[ SECRET POST #2552 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2552 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________


11.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 077 secrets from Secret Submission Post #364.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

I what way is this harming the promotion of feminism? These women basically created modern feminism.

In relation to this specific quote there are a lot of people trying to declare feminism as "Pro-porn" and you know, whatever, but there are a lot of us out there who don't think magazines like playboy are particularly empowering. Is it as bad as the holocaust? No of course not, but it's a valid analogy of the oppressed people supporting a tool of the oppression.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

It is not a valid analogy. It actually is an awful analogy because it completely belittles and ruins the whole point by exaggerating it to a point where nobody is ever going to take it seriously. It's the opposite of a valid analogy.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that most porn is for men and therefore not empowering, but being anti-porn usually ties into sex-negative feminism. Sex-negative feminism is the most depressing thing to come out of the feminism movement.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

I'd argue that TERF's are a little more depressing, but otherwise I agree with your point.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

TERFs?

anti-sex-negative anon

[(Anonymous)]

"Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists"

And I actually agree with the anon who brought it up, they really are infinitely worse.

Re: anti-sex-negative anon

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, I didn't meant to turn this into "who's worse". >_>

- Anon who first brought up terfs

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists

http://www.transadvocate.com/you-might-be-a-terf-if.htm

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

Feminists who love turf wars, but think the 'u' was too masculine. (I'm joking, this isn't a serious post)

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. A valid analogy. Remember when Hugh Hefner rounded up a bunch of women in camps and killed them all. That was a crazy week.

Re: Ugh

[starphotographs]

And he did it all in nothing but slippers and a smoking jacket.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

And sheer will power.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

I should not find this thread funny I should not find this thread funny I should not find this thread funny I should not find this thread funny.....

Re: Ugh

[insanenoodlyguy]

HEIL HEFNER

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

Women who can't understand why a woman would read Playboy: your straight privilege is showing.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

No, I understand. I just don't think any woman should be supporting Hefner. Surly there are alternatives.

Re: Ugh

[(Anonymous)]

You do realize that most people don't know anything about Hugh Hefner except that he's an old rich guy who wears a red smoking jacket, right?

No of course you don't.

Re: Ugh

[greenvelvetcake]

My thoughts are that no one should be trying to get rid of porn altogether, because that battle is long lost. I prefer the approach that makes the porn industry safer for all participants and more appealing to more demographics.

Re: Ugh

[intrigueing]

I salute Ms. Steinem for helping develop modern feminism.

Her doing that, however, does not in any way mean views of hers, such as this one, are not utterly fucking disgusting, offensive, stupid, nonsensical, and utterly, completely outdated. Doing some things that turned out to be positive does not automatically mean that everything that comes out of your mouth magically becomes true even if it's patently, fundamentally, transparently wrong. A statement that is wrong does not become right just because it was uttered by a influential figure. That is not how logic works.

And no, it's not a valid analogy. Nazism and the patriarchy can both be described with the adjectives "bad" and "oppressive", but that's where the similarities end. The most basic difference being that Playboy is not propaganda for a political cause. Playboy is about selling magazines to a readership.