why do feminists deliberately forget the events on the titanic?

[UnbrokeN]

Originally Posted by identity-X

maybe, maybe not what?

there's a social aspect involved in ALL of our social behavior. that's undeniable.

let me ask you a question...how many times have you walked down the street or drove through town or went to the store while wearing absolutely nothing? butt-ass naked? not a shred of clothing?

nope. im a man. i dont talk about shallow topics as the wimmin i see everyday. see wimmin have diffrent brains than men. they are good learners, but lack the creativity and intelligence to draw logical conclusions and develope intrest for more complex things, like playing Strategy games or discussing politcs. women are really like spoiled dumb little children.

i dont see how running around buttnaked has anything to do with gender related social behaviour. i have no shame really...i would run around naked, i ve nothing to hide. but why put myself in jail over stupid shit? i dont do it because its pretty useless , i woudlnt gain anything from running around naked but freezng to death. but otherwise i wouldnt give a burning fuck if people saw my weiner. maybe im not a socialized person..who knows..

[menaz]

I pretty sure Identity-x is saying society makes wearing no clothes unacceptable Therefore, people wear clothes. He is poorly pointing out how societies rules/laws are responable for our social behavior in every way shape and form. He's cleverly trying to speak with reason how in retrospective society male's preformed defacto demination over women before feminism arouse for equal rights. Thus, people like you, me, teq and other whistleblowers on Elite-feminism are the male chauvinist of our era.

Fine by me sir, That's one equality badge i'll wear with honor.


He knew full well you'd not understand his point he was poorly making.
Or maybe I give people more credit than they deserve.

Please end women suffrage. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GUJ4gojdxo&NR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MNI3...elated&search=

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by menaz

He is pointing out how societies rules/laws are responable for our social behavior...

yep...

Originally Posted by menaz

...in every way shape and form.

nope



please lay out the tenets of this "elite feminism" you speak of. try to cite mainstream feminist sources written AFTER 1990 or so. something that actually holds sway over today's feminists. something by, say, patricia hill collins or bell hooks.

[menaz]

Lets see.

Alpha wives are a growing issue.

But Let me be more speific, And drop some names for you.

Valerie Jean Solanas comes to mind.

What the fuck at 1990? LOL! That's the most rediculous thing I've ever heard you proposition. There are feminist who still read Valerie jean solanas. Just like there are communist who still read karl marx today. The literature is still relevent.

SCUM Manifesto reads like hitlers final solution.

Other feminist have regarded to her text as provocative and a wake-up call and a source of reflection. WOW!

So if your thought process as a feminist falls in line with solanas consider yourself a Elite-feminist. Alpah feminist are just as bad "thought wise" but are indeed less violent in their approach. Instead Manipulation is how they run their game.

The book has been published off and on snice 1965. Women are still reading it. still following it. still recommending it.

You say our sociology is responisble for all behavior. so you'd also have to agree it's responsible for the progressivism of feminism, Which has lead to elite feminist.

I want equality. not elite-feminist.

If you must need a 1990 referance, Andrea Dworkin.
"Dworkin argues that in a male "supremacist" society, sex between men and women constitutes a central part of women's subordination to men. (This argument was quickly-and falsely-simplified to "all sex is rape". Dworkin's argument is obviously one-sided, disregarding benefits women may derive from these intimate connections. Nor does she spend much time on a solution for the problem of boundaries she has identified."

Of course she doesn't. she's a Elite-feminist. Her words are truthiness. Nothing a man says can ever matter because it's a male "supremacist" society. WOW!

[identity-X]

guess what chief...

Valerie Solanas wrote the SCUM Manifesto 35 fucking years ago...it was first published during the HEIGHT of SECOND-WAVE feminism! just because it is republished doesn't mean the book is altered significantly, if at all

guess what else...

Dworkin is NOT a third-wave feminist!!! Like Solanas she's a radical feminist whose ideas fall much closer to that of the second wave...in fact, she was making the biggest stink during the descent of the second wave and rise of the third-wave. much of what she said has since been chewed up and spit out by mainstream third-wavers.


and for god's sake re-read the fucking quote. If you had any background on Dworkin you'd understand what she really meant.

""Dworkin argues that in a male "supremacist" society, sex between men and women constitutes a central part of women's subordination to men."

Nowhere does she say that "all sex is rape". Saying it constitutes a central part of women's subordination to men is saying that women who ARE subordinated by men are often done so through sex....not[I that sex causes the subordination. Her argument was that subordination of women is often carried out through the act of sex...that sex is not always enjoyed by both parties involved. THIS was why she had such a beef with pornography...she argued that it COULD be used to maintain domination of women by teaching men to be violently dominant during sex.



NEITHER of their ideas are representative of modern feminism. Dworkin has been inonsequential for 20+ years and nobody heard a peep from Salanas from 1970 until she died in the late 80's/early 90's.



try again...

[menaz]

Valerie Solanas wrote the SCUM Manifesto 35 fucking years ago...it was first published during the HEIGHT of SECOND-WAVE feminism! just because it is republished doesn't mean the book is altered significantly, if at all

I believe I stated those facts. Why are you regregating what I stated?

guess what else...

You're guessing?

Dworkin is NOT a third-wave feminist!!! Like Solanas she's a radical feminist whose ideas fall much closer to that of the second wave...in fact, she was making the biggest stink during the descent of the second wave and rise of the third-wave. much of what she said has since been chewed up and spit out by mainstream third-wavers.

Funny thing is her thought process translates into many books with her words which reaches the 21 century women. You act as if these books don't influence the elite-feminist of today. Remember I am against elite-feminism. I'm telling you you're comprehension is slim to none at this point with me. Honestly, Are you a dolt? Show me where I said all feminist are bad?

and for god's sake re-read the fucking quote. If you had any background on Dworkin you'd understand what she really meant.

This is where you're going to try an apply your Manipulation to what she means. Wrong. She is very blunt about it and unapologetic. I let the words speak for themselves.

Nowhere does she say that "all sex is rape". Saying it constitutes a central part of women's subordination to men is saying that women who ARE subordinated by men are often done so through sex....not[I that sex causes the subordination. Her argument was that subordination of women is often carried out through the act of sex...that sex is not always enjoyed by both parties involved. THIS was why she had such a beef with pornography...she argued that it COULD be used to maintain domination of women by teaching men to be violently dominant during sex.

this is a horrible lie and spin. You are being a creationist now. Also the women and men in pornography enjoy casual sex. Yet another reason why feminist of Dworkin's nature should sit silent. People like her are like the religious right always telling people with different morals than themselves how they ought to behave. Oh, The irony.

You need to learn more about the sex industry before you speak on it. The men and women of the sex industry see it as nothing more than a pleasureable job they are both paid for. Funny thing is the women get paid better than the men do in the sex industry plus they gain all the notoriety. further more, The women do whatever sex acts they feel comfrontable with, If she does not like anal she does not do anal. You gave the exact radical reaction I was looking for in elite-feminism. Thanks for proving me correct on elite-feminism.

NEITHER of their ideas are representative of modern feminism. Dworkin has been inonsequential for 20+ years and nobody heard a peep from Salanas from 1970 until she died in the late 80's/early 90's.

Correction They are both relevent to modern day elite-feminism.
The literature still reaches minds and still influences those minds it doesn't die out because the author does. you big bafoon. That's like saying aristotle's logic isn't relevant to lawyers. Bafoon, I'm against elite-feminism.

I can see you hold these two hate mongers in high regard.
I made my point crystal clear, you're comprehension doesn't
follow.


catagories of Feminist still say Valerie Solanas was head of her time and her thoughts are a wake-up call and a source of reflection.You spin more than a •••ish dradle during hanukkah trying protect this elite-feminism.

Don't ask someone what they think if you're not open minded to the answer.Try being a revisionist feminist instead of an orthodox feminist.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by menaz

I believe I stated those facts. Why are you regregating what I stated?

because i asked you to find an instance of contemporary, third-wave feminist writing where the author extols the ideas associated with this "elite feminism" you keep speaking of

you posted the work of an author who wrote a book 35+ fucking years ago and noted that it was "republished" in the 90's as if it meant DICK

Funny thing is her thought process translates into many books with her words which reaches the 21 century women. You act as if these books don't influence the elite-feminist of today. Remember I am against elite-feminism. I'm telling you you're comprehension is slim to none at this point with me. Honestly, Are you a dolt? Show me where I said all feminist are bad?

FEW people take her more radical idea seriously menaz. Her more tame (less "elitist") ideas might somewhat but even those, as magnificently demonstrated by you, are twisted and taken out of context. this is common with MUCH feminist thought as anti-feminists try to paint a picture of feminism that doesn't (or no longer) exist.

nowhee did you say all feminists are bad...i never claimed you did. You can throw out your critiques of "elite-feminism" all you want. I'm not one to stop you and, in fact, myself and other third-wave feminists agree with much of your critiques.

the point i'm making is that this "elite-feminism" you keep critiquing does not exist to the extent you believe it does and is no longer relevant to most feminist thought. You're going all out to fight a demon that has been slayed, thrown in a coffin, and buried 6ft deep by OTHER feminists.

This is where you're going to try an apply your Manipulation to what she means. Wrong. She is very blunt about it and unapologetic. I let the words speak for themselves.

they DO speak for themselves!

sure dude...I'm the dolt?.?.?

from wikipedia:

"In works such as Woman Hating and Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Dworkin had argued that pornography and erotic literature in patriarchal societies consistently eroticized women's sexual subordination to men, and often overt acts of exploitation or violence. In Intercourse, she went on to argue that that sort of sexual subordination was central to men's and women's experiences of sexual intercourse in a male supremacist society, and reinforced throughout mainstream culture, including not only pornography but also in classic works of male literature."

she's talking about a particular type of sexual practice. she argues it's a TOOL of sexist subordination, not subordination in and of itself.

She argued that this kind of depiction enforced a male-centric and coercive view of sexuality, and that, when the cultural attitudes combine with the material conditions of women's lives in a sexist society, the experience of heterosexual intercourse itself becomes a central part of men's subordination of women, experienced as a form of "occupation" (cf. Chapter 7, "Occupation/Collaboration") that is nevertheless expected to be pleasurable for women and to define their very status as women.

oh look...a FUCKING CONTEXT for her comments, one which you decided to leave out completely.

she's talking about "women" as a collective in a sexist society. this doesn't apply to all women. this doesn't apply to all sex.

it's like when a person claims America is a racist country (and it is...) that doesn't mean all americans living within it are recist

this is a horrible lie and spin. You are being a creationist now. Also the women and men in pornography enjoy casual sex. Yet another reason why feminist of Dworkin's nature should sit silent. People like her are like the religious right always telling people with different morals than themselves how they ought to behave. Oh, The irony.

You need to learn more about the sex industry before you speak on it. The men and women of the sex industry see it as nothing more than a pleasureable job they are both paid for. Funny thing is the women get paid better than the men do in the sex industry plus they gain all the notoriety. further more, The women do whatever sex acts they feel comfrontable with, If she does not like anal she does not do anal. You gave the exact radical reaction I was looking for in elite-feminism. Thanks for proving me correct on elite-feminism.

THIS IS MY FUCKING POINT!

You DO know that MANY early and current third-wave feminists argued that pornography and stripping are EMPOWERING. That's still the case today (though it has been tweaked and these arguments are now made with a specific understanding that it can be BOTH empowering and degrading.)

NOW you're getting it. THAT is what separates the likes of Dworkin with more contemporary feminist thought. it's not a matter of "elite-feminism" verses feminism.

it's a matter of old-school feminist thought that nobody fucking cares about any more and modern day feminist thought

and I myself am, by no means, anti-porn. I know the context within which it exists. I know that it is aimed primarily at male audiences, many of whom see women as nothing more than fuck dolls. I know there's a percentage of it that is violent.

But I, like many contemporary feminists, also see how it can be empowering for those involved and enjoyable or helpful to those who view it.

more from Wikipedia:

Among the major events that marked the time known as second wave feminism, were:

The Feminist Sex Wars of the late 1970s and 1980s between anti-pornography feminism and sex-positive feminism. The "Sex Wars" led to deep divisions within the feminist movement and also laid the groundwork for many issues that were important in third-wave feminism.

when judged by today's standards, I think YOU are a bigger feminist than you give yourself credit

Correction They are both relevent to modern day elite-feminism.
The literature still reaches minds and still influences those minds it doesn't die out because the author does. you big bafoon. That's like saying aristotle's logic isn't relevant to lawyers. Bafoon, I'm against elite-feminism.

you take the good, you toss aside the bad. THAT's called progress, and that's exactly what contemporary feminists have done with the works of these two and other second- or first-wave femists

I can see you hold these two hate mongers in high regard.
I made my point crystal clear, you're comprehension doesn't
follow.

catagories of Feminist still say Valerie Solanas was head of her time and her thoughts are a wake-up call and a source of reflection.You spin more than a •••ish dradle during hanukkah trying protect this elite-feminism.

Don't ask someone what they think if you're not open minded to the answer.Try being a revisionist feminist instead of an orthodox feminist.

i think that, while many of their ideas are misconstrued, most of them are outdated, regressive, and damaging to male-female relationships

[menaz]

because i asked you to find an instance of contemporary, third-wave feminist writing where the author extols the ideas associated with this "elite feminism" you keep speaking of you posted the work of an author who wrote a book 35+ fucking years ago and noted that it was "republished" in the 90's as if it meant DICK

LOL@ how unnecessary this reply of yours is.

I gave you two cases. You asked for one in the 1990's I gave you Dworkin.
regraudless of that insane request Both authors works are as relevant today as they were back then. You're not making sense. I've given you anaology after anaology of how wrong you are. You can't be reasoned with.

Still makes nonsense to regurgating something I was open and honest with from the get-go. WOW!

FEW people take her more radical idea seriously menaz. Her more tame (less "elitist") ideas might somewhat but even those, as magnificently demonstrated by you, are twisted and taken out of context. this is common with MUCH feminist thought as anti-feminists try to paint a picture of feminism that doesn't (or no longer) exist.

Nothing was twisted or taken out of contents. You're just being a wikipedia goof Who is not getting his facts straight. This is common among dolts I argue with on here. How you gonna pull wikipedia when even you know it's not reliable? I'm not gonna listen to wikipedia truthiness. She's a elite feminist. Again you seem to be having a comprehension problem. I'm worried about those people who do take her every word as gospel.

Goddam, Now I have to get you the name of the book, Just so you can order it and read it and know what the fuck I'm taking about. Goddam, You're a waste of time. book is called: Intercourse. She talks about how a women can't fight the power if she is sharing her bed with a man. Her books are top sellers by the way.

nowhee did you say all feminists are bad...i never claimed you did. You can throw out your critiques of "elite-feminism" all you want. I'm not one to stop you and, in fact, myself and other third-wave feminists agree with much of your critiques.the point i'm making is that this "elite-feminism" you keep critiquing does not exist to the extent you believe it does and is no longer relevant to most feminist thought. You're going all out to fight a demon that has been slayed, thrown in a coffin, and buried 6ft deep by OTHER feminists.

That is a bold face lie, When books like Dworkins and other radical feminist
are best sellers still. The thought process is being keept very much alive.
This beast is very much alive and conforming to these elitist mindsets.

"In works such as Woman Hating and Pornography: Men Possessing Women, Dworkin had argued that pornography and erotic literature in patriarchal societies consistently eroticized women's sexual subordination to men, and often overt acts of exploitation or violence. In Intercourse, she went on to argue that that sort of sexual subordination was central to men's and women's experiences of sexual intercourse in a male supremacist society, and reinforced throughout mainstream culture, including not only pornography but also in classic works of male literature."

You're arguing something completely different. You're propositioning the argument. Going to wikipedia was you're mistake. LOL!

[menaz]

she's talking about a particular type of sexual practice. she argues it's a TOOL of sexist subordination, not subordination in and of itself.

This is what I'm talking about, Radical views like this one elite-feminist like her try to clearify as if it's truth (and dolts like you blindly justify it). Pornography is not a tool of sexist subordination. (NO HOMO) There are Playgirls as well as playboys. You are blindly following someone elses doltish thoughts ( That's how elite-feminism works).

She argued that this kind of depiction enforced a male-centric and coercive view of sexuality, and that, when the cultural attitudes combine with the material conditions of women's lives in a sexist society, the experience of heterosexual intercourse itself becomes a central part of men's subordination of women, experienced as a form of "occupation" (cf. Chapter 7, "Occupation/Collaboration") that is nevertheless expected to be pleasurable for women and to define their very status as women. oh look...a FUCKING CONTEXT for her comments, one which you decided to leave out completely.

Wrong context. Wrong book. Her arguments like are always one sided with out a foot to stand on.

she's talking about "women" as a collective in a sexist society. this doesn't apply to all women. this doesn't apply to all sex.

That doesn't apply at all it's a double edge sword. And stop trying to twist everything into something it's not. You're not even in her right book for crying out loud.

Here She's acting like Pornography is responseble for male sexist thought inside marriages inwhich women subordinate to sex as the occupation. She's blaming Pornography for this. That is rediculous if anything pornography helps your sex life. that's a pretty GIANT FUCKING leap if you consider material sex has always been mandatory for both partners in a marriage long before PORNOGRAPHY came around. What a elite-feminist she is. And you're no better, trying to porrly defend this crap.


Again, You take the Womans side without mentioning that MEN are subjected to a sexist society as well. You're mind doesn't go two ways and that is my point about elite-feminism. They have one set ideaology they lie continuously for.

You DO know that MANY early and current third-wave feminists argued that pornography and stripping are EMPOWERING. That's still the case today (though it has been tweaked and these arguments are now made with a specific understanding that it can be BOTH empowering and degrading.)

There is nothing degrading about Pronography. It's a womens choice. These elite-feminist who regard to it as degrading don't know the first thing about these girls. Alot of them have feitish that require being degraded. I'm talking girls with
4.0 and a masters degree who love being pissed on. They get off on it, they enjoy it, Something a uptight elite-feminist knows nothing about. I'll take a thrid-waver out quick and in a hurry if they step over the equality boundary.

NOW you're getting it. THAT is what separates the likes of Dworkin with more contemporary feminist thought.

correction, I've always got it. But you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying Dworkins work continues to influence the modern elite-feminist thought. Do you get my point yet?

it's a matter of old-school feminist thought that nobody fucking cares about any more and modern day feminist thought

People do care about it. The books would not continue to be best sellers if they didn't care about it. The thought is still every much alive as it ever was. I witness it dayly. Where do you think I found out about Dworkin the elite-FEMINIST? For another elite-feminist who follows her words. You can't just dismiss it, NEO-Nazi's were said to be down and out in 2000, now in 2007 they are strong again.

and I myself am, by no means, anti-porn. I know the context within which it exists. I know that it is aimed primarily at male audiences, many of whom see women as nothing more than fuck dolls. I know there's a percentage of it that is violent.

Then stop agruing it. it's not completely true about pornstars being fuck dolls. That is male fantasy, not the male reality. Just like Lexington steel is womens fuck doll. It's women fantasy, not women reality. Again I don't see TWO sides of think from you. I see a bitter ideology with one speed. Just so you know MEN are beat up by women in that violent porn. But the rationale is feitsh and fantasy. The viewer knows this. It's freedom of expression. As a man you should know how to seperate the reality and fantasy. After the Jerk is complete women become real again. same with women thought, after they climax, reality sets back in. If anything sex is a aniaml instinct with us all.

But

I, like many contemporary feminists, also see how it can be empowering for those involved and enjoyable or helpful to those who view it.

I find it weird that a ideology has to help you reach those conclusions. But whatever floats your boat. atleast your on my same page now.

The Feminist Sex Wars of the late 1970s and 1980s between anti-pornography feminism and sex-positive feminism. The "Sex Wars" led to deep divisions within the feminist movement and also laid the groundwork for many issues that were important in third-wave feminism.when judged by today's standards, I think YOU are a bigger feminist than you give yourself credit you take the good, you toss aside the bad. THAT's called progress, and that's exactly what contemporary feminists have done with the works of these two and other second- or first-wave femists i think that, while many of their ideas are misconstrued, most of them are outdated, regressive, and damaging to male-female relationships

I was never refering to Pornography. Dworkin's book was published around 1990. I was refering to dworkin's book, Intercourse. Which is on The act itself not with Pornography included.

I'm not a feminist in any way shape or form. My revolution hasn't been defined yet. Because I have not defined it. The ideology I follow will not be that of anothers it will be my own. If it happens to correlate with feminism that repersent equailty as the status-quo than that is just a coincidence.

I have human interaction, Those feminist ideologies aren't surpressed in modern times.

[identity-X]

Originally Posted by menaz

This is what I'm talking about, Radical views like this one elite-feminist like her try to clearify as if it's truth (and dolts like you blindly justify it). Pornography is not a tool of sexist subordination. (NO HOMO) There are Playgirls as well as playboys. You are blindly following someone elses doltish thoughts ( That's how elite-feminism works).

It CAN be a tool. Audience interpretation of ANY mass-mediated object comes into play here and there is a very real possibility that some men watching violent porn (whether the stars involved enjoy it or not) might carry over these practices into the bedroom. Almost fifty years of media studies makes that abundantly clear.

That said...I, personally, don't see a problem with videotaped, non-violent sex between two consenting adults.

Neither do most contemporary feminists.

Neither do you.

We're all in the same boat on this one

Wrong context. Wrong book. Her arguments like are always one sided with out a foot to stand on.

You seem to know a good bit about Marx right?

You can't simply read Das Kapital or The German Ideology and claim "this is, definitely, what Marx had to say on the subject". You examine the breadth of his work when examining his claim.

Same goes for Dworkin.

Regardless, I (like most contemporary feminists....and like you...we're in the same boat on this one) disagree with her views on pornography.

That doesn't apply at all it's a double edge sword. And stop trying to twist everything into something it's not. You're not even in her right book for crying out loud.

there's no twisting. I like to call it reading comprehension

Here She's acting like Pornography is responseble for male sexist thought inside marriages inwhich women subordinate to sex as the occupation. She's blaming Pornography for this. That is rediculous if anything pornography helps your sex life. that's a pretty GIANT FUCKING leap if you consider material sex has always been mandatory for both partners in a marriage long before PORNOGRAPHY came around. What a elite-feminist she is. And you're no better, trying to porrly defend this crap.

Again, You take the Womans side without mentioning that MEN are subjected to a sexist society as well. You're mind doesn't go two ways and that is my point about elite-feminism. They have one set ideaology they lie continuously for.

I'm not defending this.

I disagree fundamentally.

Most contemporary feminists disagree in one regard or another (or completely).

You disagree.

We are all in the same boat on this one.

There is nothing degrading about Pronography. It's a womens choice. These elite-feminist who regard to it as degrading don't know the first thing about these girls. Alot of them have feitish that require being degraded. I'm talking girls with 4.0 and a masters degree who love being pissed on. They get off on it, they enjoy it, Something a uptight elite-feminist knows nothing about. I'll take a thrid-waver out quick and in a hurry if they step over the equality boundary.

not all pornography is equal. it can be degrading, and it's also a matter of interpretation. When a guy watches a (willing!) woman get pissed on in porn and, as a result, demands his wife do the same thing, THEN it become a problem

That said...

I agree with much of what you have to say.

Most contemporary feminists agree with what you have to say

We are in the same boat on this one.

correction, I've always got it. But you aren't comprehending what I'm saying. I'm saying Dworkins work continues to influence the modern elite-feminist thought. Do you get my point yet?

and I'm saying it DOESN'T influence the ideas OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of contemporary feminists in any meaningful way.

surely it will have an influence on a handful of people today who self-identify as "feminists" and hold on to the ideas that stopped mattering in the larger scheme of things some 25 years ago. BUT...they are not representative of current feminist movement.

People do care about it. The books would not continue to be best sellers if they didn't care about it. The thought is still every much alive as it ever was. I witness it dayly. Where do you think I found out about Dworkin the elite-FEMINIST? For another elite-feminist who follows her words. You can't just dismiss it, NEO-Nazi's were said to be down and out in 2000, now in 2007 they are strong again.

best seller???

Dworkin sits on shelves getting dusty while bell hooks and Patricia Hill-Collins are assigned in classes in every department from sociology to women's studies to english to literature to media studies and communications.

Then stop agruing it. it's not completely true about pornstars being fuck dolls. That is male fantasy, not the male reality. Just like Lexington steel is womens fuck doll. It's women fantasy, not women reality. Again I don't see TWO sides of think from you. I see a bitter ideology with one speed. Just so you know MEN are beat up by women in that violent porn. But the rationale is feitsh and fantasy. The viewer knows this. It's freedom of expression. As a man you should know how to seperate the reality and fantasy. After the Jerk is complete women become real again. same with women thought, after they climax, reality sets back in. If anything sex is a aniaml instinct with us all.

PLEASE point out where I said I WAS anti-feminist. All I said was that it CAN have negative effects.

So does TV sitcom watching. I'm not anti-television.

So does eating ice-cream. i'm not anti-ice-cream

You can assume the viewer knows this - you do...I do...most do - but a small proportion do not.

My recognition of this is evidence that I DO see two sides of the story. Your steadfast adherence to ONE side of the story makes you no better than the elite-feminists you hate.

I find it weird that a ideology has to help you reach those conclusions. But whatever floats your boat. atleast your on my same page now.

I was pro-porn years before I even picked up a piece of literature. Not that there would be any harm in someong seeing pornography in a different light because of something a contemporary feminist wrote about it....but that ain't me.

I was never refering to Pornography. Dworkin's book was published around 1990. I was refering to dworkin's book, Intercourse. Which is on The act itself not with Pornography included.

it was written in 1987...during the fall of t