, yet an ever-expanding list of folks have been arbitrarily blocked from that group, many of us (like myself) not even on the basis of anything said inside the group itself, but rather because of nebulous feelings about what we might say, or fears that our POV might be too distressing to the membership there, or too challenging to deal with, too difficult to refute, etc.

So, fine. What we do then, often, is start parallel threads over here to challenge the "facts" presented in HoF, an act which itself has prompted no end to complaining and whining in meta from several HoF members, yourself included.

I think you should consider that.

Now, onto Mr. Ishida: What he is doing, both in terms of 50 shades of Grey AND Charlie Brown, is deliberately misrepresenting what those stories are about. 50 Shades of gray, it is implied, is about rape, because his "answer" is about saying no and being listened to. Charlie Brown must be a stalker and a criminal, ha ha.

The ONLY reasonable assumption one can draw from both of these bizarro interpretations of these works, is that Mr. Ishida is either disingenuous, or he genuinely believes that "consensual sex=rape" and "liking a female=stalking her."

Tatsuya Ishida 'frequently lampoons religion'? Bull. He frequently lampoons men, who, as I said, are all stupid, evil, and in varying degrees agents of the spooky, Matrix-like "Patriarchy". That's his entire fucking shtick, at least for the past year or so.

"religious motives are ascribed to many people by some in this group for some strange reason"

No, the reason isn't that strange, when groups like the AFA and the "Lighted Candle Society" are frequently promoted in HoF. When "Sources" like Anti-Gay Bigot Judith Reisman and Donald "He Restoreth Me" Hilton are roundly quoted and praised. When "pioneers" like Dworkin and MacKinnon routinely palled up with members of the religious right to advance their "common goals" (i.e. censoring pictures of naked women)

Remember "beauty redefined"? Funny, I didn't hear back from you on that one--


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=123232

Oh, and how about "Shelley Lubben", founder of "The Pink Cross Society"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12557908

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_Lubben

When Lubben identifies interested individuals, she sends care packages filled with religious literature, Bibles, Christian music, local grocery and department store gift cards, and other spiritual and practical supports



"some strange reason"?


...yeah, If the shoe fits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #44)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:27 AM

46. Um, no.

First off, please note that you found something you felt you should challenge on a factual basis, and you have been permitted to come in here and challenge it. No one has blocked you from this group or otherwise tried to stop you from expressing your opinion, here.

No, you didn't block me. You didn't have the power at the time. You made your opinion about my participation clear though, didn't you?

Let's recall:
So can I come into the Feminists group and post a video of what I think women should be like?

Just curious.

I also got a nice PM making it clear I wasn't welcome. So be it. In the subsequent months it became clear it's not a group I want to participate in anyway, trust me.



So, fine. What we do then, often, is start parallel threads over here to challenge the "facts" presented in HoF, an act which itself has prompted no end to complaining and whining in meta from several HoF members, yourself included.

I think you should consider that.

Challenging facts? Is that what you call it?

This is what you posted after the subject of the portrayal of women in video games was discussed in HoF:
I know it's a topic that people who DON'T play video games like to opine an awful lot about, sort of like how the most outspoken "experts" on shows like Game Of Thrones or Mad Men often seem to be folks who also say "I Just can't bring myself to actually WATCH it... (but I know it's TERRIBLE! )"

It's a little better than the responses that Anita Sarkeesian got for discussing it, so I suppose there is that.

This is what you posted after we discussed a review of Game of Thrones that was published in the New Yorker:
Game of Thrones fans?

Ive been enjoying the hell out of that show. After Season I I went and read the books, as fans no doubt know it looks like the series is diverging more from the books this season. I think the writing has been a bit weaker, but I also get the challenge of compressing such a rich narrative into a season of 10 1 hr. episodes.

Anyway, I've found it to be pretty good television, of course HBO often does good work.

These opinions of yours (not facts) were followed by many pictures of hot women, very crucial to discussing what good work the 'we can make good programs without soft porn in them, but why would we?!' network this show is. To their credit, many people did discuss the show without apparently feeling the need to pepper their responses with examples of the objectification of women, so that was nice.


And on top of all this, the very idea of objectification was given the same treatment that rightwingers and libertarians give to theories of global warming. Fortunately for climate scientists, their studies aren't as susceptible to the nonsensical view that if a religious person is in any way involved, it is therefore dismissed. I suppose you haven't noticed yet, but religious people are a very large and varied group. They're not all anti-science, they're not all right-wingers, and a lot of them do good work.


Now, onto Mr. Ishida: What he is doing, both in terms of 50 shades of Grey AND Charlie Brown, is deliberately misrepresenting what those stories are about. 50 Shades of gray, it is implied, is about rape, because his "answer" is about saying no and being listened to. Charlie Brown must be a stalker and a criminal, ha ha.

No, that's your inference (yet another opinion, as opposed to a fact). You could always email him and ask.


Tatsuya Ishida 'frequently lampoons religion'? Bull. He frequently lampoons men, who, as I said, are all stupid, evil, and in varying degrees agents of the spooky, Matrix-like "Patriarchy". That's his entire fucking shtick, at least for the past year or so.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4332

... and you pretend to be so concerned about facts.


Not interested in your obsession with pretending that any and all anti-porn and anti-prostitution people simply must be religious. Some are, some aren't. Their religious beliefs don't change any of the actual facts that they reveal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #46)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 05:17 PM

60. Um, yeah.

No, you didn't block me.


I'm talking about NOW. Using the criteria which is used over at HoF, you could have been blocked at any time, for any reason, based on crap you posted in meta or simply being an "enemy of the state". It's worth mentioning, again, that I was blocked from that group not on the basis of anything I wrote inside the group- Nothing- but just because. It just happened. Which strikes me, frankly, as more than a little chickenshit. But, whatever.

In the subsequent months it became clear it's not a group I want to participate in anyway, trust me.


And, yet, here you are.

This is what you posted after the subject of the portrayal of women in video games was discussed in HoF:
I know it's a topic that people who DON'T play video games like to opine an awful lot about, sort of like how the most outspoken "experts" on shows like Game Of Thrones or Mad Men often seem to be folks who also say "I Just can't bring myself to actually WATCH it... (but I know it's TERRIBLE! )"


Yep. And I'd post it again, because it's true. I've noticed that a particular obsession of your group is opining on media, entertainment, etc. that the opiners haven't even taken the time to investigate or watch. Mad Men is great television. Game of Thrones is great television. There are a lot of great, intelligent video games out there. If people can't or won't bring themselves to see that because they are stopped at the gate by a scantily clad breast or two, that is their loss. And yeah, they're talking out of their... well, from a cavern of deep dark uninformed-ness, let's put it that way.. when they opine on those matters despite not having the faintest clue as to what they're talking about.

It's a little better than the responses that Anita Sarkeesian got for discussing it, so I suppose there is that.


It is? You know what else it's better than? The Ham Omlette at Denny's. But why? Why is it "better"? I disagreed, and mocked. Not only that but I mocked in a disagreeable fashion. Shouldn't you be reporting me to the Central Scrutinizer, about now?

These opinions of yours (not facts)


You're right. When I discuss things, I often include my opinions on them. So sue me.

were followed by many pictures of hot women, very crucial to discussing...


OH MY GOD! NOOOOOO!

Look, let's cut to the fucking chase. People have sex. People are attracted to sexy people. People are visually attracted to visually attractive people. People like to look at attractive people of the gender or genders they are attracted to. why this makes you so mad... What you're saying here is, you "had no interest in participating in this group" yet you felt oddly compelled to come over here and get all bothered by the pictures of the hot women anyway. Honestly, don't you have better shit to worry about?

many people did discuss the show without apparently feeling the need to pepper their responses with examples of the objectification of women, so that was nice.


You know what I thought was nice? The pictures of the hot women. I did. Again, report me to the central scrutinizer! Seriously, though, if you're unable to watch the show because of the sex, you're missing out. It's one hell of a yarn. Why does HBO "need" to have the sex to tell the story? Um, maybe because it is IN THE STORY. Take it up with George R.R. Martin, that furry greybearded agent of the Patriarchy.

And on top of all this, the very idea of objectification was given the same treatment that rightwingers and libertarians give to theories of global warming.


And, the same treatment that the FDA gave the people selling Mexican Laetrile. And, the same treatment the Amazing Randi gave Uri Geller. Is this what passes for "logic" in the HoF group? Seriously? "You Debunked An Assertion. You know who else did that, once? That's right, Vlad the Impaler".



Fortunately for climate scientists, their studies aren't as susceptible to the nonsensical view that if a religious person is in any way involved, it is therefore dismissed.



Uh, yeah. And do you wonder why "their studies aren't as susceptible"? Because they are based on hard scientific facts, like the FACT that CO2 is transparent to light yet traps heat, so if you increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere obviously you will eventually see a temperature increase. Conversely, they are NOT based on blibber blubber like "the pervasive male gaze" and statements like "objectification disrupts the flow of consciousness".

See, that's NOT SCIENCE. It's gibberish, written by womens studies grad students who are preaching to the choir about what they "know".

if a religious person is in any way involved, it is therefore dismissed. I suppose you haven't noticed yet, but religious people are a very large and varied group. They're not all anti-science, they're not all right-wingers, and a lot of them do good work.


Let's be clear, shall we, about who you're defending here, i.e. Dr. Judith Reisman:

"idealistic “gay youth” groups are being formed and staffed in classrooms nationwide by recruiters too similar to those who formed the original “Hitler youth”."


http://ethericwarriors.com/device_tutorials/b/reisman.html

"The similarities between Hitler’s National Socialist Teachers Association (NSTA) and the Rockefeller and Playboy funded National Education Association (NEA) and American Library Association (ALA) troubles some World War II elders."


http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/people/judith-reisman

So. Shall I go on? See, if someone wanted to use the tactics you were using, despicably, against Jeff recently, they would follow you around DU and challenge you, or seabeyond, as a supporter of this shit, every time you tried to write anything on any topic at all. Sleazy-ass move, isn't it?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #43)

Wed Jul 18, 2012, 08:23 PM

45. This is a joke, yes?

If so, you should be highly commended for your brilliant sense of deadpan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 11:30 AM

47. Charlie Brown as a Stalker? Bull fucking shit....

Any one who ever read Schultz knew the whole idea of Charlie Brown is that he was a shy guy too afraid to talk to the girl of his dreams.

For Ishida to draw a POS cartoon about one of the most revered cartoon characters out there, as well as one of the icons of the daily strip cartoon (Schultz) shows just how fucked up Ishida's mindset is. I'm surprised he didn't throw in terms like "lookism".

The Schultz family keeps an army of lawyers on retainer for violations of their copyright. I hope they sued Ishida for every penny they could get as violation of their copyright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #47)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 12:10 PM

49. I guess you're not aware that parody doesn't require permission.

I doubt there was a strip where Charlie Brown actually spied on her in her back yard.

The point of the strip isn't that Charlie Brown is a stalker. The point is that all too often, problematic behavior is handwaved away with the rationalization that the person wasn't intending to do something awful, and their unacceptable behavior should be tolerated because they're just shy, awkward, etc. Charlie Brown was used for his iconic portrayal of that type of character. It's been ages since I read any of the little red haired girl strips so I have no idea if there was any actual problematic behavior portrayed in them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 12:51 PM

50. "problematic behavior"

 

Umm, they're kids.

In my experience, the phrase "problematic behavior" is central to what's wrong with schools. Educators, who are increasingly ignorant of what being a boy is like, are nevertheless hypervigilant about every potential red flag. "The boys were playing some sort of game involving "cowboys" and "indians" on the playground today, and your son was making bang-bang noises with a pretend gun. I just thought you as parents should sit down with the school psychologist about staff concerns."

In the Shultz universe, Charlie Brown is attracted to the red haired girl, even though he doesn't know exactly why, and certainly has no clue on how to address it. Modern society has, like this strip shows, turned healthy boy behavior into a pathology.

The strip is a better parody of hypervigilance than "problematic behavior".

And yes, I would handwave away most of what you would describe as problematic, but it doesn't require any rationalization on my part because it is simply developmentally normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 01:00 PM

51. I agree on all points.

Kids that young are still learning. Hypervigilance does indeed often cause more problems than it solves.

However I doubt the intent of the strip was to critique the behavior of kids in Charlie Brown's age range. It seems to me that his character is used simply for its immediately recognizeable shy guy persona. Kids aren't served restraining orders. It's not a literal thing. Just like the bandage in the strip which followed the one about being punished for being a bad secular humanist.

Edited to add: I have a question for you, Jeff... Speaking of kids and learning. Let's say a group of 8th graders are hanging out after completing a team assignment. The group is mostly boys, plus one girl. The conversation turns to some movie with lots of sex in it, and then to porn. The lone girl, at 14, is uncomfortable and simply goes quiet. She considers it 'normal' behavior and says nothing until much later, as an aside in another discussion.

Thoughts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #51)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:30 PM

64. So you're only in favor of "hypervigilance" when it comes to what grown-ups do, then?

As for your example, I think that sort of discussion is clearly inappropriate for a school setting, and if the girl was made uncomfortable by it, she should talk to a teacher about it.

Now, how about answering this question; is there ANY graphic visual depiction of ADULT CONSENSUAL SEX that you would not consider, as you put it, "problematic"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:04 PM

68. This falls in line with the poster's view of male sexuality

She has stated elsewhere, she essentially does not give a fig nor has empathy for men who have difficulty engaging in romantic and sexual relationships because of shyness, awkwardness, social anxiety, and/or possible depression and autistic behavior. Men who desire sexual contact are acting ENTITLED and abusing their PRIVILEGE to even think of say, going to a sex worker/therapist. (Of course, you wonder if this contempt extends to women who desire the same things, but have the same and similar issues....given the dim view of modern sexuality in general....probably). The natural human desire to engage in some form of consensual sexual activity with another person to enjoy a fulfilling life is to be scoffed at, another primitive tool of the patriarchy I suppose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #64)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 09:19 PM

70. Of course.

I've seen more than a few movies in which the people involved are shown having a sexual relationship which doesn't portray either of them either as unequal partners. There are good sex scenes and there are the far more common McSexy Sex scenes. And then there's porn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 09:21 PM

71. Maybe i wasnt clear: i mean a film of actual sex. Graphically depicted.

Or maybe to you that's not porn?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #70)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 10:21 PM

74. So the only acceptable sex is not real sex?

 

They don't portray any actual sex in movies.

So as long as it's mostly shadows, creative camera angles, candles, and panning away while music plays that is acceptable.

However penetration is not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #50)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 01:28 PM

53. If you're to take the Peanuts world literally

 

and treat them as you would adults it's horrifying.

Not a one of them can understand normal human conversation. They have regular discussions with a dog and a bird. One kid is left to live in filth all the time. The girls are alternatively obsessive stalkers or violent sociopaths. The boys are all socially awkward to a point of pathology.

Oh and at the end of each movie they all seem to suffer seizures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #53)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:14 PM

62. Not to mention the fact that anatomically, the size of their heads would render them unable to

survive in Earth's gravity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 01:20 PM

52. The thing about parody, is that it has to well, parody.

That strip of Ishida's does not parody Schultz's character. In fact it uses the same lines Schultz used in his strips. And the character is drawn EXACTLY as Schultz did.

Furthermore, Ishida used Schultz's SIGNATURE without permission. Note Charlie Brown's hair on his forehead? That isn't just hair, that is a stylized version of Charles Schultz's initials; "CS". Schultz put his hidden initials in every single character he ever drew. This was to prove it was his property others were trying to steal.

Just in case the Schultz family hasn't seen this, I think I'll report Ishida's theft to them, and I hope they hang his sorry ass out to dry.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MicaelS (Reply #52)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 04:44 PM

58. I think you're taking it far too seriously

I still think the toon is funny....I can't believe Ishida is actually trying to make any serious point....I just can't. What others perceive....that's their deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #58)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:31 PM

65. i thought it was funny also and sad

 

In that a little kid to shy to approach his pash gets served with a restraining order as if he is automatically some sort of threat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 02:27 PM

55. I guess you`re not aware that hiding behind "parody"

 

doesn`t automatically grant a copyright infringer impunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #49)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:26 PM

63. Of course it doesn't. Just like we don't require your permission to make fun of it.

The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, there is a small yet vocal group of people who have somehow allowed themselves to think that normal heterosexual attraction is "problematic behavior". That penetrative hetero sex is an artificial patriarchal construct. That looking at a picture of an attractive naked woman is a form of "optical rape". That a male being attracted to a female is automatically suspected of committing some form of assault or invasion.

It's seriously fucked up. I believe, and others have observed, that it is closer to cult thinking than anything else.

Do you have anything to say about the way noted "radfem" blogs- including some of your favorites- conflate consensual sex with non-consent (i.e. Rape?) Don't you think that muddying a clear distinction between the two is, as you put it, "problematic behavior"?

"The problem, really, is that rape and PIV are almost the same thing"


http://radfemimages.wordpress.com/the-gears/#PIV

And, your pal, "Twisty"!

http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2011/07/18/a-bit-of-lighthearted-fun/

"it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist."



So. Muddying the concept of consent and conflating sex with rape: "Problematic Behavior"? Yes? No?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 07:46 PM

66. The comment section on your second link is both horrifying and hilarious

 

Thinking back to when I used to do that sex stuff with dudes (it’s been a glorious 20 years now – YAY I’m gonna throw me a party!), I recall that, even when it was a dude I liked a lot, a fine-looking dude, a kind, fun, respectful, feministy dude; even when it was a dude I loved; even when I was feeling lusty and frisky and horny; even when the experience was delightful and orgasmic, even when it was full of warm-fuzzies and fireworks; when I had sex I always felt, every time, like I had lost an argument, like I had given something up, given in, come around, gone along. Now, I understand why I felt that way, and why it was inevitable that I would feel that way. In a patriarchal culture, it’s part of the contract.


Even though I enjoyed it I've decided it was horrible.

‘Consenting’ does feel a bit silly when you’re sort of aware the dudes are going to go ahead whether you say yes or say nothing – since they don’t really care whether you want to have sex or not, as long as you submit. Makes one feel a bit foolish.


Literally ever man is a rapist. EVERY.SINGLE.ONE!

I’ve always thought that the traditional college party or club setting when looked at from the outside is an insane and rapey institution. A bunch of guys tell women to come to a place, they give them a bunch of free or cheap alcohol (“ladies nights”) and then they turn off all the lights and play music so loud that no one can speak to each other. What could possibly be the purpose for all this I wonder? Oh yeah, sexual assault on the dance floor.


Dance rape. Doesn't even require penetration.


My mom, that grizzled old veteran of the first wave wars, has always opined that men should be kept locked up in a wildlife preserve somewhere and loaned out for sex (to those of us who enjoy the occasional pronging) on an as-needed basis. Something in the back of my mind has always loved that idea.


Hate begets hate. And there are a lot of people who agree with that sentiment later on.

How I deal with the issue of non-consent:

I went on a sex strike for five years after our kid was born, as a way to maintain my autonomy and agency once I realised the kid thing really did economically trap me into my (reasonably happy) marriage with a (reasonably egalitarian, yet clueless) guy. I just couldn’t give up that last thing of myself – if I had, then he would have owned *all* of me, not just my free childkeeping and house labour.

(And I didn’t miss it. Caring for kid, going to school, making art took up all of my energy.)

When I did want to have sex again, I made the political decision to engage with men outside of the marriage, as well as the husband. If I was going to engage in (the oppressive act of) sex, then I would have it *how* I wanted it and with *whomever* I wanted it with, so as to expand the boundaries inherent in the system of non-consent.


So she chose to not have sex with her husband for 5 years (poor dude) then chose to have sex with a bunch of other guys and is mentioning this in a post about how all men are rapists and women have no choice.


For my sister hets who enjoy PIV sex, consider this: men are physiological able to have an orgasm without ejaculating. Yet they all do it, every time — penis-involved sex isn’t considered ‘complete’ until ejaculation occurs. Imagine a world in which men were taught not to ejaculate unless they were specifically asked to by the person they were sexing up. Not as a birth control method, since that wouldn’t prevent pregnancy, but just because it’s messy and uneccessary. Can you hear the howls of dude protest? You have to ask yourself why.


The kind of brilliant analysis you can come up with without doing any research and by refusing to talk to the specimen in question. Would this be femsplaining? As a dude I can say with 100% confidence that women can orgasm every time without foreplay or clitoral stimulation. All it takes is about 30 seconds of penetration and they're there. They simply choose to make it harder than necessary. Duh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:01 PM

67. Oh my.

My mom, that grizzled old veteran of the first wave wars, has always opined that men should be kept locked up in a wildlife preserve somewhere and loaned out for sex (to those of us who enjoy the occasional pronging) on an as-needed basis. Something in the back of my mind has always loved that idea.


This is one of the best plot ideas for a late night B rate movie that I've ever seen. Slave Men of The Jungle! See how these mistresses treat their male slaves when the lights go out! Starring David Hasselhoff, obviously.

Back when porn movies had plots, this could totally be one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #66)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 08:10 PM

69. Wow

A lot of therapy needed there. The married woman withholding sex then going outside for it, however, is likely beyond hope. She sounds like a complete sociopath. From the way she views her child, to the husband....wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #63)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 09:29 PM

72. I had the same reaction to Twisty's assertion at first.

She's using an extremely nuanced definition of the word 'consent'. If you consider that the idea of sex, as almost all of us learn to understand it, is focused on male desire, and that the messages which are conveyed in the vast majority of images and descriptions of sex condition us to accept that definition, then you start to get some idea of what she's talking about.

If we could change those images and descriptions to reflect sex in a more balanced way... a way which didn't portray almost every other act besides Fucking as a type of foreplay, that would help. As I'm sure you know, most women don't get their rocks off from being fucked. That is the way its portrayed, but the reality is that most women orgasm from clitoral stimulation. Yet somehow a scene where the only sex act shown is clitoral stimulation to orgasm is exceedingly rare to say the least. Most descriptions and images portray women as being satisfied by acts which.aren't likely to bring them to orgasm, but are instead aimed at the males in the audience.

And then of course there's the coercion, persuasion, pressure, seduction, etc. All the more overt examples of issues which muddy the waters where consent is concerned.

I expect you'll just end up mocking all of this, but oh well. I did my best to explain the thinking behind these fringe ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 09:53 PM

73. And yes, fringe ideas they are. But I will respond, not mock. To start, I would think that

Anyone interested in combatting societal messages that enable, for instance, date rape, would be extremely averse to ANY "extremely nuanced view of consent". Why doesn't Twisty Faster, or the radfem hub crowd, get more pushback on this?

I have NO problem- whatsoever- with challenging any muddying of the lines of consent from the other direction. There is a post in this group with a poll about women and mixed messages; my response was, tough, if she says no one has to- HAS TO- assume that is what she means. Period. No means No, always, every time.

But the corollary to no means no is yes means yes. You don't have to look real hard in the links I provided, to see people who have a deep rooted problem with this; who want to tell OTHER women, for instance, that no, sorry, as a woman you CANNOT consent. Ever.

There is something really wrong with that, and if men are to "clean our own house" regarding people who would apologize for or equivocate around things like date rape -and I believe we have a responsibility to- i think the Feminist community should repudiate - unequivocally- this kind of extremism as well. Because no one is served by "nuanced views of consent".

If we could change those images and descriptions to reflect sex in a more balanced way... a way which didn't portray almost every other act besides Fucking as a type of foreplay, that would help. As I'm sure you know, most women don't get their rocks off from being fucked. That is the way its portrayed, but the reality is that most women orgasm from clitoral stimulation. Yet somehow a scene where the only sex act shown is clitoral stimulation to orgasm is exceedingly rare to say the least. Most descriptions and images portray women as being satisfied by acts which.aren't likely to bring them to orgasm, but are instead aimed at the males in the audience.


Which brings us back to, again, feminist porn, sex positive porn, and the much maligned "funfem". Look, one of my favorite things to watch (not that you asked) is oral sex. Performed on a woman. Who is clearly getting off on it. Watching blow jobs holds little appeal to me. What can i say? Thats my wiring. And for some reason despite my mens group misogyny and pornified erotoxin addled brain, i NEVER had a problem understanding what women liked, much less being interested in making sure they "got their rocks off".



Should sex be mutually enjoyable? God, i should hope so. And the best thing for sex is good communication. And some people have shitty sex, and bad communication. But that is a far cry from suggesting that sex is inherently non-consensual.

Lastly, AFAIUI, "Twisty" is a Lesbian. to which I say good for her, but she may not be the best situated to make blanket generalizations about how men are having sex with women. The "PIV critical" crowd over at radfem hub, don't sound like they should be giving relationship advice to ANYONE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #73)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 11:16 PM

76. Yep, the way I'd read it, personally,

her definition of consent as used there doesn't result in all sex being rape, but in all consent being tainted. My personal take only, but that's how it seems to me. (I think even Dworkin backed off of those claims.)

As for pushback, there's hardly any need. Not many people read her blog. And I really have no idea what her sexuality is, as I haven't read all of her blog. Nor radfemhub or any other blog. I just see bits and pieces linked here and there. I like what I like and ignore the rest. Kinda like everything else.

The all sex is non consensual thing I think is more of an observation on the way society conditions women to put men's desires before their own. Not that every woman does... It's just a macro level analysis of society.

Thanks for the thoughtful discourse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #76)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 11:43 PM

77. According to her comments

 

she is a homosexual ("dyke" in her words).

Just FYI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #76)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:11 PM

80. Here's something else I would add: It is my belief that the increased openness around sexuality is

a force for societal good. The so-called "pornification" of society is not, to my mind, driving bad sex. Bad sex, callous sex, clumsy sex.. those things have always been with us.

Who do you suppose are the people having the truly shitty sex? Well, for one:



I think when people are sexual, comfortable with their sexuality, feel good about their sexuality, not repressing their sexuality, not denying their sexuality, not walking around in a sexually frustrated funk.... that leads to better sex, better communication between partners, etc. Do I think that all porn is teaching "good sex"? Certainly not in all regards, no. But if it helps people feel more in tune with their sexuality, that is good and that LEADS to better sex.

I do think that, if you're looking at the macro-level societal impacts of things like porn, you can't ignore the fact that violence is down, crime is down.. I'm not suggesting porn has reduced those things, but if the widespread availability of porn via the internet really had these detrimental effects we keep hearing about, surely there would be some macro-level societal evidence to back up the claims.

And what else has happened in society since porn became increasingly available? For one, there is a level of understanding and tolerance for LGBT citizens that we certainly didn't have a couple decades ago. It is my opinion that as people become more comfortable and less repressed about their own sexuality, they become more tolerant of the sexuality of others as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #80)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:15 PM

81. I think either extreme is unhealthy and leads to an unsatisfying sex life...

if one even wants a sex life. Asexual people tend to be ignored and erased in almost every conversation about these issues.

Just MHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #81)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:18 PM

83. Asexual people are probably erased for the same reason non-baseball fans aren't included in MLB

discussions.

I will say, I fully support the right of asexual people to be asexual. I think everyone should be encouraged to walk their own path, and be celebrated for it, as long as it's all Consenting adults and whatnot.

I disagree about the "extremes" thing, though. Some people are highly sexual, they're probably most happy when paired with other highly sexual people. I think it's absolutely possible for highly sexual people to have a satisfying sex life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #72)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 10:24 PM

75. "She's using an extremely nuanced definition of the word 'consent'."

 

Nuanced isn't a euphemism for insane.


If you consider that the idea of sex, as almost all of us learn to understand it, is focused on male desire, and that the messages which are conveyed in the vast majority of images and descriptions of sex condition us to accept that definition, then you start to get some idea of what she's talking about.


Which is why men get to decide when to have sex. We can literally go up to any woman in a bar and say "wanna?" and be nearly guaranteed intercourse.

Whereas women have to do their best to impress us and hope we lower ourselves to sleeping with them.

And then of course there's the coercion, persuasion, pressure, seduction, etc. All the more overt examples of issues which muddy the waters where consent is concerned.


So . . . any kind of sex where the woman doesn't entirely initiate it and the guy remains a passive player.

If he says "I would like to have sex with you" that is coercion. If he listens to you and tries to be nice that's persuasion. If he says let's have sex or I'm going to start dating other women that's pressure. If he puts on cologne that's seduction and so on.

I will never understand sex-negative feminists.

Sure there is bad sex (as in clumsy, unsatisfying, etc). And there is rape (which we are all against of course).

But just like sub-par meals and food-poisoning shouldn't turn you off to food a few bad experiences shouldn't cause you to condemn something that is pretty much at the heart of human society.

Consensual sex can actually A) a real thing and B) quite enjoyable.


/also don't assume men look to porn for actual sex tips. I assume women don't actually listen to the Cosmo sex advice columns, most of which sound horrible and clearly had no input from a man (at least not a healthy one, they seem to support a lot more penis-abuse than most men would enjoy).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #75)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:00 PM

78. "lot more penis-abuse than most men would enjoy" - Is THAT what they're saying in Cosmo?


"The 10 Bedroom Moves that will drive him wild" - slam his dingus in a door!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #78)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:10 PM

79. They get pretty brutal

 

http://www.cracked.com/article/156_7-sex-tips-from-cosmo-that-will-put-you-in-hospital/

I especially like the one that is essentially an indian-burn . . . but on your penis.

It's like these tips were written by a man hating sociopath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #79)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:15 PM

82. Okay, maybe I'm a weirdo, but most of those don't actually sound that bad.

The sneezegasm, yeah, okay.. but the rest, ummmm and... wait! it's Olivia Munn!



Good God, is there no respite from the hottitude?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #82)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:23 PM

84. Not even biting the scrotum?

 

That one screams accidental castration to me.

"Hey honey, tonight I'd like it if you bit my sack. Also . . . have you gained weight?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #84)

Sun Jul 22, 2012, 07:35 PM

85. to be fair, they did qualify it with "gently"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #84)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:47 AM

91. THE ARISTOCRATS!

Sorry, had to!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #82)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 11:52 AM

86. Focus dude, focus!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lumberjack_jeff (Reply #86)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:04 PM

87. It's like she's... Following me!

Help! Whaddoooidoo??!!?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #87)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:12 PM

88. Well now you're just bragging.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #87)

Mon Jul 23, 2012, 05:49 PM

89. The porn has gotten to you

 

It's in your brain, controlling your every action!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #89)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 11:46 AM

90. GET IT OUT OF MY MIND!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #43)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 12:06 PM

48. He ought to be fair

 

and do a comic about how Lucy pulling the ball away at the last second leading to Charlie suffering a concussion is a clear case of assault.

Sally Brown is a dangerously obsessed stalker.

And of course Peppermint Patty is verbally abusive to her "friends".

/wouldn't fit the narrative though would it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 01:42 PM

54. win

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 04:43 PM

56. LOL

That's awesome.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #48)

Thu Jul 19, 2012, 04:52 PM

59. not seen to much charlie brown but enough realise that is knock down funny

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread