Metal Reviews

You assume that the porn industry is predicated simply on the creation and sale of pornographic materials when in fact it is bound up in a society that perceives sex a particular way, that believes women can be treated in a particular manner and that rationalizes wage labor given the parameters that exist. It's not a neatly wrapped package, but the conditions of its functioning permeate society.

I think you may be over-reading the situation personally, I would think most people know the stuff depicted in such circles is NOT normal or typical, and that, with certain exceptions women would not wish to be treated like objects for sexual gratification

this isn't an attack on you trapt merely a conclusion I'm reaching based on my analysis of your comments please, please don't take it personally I think I've already caused far too much trouble around here with comments that were less then clear

The New Yorker article I posted earlier and countless other articles challenge this. Porn is influencing our generation insofar as people have begun seeing the most hardcore of porn prior to ever having sex. Acts normal in pornography have come to be expected by average males and that women are reacting to those expectations and internalizing the view that pornography takes of women.

perhaps the harmful effects will make themselves more apparent in teens growing up today with such material being so readily available I don't know but at least in my experience talking about such material is not common place nor is it common that the women I have met and talk with around my age accept the view of the female in porn as being how women should be, not that the topic comes up very often, far from it in fact the issue of choice (which was heatedly debated) aside my perception is that women generally look down upon how they are treated merely as objects in pornography, as opposed to encouraging or internalising such a view

just some food for thought

sorry I missed that article mate I'm sure it would be an interesting read

Being fair to Flynt, he hotly denies the allegations from his daughter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Flynt#Personal_life



Point re Flynt is that he is what free speech is all about - even scummy types like him are covered.

yeah he'd be fucked if he were Australian though given we have no constitutional allowances for freedom of speech, it's how the current government here were able to almost pass legislation which would have forced a filter on every internet provider in the country to prevent among other things pornography from being readily available via the internet

seriously think Australia needs a bill of rights

included in there (this is a joke and perhaps only thrash will get it but oh well)

every Australian has the right to chuck a sickie to go and watch the cricket

http://nymag.com/news/features/70976/

Fuck everything, Kate's preggers! ROYAL BABY, BITCHES! You thought obsession with the Royal Wedding was bad, you ain't seen nothing yet...

at Flynt's "hot denials"; anybody that would let the creepy little worm within 50 yards of their children ain't got their head screwed on right.


What always amazes me though, is how the left champions Flynt as a crusader for free speech, yet somehow don't look at the "Reverend" Phelps bunch as heroes of free speech as well.

Fair enough on the latter point, but he's still innocent til proven guilty and all that...



Has Phelps broadcast deliberately shocking things to try and be a free speech hero, though? He's tried to have Hustler shut down no, kinda going the other way on that issue.

I'll admit it for my own case. It probably has a lot to do with Harrelson's portrayal of Flynt. I kinda loved that movie growing up. Then he had that interview on the Rollins show and he got portrayed as a pervert who stood up for his free speech. Sadly, the content of said free speech never came up until that interview. But that's also theoretically consistent. Regardless of whatever the fuck he was saying, it is protected. Hence liberals have no reason to bring said content up. And I would distinguish between the left and liberals here where Zad kinda outwardly subscribes to letting him say whatever he wants to say because he has that freedom and where I think the hammer should be put down on him saying vilely bigoted things.

As for the Phelps comparison, liberals are outwardly opposed to religious bigotry. Religion encroaches on freedoms through its moralizing stance while Flynt perpetuates this non-confrontational free range for whatever you want to do stance. Kinda like how NAMBLA exploits libertarian arguments. It's wrong-headed but ideologically consistent.

Again, at Flynt being motivated by anything as lofty as " trying to be a free speech hero"... he's a smutmonger with a penchant for cruelty towards women and children. He's a piece of garbage.
His only motivation is $$$ driven by misogyny and pedogyny.

I am talking about the left's odd onset of sudden tolerance when it comes to Flynt, though not whether or not the Phelps assholes stance on free speech.

I think Trapt had it right on the difference between left and liberal. Two different mindsets.

I just want to be sure I understand here.

So, religious bigotry is worse than blatant misogyny and pedogyny?
Comics about child molesters, gang rape, domestic violenece is ok, not to mention some very ugly racism for good measure but the opinion that homosexuality is wrong is not?
How is Flynt any less miserable and hateful of a wretch than Phelps?
Anybody that has been unfortunate enough to have seen Hustler "Humor" knows what I am talking about. It's disgusting, and it has nothing to do with any bullshit about Puritanism.

The difference is superficial, at best.
Anyway, fuck semantics, you know what I am talking about.

Perhaps in America it's a superficial difference, certainly not in Europe. Think liberal as meaning libertarian, not socialist.

You have a point re hypocrisy over issues that some political activists choose to highlight over others, anyway. Look at the recent fuss over Israel and Gaza, for example, while Assad is merrily slaughtering his own people on a far greater scale.

Flynt isn't any different in my book. I was just kinda ignorant about how vile he was. I'm on the same page with you. All hate needs to be quashed. I have no problem with stomping on someone's freedom of speech if it's hateful. Somebody says "faggot" or if somebody prints a homophobic comic strip, it's all the same to me. Hang 'em by their 'nails. No tolerance in my book unlike Zad.

As for the highlighting of Palestine over Syria, Palestine is structural oppression where Syria is a murderous dictatorial rule. The former is a systemic concern that can be challenged pointing to a contradiction in the global hegemony while the latter is a clusterfuck that there is no clean answer to. Similar to Hussein's regime, it's evil and vile but I don't have an answer as to how you end it. Israel, on the other hand, just needs to back the fuck up and lay off of the eighteenth century measures that it instates.

One thing that always has to be remembered when Europeans and Americans discuss politics; your right-of-center is our left, so yeah.

Not that I think religious folk should be able to encroach on anybody's freedoms, either. So there is a bit of hypocrisy on both sides of the spectrum
Still, I am a paleocoservative deep down with a somewhat liberal social view as in I believe very strongly in traditional family values and so on, but also believe it is not my place to determine the morality of others. What two consenting adults do in privacy is none of my business, and I would prefer not to hear anything about it, personally.
That being said, I really dislike the direction our society is headed, news that may shock and alarm you.

BTW, nice segue to the foibles of the Middle East.
I think we've all had enough smarm, so by all means let's talk about the Middle East for awhile.

I'm just responding to Zad's label of hypocrisy. I don't really want to talk about the middle east. I also didn't know smarm was a word.

"Traditional family values" is always an awkward catch-all. Kinda like pro-life. I don't know anybody who is truly rooting for families to break up as I don't think beyond radical Malthusians are there people who are really into genocide.