NationStates Jolt Archive

Rape is rape, because it lacks consent, by default; however, not all sexual intercourse is rape.... Consent is the core of the issue (NOT OBJECTIFICATION)
Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.
That's funny ... I've never known women to be shy about refusing a "male proposition." Guess I'm just not "patriarcal" enough, eh? :rolleyes:

That's funny ... I've never known women to be shy about refusing a "male proposition." Guess I'm just not "patriarcal" enough, eh? :rolleyes:
MacKinnon would argue that's because they're conditioned to think that way. Male dominance is so ingrained in their minds that they more or less must say yes. I tend to think this is bullshit, but I'm not going to post my reasons until I hear what everyone else has to say.

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.


Kind of makes me ill :p

I assert catherine MacKennon see a good psychiatrist

Kind of makes me ill :p
It kinda puts me on the defensive when I read her. Same sorta thing, I guess.

It kinda puts me on the defensive when I read her. Same sorta thing, I guess.
Just seems too "uber conspiracy that is so subtle and ingrained that no one can even see it"

Tends me to want to check them for schizophrenia

Just seems too "uber conspiracy that is so subtle and ingrained that no one can even see it"

Tends me to want to check them for schizophrenia
Well, she'd argue there's evidence of patriarchy all over popular culture. The acceptance of objectification is one example.

However, one instance of a woman saying no disproves her entire argument, in my mind.

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.That could only be argued in instances where the man initiated sexual relations. If a woman propositions a man, she is not "accepting" anything. Therefore one cannot reasonably argue that all hetero sex is rape.
The fact that men ever get turned down proves that at least a little free will is involved on the part of the woman.
The entire arguement is flawed.

That could only be argued in instances where the man initiated sexual relations. If a woman propositions a man, she is not "accepting" anything. Therefore one cannot reasonably argue that all hetero sex is rape.
No, because those women feel compelled to offer themselves to men because men want sex. If you accept her premise, your argument doesn't fly.

The fact that men ever get turned down proves that at least a little free will is involved on the part of the woman.
The entire arguement is flawed.
That's the best argument. And the one I agree with.

No, because those women feel compelled to offer themselves to men because men want sex. If you accept her premise, your argument doesn't fly.I do not accept her premise. Her arguement can be seen as anti-feminist in that it assumes that women do not have their own sexual needs.
When a woman propositions a man, I assume that it is because she wants to have sex.
When I initiate sex, I consider myself to be asking for something and offering something at the same time. Just like when a guy hits on me.
Someone needs to teach that woman a lesson about equality. She obviously does not understand the concept.
That's the best argument. And the one I agree with.Why thank you.

"Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows"

If someone had schitzophrenia, and were having sex with the consent of one of the peronalities, then changes, and the other personality doesn't want to, this is counted as rape. Likewise, someone who has a mental illness in any way, that has sex with someone else, counts as having sex without their consent.....if you self-harm you have a mental illness. Porn stars often have to be harmed on screen/camera for the punters ...... therefore, the porn star is basically self-harming, and therefore has a mental illness, therefore any sex had is rape.

So is it mental rape for us to have this conversation with you?

I do not accept her premise. Her arguement can be seen as anti-feminist in that it assumes that women do not have their own sexual needs.
When a woman propositions a man, I assume that it is because she wants to have sex.
When I initiate sex, I consider myself to be asking for something and offering something at the same time. Just like when a guy hits on me.
Someone needs to teach that woman a lesson about equality. She obviously does not understand the concept.
She argues that society has conditioned women to think they want something when they actually would or do not. I'm exhausted (and will be for work tommorow), so I can't go into more detail now.

Why thank you.
Any time :p!

She argues that society has conditioned women to think they want something when they actually would or do not. I'm exhausted (and will be for work tommorow), so I can't go into more detail now.I understand her arguement. I do not agree. She is not giving us enough credit as rational human being to decide whether or not to have sex. I find that to be more demeaning than pornography.

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.

I tried to read her book. I really tried. But I can only take so much stupid. It's easy to dispute what she said. Walk through the local mall and ask every woman you see to have sex. Even if you're extremely good-looking, you'll not likely have much success. I think it's the opposite. Women are conditioned to say no to men and men are conditioned to have sex whenever it offered them. Again, let an attractive woman walk around a mall and make the same offer. I think it's obvious which would be more successful. Her arguments would be funny if they weren't so popular.

MacKinnon would argue that's because they're conditioned to think that way. Male dominance is so ingrained in their minds that they more or less must say yes.

That sounds like an absolutely delusional fantasy that most teenage boys would like to be real. Also, wouldn't that mean that all men would be gay because they couldn't refuse to give consent to men due the the imaginary patriarchy, and that lesbianism would be impossible?

Seriously, if I, a man, went on the record saying women only have sex with men because men want it I'd be called a fucked-up apeman who should go back home to his cave and try to discover fire. Why does a woman get to be an 'intellectual' for making that same abysmally sexist comment?

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.

It is not true that Ms. MacKinnon believes all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

Some opponents of the views of Ms. MacKinnon (and the late Andrea Dworkin) characterized them as equating sex and rape. This is not accurate.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm) says that MacKinnon has never said that.

As do other sources: clicky (http://www.feminista.com/archives/v3n8/trigiani.html)

(Deleuze, my strawman comment is not aimed at you. I understand you were trying to introduce another point of view. I think you mistated Ms. MacKinnon's views. And others have jumped on the chance to attack what appears absurd.)

I've never read anything by McKinnon, but if that statement there is in any way representative, I can't help but wonder what strange kind of sexual personality she hase herself.

It's absolutely ridiculous. It's the same as saying that women don't have any sexual personalities as such and can't enjoy sex.

It's more or less on the same level as saying that women are objectified by starring in porn movies. I never understood that one. Why only women? Men are objectified the same way. As a woman enjoying porn now and then I can tell you that in my opinion, men are even more objectified... at least you definitely will see the face of the actress, but the actor is basically reduced to his dick...

"Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows"

If someone had schitzophrenia, and were having sex with the consent of one of the peronalities, then changes, and the other personality doesn't want to, this is counted as rape. Likewise, someone who has a mental illness in any way, that has sex with someone else, counts as having sex without their consent.....if you self-harm you have a mental illness. Porn stars often have to be harmed on screen/camera for the punters ...... therefore, the porn star is basically self-harming, and therefore has a mental illness, therefore any sex had is rape.Ever smoke, or drink or even eat any junk food? Well, then you've harmed yourself! Congratulations, you're fucking insane! I'm insane! My friends and family are insane! By your logic, just about every single damn human on this planet is insane!

Oh, and by the way, most porn doesn't feature anyone being hurt, and when it does, it's FAKE. Yes, it may come as a shock to you, but they can actually fake stuff now!

Seriously, if I, a man, went on the record saying women only have sex with men because men want it I'd be called a fucked-up apeman who should go back home to his cave and try to discover fire. Why does a woman get to be an 'intellectual' for making that same abysmally sexist comment?

That's the problem with many feminists. For example: there are "too many" male scientists, so they should resign and women can take there place.
- There should be more reasons for the lack of female scientists then the "male plot against women".
- If I would like 50% of all nurses to be sacked and their jobs to be replaced by men, I would be a male chauvinist pig.

Something else: It's easier for women to get a fulltime job (like men have), if there is a kindergarten of something for the kids. So say a lot of feminists.
Very strange. I think, if you are a real feminist you would want your husband to take his share of responsibility. He can stay home, for example.

Oh, and porn is not the same as rape.

god... can i just make this clear for you since your only starting with the woman studies classes... do you feel women should be reguarded equally in society ? (pay and promotion in the buisness field)?

if so

your a feminist... man or woman.

No. If you feel that men and women should be regarded equal, think that this is not the case and that this is the biggest problem with the current society. Then you are a feminist.

If you do the first part, but think that race or class inequality is worse than gender inequality, or if you think that freedom or wealth is more important than equality of outcome, then you are not a feminist.

It is not true that Ms. MacKinnon believes all heterosexual intercourse is rape.

Some opponents of the views of Ms. MacKinnon (and the late Andrea Dworkin) characterized them as equating sex and rape. This is not accurate.

Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinno.htm) says that MacKinnon has never said that.

As do other sources: clicky (http://www.feminista.com/archives/v3n8/trigiani.html)

(Deleuze, my strawman comment is not aimed at you. I understand you were trying to introduce another point of view. I think you mistated Ms. MacKinnon's views. And others have jumped on the chance to attack what appears absurd.)


Cat-Tribe, while there's certainly validity to your position, I think MacKinnon was at least in part trying to repair the damage and cleanup the fallout from things she already said:

"the major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."
Source. (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:N89cMDVE7jwJ:www.cybercollege.com/fog43.htm+%22MacKinnon%22+sex+is+rape&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

"Under conditions of male dominance...if sex is something men normally do to women, the issue is less whether there was force than whether consent is a meaningful concept."
Source. (http://www.menweb.org/throop/harass/oncampus.html)

"Once you are used for sex, you are sexualized. You lose your human status. You are sex, therefore unworthy of belief and impossible to violate"
Source, and good explanation of why she consider(s)/(ed) sex to be rape. (http://mtprof.msun.edu/Fall1994/TrtArt.html)

She can cover with after the fact retractions all she wants: but to me, it seems that she at one point went as far as to say that all sex is rape.

Except, the "system" does not "make" people make the choices they do.

And she never "had" to do it.

1. We do not know why, or how she managed to accumulate such a large debt.

2. Even in light of such debt, there was no force or cooersion in how she planned to pay off that debt. Her own decisions were made in light of how she felt was best (for her) to pay it off.

3. She made a decision against her morals; It was still her decision, and she still had options and choices to remain consistent with her own personal morality. Her choice to operate against her morals on this instance; was still a personal choice.

Personal choice and liberty automatically implies that choices of all calibres be available. Even ones you may find distastefull.... Merely because they may be "attractive" does not mean they are "forced" to make such out of attraction; they possess equal liberty to reject (by their choice) as accept (by their choice).

While I may sympathize with your anti-monetary ideas; they are infact not founded in any practical logic or reason. Money is merely a form of trade/negotiation between parties in commerce. Trade can take many forms.

As an illustration, I will point out the system revamped to prevent the use of Social Food-Programs from being used in drug-trade, or for criminal services. The idea was to abolish money in the system. Which was done.... Since there is no trade in "money" or comparible slip. The system would "fix" this problem, right?

Wrong... What occured, was merely people using "food" as a form of tender in trade... Money is not the root of all evil.... It is a consequence of trade... "Money" merely existing as a particular form in mint; for transactions between people selling and buying goods and services.... If the minted aspect is removed; it merely gets replaced in the market transactions with other more core aspects; such as goods and services.... But in reality, is till the same tranaction, and results in the same system; in the long run...

Schools are expensive because there is massive demand for them. As such, the trade in skills and knowledge received from the school, is provided by those who will reap the benefits of that knowledge.... The cost is handled by the demand..... If it costs less to get something, more people get it... Causing less demand.... When demand drops; the resultant market is flooded, causing trade-in-service to drop.... Everyone makes less money, making it just as difficult to pay back the initial debt incurred in the initial service rendered by the school in providing the knowledge and skills to perform their task.... You're back at square one.... With less demand.... less people enter the field; and the demand begins to climb.... And the price for those skills rises..... This creates more of a demand, causing the cost of aquiring those skills to raise.....

The system may not operate flawlessly; but it is a price of "freedom". Because, as soon as you impose over the system, there no longer is "freedom" to those inside of it.

Let's take myself, as example.... I run my own IT contracting business...

My prices are set:
1. To cover my expenses in parts and equipment
2. As a fair value of my labor
3. To undercut competition

If I can provide lower prices, then I can attract business from competitors. Thus creating more demand for my business.

As demand increases, my prices will go up.... While at the same time, I have to ballance that demand, with my own competitory concerns in undercutting other business....

Free-market is competitory.... It ensures competition between individuals in the market....

When a company or person contract; they typically operate by worth of service.... When they have a need, or want; they make their determinations on payment for such service, by how much it is worth to them.... Now, when they seek the contract for the service... They do so by "shopping" around for quotes.... And will likely take the lowest quote; or the lowest reliable quote from a reputable contractor....

If the lowest is too much, according to their worth; they must either accept to higher cost; or reject aquiring the service. It's still their choice.

The same occurs in anything anyone does in this market; even as far as education. They pay for their education, and consent to it; because they deem that "it is worth it".... They pay it back in ways which they personally choose "is worth it"... And they do so, through their own decisions.

This person chooses to go to school, to aquire skill "X".

They incur "Y" debt by this choice.

And they decide to pay back "Y" debt in the fastest way they see possible.

The fastest way, is against moral "Z"; but they decide to do it anyway to consent to their previous decision...

Were they "forced" into prostitution? No....
Did they "have" to prostitute themselves to pay the debt back? No...
Were they forced to go to school to incur this debt? No...
Were they forced to aquire a certain skill/knowlege? No...

They decided freely that they wanted a certain field of study and work....

They decided freely to go to school and incur such debt to aquire that skill/work...

They decided freely to take actions they found distastefull to pay back their debt when aquiring that skill...

And they decided to go against their personal morality in doing so....

While they may assert some "victim" mentality.... The only person they are a victim of, is themselves.... Because everything they did, they did by making the choices to do so.... They were never logically forced into anything...

They could have taken a skill/work other than the one they did, that was less expensive to aquire....

They could have choosen a less expensive school....

They could have choosen to pay the debt off slower...

They could have choosen to enter some other profession...

I do not buy the falacy of "self-victimization"....
I think I get that. It just kills me that there are people out there making porn and hating it, but it is, as you point out, their decision. To me personally though, and that's where it gets really subjective, it just feels wrong, which is reason enough for me to not watch porn.

Reworded - "I see that I cannot win this argument as your stance is much more founded than mine so I will leave instead. Mostly I hate admitting when I'm wrong because I was mistreated as a child. I'm wearing underoos. Why does it smell like bananas in here?"

NOTE: Yes, I have a bit of a disorder.
Good that you know it yourself!

However, I have this little brother that wanted to use this computer and I had already used it for hours, so I had to let him at it at that time.

And I see now, a day later, that I indeed was wrong. I think I got a little carried away with emotions yesterday.

P.S. - What are underoos?

I think I get that. It just kills me that there are people out there making porn and hating it, but it is, as you point out, their decision. To me personally though, and that's where it gets really subjective, it just feels wrong, which is reason enough for me to not watch porn.
And as a free market consumer it is just as much your right to do so just as it is m ine to purchase it (assuming not involving minors and such)

You're right...

Then again, no one would be scrubbing shit from the floor of public bathrooms, if no money was involved....

The problem; those professions don't exist because there is money involved. They exist because people want them. And people choose to do them. Money is a CONSEQUENCE/RESULT and not a CAUSE. The CAUSE is demand... Monetary re-embursement (MONEY) is the EFFECT of the ACTION intailed by the CAUSE.

That is, for your system to work; you must assume no demand, or force no demand.... To do that, you must control people, and make determinations upon their own desires (against their will).

So it still comes back to personal liberty. To remove MONEY for PORN and PROSTITUTION, you must REMOVE PROSTITUTION AND PORN. To do this, you must determine (for others, not in line with their neccessate will) that no one may possess desire for such, therefore removing the DEMAND for such.

PERSON motivated by DESIRE and WANT Creates DEMAND
DEMAND creates MARKET
MARKET creates INDUSTRY
INDUSTRY creates WORKERS
WORKERS create MONEY.
MONEY creates DEMAND
and so on...

To remove the "MONEY" you must remove the "PERSON".... Thereby removing any semblance of "liberty", "freedom", "independence", "individuality"... And such like... Removing "MONEY" only drives it into the "BLACK" (or hidden) Market.... And does not actually do anything towards the act.

The root cause of it all is "PERSON", that is, people, just like you and me, who think independently and make our own choices...

So the logical course... If you want to eradicate the entire industry.... You must remove the entire human race...
Besides the fact that this planet would be so much better off without us humans, I see your point. I don't want to create a system that controls people or limits them in their freedom, I just think that for a lot of people it's not very smart to go work in the sex industry. I am however, not their father. So, let it go, I say to myself, let it go...

And as a free market consumer it is just as much your right to do so just as it is m ine to purchase it (assuming not involving minors and such)
Indeed it is.

I've just finished my first year of a Creative writing and Media Studies degree, and one of my lecturers is really HOT on this subject. He (yes, he, not she) is a feminist, and seriously DOES believe that pornography is just the same as rape. Anyway, this is a subject that I feel (as a 19 year-oldmale) I should be interested in, (plus, the amount he was talking about it this year, I think it's gonna be part of the "test" as it were, next year).... so here's the question....what do you believe?


I have a question. WHY does your teacher believe that pornography is just the same as rape? what is his argument?

P.S. - I have to go again now. Not because my brother is screaming that he wants to play Freddy the Fish this time, but because I have to go to work. I work (and here it comes, people) at the hospital cleaning toilets. Yes, I do it for the money, no I don't think it's degrading and no, I wouldn't do it if I didn't get any money for it. :)

P.S. - I have to go again now. Not because my brother is screaming that he wants to play Freddy the Fish this time, but because I have to go to work. I work (and here it comes, people) at the hospital cleaning toilets. Yes, I do it for the money, no I don't think it's degrading and no, I wouldn't do it if I didn't get any money for it. :)
I did the same in a nursing for almost 4 years

no way is pornography rape, the people involved get paid to do it, how can it even be considered rape??? i need to see the arguement your teacher makes to compare it to rape.

Bravo/Brava (unsure which is apropriate from your use name)

Bravo, I suppose... I'm from the United States (Virginia)...

Note: I don't agree with the argument I'm putting forward. I just think it's interesting to float out there.

A leading feminist intellectual, Catherine MacKinnon, disputed what you just said. To her, all heterosexual intercourse was rape. Everyone's gut reaction is "Bullshit. But she came on to me, and she was totally in control of herself." MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

The applications to pornography are so obvious that they need not be explained in much detail. Men demand that women perform sex acts on screen. Society tells them they can't refuse.

That's not a refutation, that's fucking lunacy.... It's based on subjective criteria; and shows she has an obvious inability to deal with reality...

Women consent, women also don't consent. Consent is the key. And women can offer consent to a relationship.

Her assumption would assume that all women will accept any relationship in offer by a man.... Reality dictates that this does not happen. Therefore her base reason is automatically refuted by objective evidentiary criteria... And therefore her argument is, in objective fact, baseless....

All MacKinnon has done, is prooven she refuses to deal with reality. And has no argument.

However, one instance of a woman saying no disproves her entire argument, in my mind.

That's because you, I, UpwardThrust, etc... Deal with the situation objectively....

Take all the facts at face value; and extrapolate a reasoned approach to particular situation.

I believe she, like some others who have popped in here on differing sides, approach it from the "everyone thinks like me" mentality... And assumes "control" over the ascent and decisions of another. (She is, in a way, assuming her own authority of all women in society; and trying to make them subject to her decision making process and morals.... A form of "mental" slavery...) That is, the assumption that since "I do not like -X-, then no one else could and therefore it is forced that they do so, because I wouldn't...."

That is, she would never offer consent, unless forced to do so (which isn't consent); andtherefore she cannot offer consent.... Therefore since "all women" are like me.... The same applies... They are all forced by society to respond affirmitively to any and all come-ons by males...

Now, for a hypothesis like this, it must always comeout in tests, to be true...

Therefore, whenever offer is presented by males on a women; they will offer consent to them, because they have been "conditioned" to do so...

Now, it's a fairly well established fact; from women who drop relationships, seek new ones, and reject men comming onto them; that this conditioning is in no way universal.... Since it is not universal, the hypothesis that "all women" do so; is automatically refuted (though I am sure there can be casses where this is true).... But she made a universal statement; based on subjective criteria; that is shown by observation to be untrue.... Therefore the statement and hypothesis is false; and you, I and others, will reject it for the absurdity it is...

MacKinnon, however, argues that in a patriarchal society, women cannot consent to men, because society has preconditioned them to accept that men are correct, and that a male proposition is always to be accepted, because men are "the superior sex who's always right." Therefore, all modern female to male consent is impaired consent.

If that were true, I'd be getting a lot more action than I currently get. I've had 'consent refused' a few times, let me tell you..

Anyway, I digress, porn is not rape, that's like saying prawn is cucumber. And porn is just erotic art in full colour. Remember the rule, if the tits are in black and white - it's art! :D

I think I get that. It just kills me that there are people out there making porn and hating it, but it is, as you point out, their decision. To me personally though, and that's where it gets really subjective, it just feels wrong, which is reason enough for me to not watch porn.


Once again, I agree with you personnal morality on it.... I do not agree with prostitution or pornography, and do not partake..... But again; that is my choice.... Where I draw the line, is applying MY CHOICES of subjective morality upon those of others....

Thus, if one were to ask my advise; I'd state my beliefs on the issue, and advise them not to..... That is ok.... I am pleasing with them to make their own moral decision on the issue...

However, to apply my subjective morality, to general law; is, in fact, causing others to be cooerced into my decision, and prevent them from making their own... I would be "deciding" for them, over that which we already accept is of their own possession and theirs alone.

Bump

Cat-Tribe, while there's certainly validity to your position, I think MacKinnon was at least in part trying to repair the damage and cleanup the fallout from things she already said:

Um. As the sources (e.g. Snopes) explained, it isn't a matter of MacKinnon denying she said this. It is that she never say it -- according to objective sources.

No damage or cleanup necessary. I'm not pointing to her post-hoc denials. I'm pointing to analyses that say MacKinnon never took this position in the first place.

Now, let's look at your three alleged out-of-context quotes from a lifetime of essays and books:

Source. (http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:N89cMDVE7jwJ:www.cybercollege.com/fog43.htm+%22MacKinnon%22+sex+is+rape&hl=en&client=firefox-a)

Second-hand (if not third-hand) quote. Not actually a direct citation to MacKinnon.

Questionable source for the second-hand quote.

The quote does not appear to be found anywhere credible on the internet.

Source. (http://www.menweb.org/throop/harass/oncampus.html)

Even at face value, that does not say that all sex is rape. It merely says that, in a male dominated society, one must scrutinize heavily whether a woman's consent to sex is real.

Again, at least third-hand quote. This is some poster on Menweb quoting Warren Farrell allegedly quoting MacKinnon.

The quote is edited. We have no idea what the original says.

Menweb? Not a reliable source. A single poster on a discussion forum on Menweb? A less reliable source. Warren Farrell? Not a very reliable source.

The quote does not appear to be found anywhere credible on the internet.

Source, and good explanation of why she consider(s)/(ed) sex to be rape.

Again, the quote is at least second-hand.

This is at least closer to a decent source. But it is just an opinion essay by an English Professor at the Montana State University - Bozeman. From his other articles, it is clear that the author is very right-wing. Among other things, he questions the existence of -- and vehemently criticizes opposition to -- sexual harassment. (I won't go into his wacky views on other subjects.)

The essay relies heavily on other third-source reviews of one of MacKinnon's books (such as by the National Review and David Horowitz :rolleyes:).

The essay plays fast and loose with the alleged views/statements of Andrea Dworkin and Ms. MacKinnon. More than once the essay deliberately attributes Dworkin's alleged views to MacKinnon.

Most importantly, the quote is taken way out of context. In context, it refers to the effects of sexual abuse on the view of women that report such abuse:

Once abused women are heard and -- this is the real hitch -- become real, women's silence can no longer be the context in which pornography and speech are analyzed. Into the symbiotic dance between left and right, between the men who love to hate each other, enters the captive woman, the terms of access to whom they have been fighting over.(8) Instead of the forces of darkness seeking to suppress what the forces of light are struggling to free, her captivity itself is made central and put in issue for the first time. This changes everything, or should. Before, each woman who said she was abused looked incredible or exceptional; now, the abuse appears deadeningly commonplace. Before, what was done to her was sex; now, it is sexual abuse. Before, she was sex; now, she is a human being gendered female -- if anyone can figure out what that is.

...

What happens when you put the real language of sexual abuse in a Senate confirmation hearing? [...] It, and you, are treated as if you do not belong, as if you pulled down your pants and defecated in public. You are lowered by proving your injury. He is not. He allegedly said these things. If they were said, they were his words. She said them in quotation marks. But it is the woman to whom they are attributed when she speaks them. When she says them, it is believed they are true of her somehow, but not believed of him. Senator Grassley called it "an offensive story." Barbara Norville, a radio commentator, "left feeling dirty somehow." President Bush "felt unclean watching it."(55) The offensiveness, the dirt, the uncleanness stick to the woman [...]

Women know this. It explains their fear of speaking about sexual abuse in public, their sense of reviolation when doing so, their shame. It is because of how they are seen. It explains why an account like Anita Hill's developed, with a consistent perpetrator sexuality, from the telescoped expressions of unhappiness to her friends at the time to the minimal FBI sketch to the fuller details when pushed on cross-examination before the Senate committee. As she put it, she told it to her level of comfort. I felt she did not want his words in her mouth. Women do not want to be pornography. When words of sexual abuse are in our mouths, that is pornography, and we become pornography because that is what pornography is.

Once you are used for sex, you are sexualized. You lose your human status. You are sex, therefore unworthy of belief and impossible to violate. Your testimony that you were sexually abused proves your abuse, which defines you as sex, which makes it incredible and impossible that you were sexually abused. In a world made by pornography, testimony about sexual harassment is live oral pornography starring the victim. Because the account becomes a form of sex, the abuse is rendered consensual in the mind of the viewer.

There is nothing else like this: because she says she was hurt, it is believed she had a wonderful time. Because she says what happened, it is believed that it could not have happened to her. Only words; but because they are sex, the speaker as well as the spoken-about is transformed into sex. This is a dynamic common to sexual harassment and pornography. When talking sex is having sex, as talking pornography was sexual harassment in this case, exposing the reality of sexual harassment can become a kind of pornography, and exposing the reality of pornography, as lived, can become a kind of harassment.

The quote does not, as you (and the essayist) imply, say that normal sex turns women into sexual objects and dehumanizes them. It says that sexual abuse has caused others to view women this way. When women try to talk about being abused sexually, they are automatically viewed as sexual objects and not human beings. Get the difference?

Also, I will repeat that MacKinnon states: "Once abused women are heard and -- this is the real hitch -- become real ... This changes everything, or should. Before, each woman who said she was abused looked incredible or exceptional; now, the abuse appears deadeningly commonplace. Before, what was done to her was sex; now, it is sexual abuse. Before, she was sex; now, she is a human being gendered female -- if anyone can figure out what that is."

What MacKinnon is actually saying almost the complete opposite of what it is implied she meant.

She can cover with after the fact retractions all she wants: but to me, it seems that she at one point went as far as to say that all sex is rape.

No retractions. She never said it.

(And it is pretty telling you couldn't actually find a quote -- even among your questionable sources -- saying anything close to 'all sex is rape.')

*SNIP*

I still didn't like her book and couldn't get very far into it. I hold by what I said. ;)

EDIT: Thank you for posting Snopes. I hate when people attach false quotes to people and then use it to discredit them.

I still didn't like her book and couldn't get very far into it. I hold by what I said. ;)

EDIT: Thank you for posting Snopes. I hate when people attach false quotes to people and then use it to discredit them.

To be clear, I respect some of what MacKinnon has said and done, but I am no fan.

I disagree with many of her views.

But she is not a raving looney. The ad hominem and strawman attacks should stop.

Nah...he need to be butt raped...so he can tell the differnce...OceanDrive2, a smiley does not automatically turn an offensive comment into a non-offensive comment. Official Warning, trolling.
That's no way near funny. If you truly believe that, then do you really deserve to be living?Of the underpants, suggesting another player would be better off dead is an entirely disproportionate response. Official Warning, flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

To be clear, I respect some of what MacKinnon has said and done, but I am no fan.

I disagree with many of her views.

But she is not a raving looney. The ad hominem and strawman attacks should stop.

You inspired to look back at what I said in case I fell under the comments you made above (I realize they were general). I believe I only attacked the idea and what I read of the book. Again, in my mind, injecting the truth into such a conversation can only serve to enlighten. I think some of her ideas where pretty radical, but there is no need for hyperbole.

OceanDrive2, a smiley does not automatically turn an offensive comment into a non-offensive comment. Official Warning, trolling.
Of the underpants, suggesting another player would be better off dead is an entirely disproportionate response. Official Warning, flaming.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
Forum and Game Rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

Maybe I'm wrong to think this, but I'm amused when people report themselves for flaming.

Absolutely correct ... add to that the mentally handicapped and people under the influence of drugs or an excessive amount of alcohol.

I'm not sure where you from, but there's a 'Physicly Helpless' clause here. Anything that could prevent a woman from what she would, in her right mind and given the oportunity to say so, she would refuse is considered rape.

This is why the porn industry is very carefull about these things. I know it seems like they just pick these women up off the street, but there's really a very sophisticated industry out there.

I'm not sure where you from, but there's a 'Physicly Helpless' clause here. Anything that could prevent a woman from what she would, in her right mind and given the oportunity to say so, she would refuse is considered rape.

This is why the porn industry is very carefull about these things. I know it seems like they just pick these women up off the street, but there's really a very sophisticated industry out there.
Either way, it's wrong.

Either way, it's wrong.

Nothing is wrong everything is permisable/everything is wrong nothing is permisable.

Ok, mind breaking aside you have only your beleife that it is wrong, no substantive proof.

Either way, it's wrong.

Yes, but being wrong doesn't make it rape. It's like that Montey Python skit with the witch (It she wieghs the same as a duck, she is a witch, since witches burn, they're made of wood, since wood floats then witches must float and since ducks float then if she wieghs the same or less than a duck, she's a witch). If rape is wrong and pornography is wrong, then rape=pornography. This is not complete equasion as there is no basis for judging the variables.

Nothing is wrong everything is permisable/everything is wrong nothing is permisable.
What if everything is wrong and everything other than that isn't permissible excpet on Sundays?

It's wrong. It's wrong to endorse the industry by buying their products, which only increases the amount of money they have to temp someone down on their luck to make another product... it's an endless cycle.

Like teenage petting (it's not technically against the rules, but it's never beneficial so don't do it. You'll get bored with the petting after a few weeks and go further and further, etc.,).

It's better to avoid the whole thing.

For Your Eyes only: Make pornography and watch it yourself, with your own wife :D Or don't do it at all. :)

It's wrong. It's wrong to endorse the industry by buying their products, which only increases the amount of money they have to temp someone down on their luck to make another product... it's an endless cycle.But what about if you don't buy any? Is it okay then? With the invention of the internet and the web, it's easy to get loads of free porn.

What Ph333rdom said is probably more inline with what the teacher actually thought.

I would imagine, obviously I don't actually know, that his argument would run something like this; if you can convince a woman that her most profitable feature is her sexuality and then offer to pay her to let you exploit it, you are essentially "raping" her. I have a hard time believing that this guy ever actually said porn = rape, but I can imagine him relating the two of them.

And for those who've used this as an opportunity to launch an attack on feminism, I would imagine you are dramatically under-educated on the subject.

Personally, I find it offensive, but if other people want to watch it, all power to you. It's not my job to tell you what's right and wrong

Not as long as the people involve consent and get paid. Prostitution, maybe, but not rape.

I agree, except that I would add that the people involved should have reached the age of consent, of course.

Is pornography the same as rape?

No, you morons that said yes, no it is not.

Maybe, maybe, you could make a case for it being the same as prostitution, but no, it is not, in any way, figuratively, literally, or legally, anywhere near rape.

But what about if you don't buy any? Is it okay then? With the invention of the internet and the web, it's easy to get loads of free porn.


They get paid the same as other web-sites... by the number of 'hit's' it gets. You watch it, they get paid, just not as much as they want.


The worst type would have to be the 'rape-porn' ... not good stuff. Avoid porn ~ it won't do you any good. It will distort your sexual view, even if you don't have a spouse yet ~ you will learn to 'require' it you will keep going one step further and one step further, until one day, your 'into it' and you can't get out without affects you didn't desire.


(same with lots of other things like, drugs, alcohol, and cartoon network... :p )

Porn is can be a lot of fun :p doesn't hurt anyone if it is safe of course
rape is assault and is therefore criminal
simpe as that

Bump

I hope you show the overwhelming vote on this to your lecturer...

Um. As the sources (e.g. Snopes) explained, it isn't a matter of MacKinnon denying she said this. It is that she never say it -- according to objective sources.

No damage or cleanup necessary. I'm not pointing to her post-hoc denials. I'm pointing to analyses that say MacKinnon never took this position in the first place.
You misunderstand what I'm saying. I never claimed in this entire discussion that she said word-for-word, "Heterosexual sex is rape." My assertion was that she believed it. And any analysis of her statements would indicate that she did.

Second-hand (if not third-hand) quote. Not actually a direct citation to MacKinnon.

Questionable source for the second-hand quote.

The quote does not appear to be found anywhere credible on the internet.

Even at face value, that does not say that all sex is rape. It merely says that, in a male dominated society, one must scrutinize heavily whether a woman's consent to sex is real.
This is one of those times where it might help to read books and articles. That quote is from one of those works you referred to earlier. Here's the cite: Sexuality, Pornography, and Method 1990, in Feminism and Political Theory, C. Sunstein, ed. Check it out on your own if you don't belive me. And I'll repeat the quote, for effect:
"The major distinction between intercourse (normal) and rape (abnormal) is that the normal happens so often that one cannot get anyone to see anything wrong with it."

Again, no. It says that the most important distinction between rape and sex is not consent. That means that she believes there to be little ability for effective consent. Which means she believes all heterosexual sex to be rape.

Again, at least third-hand quote. This is some poster on Menweb quoting Warren Farrell allegedly quoting MacKinnon.
If the quote actually appeared in the book, then it's for real. And I bet it did. Check out the book and read it. Because books like that always cite where quotes come from in the footnotes. This actually makes the source better rather than worse.

The quote is edited. We have no idea what the original says.
The relevant part is not.

Menweb? Not a reliable source.A single poster on a discussion forum on Menweb? A less reliable source. Warren Farrell? Not a very reliable source.
My reasoning as to why you're wrong above. This is an easily verifiable question.

The quote does not appear to be found anywhere credible on the internet.
But it is in a book.

Again, the quote is at least second-hand.
Above as to why that's much more credible than the denial from Mackinnon that your source cites. Actually, let's talk about those sources. The first one is very factual, and deals with the question of a direct statement rather nicely. But it doesn't delve into the philosophical aspects of this allegation. Which, of course, are the relevant parts to this discussion. Your second source makes no argument, cites no articles, and refutes no claims. It's markedly weaker than any of mine, particularly because it mentions the "sex is rape" debate only in passing and is written by the proprietor of an unsubstantiated website.

This is at least closer to a decent source. But it is just an opinion essay by an English Professor at the Montana State University - Bozeman. From his other articles, it is clear that the author is very right-wing. Among other things, he questions the existence of -- and vehemently criticizes opposition to -- sexual harassment. (I won't go into his wacky views on other subjects.)
You don't need the world's best source to have a substantiated quote. I'll answer your quote analysis later.

The essay relies heavily on other third-source reviews of one of MacKinnon's books (such as by the National Review and David Horowitz :rolleyes:).
That's when he's criticizing MacKinnon. We're not having a debate about the other aspects of her ideas now, are we?

The essay plays fast and loose with the alleged views/statements of Andrea Dworkin and Ms. MacKinnon. More than once the essay deliberately attributes Dworkin's alleged views to MacKinnon.
Irrelevant when you can find the article that the quote comes from. Further irrelevant when most of my analysis of Mackinnon is coming from my own reading of her and articles about her, which is coming after the quote.

Most importantly, the quote is taken way out of context. In context, it refers to the effects of sexual abuse on the view of women that report such abuse:
Thanks for posting the context. It actually supports my interpretation. Read what I bolded.

Women know this. It explains their fear of speaking about sexual abuse in public, their sense of reviolation when doing so, their shame. It is because of how they are seen. It explains why an account like Anita Hill's developed, with a consistent perpetrator sexuality, from the telescoped expressions of unhappiness to her friends at the time to the minimal FBI sketch to the fuller details when pushed on cross-examination before the Senate committee. As she put it, she told it to her level of comfort. I felt she did not want his words in her mouth. Women do not want to be pornography. When words of sexual abuse are in our mouths, that is pornography, and we become pornography because that is what pornography is.

Once you are used for sex, you are sexualized. You lose your human status. You are sex, therefore unworthy of belief and impossible to violate. Your testimony that you were sexually abused proves your abuse, which defines you as sex, which makes it incredible and impossible that you were sexually abused. In a world made by pornography, testimony about sexual harassment is live oral pornography starring the victim. Because the account becomes a form of sex, the abuse is rendered consensual in the mind of the viewer.

The quote does not, as you (and the essayist) imply, say that normal sex turns women into sexual objects and dehumanizes them. It says that sexual abuse has caused others to view women this way. When women try to talk about being abused sexually, they are automatically viewed as sexual objects and not human beings. Get the difference?
The distinction there is clear, yes. But note the bolded statement about pornography. Besides the obviously false statement "women don't want to be in pornography" (some women love it), it also says that pornography is sexual abuse, but gives no reason for this claim in that quote. She says that's just what pornography is. Why would that be true if some women have said, on record, that they voluntarily participate in pornography because they enjoy it? The only possible reason that this claim could be true is because they are incapable of giving true consent. And we all know what that said. I also would like to see what's in those ellipsis in your original, unsnipped post.

Also, I will repeat that MacKinnon states: "Once abused women are heard and -- this is the real hitch -- become real ... This changes everything, or should. Before, each woman who said she was abused looked incredible or exceptional; now, the abuse appears deadeningly commonplace. Before, what was done to her was sex; now, it is sexual abuse. Before, she was sex; now, she is a human being gendered female -- if anyone can figure out what that is."

What MacKinnon is actually saying almost the complete opposite of what it is implied she meant.
Originally, yes, you're correct. The context, surprisingly, is my evidence.

No retractions. She never said it.
She's covering for the obvious conclusion of her philosophy, and pouncing on (your favorite word) the strawman of her actually never saying that sex=rape, while ignoring the real issue of her ideas.

(And it is pretty telling you couldn't actually find a quote -- even among your questionable sources -- saying anything close to 'all sex is rape.')
Read what I wrote again. And write me an analysis of her philosophy that supports your view. I can do research. I want to see argument. You can post where you got the argument, if you want. But a defense of her philosophy as not amounting to sex is rape is what I want to see.

Although I haven't bothered to read 38 pages of useless posts, I think you are delusional if you honestly think that people cannot connect this topic with religion, and if people care if you tell a moderator.

As for pornography, it is not rape. There wouldn't be legal pornography if the consenting women decided not to strip naked or suck dick on film. Want to know how to stop pornography? Tell women to stop being whores.

*remembers that this is nationstates*

As for pornography, it is not rape. There wouldn't be legal pornography if the consenting women decided not to strip naked or suck dick on film. Want to know how to stop pornography? Tell women to stop being whores.
What about women that can't afford food unless they do porn? Are they whores? Let's not stereotype or judge a group as a whole.

Further, supply and demand applies just as much to porn as it does anymore. If men weren't so horny, then there'd be no demand for porn.

Want to know how to stop pornography? Tell women to stop being whores.

Nothing pisses me off quite like a bit of sexism.

I hope you show the overwhelming vote on this to your lecturer...

Oh I will, but that won't stop him, or me, agreeing with the first comment - porno is almost the same as rape. sorry.

As for pornography, it is not rape. There wouldn't be legal pornography if the consenting women decided not to strip naked or suck dick on film. Want to know how to stop pornography? Tell women to stop being whores.

Neither would there be pornography if there weren't any men willing strip nacked and have their dicks sucked on film. Why tell the women to stop, but not the men? Or do you only watch lesbian porn?

Although I haven't bothered to read 38 pages of useless posts, I think you are delusional if you honestly think that people cannot connect this topic with religion, and if people care if you tell a moderator.

As for pornography, it is not rape. There wouldn't be legal pornography if the consenting women decided not to strip naked or suck dick on film. Want to know how to stop pornography? Tell women to stop being whores.

porn exists because MEN do not have control of their own sexuality. if MEN stopped buying porn it would stop existing. women do it for money, men do it for sexual satisfaction. who is more in the wrong really?



*disclaimer* the opinions expressed in this rant may not truly represent the opinions of the poster.

porn exists because MEN do not have control of their own sexuality. if MEN stopped buying porn it would stop existing.I buy porn. I think that I could single-handedly support the industry. Both men and women buy porn, so even if the industry would significantly decrease in size, it would not cease to exist. More and more porn is being targeted towards women these days. Much of it is lebian (for lesbians), but a lot of it is straight porn that appeals to more women. Porn for everyone! yay
women do it for money, men do it for sexual satisfaction. who is more in the wrong really?Women have sex for sexual satisfaction too. I'm assuming that a lot of porn starlets would not be doing it if it were truly unpleasant. Many of them are smart enough to get other jobs, or beautiful enough to be models. Some, I'm sure, are just desperate for work, and would not be in porn if they did not need to be. Some seem to enjoy their work. I know I would.
*disclaimer* the opinions expressed in this rant may not truly represent the opinions of the poster . Noted.

I buy porn. I think that I could single-handedly support the industry. Both men and women buy porn, so even if the industry would significantly decrease in size, it would not cease to exist. More and more porn is being targeted towards women these days. Much of it is lebian (for lesbians), but a lot of it is straight porn that appeals to more women. Porn for everyone! yay
Women have sex for sexual satisfaction too. I'm assuming that a lot of porn starlets would not be doing it if it were truly unpleasant. Many of them are smart enough to get other jobs, or beautiful enough to be models. Some, I'm sure, are just desperate for work, and would not be in porn if they did not need to be. Some seem to enjoy their work. I know I would.
Noted.
points noted and accepted

my was ranting because of the notion that its the evil of women that causes porn to exist. (if porn is bad, which i dont think it is, hence the disclaimer)

the thought that its those bad bad women willing to suck cock on film that makes porn possible and NOT the sex drives of men is ridiculous. if men suddenly found porn uninteresting it would cease to exist.

sure, some women enjoy porn. ive been known to partake of it myself now and then. but the industry is driven by men. without men's money the industry would wither and die. porn would be put in its proper place .... romance novels.

A minor quibble I have...
More and more porn is being targeted towards women these days. Much of it is lebian (for lesbians)
I would think most lesbian porn is watched by heterosexual males who don't want to watch another guy nude. Of course, I don't have statistics on porn consumption or anything, so it's just a guess.

hmmmm ya know, most lesbian porn IS for men. maybe oxwana will PM me a link to a site....

I've just finished my first year of a Creative writing and Media Studies degree, and one of my lecturers is really HOT on this subject. He (yes, he, not she) is a feminist, and seriously DOES believe that pornography is just the same as rape. Anyway, this is a subject that I feel (as a 19 year-oldmale) I should be interested in, (plus, the amount he was talking about it this year, I think it's gonna be part of the "test" as it were, next year).... so here's the question....what do you believe?

Poll coming (hehehe)

Edit: Please don't make this thread about religion, unless you have valid points.....moderatore WILL be informed if it goes OT

If all parties are of legal age and mental capacity, and consent to posing and purchasing, rape cannot be implied.

Could your lecturer be guilty of transferrance?

A minor quibble I have...

I would think most lesbian porn is watched by heterosexual males who don't want to watch another guy nude. Of course, I don't have statistics on porn consumption or anything, so it's just a guess.But lesbians do watch porn, and there are new companies who market lesbian-friendly lesbian porn to women. I don't have the names of the companies in my head, but I read an article in JANE. More "romantic" lesbian porn is the premise, I think. It's for lesbian couples.
I am aware that the majority of lesbian porn is made for and bought by men.

Women know this. It explains their fear of speaking about sexual abuse in public, their sense of reviolation when doing so, their shame. It is because of how they are seen. It explains why an account like Anita Hill's developed, with a consistent perpetrator sexuality, from the telescoped expressions of unhappiness to her friends at the time to the minimal FBI sketch to the fuller details when pushed on cross-examination before the Senate committee. As she put it, she told it to her level of comfort. I felt she did not want his words in her mouth. Women do not want to be pornography. When words of sexual abuse are in our mouths, that is pornography, and we become pornography because that is what pornography is.

Once you are used for sex, you are sexualized. You lose your human status. You are sex, therefore unworthy of belief and impossible to violate. Your testimony that you were sexually abused proves your abuse, which defines you as sex, which makes it incredible and impossible that you were sexually abused. In a world made by pornography, testimony about sexual harassment is live oral pornography starring the victim. Because the account becomes a form of sex, the abuse is rendered consensual in the mind of the viewer.


it also says that pornography is sexual abuse, but gives no reason for this claim in that quote. She says that's just what pornography is. Why would that be true if some women have said, on record, that they voluntarily participate in pornography because they enjoy it? The only possible reason that this claim could be true is because they are incapable of giving true consent. And we all know what that said. I also would like to see what's in those ellipsis in your original, unsnipped post.
I have to disagree with you here. She does not say that all pornography is sexual abuse here. She may or may not think that, but this does not say that. It says telling a story of sexual abuse is pornography and I agree with her, but we'll get back to that.

A horse is a mammal. When a horse has live baby and feeds it with milk, it becomes a mammal because that is what a mammal is.

What I said above is correct, no (except for the obvious distinction that it was always a mammal. It didn't become one and my definition of mammal is too simplistic)? Yet, all mammals are not horses.

Now, back to why I agree with what she said. What she said could be worded as such, "Victims of sexual abuse are forced to tell very graphic sexual stories, so they are viewed as pornography, because that is what pornography is." Is not pornography very graphic sexual stories? Can you not see how a woman might feel like the story she is telling is pornographic? I know it is and you can, Del. The context shows what she is saying to be relevent and reasonable.

Now, if you still disagree with what she said above I can point you to several sites that sell stories of sexual abuse as pornography (not sure if they are real or not, but it's not as if one could tell the difference).

I have to disagree with you here. She does not say that all pornography is sexual abuse here. She may or may not think that, but this does not say that. It says telling a story of sexual abuse is pornography and I agree with her, but we'll get back to that.

A horse is a mammal. When a horse has live baby and feeds it with milk, it becomes a mammal because that is what a mammal is.

What I said above is correct, no (except for the obvious distinction that it was always a mammal. It didn't become one and my definition of mammal is too simplistic)? Yet, all mammals are not horses.

Now, back to why I agree with what she said. What she said could be worded as such, "Victims of sexual abuse are forced to tell very graphic sexual stories, so they are viewed as pornography, because that is what pornography is." Is not pornography very graphic sexual stories? Can you not see how a woman might feel like the story she is telling is pornographic? I know it is and you can, Del. The context shows what she is saying to be relevent and reasonable.

Now, if you still disagree with what she said above I can point you to several sites that sell stories of sexual abuse as pornography (not sure if they are real or not, but it's not as if one could tell the difference).
I did see your reading in that paragraph. I thought that was explained well enough earlier in the paragraph. And that's an interesting argument (although not one I'm going to get into now). However, given the context of her philosophy and the other paragraphs, I think that line certainly can be read to mean both what you and I want it to mean.

What is pornography? Let's take your description - graphic descriptions of sexual activity. Now, it's well known that Mackinnon made several attempts to outlaw pornography, and drafted several anti-porn laws nationwide. But why would she think that such descriptions are bad? Because they lead to the fetishization of women by men, precisely what she describes in the Anita Hill testimony, and, more importantly, in the second paragraph. Pornography, in her mind, uses women for sex. Therefore, pornography is a form of sexual abuse.

What I did later was take that argument to it's logical conclusion. Many women are in porn because they like it. That's not really a fact that can be contested. But how can Mackinnon maintain that those women are being raped or sexually abused, activites which by definition cannot be consented to? Because they can't give effective consent. That's the only logical conclusion of the train of thought shown in this paragraph. And if women can't give effective consent, all sex is rape. And her philosophy amounts to precisely what I accused it of earlier.

I did see your reading in that paragraph. I thought that was explained well enough earlier in the paragraph. And that's an interesting argument (although not one I'm going to get into now). However, given the context of her philosophy and the other paragraphs, I think that line certainly can be read to mean both what you and I want it to mean.

What is pornography? Let's take your description - graphic descriptions of sexual activity. Now, it's well known that Mackinnon made several attempts to outlaw pornography, and drafted several anti-porn laws nationwide. But why would she think that such descriptions are bad? Because they lead to the fetishization of women by men, precisely what she describes in the Anita Hill testimony, and, more importantly, in the second paragraph. Pornography, in her mind, uses women for sex. Therefore, pornography is a form of sexual abuse.

What I did later was take that argument to it's logical conclusion. Many women are in porn because they like it. That's not really a fact that can be contested. But how can Mackinnon maintain that those women are being raped or sexually abused, activites which by definition cannot be consented to? Because they can't give effective consent. That's the only logical conclusion of the train of thought shown in this paragraph. And if women can't give effective consent, all sex is rape. And her philosophy amounts to precisely what I accused it of earlier.

What she may or may not think (honestly, I'm educated enough on or interested enough in the subject to talk about it) is secondary to what the text you quoted says. Whether or not it is or can be argued that all pornography is sexual abuse, it is true that most victims of sexual abuse are required to tell stories that could be reasonably be regarded as pornographic. Her statements adequately make that point.

As far as pornography is sexual abuse, even if you made the argument that all women in porn are incapable of consent, it would not translate to all women are incapable of consent. I'm not making that argument, but the fact holds. There are many that hold the position that in order to perform sex for money one must have been a victim of severe sexual abuse at some point in their life. These same people argue that they get into these activities to continue acting out the abuse, much like people tell a story of a traumatic event (Dr. Drew holds this belief). Whether the fault of the pornographers, whether these pornographers aware of this, they are essentially revictimizing the victims. Most importantly, whether you or I hold any of this to be true, it would be possible to feel this way and not hold the belief that all woman are not capable of consent. One does not follow from the other.

The -thought- of sex with a woman automatically makes me a rapist? Orwell would have had a fucking field day with this. Such a theory borders on assinine, in my opinion, yet I know a number of people who would probably agree with such lunacy.

I like women. I like big women, small women, black and white, bald or bush. I appreciate the feminine form for it's aesthetic beauty, as well as for the fire it causes in my loins. Do I sit around and fantasize constantly about wild sex? No. But I also am not ashamed in the least to say: Yes. I watch dirty movies. I also look at women who aren't my wife and appreciate them for the simple fact that they're women, and their form pleases me.

I have a serious problem with sex, and now even the THOUGHT of sex, being so taboo. We watch gory, violent movies constantly, yet think nothing of it. But god forbid we see a BREAST or PENIS that is just going too far. I'm not saying we should trivialize sex, but should we demonize it instead?

I have a penis. I'll bet that professor of yours does as well. My girl has breasts and a clit, just like three or four billion other women on earth. Can they really be that bad, or, is it my own appreciation for the look and feel of a firm, pink-tipped breast that is so shockingly horrible?

*shakes head* I may watch a dirty movie tonight and then screw my hot little girlfriend. Out of wedlock, at that.

Oh I will, but that won't stop him, or me, agreeing with the first comment - porno is almost the same as rape. sorry.
You can believe whatever you choose ... you have yet to prove any link nor do other peoples opinion match up ...

With this overwhelming of a majority I would start wondering if maybe it was my opinion that is wrong rather then other people (not saying you are but I would consider it more then you appear to have done)

Neither would there be pornography if there weren't any men willing strip nacked and have their dicks sucked on film. Why tell the women to stop, but not the men?

It's socially acceptable for men to crave sex. What's your point?

Or do you only watch lesbian porn?

:D

If women suck dick on film because they can't afford food, it's not my problem. Tell them to work at Radio Shack. Otherwise they are simply whores.

It's socially acceptable for men to crave sex. What's your point?



:D

If women suck dick on film because they can't afford food, it's not my problem. Tell them to work at Radio Shack. Otherwise they are simply whores.
By definition so are the men on film

Drzhen, that would've worked better if it had been witty. It just came off as tasteless.

Just sayin'.

Drzhen, that would've worked better if it had been witty. It just came off as tasteless.

Just sayin'.
Yeah I got that true (wondering if they are going for a bit of trolling)

*starts singing fishing in the dark*

Facts:
Porn is not rape.
Porn stars are not necessarily bad people or somehow lacking in moral fibre.
Masterbating is natural and healthy.
There are no negative consequences of looking at pornography in moderation.
I am currently looking at pornography.

Oh I will, but that won't stop him, or me, agreeing with the first comment - porno is almost the same as rape. sorry.

You know if I was completely unable to make a logical connection between two things but I considered them to be the same, I think I would question my faculties. I hope your professor makes a better argument than you.

By the way, if a man has sex with a woman that is incapable of consent due to mental issues and the man is not aware that this is the case, it does not qualify as rape. Not all non-consensual sex is rape. The example you used was terrible. I'm having sex with a woman with multiple personalities and suddenly she changes to the other personality (which simply isn't likely given why multiple personalities develop) who has not consented, it would only be rape if I knew that she was unable to consent due to a multiple-personality disorder.

Your ideas on rape and pornography are an insult to rape victims, women and people who watch porn (basically everyone).

I see why could argue this as some amount of pornography was forced, ala DeepThroat but saying that all porn is rape is like saying all muslims are terrorists. True in some cases, but can not be applied across the group

You know if I was completely unable to make a logical connection between two things but I considered them to be the same, I think I would question my faculties. I hope your professor makes a better argument than you.

By the way, if a man has sex with a woman that is incapable of consent due to mental issues and the man is not aware that this is the case, it does not qualify as rape. Not all non-consensual sex is rape. The example you used was terrible. I'm having sex with a woman with multiple personalities and suddenly she changes to the other personality (which simply isn't likely given why multiple personalities develop) who has not consented, it would only be rape if I knew that she was unable to consent due to a multiple-personality disorder.

Your ideas on rape and pornography are an insult to rape victims, women and people who watch porn (basically everyone).


On that, you are correct. In the course of investigation; if it was shown that:
1. The man was provided consent by one or more personalities.
and
2. Ceased once the non-consenting personality objected.

Criteria for maintaining the case, and making it past grand-jury has been lost. Because, consent was provided; and law cannot be applied ex post facto (after the fact). It's the same situation as a woman who refuses consent after-the-fact. If consent is rejected during intercourse; yet was provided earlier; it is legally required of the individual to cease the activity. And it is by issue after rejection of consent; that the court decides the issue.

While mental incapacity can be used for immunity to direct prosecution; it cannot be used to prosecute others, ex post facto. It's unjust.

For it to be considered rape; it must be proven that intercourse continued after consent was specifically rejected (even if provided earlier); and/or that the man knew of the woman's mental defect, before the fact. Under such a case like this.

I see why could argue this as some amount of pornography was forced, ala DeepThroat but saying that all porn is rape is like saying all muslims are terrorists. True in some cases, but can not be applied across the group
It can be “forced” sex as long as consent was given

It's socially acceptable for men to crave sex. What's your point?

If women suck dick on film because they can't afford food, it's not my problem. Tell them to work at Radio Shack. Otherwise they are simply whores.
you say that like its a bad thing....

On that, you are correct. In the course of investigation; if it was shown that:
1. The man was provided consent by one or more personalities.
and
2. Ceased once the non-consenting personality objected.

Criteria for maintaining the case, and making it past grand-jury has been lost. Because, consent was provided; and law cannot be applied ex post facto (after the fact). It's the same situation as a woman who refuses consent after-the-fact. If consent is rejected during intercourse; yet was provided earlier; it is legally required of the individual to cease the activity. And it is by issue after rejection of consent; that the court decides the issue.

While mental incapacity can be used for immunity to direct prosecution; it cannot be used to prosecute others, ex post facto. It's unjust.

For it to be considered rape; it must be proven that intercourse continued after consent was specifically rejected (even if provided earlier); and/or that the man knew of the woman's mental defect, before the fact. Under such a case like this.
Exactly.