HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » caseymoz » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Aug 1, 2008, 07:40 PM
Number of posts: 5,763

Journal Archives

I believe porn isn't really a feminist issue.

It's an issue between people with a high sex drives versus people with low sex drives. This includes the debate about the sex industry in general.

Evidence? Not all feminists are anti-sex. Pro-sex are usually treated by others of the ideology with contempt. Also, many males are also vehemently opposed to porn. More and more women are watching porn, and the difference seeming to be a matter of the ease at which females can feel sympathetic pleasure from watching sex and the ability to reach orgasm. The sales of sex toys, I've heard, now outpaces the sales of iPhones, so it looks like porn is going to gain more female subscribers.

Opposition to porn cuts across genders and ideologies. There are plenty of non-feminist who are as anti-sex as the worst feminists. Though not a lot of Christians would say they're pro-porn or pro-sex industry, there are definitely those who don't consider it a social priority, or who indulge in the sin of it, and ask God's forgiveness, and don't judge others who look at porn. Among the Jews, the pros and antis are easily recognized.

This pattern seems to hold throughout history. No, porn didn't start in the '60s. I saw some of the stag movies from the 1920s, and though their cameras were more immobile, they were in other ways just as explicit as anything in the 1970s.It's a myth that the '60s were a "sexual revolution," at least outside the gay community. What actually happened during the '60s was that censorship broke down. Movies were showing it, and TV was talking about it. Apparently the debate about whether sex should be written or shown in the contemporary goes back to the printing press. The first thing printed was the Bible and the second thing printed was pornography. Even in lascivious Roman times, you had prudes like Pliny the Younger writing that if this lasciviousness didn't stop, Rome was going to fall. And Pliny was right. Just 400 years after he wrote that and after those prudish Christians took over, Rome fell.

And that's my evidence. What does this mean? It means this split has existed as long as there have been cultures. It's based in human biology and it's not going to be settled. The sex industry is going to go through cycles of relative tolerance to extreme crackdowns.

Another conclusion, the pros and antis are not going agree what they see with erotica. They can look at the same work. One sees an erotic picture. The other sees the look of distress in the woman's eye and imagines the gun pointing at her head off frame. The low-sex drive people are perfectly content with monogamy and do not understand visual stimulation any more than a color blind person understands the color red.

But it's even deeper than just not understanding. There's also a nausea effect. Sex acts a person can't enjoy tend to nauseate them. There's also suspicion. They can't ascribe to it a desire to reach orgasm in a creative, memorable way. So, they'll constantly come up with nefarious motives.

I wish they could be injected with testosterone with a couple months and find out what they think about porn and the sex industry afterward. But probably afterward, they'll repent, and be just as sex negative as ever.

My final conclusion, if these prudes didn't have feminism, they would find another ideology for which to attack the sex industry. I mean, the Bolsheviks attacked porn. They found found a way to bend their atheist, non-feminist ideology to do so. The Nazis also cracked down on porn and most of those Nazis came of age in lascivious, freewheeling Wiemar Germany.

AZ's abortion law & My wistful advice to fellow Pro-choicers

With governor Jan Brewer's signature, Arizona has adopted the oppressive anti-choice law I've ever seen. Here are the provisions, care of Dailykos:

• It sets the gestational age as beginning on the first day of a woman’s last period, rather than at fertilization. Which, in practice, means that a virgin can get pregnant and instead of barring abortions after 20 weeks as the law states, actually cuts the time to 18 weeks.

• Medication abortions (by pill), usually done at home or a clinic within the first nine weeks of pregnancy, must now be done by a medical provider who has hospital privileges within 30 miles of where the procedure takes place. The law also mandates outdated protocol that Nash says may cause confusion. The provision is an attempt to shut down medication abortions altogether. North Dakota and Oklahoma are in litigation over similar provisions in their laws.

• Sex education is not mandated in Arizona, but any such education must now prioritize birth and adoption.

• Health-care facilities must put up signs warning against abortion "coercion."

• The state health department must set up a website focusing on alternatives to abortion and displaying photos of fetuses.

• "Counseling" is required for women aiming seeking abortions because of fetal abnormalities. Such counseling must include perinatal hospice information.

• Previous requirements are reiterated for a notarized parental consent form for minors and a mandatory ultrasound screening 24 hours before having an abortion.

No, this isn't from The Onion. It's real, but it's still a joke, and jokes like this are being told in state laws all across the country now. I'm sure 300 years from now they'll be laughing at Arizona. Right now, however, if you're Pro-choice you should be gaping instead of laughing. This law, and others like it, are a horror show.

The Pro-choice, Pro-reproductive rights is in in full retreat now, and it better change strategies fast. What's so sad here is, the Pro-choicers have squandered a winning position (just as NORML did in the '70s) because from NARAL on down they were afraid, yes, afraid, to find their message and stick to it. I suspect they thought they couldn't win the argument on moral principles, or maybe they thought they couldn't put their message simply enough. The fact is, they can do both.


What I suggest first: stop accusing the other side of misogyny and/or chauvinism.

Yes, it is their real the motive. They show it repeatedly with their proposals and with their Freudian gaffs. However, accusing them of hating women is a losing strategy socially and politically.

Why? Misogyny appears to be mostly an unconscious motive. Therefore, by definition, Anti-choicers can neither acknowledge it as their main drive, nor change it without serious psychiatric treatment. Despite the fact that we can see why they're doing it, they don't and they can't. Moreover, since they don't, it means other people often can't either. Those people take the anti-choice message at face value, and if they see misogyny, they see it like a necessary evil or side issue and not the cause. Therefore, the Anti-Choicers arguments will have sway with the populace, as long as the message is simple enough and it follows principles of propaganda. "Life begins at conception," is as simple as it gets, even if it's total nonsense.

Stop deconstructing anti-choicer motives. This gains nothing except praise and agreement from other Pro-choicers, who already see the ulterior root. This amounts to discussion among friends that feels like activism but isn't.

Instead, we have to start meeting and beating Anti-choicer's propaganda with a simple counter-argument. Here it is: "A zygote is not a child, not a person. A fetus is not a child, not a person." Say that enough and point to this simple evidence: "You take a fetus out of the womb, it dies. You put a child in the womb, the child dies." You could follow it with things like: "If the fetus were a person, your duty would be to rescue it from the womb."

You could say other things to counter the religious argument. Such as, "God is not going to punish our nation for abortion." He hasn't done it to any other nation.

And keep it as basic and simple as their slogan: "Life begins at conception." As nonsensical as that statement is, its construction and circulation has followed the Goebels propaganda textbook. Besides its simplicity, they repeat it year after year. They make variants on it. Over time, unopposed, it has gained and rallied converts and believers.

You might cite scientific evidence when you actually debate, because the science is on the our side, too, but remember get back to the basic message and just repeat it. That's what's important.

Remember, you're not a therapist. You can't do anything against their unconscious motive, but you can disarm it by attacking the conscious rationalizations. Misogyny can't gain a political foothold without a conscious cover story like protecting "the sanctity of life." Stay on topic. Start trying to meet and beat Anti-choicers own arguments.

Remember, we have the moral high ground because the notion that zygotes and fetuses are people is a ridiculous fantasy. That has always been the weak point in the Anti-choicers' argument. Attack it there, and don't stop. It might not gain ground immediately, but over time, it will chip away at their power and turn back their victories.

The two sides have been talking by each other now for two generations. The Anti-choicers make moral arguments based on the factual error that a zygote or a fetus is a person. Instead of meeting that head-on, Pro-choicers have attacked the other side's ulterior motives. The Anti-choicers simply ignore or deny them, and go back to their moral arguments. Unopposed, those arguments have been winning. Their side has a message, our side has an ineffective attack. We've been losing with it for almost forty years.

That's my major suggestion. I also have a minor one: if I were a young woman, I would leave Arizona, Oklahoma and other states making these laws. Abandon Mississippi for goodness sake, which only has one abortion clinic that lawmakers are busy trying to put out of business. I suggest hetero- and bisexual women do this in protest. Definitely, don't have sex with men in states passing laws like Arizona's or Oklahoma's. That will at least keep the issue in the forefront.

All is not lost yet, but we've lost so much now. Fellow Pro-choicers: please get your act together. Start taking responsibility for a socio-political contest that, since 1973, has been yours to lose. Don't go NORML.

How government deficits favor the wealthy.

Government deficits favoring the wealthy is not a topic I've heard brought up in any political forum.

If you have buttloads of money you can't possibly use but don't want to lose, how would you rather support government? With taxes or with loans?

And who has the most wherewithal to buy bonds at auction? The rich the middle class or the poor?

The wealthy of course, making a loan is far better than being taxed. The wealthy can collect a cut on their mature bonds, of course, and have then always have the option to sell the debt to recoup their principal.

Therefore, deficits turn the government into an investment for the wealthy. Now ask yourself how does the government pay on these loans? This has an easy answer: the greatest proportion comes from the taxes paid by the lower and middle classes.

Capitalism has its own force of gravity: money attracts money. (Money also has its own law of entropy, but that's a different topic.) Like physical gravity, it's something you don't notice until massive amounts of currency are involved. The key behind this gravity is compound interest.

Nobody yet has seen that it's in the interest of the wealthy to have government deficits. And though I can't prove this, my guess is that's the real reason why we have runaway government debt for decades. Meanwhile, lacking the reserves of cash to make significant loans, the lower and middle classes have an interest in supporting government through taxes. (No pun intended). Taxes favor the lower and middle classes, loans favor the wealthy. If the lower and middle classes would catch on to this, the Tea Party idiots wouldn't be clamoring for lighter taxes and "not punishing" the wealthy. By not "punishing" the rich, they reward the rich. It guarantees the rich will get richer, and definitely, they will get richer at the expense of everyone else.

However, there is a limit to how much a government can loan, and these loans only work for the wealthy if the government doesn't default. That's why you're hearing all these calls for austerity because default is becoming a danger. My guess is, propaganda and deliberate mis-education are behind those calls.

Austerity is nothing but the wealthy demanding they be paid no matter what. It never works for fixing the economy as the wealthy promise. Heinrich Bruning, Chancellor of Germany in 1930-32, forced through an austerity program. Bruning was a trained economist and not a bad man. His economic measures discredited both himself and his Center Party, the last moderate political entity to stand against Hitler. He became known as "the Hunger Chancellor." We all know how well this ended, and it goes to show, austerity is socially destabilizing.

However, then as now, austerity was considered a sound program, because more than half of economics is influenced by the interests of the wealthy.

My sense is that governments have become another investment bubble. Remember when housing was "safe?" These days, when word gets around that any investment is a safe bet, that's when you have to worry. They'll milk it until it's no longer safe, then they'll milk its blood until it's dead. That's what happened to the housing market.

The US government is a two-generation-old bubble. Now Europe's a bubble, too. So are most governments of the world.

So, don't fool yourself about class harmony. Class division is really what's behind the fiscal failure in our state and federal governments. And the first shots in the class war were fired in the '60s, by the wealthy, at the middle class. People need to see it and need to understand how harmful loans at compound interest can be, generally, and how they are particularly set to undermine government. Debt is the leading cause of slavery in the world now. What happens when whole governments are made into slaves?

You either have to default, or tax the rich to cover the debts that they own.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2