Pornland Documentary with Gail Dines

E. Michael Jones and Nick Fuentes with his Groypers have made pornography an issue on the dissident right. The transgender campaign has spurred a new generation of radical feminists on the left, and increasingly echo the anti-pornography and anti-prostitution arguments of parts of second wave feminism.

The two big studios that produces “feature porn” are Wicked and Vivid. This is termed “couples porn” and according to Dines men use this to “groom” their girlfriends and wives into “porn style sex.”

But when men are alone masturbating, they prefer “gonzo porn” which doesn’t feature “women” but rather “sluts,” “whores” and “cum dumpsters.” Dines says that this is related to the “Madonna-Whore” complex; men can’t sexually objectify the real women that they know: their wives, girlfriends, and female friends, nor would they want to imagine their mothers, sisters, or daughters engaging in this sort of sex. So, porn creates this other, “non-woman” category of “sluts,” “whores,” and “cum dumpsters.”

This seems to be where Dines’ femaleness and feminism obscures the issue, because she’s unable to understand male sexuality. Perhaps there are two different dynamics here. While there is something to the idea of a “Madonna-Whore” complex, the fact is that men are perfectly able to “sexually objectify” their wives and girlfriends. They are certainly able to engage in dominant, rough, objectifying, and even kinky sex with their wives and girlfriends – and although feminists like Dines are loathe to admit this – the fact is it’s quite often the wives and girlfriends who “groom” their husbands into “performing” dominant, rough, objectifing and even kinky sex.

It’s women, not men, that drive BDSM. BDSM is the number one sexual fantasy of women and virtually all of women’s erotica includes BDSM themes. But while most women have BDSM fantasies, only a minority of men tend to have BDSM fantasies, and quite often BDSM that appeals to men is quite different than BDSM that appeals to women. It may be that men who are “into BDSM culture” are, in fact, sadistic outliers.

BDSM is a complex cluster of ideas and behaviors, and it may be that there is a huge difference between the components: Bondage and Discipline are hugely popular among women, but relatively unpopular among men. Dominance and Submission are hugely popular among women, less so among men, even though “dominance and submission” are such common dynamics, and “switching” such a common part of male-female relations, it’s almost hard to even define these as “kinks.”

Sadism-Masochism, which is a much more “problematic” aspect of sexuality, is seemingly much more rare in general.

The Madonna-Whore complex: at the root of this may simply be the insider vs. outsider distinction. The Madonna is “your woman” or “our women.” They are fully human, sexually objectified or not. They are potential mates and mothers of your children. Fully human, fully woman – and fully sexual.

The Whore is “their women” – the foreign women you rape after you kill their men in battle.

Feminists – being leftists – will never admit to this, but you can see the “Madonna-Whore” “insider-outsider” dynamic with North African/Middle Eastern “refugees” in Europe and the “grooming gang” in England. The dynamic is especially noticeable in Muslim culture in the West: white girls are “whores” that you can rape, while Muslim women are “respectable” women you marry.

This distinction is what drives “sex tourism” where men from Europe travel to Southeast Asia to engage in prostitution.

(The insider-outsider distinction is also class-based which we see quite clearly in the Jeffrey Epstein/Ghislaine Maxwell sexual trafficking ring. Not only were the girl victims ethnic outsiders (i.e., European Christian “shiksas” being trafficked by Ashkenazi Jewish pimps) the girl victims were also economically lower class than the victimizers. “Outsiders” both ethnically/culturally as well as economically.)

This is a pre-human dynamic observed in many mammals and other higher species. Certain male primates will immediately attack and kill another male primate, from a different tribe, pack, or family, on sight and will “rape” any female in heat.

This isn’t just human nature – it’s animal nature. It is as related to warfare as it is to sex.

Indeed – to the chagrin of feminists, it is patriarchy – civilization itself – that evolved to counter these instincts.

And the instincts are not just male instincts either. In lions, the males of one pride will kill the males of a foreign pride – then kill the cubs of the foreign pride which in turn triggers heat in the females of the “conquered” pride leading to remating. Literal replacement of the cubs of one pride of male lions with the cubs of another pride of male lions.

This isn’t culture, this is biology. This is nature and pretending otherwise is simply the “Noble Savage” mythology.

Monogamy – which feminists despise as much as “playboy pick-up artists” – is what channeled these animal instincts into stable male-female pair bonding. Monogamy is found in the animal kingdom, including some higher primates, but it’s an exception not the norm.

What Dines does not mention, at all, in her entire documentary is procreation. A half an hour about pornography and sex and not a mention of pregnancy, natalism, child-bearing. The only mention of birth control is the use of condoms to prevent sexually transmitted disease, a function of condoms which is not related directly to their contraceptive function.

It is precisely the procreative function of sex which is completely missing from feminists and left-wing opposition to pornography, prostitution, and “sexual objectification” – but which the right-wing – and religious – opposition to pornography, prostitution, and “sexual objectification” centers upon.

It is precisely the make-up of feminism that allows this massive “blind spot” or perhaps why sexual procreation is ignored by feminists. At the core of the feminists movement has always been: lesbianism, abortion, and sterility.

So, for them, the problem with pornography and prostitution is simply that it favors men in the casual sex/prostitution marketplace and reduces the economic bargaining position of women in that market. Pornography and prostitution disfavors women in sterile, casual sex non-relationships.

Is there any prominent feminist that encourages – or even does not demonize – virgin, monogamous, natal, life-long marriage?

After a decade of reading and writing, this blogger has never encountered a single case. In fact, the only thing that feminists seem to hate more than pornography and prostitution is a young woman and a young man getting married in a socially recognized relationship, losing their virginity to each other, “discovering their sexuality” with each other and creating a “nuclear family” and raising their children together is a life-long, “til death do us part” relationship.

They consider that “patriarchy” – which is it. The question is, what is the alternative?

You’re looking at it.