A Long Comment to an Article in The Guardian

Article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/20/are-australian-men-truly-under-attack



Such men NEED to learn what living in a society-- or even with ANYONE besides YOURSELF-- entails! Such men define masculinity as a MAN doing what ever the F*** he wants. Which, OF COURSE, mandates that all others can NOT. For, a man's will is often in conflict with another's will (any one PERSON'S will often conflicts with any other person's will). They think it is a man's RIGHT that HIS will should take precedence over any others! They equate DOMINANCE with an arrogant SELFISHNESS. IRONICALLY, they declare a women who does not automatically bow-down to HIM as selfish! They profess to love reason; They believe that is what they, as man, represent. Yet, they take no time to do so. If YOU, a non white male, ask them to consider their actions, they declare _YOU_ an obstructionist and wage war against you! Why does it take the world so long to see that such "MEN" are: impulsive, emotional (anger IS an emotion, fella's), selfish to no end, and stupidly short sighted. They believe MEN are islands; that their foundations had either never been layed by another or, that if they WERE layed by someone other than himself __SURELY__ it was by another white male (only because THEY are so vocal and self-centric that they advertise any achievement-- even if he STOLE it from someone who was generous and gave the idea to the word for FREE; someone who didn't NEED others to endow her or him with accolaides). That, no other person on earth was ever needed to implement the idea! They are seem to suffer from a sort of autism. They treat people as inanimate objects, without volition. They deny a crying creature it's pain. Where, because it's yells were not in perfect English-- it becomes unclear that it needed to be saved! They insist no other living organism has needs-- only himself! Let this NOT be synonymous with manhood, fellow humans!

Women's Sexual Liberation, A Brief Post

As most of us know, from: antics performed by people such as Miley Cyrus and Britney Spears, to advice women receive to learn pole dancing, and even to older women receiving collagen injections into their g spot-- this is ALWAYS dressed up as "female empowerment"; as an agenda  which is able to live in accord with the Feminist objective. I am here to clearly state that THIS is perfectly counter to the feminist objective. That, in fact, actions similar to this behavior are COUNTER-feminist. Feminist meaning, embracing the physical and psychological health of (men and women)* as well seeking equal legal and social opportunities for woman. In short, Feminism holds that both men and women are inherently equal; that no sex is better than the other and that, not only can  women do ANYTHING men can do but, that _MEN_ can do anything WOMEN can do! Lastly, Feminism, unlike the patriarchy, acknowledges that men and women are interdependent.


*" men and women" because a man is embettered when he is keen on a woman who is always seeking to better herself. That a man who can love such a woman must, himself be quite able. For, not only does he not see her as a threat to his manhood but, he has learned that what is better for the collective IS better for himself. This man has learned that TEAMS work better than one man alone.

Now, people LOVE to polarize sexual relations. Either, the woman abides by what some evangelical preacher claims:

• She must be chaste until marriage. Otherwise, she is an abomination to God-- a whore, no man would want her.
• She must submit to the whims of Man, above all; God declared this as soon as Eve bite into that succulent, forbidden apple.
• Sex often becomes a traumatic experience. Sex is generally seen as "unnatural" (never mind the obvious incorrectness of this). Sex is "ugly."
• A cultural double standard exists for men and women. Women's behavior is tightly policed.  Men can conduct themselves, essentially, however they wish. 

Conversely, you have the "Free Love" claim. They pretend that America is so puritanical. What, with all of the sitcoms featuring males dating "family friendly" strippers, escorts,  and/or prostitutes, all of the late night "Girls Gone Wild," unregulated access to pornography, and of course, our pop-culture "role models" who have come to stripping naked at the end of their performance?

• The assertion is that no woman belongs to any man. Where, the original meaning of the word "belong" as: "treated like property; objectified" no longer holds. Rather, it has come to be stand in for: "having a relationship with" and by "relationship" my only requisite to meet this definition is "an emotional connection." 
• That somehow, belonging to NO man is to belong to ALL men.
• Both men and women can be as base as they please. There are only no double standards with regard to "sex lives," and that alone. 

While I understand that men have historically and in present day (dare I say it is WORSE now than even 40 years ago?) treated women as an object-- a thing without its own, independent volition-- even if there IS an inkling of emotional connection, it is WRONG to take the path of least resistance as the Free Lovers have. After all, this action not only reinforces but, ADDS to the momentum of our cultural and so, legal oppression. All the while, deteriorating our health and well being. Moreover, it losses the foothold for all of Our daughters after us. We compromise THEIR futures with every voice we let slip into an empty breath.

Ironically, both approaches sexually objectify the woman. They both treat her as a piece of meat. The "conservative" approach puts forth the idea that once a woman looses her virginity-- once she is "used goods" she looses her value. The second approach mandates that a woman's value comes from her sexual skill set. Her ability in bed, her ability to draw in a man-- and the MORE the "better" is the measure of her value. BOTH are predicated upon the worth of a woman to be built upon one, sole factor: sexuality. In these models a woman's integrity, inquisitiveness, intuition, intelligence, kindness, compassion-- they are valued at NOTHING or worse!

Now, what I have to say, is that the ORIGINAL intent of the movement was to allow two people who are -- by all measures-- in love but, not married, to be able to express themselves in yet another fashion. It was never meant for reckless intercourse. It was meant as an extension; to make the human experience into something more beautiful, in this AGE OF CONTRACEPTION! Also, you CAN learn _SO_ much about the person you are with in this way. Whether or not they are psychological sound, for instance. You WOULD want to the information to know to get out or stay in BEFORE the BIG DAY, wouldn't you?!

Lastly, the polarization of this subject matter draws our focus AWAY from other important subject matter. Such as: how women fit into the work place, in politics, and on the world stage. And so, by NOT discussing _EXPANDING_ OTHER roles for women we-- if only IMPLICITLY-- are accepting our role as sex objects.

(though, to be fair, forcing woman into THIS role-- the role Miley and Gaga play-- of sexual objectification is a GREAT to limit our role in ALL things-- so it IS _QUITE_ an important topic). 

"... And it was because of the troubles, that she began to dream of the ideal world." 

On Sexual Expectations in Our Have it Instantaneously Culture

It has come to my attention that, should a woman hold out sexually from a man, that she is declared by him to be "manipulative." While, admittedly, there do exist women who subscribe to the limited patriarchal paradigm allotted to us, there are, perhaps in the same proportion, those of us who do not.

I will, perhaps, bring you joy with insight that such women are NOT hard to spot. For, everything social interaction with them incorporates act of subversion. They are hardly to bare the whole of the blame for this, however. As, they have chosen the path of least resistance.

I write this piece, though, to inform that "other half" of the world's population about the other class of female. the type that does not believe any man could merit sex on the first night. Or that, even after dating steadily for months and months,  that a boyfriend may not be inherently entitled to, say, his lover doning lingerie. Even if, he is, generally, outstanding.

Now, any man reading this is probably outraged. So much so that, he may never care what "explanation" this woman offers. Where as, any woman reading this may easily be able to understand the reasoning without it ever having to be explicitly written.

There is a problem in the world today. Alright--- there are SOOOOO _MAAANY_ __PROBLEMS__!!! But, here's one  :) <-- smiley face. Colon -->  :  In the course of my tender life, I have noted that one of the fundamental problems with today's "relationships" (damn straight I am using quotes!) is that no one has ANY idea about the level of commitment of the other person. Consequently, people __BEHAVE__ as though they don't give a hoot about how a relationship (in the sense of two people interacting) develops. Yet, people's needs do not change. Now, pair this with the "need everything instantaneously" culture that we live in. Welcome to today's "relationship." Where, people sleep around like no one cares but, do, in fact; if only on the ego level. Which, of course, leaves everyone either trying to competitively date either MORE or "better" (but only in stereotypical, superficial ways!) people than their rival (a.k.a. their "friend with benefits," "boyfriend," "girlfriend," and what-ever else you call each other these days). At best, you have two people who spend a wee bit of time together outside of the bedroom, seem to at least KIND OF enjoy each others company, but where AT LEAST one of always seem to posses this belief that she could do better than the other. So, both parties have SOME degree of understanding that this is "just for fun" (Whose having FUN?! Maybe only if you are "winning" you declare it to be this...).

Once in a Venus transit (Venus transits across the Sun about every 243 years and is _THE_ rarest predictable astronomical phenomena), however, you meet a person who has a higher inherent degree of inclination toward monogamy than others. Unfortunately, this person was most probably unable o grow up in a cultural vacuum, however. So, had absorbed certain tendencies which characterize our current American landscape. I am only here to discuss the men who have absorbed this feeling of sexual entitlement to a woman-- even if he IS dating her!

The motive, I MUST state directly: it is, I write in earnest, because we require an honest relationship! Which is to say that: what occurs therein is ACTUALLY REFLECTIVE of how the woman believes the state of the bond between the two of you to be. Therefore, if a man does NOT love a women with all of his heart, it is PERFECTLY UNREASONABLE for the male to posses anything more than MINOR sexual expectations (i.e KISSING-- damn straight! Read that again... let it sink IIIIIIIIIIIIIN!!!) of her! Which, of course (though you may pretend to disagree), hold no sway over an angry, sad, etc. partner.... So, gentlemen (now, after reading this, I _HOPE_!), do we understand?!

Grrrrr!

To a FAKE Feminist

This article is a rebuttal to the following article: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/dont-ban-rape-porn--introduce-more-porn-with-negotiation-and-boundarysetting-8727612.html

It is as though this article is some conscious attempt to malign Feminism. As though, somebody thought: “What better way to create opposition to the movement than combining two infamous topics such as pornography and rape. I know: a Feminist should write of being pro rape pornography!” Your declaration of being a “Feminist” is precisely why _ACTAUL_ Feminists are very keen to denounce neo-Feminsits _AND_ you!

You state that: “Taken as a whole, the plans are technologically unworkable and politically dubious.” Never mind how making this type of pornography illegal in any shape-or -form is far from dubious. Let us discuss how making this type of pornography inaccessible is quite do-able. For instance, we are all familiar with filters placed due to: region and ip address as well as those content filters the user is able to implement herself. Furthermore, when you pretend that “...content blocking possibly leading to decreased access to support for survivors of abuse while allowing the state a frightening level of control over internet freedom” holds true, you are again, QUITE wrong! One __OBVIOUS__ example is that when the word “rape” or “sexual assault” is paired with words such as: “survivor,” “services,” “help,” “counseling,” or “file a report.”A search engine would THEN know that you are looking for help, not some sort of how-to video.

Your age old “trick” of saying that blocking pornographic material would allow “the state a frightening level of control over internet freedom,” violates the well known fact that one’s “freedom of speech” stops where the infringement of the rights and safety of others begins! Again, you may _PRETEND_ that pornography is some "absolutely meaningless form of entertainment” but, I assure you that there ARE real world ramification to one’s watching pornography. While I am sure you HONESTLY ___DON'T CARE__ about what these consequences are, I am going to tell you anyways!  :D

Incidentally, this brings me back to your reference of the bobo doll experiments. I _LOVE_ the cherry picked facts, by the way! Bandura, himself, found that: “Cognitive Social Learning Theory and its earlier variant, Social Learning Theory, predict that people will imitate behaviors of others when those models are rewarded or not punished for their behavior. Modeling will occur more readily when the model is perceived as attractive and similar and the modeled behavior is possible, salient, simple, prevalent, and has functional value.” Firstly, let me inform you that this is gospel in its respective field; it ranks among Frued’s idea of the subconscious.  Now, let us observe that the actors of pornography are viewed as attractive. Also, the actors are not only are NOT punished for their behaviors—specifically, we are speaking in the context of raping another—but are, in fact rewarded! Next, let us consider that raping another can be made salient with the use of alcohol and drugs. Plus, we live in a Rape Culture where victims are automatically reemed whereas the rapists get off scott free (about 1% of rapists go ever see a day in jail). Partially because you can’t go around, externally broadcasting your injuries due to the fact that they are internal. Partially because people feel comfortable with CHOOSING the lesser of two evils rather than systematically analyzing facts, only to conclude that someone they know-- maybe a FRIEND or a relative-- is a rapist.  Not to mention Bro Culture where one’s masculinity, the worth of a male, is measured by how many times he “scored” with separate women. Where, the means of securing sex is entirely irrelevant. "Functional value" is attained also, then.  And, as we know, this modus operandi is becoming increasing prevalent. So, we see, that it is actually QUITE likely that others will emulate what they observe.

The claim that “actual evidence of cultural harm caused by rape porn is very weak” MAY be true if only because it is a RECENT PHENOMENON. There is, however, evidence against a more “benign” form, however, which flies in the face of your claim. According to Jane D. Brown:  “Most mass media rarely depict three C’s of responsible sexual behavior: Commitment, Contraceptives, and consideration of Consequences.” Furthermore, if one were to ask: “ Does the sexual content in the media influence how people behave sexually? Are people having sex earlier, with more partners, without protection or affection because of what they see in the media?” The inquirer would be quickly relegated to the status of a naïve individual when Brown responds that “The answer to these questions is a qualified ‘yes.’” The author explains: “People use stories they see both in the news and in entertainment media as reference points about what’s important and to compare what they already know, or think they know about what’s good and bad, and what should be done about problems. The result often reinforces stereotypes and helps define what is considered appropriate and inappropriate behavior in the culture (Lyengar, 1991).”

Now, in reference to any possible cultural effects of ANY type of pornography—let alone extremely violent RAPE pornography—while I have not PERSONALLY read about any “cultural” studies, I AM well aware of the depth and breadth of studies on large swaths of individuals. Aside from the fact that all types of pornography viewing result in becoming “soft” on rapists (the more violent the pornography, the quicker are the effects), there are other consequences as well. Linz expounds upon this: “The Commission asserted that substantial exposure to the first type is causally related to increases in sexual violence, sexual coercion or unwanted sexual aggression.” The first type being sexually explicit “material that, although not violent, depict women as existing solely for the sexual satisfaction of others, usually men, or that depicts people, usually women, in decided subordinate roles in their sexual relations with others, or that depicts people engaged in sexual practices that would to most be considered humiliating (Commission, p. 41).” According to McCrmick this is an accurate description of most heterosexual pornography.

On another note, when you say that: “…blocking content would do little to stop children from looking at porn” the stament MAY certainly hold IF AND ONLY IF you mean that: blocking content would do little to stop ALL children from having seen at least ONE pornographic image. Otherwise, this is _FAR_ from true! The sheer fact that pornography would be less accessible directly equates with there being  a FAR lower probability of it being accessed-- EVER. Secondly, blocking the content will disable the possibility that some innocent child could stumble upon the material by accident. Ever do an image search on Google and type in something as benign as “Lorentz transformation” and then get intermittent pornographic images of women?! My point, EXACTLY! Moreoever, as kids are a curious bunch (for better and for worse) it stands to reason that once they become aware of this strange world, they might go out of their way to see more of it.  For boys, they have learned young that the number of females they copulate with equates with their social standing amoungst men, whereas women receive the message that THIS is how they must behave in order to be desired by a man (though, they fail to dissect the full message).

Relatedly and interestingly enough, there are three poignant factors that equate to an increased incidence of rape: (1)”Sex magazine circulation is positively related to the rape rate” (Baron and Straus), (2) There is significant tendency for the rape rate to increase as the status of women decreases (Baron and Straus), (3)”Rape rate increases in proportion to the level of instability and disorganization of society” (Baron and Straus). 

Now, let me draw your attention to the statement: “Let us assume, though, that porn does have the potential to teach those who see it about how they should and should not behave when it comes to sex. Why, then, are we not directing all of our energies into flooding the internet with better porn, which teaches people about consent?” I would _REALLY_ just like to emphasize that you are asking our great nation to use pornography as some sort of sex education tool. So, folks, if any one is still reading this—do you __STILL__ not believe that we have an unbelievably large societal pornography problem on our hands?! To combat this either willfully ignorant or consciously destructive statement, I ask you to consult above; where I discussed the effects of pornography as well as other lax attitudes towards sexual intercourse, as presented by the media.

Your rhetorically wondering why if it would “… not be better if all porn contained this process of negotiation and boundary-setting, modeling its audience that this is something which ought to be part of sex”—never mind again that you are ACTUALLY imploring us to use sex as an instructional video (Which speaks volumes about how strongly pornography influences you; how you implicitly take the material as a how-to but, fail to draw attention to how this translates in terms of rape pornography!)—the fact is that people that purchase this type of material are NOT interested in talking! No one would buy it!

So, when you suggest that: ”we need to see better sex and relationship education” I agree with you in this regard. Given that you seem to be suggesting that kindergartners should view pornography as part of their sex education, I _STRONGLY_ disagree with you! In my mind, what would serve us best would be to inform kids of what a healthy and unhealthy relationship consists of. Also, I would expound upon what the many effects of pornography, as well as what some of the more “mild” images of objectified persons, inflict upon the human psyche. Not to mention that I would teach children to dissect what kind of messages these images are sending. Furthermore, I would require kids to write pro and anti pornography essays (they would get to choose). So that those who are pro-porners could have their essays reamed due to the fact that they are given to employ THE _MOST_ elementary logical fallacies and are nearly always entirely and unforgiving emotional. And, that they are entirely unable to substantiate their points because, quite simply, they are wrong in all that they claim (or cherry pick facts like YOU! Just as ironically, none-the-less  ;)  ).

Now, when you state that “banning rape porn will not make it go away” you may well be correct. The fact that it has not been diminished by 100%, however, does not mean that it can not be GREATLY mitigated! When you declare that it will only go “underground” you are stating that it will be so inaccessible that one will need an “in”—to know somebody who knows something—in order to access it. Thus, illustrating that our efforts WILL be fruitful! Thank you for THAT by-the-way! ;)

You’re claiming that its being underground translates to our “being less able to observe the safety of the performers” is patently wrong! Do you think that the only things that take place on those sets all end up on the very film you are surely viewing?! What about retakes and in-between takes?! When you pretend that having sex work legalized and “out in the open” equates to less physical violence, you are sorely mistaken. Even when the practice is fully legalized AND the workers have personal body guards on standby, it is common for a prostitute, by some extraordinarily subtle slip of the tongue for instance, to offend a renter and be physically assaulted. This line of work is inherently dangerous. It does NOT matter how you “spin” it!

Lastly, when you claim that: “The key difference between porn depicting simulated rape and images and film depicting a real rape is the consent of all parties involved,” I need to remind you that the effects on the brain are, in fact, the same. Yes, you can consult my mentioning of Bandura’s work but, you can also recall that the belief of rapists is that the victim REALLY, secretly, WANTED to be raped! So, when a buyer of the pornography sees that there is some women who willingly plays a victim of rape, it feeds into the wish of a man that women—ALL women-- secretly want him to thrust himself into her, no matter how long or forcefully she protests!

In short, you are either willfully ignorant or consciously corrosive! You maim the name of Feminism!

__SOURCES__

Baron, Larry and Murry A. Strauss. “Four Theories of Rape; A Macrosociological Analysis.” Social Problems December 1987. University of California Press. July 29, 2008. ,

Brown, Jane D. “Mass Media Influences on Sexuality.” The Journal of Sex Research February 2002. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Linz, Daniel. “Exposure to Sexually Explicit Materials and Attitudes Toward Rape: A comparison of Study Results.” The Journal of Sex Research February 1989. University of California, Santa Barbara. July 29, 2008. http://www.lib.unc.edu/house/mrc/films/full.php?film_id=7702.

McCormick, Thelma. “MACHISMO IN MEDIA RESEARCH A critical Review on Violence and Pornography.” Social Problems 1978. Univerity Press. July 28, 2008. 

"Feminist" is a Scary Word

I will always remember my lower division electromagnetism class in physics. That was the ONE time I EVER had a female physics professor at UCSD. 

I remember the few females I had in my class emphasizing that they were females in a hard science (as opposed to a soft science). They did this often. They stated it as if they wished to invoke not just a camaraderie amoungst some of the other females in the class but, as if to beg the same of society. The young women spoke as if they were taking a deep leap on behalf of woman kind-- for MAN-kind, maybe.

I do not remember everything about the conversation those ladies were having. I had been inadvertently eavesdropping. However, my female physics professor had interjected into their conversation. Suddenly, my interest was fully aroused. I do not remember the words they spoke but, I do remember the meaning. They spoke of feminist values. In fact, one of the females there felt compelled to state (very tangentially, I might add) that she was a fighter. She fought for a team, in fact. 

I felt compelled to join in. I stated that I was a feminist. Boy, were their facial expressions and body language anything but subtle! All the young women seemed like their minds were blown: almost like I proudly announced I were a racist or something! This look of uncomfortable amusement was plastered onto their face; they became very jittery. Like they thought: "No one is supposed to SAY that!"

Fortunately, I have ALWAYS possessed the ability to stand outside myself and to stand outside of a situation. I, too, grew very amused! 

I asked "What?!" in a sort of playfully, rhetorical way. I had hoped that they WOULD answer. As, my fundamental belief was that the belief in "rhetorical questions" is an insult to the mind. I believe that ALL questions merit answering. Regardless, I knew the OTHERS would interpret it as such. No one would venture to answer.

Most interestingly enough was the starkly different manner in which my professor acted. She was calm and cool. She made little movement. She did, however, make LOTS of eye-contact. There was a sort of twinkle in her eyes-- like she understood my underlying message. Even with my pronouncement of "What?!" she understood me. As though, she knew of my own knowledge of the fact that others detested when one identifies as being a Feminist. As is she KNEW that THIS is WHY I am so committed to announcing it: Because if people are so scarred of identifying themselves as feminists, then the problem is deep, real, and NEEDS to be addressed!!!!!!