It's stupid when feminists say that porn is misogynistic

Post Reply New Topic

Well, of course it's just a metaphor. After all, I hope you weren't implying that I wanted to torture and kill you when you referred to people like me as the "Sexual Inquisition"!



Well isn't that just about the demographics of Wrong Planet, rather than about whether it is a rude thing to say or not?

No, I don't think so. Christian fundamentalists are just as unpopular in polite society as they are on WP.

Well okay, the demographics of "polite society", then. It doesn't change my point, which is that it is always fundamentally rude to not believe what people tell you about their own motivations and beliefs unless you are some sort of professional in the field of mental illness.

If you meet a Christian fundamentalist, it's fine to tell them that their beliefs are incorrect, but it's rude to tell them that they only hold their beliefs because they are mentally ill.

I wouldn't tell them that but I will definitely think it. I've thought a lot about the link between religion and mental illness. They may say they're fundamentalist Christians because of religious experiences or because they think it's actually true, but I'll suspect what I like. And I mean suspect - it's an idea I toy with rather than a dead certainty.

If someone suspected I was an atheist because I'm on the autistic spectrum, or because I have depression, I wouldn't be offended because it's something I've toyed with in my head, as well. When I was a Christian (albeit of the liberal variety) I used to wonder how much of my faith was genuine and how much of it was a psychological defence mechanism. I used to wonder if the rituals I performed had any more meaning than the rituals performed in OCD. That's because I don't take everything at face value and I like to try and question things. If that's rude of me, then meh.

This reminds me of what I read about feminists in the 80s who'd hold discussions on different aspects of female sexuality. They'd discuss things like rape fantasies and where they come from (they'd also share their own experiences of having them). They'd throw different ideas around like biology, patriarchy, past abuse, etc. I guess you'd think they were wrong for probing into these things but I think it's a worthwhile exercise, especially because it's taboo and people might find it 'rude' to question how these sexual preferences come about.

That's not what he's saying, what he's saying is that it's rude to assume motive on the part of other people, especially when your assumption is mental illness. That's bad faith, and happens to be a big pet peeve of mine as well. No one said anything about probing or exploring the routes of sexuality or particular fetishes, just that one shouldn't be presumptuous and judgmental about them in other people.

Mental illness is not a motive. Saying that someone is mentally ill based on this or that may be judgemental but if that's the only issue you have with anyone claiming people who eat feces for pleasure are mentally disturbed, big deal.

About religious fundamentalists, yes, way too many of them are psychologically messed up (personality disorders and all that), and the rest who are sane just don't know any better (aka brainwashed) and/or are intellectually dishonest (example: former fundamentalist me).

Also, it's not like professionals have access to tools that objectively measure mental illness. It's a construct based on peer reasoning and agreement in the professional field of psychology/psychiatry, but it doesn't mean others can't make their own judgements especially if they may be valid.

Well you have done both, really. This is a public forum. If you were really "just privately thinking it" then it would be impossible for us to be talking about it right now.



That's different. That is about people coming forward and discussing their own experiences. The problem arises when Person A assumes something about Person B's experience, especially when it contradicts Person B's own claims. Imagine if one of those feminists left the meeting, went to their friend who is into rape roleplay, and gave them a speech about how they are brainwashed by anti-feminist doctrine.

That's rather rude. If you want a benchmark for it, it's rather easy: You're a feminist. If I said that I wouldn't tell you that feminists are insane, but I've thought a lot about the link between feminism and insanity, would you consider it rude?


Probing into the origins of taboo ideas is one thing, calling someone crazy because they have a taboo idea is something else.

If a pedophile read me saying that pedophiles are mentally disturbed, should I be apologetic?

The interesting thing is I'm one of the first to defend them against the condemnations of others, but I've also made it clear they are mentally ill. Is it rude? Maybe. But some things need to be said.

Eating sh*t is for sexual pleasure is unhealthy and causes a lot of risks for the consumer. Even if he's eating his own feces, it's still a risk as he is reinserting the feces through the mouth and the esophagus which aren't designed to deal with the concerned risks of bacteria that are only meant to reside in the stomach. Plus, we perceive the smell of feces to be horrible for an evolutionary reason (so that we don't tend to eat it). People who do it for sexual pleasure do so because something (whatever it may be) went wrong leading to what's an abnormal and risky behavior.

Disagreeing with a religious fundamentalist is very different from calling all religious fundamentalists crazy, stupid, or dishonest.

There's no other option I can think of for a religious fundamentalist.

Relatively sane and intellectually honest? Yes, but that means he's still brainwashed (which I covered above).

This is just you being rude to them.

There are actual arguments against religious fundamentalism, good, solid arguments, but calling them names is not one of them.

Yes, I could've just stayed quiet about it, but at least I'm not lying and saving face.



A lot of my posts here provide all the reading pleasure you need for why religious fundamentalism is absurd.

Okay, I will try to no longer assume but suspecting or wondering is still my prerogative.

Smoking is unhealthy and causes lots of risks as well. So is drinking alcohol. So is eating fast food to the point of obesity. So is playing professional football.

Doing something unhealthy is not proof of mental illness. (Just to be clear, I do not actually approve of any of the above things.)

I wouldn't say it to their face, unless they were being unpleasant to me or were specifically in a debating context. Internet debate forums. as you know, are more no-holds-barred and 'fundamentally rude' places. If anyone is offended, I apologise because that wasn't my intent but I come on here to have discussions I couldn't otherwise have in 'real life'. The fact that they are public forums makes them less personalised.

As for the feminists, they discussed their own and other members' of the groups experiences and drew generalised ideas and theories from this. There wouldn't have been much political point to the group if they didn't draw some generalisations from it to help inform their theory. It would just become a bunch of women talking about their sexual fantasies and experiences otherwise, and wouldn't be a feminist group.

If one of those feminists went away and lectured another woman with her theories, that would be impolite (unless her friend was trying to start a feminist debate) - but if she wrote about them in a magazine (Internet debate forums not being available at the time) then she would've been contributing a to a public debate on sexual politics, rather than focusing on an individual.

Last edited by puddingmouse on 18 Jun 2013, 11:14 am, edited 4 times in total.