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.
One point that Dines makes that is irrefutable:
When a 12 year old boy types “porn” into Google.com for the first time, he’s expecting to see “big boobies.” He’s probably quite curious what a vulva looks like, likely having never seen one. He’s probably curious to simply see naked women and to learn just what sex looks like.
He’s going to get “sex education” from pornography, but what he is not expecting is “dirty sluts getting their asses reamed out while choking on cock!”
He’s going to be aroused regardless – even if he is disgusted and disturbed by what he sees. He can be and almost certainly will be conditioned to be aroused by this sort of behavior.
So the pornography industry is luring boys via their natural attraction to female bodies and their natural curiosity about sex and then conditioning them to be aroused by violence against women.
Dines is completely correct that this sort of pornography is now completely mainstream and available to any child with an internet connection.
In fact, it’s more likely that a boy will find this sort of pornography far easier than he would simple pictures of nude women or even explicit normal sex between a woman and a man.
Companies like Google.com and MindGeek.com are in the behavior modification industry. After all, that is precisely what advertising is, it is behavior modification.
Feminists and non-feminists alike are completely correct to be seriously concerned with the commercial pornography industry and its effect on children – and adults.
Unfortunately, feminists do not have the answer, because they promote fundamentally the same thing that commercial pornography promotes – a disassociation between the pleasurable sexual act with procreation. For the pornographers, the disassociation is the means to get people addicted to pornography for profit. For feminists, it is to promote lesbianism, misandry, abortion, contraception, sterility, and casual sex as the means to destroy monogamy and natalism.
LikeLike
Dines is typically anti-white, suggesting that “interracial” pornography is an example of “white supremacy.” She even makes the ludicrous claim – a blatant lie – that “historically, black men were lynched for even looking at a white woman.”
She also claims that “blacks on blondes” porn is primarily geared toward white men. There is a subtlety here because “cuckold” porn does exist and it appears to be related to the biological instinct of “sperm competition” which is also presumably why there exists the “cum shot” in pornography. Again, this is a biological instinct that appears in the animal kingdom as well.
None of this is due to “white racism.”
But of course Dines won’t say a word about pornography being pioneered by Ashkenazi Jewish men pimping European Christian girls – a variation of “blacks on blondes” – and how mainstream that aspect of “Portnoy’s Complain” is in American Ashkenazi culture.
Dines won’t breath a word about that, for obvious reasons. Better stick to “white racism.”
Even radical feminism, although sometimes approaching these racial issues, always shys away because of its leftist nature.
More reason that pro-white and dissident right people must spearhead the anti-pornography movement.
LikeLike
According to Dines, women only have two choices: they are either “fuckable” or “invisible.”
This is feminist claptrap, of course. Dines, a middle aged, overweight, married woman likely doesn’t get much sexual attention from any other man other than her husband.
So she feels “invisible.”
To complain about this is nothing more than the female version of an “incel.”
Some ugly, overweight guy with no prospects also feels “invisible” to women. It’s the number one complain of the “manosphere” – women’s “hypergamy.” The stats prove it to: on OKCupid, 80% of women only rate the top 20% of men as “attractive.” Those 80% of men feel “invisible” too.
Again – this is the breakdown of monogamy. If men were selecting women for marriage, looks would certainly be a factor, but women’s other qualities would not only also be a factor, but perhaps much more of a factor.
But women have zero interest in marriage with an average man when she is in her teens and 20s – unless he is Christian Grey, a super-hot billionaire with a private plane. So, women don’t even look for marriagable men. They look for “hot guys” and the only guys visible to women are the top 20%.
Women categorize men into two categories: “fuckable” or “invisible” – just like men do.
So what is Dines’ actual complain here?
In the marketplace for sterile, casual, non-married sex, beautiful women have it better than ugly women.
Well, no shit Sherlock. That is exactly what feminists wanted when they attacked and destroyed monogamy. Now they are upset that women are judged by the same standard as men are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hmm, let’s see:
Now we can understand her blind spots when it comes to the Jewish pioneering of pornography, which in the early days almost always featured an Ashkenazi Jewish man raping [according to radical feminism] a European Christian girl, and the fact that “blacks on blondes” porn – to this day dominated by Ashekanazi Jewish producers – is meant to demean not the Black men, but the White Christian girls.
Every … single … time.
The best way to control the anti-pornography opposition is to lead it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_Dines
LikeLike
All porn is fundamentally cuckoldry glorification (the male watcher sees another male claim the woman he wants/has for many minutes) or autogynephilia (the male watcher identifies with the womyn, in the case of lesbian or POV porn).
LikeLike
@Aldon
Yes. But also, no. The reason they don’t show the men’s faces in porn is because it cuts down the cuckold effect. It’s hyperreality. It’s based on very solid psychological principles.
But, yes, the end result is the same. You’re jerking off watching another man fuck the woman you want.
LikeLike
This is one of the most vile thing i had to read. By the way, the link you put at the word « sterile » refers to a poem blog whose owner didn’t consent to be part of this pile of garbage. Remove the link.
LikeLike
You don’t know how the internet works, do you?
I do not consent to your demands to remove a link on my blog to a public website.
You’re a great example of rape culture demanding other people do something without their consent.
LikeLiked by 1 person