Jesus tap-dancing christ. The next commenter who uses the word “priggish” to describe the radical feminist case against pornography is gonna get banned on the grounds that he’s just too dumb to post on this, my own personal blog.
That goes for trying to slink by with “feminista” as a synonym for “feminazi,” too.
And, while I’m at it, I might as well put the kibosh on the tired old “what about gay porn?!” For crissake, it’s 2007; do we not yet get that gay men are men?
I allude to this comment; as an example of aforementioned tiresome trends it by no means stands alone, but it’s the rancid onion ring that clogged my last artery.
Allow me to elucidate. “Prig” is a flaccid insult. Not only does it suggest a false dichotomy (“if you don’t agree to exist on male terms, you clearly must yearn to force celibacy on our happy, horny world”); not only it is a pusillanimous act of patriarchy-approved dominant behavior and therefore is in itself priggish; but also it reveals an ignorance of the radical feminist zeitgeist that I cannot tolerate on this, my own personal blog.
If you don’t like it you can fucking lump it.
If a person weren’t too dumb to post on this, my own personal blog, he would, should he suddenly find himself moved to deploy the word “priggish” in a magisterial context, stop, and look it up. And lo. The clouds of ignorance would part. Brilliant beams would bathe him in enlightenment. He would be as one with the wisdom of the ages which holds that a “prig” is one who performs senseless, exaggerated behaviors of fastidiousness and propriety merely for the sake of high conformity.
Having so proficiently acquired the straight poop on prigs, the savvy commenter would then brilliantly deduce that a radical feminist — because she is radical — cannot be a prig. That’s right! Logic precludes it! The laws of physics preclude it! The spinster aunt precludes it! The two conditions are diametrically opposed!
Now fervid with the thrilling pursuit of erudition, our merry commenter would comprehend with undiluted joy that an anti-porn feminist in a pornsick world is — sound it out — an iconoclast . In the blink of an eye he would grasp, as does his long suffering feminist friend, that, in a patriarchy, graphic representations of sex are prized only because they depict the dominant culture’s fondest narrative: the sex class conforming to the dominant culture’s standards of sexual behavior. He would savor like the last spoonful of whipped cream on Earth the awareness that a social order predicated on dominance of an underclass obviates, in praxis, “consent” for that underclass.
And then, if and when I wrote “The radical feminist doesn’t want to ban sex, you idiots! She wants to liberate women from oppression,” he would nod vigorously in perfect understanding. In fact, he would spring from his Aeron chair and go bounding through the streets, strewing rose petals and singing with the clarion voice of Truth “Pornography is the fetishization of oppression! I’ve never felt so alive!”
1. Because he is not too dumb to comment on this, my own personal blog, he would not have to look up iconoclast.
2. I am perfectly well aware that to patriarchy buffs there can be little distinction between banning sex and liberating women from oppression. Of course they’re are all for porn. What’s wrong with porn? Porn is perfectly appropriate to them, since it portrays their favorite myth: women “consenting” to exist completely on male (the default human) terms.