Let's just imagine that women are as human as males?? Yeah long shot I know.

I'm at the conclusion that the men on here are getting off on women trying to persuade them that we are as equal as men.

Bit like racism - trying to persuade white male supremacist's that poc are equal to whites.

Sexism->racism->same stink.

Pynchme “Col those links to which you refer were I think part of the Meese Commission enquiry and never gained much credibility.”

Do not know which ones you are referring to, but they have some credibility if I link to them, I check what I link to for reasonableness and method.

EyeofNewt “Let's just imagine that women are as human as males??.”

This male has never presumed otherwise. It is just images of naked men do not “float my boat”, although there are lots of poofters out there who get off on images of the naked male and my fiancé too… she enjoys a casual glimpse of me coming out the shower, hot, wet and ready to “rumba”.

“Yeah long shot I know” – ah sarcasm, the lowest form of wit.

“I'm at the conclusion that the men on here are getting off on women trying to persuade them that we are as equal as men.”

I am of the conclusion you are at a loss to write anything but are getting off on seeing “Eye of Newt” in print.

As for trying to persuade me of female equality, well, you are preaching to the converted. It is simple. I first see the individual.

“Bit like racism - trying to persuade white male supremacist's that poc are equal to whites.”

Ah “poc” people of colour, do you mean Indians and Africans, asiatics and negros.

Several of my best friends are Sri Lankan, all definitely non-white.
None of them ever refers to themselves as a “person of colour”.
What a patronizing term, almost as bad a “n*gger”.

Although, if you saw me you would definitely say he is “white” he cannot sun bath because the dazzle off that white chest would be a danger to passing shipping.

“Sexism->racism->same stink.”

All the “isms” share the same characteristics

Just like religious fundamentalism. . .

Just like feminism…

So EoN, got any more pretentious comments to use as vehicles for sarcasm?
If you have I am happy to reply, in kind.

As they say,

Bring it all on.

Col, Lev, R0bert and others,

"I'd like to really show what I believe the men want to see: violence against women. I firmly believe that we serve a purpose by showing that. The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have. We try to inundate the world with orgasms in the face."

-Porn actor and activist Bill Margold, quoted in Stoller and Levine's Coming Attractions

"People want more. They want to know how many dicks you can shove up an ass...It's like Fear Factor meets Jackass. Make it more hard, make it more nasty, make it more relentless....You need a good guy, who's been around and can give a good scene, fuckin'em hard. I did my homework. These guys are intense."

-Pornographer Mitchell Spinelli

You accuse people who are opposed to the promotion of violence against and degradation of women of moralizing; being authoritarian and pro-censorship. None of my suggestions included censorship. However censorship exists - it's a reality of many other aspects of our lives. Not all speech is protected as free speech. There is no argument for why pornography should be subject to less scrutiny (ie: zero) than any other media.

When you talk about moralizing - we are all moralizing. You impose your morals and value judgements on me and my sex when you decide that people who hold views like those quoted above will determine how women are portrayed and treated, and how young men and women will be taught about the value of women as human beings.

The Declaration of Human Rights IS a set of morals - whether you like it or not.

Col, contrary to your cherished personal place in the scheme of things, the reference to safe sex education wasn't about you, it was for the performers (who are typically paid about $50.00 extra to perform without protection) and for youngsters who might miss the fact that casual, anonymous sharing of bodily fluids is a risk to health

Since you have lost your capacity to empathize, let's try a scenario.

Let's say I become a porn producer and decide to flood the public with images of men. My particular target is the young mind - male youth to show them what their purpose in life is to women; women to show them how men really, secretly like to be treated.

My images include (borrowed from someone else writing about porn images of women):

Groups of women grabbing a strange man off the street; raping him with broomsticks until he finally smiles, ejaculates and begs, "Encore". Snipping balls off with pliers; sticking wire up penile openings; pictures of men on their backs with a jackhammer held against their genitals by a super amazon woman (borrowed from Hustler mag) with the caption, "The cure for men who can't get it up."

Let's say a feminist mag has a cartoon of two women talking. One is splattered with (someone else's) blood; holding a gun and saying, "The hubby and I are having a little tiff. Got any buckshot ?"

A picture of a man who has hung himself (suicide); the woman coming home looks and the caption is, "Great. No dick again tonight."

If I love and defend those images; would you conclude that I like and respect men or that I loathe them ?

Porn is not sex. It's not sex education. It's pictorialized and vaunted hatred of women.

That is why I am proposing programs about masculinity and ritualization of males into adulthood - you must be unaware that such programs; largely run by men for men (and boys) already exist, as does a body of literature on those topics. I don't think they get enough funding to make them a widespread option. I wish they did.

Pynchme “The most violent we can get is the cum shot in the face. Men get off behind that, because they get even with the women they can't have.”

Not me but keep going I am sure you will eventually come up with something which “floats my boat”.

Re “None of my suggestions included censorship.”

5. Restrictions on imagery.

You might not but most people call it “censorship”.

So you are talking of sex education in the context of “health and safety at work”.

You should be specific if that is what you really mean.

I wonder if every other business is up to date with all those regulations ?

getting paid extra is a negotiation. At least you agree the actors get paid and even paid extra for additional risk. I would not comment of the adequacy of the amount (we could spend a lifetime discussing the morality of pay rates) but you acknowledge the principle, that is what matters.

“and for youngsters who might miss the fact that casual, anonymous sharing of bodily fluids is a risk to health”

You keep coming back to these “youngsters”, that would be “kiddy porn”, illegal and not being defended by anyone on my side of the debate.

If they are of age to vote, they count as “adults” not “youngsters”.

You might not like it, get the voting age raised.

“Since you have lost your capacity to empathize,”

You have no clue to the “empathy” I may have with anyone, you are just trying to fire cheap shots and not very well.

Your “programs about masculinity and ritualization of males” is institutional emasculation and is the sort of horror which I would expect from some wannabe despot in a skirt.

The idea of such programs is an offense to reasonable minded people who have respect for individual values

Post your drivel Pynchme, I will always challenge it to stop people like you ever getting political power.

Your programmes are no different to “Snuff” porn because you would have to “snuff” out individual rights to enforce people into your “programmes”.

Pynchme,

What is that you continue to think that individual instances of all genres indicate the genre as a whole? If I provide quote from Valerie Solanas should we pretend that all women think like that? Individual instances which one dislikes are deserving of individual criticism. It is both crass and myopic to engage in such generalisations.

It becomes even more foolish when one uses a single quote from "Coming Attractions" (Yale University Press, 1993, 246pp) a book which also points out that the authors could not find a single instance of a performer being coerced into entering the sex industry, rather most were simply rebels and non-conformists who stayed for a couple of movies and moved on.

I do not understand why the simple concepts of not engaging in generalisation and not confusing content for circumstances seem beyond your cognitive ability. If I may invoke Godwin's Law, Adolf Hitler said that his work was in the name of the Saviour. He was, publically and privately, and ardent Christian. Do we therefore conclude that all Christians are Nazis? If not, why are you attempting to do exactly the same thing with sexually explicit media?

There is no innate tie between sexually explicitness in media and hatred of women. If you want to criticise individual cases, fine go right ahead, I'll probably agree with you in most examples. But the moment you start to generalise like you have through this entire thread, is when you lose me.

As for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I suggest you actually read it. Especially Article 19. That is a Declaration which includes all sexually explicit media. Now show me a contrary article which includes ALL sexually explicit media.

Moral reasoning is based on the free consent of participants. Anything else is an authoritarian imposition which shows as much dignity and respect to other humans as those men did to the women in Brisbane in the original post.