This is the second time today you’ve posted this, and you post this multiple times a week.

I’m not stalking you?

It doesn’t belong here because you are precipitously close to posting spam. You posted this exact thing less than three hours ago.

Did I ever claim to be a mod?

How is that relevant in any way?

You might actually be unhinged, dude.

Agreed. Another bullshit lie to swallow.

Absolutely agree! It is degrading to women on every level. It’s not liberating, and anyone that says otherwise is full of shit.

And yes, many men feel that the female body is all they really bring to the table(oh, and dinner) For their enjoyment of course.

Thank you for reminding me that no women watch porn. I totally forgot that part.

Oh. And thanks for reminding me that women can't be in charge of their own sexuality and select their own profession and what scenes they want to shoot. I forgot that part too.

Fuck off. Go use tears as lube as you hypocrite yourself.

/r/feminism101 might be open to these questions, but since you delete it every time its downvoted I doubt you're trying to argue this in good faith.

Maybe the mods were giving you a hint then?

Because not all feminists view porn the smae as a huge monolithic bloc, but instead of asking /r/conspiracy about it why not ask feminists who know their shit? I'm not even well-versed in this part of feminism. I just think you're misrepresenting it.

I don't have an answer for the spirituality part, but I don't think pornography has to be spiritually damaging, if you're a sex-positive person. There are Sex-negative feminists, and sex-positive feminists. Sex-Worker positive feminists and Sex-worker negative feminists. But sexuality as a bad thing is a very patriarchal religious thing, it's always about how much control a man has over a woman and her desires for sex (I think).

Like I said, why not take it to /r/feminism_101

Pornography is sex work.

Sex work has a definition you can look up.

Sure why not, policing womens sexuality is patriarchal oppression. She wants to shake it who are you to say otherwise?

It's not just the female form, it's males too. And its more than just Pornography...our society is sick with the disease of commodification and monetization...everything has a price, everything, and that's part of the larger problem.

The West is drowning in a sea of materialism in a desperate attempt to fill the empty spiritual and emotional hole within. Rather than seek comfort in others- friends, families, real relationships- we seek comfort in the material and in the monetized and commodified facsimiles of the real...aka pornography, and so so much more.

Jean Baudrillard and Carl Jung, two people who could hardly be more different in their ideologies, both generally agreed with that statement. Because it's true.

This is the problem I have with modern feminism, and it's not what you think.

When you challenge any feminist on the true nature of the modern twist on feminist ideology, they'll insist up and down that feminism is just about equality.

Ok then, why can't a woman be free to sell her sexuality in the open market? Why do modern feminists feel the need to be the thought police for an entire gender?

Because modern feminism is no longer about equality of opportunity, it's about equality of outcome, and those are two very different things. Modern feminists want to force their own brand of subjective social-justice-oriented "equality" on everyone, by using the legislative might of the state. That is not ok and it's why that entire ideology needs to die.

Maybe regarding the extreme edges of feminism I would agree with this statement. The codified movement is decades old at this point, and in no way a monolith.

Ok fine. I'll accept that.

So why do we even need feminism then? Don't women have equality of opportunity now, if not perhaps equality of outcome? Equality of outcome takes time, and it will come if we continue to treat all people the same, not try to force it prematurely by using those exact same oppression tactics on classes of people deemed "privileged" by the mob of popular opinion.

Feminism is the only ideology I'm aware of that uses a specific classification of a person in its name, while claiming to be for equality. For example, racism, masculinism, sexism - these are all bad things. We don't have blackists, or gingerists.

We don't call people who aren't racist caucasianists because that would be silly. Being not racist is just being normal. It doesn't need a word, and the same should be true of people that believe in equality for the sexes.

Well, we still need it because misogyny still exists. Although affirmative action-type laws can have effects that aren’t intended, they still are necessary to jump-start the transition to equality of outcome. Without that kind of thing, people are remarkably slow to change their actual opinions, and people’s actual opinions are the biases that we would need to actually change.

I mean, we’re talking about giving opportunities to people that wouldn’t likely live long enough for those opportunities to come naturally as society at large changes. I’m not convinced affirmative action does much of anything to oppress those who are privileged, and even if it does, a long-view of the topic still sees diversity as a benefit to society as a whole.

That kind of folds into my view on these topics; that diversity is efficient and effective. I’ll try to find it again, but I read a study that basically laid out how diverse groups of people solved problems quicker and more permanently that less diverse groups. The efficacy of diversity was actually enhanced by including people who would generally be perceived as less helpful to solving problems too, somewhat paradoxically. Something to do with intra-group communications.

So the point is that even if we have to force it, diversity is best for society at large. It isn’t about women being better at stuff than men or anything, like some extremist feminists might believe, it is about diversity in general improving our odds.

I mean, we do have black-supremacy groups. We have a supremacy group for almost every group that exists.

See, the problem is that not being racist isn’t normal. Nowhere near normal. Racism comes from tribal othering, a deeply ingrained psychological process that evolved for good reasons. It appears in pretty much every social group that exists out there, and is still a major problem. Just because America had a black president doesn’t mean racism is over. I personally heard men saying they couldn’t vote for Clinton because she’d be too emtional as a leader, because women are just “like that” apparently.

So the necessity of these affirmative words and groups is because there still exists a distinct undercurrent of bias against the things those words represent. They have to exist to counteract, and eventually overpower, the negative and unconscious forces they’re trying to change in the first place.

Well you didn't really address the core logic of what I'm saying.

I never said there wasn't racism, what I said is we don't call non racists "caucasianists" or "blackists", because that would be stupid. And let me rephrase, perhaps being racist isn't normal in your approximation, but it should be, from a legal and societal standpoint, which is why it doesn't need a word.

There is very little evidence that society wouldn't progress towards equality without affirmative action. You're making a massive assumption there that is completely baseless. My opinion, of course, is that affirmative action accomplishes the exact opposite, because it tries to use our differences to eliminate the consequences of our differences. It's self-defeating circular logic.

Sexism exists. I haven't argued it doesn't. My argument is that modern feminism, in it's current pursuits to shoehorn equality of outcome onto the population, either, at best, is ineffective, or at worst, is accomplishing the exact opposite.

The underlying issue that both proponents and opponents rarely address is the biological ground of the phenomena at play (pun unintended).

All sex grounds out to biological reproduction, one way or another. At a minimum, God or evolution installed the sex drive to make sure babies would continue to be, not only conceived, but cared for while dependent (a frighteningly long period for humans).

Our error is to detach the cultural from the biological so carelessly.

i think your thesis is a bit unclear. perhaps you could define what you mean by feminism first. and then you could link why your definition has anything to do with money. it seems like you're being incredibly vague and not in a productive way but one that smells like it has an inherent bigotry, no offense.

yeah i did. i still don't know what you mean by feminism. you seem to have put it upon on pedestal of morality or ethics, which is incompatible with the manifestation and even theory of it. it's like you have a mental model that you expect others to implicitly agree with but you aren't stating what that model is.

the definition in the link is an oxymoron. "Feminist pornography refers to a genre of film developed by and/or for those dedicated to gender equality." is an internally inconsistent statement. for one, you can't have the definition of gender equality be dictated by half the population. it's contradictory.

Okay then what definition of feminism is your favorite?

what a weird question to ask. i'm not the one offering the thesis. i'm just trying to understand what your thesis is.

Well what have you learned so far?

again with a peculiar question. i haven't learned anything from your post - your thesis isn't clear.

huh? i'm just trying to understand what you're trying to express. so far no luck. sounds about right when the subject of feminism comes up.

I know it's you Emperor.

nope, wrong guy.

sucks to be you op lol

Because you're obviously very upset, but I don't think you've found a way to approach the "issue" in a way that produces positive results.

Oh, so this is for arguing only and not discussion? I'm not here to argue with you - but that's the entire tone of this, argumentative and judgemental

Because not all feminists view porn the smae as a huge monolithic bloc, but instead of asking /r/conspiracy about it why not ask feminists who know their shit? I'm not even well-versed in this part of feminism. I just think you're misrepresenting it.

Jean Baudrillard and Carl Jung, two people who could hardly be more different in their ideologies, both generally agreed with that statement. Because it's true.

Well you didn't really address the core logic of what I'm saying.

I never said there wasn't racism, what I said is we don't call non racists "caucasianists" or "blackists", because that would be stupid. And let me rephrase, perhaps being racist isn't normal in your approximation, but it should be, from a legal and societal standpoint, which is why it doesn't need a word.

There is very little evidence that society wouldn't progress towards equality without affirmative action. You're making a massive assumption there that is completely baseless. My opinion, of course, is that affirmative action accomplishes the exact opposite, because it tries to use our differences to eliminate the consequences of our differences. It's self-defeating circular logic.

Sexism exists. I haven't argued it doesn't. My argument is that modern feminism, in it's current pursuits to shoehorn equality of outcome onto the population, either, at best, is ineffective, or at worst, is accomplishing the exact opposite.