Tuesday, November 28, 2006

In answer to a question that I was not actually asked directly,

mostly because, i suspect, the askers in question are well convinced that they already know the answer, as i am firmly established as hopelessly beyond the pale.

but since i -did- see it interrogated of at least one other (well-credentialed, may i add) feminist, who correctly answered "none of your fucking business," but, alas, is no longer with us on the blogosphere, i suspect in no small part because of the sort of bullshit quasi-Red Guard treatment she encountered on this thread, for example, and since I'm in that sort of mood, I thought I'd answer the question anyway.

"Do you use porn?"

Well, let's see. For the most part, I "use" written erotica. I do own a couple of videos made by these producers, indie lesbians who film themselves along with real-life friends and lovers, for the most part. The latter company, btw, fatale/S.I.R., ( i -think- they're merged now, not positive) is also responsible for producing and distributing--not nearly widely enough, sadly--a truly excellent resource, "Healing Sex," a non-erotic film specifically geared toward education and therapeutic exercises for abuse survivors and their partners. Which reminds me: I think I'll buy the DVD. As for the others, the videotapes, well, my VCR's busted; I feel about as much desire to replace them as I would for any other movie I've enjoyed. Maybe not quite as much as say "All About Eve." We'll see.

I've also subscribed now and again to an indie online producer, same sort of deal (lesbians, self-made, self-shot, not making their living from it, keeping day jobs to support their actual passion). Like I say: for the most part, I prefer written stuff.

I've seen a handful of more or less mainstream hetpr0n flicks over the years. Can't say I'm particularly drawn by them either way, for the most part.

And I've had about as much exposure to all the wonders and horrors of the Internetz as pretty much anyone else with a mouse and any degree of curiosity. It's: there, pretty much. Is my take on it.

Oh, and I've been known to enjoy the hot boy on boy action every so often.

Before (and indeed after, as well) I discovered the world of actual pr0n, as I recall, I "used" scenes from mainstream R and even PG-rated movies, sections from books on my parents' shelves (Joseph Wambaugh police stories were good sources for kink, I recall; others were, what, Alberto Moravia, "The Conformist;" bits and pieces of "Ulysses," something or other by Thomas Pynchon, some seriously unlikely stuff as well, not what you'd think of as "dirty" at all, especially), and indeed pretty much whatever portion of the outside stimuli that for whatever reason clicked with my burgeoning little snowflake of a fantasy life in its own individual snowflake of a libido-making way, same as it's done for zillions of humans of all sorts since time immemorial.

Oh, yeah, and generally, I use my left hand.

Seeing as how at least one of the self-appointed Cardinal Fangs in question is apparently of the belief that even taking nekkid pictures of one's own consenting girlfriend is objectifying and woman-hating, i do not anticipate her or any such person finding this particularly persuasive.

Just, you know, I figure as a public service. Wank fodder for the masturbatory rages, you know.

Oh, did you know that there's more than way to wank? As in, using found material and/or one's projected fantasies about someone else as fodder for a psycho-physiological process that results in a pleasant (if perhaps not unambiguously so) build up and then discharge of feelings?

Well, there is.

Personally, I like those other ones, too--the fifteen minutes of hate one, the wrathy wroth of righteous outrage one, the wallowing in borrowed suffering one--but on the whole, i find actual literal orgasms rather healthier and more pleasant.

But each to her own...as long as it's consensually derived, your pleasure, your...discharge.

Tell me: are you sure all of yours are?

116 comments:

belledame222 said...

p.s. he calls himself that because that's his NAME, nebech.

Amber said...

Seeing as how at least one of the self-appointed Cardinal Fangs in question is apparently of the belief that even taking nekkid pictures of one's own consenting girlfriend is objectifying and woman-hating, i do not anticipate her or any such person finding this particularly persuasive.

I wonder what this person would think about taking photos of yourself - for example, I Shot Myself, Bare Imagery, and nerdpr0n.com. I would be very interested to hear the answer to that question, actually.

Will write more later. No time now. ARgh.

belledame222 said...

i'm not at all sure i would be, to be honest.

seriously, though, if you want more of this shit, old school, or rather new old school, go to the library, check it out:

"The Sexual Liberals and the War On Feminism,"

ed. Janice Raymond and Dorcehn Leidholdt.

it's not a Big Red Book. it's a thin grey book.

all the blood-pressure spikage and incredulous laughter you can eat, gua-ran-teed.

Amber said...

"The Sexual Liberals and the War On Feminism,"

Yeah... I had it on my Amazon wish list for a while, if you can believe that. But it always said out of stock with 4-6 weeks shipping, so finally I just took it off. Also it was expensive.

I'll have to look for it at the library or something. Heard you and a few others (maybe BL?) mention it more than once.

belledame222 said...

-so- do not pay for it. you should be able to find it in the, -a- library, i would think.

Vanessa said...

Ahhh, I must say I agree about "using" mainstream movies.

As a movie snob (please, cineaste!) I can't sit through bad production values and silly acting.

Give me, for instance, any scene from Velvet Goldmine (naked, glittery Ewan McGregor making out with innocent young Christian Bale? Rawr), or Djimon Hounsu wearing chainmail in Gladiator or maybe just Angelina Jolie in the leather suit with the eyepatch in Sky Captian and the World of Tomorrow (makes me question my sexuality...hubba hubba! Seriously).

Not that that was entirely the point of your post, but it kind of got me thinking. Hee.

belledame222 said...

>Angelina Jolie in the leather suit with the eyepatch

you are of course familiar with the oeuvre of Cap'n Dyke?

JackGoff said...

Hehe. Got to that a bit too late. I just had the thought to link to Me Cap'n, but ye beat me to it.

he calls himself that because that's his NAME, nebech.

And what nebech thought otherwise? 8^D

belledame222 said...

pals of you know who, Monday morning quarterbacking. not worth it.

JackGoff said...

I found that thread. Meh. People are way too prudish.

I thought someone who actually knows me said something about it.

he's a twit of the highest order

I'll not disagree. Too bad that mirror doesn't shine both ways for her.

belledame222 said...

but hey, "of the highest order!" so, -quality- twittage.

as a family friend back in Indiana used to say of her lout of a husband, whenever he'd said something particularly boorish,

"Consider the source."

delphyne said...

Oh my God, it's all about MEEEEE!!! Or is it about someone else too? I just can't tell with you.

Can't you just say directly that those quotes are from me or would that be just a step too far?

Belledame, the reason I asked Sofie if she used porn is because she was setting herself up as some kind of neutral arbiter, who could take an objective view about violent porn and censorship. I thought that there were more personal reasons for her stances than an overwhelming commitment to free speech. Not unlike the Feminists Against Censorship crowd who should really rename themselves Feminists for Porn if they want to be accurate, as their defence of free speech never extends any further than that.

You, like most other people in this debate have been quite honest which side you come down on. So there really wouldn't be any reason to ask you that, as unlike Sofie you aren't pretending faux-neutrality. It's all about context, BD, the context.

As for thinking Jack Goff's porn pics of his girlfriend are objectifying and women-hating, well that's what I think about porn so why wouldn't I think that about his own personal supply too? Makes sense to me.

antiprincess said...

see, I don't know that Jack and JackPartner's photographs are a good example of objectifying, woman-hating pornography, Delphyne.

I was under the impression they were her idea.

If I came to you with a camera, and film, and said "hey, take my picture!" would you say yes?

does it matter if I have clothes on when I ask you?

I think if I was aggressive and obnoxious enough, you would feel a lot more coerced by me than I by you (whether I was clothed or not).

belledame222 said...

Sure, if all you care about is the purity of the ideology and not, as you say, the context. In this case, the context meant that you completely alienated not a few potential allies and in the process made at least one person (once again) feel utterly horrible; but then, at least based on my experience of you online, this has never seemed to have been much of a concern of yours. As I've said, I've never doubted your consistency for a second.

belledame222 said...

as i'm understanding it, it doesn't actually matter to delphyne if it was her idea or not; it's the principle of the thing.

belledame222 said...

And you didn't just "ask" Sofie; the tone in there was...well, yes, between you and the other two, i was waiting to see when the Comfy Chair would come out.

seriously, do you know how you come off to, oh, quite a number of people i would say? Do you care?

belledame222 said...

I mean, look, if we could forget about the porn (i know, radical idea) for -five- seconds. Here's what's bothering me.

Sofie, from all that i can see, whatever your opinion of her position on porn (yes i know, it's the most important thing EVER) is a real, serious feminist and socialist activist.

In that thread, she was relentlessly grilled by several of you, including pony, who as far as i can see, has nothing to offer except astonishingly hateful bile and utter non sequiters.

so now, Sofie's gone, and pony remains.

tell me, does this seem like a good state of affairs to you? for -feminism-, i mean?

and yes, Sofie is a free agent, as indeed are we all; it was her "choice" (here apparently choice -is- real, not an imagined construct of the Patriarchy) to pull her blog.

I ask you, delphyne, because, judging at least from that thread, and the other threads where i have seen you interacting with sofie and with pony, respectively, you've given sofie a far harder time.

which -to me,- regardless of where i or sofie had come down on porn (if for instance sofie had been the "anti" and pony the "sex post" person, with nothing else having differed), would make about as much sense as valuing the contuining participation of Lyndon La Rouche over..I don't know, Barack Obama? on account of LLR also calls himself a "Democrat" and Obama has made overtures toward religious people and as far as I know LLR has done no such thing, and as i hate religion (hypothetically only) with a white-hot blinding passion that's the main thing that matters here.

that and the generally being horrible to people who to my mind have in no way earned it, and the apparent indifference to oh i don't know say, Kim's recent grief? but again, i realize this is probably not relevant to you, here. it is however key to understanding my...position, delphyne.

belledame222 said...

and you know, delphyne, and again i am not at all sure if this is going to land, with you, but i'm going to make one attempt: there are in fact other possibilities besides:

Yes!

No!

"neutral."

Really.

I mean, apparently not to you, on this one issue at least, which is why you hurled yourself at Amanda (for whom i have no love lost myself, for separate reasons, so no dog here) and even at Violet Socks; which, as long as i have you here, i just have to ask:

Seriously? What were you thinking?

Do you even understand what you did?

oh well, not my problem really, just: bemused.

belledame222 said...

by the way: before you go into the ideology again:

I just want you to know that I know what the ideology is. And actually, I appreciate that you articulated it so clearly (i believe i last saw it on Vociferate, before Andrea pulled the plug; there's been a lot of that about, hasn't there), because heretofore i had not seen it spelled out that bluntly by someone who actually believes it (as opposed to Bitch Lab, who had read many of the books and was trying to spell that out as well to some people; as often happens with people who actually do their homework, she was largely ignored and otherwise ill-rewarded for her efforts).

and frankly, if Amanda had bothered to do her homework as well, even pay attention to what BL was saying, as i've said before, she never would have made the gaffe that led to your response in there in the first place; in that sense you were absolutely correct.

which still doesn't change my impression of how incredibly wrongheaded what you did in there was in realpolitik terms; but, well, again, that's kind of your problem.

All that said, delphyne: you know, there are other people who believe what you believe as firmly as you do.

It still doesn't seem to stop them from, like, acknowledging that so and so has a point (in any other field), much less, o i don't know, offering comforting words in times of grief? commenting on their very own stories of abuse with the same sympathy you give to people who "agree" with you? being able to crack a joke with them now and again? you know, recognizing their actual humanity?

and god forbid one might actually work together with someone who doesn't agree with you on your pet flaming issue, even if they might actually be a tremendous help in -other- aspects that -do- affect real women, real suffering.

That's the difference, delphyne.

That's why i call you an ideologue.

It isn't a compliment, no.

belledame222 said...

doesn't agree with you 100%, i should say.

belledame222 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
delphyne said...

"seriously, do you know how you come off to, oh, quite a number of people i would say? Do you care?"

I could say exactly the same thing to you with your spiteful vicious little threads and ongoing attacks on radical feminists.

Do you know how you come across to people BD? Do you care?

What bullshit and sanctimonious cant. It's the same old crap because you don't like what radical feminists are saying you try and paint us as evil bullies spoiling everybody's lives. If it bothers you that much, ignore us. I hardly ever talk or think about you. You spend quite a lot of time talking about us.

I mean you're worried about and have closely followed my interactions with Pony, Kim, Sofie, Jack Goff, Violet Socks and Amanda. So much so that you are even providing commentary on all of it. I mean thanks for watching me so closely and all but really it's none of your FUCKING BUSINESS.

What is your problem BD? You are following what I do so very, very closely. Are you a bit obsessed?

delphyne said...

"which is why i didn't bother to name you here. you're just, well, here you are, aren't you."

Yeah you didn't name me but what I said really, really pissed you off so you bothered to talk about it.

At least own up to your vendettas.

belledame222 said...

um, delphyne? i don't "follow" you. i encounter you in a number of threads in which i also happen to take an interest, for my very own reasons, and in each one, you're being you. and then friends of mine have their own complaints, and there you are.

but in answer to your original question: the reason i didn't name you, delphyne, was because i honestly couldn't be bothered to check whether it was you, or stormcloud, or--well, i figured with pony it would've been even loopier--or some of the others.

in other words, i am sorry to disappoint, but it's actually not, in fact, all about you.

and if you care to scroll down a ways, you will notice that in fact i write quite a bit about many things that not only aren't you, but aren't about radical feminism.

you're just my wacky ideologue du jour, i'm afraid. in that sense, yes, i am a tad obsessive.

it is kind of hilarious, though, getting that particular accusation from you of all people. tell me delphyne, exactly -how much porn- have you waded through, in your zeal to demonstrate -just how awful- it is?

delphyne said...

"and god forbid one might actually work together with someone who doesn't agree with you on your pet flaming issue, even if they might actually be a tremendous help in -other- aspects that -do- affect real women, real suffering."

This is just your imagination or worse you know it's not true and it's more propaganda. I'm happy to work with sex-postive feminists on any issues where we share the same views. We don't share the same views on pornsititution so we can't work together on that. But I'm sure we agree on lots of issues like violence against women, abortion, equal pay, I'm sure you can think of others.

belledame222 said...

slippage, oh well.

i'm sorry, delphyne; i didn't realize you were that keen to get into a feud with me, personally. as you can see, i'm actually kind of busy.

I mean, yes, I think you're rather horrible, generally; but you're hardly the only or even the most prominent one even in this relatively unimportant thrash among many, so.

delphyne said...

"tell me delphyne, exactly -how much porn- have you waded through, in your zeal to demonstrate -just how awful- it is?"

If you read that thread that you referenced properly you'd know I first saw porn when I was four and I probably saw quite a bit until I was 23 when I finally caught a bit of a clue and recognised its woman-hating content. So you work it out, quite a bit although probably nothing like the amount a porn user would see these days.

As for ideologues, you're so attached to yours you can't stop yourself from launching personal attacks on people who strongly disagree with you. I'll let the audience work out which one of us is wacky.

belledame222 said...

Well, delphyne, that's quite true, we do, wrt abortion, yadda.

so how come the last time i brought this up wrt your behavior toward say antiprincess, your response was well no she does not in fact agree with (whatever percent of issues i had said, 80, 90) because, ideology; therefore...well, what? Point was missed, that's all i remember.

You alienate people from your cause, delphyne. Your approach, i should say. Understand? And sure, you can say the same for me wrt other radical feminists.

If you take a gander at some of my other posts and blogroll, delphyne, you may notice that in fact i have a rather broader base. There is a reason for this.

belledame222 said...

>. I'll let the audience work out which one of us is wacky.

Okey-dokey then.

Take care, mazel tov, thank yer ma for the chicken soup.

Amber said...

What is your problem BD? You are following what I do so very, very closely. Are you a bit obsessed?

Oh that is such a fucking red herring. I'm sick of that line being thrown down all the time when someone gets his/her panties in a particular knot. Look, many of us in the "feminist blogosphere" are ALL following EACH OTHER (or each other's writing, I should say) closely, because feminism is something we are interested in and passionate about. There's no need to throw it down like some kind of accusation of mental instability. Fuck that noise.

As the word verification says: "euaws." Yep.

antiprincess said...

This is just your imagination or worse you know it's not true and it's more propaganda. I'm happy to work with sex-postive feminists on any issues where we share the same views.

prove it.

and while you're at it, teach the rest of your (ahem) posse to do the same, hopefully without the scorn, derision, beneath-contemptitude for people who don't march in your army. That would be real progress.

belledame222 said...

well, evidently i'm not -that- obsessed with D or i "would have read the thread properly."

sorry to disappoint.

JackGoff said...

So, delphyne, would you aregue that I am not devoted to female equality because I blog as "JackGoff". stormcloud seems to think so.

So perhaps his priorities are my phallus first, feminism/equality second?

Oh yes, because that's all I ever talk about, all I ever use my blog for, and all I ever do. Think about my phallus. And this is obvious why?

On the few occasions I’ve come across his posts, I’ve always been a bit suspicious of him, his bloghandle being a ‘clever’ pun sans G, kind of puts the focus ‘down there’.

Oh, right. Because I obviously blog as JackGoff to prove that I'm so witty. Would you and SC feel suspicious about me if you actually read the things I say about other issues not relating to porn? Probably, because I'm dirty...tainted, as evidenced by pictures of my girlfriend which were taken as part of consensual sexual play.

Oh, and I'm a twit. Of course, I agree with you there, but that doesn't mean you should be "suspicious" of me. I'm trying to be a better pro-feminist by reading feminist blogs. Porn is one issue you and I disagree on (though not as much as I think you believe). Yet this has been enough to other me. Fine. I'm willing to accept that.

belledame222 said...

>issues not relating to porn?

I don't understand. What does this mean?

looks up "issues not relating to porn."

"Computer says no." -whirrrr-

belledame222 said...

>Oh, right. Because I obviously blog as JackGoff to prove that I'm so witty.

And here i was assuming that it was being right up front as a preemptive device based on years' worth of oh-so-clever comments about your birth name. Huh.

delphyne said...

I feel like I'm being relentlessly grilled by you peeps here. Can I sit on the comfy chair?

belledame222 said...

sure. there're some soft cushions over there, too.

Amber said...

I feel like I'm being relentlessly grilled by you peeps here.

Well, good, now you know how Sofie felt. And how, I think, most of us commenting here have felt at one point or another from the treatment we've received from YOU and (some) others who share your opinions.

belledame222 said...

at last! something we all have in common!

"Kumbaya..."

delphyne said...

"Well, good, now you know how Sofie felt. And how, I think, most of us commenting here have felt at one point or another from the treatment we've received from YOU and (some) others who share your opinions."

Nah, this thread is a personal attack on me. On the other hand Sofie joined an anti-porn discussion with an agenda and got disagreed with. A bit like what will happen if you all turn up at Wheelock College in March. If I'd started a thread on a blog about Sofie and how awful she was then she'd know how I feel though.

So you don't know how I feel because we don't start threads to have a go at you or tell you that you are alienating women (although you do alienate quite a few radical feminists) or any of that other bullshit that has nothing to do with the discussion and everything to do with you trying to score points with people you disagree with.

belledame222 said...

Okay, bored now.

antiprincess said...

So you don't know how I feel because we don't start threads to have a go at you

you personally don't, you don't have a blog (that I know of).

but if "WE" comprises Amy or Heart (at the very least), then that statement is inaccurate at best.

delphyne said...

I hope that boredom means that means you'll stop your little digs about me, quoting me without mentioning my name to prove my awfulness and generally getting all up in arms against my behaviour that you disapprove of, Belledame.

That would be great. :)

belledame222 said...

Remind me: and I owe you any particular consideration because...?

And actually i started the thread to respond to the question; the go was in passing, as it were.

But really, delphyne: are you seriously going to sit here and try to claim that you don't "go" at anyone?

belledame222 said...

>none of your FUCKING BUSINESS.

mm. Insofar as it involves people i respect and care about? Beg to differ.

As for painting you as a bully, delphyne: well, again, the audience is the one to decide, ultimately, isn't it.

As we say on a VC I belong to:

"You own your own words."

belledame222 said...

>A bit like what will happen if you all turn up at Wheelock College in March.>

o my.

"It's like in the olden days, in the days of France, when men would slap each other with their gloves say, y'know..."D'Artagnan!"... y'know, "how dare you talk to me like that, you!," and smack 'em."

antiprincess said...

dude - we could act this whole thing out with our My Dinner With Andre action figures!

Andrea said...

"so how come the last time i brought this up wrt your behavior toward say antiprincess, your response was well no she does not in fact agree with (whatever percent of issues i had said, 80, 90) because, ideology; therefore...well, what? Point was missed, that's all i remember."

Oh, I remember that. You said that Delphyne and maybe others had behaved badly toward Antiprincess, and considering they agree on about 90% of all feminist issues, why not work together.
Delphyne came back with how radfems believe that patriarchy rests on 'pornstitution' and so AP and she do not agree on most feminist things.

That was the gist of it.

belledame222 said...

yep. and i said then, something along the lines of,

well, shit, it was better in context. i mean, that was good; rather ringing as i recall.

but what i said then and what i still believe:

Even if it turns out you were right about every statistic and study and other anti-porn argument you ever made, delphyne, you're wrong about this. It's not about -agreement.- Antiprincess is not upset because of -disagreement.- Maybe you are.

But this is a fine and tender-hearted woman who, as you yourself note here, is in agreement with y'all on many other issues; cares about women, you know, bottom line. And was in search of a community, which is -also- what feminism is about, as you well know, or damn well ought to.

And she was essentially treated like a blackball in a sorority. And you were a part of this.

And now (i know there was more before it, dammit), when someone says, basically,

"Hey? Couldja just be human for a second?"

...you just come back with more dreary dogma.

You are wrong.

Call it sanctimonious (there's a fine word) or what you will. I stand by it. And if it bothers you that i say such things, why then, delphyne, don't come around here and read it. Yeah? We know that one, yes? Yes.

Andrea said...

Seems like some are focussed on JackGoff's 'down there', but so far none of them are JackGoff...

Curiouser and curiouser.

belledame222 said...

"But, doc! You're the one showing me all the dirty pictures!"

delphyne said...

"And she was essentially treated like a blackball in a sorority. And you were a part of this."

Once again bullshit. The second post to antiprincess's blog was slagging off women who disagreed with her, charecterising what we said as "the pink-ribboned vulvolalorrhea of the eternal underdog". And there's you on that thread, Belledame calling me "a piece of work". You've been slagging me off as long as you've been reading what I've got to say. Then you complain that I don't want to be friends with you or her. Do you really not see how irrational that is?

http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_feet2thefire_archive.html

Your problem is that you can't stand people who disagree with you so you slag us off and then paint us as bullies when we react.

And I totally agree with this:

"You own your own words."

Take responsibility for a few of your own.

belledame222 said...

What, for calling you a piece of work? Okay. So I did. And?

and uh no, delphyne, i never wanted to be friends with you, honest.

belledame222 said...

>Your problem is that you can't stand people who disagree with you>

1) Delphyne, are you familiar with the term "projection?"

2) On second thought, skip that. Can you play "Melancholy Baby?"

Veronica said...

Delphyne... I'm not a "sex positive" feminist. And, I don't "use" porn. I don't have a "vendetta" against Radical Feminists.

But, I still think you're an asshole.

And, it's not because of your opinions about porn. Or, feminism, for that matter. It's that you consistently run around telling people what they "really" think, or if they are "really" homosexual, or what their "real" intentions are. You've been at the center of a number of flame wars I've run across and it's ALWAYS because you assert, insist and flat-out demand that you're psychic and everyone else in the conversation is lying.

You don't want people to single you out for being an asshole? Stop calling other folks liars. Your opinions aren't the issue. It's your personality.

belledame222 said...

>dude - we could act this whole thing out with our My Dinner With Andre action figures!

i'm holding out for the Remains of the Day lunchbox, myself.

belledame222 said...

Veronica, sister, thank you for that attempt at an intervention. Much like surgery, although it hurts, i know and you know, it was for her own good. Perhaps someday, if she examines herself rigorously, she will find the truth in your words. or Jesus. or that missing sock. Whatever it is one finds when one examines oneself. I wouldn't know, of course.

belledame222 said...

--oh wait--i forgot. Veronica, I disagree with you! about pr0n! i mean, probably! perhaps! that means i can't stand you! i just...hate you, and i hate your ass face! go! go, and never darken my towels again!

antiprincess said...

I stand by that post.

belledame222 said...

Because of course, you were just, what, moved to start that blog in the damn first place, make that post, because...because of your Sinister Plot to Uphold the Patriarchy! muhahahahaha! certainly not because of feeling hurt by anyone's behavior! no! You so started it, antip. I'm telling.

belledame222 said...

>or if they are "really" homosexual,

oo, wait, i MISSED this one. weally? where?

antiprincess said...

you know, I just checked back on that post, just to be sure I could stand by it, and I have to say - yep.

I hate some men all the time. I hate all men some of the time. sometimes Class Man just makes me want to open fire.

I hate one woman all the time. Just one. I hate all women some of the time. sometimes Class Woman frustrates me nearly to the point of empathy with the MRAs of the world.

the key words here are NEARLY, and SOMETIMES.

you and I, delphyne, had locked horns well prior to that post.

but as I said - I stand by it, cumbersome coinage and all.

antiprincess said...

above - the short version of that post.

not sure I made that clear. sorry.

belledame222 said...

but antip, you said meen things about the Ideology, which is much more important than individual peoples' feelings. Didn't you know?

Veronica said...

At Pandagon a while back. One of the intentional "worm can" entries. Much like Jack's girlfriend is logistically incapable of consenting to naked pictures, it's also logistically impossible to be a lesbian that likes lesbian porn in Delphyne land. And, if you say you are, then what was the phrase? Oh! I remember...

"Must not really be a lesbian."

I thought it a work of art, really. A pure triumph of arrogance and insanity.

antiprincess said...

eh.
my conscience is clean.
sort of.
more or less.
at the moment.
if I don't think about it too hard...

well, no. not really. Now that I think about it, I have mad guilt that I sometimes let my anger get the best of me, both at Class Man and Class Woman, and maybe that leads me to sweeping statements that result in hurt feelings. So that's not so good.

lilcollegegirl said...

Well, now that that's all hashed out, I'd like to ask a question related to the post. If it doesn't make you go all squicky and uncomfylike, belledame, I was wondering if you could share why you tend to prefer erotica? I do, and after thinking about it for a while, I think it's because with me, visual is almost completely unimportant and *feeling* is all-important. And that's one thing that's usually spelled out in erotica and not so much in porn. I was wondering what it was like for you.

belledame222 said...

my goodness! says the self-ID'd hetero woman as I recall!

apparently i'm Memorex, then. go figure.

that's...well, that's just charming!

My!

It's so nice to be "spoken for" by all these straight women; you've no idea.

yeah, BB was explaining about this stuff at one point too as i recall, although she didn't go so far as to tell any one individual what she was or wasn't, i don't think. that, that is truly special.

belledame222 said...

lcl: yes, that is a much more savory and interesting subject isn't it.

I...think yeah, that's a lot of it: that you get more of the "subjective" in (some, obviously not all) written work; how it -feels;- not just how it looks.

and yet you know i don't think it'd be impossible to convey that je ne sais quoi in visual form either; certainly, as i've said, there are bits and pieces here and there in "mainstream" film i find profoundly affecting. you'd laugh if i told you some of them, i bet.

mostly i think much more is possible in written work, and thus i'm a lot more likely to find something to my particular tastes, which admittedly can be a bit arcane sometimes.

in film, you have not only the limits of the budget, but also precisely because pr0n is so marginalized, (still, yes; it's everywhere but it's not considered truly legitimate; horror and fantasy is one step above, which is why it, too, has a lot of chaff among the wheat) it gets these rigid conventions.

and then, the actors tend not to be hired for their -acting- talent so much, nor the writers for the dialogue, and yeah, that factors as well.

Amber said...

at last! something we all have in common!

"Kumbaya..."


I admit, maybe that was immature of me, but I don't really care. Sometimes I just can't help myself... if someone's been an ass and gets served a taste of their own assiness, then yeah, I do enjoy that a bit. I'm not going to pretend I'm above such things.

Amber said...

So you don't know how I feel because we don't start threads to have a go at you or tell you that you are alienating women (although you do alienate quite a few radical feminists) or any of that other bullshit that has nothing to do with the discussion and everything to do with you trying to score points with people you disagree with.

ACtually I have some threads from radfem blogs in my cache that do exactly those things. But I've had my brush with immaturity today, so I won't post 'em; besides, this isn't a pissing contest.

Also I would like to make explicitly clear that I know the actions and behaviors of SOME radfems does not represent ALL radfems.

belledame222 said...

..so, it's not that visual is unimportant to me, exactly, in fact i'm quite visually oriented in many ways, it's just...

hm.

i don't like either porn or erotica that i think of as "mechanistic," even if it's otherwise well-written. You-do-this-to-me-two-three and I'll-do-this-to-you-two-three...

nuance, i like nuance. and delicacy, i like delicacy.

which is not the same as "I like romantic lighting and lots of walking along the beach, no rough stuff."

it's like any other genre, really: i'm picky.

belledame222 said...

>Also I would like to make explicitly clear that I know the actions and behaviors of SOME radfems does not represent ALL radfems.

i should really post a permanent disclaimer on my blog somewhere, like they do on some TV shows.

"does not necessarily represent..."

Amber said...

RED FLAG RED FLAG RED FLAG!!

Your problem is that you can't stand people who disagree with you so you slag us off and then paint us as bullies when we react.

Whenever someone starts a sentence with "Your problem is..." I immediately tune out. Because I know that whatever follows isn't going to be worth my time.

No, please, tell me what MY PROBLEM is!

Heard it a million times, from a million people, for a million different reasons. Over it.

belledame222 said...

>or tell you that you are alienating women

Dude, that's not even a flame; that's an observation of, well? reality? That was actually a helpful hint, in its crass way, did you care to pick it up. shrug. what can i do.

technically i said "people," but sure, if you don't care about the men you also alienate (i.e. Jack) that's consistent enough.

it ain't only men, though.

i mean look: you said yourself: radical feminism is very marginalized. Why do you suppose that is? Wait, don't tell me; we're all too threatened by the, you know, radicalism of the ideas.

The whole, "you're not pure enough, go away"--that has nothing to do with "alienation," of course. Who wouldn't be drawn to that??

belledame222 said...

well and as you know, amber, my blog is a very homogenous place, no diversity of opinion or ideology at all. hell, i can barely stand talking to -you;- you, you...anti-me-ist!

much less a mix of people ranging from Leninists to conservative libertarian Methodists to mainstream Democrats to anarchist Wiccans to progressive Buddhists to radical Muslima women of color to completely apolitical people with whom i probably cheerfully and violently disagree about many personal tastes, to...

o wait, but we all love the pr0n, each and every last damn person who's ever posted here, so that's the important thing. i mean, that's all we talk about, all day and all night, is PR0N ROOLZ! GO PATRIARCHY! w00t.

belledame222 said...

oh yah, and: even the occasional radical feminist.

who may or may not still want to post here after this last display, some of 'em, i expect; but at least i know and they know that they haven't like died from posting in the same place where say transgendered sex workers (by choice!) are also posting.

Mandos said...

On Mandos' recent travels, he was given three seasons of The Wire by his friends. The Wire's female lead is a lesbian cop. She's TVishly pretty *while* dyke-stereotype-tough. However, the male lead (Dominic West) is conventionally handsome and has several beefcake shots through the episodes Mandos has watched (the first three), and, as with any HBO show, he has an energetic sex scene that goes on for way too long, yawn and fast forward...

belledame222 said...

I still haven't seen the Wire. I hear good things.

belledame222 said...

and, everyone seems to be obsessed with Battlestar Galactica. also haven't seen. haven't watched TV in ages and ages.

JackGoff said...

I've been very anti-TV lately. Ever since my sweety Shakespeare died on Meerkat Manor. That was a blow of epic proportions.

Chuckie K said...

Well, it took long enough for this thread to meander around to something I'm qualified to comment on. I have watched every minute of every episode of Battlestar Galactica since it started, I schedule my Friday night to make sure I'm home to see it, and I can assure you it is a 100% dumbass pretentious waste of time.
I apologize abjectly for never having ever watched any of that pr0n.

belledame222 said...

i was going to make a labored joke about BSG pr0n, but then realized, a beat too late, that although i have not seen any such i am sure as cheese as cheese that there is a -thriving- community of fan-generated BSG-related, um, material.

emily said...

so, I read the whole way through that thread. It's going to take me *days* to wash the crazy out of my hair.

And yeah, it's a pretty safe bet that there's BSG smut out there. Communities of almost-entirely women writing about sex, for themselves and for other women. Patriarchal identified yadda yadda.

Alon Levy said...

Do you know how you come across to people BD? Do you care?

To me she comes off as someone who used to be really into radical feminism and got burned by its sex-negativity. Sure, she talks about radfem sex-negativity more than about conservative sex-negativity. So what? In the 1970s, refugees from South Africa probably talked about apartheid more than about the Cambodian holocaust.

As for thinking Jack Goff's porn pics of his girlfriend are objectifying and women-hating, well that's what I think about porn so why wouldn't I think that about his own personal supply too?

No reason. Just like a Catholic who believes a blastula should have more rights than an adult woman has no reason not to cheer when the laws the Catholic church writes in some Latin American countries force 9 year old girls raped by their fathers to carry their fetuses to term.

Anonymous said...

I'm growing a vendetta against feminst hipsters and their vile consumerist obsessions.

Anyone wanna see it?
hugbsf

- R. Mildred

belledame222 said...

>To me she comes off as someone who used to be really into radical feminism and got burned by its sex-negativity.

Sort of, although close enough. i think that would be more, you know, well a few other people who've posted here. and in at least several cases it's not so much exclusively the sex-negativity as other shit; the beauty wars, the racism, the pettiness, but most of all, the incessant crazy-making quasi-cultlike assholery.

which, the latter, i'd had more than my fill of in other contexts, previous to alla this (different bullshit but all smells the same at the end of the day)

what i'd once liked was IBTP, and feminism in general (the latter i still do; the former, i've made my feelings sufficiently clear, i rather think); innocent little queer-feminist I, i'd not guessed that this was in fact the "radical feminism" which i'd previously imagined was but a quaint relic.

i've learned a lot, let's say.

but again: as veronica says. while some of the ideology did and still does (to lesser degrees, as i learned more about various nuances) cause my knee to go jerking through the roof, ultimately, in most of the cases, it boils down to,

"godDAM, you're an asshole."

I Blame The Assholes.

belledame222 said...

RM: sure.

HEY BABY! SHOW US YOUR VENDETTA!!!1!

home of my favorite Vendetta:

Making Fiends

Amber said...

To me she comes off as someone who used to be really into radical feminism and got burned by its sex-negativity.

I don't think BD was ever into radfem per se... oh wait, she already answered that herself. K.

In the 1970s, refugees from South Africa probably talked about apartheid more than about the Cambodian holocaust.

Nice. I may have to add that to my header quote rotation.

belledame222 said...

I mean, i wasn't nearly as clear about the various denominations a year ago as i am now, i will say that, and for that i'm thankful: rigor is always good.

but before, like, i was a member of a primarily lesbian womens' theatre collective (aka Dyke Drama, Cll.), which was obviously very politicized. and yeah, there were certainly familiar thrashes , familiar dynamics. the older women were more likely to have been ID'd with the second wave, i've no doubt, and indeed there were generational clashes. the younger ones tended to be i guess now i'd call 'em anarcha-fems, some socialism, a few Greens, some more moderate Dems (not as many), some who were just...doing their thing, pretty much. it was trying to be many things at the same time, i felt, was one problem.

but y'know a lot of familiar core assumptions about womens' space, collective rather than hierarchical, overall quite left-leaning, feminist, anti-homophobia (obviously), yadda.

Some of the main thrashes included:

whether and to what degree to include transfolk;

whether and to what degree men could be part of the individual productions;

how much one ought to charge, and whether a sliding scale was adequate or classist or what;

some fidgeting over to what degree het women were or should be comfortable (a lot of that was primarily coming from one very crazy woman, i think, but my perspective is no doubt skewed);

racism, that was a big one (it was very white);

classism, in a muted sort of way, as it always or often is I suspect in the U.S., especially these days (just extrapolating wildly from my own admittedly very limited experiences)

whether and to what degree to be collectively linked to other organizations and causes, theatrical and political;

and a whole lot of intrapersonal shit, of course, mainly having to do with the care and feeding of the organization itself, the productions, the space, and so on and so forth.

oh, and there was a BIG thing about transitioning from a collective to an incorporated entity, which move was necessary on account of the city was trying to foreclose on the space, and it turned out it'd be possible to buy it back for a dollar, but only with the right paperwork. that was huge and complicated and beside the point here.

point being: of all the various thrashes, "pornstitution" and BDSM were, if present, at least not on my radar. I mean, i know that some folk were personally squeamish about BDSM, or just not into it; but i never witnessed any sort of stomping off because -gasp- zomg Suzie's into leather. (if anything, it'd have been more about "how could you kill that cow?" than "your pervy fetish oppresses wimmin!" --yes, there were meat-eaters too, but a lot of veggies as well).

as for porn and sex work; well, one friend of mine worked as a receptionist for an escort agency; as i recall no one ever gave her any static about it; it was understood that we all gotta eat, so.

at least one other member is/was a pro-domme;

others were or had been sex workers in one capacity or another, again, no big deal;

and many shows were sponsored by "Toys in Babeland," the local women-run (heavily queer and feminist-slanted, although obviously straight/men-friendly, or wouldn't stay in business) toy & pr0n/erotica/workshop/yadda shop.

oh, and we had erotic cabarets, which often included burlesque, lapdancing, stripping, and so on. Again, in a quite queer context.

"we are of different worlds, madame."

I really do think that it's different for queers. yeah, i'm sure there were wimmin there who loathed the hetpr0n and were against prostitution, too, but it wasn't such a, you know, THING; and fuck knows we didn't spend all day agonizing about other peoples' blowjobs and how OPPRESSIVE they are, for fucks' sake. hell, i'd say a good quarter of the women were too busy getting their own strap-ons sucked...

belledame222 said...

...you know, there's another blogger who either is or was a member; i can ask if this perception rings right.

two others, now i'm thinking of it.

piny said...

...you know, there's another blogger who either is or was a member; i can ask if this perception rings right.

Was the Dyke Drama Collective online?

belledame222 said...

No. Well, they have, or had a website, but no, it's an actual organization that puts on actual shows.

Chuckie K said...

Bubblebutt Galactica is itself BSG pr0n. The show has two selling points. First it aspires to sci fi noir, although it achieves little more that gris. And noir is sexy. Second, some of the girls, first and foremost recycled model Rachel Hunter, got these flaunty outfits, and ace fighter pilot Katee Sackhoff wears those sleeveless tees and is all butch and everything, cigars and whiskey, and,the boys and girls pair off and get naked and sweaty. Which sounds pretty het-norm, except some of the girls, first and foremost recycled model Rachel Hunter, are actually ROBOTS!! I think it was just last week or the week before we even got a full backal shot of Rachel, which if I can recall, may well have been after her getting naked and sweaty. So you could just record the episodes and watch the good parts. Or text fetishists could google BSG fanfics, I suppose.

Also I wantred to apologize for my rash apology about not watching films of a certain content. I have twice. Once in the late 70s THe School on the Hill showed a program of experimental film, and one was this great film of lesbian oral sex, largely shot in close ups so tight you just had this abstract design of lines and shades that maybe you could decipher into body parts just before the cut to the next shot. It was the last film on the program and as soon as it ended they turned the auditorium lights on all the way. A rude and mean joke for a more than moderately aroused audience.
And Rosa von Praunheim's, German gay filmmaker, 1986 film Anita: Tanze des Lasters which gave an emotionally tight close up look at the performances and personal lives of a (fictional) troupe of bondage show performers in Hamburg. Anger, jealousy and desperation. Intensely scary, because I felt it all, and of course I never lived remotely like that. So I just repressed it because I didn't use the films, thney used me.

belledame222 said...

i have never been as affected before or since as the -extremely- uncomfortable experience of seeing "Desert Hearts" when it first came out. had been taken to it by my nice liberal parents and their friends; it was an art-house movie, you see. and me with my budding hormones and tormented typical gay teen yadda...

(they took me out, but by the time they did it was -far- too late).

sadly, when i finally rented it again as an adult, it did not have even a fraction of the same frisson.

no explicit pr0n ever has, either.

who would've ever thought that i'd miss the intensity of feeling of early adolescence? at the time all i wanted was for it to -go away.-

eventually, it did...

Mandos said...

There's a smidgen or three of truth to what Chuckie K says, but I'd be a bit more charitable....well, a lot more charitable than that. Some of the concepts and running themes are quite clever for an SF show. It's as pretentious as any other TV series that aspires to serious cleverness.

It's clear at this point that the writers didn't really have a plan mapped out from the beginning the way JMS seems to have had for Babylon 5. But I can forgive this for episode 218, which was brilliant.

Chuckie K said...

Charity? I watch it every week. For me, that practically qualifies as passion.

Chuckie K said...

mandos, now that I reflect on it I see. You think "100% dumbass wast of time" is a BAD thing. Au contraire, it is the rasion d'etre of sci fi. I mean, I watched Andromeda with the same devotion.

belledame222 said...

ah, just for posterity's sake, stumbled across this, apparently ganked before Vociferate was pulled altogether.

so, delphyne, willing to work with non-anti-pr0n feminists on other matters, eh?

in your exact words:

http://vociferate.wordpress.com/2006/08/20/mad/#comments

Radical feminist beliefs place male sexual violence and sexual exploitation of women at the centre of male oppression of women. As far as I know anti-princess does not agree with this view so she doesn’t agree with nearly 90% of our views. If she and you are supportive of the legalisation of pimps and johns and believe that pornography can sexually liberate or “empower” women then you are fighting against anti-pornstitution feminists. That’s just the way politics works.

The feminist community is much larger than the tiny radical feminist commmunity. I’ve said on numerous occasions that there are many places you can go to find feminists who agree with your views across the board so you don’t need to worry about being “treated like crap” or whatever other hyperbole you use for people disagreeing with you over political topics…

***

I wonder if petard-hoisting is considered smutty by that lot as well. probably. even if it is, as here, DIY. OO ER MISSUS

Renegade Evolution said...

shit, am I gonna have to take a white glove and a dueling pistol to boston now?

delphyne said...

What petard? I guess I'd just had enough of your attacks that day. Why on earth should I want to work with people who clearly dislike me so much? That's just weird. I really can't believe you're that desperate to work with me considering that you think I'm awful and anti-princess classes my opinions as vulvoarrhea. You've taken disingenuousness to new heights, I'll give you that.

You're obsessed Belledame. I guess if you collect enough of what I've written that you disapprove of plus a few of your rants about me that you've been spouting around the internet maybe you can put together a little pamphlet - "Delphyne is horrible, so there". Then you could just distribute it amongst the people you're trying to persuade instead of expending all this effort on having a go at me.

You know, I'd even work with you on anti-pornstitution despite our different positions if you were willing to get behind legislation that would allow people who had been harmed by pornography to sue pornographers and its distributors and legislation to criminalise pimps and johns (not prostitutes). None of that attacks women being used in prostitution or porn, but it allows those of them who have been abused some recourse that they simply don't have at the moment.

Renegade, do what you like but remember I wouldn't turn up to any of your sex-pos conferences to disrupt them. There are reasonable ways to behave and unreasonable, I reckon what you are planning ventures into the unreasonable.

delphyne said...

By the way, what do you want to work with me on? What is it that anti-princess is so desperate to have my input with? I've named a few things I'd be happy to work with you on, although given that we're thousands of miles apart, it's probably unlikely to happen, but why let the fact we are talking about hypotheticals get in the way of you making some kind of a point about me (whatever you think it is).

So tell me, what is your view on what we could work on together?

antiprincess said...

Delphyne, you got me all wrong.

and for chrissake, if you thought I was aiming at you personally back in April, why the hell didn't you speak up?

this says nothing about your opinions and what esteem I may hold them in:

I also admit to hating all women some of the time. Womankind, the all-powerful sisterhood, my own XX chromosomes - some days all of it makes me want to run screaming from the pink-ribboned vulvolalorrhea of the eternal underdog and go pound down boilermakers while watching The Man Show, just to establish some equilibrium.

as the academics might say: the author is clearly at play here. not that "omg I'm only kidding" really applies. I don't mean to imply that you're too sensitive and can't take a joke.

What I was trying to say was that I sometimes get really really tired of the unending chorus of "why why why why do they hate us hate us hate us hate us..." and all its attendant handwringing and so on.

AND again, if you thought that sentence meant I thought your opinions were worthless, you should have said something a hell of a lot earlier. it's not like I'm inaccessible and unresponsive.

It is just possible that you are taking some shit on behalf of others who aren't you. and that's really not fair. I hate that when it happens to me.

Not that I can speak for Class Non-Anti-Porn any better than you can speak for Class Radfem, but now that I think about it, maybe thinking that "we" (whoever we are) can "work together" (whatever that means) at this stage is a little premature.

but it sure would be nice to comment on certain blogs and get questions like "how did your experience led you to that conclusion?" or "can you share more about why you feel that way?" instead of "why don't you shut up and go somewhere else?"

that would be a good first step.

belledame222 said...

>Not that I can speak for Class Non-Anti-Porn any better than you can speak for Class Radfem, but now that I think about it, maybe thinking that "we" (whoever we are) can "work together" (whatever that means) at this stage is a little premature.

but it sure would be nice to comment on certain blogs and get questions like "how did your experience led you to that conclusion?" or "can you share more about why you feel that way?" instead of "why don't you shut up and go somewhere else?"

that would be a good first step.>

Hello.

Yeah, before actually "working together," a really helpful step might be *not* immediately leaping to the conclusion that so and so, because sie disagrees with you (and yes, that would be what is known as "your stuff," delphyne, not anyone else's here) is I don't know, out to get you? whatever, clearly Deeply Suspicious. (a man, a troll, not a feminist, clearly not who they say they are or meaning what they say they do, clearly Up To No Good). People tend to not react so well to that. That seems to be a theme, here.

and yes, -now- this topic is rather on the hostile side, and directed at you, primarily, that is true.

1) you keep coming back, accusations of others being "obsessed" not withstanding; no one's forcing you to read here any more than anyone else

2) The funny thing about believing that everyone's out to get you is, eventually it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some specific suggestions:

1) Antiprincess' feelings are just as valid as yours; what you're experiencing here is what she's been experiencing for -months- now, and no, not just because of you either. but it has to do with the "you got me all wrong." apparently you don't like that feeling any better than she or anyone else does. Surprise.

2) How about -not- immediately assuming that because someone wants to come and listen to a conference, she's going to "disrupt," whatever that means? Unless to you asking uncomfortable questions means "disruption;" that never has meant that to me. Personally I wouldn't have assumed that RE was planning to, like, show up in a patent leather minidress and spikes, screaming SEX-NEG FASCISTS and throwing water-balloons, or whatnot; -that- would be, you know, a disruption.

and personally i hadn't had a whole lot of genuine interest in actually sitting and listening to the likes of Jensen bleat all day. I -would- like to meet cool women like RE and Amber and even maybe one or two radfems i think are showing up. ("Women are neat people," or at any rate a lot of 'em are, is one of the tenets of my own feminism).

antip I already know; she's a lovely woman.

so. oh yeah.

3) When people say, "hey, you're hurting me?" Time and again, a number of people? Maybe, just maybe, consider that it might -once in a while- be worth considering why they're saying this; that maybe in fact it -isn't- 100% because something or other to do with the ideology. And even if it is, that it still might be worth trying to maintain the relationship--and no, that does not have to mean "bestest friends," that simply means "civil enough to keep talking about other subjects, TALKING"--even if it means having to backpedal just the -tiniest- bit.

Just a suggestion; you are of course free to take it or leave it, as are we all.

I merely observe:

There is such a thing as the personality who would "rather be right than liked;" it's i suppose admirable in its way.

Thing is, it's not terribly consistent to be that but then--apparently--become affected by -other- peoples' personal opinions of one. Hey, if you've got Right on your side, who cares, right? Oh.

Renegade Evolution said...

Delphyne:

Hey, you know, personally, while I do not agree with you on a lot of things, I don't hate you. We don't see eye to eye, and I think that is okay. You've never been as actually downright RUDE to me as certain other folks have, and I realize in heated discussions people get, well, heated.

As for Boston, that event is not listed as "for Radical Feminists Only", and actually, I plan to go and listen to the speakers, be civil, and hopefully meet some cool folks like Belle, Amber, AntiP, and who knows, maybe some other neat women. I am not going to jump up screaming "You're WRONG" every time someone says something I disagree with, I was raised better than that. If I get a chance to speak to Jensen, while NOT in the middle of his lecture, I probably will speak my mind, but I am not going there to disrupt the event and be an asshole, I am going there for the experience. Is there something wrong with that?

Heh, and BD, I actually will probably wear jeans and a sweater, Boston is COLD that time of year!

belledame222 said...

so did you already buy your tix? do you know where you're staying?

Renegade Evolution said...

booking my flight and hotel today, which means, of course...crash space!

Amber said...

Well, I guess I need to make a decision soon! I checked flights last week and they were kind of expensive. I'm tempted to wait til January bc usually airfare prices go down about 2 months before the travel date, and then back up again.

My other concern is that this conference is the weekend before PodCamp Atlanta, which I'm helping organize. I'll obviously need to be in town to help w/ that as the date gets closer.

So... um... all this is to say, I think I will remain undecided for a few more weeks. Annoying, I know. SOrry.

antiprincess said...

Personally I wouldn't have assumed that RE was planning to, like, show up in a patent leather minidress and spikes, screaming SEX-NEG FASCISTS and throwing water-balloons, or whatnot;

because clearly that's my job. I've done it before, might do it again...

wow. totally kidding. I wouldn't wear leather and spikes - I'd just wear a big old blue ribbon around my waist, and a smile.

ok, still kidding.

more seriously, I do not have the intestinal fortitude to disrupt conferences anymore. I'm not sure that was ever the road for me. but some folks I knew found it satisfying.

I may talk big, but I ain't got the guts.

However, conferences are for, well, conferring. comparing notes, examining contradictions, hammering out positions, discussion, debate, etc. They are not shrines to any given idea.

If the bigshot panelists and conference organizers can't handle a simple and respectful question from the floor, whose fault is that?

I bet you wouldn't even recognize me out of a sea of attendees (you know, if it weren't for the naked ass and blue ribbon).

belledame222 said...

by the way: i'm still mulling over "use" porn. Not "buy" porn. Not "rent" porn. Not "look at" porn. "Use" porn. What's that about? Is this to distinguish procuring the pr0n for respectable purposes (i.e. analyzing it in depth and showing it to horrified people as part of a demonstration of how bad it is) from, y'know, wanking to it? Is wanking actually the problem, here? I mean, Reisman (and maybe Goff) seem to also think that the act of actually sticking your hand down your pants and havin' an orgasm (the literal kind) whilst looking at any one thing has some sort of sinister strong and permanent effect, like dropping a megadose of acid, or something...

Mandos said...

chuckie k: Thing is, 100% waste of time is not completely a compliment to most people. I mean, life's a waste of time too... Some of us like Redeeming Qualities from time to time, and I daresay that BSG has more Redeeming Qualities than Andromeda, and SF in general has a lot of Redeeming Qualities as literature goes.

Cap'n Dyke said...

Anyone for some grog?

belledame222 said...

Always. Always.

Laurelin said...

For the record, Volsunga is still around (I assume that's who you are referring to), she's just changed sites.

Here she is
http://www.bolshevichka.co.uk/

The nasty evil radfems didn't scare her off, don't worry. I think you've underestimated her: she's one tough cookie.

Laurelin said...

Btw, 'tough cookie' is meant in a complementary way, remarking on her general courage and integrity.

Obviously, tone of voice cannot be typed, and I hate being misunderstood.

belledame222 said...

Thanks, Laurelin, I appreciate it.