This is part two of a three-part response to Robert Jensens’s Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity. Part One appeared last Friday, I’m aimin’ to have Part Three up on Wednesday of this week.
Courtney Martin wrote last week that Jensen’s prose “reeks of self-hate and desperation.” Blogger “Sweating Through Fog” writes that “Jensen uses porn to indulge his hatred for masculinity.” In this second part of the series, I’d like to take up this issue of male self-loathing (or, to put it another way, the loathing of one’s own maleness.) Far from hating himself, or men, Jensen is calling men to love themselves, their fellow men, and women enough to transform. His argument hinges on understanding the distinction between shame and guilt, a distinction that may have eluded some of those who read (or have decided to condemn without reading) the book.
The charge of “self-loathing” is one of three classic slurs used against feminist men. Any man who is committed to feminism publicly will regularly encounter at least one (and likely more) of the following stereotypes:
1. All feminist men are gay, and thus not “real men”.
2. All feminist men are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, using an outer veneer of egalitarianism in order to get women into bed.
3. All feminist men are filled with self-loathing; secretly believing that women are the superior sex, they project their own self-hatred onto other men.
From the time I began studying feminism and doing pro-feminist men’s work, I ran into all three of these charges on a regular basis. The men’s rights advocates (MRAs) who periodically comment here tend to use all three, with a few not-very-bright ones insisting that all three are true simultaneously. So when Robert Jensen makes a compelling, at times radical case against pornography — accompanied by a searing and entirely accurate indictment of contemporary American masculinity — it’s little wonder that even well-meaning folks bring out the “he must really hate himself, or at least hate his maleness” card.
In his challenging final section of this brief, Jensen makes the case for a dramatic transformation in men’s private lives. He rightly connects private behavior to public justice. More intriguingly, he raises the vital distinction between shame and guilt. Modern Americans tend to use the two words interchangeably, but they refer to two quite different concepts. Borrowing from John Bradshaw, Jensen reminds us that shame is a sense that one is a bad person; guilt is the sense that one has done (or is doing) a bad thing. He writes:
In this sense, shame is destructive because it can so easily lead to a self-loathing that hinders a person’s emotional development. If one believes oneself to be bad in some intrinsic sense — as if it is a part of one’s self — then it becomes difficult to imagine modifying the bad behavior, since it arises from an intrinsic failing.
But guilt is more complex. It’s a positive aspect of human psychology to be able to recognize when one has engaged in an act that is contrary to one’s own moral and/or political principles, especially when that act injures another. Without the capacity to recognize the gap between who we say we are are and how we behave, it’s difficult to imagine individuals or societies making moral and political progress toward a more just world. In that sense, guilt is a necessary part of the process of acknowledging our mistakes, being accountable for them, and moving forward.
Bold emphasis mine.
I used porn for many years. I never, ever, was comfortable using it. But that doesn’t mean I hated myself as a man. Though I gave up using porn long before reading Jensen, I’m struck by how similar my experience was to his. When I used pornography (and when I “used” real women in my own life), I felt tremendous guilt, not shame. The guilt lay in the recognition that I was compartmentalizing, objectifying women in my head and in my private life while struggling publicly for justice at the same time. I knew then — and know even better now — that objectifying women was something I had been conditioned to do by my peers and my culture. I knew that to continue to do so was to make a choice. I knew, as Jensen knows, that my maleness itself was not to blame. I was not intrinsically wicked, because to be intrinsically wicked is to be incapable of change. And though at times the compulsion to treat women in a certain way — like the compulsion to use drugs — was very powerful indeed, that compulsion wasn’t Hugo at his core.
If we believe in the myth of the overwhelming male sex drive; if we accept the degradation of women as “natural”; if we are convinced that are biological manhood destines us to objectify other human beings, then we really are setting ourselves up for self-loathing. If we believe that our desire to use porn (and use women in our heads and in real life) is something we cannot fundamentally change, then we will have to choose between numb acquiescence to cruelty or a constant haunting sense of shame. If we recognize, however, that we do have the capacity to exercise free will, to make choices about what we do, what we say, and even what we fantasize about, then there’s no more need for shame. There’s still going to be guilt when we do what we’ve committed not to doing, but that guilt can be a useful catalyst for continued effort.
Shame is rooted in a sense of despair: Shame says: “I’m shit, I’ve always been shit, I always will be shit.” Guilt is rooted, I think, in genuine optimism about our capacity to grow. Guilt say: “I am a good person, at my core. I’ve done something that doesn’t match up with my own values and that I sense to be wrong. I want to remember this painful feeling so that I can live differently in the future.”
The hardest thing about doing pro-feminist men’s work is that when we make the case that we live in a world where men dominate and mistreat women, we say something that is initially counter-intuitive to many men. As any progressive activist will tell you, most people are blind to their own privilege. They don’t see how their “whiteness” gives them colossal advantages; they don’t see how their maleness allows them to exercise power that is denied to others. Many men make the classic error of assuming that if they really had power, they’d know it! And not only would they know it, they’d be enjoying themselves. They ask the famous question: “How can I be an oppressor if I’m not happy?” Most men who are filled with anger and guilt and confusion, who are “checking out” with pornography or other obsessions, don’t feel happy. They alternate between ennui, euphoria, rage, and shame. And they don’t recognize their own capacity to live a more ethical life for the benefit of others and a more joy-filled life for themselves.
As far as I’m concerned, shame is a useless emotion. It incapacitates and disempowers. Guilt, on the other hand, is immensely useful: it inspires change and a commitment to work harder to match one’s language and one’s life. I am not ashamed to be a man, and I don’t think Robert Jensen is either. I don’t hate the male body in which I live. I don’t wish I weren’t a man, or feel that I am somehow a prisoner of my flesh with its imperious and irresistible desires. That would be shame and self-loathing. But when I used pornography or used women in real life, I did hate the action. That kind of hate — the hate of cruelty, the hate of callousness, the hate of narcissism — is good. It inspires personal change, and those personal changes become a foundation for more effective public action.
I don’t use pornography today for many reasons, not the least of which is that I love myself. I’m worth feeling good, worth lying in bed at night reviewing my day without an agonized conscience. I’m far from a perfect person, and I make all sorts of mistakes (some of which do hurt others). I feel guilty about these mistakes, and I use that unpleasant feeling to make changes to ensure that those mistakes won’t be repeated. I don’t like feeling guilty, but I sure as hell am glad that guilt is part of my life. Guilt has, time and again, moved me from self-absorption to compassion.
I love men. I want my brothers to live lives that are just and kind, where there is no disconnect between what is done in private and what is done in public. I don’t want them to hate their bodies or their libidos, but I do want them to hate what our culture has told them about their masculinity. I want them to hate the “myth of male weakness” that limits their humanity. I want them to hate those aspects of the culture that have infiltrated their own consciousness, and I want them to work as hard as they can to match their deepest convictions with their own sexualities. And yes, when they fuck up I want them to feel guilt. But I never, ever want them to feel shame.
“Shame is rooted in a sense of despair… Guilt is rooted, I think, in genuine optimism about our capacity to grow.”
I never thought of it that way, but I agree with your definition of guilt being an individual emotion based on optimism.
Shame is a social emotion, similar to how ridicule is social one. Shame is imposed from other’s negative opinions of your behavior, not from violating your own moral compass. You could feel guilt for your actions on a deserted island, but not shame. Similarly, you might laugh at yourself for having a pratfall on that island, but no one would be there to ridicule you for it.
Right, Fred; I always talk about that particular vision of shame vs. guilt when talking about Hector in the Iliad — a hero engrosssed in how his fellow Trojans see him, but without any capacity for self-reflection.
Hugo,
“All feminist men are gay, and thus not “real men”.”
From your own observations and readings, do you think gay men are more likely, less likely, or similar likely to be feminist as non-gay men?
“All feminist men are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, using an outer veneer of egalitarianism in order to get women into bed.”
Do you think the percentange of self-proclamed feminist men that use egalitarianism to get women into bed is insignificant (say less than 1 out of a 1000)?
“All feminist men are filled with self-loathing; secretly believing that women are the superior sex, they project their own self-hatred onto other men.”
Do you feel that there is not a segment of feminist men that think women are superior because they believe women are less domineering, less violent, more caring, and more sensitive to others?
Fred, I see no evidence that gay men are inherently more or less sympathetic to feminism than are straight ones. Lots of folks have lots of anecdotes about gay male sexism and gay male empathy, but anecdotes are all that they are.
As for the “feminism as strategy”, I don’t see any evidence that this is widespread. It’s a stereotype, like the “all female feminists burn bras”.
No, I’ve never met ONE feminist man (and I’ve been around a great many) who thought women were superior; I’ve known some who preferred women’s company for the reasons you state.
But do let’s stay on thread topic: guilt, shame, porn, self-hate.
So far, you’ve treated porn use and shame as individual issues. The image this brings to mind is the lonely guy masturbating in his apartment, angrily wondering why he can’t get a date with a real girl.
I’d like to hear discussion of shame and avoidance in relationships. Feelings of emotional unworthiness and shame can lock one partner into porn use and avoidance of intimacy with the other, while the other feels shamed and physically unworthy (relative to socially-programmed expectations reinforced by porn’s airbrushed images) and is locked into asexuality as an avoidance strategy. In other words, both partners lock themselves out of the relationship, neither willing to be the first who will risk the pain of transformation.
…Not that I’d know any couples who exhibit this behavior… ;-)
I have a daughter. When I see pornography, I ask myself “Would I want that for her? To be consumed as a soulless picture for the fleeting gratification of pimply faced losers and sex addicts?” (And that goes, for that matter, for “On Our Back.”)
Call that shallow if you will, but it is sufficient for me, and doesn’t require a volume of philosophical and mental masturbation to tell me so.
Wow, I agree with the Gonzman on this one. I would add would you want the pornography for your sons either? For them, to think that porno is positive sexuality and how they should share their wife with a dozen bored guys.
I wouldn’t want my son to be a loser that couldn’t get anything but a paper girl.
Thank you so much, Hugo! I probably won’t read the book, but I’ve been following your posts on it assiduously.
I like the distinction you make between guilt and shame. Even though I believe you that the author of this book is not coming from a place of shame or self-loathing, unfortunately, I think that many people do get stuck in feeling ashamed about porn. Not just men, either.
When I was a young girl, I stumbled across some violent porn of my older brother’s. That was awful enough. Not long after that, he got into the habit of sneaking into my room at night and standing silently for minutes at a time. It terrified me.
Did I ever call him on it? Did I ever tell my parents, or anyone else? No way. Why? I felt extremely ashamed.
It was confusing, but I felt so soiled by seeing those hurtful images that it made me feel like something was wrong with *me.* How could I possibly accuse my brother of thinking about such awful things (though logically he must have)? I felt absolutely paralyzed. I’m sure my brother felt very ashamed too. As a result, we could not talk to each other.
Shame is a very dangerous thing. It’s completely irrational. Shame makes it extremely difficult to speak up or ask for help. It affects both users of porn and those who feel victimized by porn.
We’re close again now, but I don’t think we would be unless I’d gotten tons of peer counseling support to work through my fear and shame, and find my courage. I know he’s worked through a lot of issues too.
Shame can and must be defeated with plenty of accurate information and loving support.
I just realized how to summarize the above:
Realizing that it’s wrong (whether consciously or subconsciously) to use porn or to objectify females is relatively easy.
The hard part is not letting shame make you feel like a bad person.
Part of ending sexism will be working to help all men and women, boys and girls reclaim their inherent goodness and their power to make a change.
Gonzman is reminding me of that Doonesbury cartoon where Boopsie is posing for Playboy, and is concerned that she might upset somebody who thinks ‘what if my daughter or sister were doing that?’ The photographer assures her that they absolutely don’t want to upset their readers, so they never feature daughters or sisters.
(I’m pretty sure that the audience for On Our Backs is not pimply-faced men who can’t get 3-D women, though.)
Do you feel that there is not a segment of feminist men that think women are superior because they believe women are less domineering, less violent, more caring, and more sensitive to others?
There is certainly a segment of anti-feminists who think that women are *inferior* because they believe women are less domineering, less violent, more caring and more sensitive to others.
Gonz, single men — whether `losers’ or not — are not the only male consumers of hetero porn, and it’s important to keep in mind that even the forever-single `losers’ will be interacting with women on a daily basis. The feminist discussions of porn I’ve read, dating from the 1970s and ’80s, focus roughly equally on how porn influences a straight men’s romantic and sexual relationships and professional relationships (customers, coworkers, subordinates, superiors, &c.) with women.
I hate my maleness and I hate my whiteness, but I do not hate myself because my maleness and my whiteness are societal problems, not personal problems. I do not hate the fact that I have a penis, or pale skin, or European ancestors; I hate the fact that I live in a culture where my penis, pale skin, and European ancestors have made me complicit in a culture of violence and exploitation from the word “go.”
Sight unseen, I don’t know that I would agree with Jensen’s argument wholeheartedly.
His remark about how we obviously “hate” women and children because society oppresses women and children, for example, turns me off. As a vegan, you know hatred of animals has nothing to do with why people eat cheeseburgers and it’s the same sort of phenomenon. All humans are corpse-eaters by nature, biologically engineered by four billion years of evolution to be thieves and murderers. We subsist by depriving others of their lives and resources. We are all vampires, in a sense. But it isn’t about hate. It’s about eating, shitting, and sleeping. And some of us happen to be white males who are more exploitative than others, but exploitation is the most natural thing in the world–and humans do exploitation better than any other species that has ever existed.
I will wait until the third installment to make any more detailed comments. I want to see where the third section goes.
I’m glad you’re taking on this book as I thought the Feministing handle on it was vague and lacking. As a child of the internet age and former partner of a sex addict, the pornography debate is an important one to me as it saturates our culture more and more. I always feel shouted down by other feminists when I say anything against pornography. I have a feeling there are many feminists who share my view, but it always seems that only the loud, vehemently pro-porn crowd ever responds. It’s nice to see someone (especially a man) constructing a reasonable argument against pornography.
It also makes me happy that your Christian view point does not detract from the secular rationality of the argument at all. Here in the South, there are a lot of Christians (especially Baptists) and not so many people living by or with any understanding of Christian principals and philosophies, and this is very frustrating. Reading your blog reminds me that, despite not identifying as Christian, my viewpoints often align with Christian philosophy and I indeed have a profound respect for that way of thinking.
I ordered Robert Jensens’s book last week on Amazon after mulling over it for a few weeks. Poor college student, you know. It should be arriving soon and once my finals are over I’ll finally manage to read something for PLEASURE, imagine that?
(I’m pretty sure that the audience for On Our Backs is not pimply-faced men who can’t get 3-D women, though.)
Perhaps not the target audience, to be sure; though I would bet substantial cash that their advertising department is missing out on large chunks of revenue by ignoring consumer demographics.
I suspect that particular segment of the audience is happier with the “ladies loving ladies” magazines or photo spreads more available to them in mainstream porn.
I always feel shouted down by other feminists when I say anything against pornography. I have a feeling there are many feminists who share my view, but it always seems that only the loud, vehemently pro-porn crowd ever responds.
Funny, I always feel shouted down by other feminists when I say anything on the topic of porn other than “it’s all evil”. But the pretense that you’re an oppressed minority, shouted down by the terrible betrayal of the huge and ignorant majority, must be tremendously emotionally satisfying to you.
Hugo,
Thanks for the link.
While I don’t have anything more to say on Jensen, I will say that your agreement with him doesn’t mean I cast the two of you in the same light. I won’t read more Jensen, but I’ll certainly continue to read what you write. You don’t seem like a hater of any sort. As far as what the MRA’s say: From what I’ve read here, it seems to me you are a “real man” in the best sense of the term.
I agree on the shame vs. guilt distinction. It is, however difficult for such men to move beyond shame when shaming language is thrown around about them. Words like creep or “pimply-faced” loser characterize the person, not an act.
STF, I assure you that “pimply-faced loser” is not a term Jensen uses. As he points out (in a quote that showed up in my previous post), men are just as likely to use porn when they are in sexual relationships with women as when they aren’t. The idea that porn is a substitute is widely discredited now, even by those who don’t share Jensen’s views.
1. All feminist men are gay, and thus not “real men”.
-I have never met a feminist male who identified as homosexual (or vice versa) or any that thought “real men” was a phrase (concept) worth repeating.
2. All feminist men are “wolves in sheep’s clothing”, using an outer veneer of egalitarianism in order to get women into bed.
-Well, then, they wouldn’t exactly be feminist (in fact, fraudulent behavior to “bed” women get’s another name in my book…)–and, at least, most of the feminist women I know are celibate so this wolf wouldn’t last very long.
3. All feminist men are filled with self-loathing; secretly believing that women are the superior sex, they project their own self-hatred onto other men.
-I would posit feminist men (or those partaking in feminist behaviors–even if they don’t use a label) to be more fulfilled. The ones I know think feminism is a big fat compliment–it tells them they can control who they are and what they do/want to do.
Funny, I always feel shouted down by other feminists when I say anything on the topic of porn other than “it’s all evil”.
So, you feel silenced the same way jennyfields does, just on the other side of the fence. Why the snark, then?
Hugo,
I wasn’t referring to Jensen - I was recalling comments by Gonz and Nouema
By coincidence I bought “Getting Off” last night, and, prompted by this and other posts while catching up on a backlog of reading I decided to stop all that and at least read the introduction.
The first page of text, titled “Our First Glance In The Mirror: The Rowdy Boys” does not look very promising. Basically he details an promotional event at a porn convention in Las Vegas wherein a professional performer simulates sexual behavior before a crowd of maybe 50 passers by.
“Emboldened by the size of the crowd, the men’s chants for more-explicit sex growing louder and more boisterous, Holiday [the porn star] responds in kind, encouraging the men to tell her what they like. The exchange continues, intensifying to the point where the men are moving as a unit — like a mob.
… It’s difficult not to conclude that if there weren’t security guards on the floor, these men would likely gang-rape Tiffany Holiday.
This is an expression of the dominant masculinity in the United States today. It is the masculinity of a mob, ready to rape.”
Ok, so… as with the paradox of “The Tragedy of the Commons” where a cooperative institution that endured for thousands of years is used to demonstrate that cooperative institutions can never endure, there’s the paradox that if the dominant male mentality is of a rape-ready mob then how were the “if it weren’t for” security guards (the male members of whom were presumably no less male than the passers by) not affected?
One can both deplore the behavior of the crowd, and criticize the inauthentic construct of masculinity, without declaring even those possessed of that affectation as universally and unprovokedly prepared to commit rape.
Another paradox, what was Holiday’s standing in the matter? And not as a potential victim and/or innocent instigator but as a professional entertainer possessed of both skill and experience with the variety of rhetorical, physical, and social crowd-management skills one tends to develop when one is in such a field?
One can both deplore the industrial institution of pornography, and criticize the effect its practitioners and producers has on it’s consumers, without concluding that dominant masculinity is mob/rape based.
No doubt further into the book Jensen will have detailed interviews with Holiday, participants in the crowd/mob, and perhaps certain concerned onlookers such as the aforementioned security guards, and will be able to explain exactly how uncontrollable the men became, and how unaware Holiday was of any danger she was in. And if so then heck yes, I’m willing to believe his analysis in that front section. Barring further details I’m *not* prepared to believe his was the only possible interpretation.
And, again, perhaps I’m over interpreting a little teaser text, but it does seem to suggest there may be more self-loathing more than a thorough (and, I might add, much needed) critique of masculinity, especially as it relates to masculinity and the dominant tropes of pornography.
figleaf
Ah, my bad, STF. Sorry.
Figleaf, interesting — Jensen may be inclined to flashes of hyperbole (like any good polemicist), but hyperbole is a long way from self-loathing.
figleaf, the excerpt you give has more elements going on than Jensen may be explaining that should be addressed (have not read the book so I can only respond to what you present).
The scene you describe sounds like one big brouhaha-manifestation of our rape culture–evidenced by Tiffany asking and following mens’ requests of her sexually. That the men feel entitled to watch and request explicit sex acts is more proof. Feminists knock porn big time for presenting women in a constant state of consent.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who buys into this and enjoys it has rape tendencies (re the onlookers) .
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who represents sexual consent as a state of “yes, always” endangers women (re Tiffany).
I’m not convinced that masculinity, the way it has been socially constructed, doesn’t have intrinsic rape tendencies that are more serious and more threatening than any new challenges posed by the porn industry. And the feminine mystique is all about constant consent–sexual consent, and other forms of consent as well (labor, economic, political, religious, etc). In the sort of context we’re discussing here, isn’t consent basically another word for submission?
So yeah, I think we should basically look at all of this and say “don’t buy porn.” But I think we should also look at this and say: “Ask yourself how you’re treating the women in your life.” Because porn, like all forms of expression, reflects reality more than it shapes reality. Porn is exploitative because men are exploitative.
Can I suggest a distinction beyond shame vs. guilt? In my experience, guilt can be as paralyzing as shame.
To take one example: Like you, Hugo, I teach women’s and gender studies. My students are mostly young, white, and economically privileged. They often just get defensive if they feel they’re being asked to feel guilty about injustices past or present.
So when we discuss racism, for instance, I try to reframe the issues as about responsibility rather than guilt. Otherwise, many of these privileged kids will throw up their hands and say, yes, slavery was terrible and so was Jim Crow, but hey, we didn’t create these institutions, so why should we feel guilty? (And they’re right; they’re 18 or 20 years old, and they haven’t wielded any serious power yet, though many of them will eventually.)
Emphasizing responsibility directs attention toward the future. It lets them say okay, horrible things happened in the past, and we didn’t commit those crimes. But we’re stuck with their legacy, we benefit from white privilege, so how can we now move forward toward a more just society?
By contrast, guilt looks backward. It lacks an imperative to act. And sometimes people will feel they’ve already “done” enough just by wallowing in guilt.
Now, I’m not arguing that there’s never a place for guilt. Sometimes we need guilt - personally or politically - to help us acknowledge there’s a problem in the first place. But once that acknowledgement is in place, guilt can actually be counterproductive.
Sungold, there’s a colossal differenc between “feeling guilty” as a privileged white person because my ancestors owned slaves and feeling guilty because I used porn and participated in the exploitation of my fellow human feelings and the corroding of my own soul. Indeed, feeling guilt isn’t always healthy — which is why every word I wrote was to be understood in the context of pornography use!
Jeez.
As one person who is of American Indian descent, can I say “Don’t feel guilty on my account” and reduce your burdens a bit?
To Gonzman: It’s not about reducing burdens. It’s about challenging relatively *privileged* people to actually make a difference. This requires acknowledging past injustices. I’m not advocating letting people off the hook. And yes, feeling guilty can often be a starting point. But if that’s where you stop, nothing is going to change for the better.
If I just feel guilty - which frankly is what your reply seems to suggest I do (making some pretty massive assumptions about my own ethnicity and intentions) - what are the odds that I’ll ask you how racism has affected your life? What are the odds that we can learn from each other’s experiences? Usually when people merely feel guilty and aren’t pushed to move toward a more politically productive position, they will stay silent, avoid dialogue, and remain as ignorant as they were at the start. Talking *critically* about race - or porn, for that matter - breaks a taboo, and I’m interested in getting past that taboo.
In short, I want my students to feel *more* of a burden to confront and deal with white privilege (and, of course, male privilege). Framing the issue in terms of responsibility rather than guilt is a way of sparking that productive process. It’s a way of both slipping past people’s defense mechanisms and (I hope) inspiring them to work toward a more just world.
And to Hugo: Of course there are major differences between racism, porn use, and lots of other things we might criticize. I mentioned the example of pedagogy in teaching about racism because I think it brings the tension between guilt and responsibility into particularly sharp focus. But structurally, the problem is similar when teaching about any form of privilege in that the psychology of guilt can be self-defeating, both personally and politically. What you describe as your own history actually reflects lots of ways in which you’ve taken responsibility and not just stayed stuck in the guilt phase.
Sungold, I agree that guilt can be unproductive if it fails to motivate change — but I have found (as Jensen) has found — that guilt can be a marvelous catalyst for taking responsibility!
Sungold,m I get more racism from my fellow Indians - and non-whites - by far and away than I do by whites. In fact, among those who are aware of my Indian ancestry, I get more irritated by the implied condescension of bending over backwards to say “No offense” or using “Native American” or whatever.
Okay - one of your ancestors stole land off one of my ancestors. BFHD. Feces occurs, as the philosopher saith.
And you know what - case in point - a thing which really annoys me is the way liberals get offended FOR me. Pardon the hell out of me, but I will choose what to be offended about for myself, thank ya very much. I had someone talking about the Washington Redskins (a fan), and some schmuck started in with the “Excuse me! There is a Native American here with us” and I’m like, hey, the only reason it bugs me is because I am a Cowboys fan. So her response? “Well, you’re not much of a Native American, are you.”
Yeah, right. I guess since I don’t toe the line on the PC plantation, I’m less authentic. Now THAT is racist.
Criminy. Ya know, if we want the oft professed colorblind society us who are of minority origins are going to have to chip in a little and chill out on the offense-mongering.
Uh, let me nip this thread NOW — this thread needs to go back immediately to shame and guilt as they relate to porn, not race. Now.
anon, if that was a serious question rather than finger-wagging, I’d be happy to answer you.
The short version is that “porn” is a huge controversial subject in feminism. And I don’t think much of anyone who starts off characterizing those who disagree with their POV as a baddie. (I doubt very much that you would appreciate my characterizing people who have issues with pornography as “anti-sex,” for example.)