Sandra Fluke's in town! As are the pro-life crazies! Your week in sexy events

|
(63)
Sorry, not sexy. But coming to Market Street on Sunday, we're just trying to keep you informed.
PHOTO VIA PRO LIFE PHOTOGRAPHY

40 years ago, a historic ruling gave us control over our own reproductive health. This week, a female state representative in New Mexico proposed banning abortions after rape to preserve police evidence. Shiver. Feel like a protest?

You're in luck because this weekend, various groups all claiming to represent the best in women's interests will be marking Roe vs. Wade's historic judgement. But wait, will you attend the pro-choice carnival, the pro-choice flash mob, the anti-choice rally and march, or the pro-choice, anti-porn counter-demonstration? They are all happening this Saturday morning and early afternoon in Justin Herman Plaza. (Rebecca Bowe broke this story on our site over at the Politics blog, BTW.) We suggest being there, at least to watch the drama unfold. Happily, at least for the moment, choice is alive and well when it comes to weekend activism! 

Here's the breakdown: 

Women, Life, and Liberty rally and celebration

Cuteness personified. This family-friendly gathering organized by 25 Bay Area women's and reproductive rights groups will feature balloon artists, face-painting -- and an address by Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown University grad student who stared woman-hating Republican assholes in their beady eyes and emerged victorious, with the President on her side and a nation of newly-galvanized feminists sharpening their talons on her behalf. Rose Aguilar of KALW Radio will emcee. Come out, show up for your rights.  

Sat/26, 10am-noon, free. Justin Herman Plaza, SF. www.oursilverribbon.org

Her Rising Flash Mob

Of course there's a flash mob -- Magalie Bonneau-Marcil, director of Oakland's Dancing Without Borders told Bowe that she expects 400-500 dancers for the event, part of a worldwide call for women to speak out against violence against them on this particular day. Practices are already over, but the mass of bodies in motion should be a gorgeous sight, one that will steel you for the next item on our list... 

Sat/26, 11:30am, free. Justin Herman Plaza, SF. www.herrising.org

Walk For Life rally and march/Stop Patriarchy counter protest

Shiver. For the ninth year, San Francisco pro-lifers are organizing so that busloads of social conservatives from all over the West Coast and Mid-West will be converging on San Francisco. This from the Walk For Life website: "We are thrilled and honored to be able to announce that Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the Apostolic Nuncio to the United States will be attending the Walk for Life West Coast on January 26 and reading a message from Pope Benedict XVI!"

Bay area group Stop Patriarchy is organizing a counter-protest, but big-ass asterisk on that one because that group, which does fight against attacks on abortion rights, includes the existence of pornography in its definition of the war on women and we are obvs not down with that characterization. Porn and reproductive agency for all! 

Sat/26, rally 12:30-1:30pm, walk 1:30pm, free. Justin Herman Plaza, SF. www.walkforlifewc.com 

And yes! There are other, sexier sex events happening this week too! 

Kinky Speed Dating 

Sponsored by the all-knowledgable BDSM education group Society of Janus, this session still has space for female bottoms who are looking to pair up with a male top (it's part of an SOJ series that focuses on different genders and orientations during different sessions.) You'll have the opportunity to meet 15 potential playmates, and receive the FetLife handle of those who are interested in you at the end of the speed rounds of sexy chit-chat. Conversation starters will be provided for those not well-versed in pervy small talk. 

Sat/26, 3-5pm, $10-15. Center for Sex and Culture, 1349 Mission, SF. www.sexandculture.org

"Pleasure Yoga For Women" workshop/Naked Yoga at Eros

It's all about the breathe -- during yoga, obviously, but perhaps proper respiration is the key to healthy sensuality as well? The concept is explored at this one-off seminar for women, meant to promote sexual confidence and the ability to recognize what turns you on and fulfills you for real. Men folk, we don't mean to leave you all tense and unflexible on this one: males of all sexual orientations are invited every Tuesday to Castro sex club Eros for naked yoga class -- the class isn't supposed to be a place to cruise, but rather a place for the menfolk to connect on another level of sexual health. 

Workshop: Sun/27, 2-6pm, $65. Center for Sex and Culture, 1349 Mission, SF. www.sexandculture.org. Naked Yoga For Men: every Tuesday, 6pm, suggested donation. Eros, 2051 Castro, SF. www.erossf.com

Dirty Talk and Roleplay with Chloe Camilla

I just went to see the drag production of Sex and the City currently playing at Rebel. In it, the voluptous Lady Bear presents a Miranda that is momentarily bewildered by a lover who demands she talk dirty in bed. After chatting it over with the girls she gives it a go. Lo and behold! Miranda finds that sensual verbosity is a huge turn-on, and that she's really good at it. You just have to take the plunge, which is exactly what the pervy-adorable Chloe Camilla will be aiding and abetting at her Kink.com workshop next week. Look, discuss with Carrie over lunch and give it a go. 

Jan. 31, 7:30pm, $35. SF Armory, 1800 Mission, SF. tickets.armorystudios.com

Comments

is as redundant as a pro-Israel march in Manhattan. But it might be fun to go see the dwindling band of anti-sex Dworkin-style feminists grimly stamp their feet and screech a bit.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 24, 2013 @ 9:20 pm

created by the right wing to beguile and divide feminists.

Dworkin did not say what she is purported to have said and the only way to make it appear otherwise is to misquote her.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:01 am

Anyone who spent any time near a college campus in the late 70's and 80's is quite familiar with the intellectual ghetto that Dworkin promoted in the studies community.

Dworkin and her nutty crowd is no right wing creation, the studies community may have changed some but it still is narrow and single minded.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 4:13 am

Both fashioned themselves as independent thinkers, neither right nor left. While in reality makin common cause with the right. In Dworkin's case, it was the so-called Moral Majority. In your case... well, it's just about anyone on the right.

Both of you are also motivated by visceral, blinding hatred, that refuses to see anything redeeming in the objects of your irrational hate. In Dworkin's case, the object was men. In your case, progressives.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:00 am

Chairman Mao once said "With confession comes leniency." We want to extend to you leniency but first you must make a full confession of your anti-Asian prejudice so we can work together in a healing spirit of cleansing togetherness to rebuild your shattered soul.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:54 am

Chinese Americans have a lock on political power in San Francisco. They gained this with economic power. That means that it is very difficult for anyone to be racist to a Chinese American here and now.

Discrimination, prejudice, bigotry, hatred, yes. All of them wrong? Yes.

Racism? No.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:16 am

Marcos, the above is sort of a running joke that Snapples has going with herself. I had suggested that she's homophobic because of her opposition to the naming of the airport after Harvey Milk (noting that she doesn't seem to have a problem with naming anything after anyone else), so now she shrilly yells that I'm racist against Asians... because of ___???___. I think it had something to do with a comment she made about naming it after SI Hayakawa. I didn't think it was worthy of a response, and I don't think these subsequent comments are either. I'd just ignore it as more trollish pollution.

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:45 am

Usually centered around Rose Pak and what he considers her nefarious plot to turn San Francisco into an outpost of "Red China." He also said he opposes the bold plan to name SFO after California's groundbreaking Asian-American senator S.I. Hayakawa, again, based on prejudice. He sees everything through the lens of "yellow peril."

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:09 pm

Shit, Rose Pak has all but called the Chinese our new master race.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:35 pm

Weren't you two big boosters of Olague?

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:38 pm

You should see some of the people with whom I've shared a political bed!

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:52 pm

Dworkin made common cause with the crazy right because they had the same ideas around sex as she does.

Most people other than doctrinaire left wingers and right wingers have a cross section of beliefs and are in general more moderate. I for example could careless who you have sex with, so I will not be making common cause with Jesus freaks.

Since I am pro abortion I can be counted on by the goofy right to call me a left winger, just as my expectations of fiscal sense makes you call me a right winger. Not adhering to your narrow doctrinaire ravings gets you really worked up.

Posted by matlock on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 12:34 pm

Dworkin said that penile/vaginal penetration is tantamount to rape, that thrusting is tantamount to violence, and in order to eliminate these patriarchal misogynist aspects to reproduction, she envisioned a het sex where a couple laid together with him in her and just wriggled their way to orgasm.

Good luck with that.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 7:47 am

Whoever.

Provide a citation for your claim and don't make it Limbaugh or O'Reilly.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 8:45 am

Dworkin really was that bad. She was a caraciture of herself.

The question I'm still wondering about... who exactly is Snapples referring to when she talks about Dworkinite feminists -the pro-choicers, or the anti-abortion crowd?

Posted by Greg on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:03 am

speech describing sex to the point where should could be *falsely* *painted* to look that bad. Please research further.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:13 am

"This is nihilism, or this is truth. He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy. ... There is no analogue anywhere among subordinated groups of people to this experience of being made for intercourse: for penetration, entry, occupation. There is no analogue in occupied countries or in dominated races or in imprisoned dissidents or in colonialized cultures or in the submission of children to adults or in the atrocities that have marked the twentieth century ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag. There is nothing exactly the same, and this is not because the political invasion and significance of intercourse is banal up against these other hierarchies and brutalities. Intercourse is a particular reality for women as an inferior class; and it has, in it, as part of it, violation of boundaries, taking over, occupation, destruction of privacy, all of which are construed to be normal and also fundamental to continuing human existence. There is nothing that happens to any other civilly inferior people that is the same in its meaning and in its effect even when those people are forced into sexual availability, heterosexual or homosexual; while the subject people, for instance, may be forced to have intercourse with those who dominate them, the God who does not exist did not make human existence, broadly speaking, dependent on their compliance. The political meaning of intercourse for women is the fundamental question of feminism and freedom: can an occupied people--physically occupied inside, internally invaded--be free; can those with a metaphysically compromised privacy have self-determination; can those without a biologically based physical integrity have self-respect?

— Andrea Dworkin, Intercourse, 122-124

and

"Shere Hite has suggested an intercourse in which "thrusting would not be considered as necessary as it now is. . . [There might be] more a mutual lying together in pleasure, penis-in-vagina, vagina-covering-penis, with female orgasm providing much of the stimulation necessary for male orgasm."

These visions of a humane sensuality based in equality are in the aspirations of women; and even the nightmare of sexual inferiority does not seem to kill them. They are not searching analyses into the nature of intercourse; instead they are deep, humane dreams that repudiate the rapist as the final arbiter of reality. They are an underground resistance to both inferiority and brutality, visions that sustain life and further endurance.

They also do not amount to much in real life with real men. There is, instead, the cold fucking, duty-bound or promiscuous; the romantic obsession in which eventual abandonment turns the vagina into the wound Freud claimed it was; intimacy with men who dread women, coital dread--as Kafka wrote in his diary, "coitus as punishment for the happiness of being together."

INTERCOURSE Chapter 7
Occupation/Collaboration

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:37 am

At the end of her life, in a desperate attempt to be relevant, she made up a wild story of being given a date-rape drink at a bar. That represented her final shunning from the feminist movement because it was so disconnected from reality as there were many other sisters there who observed what happened.

Some ancient sisters still follow Dworkin, Elana Dykewomon for example, but feminist separatist culture is pretty much dead at this point.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:00 am

"ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag"

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:14 am

... and getting plaudits from Lucretia. How fucking plum.

Whether you are just taking you cues from an anonymous Wikipedia editor or perhaps in part giving in to possible male-homosexual ideas of superiority is of no importance. You have taken a passage out of the context of the book in which it appeared and you purport that it means "all sex is rape."

"Pornographers have repeatedly published the 'all sex is rape' slander, and it's now been taken up by others like Time"

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.

"Pornographers have repeatedly published the 'all sex is rape' slander, and it's now been taken up by others like Time"

Michael Moorcock: After "Right-Wing Women" and "Ice and Fire" you wrote "Intercourse". Another book which helped me clarify confusions about my own sexual relationships. You argue that attitudes to conventional sexual intercourse enshrine and perpetuate sexual inequality. Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse--it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.

The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.

It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:16 am

Do you know what the difference between the words "tantamount" and "is" might be?

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:26 am

just to be sure. No surprises: it means "equivalent."

Now, the term "equivalence" necessarily implies the opposite of the meaning of "is," so by using "equivalent" instead of "is," I think the speaker either means to suggest that others *ought* to see such equivalence, or, in the negative, as a means to disprove and disparage the appearance of such equivalency.

You seemed to be agreeing with Limbaugh and Time Magazine rather than disagreeing.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:45 pm

She said that penetrative het sex was essentially rape.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:54 pm

(Still this could always be the work of an imp...)

And I believe the passage of the book you cited earlier -- the part which came before the excerpt on Wikipedia -- makes clear that she is describing not all sex and not all men, but only a specific subset among men and a subset of the thinking of men as it pertains to sex.

Really marcos, it does seem like you overly value you potential to spot the errors in others, and it is to the point that I'm not sure you are capable of registering having your opinion altered.

I don't know if you will continue to promote the canard that Dworking said, alleged, equated, or pronounced that all sex "is" -- or "is tantamount" to -- rape, but I'd ask that you consider focusing more on what I consider your more broadly vital perspectives.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:15 pm

I understand that in literature there is but one true interpretation and you are the only one who clearly understands that interpretation.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:58 pm

Funny thing about snark is that you can more easily get away with saying things which would come off as absurd if you were to express them outright.

Good day.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 5:44 pm

"ranging from Auschwitz to the Gulag"

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 5:55 pm

Anyhow, below are the words which were replaced by and elipses in your Wikipedia "quote" -- reading them makes Dworkin seem less of the monster and more the intelligent examiner of the human condition that she is, so take your mention of Auschwitz and shove it.

"...in her privacy.

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth--literature, science, philosophy, pornography--calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate") the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical privacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions. Intercourse in reality is a use and an abuse simultaneously, experienced and described as such, the act parlayed into the illuminated heights of religious duty and the dark recesses of morbid and dirty brutality. She, a human being, is supposed to have a privacy that is absolute; except that she, a woman, has a hole between her legs that men can, must, do enter. This hole, her hole, is synonymous with entry. A man has an anus that can be entered, but his anus is not synonymous with entry. A woman has an anus that can be entered, but her anus is not synonymous with entry. The slit between her legs, so simple, so hidden-- frankly, so innocent-- for instance, to the child who looks with a mirror to see if it could be true--is there an entrance to her body down there? and something big comes into it? (how?) and something as big as a baby comes out of it? (how?) and doesn't that hurt?--that slit which means entry into her-- intercourse--appears to be the key to women's lower human status. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, she is intended to have a lesser privacy, a lesser integrity of the body, a lesser sense of self, since her body can be physically occupied and in the occupation taken over. By definition, as the God who does not exist made her, this lesser privacy, this lesser integrity, this lesser self, establishes her lesser significance: not just in the world of social policy but in the world of bare, true, real existence. She is defined by how she is made, that hole, which is synonymous with entry; and intercourse, the act fundamental to existence, has consequences to her being that may be intrinsic, not socially imposed.

There is no analogue ..."

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 8:46 pm

Dworking is not a monster, she's an irrelevant historical curiosity.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 9:10 pm
Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:54 pm

His interest in this issue is purely praxis.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:38 am

Michael Moorcock!

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:17 am

attention?

But surely it's just the name -- and not because you loathe science fiction in general, or specifically any of his other literary and political work. Right?

Anyhow, the fact is that the passage in the book you cited is taken out of context.

Agreement or disagreement with Lucretia is, of course, of no *concrete* meaning, but instances of being in agreement should be looked upon with extreme disfavor if any statistical analysis if done. Similar to being in agreement with the Time Magazine editorial board, but maybe a bit more perfidious and bizarre.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 1:30 pm

Of course, Lucretia and matlock's cooties are both commutative and transitive.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 8:48 am

Hadn't considered that previously.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 9:14 am

Look, eleven members of the Board of Supervisors voted for the Treasure Island fiasco. When you support them, you incorporate the cooties of that give away into your own political being. That makes your politics indistinguishable from those of Sean Elsbernd, er, Catherine MacKinnon.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 9:35 am
Posted by Guest on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 12:38 pm

The march in the photo is a pro-life march.

Posted by caitlin on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 10:46 am

Caitlin, our opponents define us as pro-abortion. When you accept their framing of themselves with your language, then you legitimate that framing.

Their march is anti-abortion, not pro-life.

They're not protesting the death penalty, they're not protesting the drone strikes and endless wars, they're not protesting police assassinations of citizens, they're protesting abortion rights.

When you adopt and internalize your opponents' framing as your own in your writing, then there is no way that you can advance your own agenda, you're structurally trapped.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:10 am

your constant condescension makes you boring.

Posted by marke on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:42 am

Forfeiting the propaganda high ground is what makes for losing politics. You all are good at that over at the Guardian. That is why we have lost all political power over the past six years here in San Francisco.

The failure of the women's movement to educate young women about the importance of choice is why support for Roe v. Wade has dropped below 50% in some polls.

That failure to educate the next generations is why Caitlin is faithfully reproducing right wing propaganda that has been used to diminish support for Roe v. Wade and reproductive freedom.

Reproducing that narrative grants legitimacy to the anti-abortion fetishists. Framing them on terms favorable to pro-choice politics marginalizes them. This is basic communications and messaging theory.

I am so sorry if your poor little head is bored by condescension. It must be very difficult for you to drag your tired ass out of bed every morning and carry on.

But over at the SFBG the cultural semantics of ass kissing are more important than doing what it takes consonant with our values to win politically. This is not the first time that the SFBG has internalized the logic of oppression.

The SFBG has historically bought corporate San Francisco's line that they are 'moderate,' and adopted their line that Peskin and Daly were 'uncivil,' both of which have been used to disarm populist politics by granting the middle ground to the conservatives and disarming progressives from contesting conservative initiatives.

I'll stop being condescending when you all stop carrying water for the gang that keeps raping us and our city and cast yourselves free of their framings.

Now get over here and suck daddy's dick and make yourself useful. Oh, yeah, I forgot, being gay is only about night life, glitter, bangles, lamé and gender fuck for the self-referential crowd of self- promoters. Never mind.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 12:06 pm

and it's *not* a contructive component of dialogue nearly to the degree which would justify the frequency of its use.

marcos, why not consider trying to dial back on your vitriol?

Perhaps it may seem counterintuitive, but that will better serve the promotion of your perspective.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:08 pm

You'd think that a pro-choice person would use language favorable and beneficial to her position instead of language favorable to the anti-abortion fanatic without having to be told. Twice.

It ain't me who's gotta deal with pregnancy.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:31 pm
Posted by anon on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:39 pm

What you call "flipping out" means calling progressives on their shit when they internalize the logic of their oppressors and make matters worse for others.

If we are being told that we've got to tolerate Democratic administrations engaging in serial war crimes just because abortion has to be kept safe and legal and nobody is doing anything to actually keep abortion safe and legal, when people casually legitimate anti-choice memes, then, yeah, it is time to raise a stink.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 2:52 pm

and you also happily indulge in trivial politivcal issues like your endless support of naked guys walking around SF, which hardly merits much debate either.

Then again, sex sells, not that there is anything remotely arousing about those fat, bald, middle-aged losers who strip off just to annoy people.

Posted by Guest on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 3:23 pm

This is not *my* perspective, it is feminism 101 circa 1984.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 26, 2013 @ 7:39 pm

I was specifically referring to your description of a certain aspect of the movement of sisterhood as being "anti-porn." Also commenting on why it's necessary to counter-protest these people - California is the most pro-choice state in the country with abortion rights written into our state constitution so in the event of Roe vs. Wade being overturned they're protected here. It's not like those rights are under threat in California. Let the anti-choice fundies scream and march - it's their right to do so.

Keep on keepin' on sister Caitlin.

Posted by Lucretia Snapples on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:13 am

Two-minutes hate for the designated opponent.

Posted by marcos on Jan. 25, 2013 @ 11:26 am

Good idea!

Posted by Jada Pirson on Jul. 01, 2013 @ 11:30 pm

Related articles

  • The truth conquers all

    Will a 25-foot buffer zone keep anti-abortion protesters from freaking out Planned Parenthood patients? 

  • Pro-life Bernal billboard corrected by feminist vandals

  • Two detained City College student protesters released amidst troubling allegations

  • Also from this author