The first thing that came up when I googled “Wanker painting”

Today on the web there has been a spate of liberal bloggers weighing in about why they won’t support banning rape p%rn.   (I’ve substituted a % sign instead of an O in a probably futile attempt to fend off p%rn seekers:  Sorry if you find it annoying.)

I won’t link to the various bloggers:  most of them have a bigger platform than I do.  Some of them work in the media and are getting retweeted all over the place, whereas maybe ten people are going to read this post.    Nevertheless, I know so many women who are quietly fuming about this that I have to say something.

Liberal dudes love p%rn.   They feel entitled to it:  the internet is their sexual smorgasbord.   When they get stuck on the hedonic treadmill, as they always do, they seek ever more violent and degrading forms of p%rn to keep themselves amused.  And they get so upset when their sense of entitlement is challenged.


Using p%rn is actually free-speech activism!  Because liberal dudes be idealistic, yo!

They won’t listen to the truth that p%rn harms women, that it harms men, that it harms children, that it is hate speech, that raping, or even pretending to rape, women is not artistic expression any more than a man pulling a gun on another man and demanding his wallet is artistic expression.  Why should they give up the right to wank to violent images just because it’s damaging, these noble souls who believe in social justice for all?

They just don’t believe in justice for women, because women aren’t people.  They’ll support contraception and abortion, though, because that makes women more sexually available to them.  And they know they can keep women dependent on them by threatening to let the other side take them  away.

For all their railing about censorship, they don’t seem to know how censorship actually works either:

In order to perform actual censorship, a censor must first occupy a position of authority over the censoree, and must be able to command minions sufficient for enforcement. The dudes and dudesses of DudeNation, for example, censor radical feminists all the time. Have you ever seen a radical feminist sitcom, fashion spread, toilet cleaner commercial, or New York Times bestseller?

Conversely, radical feminists, dangling by gnarled claws from our remote precipice out in Lunatic Fringe, are in no position to censor anything. We’re not in power. We have no authority. We enjoy little privilege. We command no minions. Even if we wanted to, which we don’t, we couldn’t prevent even one celebrated genius from writing child rape fantasies and calling it art.

Twisty, from this post at I Blame the Patriarchy

It’s illegal to yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater, but we don’t see anybody railing about how oppressive that is, do we?   Nope, the freedom of speech figleaf is only brought out to cover for men who want to beat off to images of women being exploited and abused.

Women eager to please those liberal dudes can be found all over the web, defending p%rn as harmless fun or insisting that the filth cannot be stopped, so resistance is futile, if you can’t beat ’em join ’em, et cetera.

Why do women do this?

Women – even ones who call themselves feminists – have been well trained to cater to male interests.   Deep down they fear that their dude will dump them before he gives up the p%rn, and they’re right.  He will.

These women, all full of their supposed agency and choices,  somehow always end up agreeing with men and supporting what men want.   Women are bombarded with messages telling them to be the cool girlfriend, the sexually liberated wife.  They are told that anybody who opposes p%rn must be a prudey bible-thumper in disguise, because nobody who believes in social justice could possibly be opposed to freedom of artistic expression.   Thus liberal dudes use accusations of prudery to manipulate past any boundaries women try to set and to make them do what those men want.  They set up radical feminists as the enemy, calling them ugly, hairy-legged, angry, and so on to scare women away from the only people who will tell them the truth.

The more deeply enslaved a person is, the more desperately they need to convince themselves that they are free.  This is why so many women defend male privilege and male interests so aggressively.   It is too hard and too painful to admit just how much power men have over us and how little freedom we actually have.   It is too hard to take a critical look at male partners and recognize how imbalanced those relationships are.  Much easier to pretend everything is fine, we’re all equal now and that nobody’s being oppressed.

I’d like to try banning rape p%rn.  Why not?  Judging by the insidious encroachment of p%rn into every aspect of our culture, what we’re doing about it now sure as hell isn’t working.  The worst that could happen is that the ban is ineffective, not that we’ll all end up in the gulag.

The only people who benefit from the proliferation of p%rn are the p%rnographers.  Women who defend p%rn are collaborating with their own oppression.

I leave you with this message from Nine Deuce to Liberal Dude Nation:

As soon as you aren’t part of the group that runs everything, go ahead and start telling people to stop worrying about being shat on. As soon as the p%rn industry is dominated by images of men being choked and called derogatory names, tell me to stop being angry. As soon as men start getting raped on the same scale women do, and as soon as women start beating their husbands to death, you can come tell me this shit doesn’t matter. As soon as women can walk down the street without assholes harassing them, as soon as women earn equal pay for equal work, as soon as our bodies aren’t used as decoration for advertising and entertainment, tell me I have nothing to be irritated by. As for doing our best to be good human beings, that’s what I’m about here. I’m trying to do something to alleviate some of the ills I see plaguing women in our culture, if only by making one person at a time more aware of the problems that exist. But thanks for the patronizing pedantry.

26 thoughts on “OMG CENSORSHIP

      • I’ve been thinking about this issue a little bit myself. Would you mind if I framed a post about it as a response to yours?

        You’re a particularly articulate representative of the case for prohibition, so it’d make sense, and be fairer to the aye-camp, to begin by linking to this post of yours, and perhaps talk about it in the piece itself. As a way to explore my own position.

        No worries if you’d rather not.

      • You’re awfully concerned with being “fair” to the “aye-camp”. That’s pretty hilarious considering the numbers of pro-p%rn liberal dudes out there, as well as the women who suck up to them. Lard forbid somebody be unfair to the oppressor class.

        I’d rather you not frame your post as a response to mine – the power differential between the side you represent and the side I represent really feels like an attempt at silencing. And I’m not interested in drawing p%rnsick dudes and/or the women who align with them to my blog.

      • Well, in response I’d like to make four points, if I may. Feel free to disagree with them, or even skip them if you’re uninterested.

        Also, it appears that other commentators feel very well represented by your blogpost. I’m glad, it’s important that everyone feels secure in the airing of their views, and that there are figures who will speak for those who don’t feel comfortable doing so themselves.

        I) “I sensed something was off when he kept buttering me up. Like telling me I’m articulate is going to lull me into not noticing that he’s arguing in favor of oppression.” – M.K. Hajdin

        Surely the fact that the first comment I made explicitly stated that I disagreed with your post to some extent was an indication that I dissented from a portion of what you claimed? You’re entitled to your opinion, if your conclusion is that I’m in favor of oppression, then that’s your conclusion. However, I’m not sure when I was disingenuous with you?

        I told you straight away how I felt, I didn’t hide it (and would have been happy to provide more information upon request).

        Given that this is the case, if we remove the implication that I was trying to pull the wool over your eyes from the equation, all that’s left is that you’re criticizing me for complimenting you. Well, again, you’re entitled to criticize me on that basis if you desire, it’s your opinion, and should be afforded its due dignity (insofar as possible). But we should be clear that this is in-fact what you’re criticizing.

        Now, why do you think that my complimenting you should be criticized?

        Well, because when I told you that I thought you were articulate, when I told you that I thought your post was “wonderfully put together and worded”, apparently there was a subtext. Specifically, a sexist subtext, that my words had the tacit signature at the end, of, ‘(for a woman)’.

        All I can do is disagree, which is an act rendered partially devoid of meaning, because you’ve already decided that you can officiate over the subtext of what I’m saying.

        So, whilst it is in-fact the case that I think you’re an articulate, passionate, principled, writer, that’s not something I can prove (because the manner in which I would convey this is via words, which have an alleged subtext that I have no role in interpreting or shaping).

        ii) Silencing; “the power differential between the side you represent and the side I represent really feels like an attempt at silencing.” – M.K. Hajdin

        If I, the writer of a blog who few people read, offer to talk about (and thereby publicize), your blog, who far more people read, and you refuse – I’m not sure that what you’ve refused is me trying to silence you.

        The fact that later you add the caveat that you wouldn’t want the sort of publicity that my referencing you would generate, suggests that you agree that your blog gaining (even) more exposure is not really the same thing at all as being “silenced”.

        What’s actually happened is, 1.) I asked if I could link to and quote your blog for the purposes of exploring my point of view. 2.) You declined.

        Now, to reiterate what I wrote earlier, no worries; if I tell you that it would be useful to me to use your blog in the way I outlined, and you’d rather not help me in that fashion, then that’s fine. Really, you’re the one who wrote your post, you’re the one who thought it through, you’re the one who researched it. If you’re disinclined, I respect that, that’s your business.

        III) Do I provide succor to oppressors?; “You’re awfully concerned with being “fair” to the “aye-camp”. That’s pretty hilarious considering the numbers of pro-p%rn liberal dudes out there, as well as the women who suck up to them. Lard forbid somebody be unfair to the oppressor class.” – M.K. Hajdin

        Apologies for any confusion, when I used the term, “aye-camp”, I was referring to the “aye-camp” in favor of (violent pornography) “prohibition”. You might believe that I favor oppression, but it seems unlikely that your belief stems from the fact that I want to fairly and accurately represent the views of those with whom I might disagree (especially when those views are in favor of the banning of violent pornography).

        IV) Defending myself; “This is what he has to say about the feminist “concern” about porn: … Weasel words ahoy!” – Francois Tremblay

        When you quoted one of my blog-posts, you have to remember that you’ve taken it out of context. Which isn’t to say that I’m trying to wriggle out of its content, but rather that my style is a dry, perhaps even pretentious, one. The way that I write is dusty, and you can decide for yourself whether or not that’s effective.

        Basically, it seems like you’re criticizing me not for my actual statement, but for the fact that I make my statements in a pseudo-intellectual reserved* way. It’s obviously your prerogative to do so, I’m merely commenting that this isn’t a substantive criticism, but is an aesthetic one (and that’s not to say that aesthetic criticisms aren’t important).

        *the word “reserved” is critical.

      • Well, Point III is just a factual correction (anyone’s free to fact-check me). You thought that by the “aye-camp” I meant those who want to keep violent (or violence simulating) pornography legal, when in-fact I was referring to those who want to criminalize it.

        I probably phrased it ambiguously, so I’m happy to concede that the misunderstanding originated with me, sure.

        I still don’t understand how correcting a simple misunderstanding, one which I’m willing to concede is entirely my fault, is “Mansplain[ing]”?

      • This is what he has to say about the feminist “concern” about porn:

        “Basically, there’s some concern in feminist circles about,

        (a) the dehumanization of women and men, which may or may not be facilitated by pornography.


        (b) that the pornographic industry has pockets of workplace danger, which leads to men and women being vulnerable (in the contraceptive, and physically coercive, senses).”

        Weasel words ahoy!

      • Yeah, that’s pretty damn weaselly.
        I sensed something was off when he kept buttering me up. Like telling me I’m articulate is going to lull me into not noticing that he’s arguing in favor of oppression.

    • What is it that you disagree with? She speaks the truth. Liberal dudebros and their handmaidens love p%rn, that’s a fact. Women who support p%rn are fighting against their own interests, that’s a fact.

    • Are you seriously bragging that you’re a pretentious pseudo-intellectual? Do you realize how stupid that sounds to everyone else? Or is this all just an act to pretend to be sympathetic to people you talk to? What self-help book did you get this shit from?

      • No… I was simply pointing out that my writing style is quite reserved… What you tried to portray as “weasel”, was in-fact entirely consistent with a reserved manner of writing… Which I tried to explain in my previous comment.

        I’m not sure why both keep attributing me motives? First, when I literally compliment someone, the assumption is that I’m a closet-sexist, and now, when I speak forthrightly about the limitations of my writing -that some might even think it pretentious or dusty- I’m allegedly bragging.

        It’s not culled from self-help books, I just think that it’s good to be positive, and treat others with respect. Hence why I was quick to outline the things I liked about the above blogpost, and why I’ve tried to explain myself honestly. 🙂

  1. Ban pr0n, ban pr0n, ban all pr0n forever until the end of time!!!

    Ehm, yes, that’s the only level of analysis I’m willing to entertain. I figure, I have as much right to oppose what I find harmful as anyone else.
    So I’m opposing it.

    Oh, and now feminists are debating whether we should “oppose rape pr0n”. This is the ultimate joke. In the 70s and 80s women debated whether they should oppose “dirty pics”.
    Andrea Dworkin turns in her grave. Indifference solves nothing.

  2. Thank you, well written and so true ! Keep up the good work, humanity needs more voices like yourself ! The only thing I did not quiet agree with (but don’t feel it took away from the importance and depth of the message) is to ONLY address the “liberal dudes”. I don’t consider myself either “liberal” or “conservative” (it depends on the issue which way I tend to lean) and I totally agree with the hypocrisy of the “extreme left wing misogynists”. But there are many “conservatives” I even personally know of who are all “anti porn and anti prostitution” but participate in it nevertheless (not openly of course). We need logical, compassionate and justice promoting dialogue which does not use half of humanity = females as personal or political toys, whether in liberal or conservative media. “Fox News” for example which is considered “conservative” to not present women in a very dignified or positive light. Utah, which is also considered a “conservative” State, consumes more pornography than most other US States. Notwithstanding I got you, the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to gender issues is really disgusting. The only thing I would change is to make sure the reader understands that this is not an issue of “political right” and “political left” supporters as on both sides there is hypocrisy (it just disguises itself in different forms, both claiming to have “the best interest of women and humanity in mind” . Neither willing to address “male privilege and oppression” at it’s roots. And, I am involved in where I live with anti human trafficking efforts and have to say that there are people who lean more towards “conservatism” and others towards “liberalism” and on BOTH sides there are those genuinely concerned and “get it”. Thanks for the article though, I’ll share it on FB..

    • You’re right, I didn’t really address conservativism. I did that because all the liberals are already doing that. They point out the evils of conservatism all day long and then act like their own misogynist shit doesn’t stink.

      Then again I realize that the Rush-Limbaugh-style conservatism actually horrifies real conservatives. (I’ve met a few, and though we had no political views in common they seemed like kind and decent people.)

      Liberal dudes, on the other hand, are overwhelmingly likely to reject any suggestion that they could possibly be misogynists on accounta they’ve got all these liberal ideals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s