Read Part I

To be honest, I was a little of the fence about writing this part II, but hey, people seemed to be interested in it. Plus, I just watched Belicheck get fucked over by his own cleverness; clearly it's a sign that it's about time that people who aren't nearly as smart as they think they are to get their comeuppance.

(Note: I don't have any football allegiances. And I like Randy Moss and Tom Brady et al. I just think that Belicheck is an asshole).

I'm pretty sure I'm not taking anything out of context here, but if you want the complete post, have at it:

All Porn is Rape, All The Time

I don't think I should have to write this, but people like to make silly arguments sometimes so here goes: Rape is terrible. I'm not making light of rape. I'm making light of stupid arguments by pretentious people who use tragedies as jumping-off points for ridiculous arguments. Lets get into it.

and for the pornographers, various onlookers, and male porn-performers, the contractual nature of the transaction-and the industry-acts as the woman's consent to whatever comes next. except that it doesnt.

The last sentence is my favorite; it's like some part of her brain knows that her argument is nonsense and is trying desperately to sneak its way into the post, before it gets overwhelmed by senseless anger.

I also love the idea that despite the fact that women are paid much better and given much more choice on porn sets, the burden of rape falls solely on the male performer.

the "free-for-all" nature of even mainstream porn is especially problematic, when it escalates, always, to include acts that most people would not willingly participate in, such as gang-bangs, and "rage-in-the-cage" styled death-matches where the woman is presented as being "versus" the man.

Read that sentence again.

Mainstream porn (even!) ALWAYS escalates into acts that most people would not willingly participate in. Such as gang-bangs. So even though you think you're watching amatuer lesbian porn, there are 6 to 8 dicks lurking off-screen, no matter what was actually filmed. True story — it's physically impossible to film and distribute an act that most people would consent to. I tried to film myself giving my customary excellent cunnilingus to an enraptured female fan, and when I played it back it showed a tentacle monster defiling a promising young schoolgirl.

True story.

both ethically and legally, without a constant negotiation and re-negotiation of consent, there is no consent.

I add this in not because it's wrong, but because it's the crux of her argument; I want to add as much context as possible, because otherwise she looks *really* crazy. She also offers no proof that porn has this issue any more than sex does; assuming that a girl on camera isn't consenting because she's being paid doesn't make any sense. At all.

consent, by definition, is a living, breathing, thing, and cannot be given prospectively.

I checked 18 different dictionaries. Fine. I checked dictionary.com, and barely read through the answer, but I'm still positive that nowhere in the definition of consent are the words "living" or "breathing" included. In fact, consent, by definition, can even be given passively (such as is the case in a lot of sexual encounters). In fact, porn, despite all its issues, has more active consent than the majority of sexual encounters.

I like that the phrase "by definition" can be thrown in when it has nothing to do with the definition though. I'll have to remember that.

the constant renegotiation required in consensual sexual encounters simply doesnt occur when deals are struck, and contracts are signed beforehand. did you hear that? let me repeat it: consent does not occur, in porn. therefore, porn is rape.

Oh, wait. I get her argument. Let me try one on for size.

A couple gets married. They have 2 children. One day, the wife proposes to her husband that they have sex. He agrees and pentrates her.

She offered him sex beforehand. At no point did she give him living, breathing, consent in the middle of sex. Therefore, marriage is rape. Except gay marriage, which is, by definition, worse than rape.

Man, now I know why she writes. Arguing is easy when you don't have to worry about logic.

but in porn, the woman is acting. that is, her communications to him are inauthentic.

I'm pretty sure this woman doesn't understand the concept of acting. That would explain the frazzled woman I found wandering the East Village trying to figure out why Chandler and Monica and Phoebe don't visit her picture box anymore.

This should be blatantly obvious, but here it is: just like in every other acting situation, if the actress truly does not consent to the sex, she can stop the scene. You might not like her reasons for consenting, but nobody really gives a fuck if you like their reasons for having sex. If the actresses are under no duress and are free to stop the scene at any time, it's not rape. It's not even close to rape. It might be dirty, disgusting, filthy job, but so is coaching the Browns. The only difference is, Mangini's tits are real.

what we have in porn, then, on both sides of the screen, are men who dont give a shit whether the sex acts being performed on a woman are wanted.

I just want to point out, again, probably not for the last time, how stupid it is to start your argument with "all porn" and then only talk about male-female mass-produced intercourse porn.

we have "consent" that was given prospectively, which means quite literally that it wasnt given at all. in other words, we have rapists raping women, and men watching episodes of rape, thousands in a lifetime, but convincing themselves each time that they are watching "sex."

We have consent that can be withdrawn (and is) at any time.

She is right though. Only men can watch porn. Two years ago, I tried to show my ex-girlfriend some porn and a leprachaun leapt through the floorboards and doused her eyes with corrosive acid.I broke up with my girlfriend shortly thereafter.

Not because of the eyes thing though. We were just moving in different directions, you know? I was moving forward on one path, and she was moving forward on a different path. Her path just happened to lead directly into an open sewage drain.

many, many men in our lives will continue to be consumers of porn, or wont see anything wrong with it, and radfems will end up endlessly having to explain ourselves, in the face of self-proclaimed liberal men and the fun-fems who want need their acceptance.

Ah, the weariness of idiocy.

"Why does nobody listen when I try to explain my "rain falling up theory?" All of these fun-fems and men are just deluding themselves by believing that the Bergeron process explain rainfall. Rainfall, by definition, goes upward."

as far as me personally, i guess i am "lucky" in a way, that i dont have to deal with numerous men in my private life:

This doesn't have to do with the porn argument, but some quick background. She complains in a different post about misandrist being a euphemism for feminist.

I don't doubt that some people call feminists man-haters without reason. However, it seems abundantly clear from what she writes that she hates men. I can easily imagine her consoling herself by thinking "oh, people just think I hate men because I'm a feminist." No, it's because you say things like this (from a different post):

what often gets left out of these discussions is the reasonableness of womens fear/avoidance/hatred or whatever of men.

i dont have a relationship with my dad

Well you could knock me over with a feather.

That's about the end of the post proper. People made some very good points in the comments (Genderbitch basically said everything I'm say here, only way more succintly and nicely); it was a long thread, and I couldn't go through all of it here, even if I wanted to. Here are some choice bits, though:

About her use of the term "fun-fem":

as far as whether the term is derogatory….i dont know. its a catchy phrase that looks good in a headline

Not sure if she meant to so clearly imply, "I deliberately sought to offend people with similar goals to mine simply to make my headline slightly better", but holy shit, that's basically what she's saying.

"being condescending and big-brained is misogynist, when its used by a man. taking an overly-unemotional, academic "tone" when dealing with emotionally-charge subject matter, such as rape, is also misogynist, when it comes from a man."

I don't even have to comment on how stupid it is to imply that a man being condescending (not even to a woman, per se!) inherently means he hates women. I just want to add her own words to the italicized parts:

despite my ambivalence, i performed an objective analysis of porn from the perspective of consent versus non-consent, and i came to believe that its objectively, inherently harmful, and anti-feminist.

I see. So being unemotional about rape is misogynist, when it comes from a man. But being OBJECTIVE about rape is…progressive when it comes from a woman? I am without comment on the blatancy of this hypocrisy.

i's a fucking idiot, i dont understand logical fallacies

Ok, to be fair, this was written sarcastically, but it was too good not to include.

I actually made some of these arguments in the comment section, in a much less dickish way, and this was her reponse (to me, I think):

and the man in the video…well, if its a home-movie there arent the kinds of circumstantial indicators of nonconsent (like money changing hands, or nengative consequences to stopping). thats more like real-life sex, on camera. very, very different from "porn" proper though isnt it?

the reason i bring it up is that there are people who do this very thing, call it "porn" and then use *their* kind of porn as an example of why porn as a whole is unproblematic, or why *some* porn is. trouble with that is, its not really porn, which makes it a straw man argument. saying A is just like B and then arguing for the merits of B. when the post is about A, and A and B arent the same.

Here's the problem, though: The definition of porn doesn't have anything to do with money changing hands. Or their being a studio. When the premise of your piece is "all porn is rape, all the time" you have precious little wiggle-room to qualify.

I tried to keep my argument objective, though. I quoted basically every reputable definition of porn I could find. Here they are (I swear, we're getting to the end of this; it's gone on long enough):

M-W.com

The depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

Dictionary.com

obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.

Wikipedia.com

The depiction of explicit subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement.

I also added the defintion from the OED, which I don't have on hand, but which was, of course, essentially the same as they above.

Common ground, perhaps? By showing her that I just wasn't making my own definitions for things, I figured I could at least get her to admit that her statement was overreaching. That was really all I wanted, in the end: I know porn sorely needs better legislation. How did this super objective, PhD respond?:

oh, and you are TOTALLY on moderation, for using dictionary-definitions and the term QED in a discussion of rape. (that post was spammed).

I, of course, was using the abbreviation for the well-known Oxford English Dictionary. Still, I guess this post was meant to show how stupid her arguments are so…

QED.

Follow Points in Case on Twitter.

Join The Second City writing classes on satire, sketch, and TV - 10% off with code PIC.

Check out events at The Satire and Humor Festival in NYC March 22-24.