Links for October 29, 2012

Links -- October 29

Rebecca Watson “It Stands to Reason, Skeptics Can Be Sexist Too” 

Rebecca Watson "Sexytime Dilemmas: Rape, Feminazis, and Grammar" 

Heidi Moore “iWant:how Apple and the gadget-makers train consumers' covetousness”

The Feminist Current “The end is nigh. And the proof lies in Breast Cancer ‘Awareness’Campaigns”

Anne Summers “Painful, impractical, and perverse:the shoes designed to bring women to heel”

Nora Loreto “Trolls and the spaces created by trolling”

Max Waltman via Feminist Current “Evidence shows that ending demand works: A response to Noy Thrupkaew and the attack on the Swedishapproach to prostitution”

Vancouver Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter “Feminist Responses to the death of Amanda Todd”

Krissy Darch “Why isn’t anyone talking about themisogyny involved in Amanda Todd’s life and death?”

XLondonCallGirl “Can prostitution be empowering?”

XLondonCallGirl "The Importance of Specialist Charities and Projects to Help Women Exit Prostitution"

and because Halloween is coming soon....here are some spooky vintage photos

Illusions of Power through the Status Quo

found here 

In the past few weeks, my gaze has been overwhelmed by an increase in patriarchal propaganda. Whether it be mural-sized advertisements for pharmaceutical drugs that sport oiled up gals punching shit with boxing gloves, or posters featuring a woman's torso being smothered in a pink corset reading: Striptease, Sexual Shame, Sex Work - it is clear that everything Ariel Levy wrote about in Female Chauvinist Pigs has been ever-increasing in the West.


“We have to ask ourselves why we are so focused on silent girly-girls in G-strings faking lust. This is not a sign of progress, it's a testament to what's still missing from our understanding of human sexuality with all its complexity and power. We are still so uneasy with the vicissitudes of sex we need to surround ourselves with caricatures of female hotness to safely conjure up the concept of 'sexy.' When you think about it, it's kind of pathetic.” (Levy, p. 198)

It seems that the whole confidence for cash shtick has really taken off. Usually, yet not surprisingly, these "confidence campaigns" target women. Women can be satisfied and confident about themselves, they say, but it has to be like in the good ole' days, through through our bodies, through our ability to sexually arouse and titillate men - not through our minds, our ideas, or our actions. Now, this consumer-friendly notion of empowerment and self-confidence is being sold as socially progressive and pro-woman - but it is only re-naming (or re-branding!) the status quo. 


“Women's liberation and empowerment are terms feminists started using to talk about casting off the limitations imposed upon women and demanding equality. We have perverted these words. The freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough freedom; it is not the only 'women's issue' worth paying attention to. And we are not even free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist. There are other choices. If we are really going to be sexually liberated, we need to make room for a range of options as wide as the variety of human desire. We need to allow ourselves the freedom to figure out what we internally want from sex instead of mimicking whatever popular culture holds up to us as sexy. That would be liberation" (Levy, p. 200). 


Whether it comes from the billion dollar beauty industry, burlesque revivalist camps, the pornography industry, striptease weight-loss home exercise DVDs, or the comical yet profoundly vain self-help industry - the West is obsessed with promoting false reality and false consciousnesses that favors patriarchy and normalizes it.




Source:
Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy, pp. 198 and 200, 2005, Free Press

First "Links" of 2012

Links - January 10, 2012

•  Rage against the Manchine - "Get ready to shit your pants, I'm going to use the word 'trans'"

•  Feminist Media Collective ~ "Because boys still matter more: The popularity of anti-bullying campaigns and the erasure of sexism"

• Feminist Media Collective ~ “You watch that?” Why we consume violence against women as entertainment"

• Feminist Media Collective ~ "Feminist Media Collective ~ "Who gets a say? The sex work lobby & the silencing of feminist voices."
• 
  
• Feminist Media Collective ~ "Can I get a f**k you? Why erections are always right and feminists are always wrong."

• ThinkProgress ~"Rick Santorum's Top 10 Most Outrageous Campaign Statements"

• Smashesthep ~ "Is it possible to abolish the patriarchy and pornstitution?" 

• Jordana's Jabberwocky ~ "Cultural Theory Thought Paper - Indian Princess Costume"

Prescribing Patriarchy: Dr. Oz

                     found here

With the recent upsurge of television doctors and shrinks (targeting mainly women) it should come as no surprise that patriarchal propaganda is alive and well in the West. Television aficionado's spend hours every day in trances, listening to these so-called “professional” doctors spew advice on everything from what a healthy turd look like to how to maintain a boner. As someone who knows many people who tune into gawk at these star-struck docs, I feel obligated to discuss the trend. Since this post will likely be lengthy, the others may be discussed separately. Nevertheless, these “experts” include:

Dr. Drew Pinsky (addictions specialist)

Dr. Mehmet Oz (heart/lung surgeon)

Dr. Phil McGraw (psychologist)

Dr. Laura Berman (sexual health educator, relationship therapist)

Dr. Laura  Schlessinger (right wing commentator, private marriage/relationship counseller, radio host)

I want to focus on Dr. Oz as he has a strong hold over the "medical-entertainment" market and spouts the most "advice" regarding women's bodies, sexual activity, and food consumption. 

Oz's cuddly promo!!

The infamous Dr. Oz is actually a cardiothoracic surgeon with a net-worth of 7 million dollars. Before nabbing his own day time show, he was a habitual "expert guest" on the Oprah Winfrey show. With her help, The Dr. Oz Show was on the air and continues to be a popular choice for televised health enthusiasts. On the show,  Oz conducts interactive demonstrations that seem to have been inspired by kindergarten classes in order to explain bodily processes. He often has guests from the audience take part in these demonstrations. His range of expertise, apparently, extends from heart surgery to mental health, sexuality, weight-loss and something he refers to as "Anti-Aging." 


Preventing  aging  is a hot topic on the Dr Oz Show,  he has a "superfood" to make you stop "looking old",  because old people are not beautiful nor are they valuable (he openly uses the term "anti-aging" and has created an entire section for it on his website!) In this section, Oz asks, "Are your bones making you fat?"  Clearly, our very bodily structure - our skeleton, is really to blame for our wrinkled woes! Dr. Oz's  anti-aging agenda is closely linked to his obsession with the size of women's bodies.The surgeon in scrubs measures guests' waist sizes and weighs them on novelty scales. He has all kinds of diets and suggestions that are aimed at making everyone's body's the same - slim/fit
He manages to cram his weight-loss advice into other markets such as magazines and books. But his obsession with women's body size also ties in with his obsession with women's sexual activity. In his 100 weight loss tips, he suggests "Healthy sex may help control the amount of food you eat and it's great exercise." 


Healthy sex? As opposed to unhealthy sex? Does the type and healthiness of the sex act change the number of calories burned? 

This "you" expert has also stirred up controversy in the last few years. He featured a debatable topic referred to by his show as the "Arsenic Apple Juice Crisis!" This Crazy-McCrazerson episode has been referred to by some as nothing more than a  "ratings ploy"  but hey, Fox News thinks its all legit because a consumer report told them so!


With so much expertise and loyal viewership, the Dr Oz show has a lot of "buzz-creating" advice on sex and sexuality. 

"Shocking Ways Your Hormones Are Affecting your Marriage!" 

Oz makes his millions by giving his  millions of viewers “doctor-approved” 
sex advice, or should I say, intercourse advice. This advice is easily marketable and likely ups Oz's ratings. 


He even offers sex advice on his website. Here, users can take the quiz, "How healthy is your libido?" Such a quiz does nothing more than perpetuate (hetero)normative ideas about sex-drives and sexual activity, the notion that high-libido is the standard and "normal." This is considered "normal" for men have high-libidos, it is "normal" for men, but a woman with a high-libido would likely be perceived much differently. However, low-libido in women is much more medicalized than a high-libido, this is because men are perceived to be hyper-sexual at all times and women are expected to be sexually available at all times. In fact, one of Oz's  key-to-a-healthy-life tips is to have as much heterosexual intercourse as possible. Indeed, he claims up to 3+ times a week is adequate to maintain health. This degree of intercourse, he claims, will actually make you live longer!

Such advice fails to really discuss how "normal" sexuality has been socially constructed within a society that has a history of male dominance, colonialism, racism, and heteronormativity. Dr. Oz spouts out the same old, same old - he offers the same regurgitated, limited view of sexuality. His view is clear in this statement:

“It means, number one, that the penis works and for the male, the penis is a dipstick for your health. If it's working, everything else is probably working, too. When it's not, it could be a bunch of things, but something's not right. So it's a good litmus test if things are shaping up the way they're supposed to. For women, it's not about amount of sex. It's about quality of sex. They need loving, nurturing, sexual relationships in their lives.” 

His incredibly phallocentric and sexist perspective is obvious from this quote. He proposes that men and women are so incredibly different, that is why they need different sex. For men, it is all about getting laid as much as possible, but for women, being as passive and sensitive as we are, require “quality” sex, which essentially means that our assumingly male partners must be able to “nurture” us while they penetrate us four times a week. This will gratify our apparently universal sexual needs as women! Our silly woman-brains are to blame! But, his advice is patronizing and downright silly. It is ridiculous to suggest that women require “different” sex simply because we are women, as if all women are heterosexual and that ALL heterosexual women desire to have intercourse. Of course, Oz points to a study that dates back to the 1960s to prove that men require intercourse. I have an inkling that Oz is alluding to Kinsey's sex research. To understand why such studies are not the best sources, one only needs to read Andrea Dworkin, who took to deconstructing Kinsey's work and his biases. Also, couldn't Oz pull up some recent studies? Possibly studies not conducted by a man...

Self-Explanatory 

Like many doctors, though, Oz claims that this need is complicated and is due to the extensive “biological differences”  in men and women’s brains (he even insists women's brains shrink during pregnancy!) Also, like many other doctors operating from a male-centric perspective, Oz believes in the seemingly new problem of “sex addiction." This "diagnosis" informs men that they actually cannot control using and buying women's bodies or consuming pornography. But men have different brains!
With this sexual equivalent of a “get out of jail free” card, it is easier for men to see themselves as victims and “powerless” over their decisions and actions that affect women, women's status in the world and society as a whole. Why don't we ask ourselves: what does such a diagnoses say about our society and what does it say about how we construct our social realities?

Patriarchy has a way of normalizing itself and the media assists in that normalization by providing men with reassurance that they indeed are not in control of themselves. Not only do men need to maintain sufficient erections, but they need to place that erection into a woman’s body or "deal with" their erection through using pornography. Women are then held responsible. Women are told to facilitate this apparently "inevitable" need that men have, this apparent healthy-life requirement. Women are to do this by providing constant access to their bodies -- through physical access, the male gaze and consuming self-criticism. How dare any woman (assuming, as Oz does, that she is heterosexual) try and shorten her husband’s life and negatively impact HIS health by not having intercourse with him?

Such televised medicalizing and public devaluing of women’s bodies, health, and sexuality, which is masked as“liberation” furthers sexual inequality and oppression. When rich people with lots of power spout out restrictive advice as "scientific truth" they truly allow propaganda to flow freely; propaganda that is intended to maintain the patriarchal status quo and keep women in a subordinate social position.

Petition to Close "Win a Wife" Radio Contest *Update*

Readers,


Here is your chance to add to the the over 1000 signatures *update* - there are now 7,339 signatures -  to get this sexist, misogynistic and downright dehumanizing contest closed. 


All you have to do is go here to sign 




In the meantime, check out some interesting dialogues taking place at the Feminist Media Collective blog 


- Why reproductive rights and prostitution are not the same thing: A response to one decriminalization argument



- Is being an Abolitionist a 'red-flag'?


-Slutwalks, sex work, and the future of feminism






Have a joyous, boner-killing weekend!

"Boner Killing" is Violence Against Teh Menz?

I've just been informed by an Anonymous poster that my blog title, "Boner Killer" is encouraging and perpetuating "sexual violence" towards men. 


Now that I have finished my lengthy guffaw from the mere shock of the comment, lets hear your thoughts...especially those of you who have expressed a love for my blog title.


Just for the record, Anonymous, killing a boner implies that I am taking away a boner. It does not imply that I literally take to the streets to castrate men and somehow physically overpower them. It certainly doesn ot imply that I, or any other woman for that matter, has the societal power to even walk up to a man in the same way they would walk up to us prior to an assault. This scenario would likely have a pretty rare place in our society, given how women are systematically treated by men around the world. I mean, we can't even go for a walk in the evenings without fearing rape or harassment. 


But I digress. Let's get back to what "boner killer" means...


When someone refers to someone else as a "boner killer" they mean that the other person is a sort of wrecker-of-fun - someone who is attempting to destroy a man's boner or his "good time" somehow. An example of this is my blog search-terms. After the Black Swan came out on DVD, many people were searching "Black Swan Boner Killer" and this would bring them to my blog. It is likely the Black Swan was referred to this way because the film did not contain an amount of boner-inducing zest for these dudes and so they said it was a "boner killer." 


Women who refuse to live up to conventional beauty standards and fail to give a rat's arse about giving dude's the jollies in their trousers are often called "Boner Killers" - that is why this blog is titled as such. 


Personally, it terribly unfortunate to me that someone came here to comment and pretend that sexual violence perpetrated by women against men is a relevant concern in our world - considering how pervasive violence against women is, systematically and otherwise. This is not suggesting that men are not sexually abused or harmed by women. The large majority the of sexual abuse and assault against boys and men are committed by other men. However, this blog is about women and the realities that women face; grim realities. They are everywhere. It is happening every moment of every day, somewhere in the world.

So, to those who wish to comment (those who follow my comment policy) here is my question to you: Are men really at risk for "sexual violence" because of my desire to turn a bonerfied woody into a damp sock? Will gaggles of women take to the streets to be "sexually violent" towards men? Your thoughts...


Oh, and just a reminder, Anonymous comments do not get published - this has been in my comment policy since day one and so adequate warning has been provided. 






Photo found here

Links - July 18, 2011 *Updated*

Links July 18, 2011


The F Word: Feminist Media Collective "Of course pornography is a prisoner's right. Because women aren't actually human beings"

 Excerpt:
‘Only in America’, I thought immediately. Only in America would a person be so selfish, so deluded, to think that their individual rights should exist at the expense of the human rights of others. And this is exactly what pornography does. It removes the rights of women to be human. Women in pornography are not represented as whole human beings, they are represented as things to ejaculate onto or into. Women, in pornography, are not represented as women, they are represented as body parts.


The F Word: Feminist Media Collective "Burlesque: They tell me it's just for fun...Except I'm not having any"


Excerpt:
I have seen several burlesque shows in Vancouver. And Ariana and I went again, for research purposes; to check out what’s happening on the scene these days. Hoping we would find all sorts of subversion, you know, challenges to gender norms, maybe some comedy, something even remotely feministish. What we found was a stage and some women awkwardly taking off their clothes, with smiles pasted across their faces so we knew they were enjoying themselves. A man in a business suit ‘hosted’ the evening, and introduced all the ‘girls’. He remained clothed throughout the evening. A male MC was also allowed the privilege of keeping his clothes on. One after another, ‘girl’ after ‘girl’ got up on stage, unzipped her dress and, by the end of the ‘show’ was in pasties and a g-string, posing for a cheering crowd. Let’s play find the subversion! There is nothing new here. It’s just the same old thing. And I wasn’t having any fun.

Nimbostratus Parade "Dude Sentencing or Why real Justice Eludes Women"

Excerpt:
I just read about one Xavier Robert Bissonnette, a fifty-six year old Calgary man who raped a seventeen year old girl he was corresponding with over the internet. The story apparently is newsworthy only because Bissonnette is HIV positive. He was diagnosed in 1998. He has most likely signed the death warrant of the child he raped. The charges he is facing in a court of law?
Aggravated sexual assault.
That's it. That's all. The only charge.

Womon On a Journey "On rape fantasies and BDSM"

Excerpt:

Clearly, our fantasies arise fromsomewhere, and since we have the capability of changing our fantasies, they are not biologically programmed.
Perhaps to the BDSM crowd, radfems seem perfect, as though we never think an “unpure”  thought (to use a moralistic term)  regarding sex. This just simply isn’t so. Plus, I have met women who used to be really into BDSM as a way to cope with abuse, who now have embraced radical feminism and feel much freerer for it.  However, we can never expect radical feminism to have the appeal that sex-pozzie “feminism” has, because “sex pozzie” feminism does not seek to challenge the patriarchial values we are surrounded in like a fish in water.

I Blame the Patriarchy "A Bit of Lighthearted Fun"

Excerpt:


"The true nature of our status as the sex class is, by the way, that we are imprisoned in a rape continuum. This continuum ranges from the “voluntary” performance of femininity (which quantifies women’s usefulness to men), to compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures availability to men), to pornography (which eroticizes inequality), to violent sexual assault (which is at the apex of the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women)."


Sociological Images "Racism and Jingoism Among U.S Soccer Fans"


Excerpt:


"After the tsunami in March, we featured a series of hateful Facebook updates suggesting that the Japanese deserved the devastation. Yesterday Japan won the women’s World Cup against the U.S. and we’re seeing the same rhetoric.  The collection below, and more, was up on Buzzfeed as of yesterday night."


In the News

The Guardian "Doctors' anti-abortion views could impact on women's access to service"

Excerpt: 

"A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs."

Ottawa Citizen "Hudak says he 'may have' signed anti-abortion petition"

Excerpt: 

"Ontario Tory leader Tim Hudak was grilled over his stance on abortion Monday, as he staged a press conference to tout a policy targeting convicted sex offenders. Hudak, entering his first provincial election campaign as party leader, told a group on the Christian right in 2009 he was opposed to abortion and had signed petitions calling for the defunding of abortions."

Newsweek "The Growing Demand for Prostitution"

Excerpt: 


"One man in the study explained why he likes to buy prostitutes: “You can have a good time with the servitude,” he said. A contrasting view was expressed by another man as the reason he doesn’t buy sex: “You’re supporting a system of degradation,” he said."

Some Thoughts on Feminism, Individualism, and Liberal Queer Theories by White Dudes

Before you read:
I am NOT transphobic. If you believe that a radical feminist critique of liberal male queer theory, at least some of the popular theory, makes one a transphobe, then you should stop reading this now.

I believe in equal rights and life free of discrimination for every human being, this includes trans folks. I have absolutely nothing against trans people, this is merely supplying some thoughts i had after reading a very brilliant blog post. I am also using this post to express my personal criticisms of some theories and activism.


I just recently read a radical profeminist's most recent blog post here, which discusses liberal queer politics and its effects on radical feminism and radical lesbian feminist politics. The post is unbelievably amazing and completely accurate, in my opinion. You really should read it, as it will explain everything much better than I can.

As most of you know, a lot of feminist theories are being replaced by liberal queer theories, proposed by white men. Sites like feministing.com deal more so with homosexual men and trans men issues than issues of sexism and patriarchy. This is because feminism seems to no longer be about sexism, but rather about queer politics, at least the liberal homosexual male politics. So, obviously there are not enough people willing to challenge liberal queer politics because they run the risk of being labelled as anti-gay or transphobe. This is ridiculous considering the liberal queers do not speak for every homosexual, and they definitely do not speak for lesbians. In fact, they do not seem to care for lesbian politics at all, let alone radical lesbian politics.

The post I linked to examines some liberal queer politics as well as some of the trans activist work that has come out of some blog sites. But, of course stating anything that even questions the politics of trans people will get "transphobe" stamped onto your forehead. To illustrate this, the radical profeminist blog discusses how so many people disregard Sheila Jeffreys' incredibly important work because they believe her to be a 'transphobe' for criticizing the gay liberal male agenda.

The funny thing is, very few people have actually read Jeffreys' work or looked at her book "Unpacking Queer Politics", which is a vital read for anyone interested in radical politics. A lot of activists tend to forget that they are not above critique. This whole notion of being beyond criticism is directly working against radical politics, which essentially open anything and everything up for critique. This is necessary if any fundamental change is to occur in society. I believe that some groups of liberal queer politics (usually in support of gay men, not lesbians) are harming women's liberation by discouraging radical feminism and promoting individualist ideals.

Individualism brings a whole whack of problems, as we see now with our lovely capitalist system. Individualism allows people to put on their "me" sunglasses and forget the struggle many people face throughout the world because of issues with race, class and gender. But, this does not matter because now all these women are "cis-privileged" and just don't know it yet. Yes, I'm saying that cis-privilege is a pile of shit, I guess that makes me a transphobe.

But wait, let me explain! This idea of cis-privilege is damning to women's liberation because it sends the message that women-assigned-at-birth are privileged! Yes! Some (NOT ALL) transactivists believe that women who are not trans have fucking power in our society.

This is obscene! Women, regardless of trans politics, are NEVER in a place of privilege. But yet, we have men, who have had surgery to transition to become more biologically like a woman (which is a social construct in and of itself) are claiming to be more oppressed than assigned-at-birth-females. How does this make any sense? How can any group of people, especially an apparent "transgressive" group, claim that women actually have some sort of privilege? This is unbelievable and I'm glad it is being critiqued by radical feminists as well as possibly other trans and queer activists. Yet, if you simply critique this idea of 'cis-privilege' you are automatically thrown into the pile of transphobic people.

How does this make sense? I don't know. But it draws support because most of the people saying it are white dudes. People seem to think that, if a dude is white and heterosexual cares less about women than a white homosexual male, we all know this is ridiculous. If you have read anything by Sheila Jeffreys, especially her critiques on gay male culture's impact on women and lesbians than you would understand that patriarchy is patriarchy.

This is not suggesting that white homosexual or trans dudes are always in a place of privilege or are always trying to oppress women and halt our liberation. I am simply suggesting that critiquing the highly acclaimed white queer male theories is important in any radical politics. Why? Because radical politics is concerned with uprooting oppression, to uproot something you must find what sustains it. To find what sustains oppression of women, one must critique all possible institutions as well as theories.

Please check out the blog post on A Radical Profeminist blog and tell me your thoughts.

PRIORITIES, SEX POLITICS AND REALITY

I have been reading "Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism" lately, and it's full of great articles and essays. It features a lot of Sheila Jeffery's work as well as Andrea Dworkin.



Recently, I made a youtube video mocking Violet Blue, a so-called "sexpert" with zero credentials. She has a blog up where she scopes out apparent "feminist, female-friendly porn" and shares it. This makes her an expert on sexuality.
So much so that Oprah featured her via Skype to talk about how great porn is with Jenna Jameson. To my surprise, Violet Blue, after I left her a rather spiteful message on one of her chauvinistic blog posts, blogged about ME! Yes, she did. All of her "feminist" followers complained about what a puritan I was, how awful I am and how repressed I must be. An anti-feminist by the name of MadShangi found the blog and paraded it allover youtube. This inspired me to get even more involved in anti-exploitation feminist work. I wanted to find out more about these women who hurt women.

For now, let's get back to the book. I think Sheila Jeffreys has a bad rep. because she has a lot of ideas that a lot of feminists probably do not share. I find her fascinating and fair. Last Christmas I received "Beauty and Misogyny" which examines western cultural practices of beauty, fashion and feminist politics. Some of the material was a bit much for me, but a lot of it was new and I took it in the best I could. Keep in mind however, that I do acknowledge flaws in myself
I give into patriarchal cultural practices:
leg shaving
pit shaving
wearing a little makeup

I guess it's not that brutal. It could be much worse. I suppose that I could be wearing push up bras, using fake tanners, wearing fake nails and shaving my vulva. I could be piercing my clitoris and my breasts, wearing stilettos and thus ruining my future chance at having a healthy back.

I could be doing a lot of things, right? I don't like having that "it's not that bad" attitude. Nevertheless, my attitude acknowledges the practices put forth by the patriarchy (and thus I feel they need to be analyzed) but there are more important and dangerous (at least in my mind) practices occurring. These practices should be obvious to most women, they have been around for far too long.

Right now a woman is being pimped out, beat, raped, exploited and possibly killed.
Right now, some man is in his home watching a woman being pimped out, beat, raped, exploited and possibly killed.
That man is masturbating to those practices. He is taking pleasure in witnessing these things - these practices that he feels he is entitled to.

We live in a culture where men feel that they need unlimited access to a woman's body, be it through prostitution, sexual assault, or pornography. Our society calls this "free speech".

Where is our speech?

There are self-proclaimed feminists who take part in this male privileged, misogynistic behavior. Yes, there are women who purchase and use pornography, women that go to strip clubs and buy prostitutes.

They call it liberation. Sexual liberation.

They equate female liberation with male pleasure. This is where sex politics play a role. Females are sexually liberated, according to sexual libertarian 'feminists', when they allow themselves to become subordinate to male sexuality. When we fail to challenge our own lives and our own privilege, we fail to examine what women as a class go through. When we fail to question power struggles in our relationships, we fail to find out how those dynamics affect all women.

To conclude,

"Pornography is the orchestrated destruction of women's bodies and souls; rape, battery, incest, and prostitution animate it; dehumanization and sadism characterize it; it is war on women, serial assaults on dignity, identity, and human worth; it is tyranny. Each woman who has survived knows from the experience of her own life that pornography is captivity -- the woman trapped in the picture used on the woman trapped wherever he's got her."

--Andrea Dworkin