Blog of Feminist Activism Against Porn

This is a blog of the feminist activism of Charliegrrl and others. This is not a blog to debate the ins and outs of feminism, this is a blog to inspire people to get active and take it to the streets! This blog was started to challenge lads mags bringing porn into the mainstream...who knows what the blog will become...

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

WHSmith is a Porn Fest



WHSmith sell 'adult porn', as in fully nude porn, and The Daily Sport, in train stations and airports.



Why is this..?

Are men so impatient that whilst waiting for a train, they need to go jack off in the toilets to pass the time..? Maybe that's why they always go to the toilet on their own...

Photo Leeds Train Station 22.06.06

33 Comments:

  • At Wednesday, 02 August, 2006, Blogger Sarah Louise Parry said…

    Yeah WH Smith have noted that the average Brit male train-commuter can't be content with just a chicken sarnie and a few sports pages to keep him entertained enroute, he needs to try out a wank on a Great Western in order to fulfil his commute!

    Pathetic.

     
  • At Wednesday, 02 August, 2006, Blogger Laura said…

    Nice effective "covers" for the porn there. Not.

     
  • At Wednesday, 02 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think the covers on the top shelf mags are just typical of WH Smith. They really do not seem interested and completely disregard the NFRN guidelines.

     
  • At Wednesday, 02 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Somebody I study with saw me reading this page and said, "We need something to look at IN CASE WE END UP SAT NEXT TO ONE OF YOU LOT."

    This, on a media studies course at a good university. I will be reporting this to our tutor. It really beggars belief sometimes.

     
  • At Thursday, 03 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think the real reason they do it is because people are reluctant to buy the stuff in places where they live and may be spotted. That is not a problem in train stations.

     
  • At Thursday, 03 August, 2006, Blogger sparkleMatrix said…

    Errr just what I DON'T want to be sat next to one the train! Playboy mag plus Daily Squirt "sex Machine" down load on the geezer's phone...they are seriously taking the piss! Mag-Phone-mag-phone-porn-porn and he's only going to fucking work!

     
  • At Friday, 04 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Spot on title, Charliegrrl !
    And as Laura said, "nice *modesty* covers" NOT !

    We really have to wonder about WHSmith. Or perhaps not, coz I reckon the WH stands for Woman Hating. Not only are WHS not content with retailing porn, they distribute it, AND brainwash teens and pre-teens into buying into porn culture (i.e. the bunny logo). Sick bastards.

    Nope, I ain't never gunna spend even 1p in their porn-emporiums.

    On a final note, one really has to wonder about the suitability of men to rule the world, when they seem to NEED to spend so much time with one hand in the penile region. How's about letting the half of the population with the lesser masturbatory focus run the world instead, eh?

     
  • At Saturday, 05 August, 2006, Blogger witchy-woo said…

    "Are men so impatient that whilst waiting for a train, they need to go jack off in the toilets to pass the time..?"

    I think they just need to keep continually reminding themselves that their sexuality is King - specially when they're surrounded by 'sex' they don't 'own'.

    Jeebus. What's happening to our world?

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    So... if men looking at naked women neccesitates feelings of superiority, domination, hatred and mysoginy towards women...

    What about gay men who look at naked men, hmm?

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    The sexual objectification of women extends from porn into mainstream culture and exists within a context of widespread rape of women; the sexual objectification of men for male titillation/domination is not omnipresent in mainstream culture.

    Men looking at naked women doesn't necessitate misogyny or domination- it is men finding pleasure in sexually denigrating images of women within the context of sexual objectification of women and sexual violence against women, that is misogynist.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    You portray all porn, including the incredibly softcore magazine porn, to be "denigrating" to women and thus misogynist. The Maxims (non-nude) and Playboys (nude; little if any actual "sex")that you complain heartily about are on the low, low, low end of the spectrum as far as degrading women, and yet still you wax lyrical of their inherent misogynism.


    And yet you say that men looking at naked women doesn't necessitate misogynism. Interesting.

    But heaven forbid that naked women are just another form of entertainment for guys. Do take into account that many men watch hours of all manner of sports, with hulking brutes of men bashing and beating each other into submission, or chasing balls and pucks like racedogs pursuing the clay rabbit.

    Many more play video games in which the (almost always male) characters are likely to be slashed, bludgeoned, disentegrated, immolated, etc.

    The movie industry, apart from the male-on-male violence indicated above, builds the action movie appeal off of men (openly or subconsciously) admiring the physical abilities and physiques of the unrealisticly proportioned stars of questionable intellect. Sound familiar?

    But why do you not cry against these blasphemies? Why is gawking at Ahnold's muscles acceptable but gawking at Jameson's body a crime against nature? Why can male video game sprites blow each other's heads off all they want, but when female combatants jump in the fray everyone's a titter about violence against women? Why can we watch half naked men punching each other into unconsciousness but complain about the ring girl holding up signs in between rounds?

    Disregard the obvious ironic double-standards at play here. The problem you, and all militant feminists, seem to have is that you assume differentation equals discrimination. Men look at and pay for varying degrees of disrepectful content involving both sexes (and occasionally some odd medians between the two), but once women are involved it's clearly a case of typical savage male sexism at hand. Perhaps, just maybe, these men are happy to find ways to assert dominance over *everybody*, regardless of the sex. Or, even crazier, maybe men just like looking at nekid wimminz because sexual attraction towards the opposite sex is the primary force behind all men from puberty on up(Nah, couldn't be). Remember that after we ejaculate, we aren't anywhere near as important as the mother will be, who has to carry, birth, and (typically moreso then men) raise the children. That's why women live longer: grandpa's just aren't as important in the family structure as grandma's. Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, ejaculating is the peak of our importantace, for God's sake let us at least enjoy it a bit.

    Feminists for years fought for equality and yet now you demand special treatment. Nevermind Ron Jeremy, it's Jenna Jameson who's being victimized and disrespected.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    Soft porn still portrays women as sex objects for male titillation. The message is still the same, even if she isn't involved in an explicit act of sex, or showing her vagina.

    People admiring the naked beauty of a woman is not inherently misogynist.

    Men 'looking at pictures of naked women' is different from men ogling and masturbating over images of women as sex toys for men.

    When men watch sport for entertainment, the majority are not thinking of the male players as a body they would like to fuck. This is the difference between women being used as entertainment and sport as entertainment.

    The male love for machismo and violence is a regrettable component of alpha masculinity within a patriarchal context. I don't like violence between any gender. I am not focusing on the negative messages and images patriarchy gives to men, nor with gay male porn, because I'm more concerned about women.

    When a woman or man gawps at Arnie's muscles, this is not within a context of sexual inequality, intimidation and violence, which is the case when men stare at women's breasts.

    People complain about violence against women because it is rife. There is alot of violence between men, and there is also rape between men, which is bad.

    If you want to campaign against sexist images of men and male violence in the media, then go ahead. It's about time men challenged patriarchy

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    Sex toys, huh? Once sex is involved women are instantly sex toys? How do you know this? Are you a man? I have an inkling that you're not, so I am curious as to what your sources are.

    I, on the other hand, can speak from experience. When I, and, to the best of my knowledge, all other guys I know, masturbate to attractive women, it is because they are just that: attractive women. You're the one marking these women as "sex toys," not us. A toy is lifeless, soulless and fake. Barring necrophiliacs, no man would polish his carrot to that. Men want to see life in women. Movement, noises, words. Hardly a sex toy.

    Men want to see women enjoying themselves. Porn in which a woman just lies there looking sullen will not appeal to very many men. Fake as it may be (Make believe? On MY television? Do tell!), hearing and watching a woman moan in pleasure as she reaches orgasm is half the appeal. The women act as if they want us to pleasure them, and the feeling of being wanted and appreciated for making a woman happy is one of the key parts of our arousal. But what do I know? I only have a simple male brain.

    You're right, though. Sports stars are not viewed as bodies we wanna fuck. Good job there.

    Actually, sports stars are treated more like animals; like cocks (lawl, puns) pitted against eachother for wagers and bets. There is a difference, like you said. On one hand is a body we want to touch feel and please. On the other are some guys we wanna see struggling and fighting and suffering. Dear god, those evil men and their porn.

    When we gawk at Arnold's muscles, do you really think we're appreciating his character and intellectual capicity (us non-California voters, that is)? These types of gawking may be different, but they're on about the same level with each other in regards to respect.

    But what do I know? I can only speak from experience, as opposed to your... oh, wait.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    I know what I am talking about, I read lads mags every week as part of my research.

    Sex toy = fragmented female body, into breasts, ass and holes posing specifically for male titillation and arousal, in poses that pander to male dominance.

    Such images are the 'bread and butter' of lads mags.

     
  • At Sunday, 06 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    Hey! I read Popular Science every month, I guess that makes me an engineer! Badass!

    Breasts, asses and holes may be big points of interest, but they are only part of the larger picture. You'd be hard pressed to find a man that would rather fap to disembodied breasts than to entire women.

    Again, pandering to the dominance of the reader has nothing to do with some conspiracy against women. Pandering to the dominance of the reader sells more copies.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Yeah, because you see 'ass and holes' (am I alone in finding that phrase slightly arousing?) in lads' mags all the time.

    You're very clever, Charlie. But you're not very intelligent.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Copypasta: You are a TROLL.

    I am surprised that Charliegrrl has indulged you for as long as she has. She has been most polite, even though you spew out the same old tired patriarchical rubbish. (Nope, you are NOT original)

    Yes, we feminists do know what we are talking about when we discuss how women are treated in this society, that would be because we are women, and in this society (and some of us do grit our teeth and read the content of your wank mags). You as a man, have no idea of what 'our' world is like. If you sincerely wanted to learn and understand, you would be encouraged to stay (and there are many fabulous male pro-feminists). Although, I have the feeling that this and other blog owners will soon tire of your dribble.

    Whilst I really shouldn't feed-the-trolls, a handful of points from his last post:

    "I, on the other hand, can speak from experience"
    I assume that is the experience of being a sexist jerk?

    "…masturbate to attractive women…"
    Much of the perceived attractiveness is fashion. Currently the fashion is skinny women with big breasts, be they real or fake. Previously it has been skinny women, curvaceous women, etc., but overall young women. There is far more to any woman than just her outside appearance. That's right, women actually have thoughts and feelings!

    "Porn in which a woman just lies there looking sullen will not appeal to very many men"
    Really? Why then the image of two mannequin-like (or dead) women in the August 2006 edition of FRONT (see http://home.freeuk.com/webbuk/monthly/front-aug2006-jakki-bailey.jpg). Or of women bound and gagged? That tells us EXACTLY what men want from women. And this is just mainstream, soft-core porn, not even the 'kinky' or 'hard' stuff.

    "Movement, noises, words. Hardly a sex toy."
    Are you really trying to make the point that animation or vocalisation negates being a toy (sex or otherwise)? Go into a children's toyshop, I'm sure that you will find toys that move, talk and make all sorts of various noises. Better file that one under bad analogies. (I won't even bother addressing the lack of animation in magazines!!)

    "hearing and watching a woman moan in pleasure as she reaches orgasm is half the appeal"
    It certainly wouldn't be hard to fake an orgasm for Copypasta! I am sure, that if he has actually managed to con some poor unsuspecting female into the bedroom, that she could easily fake it (if only to get him to stop the porn-educated performance).

    That's right, porn-educated performance (by men) in the bedroom is misinformation and propaganda (aside from the anti-woman aspects). Speaking from 30 years of experience of male sexual encounters, I can say that men are now much, much worse at sex. That 30 years has coincided with a proliferation of pornography. Coincidence? I think not, especially as the performance is porn emulation.

    And finally, I have much more of a problem with soft-core pornography, primarily because it is ONLY women pictured in contorted poses for male titillation and gratification. Charliegrrl is spot on with "fragmented female body". It is not the WHOLE woman that is wanted in porn, it is only the bits that are useful for male gratification.

    We anti-porn feminists have come to this position from many years of research and reading. You pro-porn users come to your position without much more than; "it gave me orgasm, I like orgasm, therefore porn is good". As a starting point read: http://www.dianarussell.com/ before boring us again, or starting up the predictable MRA bullshit (which we know is coming…).

    So Copypasta, (and I'll assume you won't bother doing any research), go run with the Mellon Farmers, they are of your mindset.

    Stormcloud

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think the point is that "you" choose what to watch on "your" television. In WH Smith at the minute your masturbatory material is on full display.

    The problem is that women are not just male masturbatory material and the constant portrayal of women on the front cover of newspapers and magazines as such needs to stop.

    The "pink" marketing of the playboy logo is a sinister attempt by the marketing bods at playboy to stifle opposition from future generations of women. They are trying to ensure that the playboy logo is normalised.

    This dual marketing of the playboy bunny as a girly pink thing and as sex brand is quite simply beyond belief.

     
  • At Monday, 07 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    I'm clever but not intelligent hey...?

    Stormcloud: "porn-educated performance"
    This is a good way of describing most of my sexual experiences with men too. Porn harms men as well as women.

    When do you ever hear porn refer to the clitoris..?

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    Stormcloud:

    No, this is a troll - http://www.blizzard.com/inblizz/fanart/ScreenShot.aspx?ImageIndex=347&Set=0

    I am merely someone with a different opinion. I, myself, find things much more interesting when it's more than just people agreeing on things all the time. Not much of a discussion then.

    Either way, it's a rather sad state for the world when anybody who thinks differently than you is automatically a troll.

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It refers to it all the time. As you would know, if you weren't tailoring your 'findings' to fit your argument. Still, it's important you don't let trivialities like facts get in the way.

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Charliegrrl:

    "When do you ever hear porn refer to the clitoris..?"
    Actually, I have seen the occasional bit of cunnilingus performed in (video) porn, but compared to quantity of fellatio – which seems to be in EVERY video, it is a rarity. If porn were truly educational (as some pro-porners claim) then the occurrence would be more balanced. I have had male partners complain about "having to do" cunnilingus (when requested). Having personally done both, I can assure you that cunnilingus is far easier than fellatio. So (you may quote me on this one) if a guy ever tells you that to get out of it, tell him to "go suck some cock and get back to me" (then he'll truly know the meaning of jaw ache).

    "This is a good way of describing most of my sexual experiences with men too. Porn harms men as well as women."
    Actually, I no longer give a flying fuck about men. My vagina (I'm equating my genitals with sentience just as the penis camp do) has said to me, "no sex is better is than bad sex" (and my vibrator, or rather series of them) has not failed the task in its stead. Nor do I ever have to fake orgasms any more (and yes, faked many I have, just to get the pounding jerk to finish). Too many men for too long have been watching far too much porn. And I have also witnessed a marked rise in the number of men with fetishes – foot fetishes, breast fetishes, talk dirty fetishes, piss on me (or me on you) fetishes, and now it seems we have glass bottom boat riders as well. That rise in fetishes I attribute to the proliferation of porn, which has to seek out more and more bizarre ways of 'arousal', with many fetishes becoming mainstreamed within 'vanilla' porn. I almost forgot the biggie in this list, the 'threesome' – which is always a request for two 'girls' and me (the male making the request). I can remember back to a time when this wasn't standard fare. (My best mate who is 12 years younger than I, always ribs me whenever I've said "in the olden days…..") *grin*

    Your previous posts on 'good sex guides' ala LMs shows the amount of mis-information and propaganda going on in pornland. (BTW, "…nuzzle her face into your quivering thighs like a baby cow searching for milk" was such bizarre imagery.)

    So, yes (perhaps), porn does harm men – but not nearly as much as it harms women. Possibly it is more a case of porn interfering with men's abilities to become warm and caring human beings (and/or good lovers). Porn 'hampers' men, or porn 'stifles' men, or porn 'inhibits' men, are possibly more accurate.

    But getting back to the pornorium (my newly made-up word) that is WHS – they retail porn, they distribute porn, and now market porn-branding to young girls ("grooming" the next generation of girls to become willing participants of the sex-slave class). Me smells a conspiracy, and it stinks. But any of those high street stores or supermarkets thrust porn at us, and it is truly offensive. Thrust is accurate, take a look at the WHS kiosk/shop at Westminster tube, porn mags are the first thing one sees at the entrance. Inoffensive magazines are tucked away on other shelves to the sides. (will email you with the photo)

    Sorry for yet another wordy post ! "In the olden days…." ;-)

     
  • At Tuesday, 08 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    "So, yes (perhaps), porn does harm men...Possibly it is more a case of porn interfering with men's abilities to become warm and caring human beings (and/or good lovers). Porn 'hampers' men, or porn 'stifles' men, or porn 'inhibits' men, are possibly more accurate"

    That's what I meant to say...

    "When do you ever hear porn refer to the clitoris..?"

    I was mainly thinking of lads mags here, but yeah in the porn I've seen, the woman is regarded as a hole and the clit doesn't come into it.

    Threesomes or 'lesbians' are the big thing in lads mags at the mo, once upon a time it used to be anal sex.

    I remember my first encounter with a lads mag- I think it was ZOO, a year ago, who said the following' "Anal Sex, your girlfriend may not like it...but she'll get used to it.'

    Threesomes and anal sex are seen by many lads as goals to achieve, akin to completing a 9-hole-bar crawl still standing.
    It's pathetic. Women don't have such a pre-concieved agenda with men.

    "Nor do I ever have to fake orgasms any more (and yes, faked many I have, just to get the pounding jerk to finish)"

    That's funny, it reminds me of my former 'straight' life. Although I rarely faked orgasms, I suppose I bruised a few male egos on the way...

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    "It refers to it all the time. As you would know, if you weren't tailoring your 'findings' to fit your argument. Still, it's important you don't let trivialities like facts get in the way."

    Not now, Anonymous, we can't be bothered with objective research or silly things like that. There are evil, brutish subhuman men to demonize. Men with penises no less! And testosterone! Those savages! How dare they let hormones and primal psychological cues affect them like that?!?

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Charliegrrl:
    "That's what I meant to say..."
    I was fairly certain that it was (at least what you were thinking), sometimes I just get a little touchy about the 'shorthand', and perhaps I was just brainstorming some better shorthand. The harm factor is no contest, and I'm certain that you agree (mainly because I know that if you are researching LMs each and every week, that IS dedication to 'the cause'!).

    "Threesomes or 'lesbians' are the big thing in lads mags at the mo, once upon a time it used to be anal sex."
    I've oft naval-gazed on why the threesomes, when most of 'em have enough trouble satisfying just one woman at a time. And 'lesbians', isn't the whole point that they (lesbians) have no interest or desire in having sex with a man? And why the anal sex thing? Isn't that a bit 'close to home' for all the homophobes, err, real men? Do men really like setting themselves up for failure? Or are they just complete morons?

    "Although I rarely faked orgasms, I suppose I bruised a few male egos on the way..."
    My share of male ego bruising does actually far outweigh the faked orgasms. :-)
    Just to qualify my view of 'the many' - faking even one is too many.

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Hey copypasta...

    That picture was just how I imagined you to be. I called you a troll because you exhibited the same troll-like behaviour that we have seen frequently in the feminist blogosphere. Disagreeing with absolutely every point of view of this (or any other) blog, identifies you either as a troll or stoopid (take your pick).

    I suppose you see yourself as some sort of devil's advocate? Or perhaps that you may *just* convince us here to get our 'silly little ideas of feminism out of our pretty little heads'? Or that porn is *really* good for us and we should just bend over and take it? Snowball's chance of that!

    Congratulations on your trollmanship though, I didn't immediately spot you as one.
    But if it walks like a troll, talks like a troll, it must be…(this is your cue to look in the mirror copytroll)

    Did you do your homework? Here's some more:
    http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/%7Erjensen/freelance/justprudes.htm

     
  • At Wednesday, 09 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    That picture was just how I imagined you to be.

    Why thank you.

    Disagreeing with absolutely every point of view

    Again, God forbid I disagree with you. There seems to be only one major "point" on this blog (porn = bad), so the chances of me disagreeing with everyone of them seems pretty reasonable.

    identifies you either as a troll or stoopid

    Yup, all people who disagree with you are stupid. You are a shining beacon of enlightenment and understanding.

    I suppose you see yourself as some sort of devil's advocate?

    Seeing as how all men seem to be the devil, I guess so.

    Or that porn is *really* good for us and we should just bend over and take it?

    Who said porn was good for you? Someone ejaculating on his computer monitor doesn't affect you, good or bad. And nobody's asking you to like or accept porn. You just need to understand that there are people out there who think differently than you and, despite your best efforts, are free to think and write and publish whatever they want.

    To tell the truth, I'm bored and like debating. If I was a troll, however, your frothing, seething reactions would do nothing to deter me.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger charliegrrl said…

    Copypasta
    We feminists care about our fellow women and do not want them to be degraded by men who demand masturbation material. Have some respect for women, please.

    Yes, we do think porn is bad. So far I have not seen an argument from the pro-porners or the anti-censorship brigade, to convince me otherwise.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    "You are a shining beacon of enlightenment and understanding."

    Why cheers, copytroll !
    Oops, was I a bad feminist who took that out of context.... my bad. ;-)

    "Someone ejaculating on his computer monitor doesn't affect you, good or bad."

    Not at that particular moment, and gosh, (drumroll) first time in history you've got a partial agreement from me!

    However, it is the continual use of pornography that desensitises men to women's pain, and lowers rape inhibitions. Also it perpetuates too many myths about sexuality (eg women supposedly want it at all times and in anyway). On the subject of sexuality myths, it is primarily men affected, but indirectly women (by the crap-arsed performance of their sexual partners emulating what they see in porn).

    "You just need to understand that there are people out there who think differently than you and, despite your best efforts, are free to think and write and publish whatever they want."

    Yes, I actually do understand that many people think differently to me. However, most on this blog feel the same about porn. Yes, you are free to think/feel/publish what you like - BUT TO A POINT. Generally, one is not allowed to publish material that is likely to incite racial hatred (in this country anyway). Feminists have also made the parallel that pornography is incitement to create sexual ("gender") hatred.

    If you are only on this blog because you are bored and like debating.. why not go to a pro-pornies site and debate, I dunno, real vs fake breasts or something. At least then, there may be some agreement on some points, rather than on none.

     
  • At Thursday, 10 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    "So far I have not seen an argument from the pro-porners or the anti-censorship brigade, to convince me otherwise."

    Nor I. In fact, the more research I read, the more convinced I am.

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger CopyPasta said…

    We feminists care about our fellow women and do not want them to be degraded by men who demand masturbation material. Have some respect for women, please.

    Degraded? Clearly the women in pornography didn't feel degraded, or they wouldn't do it. They were willing to sell their dignity for a price, just as nearly everybody does at some point during their lives. They don't represent all women, and neither do you.

    However, it is the continual use of pornography that desensitises men to women's pain, and lowers rape inhibitions.

    Oh?

    "high pornography use is not necessarily indicative of high risk for sexual aggression" (Malamuth, Addison, & Koss, 2000, p. 79-81).

    "Within Japan itself, the dramatic increase in available pornography and sexually explicit materials is apparent to even a casual observer. This is concomitant with a general liberalization of restrictions on other sexual outlets as well. Also readily apparent from the information presented is that, over this period of change, sex crimes in every category, from rape to public indecency, sexual offenses from both ends of the criminal spectrum, significantly decreased in incidence." (Diamond, Ph.D, 2002).

    "For example, in 1983, the Metropolitan Toronto Task Force on Violence Against Women commissioned Thelma McCormack to study pornography's connection to sexual aggression. McCormack's study indicated that pornography might be cathartic and, so, it might reduce the incidence of rape." (McElroy, Wendy).

    Feminists have also made the parallel that pornography is incitement to create sexual ("gender") hatred.

    Perhaps they have. And because militant feminists say it, it must be true, right?

    At least then, there may be some agreement on some points, rather than on none.

    Boring. No challange. Nearly impossible tasks are much more palatable for me.

     
  • At Friday, 11 August, 2006, Blogger stormy said…

    Hey copytroll:

    blah blah blah blah blah

    That's all I got from your last post, and sums up my reply.

    By fuck you're a persistant little troll aren't you?

    Oh, and to be a little more civilised:
    "Clearly the women in pornography didn't feel degraded, or they wouldn't do it"

    The answer to that, is anti-porn feminism-101.

     
  • At Sunday, 13 August, 2006, Anonymous Laurelin said…

    Wow, it seems I underestimated Copypasta's intelligence- it seems he is capable of using both Google and copy and paste!

    What I never underestimated, however, was Copypasta's lack of empathy and courage.

    Now Copyprat, why don't you take your hand off your dick (it won;t fall off, I promise), and read up on all the reports that have shown there is a correlation between sexual violence and porn? If you want to, there are plenty of links on my blog, under 'Feminist Links'.

    I am impressed by the quality of the material you have produced though. Pornography is 'not neccessarily' a cause of sexual aggression, 'pornography might be cathartic'. I wish I had the confidence and evidence to say pornography might be misogynistic and dangerous, and that the sex industry is not neccessarily a wonderful insitution!

    Oh wait a minute, I do!

    Women in pornography are most likely to have been abused as children, are frequently coerced into more and more violent and degrading acts.

    Pornography is dangerous.

    You should be ashamed of yourself. But, lacking a conscience, how could I expect that of you?

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home