Internet Porn

Nice reply holmes.Two quick points regarding this: Actually its 60% of all men over 18 are married to or live with women. There are even more who are in relationships with women (and men) so the atual percentage of men in relationships is much higher than 60%. The 60% is out of the male population (over 18) only, not out of the overall adult population in the US. I didn't determine what the % of women cohabitating, or married to, men was. But now that you mention it...Looks like 45% of women over 18 are not married nor living with a man (from US census 2000 - same as my previous post).That means that a greater percentage of men (59%) are married to or living with women, than women (55%) are married to or living with men.This message has been edited by custard, 07-01-2004 07:02 AM

quote:

---

Please do not use books from feminist authors, nor sold for a woman audience.

---

Poisoning the well

Why did you leave this sentence in, when shortly following this I did point to them and you started to reply to them?It's a personal irritation of mine that people leave arguments in which could only have been made if they hadn't read the entire post they were replying to first. It shows a very unfair and poor attempt to understand your opponent's position.If this is how you've been reading my posts, it's no wonder you've shown little understanding what I've been saying (especially my real position on porn). Well this is the FIRST thing you have said which makes any credible or honest attempt to deal with issues surrounding porn. For that I give you credit and I hope to see more of it, because that is what real debate is about.I want to start by agreeing that there is a credible argument about how long observations must be made before data becomes relevant for analysis. In addition, something you did not mention, there are real questions about whether enough data is being collected to get a whole picture.Absolutely these are valid questions. If you honestly read my posts then you did see that I qualified the research data myself. I am actually pretty hard on sociological and pyscho-socio research. There are problems using mass demographical stats, and on the personal level using self-reporting, as well as the issues already mentioned.However, I think this line of reasoning you are making is a bit disingenuous. First of all, using the term "a few decades ago" makes 30-40 years sound pretty short... it ain't. Second, using this statement blurs the fact that stats were observed before and after legalization. A change was observed.I can't remember if it was mentioned in the longer article I linked to or not, but in the 90's while porn began to have a growth market (which Clinton and Reno were bashed for) sexual crimes were actually on the decline. Despite growing hysteria within the populace, the stats were not bearing that out.I welcome you to introduce data which shows the trends these studies suggest, of allowance versus oppression of porn, have fallen apart over time, or that there is a reason (beyond vague doubt) to suggest they should not be considered. A good way to do this is to look back at stats stretching back into the past while porn was illigitimate. Perhaps you can find a different causal mechanism. Uhmmm, I didn't ignore anything in that article. You think it was lost on me that there was collusion from people within the West?The point I was making is that it is irrelevant. You may notice that even in the piece you quoted of mine that people in ALL nations can pull such a thing. Indeed, they most readily do. There victims, or the areas that they victimize will be places where laws are less well maintained. This offers increased opportunties of people living in such lands or areas to exploit those among them.If your point is that there are bad people everywhere, then you never saw me say different and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did. If your point was that there can be parts of the sexual industry in which people are abused, then you also have not seen me say differently and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did.I think that last one has already been shown as you have made out like I said porn was some wonderland of niceness when my entire position is that PORN ELUDES CLASSIFICATION. That cuts both ways contra.People turn blind eyes to bad things going on in other industries in the west. So what is your point then regarding porn and how it should be treated/thought of?If your claim is that it is somewhat greater in porn, I'd like to see the stats on that, especially when you are discussing porn as one finds it for sale to mainstream customers. I can guarantee you are not going to find "abused kid-slaves of Kosovo" for rent at your local store or mentioned on AVN.That is part of the black market. There is a black market for EVERYTHING. Maybe you should look at what you just said, and realize that it actually COUNTERS your position. You are right that it is illegal to broadcast racist propaganda (that's perhaps even heavier in Europe than in the US). Yet people have been able to recognize the difference between propaganda (which means supporting a cause) and using racist elements within fiction.There is simply no support to be found for racists within interracial porn. There just isn't. But I'll tell you what, you show me some literature or links or something where racists are buying up interracial porn, or refering to its MESSAGES as proving their point.The best you'll get are racists blasting the mockery of themselves within such porn, and the breaking of miscegenation taboos in its creation.But by all means... prove me wrong. Actually I have not. My argument is subtly different. I am attacking you for creating arguments which create a generalized negative feeling about PORN (as a whole), because bad things happen within sections of it.If you are not trying to create a general negative feeling about PORN as a whole, then I suggest you review your own arguments.And some of the specific arguments you make are simply not backed with any evidence, and indeed are contrary to logic itself. Abuse within the industry is obvious, it MUST occur as it does in any other industry. But being an avenue of reinforcing misogynist attitudes within society (which you still haven't defined)? And more laughably your claim that anyone focusing on interracial sex must believe in some trope?I attack those specific charges as well. What do you mean salient? You just quoted that article of abuse and used it to rip into the Porn industry. Perhaps you can show me where those being abused were among the wealthy (hell the middel class) of Kosovo. You know how Kosovo is KNOWN for being the mecca of wealth. Haha.What if I were to say to you that the salient point of that article was the poverty and lawlessness within Kosovo? Actually it is wholly relavent to your argument. As part of your "all interracial sites must involve tropes" you commented that any black person that chooses only white girls as sexual partners must believe in that trope.My example brings up the problems with your specific argument and begins to crumble the larger one. If a wholly interracial site was run outside of the US by a person that happens to choose only those outside of his/her race, does that mean that site is or is not supporting the trope?If so, how on earth could it? And if not, why must all those within the US be slaves to the trope and not genuinely have the same feelings regarding interracial sex the person outside the US has?I find it ironic that your own argument gives credence to the racist arguments which were used as races began to cross lines in the sixties. I mean if race didn't matter why was anyone wanting to date outside their race at all? There were definite physical barriers to this (including where people lived) and most had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to get to mix with others of different race.Or don't you remember that? That's even why you can find laws against dance halls in certain areas and restrictions within them. Many white girls and boys went way out of their way to mix with blacks.Not even clear on the history of interracial activity in the US are you? Do you need me to quote your own post where you said anyone starting a website focusing on interracial sex (with a capital I) to define its subject matter was supporting the trope? That was a pretty big brush baby.If you want to change your statement, go ahead, but you and I know that's exactly what you said and I was challenging. So let's see. Porn is generally okay but there are people who abuse people to make it for black market content. There is some interracial porn which plays off of historical stereotypes as part of the fantasy.And you are not making any comments regarding how it supports misogyny (beyond the one stat on UK wages)?What exactly is your position and why were you posting? None of this sounds worthy of mention.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well I want that one for the record. My call for a person to get data from academic resources, rather than ones which have not only no good vetting of data, but have a biased audience, is being called poisoning the well.If I were to tell a creationist not to get data regarding rock strata from creationist literature, would you seriously call that poisoning the well?You see contra, that right there is called ad hominem. And in this case it is totally unsupported by any other argument. Thanks for proving you have no leg to stand on this argument.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Thanks for the additional stat review.Hey by the way do you have the internal specs of men which can allow me to maximize my emotional potential? I missed it in Popular Mechanics. Or was it Men's Health?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Well I want that one for the record. My call for a person to get data from academic resources, rather than ones which have not only no good vetting of data, but have a biased audience, is being called poisoning the well.

---

Yep. It implies that no feminist author could possibly be well researched; that is direct well poisoning.

quote:

---

If I were to tell a creationist not to get data regarding rock strata from creationist literature, would you seriously call that poisoning the well?

---

The scenarios are not equivalent, because we are discussing a dispite in which the proponents of both sides are academiocs, not one in which only one side is an academic.You appear to be rejecting anything ever produced by the gender studies departments of any university based on a groundless slur to their integrity.Now I, and others, have picked you up for blanket abuse of "feminists". It has been conceded that their essentialists feminists, and extremists as in any field, and yet you continue to apply your generic abuse, merely, I presume, because you do not like their conclusions.

Heheheh. Okay, I'll admit it might be easy to have misread what I said, but you did misread it.You will notice that I said no BOOKS from feminist authors and/or marketed for the consumption of women. This means mainstream publishing which while it may contain refs to studies does not itself have to and very often does not.I went on to state that it must be academic literature, which was to suggest something which has started and gone through tight vettting. It can certainly have come from a feminist author, though in this case such a person would generally be referred to as a scientist and not just "a feminist author".I think you ought to leave Schraf to defend herself on this point. I believe I have seen her use this same requirement when talking to creationists, and I am sure she would have understood my point. Jumpy jumpy. Didn't say it, and didn't mean it. By all means let the flood gates open! Open Sesame! Here we go now!Anybody?Let's see the data now that you appear to claim it is out there. Others? Okeydoke. Here is a nice little synopsis for all you peoples.Feminism is a large group (much like porn). It also defies clear definition, except that the group has a goal of empowering women (or equalizing them).There was a large anti-sex and anti-porn contingent and kind of became the stereotype of feminism. Manhating, and ball busting. This was not all of feminism, but it should be noted that they themselves tried to paint as NONfeminist, those who moved outside of sexual condemnation and prudish trappings.I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED ONCE TO YOU ALREADY that what I initially said regarding feminists, was in a context which pointed to the antiporn contingent. That is the people making the ridiculous claims I was hearing were always feminists. That is true. They were a subset of the entire feminist movement, but that does not make my statement wrong, and it should be obvious I was not taking about proporn feminists (they would not make anti-porn nor antimale claims).But from now on I will be very careful. I will always say antiporn feminists, so we can all be sure who I am talking about.Given that my posts have excoriated people like Dworkin and given thumbs up to people like Betty Dodson, you'd think I'd get some credit for not lumping all feminists into one boat.But that said, I dislike the conclusions of antiporn feminists because they are not based on anything beyond purely anecdotal data and very poor correlation studies. If you are about to say anything different, just show me the data instead, I am sick of seeing nothing from you yet getting all these assertions and (false) claims I don't have any data.Just to let you know I was assembling a documentary on this subject, as well as studying it in college, and have a pretty good knowledge of the field. Surprise me if you can.On the other hand I do like the conclusions of what I would call modern feminists. They have successfully cut the ties that bound them and have the courage to analyze data beyond those coming from women's crisis groups alone. To be fair I will always refer to them from now on as proporn feminists.It appears to me you don't like their conclusions since you bad mouth them all the time. Of course just like the antiporn fems of old, you consistenly produce nothing but anecdotal info and assertion.Dworkin is defunct. Long live FREE WOMEN!

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

If this is how you've been reading my posts, it's no wonder you've shown little understanding what I've been saying (especially my real position on porn).

---

Well when you make it a point to abuse feminists and feminism, you don't come across as someone actually interested in debating anything, but merely banging your drum.

quote:

---

However, I think this line of reasoning you are making is a bit disingenuous. First of all, using the term "a few decades ago" makes 30-40 years sound pretty short... it ain't. Second, using this statement blurs the fact that stats were observed before and after legalization. A change was observed.

---

Agreed. But if, as I and others may claim, we are talking about a social form that has been culturally embedded for millenia, then 30-40 years remains fairly insignificant.Taking Japan as an example, representation of women in work was protected by law, but all to often they were given sinecure positions with no responsibilities and were referred to as "office flowers" as late as the 80's, anyway. So there may be some doubt as to exactly how effective measures have been to date in changing the actual, as opposed superficial, culture.

quote:

---

If your point is that there are bad people everywhere, then you never saw me say different and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did. If your point was that there can be parts of the sexual industry in which people are abused, then you also have not seen me say differently and are putting words in my mouth if you think I did.
...
People turn blind eyes to bad things going on in other industries in the west. So what is your point then regarding porn and how it should be treated/thought of?

---

My point, as I have repeatedly and unambiguously stated, is that we do have just cause to suspect that not everything that goes on in the sex trade is voluntary, and this is a cause for concern. Your position appears to have been that porn is essentially voluntary (even if only of the pay-for-play variety).What I think is different in porn to most other industries is that the product that is sold is a person, or the image of a person. It cannot be treated exactly like industries where the product is an inanimate object. More care must be employed in porn than in most industries for exactly that reason.

quote:

---

I can guarantee you are not going to find "abused kid-slaves of Kosovo" for rent at your local store or mentioned on AVN.

---

We do have reason to fear that there may be people in porn unwillingly; you cannot simply dismiss every such concern, as it appears to me you have done, on the basis that the charge is ludicrous. It is not ludicrous; you do not know, you simply do not know if the girls you see on pictures that could have been taken anywhere in the world and at nearly any date in the last decade are there because they choose to be or becuase there is a man behind the camera making threats.And the further point I made about this was that this seems to be a "see no evil speak no evil" apporoach which only serves to discredit porn further by denying there's any problem to be addressed.

quote:

---

That is part of the black market. There is a black market for EVERYTHING.

---

And the internet is unregulated, and therefore very convenient to the black market. So it is indeed plausible that on the internet, we may find coercive porn, or porn in which the performers were coerced. That is the position which you have hitherto been rejecting as unreasonable.

quote:

---

Yet people have been able to recognize the difference between propaganda (which means supporting a cause) and using racist elements within fiction.

---

You need to expand what you mean by that; it makes no sense to me.

quote:

---

There is simply no support to be found for racists within interracial porn.

---

I just can't agree with that; it is openly and even proudly transmitting racist propaganda. And if it were not for the apologetics offered just becuase of its sexual content, it would be seen as just as unnacceptable as any other form of hate speech.

quote:

---

But I'll tell you what, you show me some literature or links or something where racists are buying up interracial porn, or refering to its MESSAGES as proving their point.

---

First question: Are you aware of this particular kink existing anywhere outside the ex-slave-owning societies of the West?But secondly, you are asking for too much introspection. I didn't claim that such porn was causative of racsim; I said it was SYMPTOMATIC of racism. So what we should be looking for is porn duplicating tropes of racism, and that is indeed what we see. To the extent this plays a causative role, it is only through repitition and the reinforcement provided by others echoing your thoughts; that is, it normalises the prejudice.Thus, you ask:

quote:

---

The best you'll get are racists blasting the mockery of themselves within such porn, and the breaking of miscegenation taboos in its creation.

---

Publicly, yes. But privately, that is the consuming market as well; they have to be, because they are the only people who care about these particular issues. All there concerns as expressed in their outrage are hit one by one by the porn construction. This is similar to the argument that some homophobia is triggered by an individuals suppression of homoerotic desires within themselves.

quote:

---

I am attacking you for creating arguments which create a generalized negative feeling about PORN (as a whole), because bad things happen within sections of it.

---

Yes, despite the fact I have repeatedly denied it.

quote:

---

If you are not trying to create a general negative feeling about PORN as a whole, then I suggest you review your own arguments.

---

My arguments are watertight; knee jerk rejection of any criticism does porn a disservice.

quote:

---

What do you mean salient? You just quoted that article of abuse and used it to rip into the Porn industry.

---

That is, the deciding factor in their participation was their poverty, not their skin colour.

quote:

---

Actually it is wholly relavent to your argument. As part of your "all interracial sites must involve tropes" you commented that any black person that chooses only white girls as sexual partners must believe in that trope.

---

You're putting owrds in my mouth I'm afraid. I didn;t say that all sites exhibiting interracial sex make use of racist tropes; I said that some sites make explicit and deliberate use of racist tropes for the construction of porn; porn in which THE POINT is the frisson of crossing "race boundaries".In addition, I said someone selecting partners on the basis of skin tone is indeed making a racist decision. That does not imply that THIS rtacist decision is the same set of tropes as the miscegenation trope.

quote:

---

My example brings up the problems with your specific argument and begins to crumble the larger one. If a wholly interracial site was run outside of the US by a person that happens to choose only those outside of his/her race, does that mean that site is or is not supporting the trope?

---

That would depend on whether we see the whole suite: cuckolding, the allegedly greater sexual prowess of blacks, the white male rejected by the white female. If we do NOT see the whole suite, then the fact that some of the sex is "interracial" is irrelevant.

quote:

---

I find it ironic that your own argument gives credence to the racist arguments which were used as races began to cross lines in the sixties. .... There were definite physical barriers to this (including where people lived) and most had to go OUT OF THEIR WAY to get to mix with others of different race.

---

Erm, yes exactly. And its this sort of paranoia about the sexual beast that is the black man displacing the white man from white womens affections that drives both the horror of miscegenation and the porn that presents, reifies and reinforces that fear. I'm not giving credence to the argument ; I'm demonstrating its still in circulation.

quote:

---

I mean if race didn't matter why was anyone wanting to date outside their race at all?

---

Umm, just becuase they found person attractive? Why can;t it just be as normal and simple as that? Why does 'interracial' sex HAVE to be fetishised?

quote:

---

Or don't you remember that? That's even why you can find laws against dance halls in certain areas and restrictions within them. Many white girls and boys went way out of their way to mix with blacks.

---

Yes exactly. And the arguments for seperating dance halls included the inability of white women to resist the temptation of the black sexual athlete, as I pointed out many posts ago.

quote:

---

Do you need me to quote your own post where you said anyone starting a website focusing on interracial sex (with a capital I) to define its subject matter was supporting the trope? That was a pretty big brush baby.

---

No, it has always referred to the specific set of tropes I identified to you. And it specifically excluded porn in which 'interracial' sex is incidental. Thus, it is not a broad brush, its a fine and pointed one.

you ommitted a term; I have reinserted it for you:

quote:

---

There was a large anti-sex and anti-porn contingent and kind of became the misogynistic stereotype of feminism.

---

Its quite a ridiculous stereotype

quote:

---

Given that my posts have excoriated people like Dworkin and given thumbs up to people like Betty Dodson, you'd think I'd get some credit for not lumping all feminists into one boat.

---

Well yes I did note that, which is in part why I think your traditional denunciation of "feminists" is mere rhetoric. Why keep appealing to these silly steroetypes if you don't agree with them?

quote:

---

On the other hand I do like the conclusions of what I would call modern feminists. ....To be fair I will always refer to them from now on as proporn feminists.

---

Why don't you just call them "feminists"?

quote:

---

I'll bet you wouldn't be saying this if birth control wasn't freely available. Children are the "natural" consequence of all of this free and easy sex you advocate; are you prepared to support all of the offspring produced?

---

Of course birth control changes the situation but what of the offspring produced? People whine because there are not enough children being born.That's the strange thing about this whole discussion. I hear people complain that there are not enough children to support pension plans, etc. yet they rant and rave about children being born to unwed/young mothers. What's the mentality behind their thinking? They want children in the world but want someone else to look after them? They say children are special, important, a gift of life but, hey, don't look at me to pay for child care, etc. Does the word "selfish" ring a bell?Let's be honest about it. It's all about sex no matter how one slices it. "We all love kids except when they're born to unwed mothers. Unwed mothers/women whom aren't able to support kids should not bear children but we are against the free distribution/family time advertizing of condoms." What other conclusion can be drawn?If unwanted children are the problem then society should start a public awareness campaign. Look how drinking and driving changed in one generation.How many deaths were caused by DUI? If anti-abortionists believe abortion is murder then ADS like the DUI ADS should be broadcast on TV, at all hours. No condom/no sex. Certainly there are more abortions than there were deaths by DUI. See what I mean?When it comes to sex society uses twisted logic.

Wow, you must have a great data set. Any time your ready.Although one should point out that when a change occurs, correlated tightly with another that does suggest something. When that correlation is found in other entities that adds to the suggestion.While correlation DOES NOT mean causation, I have yet to see you bring ANY data to present a correlative picture much less a causative one which supports your theory. Now what does porn have to do with that again? You may have missed the other link (it was in one of the posts I cited) which discussed the state and history of Porn in Japan.These are great anecdotes and question raising. Got some data? You are equivocating and you know it. Not "everything" that goes on in the sex trade is voluntary? That is true of ALMOST EVERY TRADE!Yeah great, let's bust these people!But if you are talking about the great percentage PORN which gets made for sale or not, then that dwindles down to a proper perspective. We cannot talk about porn as inherently abusive or to some greater extent abusive.There is abuse and it gets tracked down. What else do YOU want?On your mainstream shelves and most of the internet is perfectly voluntary Porn. That is the majority. The vast majority. Huh? The people producing slaves for either sex or nonsex work are using people as products. Those using the slaves may have them touch machines or bodies. They may take pictures or not. Unless you believe pictures take away pieces of people's souls I am missing the difference.Anyone being forced to do something against their will is being abused. It's that simple. You would have to show that porn (as an industry) is more likely to produce this than others. In the end you'll find that it is in certain locations that such abuse is higher. Shit... Good thing I never said that. Guess who really cares about abuse in the industry, people like me and my gf who work in it, or assholes like you who talk about it? Next time you go to porn sets to make sure everything is fine, you let me know. No I didn't. Quit shoving words in my mouth. In the world you can find just about everything you want. The question is how big of a problem is this? Does use of porn contribute to it?The answer to the first question is that it is not that big of a problem, though that does not mean it is not important to address. It simply is not connected to the White Market in any way shape or form.The second is that using or purchasing porn does not feed this Black Market you like to go on about. Seymour Butts is not busy funding Kosovo slaves markets with portions of video sales.There is a false image being created that it is interconnected in some way. There is a black market, and there is a white market (and in prostitution there is a grey market). Most porn people buy (especially with credit cards) is white. You'll know if you are going into the black market.It's not like you get a VCA pictures video, and next week find out all the actors had been shipped in to make it using freezer containers and were killed afterward.The internet is relatively unregulated, legitimate business are. You are so outside reality. Hey, I am leaving this one on your doorstep. Show me any confirmed racist group which supports or recommends watching interracial porn.Or, find me any players in interracial porn which say they believe that these tropes are real and should be promoted.I know this is anecdote but I already said my gf does interracial porn. We have yet to see any racists, producers or consumers. Its a fucking joke to think one would buy it, especially to further their "cause". Snicker snicker snicker. As it stands I have already pointed out that interracial porn includes many races that never had slave relationships with each other.I mean damn it, you ask this question and yet have the BALLS to assert you know anything about interracial porn? People desiring to have sex with other races, or viewing people of different races having sex is symptomatic of racism?Hehehehehhahahahahahahaaaaaa!You are a pretzel maker by day aren't you?If you try to counter this with the now tired statement you don't mean ALL interracial porn, just a part of it, let me explain something to you very carefully. And I want you to think about this. Even the porn which includes "tropes" as part of the fantasy gimmick, involves in its creation and enjoyment the above reality.If you dislike the stuff I listed in my first statement... which is inherent to racism... you cannot move on to make or consume the porn which involves tropes as it involves the stuff in my first statement. That is unless you are seriously schizo and hate yourself in some serious way.Racists are crazy, some of them may even be THAT crazy, but it never gets into the fold and part of the movement. You ever see Monster's Ball? Give me some stats you fucking jerk. Privately they MUST???Me and my gf consume interracial porn, though not the stuff with tropes. She has been involved in making some stuff with tropes, and neither the producers nor the actors nor any of the customers we have ever heard from believe in them as realities.Have you ever been to a swingers club? Many love to swap with opposite races, and some play out scenarios. Gee if it doesn't make sense to use the most obvious ones when dealing with power issues between different races.Its all fantasy! Sexual FUCKING FANTASY!I want one simple stat out of you on this patently OUTRAGEOUS claim. I think you mean to say data tight. I haven't seen anything yet, despite asking for something.Nor have I rejected any claims other than the outrageous ones for which you have not only supplied NO DATA, but believe you have some mystical insight into.This has nothing to do with real specific issues within porn, for example abuse and health issues, which there are and I am quite concerned about. yet Tell you what. You argue with yourself for a while and get back to me when you have a confirmed position. I have already defined that such a choice may go beyond skin color, though that is correlated with it based on other issues.But the use of the word "racist" is to conflate and equivocate on that term to such a degree that it is simply fraudulent. Yes a person is selecting a partner based on and aesthetic racial preference, but that IS different than selecting someone (for benefit or punishment) based on IMMATERIAL racial preferences.Sex is almost all about aesthetics of a partner, who is working at the desk over in the corner is NOT.Choosing chocolate over vanilla is not the same as hiring someone of your own race simply because they are that. You certainly made some big claims about interracial porn, for someone who is clearly aware of what it is through theory alone.There are a lot of interracial sites, many involve races that have NO history of slave relationships between them. Of those that do, a small niche market is playing to the cuckold thing.You know what makes it easy for a person to find your product, or what they are looking for if you have a wide range of products? Labels. Interracial Porn allows a person to know from the outset that they will see interracial sex, tropes or no tropes. Its just like "big tits" and "Outdoor", or intriguingly enough "black", "latino", "oriental" (where there is no mixing of races).Yeah, there's a good question. So does a racist not watch porn of exclusively other races, or is that fine because it fits with his idea that its as long as races don't mix? Next interracial porn flick I or my gf help out with I'm going to suggest this goes on the "blurb". Thanks. Uh. Oh man you just keep my head spinning. Yeah, why can't it? That was my question to you.But on the second question. When one finds onesself repeatedly finding some particular trait a recurring part of one's attractions... its a fetish.That's why interracial sex becomes fetishized. Some people have a simple preference.If you want to know why it gets GROUPED together on a shelf or onto a site, I explained that earlier. Yeah, I'll take that one too. Once again, I posted it above. You argue with yourself and get back to me.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well its nice to have you admit you put words in my mouth for a change. This is too much. Are you telling me that figures like Dworkin and Solanas were simply male created stereotypes and did NOT take part in early feminist writings, nor try to exclude those (from using the term feminist) that began to accept their own sexual freedom and porn?Woman hating men made up Dworkin. That's a good one. Christ... As much as I loathe Dworkin I always gave her the credit of being human, and part of the movement she herself (and many other women) claimed to be a part of.Should I be taking notes? Is this part of some radical new feminist revisionism where Dworkin gets removed, even as her rhetoric is championed? Because that leads to confusion, like you just had. If I only called proporn feminists feminists, then the antiporn crowd would bash me.They are all fighting for the same cause. I find the proporn crowd better and on the right track, but the other ones exist don't they?They sure got a number of sites up, claiming to be feminists.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

"But you said that there is nothing degrading about what happens to a woman if she likes it, but since people will do things they don't like for money and act like they like it, you have no way of knowing if she feels degraded or not."I think we're missing each other's point.It was my understanding you meant the DS move portrayed women being degraded. I countered that some women probably enjoyed it just as some enjoy "rimming" a guy.You then said you were referring specifically to the woman in the movie. I countered we have no way of knowing that for sure but, regardless, it is part of her acting job.Let's say someone works in an office of a small company. They really screw up so the boss tells them to go and clean the washrooms. They may well feel that is a degrading job.Now, let's suppose the same boss tells the janitor to clean the washrooms. The janitor does not feel degraded.The point? The woman is making a porno movie. It is a job. There is nothing more degrading about a DS than there is about cleaning a washroom.

Contra, you need to show some data supporting all these generalizations and claims you have made:1- The amount of porngraphy using forced participants is a significant percentage and is representative as pornography, as an industry, in any way.2- The market for slave traded girls is western men. 3- Many men do not like women very much. Please include the definitions for 'many men' (a percentage would be best) and 'very much' (statistically valid examples, not anecdotes please) 4- Interracial pornography promotes and maintains racist stereotypes.5- Where, specifically, holmes has abused feminists. So far you have provided nothing to support these positions despite request after request after request. At present, you have nothing to support your position but opinion. Sorry, the unsubstantiated opinion of an internet poster doesn't carry much weight... none in fact.

Nice scoop. I was just about to create the same list. You just saved me some work.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)