The Sexist

Talking Sex, With Kink Educators and Anti-Porn Activists

Porn conference

On a recent Saturday morning in a 14th Street NW community center, a young couple holds forth on one of transient D.C.’s perennial challenges: how to maintain a long-distance relationship. “One of my all-time favorite fetishes is orgasm control, where I play with when and how and under what conditions I get to have sexual pleasure, thanks to my dominant partner,” explains Maymay, a 25-year-old tech professional from San Francisco. “Only if I’m feeling nice!” replies Emma, his Providence, R.I.-based partner.

The educational session is called “Sexy Fun Time With Google Apps.” Its focus: how the suite of applications helps maintain fetish activity across time zones. Maymay and Emma share a Google calendar charting his experiences. “Masturbated and edged a bunch,” one day’s entry reads. “Masturbated in the shower with conditioner,” says another. Through PDFs, they also annotate erotica for one another: “This is one of my long-time favorite animal transformation and chastity stories,” one note reads. And there are spreadsheets, too: “It’s a really hot concept to have one orgasm for like every 20 or 50 I give her,” Maymay says. An orgasm spreadsheet can be used to calculate those ratios.

“This is obviously more helpful if your sex is complicated,” Maymay adds.

Which means it’s especially helpful at KinkForAll, a conference about sexuality’s more intricate possibilities. Attendees, whose name tags feature blog pseudonyms or Twitter handles, deliver 20-minute presentations on everything from the logistics of orgy participation for oral-herpes sufferers to the latest in “teledildonic” technology. (Another session, about the importance of keeping one’s “real life” and “kink life” separate, explains why KinkForAll participants' full names won't be revealed here.)

If KinkForAll had a leader, it would be Maymay, who arrives in blazer and KinkForAll T. He’s the most proactive submissive you’ll ever meet: He blogs prolifically about his relationship with sexual pain, runs a weekly “sexuality netcast,” and has campaigned for transparent sex-ed since co-founding KinkForAll last March. Officially, though, KinkForAll has no leaders. It’s designed as an “ad-hoc unconference,” with responsibilities shared among participants. Gatherings have been held in D.C., New York, Boston, San Francisco, and Providence—seven in all. The only prohibition: live demonstrations. “KinkForAll is about talking with one another, not playing with one another,” conference rules declare.

Since co-founding KinkForAll, Maymay has encountered some complications that don’t figure into his spreadsheets—which is why, even if there’s no live action onstage, he tapes every gathering. “I record myself because some people like to say I’m a pedophile, and since I’m not really a pedophile, it helps when they see video of me not being a pedophile,” he says. “I’m like, ‘Actually, I was just showing a Google doc on the screen.’”

Maymay’s accuser is a watchdog organization called Citizens Against Trafficking (CAT), which in March released a bulletin warning that the “All” in “KinkForAll” could potentially include minors. Though KinkForAll conferences are nontouching events, the bulletin said they could corrupt the youth all the same. Maymay “wants to attract teens to his events,” the bulletin announced. “He wants to provide youth—including minors—with information about fetishes, bondage and sadomasochism.” And then there was this: “A number of people have warned [him] that he will be labeled a pedophile and end up in prison if he continues to hold this position and act on it.” CAT seemed particularly concerned that KinkForAll’s “kinky sex and BDSM discussions were broadcast live, videotaped, blogged and twittered.” The bulletin featured a photograph showing Maymay’s head cradled in a woman’s arms and his back covered in lashes from a whip.

The image came from Maymay’s personal website, not the conference. But never mind: Maymay’s sin isn’t that he likes it rough in private. It’s that he talks about it in public. Of course, that tendency is also evident at events like the Boston anti-porn conference “Stop Porn Culture”—featuring one of Maymay’s critics from CAT—held the same day as KinkForAll.

Porn conference

Two days later, several of the same activists gather for a Capitol Hill briefing called “Porn Harms.” “The last thing I want to do, people, is talk about porn,” says speaker Shelley Lubben, an activist who lists “ex porn star” among the qualifications on her hot-pink business card.

But that’s just what Lubben does, offering a degree of detail that goes beyond anything at KinkForAll. “I have been hit, spit on, penetrated everywhere you can imagine, told to sit still or pose still while every orifice of my body and hands are engaging five to six male performers,” says Lubben, who performed from 1994 to 1995 in such titles as Roxy: A Gang Bang Fantasy and Beaver Hunt Video 2. “I’ve been totally humiliated on the set, where they had to stop the scene when I didn’t even know what was going on, and they had to wipe up feces.”

When it comes to anti-porn activism, sex sells. At the briefing, Wheelock College professor Gail Dines becomes perhaps the first person to utter the words “cum dumpster” at a Capitol Hill press event. Over the past 20 years, Dines has made a living observing such degradations. As the crowd picks at fruit plates, she rattles off a selection of titles she’s researched, such as Anally Ripped Whores and Gag on My Cock.

Where Maymay displays spreadsheets, the porn critics on Capitol Hill show pictures. “What do you think of when you think of the term ‘watersports?’” asks Donna Rice Hughes, president of online-safety organization Enough Is Enough, displaying a blurred photo that made it clear she doesn’t mean aquatic ballet. (Watersports of a different sort made Hughes famous: When she was just Donna Rice, a photo of her yachting with Gary Hart helped derail his presidential bid. In 1994, she began campaigning against the hard stuff.)

Adult pornographic images, the presenters say, could send viewers down a “slippery slope” to child pornography; they can also encourage young adults to identify with the porn participants. Pediatrician Sharon Cooper shows an illustration of a stick-figure viewing a photograph of a couple presumably having sex—and then imagining its own stick-figure head atop one of the fornicators’ bodies.

Years of anti-porn advocacy haven’t exactly banished the stuff. And “Porn Harms” isn’t pushing some new policy effort. Rather, the activists just want existing laws—which some believe give authorities the power to stamp out porn—to be enforced. But, like any advocates, they need attention to make headway.

If KinkForAll and “Porn Harms” have one thing in common, it’s an obsession with airing taboos. The porn bashers, like the kink educators, quickly upload videos of their day of speeches, placing the content just a Google search away from kids. Dines’ lecture in particular reads like a road map to hard-core porn consumption: “If you go to Gagfactor.com, you’ll see a 20-second clip of a scene with a young woman they call Scarlett.” The “clip opens with Scarlett sitting on a toilet, having a penis thrust down her throat, while the man attached to the penis pulls her head back and forward.”

The audience nods politely, their hands folded over the crotches of their khakis. Given the ubiquity of Internet porn, it’s hard to say whether the young staffers are horrified by the exercise—or just busy imagining themselves as the man attached to that penis.

Photos by Darrow Montgomery

  • dj bent

    great post.

  • Meegs

    I have never, ever gotten the appeal of the degradation factor. Watching two people getting it on and having a mutually great time? I can get how that is hot.

    Watching some poor chick choking and gagging as a guy rams his over-sized penis down her throat until she almost pukes and makes horrible retching sounds? NOT hot. It just sounds painful and is awful to watch or listen to, and is in no way about mutual pleasure. It's just messed up!

  • http://notitles.com Mary

    Anti-porn activist seem to miss the point. They want to say porn is just evil and it's this violent terrible thing. Actually, there are as many kinds of porn as there are people, and watching it most certainly does not turn a person into a pedophile. Sounds to me like they are working with really shoddy statistics and a major lack of understanding of the problems they're trying to tackle.

  • Elise

    @Meegs: It's not hot if you're not into that sort of thing. Some people are REALLY into that. Some girls are REALLY into that - it gives them pleasure. That's the hard thing for me about porn, I have to try and keep from judging. There's plenty of exploitation to go around, but at the same time, just because I find something degrading doesn't mean that EVERYONE does. So I avoid that stuff and only watch the videos about mutual pleasure (because that's what I like).

  • kza

    Did she really sign up for a movie called "Roxy: A Gang Bang Fantasy" and then complain about having to many dicks in here? They actually let her speak in public?

  • Pingback: Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › KinkForAll versus Stop Porn Culture: guess who’s filthier!

  • http://maybemaimed.com/ maymay

    Thanks for writing this piece, Amanda, and for pointing out the should-be-obvious hypocrisy with which anti-porn crusaders conduct themselves on a regular basis. I also thanked you on my blog. Moreover, I was fortunate enough to get to speak with several sex-positive activists, educators, and bloggers who attended the Stop Porn Culture conference, and they shared their experience of the anti-porn conference with me on the sexuality netcast you cite, Kink On Tap.

    Also, in the interests of video quality, you might consider changing the link to my Sexy Fun Time with Google Apps video to the high-quality version, not the livestream highlight you currently link to. This may also be especially helpful to readers who wish to see more KinkForAll videos and media, as there are many more available for free than just the isolated highlight. :)

  • Maggie

    Anti-porn people are so irritating. Put some nuance in there, and okay. Nobody should be degraded and such without their consent. I can agree wholehearted with that.

    But I'm a feminist, making my own damn porn with my fiance. No freaking coercion or anything unhappy. I enjoy it; I'm the reason we set up the flickr account!

    So this crap just boils my potatoes.

  • chris

    GUHHH This is always so frustrating because the anti-porn people DO raise good points about the problem with porn, but then come to the totally illogical conclusion that it must be DE! STROYED! It's not like porn, even porn depicting really rough sex, etc., can't be done in a way that's respectful to every participant.

    Besides, I'm not convinced it's even possible to get rid of porn completely. As long as humans are sexual beings, porn's always going to exist, and it pretty much always has, technology and capitalism just turned it into an industry.

  • Nick

    Whenever someone assumes the position of a defender of... anything, and starts an offensive campaign in the name of high morals, divine missionarism, social superiority, and typically always judgmental and aggressive - I become more than suspicious, but mostly reject the message. Actually, I despise the obvious hypocrisy of the anti-porn activists, and more so fear the danger of THEIR message and their methods of delivering their message.

  • Pingback: Talking Sex, With Kink Educators and Anti-Porn Activists « NCSF Blog

  • Saurs

    Freedom-of-speech fighters and empowerers of women take note: “academic” only constitutes an actual pejorative on counter-reactionary talk radio; attaching –monger as a suffix to anything other than “fish” is lazy and childish; baselessly accusing one’s opponents of possessing a “secret agenda” is a cowardly silencing tactic, and nothing more; using “victimhood” in scare-quotes while in the same breath claiming that one is subject to systemic and bigoted discrimination is both hypocritical and paranoid; and, most pertinently, insinuating that women with whom one disagrees are “prudes,” “repressed,” or “frigid” is a homophobic and age-old means, to paraphrase Sheila Jeffreyes, of worrying women into enthusiastic, normative, and dude-friendly heterosexuality, and is thus a tactic beneath self-professed feminists and empowerers of women.

    I should also well and truly love to know how quoting verbatim from torture porn or using blurred stills from the same constitutes “hypocrisy,” and, especially, why such behavior deserves the epithet “filthy,” particularly as porn, like prostitution, is A Normal and Healthy Human Expression Deserving No Shame, and (heaven fucking forfend) No Guilt.

  • Saurs

    Whinging non-sequiturs about The Feminazi Fascists Tryin’ to Take Away Mah Porn are not reasonable responses to activists whose self-proclaimed mission, according to Hess’s report, is regulation and restriction, not criminalization and extinction. I say so, not unkindly, because most porn proponents’ arguments seem unwisely to hinge on the distinction between emotion and reason; women who profess apathy for porn are supposedly basing their opinions on emotional revulsion to pornographic images, and hence cannot be trusted. I’d remind porn fans that just because something gets your dick or clit hard, likewise, does not make that something All Good nor your response to it objective.

    Pornography is and will remain an ethical and moral issue. Sex is neither. It would wise not to deliberately muddle the two for the purpose of defending porn, especially violent porn, and your hallowed right to get off on it.

  • Rae

    Saurs: Buh? I did a control-F on "academic" and "monger" and couldn't find anybody using those words except you. Ditto for "prudes", "repressed", "frigid", "filthy", "feminazi", "fascist", "emotion", "emotional", and "reason". (OK, Maggie did say "I'm the reason we set up the flickr account"--but that's not a usage that opposes reason and emotion.) Nobody on this thread, as far as I can tell, has equated porn with sex. You are the only person who mentions a right to porn. Exactly who do you take yourself to be addressing?

    I guess to be fair, Maymay and Nick did use the word "hypocrisy".

  • Saurs

    I'm addressing Maymay, who is the subject of this article. If you take a gander up above, he's posted a comment, linked to his webblog, and did a track back below. Following either of the latter two, you'll find that he uses all of those words you've quoted. Mmkay?

  • Saurs

    Also, to answer your question re porn and sex: the basis of the porn apologist defense is that porn is an Expression of Human Sexuality, is, in fact, inseparable from it, and, as such ought not to be censored or otherwise fucked with by Repressed/Fat/Ugly/Dykey/Feminist Prudes who hate freedom, or whathaveyou.

    I take umbrage with that particular line of reasoning because it's lazy and based on a false premise. Sex, in a vacuum, is moral-free. Porn is not. They can't be conflated. Porn is not inevitable, "biological," or natural, or beyond judgment. Lazy, just-so stories that conclude that things just are the way they are, and you'll have to like it or lump (you fucking man-hating bitch), apart from being insufferable and boring, are unfounded and have no place in intelligent discourse.

    Porn showcases a very narrow form of male sexuality whose centerpiece is penetration and male orgasm. Human sexual behavior, even excluding intercourse, has infinite more varieties than porn is willing to portray.

    Finally, no one is more sexually repressed than the loyal porn consumer. It's no coincidence that woman-hating, violent, torture porn is popular with dumb, religious, racist, misogynists, because -- surprise! -- porn's childish, feeble-minded, and unsophisticated plotlines, if they can be called that, are that sex is naughty and sex is bad and the only women who engage in it are dirty whores and masochists who need to be punished. Therefore dudes always elicit from me a great (if not bitter) chuckle when they argue with a straight face that they're being punished for having "subversive" "tastes" when 99.9 percent of all other dudes, informed by a life-long upbringing of patriarchy and porn, also think violence is a necessary component of sex and chicks who genuinely like sex (meaning heteronormative PIV) are few and far between, or too dumb to know any better.

  • Sonoma Madman

    "Porn showcases a very narrow form of male sexuality whose centerpiece is penetration and male orgasm." Ummmm, no, not lesbian porn, no indeed. Someone seems not to have a very clear notion of what she is talking about. (Saurs? Buhler? Buhler? Buhler? Saurs?)

  • http://www.redgarterclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/ Anthony Kennerson

    Well. Saurs...considering that your group has gone all out to not only destroy his career and reputation by all but convicting him as a "pedophile", and that many on your side have openly expressed the kind of positions on sexuality that could be described by actually thinking people as "prudish" it wouldn't be so surprising that Maymay doesn't seem to have a high opinion of you.

    Funny, but I've read several of his quotes, and nowhere I see does he use theose words to describe radfems or antiporn opponents directly. And when did using terms like "reason" and "emotion" and "emotional" become a evil plot of the patriarchy, exactly??

    Anthony

  • http://www.redgarterclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/ Anthony Kennerson

    Oh, and Saurs...very nice job of proving the point as to why most people really do think of your side as totally whacked out and extreme.

    First, no one on our side has ever refered to women who merely don't like porn as "prudish" or "man-hating bitches"; we reserve those epithets for those few isolated women who actually DO spout off antisex and male-baiting comments.

    Second...this:

    Porn showcases a very narrow form of male sexuality whose centerpiece is penetration and male orgasm. Human sexual behavior, even excluding intercourse, has infinite more varieties than porn is willing to portray.

    So, I guess that girl/girl and lesbian porn and porn featuring female orgasm and masturbation/self-penetration with toys don't fit into the "narrow form" of sexuality...right?? And, never mind the fact that standard PIV intercourse is featured as the norm not because of any male patriarchial conspiracy, but because it is the standard sex act used to propagate our human species (and also because, horror of horrors, most women acutally get off on having willing penises inside them, too).

    Finally, no one is more sexually repressed than the loyal porn consumer. It’s no coincidence that woman-hating, violent, torture porn is popular with dumb, religious, racist, misogynists, because — surprise! — porn’s childish, feeble-minded, and unsophisticated plotlines, if they can be called that, are that sex is naughty and sex is bad and the only women who engage in it are dirty whores and masochists who need to be punished.

    Now, some would say that that attitude stems just as much from the dominant culture's fundamentalist antisex attitudes that any woman wanting sex for any other reason than procreating within marriage is simply an evil slut deserving to be abused and destroyed for the good of "God" and "Western civilization". But, wno am I to challenge the party line??

    And..if "violent, racist torture porn" is that popular with the Christian Right, then what does that say for the other 99.9% of humans who watch the other 98% of nonviolent, non torture, consensual porn featuring adults pleasuring themselves?? I guess that they're just addicts who merely degrade themselves with self-abuse...right, Saurs??

    Therefore dudes always elicit from me a great (if not bitter) chuckle when they argue with a straight face that they’re being punished for having “subversive” “tastes” when 99.9 percent of all other dudes, informed by a life-long upbringing of patriarchy and porn, also think violence is a necessary component of sex and chicks who genuinely like sex (meaning heteronormative PIV) are few and far between, or too dumb to know any better.

    You know..you just complained that Maymay used words to paint your side as radical and extreme...so what is it when you label all "dudes" as rape enablers, if not active rapists?? And I thought that the ideal of antiporn radical feminism was to wean women off of "heteronormative" PIV sex to begin with??

    Nice try, though...thanks for playing along.

    Anthony

  • http://maybemaimed.com/ maymay

    I’m addressing Maymay, who is the subject of this article. If you take a gander up above, he’s posted a comment, linked to his webblog, and did a track back below. Following either of the latter two, you’ll find that he uses all of those words you’ve quoted. Mmkay?

    Saurs, maybe you should take your computer in for repairs. If you do a ctrl-F on my blog post, none of the words "prudes", "repressed", "frigid", "feminazi", or "fascist" are words I've used in this thread or on my blog post you reference (until now). I also think it's interesting that you jumped to the conclusion that I used them, without even apparently bothering to check whether I have. In comparison to that list, the words "academic", "monger", and "emotional", which I did use, are far less inflammatory.

    Are people like you who seem to hold views similar to anti-porn activists' always such blatant liars, or are you just the cream of your particular crop? (Pun totally intended.)

    Porn showcases a very narrow form of male sexuality whose centerpiece is penetration and male orgasm.

    O rly? Look who's talking about narrowness, Saurs.

    Therefore dudes always elicit from me a great (if not bitter) chuckle when they argue with a straight face that they’re being punished for having “subversive” “tastes” when 99.9 percent of all other dudes, informed by a life-long upbringing of patriarchy and porn, also think violence is a necessary component of sex and chicks who genuinely like sex (meaning heteronormative PIV) are few and far between, or too dumb to know any better.

    So, it sounds like you're saying I'm not like the "99.9 percent of all other dudes," in your view. I'm actually going to take that as a generous compliment, coming from you, and I'm only left wondering why you're so eager to lump the exception to your own rule of thumb with the very group you've just placed me outside of. I mean, surely you're not sexist, right? Surely my gender doesn't influence your opinion of me, only my words and actions do, right?

    Also, for what it's worth, an honest question: why not comment on my actual blog post if what you're intentionally replying to is that blog post, not this one about me? Are you simply as ignorant of blogging etiquette as you are about the issues of pornography? I can forgive you for that. :)

  • http://debauchedomesticdiva.blogspot.com Diva

    Saurs,

    I am very curious as to why you use the word 'dudes' to represent men here. I also experienced this at the StopPornCon last month which maymay linked to my writing about it in his comment above.

    I personally find that way you use the word 'dudes' is the same tone it was used at that conference when referring to men and have to wonder how you would personally feel reading comments where women were referred to as chicks.

    To me all it represents is man bashing and I see no reason for it.

    On a side note I am a woman who enjoys watching porn and although I am fully aware that there are areas of concern within the industry (just like any other industry) I have a problem with someone else imposing their views and morals on me when it comes to my sexual freedom.

    Diva

  • http://iacb.blogspot.com/ Iamcuriousblue

    Not much to add beyond what Anthony and Maymay write already:

    But this – Saurs writes:

    "Sex, in a vacuum, is moral-free. Porn is not. They can’t be conflated."

    That's a WTF statement. Because sex typically doesn't occur in a vacuum, hence there are ethical considerations around it. Consent being a biggie. Same with production of porn.

    Perhaps you're trying to say there's nothing wrong with sex in and of itself, but there is something inherently wrong with porn? That's an assertion, not an argument.

  • http://www.yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com Thomas MacAulay Millar

    It is not now possible, if it ever was, to accurately say much of anything about porn as a whole. The pictures my queer kinkster friends take of their own sexual activities, which are genuine expressions of what it is that we do, could be called porn just as easily as the products of face-fucking sites that involve only cis men's cocks in cis women's mouths. Making blanket statements and refusing to disaggregate one kind of depiction of sexual conduct from another, then, pretty much always marks the speaker as a polemicist with no interest in actual dialogue.

  • makomk

    Thomas MacAulay Millar: you'd probably find that many anti-porn activists would treat the activities of your queer kinkster friends with as much abhorrence as the worst of the porn sites. Anti-porn activism, or at least the feminist variety of it, has always gone hand-in-hand with strong anti-kink viewpoints (to the point of telling kinky people that it's their duty to kill themselves, in some infamous cases). I suspect Iamcuriousblue has more details...

  • Pingback: porn: the giraffe of the sexually explicit media world « Emily Nagoski :: sex nerd ::

  • http://www.yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com Thomas MacAulay Millar

    Makomk, yes. I am aware of this. The antiporn radfems overlap strongly with the transphobic and antikink elements of the radfem community. Since those ideological stances alienate so many of us on the left, it pushes the antiporn forces to seek political alliance with the social conservatives. Note, for example, that Donna M. Hughes writes for the National Review and praises George W. Bush.

  • http://www.yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com Thomas MacAulay Millar

    Adding: there's no point talking to the people who are dug into antikink, transphobic and antiporn positions. I make a point so that feminists who are not transphobic or antikink, who do in fact think we ought to be able to express human sexuality in varied ways, see that many in the antiporn camp have a much broader, effectively conservative, agenda.

  • http://maybemaimed.com/ maymay

    Good points, Thomas. For readers who'd like references and the ability to follow-up on Thomas's points:

    Donna M. Hughes writes for the National Review and praises George W. Bush.

    See, for example, Figleaf's discussion of Donna M. Hughes political stances.

    I make a point so that feminists who are not transphobic or antikink, who do in fact think we ought to be able to express human sexuality in varied ways, see that many in the antiporn camp have a much broader, effectively conservative, agenda.

    See, for instance, Jessica Valenti on the Right's fake adoption of "feminism", a prominent example of exactly what Donna M. Hughes, and Gail Dines, are known for. On a similar vein, see also Shelly Lubben's thinly-veiled political Christian agenda. Lubben's entire business model is a shill for her faith-based evangelism. Donna M. Hughes' has a similar tactic; Donna M. Hughes will cry "sex trafficker" at anyone, even women, who disagrees with her politics.

  • Pingback: Two Weeks on the Internet (6/14-6/27); or, What Happened While I Was in France « Worthless Drivel

  • makomk

    Thomas: Yeah, that does pretty much sum it up, though most of the things you describe were probably far more acceptable within the left when this all started.

    maymay: These particular arguments are hardly fake feminism, at least not unless you redefine feminism in a very interesting fashion. They were created and advocated by women with impeccable feminist credentials like Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem, as well as lesser-known feminists like Julie Bindel. Quite frankly, if this is fake feminism then a huge chunk of the feminist movement's history must be redefined as something else entirely. (The feminist founders of the anti-porn movement wanted the Religious Right to use their arguments, too!)

    Now, in the US anti-porn feminism is mostly advocated by the religious right and doesn't have much sway within the feminist mainstream these days, but that's not true elsewhere. Here in the UK for example, there's no organised feminist movement to speak of except for anti-porn and anti-kink feminism and its influence is mainly within the left wing. Likewise, their preferred newspaper - and the one that favours and supports them - is the Guardian, which is the paper of the British left.

    (You may recall that the Guardian published Julie Bindel's horribly transphobic opinion pieces a couple of years ago, as well as some newer ones by feminists such as Germaine Greer, that they've refused to properly apologise or permit a response piece, and that their general coverage of trans* issues is in many ways far worse than even the Daily Mail. This is probably related. For non-Brits, the Daily Mail is a homophobic, racist, fear-mongering rightwing tabloid rag with a well-deserved bad reputation.)

  • http://maybemaimed.com/ maymay

    maymay: These particular arguments are hardly fake feminism, at least not unless you redefine feminism in a very interesting fashion. They were created and advocated by women with impeccable feminist credentials like Andrea Dworkin and Gloria Steinem, as well as lesser-known feminists like Julie Bindel. Quite frankly, if this is fake feminism then a huge chunk of the feminist movement’s history must be redefined as something else entirely. (The feminist founders of the anti-porn movement wanted the Religious Right to use their arguments, too!)

    Oh, I know, makomk. And you're very correct in all these statements. Usage of the term "fake feminism" was Jessica Valenti's words, not mine (although I tend to agree with much of what she says about the hijacking of language regarding gender equality). I wouldn't insist that anti-porn are not feminists, just that they are blinded by the kinds of sexuality-related phobias as you point out (notably transphobia, and a conservative vision of acceptable sexuality more aligned with the "God Hates Fags" people than anyone else I can think of).

    In any event, thanks for offering some additional context on the horrific Guardian piece. I tend to really respect the Guardian, but I'm appalled at how poorly they separated fact from opinion on this issue.

  • makomk

    maymay: I hadn't even heard about the recent Guardian article when I wrote that; it was just an obvious association. Not surprised though - it's very much par for the course for them.

  • http://maybemaimed.com/ maymay

    I hadn’t even heard about the recent Guardian article when I wrote that.

    Huh! Well, for anyone still following this discussion, the Guardian piece by Julie Bindel and my comment is here (along with my follow up).

...