Author: has written 1136 posts for this blog.

Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

57 Responses

  1. Bryan
    Bryan August 6, 2006 at 4:01 pm |

    God, this is a truly harrowing and sickening story. Francis is lucky he only got punched in the face, he should be locked up in prison.

    I remember reading in one of Ariel Levy’s pieces on GGW for Slate a year or two ago that one of the tour managers (female, no less) was a graduate of the college I attend, and that she had been referred to the job by a professor. Reading this really makes me wonder who the hell that professor was that would recommend a young woman to work with a guy like Joe Francis.

  2. Natalia
    Natalia August 6, 2006 at 4:53 pm |

    Oh my God! I wish the writer had pressed charges. It’s not my place do advise, after all, I never pressed charges against the guy who assaulted me. I was very little, ten years old, and I was very scared. He was trying to treat me like a woman, it was surreal.

    I don’t know where these people get off, I have no idea how their mind works.

    It sickens me.

  3. dawn
    dawn August 6, 2006 at 5:01 pm |

    What pisses me off (and yeah, this pisses me off) is that people shrug their shoulders and pass it off as “boys will be boys” and “he’s a little rough with his affection.” Bull. The man is a bully and will force his way to get what he wants.

    He raped that girl. He attacked the reporter. He has anger issues, definitely. And yet, he continues to get away with it.

    Shame on everyone around him for allowing it to happen.

  4. pamelabrkly
    pamelabrkly August 6, 2006 at 5:31 pm |

    What pisses me off is this guy isn’t just hurting girls once–he’s ruining their lives long term. Think about all of the high profile career options that are closed to them for life because someone got them drunk and then got them to do something stupid on camera.

  5. Lorelei
    Lorelei August 6, 2006 at 5:49 pm |

    She is so brave to publish this story.

  6. BeaTricks
    BeaTricks August 6, 2006 at 6:09 pm |

    The guy is a sociopath. Enough said.

  7. philosophizer
    philosophizer August 6, 2006 at 8:37 pm |

    this is why i oppose nuclear disarmament. we humans don’t deserve to exist, so why bother trying to protect human life?

    now i have to call my mother and tell her she’s a rapist. i don’t want to hate my mother, but now i have no choice. she owns some of these videos. god i just want to die.

  8. Nomie
    Nomie August 6, 2006 at 9:57 pm |

    Romantic? Playful? What utter bullshit. If he had her arms forced behind her back, and her face shoved into the hood of a car, then it’s assault. If anybody shoved me into a car I’d knee them in the crotch, even if they were my best friend, out of pure reflex.

    I bet the guy will sue Hoffman and the LA Times for libel. Scummy piece of tripe-laden chicken shit.

  9. junk science
    junk science August 6, 2006 at 10:13 pm |

    I don’t know why, but somehow the idea of someone laughing at a woman being assaulted sickens me more than the assault itself. Even if you “believe” they’re “just playing.”

  10. Lorelei
    Lorelei August 6, 2006 at 11:20 pm |

    I don’t know why, but somehow the idea of someone laughing at a woman being assaulted sickens me more than the assault itself. Even if you “believe” they’re “just playing.”

    You know, it’s like, yes, sometimes people will be physical with someone to flirt with them and it really IS just playing. But definitely no, shoving someone’s head into a car and holding her arms behind her is NOT ‘just playing.’

  11. Elinor
    Elinor August 7, 2006 at 12:28 am |

    Think about all of the high profile career options that are closed to them for life because someone got them drunk and then got them to do something stupid on camera.

    With any luck, once they get in line for those jobs their posing for the GGW videos will be written off as youthful hijinks. That’d be progress. (But if that were the case, of course, GGW might lose some of its appeal, at least to sadistic creeps like Francis.)

  12. Esme
    Esme August 7, 2006 at 2:11 am |

    I want to scream after reading this. I want to scream at every cop who hasn’t arrested him, at ever prosecutor who hasn’t pressed charges on his underage porn, feeding drinks to minors to elicit pornographic performances, assault on women anywhere near him, and at every dickwad boy who still buys this crap because it’s “hot.”

    A pox upon you, sir.

  13. butlervince
    butlervince August 7, 2006 at 7:49 am |

    Ever read “The Sociopath Next Door” ? Everyone should.

  14. thinking girl
    thinking girl August 7, 2006 at 9:31 am |

    wow. Holy shit. I remember seeing a show once where they were following the renovations of this guy’s home, and he was such a complete and utter asshole on that show, which I had suspected anyway considering what he does for a living is coerce young women into getting drunk and exposing their breasts and genitals.

    the worst about this is that society rewards this guy for his aggressive and manipulative behavious towards women, rewards him for turning women into objects, rewards him for being an asshole, and blames the women he uses to make his millions – normal, everyday women who are taken advantage of while in a state of intoxication – for being sluts and whores and attention-seeking and calculating.

    I wish someone, somewhere would take this guy down for what he has done and continues to do to women.

  15. exangelena
    exangelena August 7, 2006 at 9:39 am |

    I wonder what the sex positive feminists will have to say about this …

  16. sly civilian
    sly civilian August 7, 2006 at 10:00 am |

    “I wonder what the sex positive feminists will have to say about this …”

    Strawfeminist…so good to see you again.

    I won’t speak for anyone else (but if you *actually* wanted to see sex positive feminists respond to this, you could just read the comments here, feministing, pandagon, etc…)but this is my two cents.

    He’s a goddamned rapist, and his work ought to be attacked for the way it fetishizes non-consent.

  17. Bryan
    Bryan August 7, 2006 at 10:09 am |

    Come on, Sly, haven’t you heard that the sexpos are all about rape and assault?

  18. bmc90
    bmc90 August 7, 2006 at 10:25 am |

    I think I know how to fix his little red wagon. Make him pay royalties to everyone in his stupid videos to the point where he is losing money, and give people a strong private right of action for invading their privacy by inducing them to perform nude on camera while drunk.

  19. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 7, 2006 at 10:52 am |

    She’s also anticipating that she’s going to get the kind of emails she got when she wrote about Dov Charney, the scum who runs American Apparel and treats his staff as his personal harem.

    It looks like widdle Francis likes getting physical and violent. Dov sends his shills out to blogs critical of him to insist the bloggers are sex-hating prudes out on a feminist witch-hunt.

    What these two scamps have in common–besides their oversized feelings of entitlement–is that, at the end of the day, they’re corporate suits. And corporate suits are nothing if not entitled.

  20. Thomas
    Thomas August 7, 2006 at 11:08 am |

    exangelena, I’ve stopped using the term “sex positive” to describe myself, simply because I think it only adds to the acrimony between feminists of different views. And I may not be what you think of when you say “sex positive,” because I’m a Swedish Model proponent and I don’t consume mainstream porn.

    But here’s that I say: I want to see Joe Francis gut-shot by some woman that he attacks, since I suspect there have been plenty and will be more.

    I want his company to go bankrupt.

    I want every woman that ever appeared in one of those videos to get all her material back to do with as she sees fit. I suspect most of them would destroy it.

    I want straight men to realize that a teenager who shows her breasts to a camera when she’s drunk is overwhelmingly not representing anything about her authentic sexuality. She’s drunk, and she’s pressured. I’ve never seen his videos and I’m not going to.

  21. Thomas
    Thomas August 7, 2006 at 11:14 am |

    people a strong private right of action for invading their privacy by inducing them to perform nude on camera while drunk.

    How about a three-day revocation right, so these young women can think clearly about the experience when they are sober? And a private right of action, with a fee-shifting provision, permitting them to seek return of the footage if they were incapable of meaningful consent at the time it was made, with a presumption that if the crew had seen them consume alcohol within two hours of shooting the footage, they were incapable of meaningful consent?

    We could have ourselves a model statute in a few drafts.

  22. Thomas
    Thomas August 7, 2006 at 11:15 am |

    Please excuse the double-post.

  23. Dilan Esper
    Dilan Esper August 7, 2006 at 1:53 pm |

    I think the article speaks for itself, and this guy should be locked up for a long, long time.

    But one thing in particular stands out. He was going to have his cameraman have sex with that girl on camera. Then, when he finds out that unlike most of the women whom he pays to shoot amateur porn, this one’s a virgin (no wonder the sex toy hurt!), he excuses the cameraman and decides to rape her himself (off camera, to reduce the risk of prosecution), rather than shooting a scene.

    This is the cult of virginity meeting post-modern amateur porn, and it is absolutely sickening.

  24. bmc90
    bmc90 August 7, 2006 at 4:33 pm |

    Thomas, like your idea. The important thing is not to censor the material and kick up the First Amendment issue, but rather to just make it unprofitable. At this point I’m toying with the idea of getting my own camper, following this guy around, and paying girls twice as much to come over to MY camper where they will watch Thema and Louise, drink black coffee, and call their moms until this guy clears the area.

  25. Thomas
    Thomas August 7, 2006 at 5:08 pm |

    paying girls twice as much

    Do you have a funding source lined up? That does not sound like a good self-funded project.

  26. Robyn Banks
    Robyn Banks August 7, 2006 at 5:27 pm |

    Well, actually, Francis doesn’t pay them ANYTHING, so paying them twice as much as nothing sounds pretty feasible!

  27. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 7, 2006 at 5:30 pm |

    Interesting–Francis’s assailant got over 10 years in jail. Francis, who assaults women, has done no significant time.

  28. Glow in the Dark · links for 2006-08-07

    […] ase their earnings. Makes for a better board game than a soci (tags: business economics) Feministe » Hostile (tags: culture) Image: Undersea cables | CNET News.com The vast bul […]

  29. exangelena
    exangelena August 7, 2006 at 6:38 pm |

    I was probably being too snarky this morning and I apologize if I offended anyone. But I am sick of “sex positive feminists” or whatever you want to call them, bashing Ariel Levy as a prudish scold who’s trying to rain on their sexy fun when the articles she wrote for Slate touched on the ugly side of Girls Gone Wild and have been on the internet for years. There’s one disturbing episode she describes where two girls are on a beach and they’re approached by some guys and a GGW camera crew who start screaming at them to take their clothes off, and Levy wrote something like, I hope they don’t start throwing rocks at the girls if they refuse to strip.

    As for sex positive feminists, I may be opening a Pandora’s Box here, but it’s seemed to me that they are unfriendly about questioning women’s choices, especially if it is to be sexual or promiscuous or whatever. And if you criticize the sexual mores that GGW promotes – that puts a lot of aggressive pressure on women (like the episode I mentioned before) to engage in public exhibitionism and sexual activity – then you’re “slut-shaming” or you’re antifeminist because you’re criticizing other women’s choices. Of course sex positive feminists just like any other rational people should condemn rape and assault; of course many men who watch GGW videos will never rape or assault anyone; and of course causation isn’t correlation. But I think that you have to consider GGW’s attitude towards sex and women in the context of this disgusting behavior.

  30. piny
    piny August 7, 2006 at 6:42 pm |

    I was probably being too snarky this morning and I apologize if I offended anyone.

    Why on Earth would it be offensive to have someone imply that you’re soft on rape?

  31. piny
    piny August 7, 2006 at 6:44 pm |

    As for sex positive feminists, I may be opening a Pandora’s Box here, but it’s seemed to me that they are unfriendly about questioning women’s choices, especially if it is to be sexual or promiscuous or whatever. And if you criticize the sexual mores that GGW promotes – that puts a lot of aggressive pressure on women (like the episode I mentioned before) to engage in public exhibitionism and sexual activity – then you’re “slut-shaming” or you’re antifeminist because you’re criticizing other women’s choices.

    Like Sly said, this really is a strawfeminist. Do you have some examples of sex-positive feminists complaining about how it’s “slut-shaming” to have a problem with behavior like Francis’s?

  32. piny
    piny August 7, 2006 at 7:03 pm |
  33. exangelena
    exangelena August 7, 2006 at 8:08 pm |

    re#32: My apology was intended for sex positive feminists who thought I was implying that they are ok with rapists, which I did not intend.
    re#33: I’m not talking about Joe Francis’ behavior – as I’ve said, most rational people would condemn rape or assault and I’m not even going to get started on rape apologists. I’m talking about the GGW attitude that pressures women to strip and engage in sexual exhibitionism. Then if you criticize that behavior and that attitude, *then* you’re slut shaming because you’re criticizing a woman’s sexual choices (and then we’ve resurrected the sex wars).
    A fair amount of feminist bloggers dislike Ariel Levy, who I mentioned because she criticized GGW years ago (Bryan also mentioned it at comment #1): ‘I’m not going to fucking lecture some 19 year-old about who she wants to show her tits to’, ‘prudery and discomfort with public displays of sexuality, lustiness, etc’ and ‘scolds, alarmists … well-intenioned prudes’.
    I am curious about what some of these sex positive feminists have to say about this – whether they will say that Francis is a sleazy rapist and “one bad apple” or whether GGW’s promotion of women as sexual objects available on male demand deserves some scrutiny, even when it might question the choices of the dozens of adult women who have consensually appeared in GGW.
    I’m sorry, I’m not very articulate online and probably some things I’ve written were misstated.

  34. Nikki
    Nikki August 7, 2006 at 8:49 pm |

    Well, as a sex-positive feminist, I have to say that I don’t think that GGW on the whole reflects the actions of women making free, well-informed choices about their sexuality. It represents, on the whole, very young (if legal) women who are typically in some state of intoxication being directly and indirectly pressured into performing for GGW. Some few of them may be stone-cold sober and loving it, but I think those truly are few. GGW doesn’t promote sex-positivity and I think it kind of couldn’t no matter what because of the bass-ackwards attitude our society has about sex. Ultimately, to me anyway, being sex-pos is about knowing myself and what I want — and I think that GGW seems to focus on getting these girls out of their element as much as possible and then getting them to do what Joe Francis wants — which seems to me to be pretty opposite of my understanding of sex-pos feminisim.

  35. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab August 7, 2006 at 9:58 pm |

    exangelena: KMFFA .

    or and it jiggles too. I don’t shave or wax for no one.

  36. Bitch |Lab
    Bitch |Lab August 7, 2006 at 10:10 pm |

    I think, basically, Exangelena has an inability to understand that one can share Levy’s criticisms of GGW — the force behind it particularly — and still want to engage in criticisms of Levy’s own biases regarding women’s sexuality. The author of this article exposing Fracis, herself, takes a position very similar to my own regarding the women who appear in GGW. And that’s an analysis that Levy doesn’t much consider and it’s an analysis with which I took issue.

    I also have a big problem with any woman who writes a book who is obsessively concerned with what women look like, makes generalization on the basis of about 12-15 interviews, get facts wrong REPEATEDLY to the detriment of the young woman involved in the factually incorrect story, and who repeatedly calls women bimbos, sluts, lickerish, etc.

    I was astonished at the degree to which Levy felt comfortable describing the women she met. I was astonished at the degree to which she felt comfortable cherry picking through the research — a rich field of research — on young people’s sexuality over the years (we do a sex survey annyally for the last 25 years now. She could have cosulted it!)

    I was astonished at the way she made or tried to make a connection between her distate for the study of the ‘troika of race, class, and gender” and what she thinks of as,ultimately, the culprits beyind Girls Gone Wild — feminists who teach the troika of “race, class and gender” and who refuse to teach courses on the classics of Western literature because they think literature should be analyzed as the instrument-effect of racial, sexist, and classist domination in history.

    Finally, I was astonished at the racism and classism embedded in the book. And my use of the word prudery ties directly to that classism for prudery is, after all, the expression of upper-middle class or bourgeois norms about the body, it’s display, what we do with it in public, and so forth. Similarly, it’s astonishing that she compared “female chauvinist pigs” to “uncle toms” — knowing full well that the comparison is problematic and considered deeply problematic because it tries to compare sexism to racism as if one is reducible to the other. She knows this, and she does it anyway.

    If you find that sort of analysis wonderful, enjoy! Read the book, pass out copies. I’m not going to join you.

  37. exangelena
    exangelena August 7, 2006 at 10:23 pm |

    Zuzu – I have never said that sex positive feminists excuse rape. What I meant was that sex positive feminists (along with most rational people) will undoubtedly and justifiably condemn Joe Francis for his disgusting behavior, but are they going to do that AND look at the attitudes about women and sex that GGW promotes, particularly the way that the crowds seem to pressure reluctant or ambivalent (and often intoxicated) women into flashing? I agree that there is economic exploitation involved, because the girls get some cheap trucker hat or t-shirt and the GGW enterprise makes obscene profits. But I think that the popularity of GGW promotes an attitude that puts a lot of pressure on women to act like sexual exhibitionists and the idea that women are sexually available on demand. Nikki at #38 says it a lot better than I will.

    Bitch Lab – I quoted your blog as an example of a feminist who disliked Levy’s angle on raunch culture. If it seems like I was casting aspersions on you, I apologize, I didn’t intend to. I do read your blog sometimes but you are obviously more well read than I am lol.

    Oh, and FWIW Joe Francis allegedly got his start in video with “Banned From Television”, whichis a collection of footage of all sorts of gory violence, so he’s probably a creep without all the flashing coeds.

  38. Bryan
    Bryan August 7, 2006 at 10:28 pm |

    exangelena:

    I have never said that sex positive feminists excuse rape. What I meant was that sex positive feminists (along with most rational people) will undoubtedly and justifiably condemn Joe Francis for his disgusting behavior, but are they going to do that AND look at the attitudes about women and sex that GGW promotes, particularly the way that the crowds seem to pressure reluctant or ambivalent (and often intoxicated) women into flashing?

    Yes, it’s called nuance. Not everything can be reduced to X = good, Y = bad. Believe it or not, even sex-positive feminists are capable of such complex thought!

    you are obviously more well read than I am

    No one’s arguing that point.

  39. exangelena
    exangelena August 7, 2006 at 10:45 pm |

    Crap, I posted before I saw all these other responses.

    Alright, I’m not quite sure what a sex positive feminist is. I mean, does anyone actually label themselves as sex negative? By sex positive, I was thinking about the Rachel Kramer Bussell article, where it’s basically like, don’t question anyone’s sexual choices. Personally, I don’t support outlawing any kinds of sex between consenting adults, but I do think that feminists should always question the social contexts – this reminds me a lot of the debate over makeup in the feminist blogosphere a few months ago.

    Bitch Lab – I’m sorry I misinterpreted your criticism of Levy, I have read some of the many posts you wrote about FCP and I’ll just agree to disagree for now.

    zuzu – I did read your post and I was clarifying what I meant earlier, which I may have misstated.

    Bryan – I apologized earlier for my snarky comment about sex positive feminists this morning. It was inaccurate at best, I should have thought twice before I clicked the submit comment button and I’m truly sorry if I offended you or anyone.

    Olive branch, anyone?

  40. Lya Kahlo
    Lya Kahlo August 8, 2006 at 6:35 am |

    Ugh. I want to puke. I always figured the guy who came up tiwh GGW would be a rapist, but didn’t think it was literally true.

    If this were a just country he would be in jail having an inmante with similar “endowments” teaching him what “oh god it hurts” really means.

  41. Bryan
    Bryan August 8, 2006 at 9:21 am |

    Alright, I’m not quite sure what a sex positive feminist is.

    If you’re going to admit to the fact that you’re ignorant, why would you butt your way into a conversation and make remarks about things you know nothing about?

    I’m gonna be nice and suggest you start here and then work your way through some of the links. Do a little legwork of your own. We’re all pretty much working with an established vocabulary and mutual understanding here, so it just derails the conversation when you come in and make unjustified and unfounded assumptions.

    Sex-positive feminism isn’t just about “not outlawing sex between consenting adults,” it’s about freedom of choice. And for the record (and I may be brewing up trouble here), Bussell’s sex-positivism isn’t simply “don’t question anyone’s sexual choices.” There are very few real feminists who would reduce anything to such a simple idea. That’s why you got called out for making strawfeminist arguments.

  42. Thomas
    Thomas August 8, 2006 at 10:43 am |

    Geez, people, when you hear me saying that those flamethrowers ought to be carried with the safety on, folks have been too quick on the draw.

    exangelena got gang-tackled as if she were an unrepentant convert to the Church of Jeffries, when no such thing is in evidence. In fact, it’s pretty clear that she’s looking to engage instead of fight, though perhaps with some unfair preconceived notions about what positions folks actually take.

    exangelena, I’m not sure that anybody openly identifies as sex negative, which is why I have stopped identifying as sex positive. I don’t think the term is useless, but it is so fraught with misinterpretation that I think it does more harm than good. Folks who don’t like it almost always read it as pro-porn industry and pro-decriminalized prostitution for one thing, when a lot of the women who use the term seem to have a more nuanced and critical stance than that would suggest. Further, as you say, the linguistic opposite is sex negative, which nobody openly embraces.

    That said, there is such a thing as sex negative, and part of the reason I don’t like the term sex positive is because it is often understood to cast all feminists who are strongly anti-porn and anti-prostitution as anti-sex, which is an unfair conflation. Opposing porn and prostitution does not necessarily include, say, the position that blowjobs, anal sex and BDSM are inherently patriarchal and antifeminist. But there are feminists who take the latter position. I don’t want to further conflation of the former with the latter, since people who take the former position (opposition to porn and prostitution) may share a fair amount of common ground with me, while folks who take the latter position (generalized opposition to BDSM, blowjobs and anal sex) are really not people I can have a conversation with.

  43. shannon
    shannon August 8, 2006 at 12:14 pm |

    I’m sex skeptical. I reserve the right to look askance at how women are encouraged to serve others sexually, and I will admit that if someone said that bjs or BDSM are not feminist, I will not be howling with outrage. Not to mention, nothing annoys me more than the idea that the terabytes of porn on men’s computers have no effect on their sexual expectations, but apparently we all care what a few ladies on the internet say about sex and will live accordingly. On the other hand, if you want to do some weird sexual thing on your own time, I don’t care. Just don’t invovle kids ,animals or non consenting persons. I also think in theory some porn could not be so so bad for women, and a small minority of prostutition doesn’t oppress women that much.

  44. shannon
    shannon August 8, 2006 at 12:18 pm |

    Oh yea, and if your weird sex thing is humping plush stuffed animals, I reserve the right to make fun of you.

  45. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 8, 2006 at 12:22 pm |

    Shannon–What you said.

  46. sly civilian
    sly civilian August 8, 2006 at 12:49 pm |

    “exangelena got gang-tackled ”

    Uh, sorry? I think it’s quite right to reserve the right to point to the obvious misrepresentation going on in conflating sex-pos feminism with rapists. It’s a cheap strawfeminist shot.

  47. Sheelzebub
    Sheelzebub August 8, 2006 at 12:53 pm |

    Oh yea, and if your weird sex thing is humping plush stuffed animals, I reserve the right to make fun of you.

    Don’t you oppress me, you sex-hating Dworkinite!

    :::snerk:::

  48. meep
    meep August 8, 2006 at 4:49 pm |

    If every person who bought a GGW video knew that some girls were ACTUALLY being raped — that might make some of them want to buy more videos. And some might actually NOT, because RAPING A WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL IS OBVIOUSLY A BAD THING.

    Nevermind all the tidbits of exploiting breasts and crotches — what about the fact that every purchase indirectly condones Francis and his crew to rape and victimize more women?

    If you can live with that, and still buy a GGW video, YOU ARE A SICK FUCK.

  49. Thomas
    Thomas August 8, 2006 at 5:20 pm |

    Not to mention, nothing annoys me more than the idea that the terabytes of porn on men’s computers have no effect on their sexual expectations

    I agree that porn influences men’s sexuality. I think that the woman-as-consumer-product porn produced by the industry is really bad and I don’t patronize it.

  50. exangelena
    exangelena August 8, 2006 at 7:09 pm |

    Comment#31: “Of course sex positive feminists just like any other rational people should condemn rape and assault”
    Comment #36: “My apology was intended for sex positive feminists who thought I was implying that they are ok with rapists, which I did not intend.”
    Comment #41: “I have never said that sex positive feminists excuse rape.”

    For the last time, I have NEVER said that sex positive feminists support rape and I’ll apologize again for making a badly stated, inflammatory comment that was related more to the so-called “sex wars” than the actual article.

  51. SarahS
    SarahS August 8, 2006 at 7:54 pm |

    I’m a sex positive feminist and I think this guy is a total scum bag who should be in jail by now. I think that he is one hell of a bad apple. I think he is being reinforced by the misogny in our culture and I think that he in turn reinforces it. I think that Ariel Levy’s latest book on female sexist pigs (I can’t remember the title right now) seems to completely miss the point of WHY women do what they do, just as much as Mr Francis does. Both of them oversimplify the women in question and ignore them when they don’t fit into what they want them to be. I don’t think that makes her a prude, I think that makes her a lousey author with a lousey arguement. I think that the mainstream porn industry is deeply troubling. I think that if an 18 year old wants to flash someone for whatever reason she wants, its not my business to judge. I think it is my business to judge the people would would get that 18 year old drunk and rape her. I’ve flashed people before, sometimes it is fun. I don’t see what the big deal is. And I’m not exactly sure who exangelena is argueing with here. Because she’s not argueing with what most sex positive feminists believe, she’s argueming with what she thinks they believe. And I think that is very strange.

  52. shannon
    shannon August 8, 2006 at 9:25 pm |

    I agree that porn influences men’s sexuality. I think that the woman-as-consumer-product porn produced by the industry is really bad and I don’t patronize it.

    Yea, the worst part is that that sort of porn is everywhere and young people are getting access to it before they are getting access to good sensible ideas about sexuality- like the fact that gagging a woman with your cock will not in fact in most cases make her beg for more or the fact that you can’t just go to town on a woman with your huge cock and make her come most times.

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.