When White Males Attack: Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left

315 posts / 0 new
Last post
Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Jul 20 2005 11:48
When White Males Attack: Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left
Quote:
When White Males Attack:

Larry Flynt, Racism and The Left

by Jennifer McLune

There are a lot of issues toward which he [Larry Flynt] has

progressive attitudes (Black women were naked and spread-eagled in

Hustler long before they were in Playboy.)" --"Carly-Sue"

The above quote taken from the message board of a young hip feminist

magazine reveals how effective Flynt has been at becoming in the

minds of many progressive folk an anti-racist. This image of him as

progressive on race appears in spite of Hustler's long history of

racist caricatures of Black people, people of color and Jews.

One of his most recent viscously racist assault has been on Aura

Bogado, a Latina Feminist and Free Speech Radio News anchor at KPFK.

In her article Hustling the Left she exposes the war declared on her

when a personal email ended up in the hands of Hustler editors in

which she stood up to Larry Flynt and challenged The Left to look

critically at building coalitions with pornographers.

Full article: http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/mclune.html

admin edit by rkn - got rid of c&p

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jul 22 2005 17:23

Super cool article. I'd love to knock Flint out of his wheelchair and see him squirm on the floor. He really is a big, bulging cock.

That wbesite looks like it'll be good when it properly gets going. Some really disturbing cartoons. Do they have to say 'sexxxism' though? It makes me cringe.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 23 2005 04:25

Maybe if they wrote in English rather than American PC-speak they'd get their point accross more convincingly though...

Edit: Flint's a capitalist cunt who deserves to die, but most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Jul 23 2005 16:44
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

thaw
Offline
Joined: 3-03-05
Jul 24 2005 00:39

I don't have time to read the whole thing, but I do know that I am instrinsically opposed to the exploitation of women particularly (and some men) in this milieu. Like I say, capitalism sucks, of course, what do you expect - morality of any kind?

It's always the same fight, although we need to take particular issue over women's and minority rights when we fight with the working class (which I hope you are doing).

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Jul 25 2005 13:19
Jess wrote:
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

Well i see what he was getting at about PC speak, i mean just look at the title ( ''when white males attack'' roll eyes ) which seems to be designed to alienate a large chunk of the population of the US before they've even read the first paragraph. Its a pretty useless article all round really.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jul 29 2005 05:49
Jess wrote:
888 wrote:
most of the argument above is a load of shite...

Can you elaborate? Personally I think it's a good critique of a very real and dangerous attitude to pornography held by liberals and some anarchists - that if it includes different kinds of people then it's something to be celebrated.

Can't elaborate now sorry but I'd sum it up by saying it was drenched in identity politics...

Allysaundre
Offline
Joined: 2-08-05
Aug 2 2005 11:25

Hello,

As a first time poster, I felt the necessity to post a reponse to this article. My horror was not so much at the article itself, but at the positive response it managed to generate in some minds on this forum. I would like to make several points as to why I feel that article has absolutely no credibility (though I feel they should have been quite obvious anyway).

To begin, the language used within an article seemingly intended for publish, either on the internet or in journals, affects the academic credibility of the article. This article suffers from poor use of language, certainly I could not see it being published in a reputable journal of philosophy, politics or sociology. Even though there is no evidence to suggest such lofty aims on the part of the author, it still fails to show that such poor language should be used by a piece that presents itself to be taken seriously.

By this, I refer to the overbearing rhetoric. I come from a position where I know absolutely nothing about Larry Flynt or Aura Bogado (or, indeed, the author herself except from the article). I cannot, however, see any well-formed, analytic debate over his merits as a progressive social reformer. The article (and its author) loses all intellectual credibility by the use of rhetoric in two forms that I will identify here.

First, there is the deliberate ad hominen attack that subversely tries to get the point across using statements such as, "Apparently the only position he wants to see a brown woman in is naked and gagged in silent submission to his misogynistic agenda." This is given merely in response to the fact that Mr. Flynt labelled Ms. Bogado a racist and "feminazi". There is no real evidence or citation given to show that he, in fact, made this claim nor is there any real refutation of his claim had he made it (indeed, Ms. Bogado could very well be racist and a "feminazi"). This, of course, does not defend Mr. Flynt per se, but only shows that there is no logical structure to the thought presented by the author, merely what appears to be an emotional vent.

This is further degraded by the sleazy use of terms to describe her opponents, her claim that Hustler is not a magazine of which black women should not be proud is a case of this. Use of the terms '"black butt" market' or 'displaying "black tail"' is simply an attempt to discredit by demonisation of her opponent.

A related point to this is the overall push to rhetoric that I had mentioned earlier. There seems to be little evidence of any constructive argumentative form, either deductive or inductive. Put shortly, she is not giving the reader any reasons to believe anything she says. The author has merely vented certain expressions in a way that has a chance to stir up anti-Flynt feeling among her audiences. Yet, if her position were true then a powerful, well-made set of premises can be established and lead to the conclusion she desires. My contention here is with the intellectual integrity of the author herself, not necessarily with the status of radical feminism (although, as a side note, my view would be that the lack of wel-formed arguments in radical feminism is based on its weak and erroneous position).

Finally, I find that, as an anarchist, my position is hostile to hers simply because radical feminism has associations with very strong forms of authoritarianism. While my anarchism does not call for the overthrowing of the state by force but aims towards its redundancy, I still find authoritarianism something that we are best without, regardless of whether it claims itself as right or left.

Of course, as I have said, my arguments here do not support Flynt. They only aim to show that the author of this text is misguided and cannot present her case clearly and intellectually. I could on to make more positive attacks on the author, but I hope that they would not be required here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

cantdocartwheels's picture
cantdocartwheels
Offline
Joined: 15-03-04
Aug 2 2005 12:12

Well put rob, aswell as noting the appalling political approach of many radical feminists, you are right to say that the rhetoric used by the author aptly demonstates a complete inability to logically argue the auithors position in the first place.

However, i wouldn't worry too much about people on this forum supporting articles of this nature, apart from jess and wendal i think pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 2 2005 19:28
cantdocartwheels wrote:
pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

While the wording is somewhat hysterical and misleading throughout, (phrases like "His whiteness is his claim to innocence. His maleness is his right to anger" are just loopy, for example) the basic point is fine. If it wasn't written by someone who sounds like Kirsten Anderberg on speed it would be a good piece.

Allysaundre
Offline
Joined: 2-08-05
Aug 2 2005 23:58
redyred wrote:
cantdocartwheels wrote:
pretty much every regular contributor to this forum would find this sort of article completely unnaceptable in terms of its content and wording.

While the wording is somewhat hysterical and misleading throughout, (phrases like "His whiteness is his claim to innocence. His maleness is his right to anger" are just loopy, for example) the basic point is fine. If it wasn't written by someone who sounds like Kirsten Anderberg on speed it would be a good piece.

Well, as I have said I think that the structure of the argument lacks a decent analytic rigourousness here and I believe I have given a good grounding for that. Further I believe that the premises of radical feminism always will lack the required analytic rigourousness as they are fundamentally false. Of course, I would accept that it would be a good piece of writing if the form was better, regardless of what the argument was aiming to prove (just as one can admire the effort of Descartes's Meditations without commiting oneself to its conclusions). As to the basic point, I'm not entirely sure whether it is an attack on Flynt or as an advocation of gender feminism using the attack as a means to that.

If it was an attack on Flynt then, without a rational basis, it seems slanderous and possibly immoral. That would be a very serious claim to make and, looking on Wikipedia, Flynt seems to be compartively moral compared to some of his contemporaries. My scepticism concerning his moral character rests on the fact that he has compromised his moral position by not investing more of his wealth in moral ends (i.e. more funding to socially responsible causes). Although, he seems no worse in his moral character than most everyday people. Second, I have concern with what happened with his daughter but cannot but give him the benefit of the doubt from the information on Wikipedia. His daughter seems to have acted highly irrationally and shows signs of mental imbalance. Other than that, his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable. Given all this, I really cannot agree with the basic point. Even though his past character is no solid proof of his innocence, it is all I can really go on here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

redyred
Offline
Joined: 20-02-04
Aug 3 2005 12:06

Rob, I share your views on radical feminism. I think it's actually a huge mistake the way so many anarchists cuddle up to radical feminism when it is incredibly divisive and often anti-humanist. In fact looking through the article again there is barely a single sentence that I don't have a problem with. What I don't have a problem with is that it attacks the view of pornography of that kind being progressive. That debate shouldn't be written off just cos that article is a bit shit.

Pepe
Offline
Joined: 26-11-04
Aug 17 2005 18:47
Allysaundre wrote:
his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable.

"There are those who say illogic is the native tongue of anything with tits...(women) speak not from the heart but from the gash, and chances are that at least once a month your chick will stop you dead in your tracks with a masterpiece of cunt rhetoric...the one surefire way to stop those feminine lips from driving you crazy is to put something between them--like your cock, for instance."

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:14

eek if the cartoons on that site are really from Hustler magazine that is seriously fucked:

Imagine being a child of Flynt and finding out your dad publishes shit like that sad

rob wrote:
His daughter seems to ... show signs of mental imbalance.

Oh yeah - now I wonder why that could be?!?! roll eyes

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:27
Quote:
A series of cartoons titled "Chester the Molester" constitute the most notorious example of this genre of porn in Hustler. They were a regular feature of the magazine until cartoonist Dwaine Tinsley was convicted in 1990 for sexually abusing his daughter (a conviction that was later overturned on a legal technicality). Although Flynt maintains that he is opposed to kiddy porn, his claim make no sense in light of these materials and the fact that the "Internet version of Hustler boasts 'the youngest flesh allowed by law'"

http://www.dianarussell.com/Flynt.html

Theres loads of dodgy ones - the racist ones are pretty nasty too:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/index.html

Im pretty sure they are for real... check out the cartoonists site:

http://www.dwainetinsley.com

Ignore the fact that its a catholic wierdo site:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC137.HTM

Search for Chester the Molester on that page....

Quote:
According to evidence presented at trial, Tinsley explained that "You can't write this stuff all the time if you don't experience it."

Thats actually made me feel pretty sick. Who cares if the article which started the thread is shit...

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:38
Quote:
If you are triggered by hate speech visual imagery we strongly caution you about entering this site.

grin confused Says something about the weird US leftist mentality, that does.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:39

?! I think its a pretty fair statement to have.... those pix made me feel a bit wierd, to others it could have more severe effects...

no?

confused

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:45

No! They looked like shit unfunny examples of bad taste humour to me. Some of them were indeed offensive, although in a very pathetic way.

What do they mean by "triggered" by hate speech? That if you listen to hitler speeches, you'll go kill some jews, or if you watch some porn, you'll go and rape someone?

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 19:52

roll eyes No, - that if as a child some wanker tricked u in the street then fucking molested you - then you are come into contact with material which gives you flashbacks of something which might have fucked you up quite a bit it might fuck you up all over again. Hence:

Quote:
If you are triggered by hate speech visual imagery we strongly caution you about entering this site. It is in no way our intention to re-traumatize anyone already injured by the kind of material presented here.

Blood helly roll eyes

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Aug 17 2005 19:57

Whoops. Should have read that paragraph more carefully. embarrassed

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 17 2005 22:25
Allysaundre wrote:
Hello

Hi. Rumours of your crappy post has been spread all over internet so i got tempted to come back from this page again after staying away from it for quite some time, and ill be damned if it did not lived up to my expectations!

First of all I found it hilarious that you where “shocked” by the bad spelling. As an anarchist I guess that you would prefer to see language kept under strict rules of tradition rather than evolving in a free biological form through dialects and post-colonial English to the benefit of expression (especially in the case of a text like this where there is no trouble at all understanding what the writer has to say and is that not the main point of communication rather than to express oneself in the most correct bourgeoisie manner?).

You also point out that you know nothing about Larry Flynt and are still sure that the writer has been too harsh against him.

Let me give you some background on him.

At young age he raped and after that killed a hen(according to himself in his self biography). How’s that for any of you animal right activists and vegans out there ?

He has during his life most surely attempted to rape at least one of his daughters (and was of coarse not put into jail for that being a owner of a multinational company and being a millionaire x 40)

As pointed out already Flynt has for quite some time published a comic about paedophilia by a sentenced paedophile who in one strip for example is getting a Jewish kid into his trap by dragging a dollar on a string while waiting around the corner wearing a naziuniform and holding a baseball bat over his head.

He has declared a war on feminists as well as on several occasions (one recently) posted death or rape-threats against women who has spoken out against his magazine(that says something of how much of a defender of the first amendment he really is)

Check out this gallery to get some insight in the style of his publication:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/index.html

The reason she is pointing out the use of black women in hustler is that many sees hustler as anti-racist because they published pictures of black as well as white women who where humiliated.

About Hustler being anti-racist:

Warning for disturbing pictures:

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/images/Catalog6sjpg/spikeleemovie.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS32.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlerhalf/Images/HustlerSHalf33.jpg

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlerhalf/Images/HustlerSHalf34.jpg

“From the image of the black woman as Jezebel, to the black male as savage, mainstream white representations of blacks have coded black sexuality as deviant, excessive and a threat to the white social order. In Hustler sex cartoons, this threat is articulated par excellence in caricatured form and serves to reaffirm the racist myth that failure to contain black masculinity results in a breakdown of the economic and social fabric of white society.”

“The size of the black penis is the theme of a full page "interview" between Hustler editors and "The Biggest, Blackest Cock Ever!" (November 1983: 6). The page is in the same format as Hustler interviews only in place of a person is a picture of a large black penis. The subtitle reads: "A candid, explosive man-to-dick conversation with the most sought after piece of meat in the world." Hustler editors ask "Why do women love big, black cocks?" The answer given by the "cock", (which is of course written by the Hustler editors) is "... they love the size .... you know any white guys hung like this?" The editors continue by framing the discussion in clearly political terms by their answer to the question of why black men prefer white women, "I likes (sic) white pussy best. It's my way of gettin back at you honkies by tearin' up all that tight white pussy .... I fuck those bitches blind".”

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/CRAPP_E_LIB/dines.html

You claim that Miss Bogado could wery well be a feminazi. Lets not get into that you are borrowing here a term from Rush Limabaugh an American extreme right conservative(and still calling yourself anarchist) but the term in itself is hilarious. Nazis idea of the role of woman in society (much like Proudhon’s ) was that they should stay in the kitchen and give birth to loads of babies. Feminism and Nazism could therefore newer be combined but there are people that define themselves as anarchonazis in America so if I would claim that you werry well be a Nazi then my claim would be more accurate than you strange attack on a non white feminists woman above.

And what is this bullshit about lack of well formed arguments from radical feminists?

Take a look at The idea of prostitution by Sheila Jeffrey and if you still claim that no radical feminists does well formed arguments then you are the stooopid one.

And what the hell are writing about radical feminism being authorian. Valerie Solana is anti-state. Andrea Dworkin is anti-censorship(but for giving women the right to sue misogynic material just as people can sue racists material).

Radical feminists is fighting power and the fact that you as an anarchist and therefore a socialist (or are you anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-nazi?) is attacking a non white woman who is speaking out against a multinational corporation owned by a millionaire(even without the racism and hatred against nonwhites, handicapped and working class people that they publish) is a bit hilarious.

Are you on the side of the bosses or the people ?

To let the rich do anything they want to is not something that Kropotkin would support. Not even Stirner would back that up. It is pure anarcho-capitalism and therefore lacking any class analysis.

If you did your homework then you would know that there is something called freedom under responsibility without that the actions of Emperor Nero would be viewed as anarchistic.

As Bakunin points out Socialism without anarchy is oppression and anarchy without socialism is unequal (or something like that if somebody would post the real quote below then it would be much appreciated).

So dont tell me what Anarchism is beacuse what you are talking about here is actualy more of neo liberalism.

If you don’t support Hustler then tell us what you have against them because this far you have not posted a single negative word against his fucked up capitalist empire.

It is hard for me to imagine an attack against the misogynic anti free-speech magazine Hustler that would be unfair after what they are doing and after the extreme levels they go to, to silence anyone who speaks against them.

Larry Flynt doesn’t need your help to defend himself by the way.

He has the police, the government and his millions of dollar that can do it for him.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 17 2005 22:33
Allysaundre wrote:

Well, as I have said I think that the structure of the argument lacks a decent analytic rigourousness here and I believe I have given a good grounding for that. Further I believe that the premises of radical feminism always will lack the required analytic rigourousness as they are fundamentally false. Of course, I would accept that it would be a good piece of writing if the form was better, regardless of what the argument was aiming to prove (just as one can admire the effort of Descartes's Meditations without commiting oneself to its conclusions). As to the basic point, I'm not entirely sure whether it is an attack on Flynt or as an advocation of gender feminism using the attack as a means to that.

If it was an attack on Flynt then, without a rational basis, it seems slanderous and possibly immoral. That would be a very serious claim to make and, looking on Wikipedia, Flynt seems to be compartively moral compared to some of his contemporaries. My scepticism concerning his moral character rests on the fact that he has compromised his moral position by not investing more of his wealth in moral ends (i.e. more funding to socially responsible causes). Although, he seems no worse in his moral character than most everyday people. Second, I have concern with what happened with his daughter but cannot but give him the benefit of the doubt from the information on Wikipedia. His daughter seems to have acted highly irrationally and shows signs of mental imbalance. Other than that, his moral character seems neither exemplary nor condemnable. Given all this, I really cannot agree with the basic point. Even though his past character is no solid proof of his innocence, it is all I can really go on here.

Be well,

Rob Mills

If you still have this opinions after reading all of the posts above then you are either having no heart or no brain. I sincerily hope that is not the case.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 23:23

Wendal - i think what people are against is the wording/style/politics of that article and the website, not the fact that Flynt is a cock-worm. Your post is a bit over the top in its accusations and assumptions... would urge you to rethink what u said, after reading slowly the other arguements.

Good post Revol btw... I agree with all that!

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 17 2005 23:52

Isnt Hustler like a really mainstream porn mag as well? Thats probably the wierdest bit... if thats the norm in magazines like that.. whats the less mainstream stuff like eek

The Porkadian
Offline
Joined: 27-07-05
Aug 17 2005 23:58

there is freedom of speech in america, I thought bush abolished that.

Jacques Roux's picture
Jacques Roux
Offline
Joined: 17-07-06
Aug 18 2005 01:47

I dont think there is more to it - he was just a paedo and a racist and he found his niche.

Nothing much on google which isnt from either his view or stuff like the catholic worker thing.

His bio does sound like shit..

Quote:
Dwaine's childhood was so humble that he and Donny had to fetch water from a nearby creek or the neighbors hose.

And this:

Quote:
He created Chester as Hustler's answer to Playboy's Granny, drawing a gray haired, overweight, middle-aged degenerate in green plaid pants who chased anything remotely sexual, particularly young girls. Dwaine named him Chester after Chester Gould, his childhood hero, and added "the Molester" because it rhymed and had the kind of catchiness that made it more memorable.

Oh yeah - because it "rhymed" roll eyes And thats all there was to it.

I dont think even his bio can brush over the dodgyness of those cartoons, and even if it does the noncing ones it ignores totally the fucked-up ness of the racist shit here.

Theres shit loads of crap to trawl thru at:

http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/comments/590/

Fucking hell Flynt is one ugly shit:

http://www.larryflynt.com/index.php

This page mentions how someone else involved with Hustler was also a paedo:

http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/act2.html

Shit would u look at the time

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 19 2005 09:15

On the issue of child porn in hustler. Check out this ad:

Warning realy fucking disturbing!

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/hustlervertical/Images/HustlerS310.jpg

I dont even know if this shit is legal.

It is of vital importance for Hustler that they are accepted and can be sold in normal stores not only in hardcore porn-dungeons. It would mean a lot for them if they where kicked out of the malestream. Therefore they need to alliance themselves with people as Greg Palast and look as defenders of the first amendment to get the support of as many liberals and leftists as they can possible afford to buy.

That is why it is vital to show them for what they realy are.

Which is what www.hustlingtheleft.com is doing.

Revol68>> It was a nice surprise to see that you take a stance against hustler. You can still surprise me. : )

What to do about prostitution? That trouble most be dealt with as all other forms of oppression through socialism a struggle for equality and a termination of the upper class(by any means necessarily).

When there is no inequality between sexes, skin-types and sexualities and we have no class of leeches to support then it will lead to the death of sexual slavery as a natural result and every step in that direction makes life easier for the people that are being exploited by creating hole in the fences to more of a life worth living as well as coming closer to the solution (if i was a naive Marxist i would say "the end of history").

I would prefer to leave the question if prostitution is sexual slavery or not unanswered since it has been debated here already with no sign of a conclusion or an evolution of the toughs of either side and i don’t have much hope of something like that happening if it will be brought up again.

Lets just agree on that if prostitution is slavery then it will die out when there is real and equal alternatives for survival for the people that are now prostitutes and if that is not the effect then it would mean either A) equality has not been reached or B) i was wrong and if there is an equality reached then any women can feel free to what she will with her body (even sell it or fill her lips with toxic) as a free choice, a word that has no meaning under capitalism, especially for the working class and those parts of the working class that are treated even worse(nonwhites, women, handicapped people and so on).

There is some things i could say about the page that you refer too but i choose to not do so since it would probably push the discussion way off topic.

rkn>> You have a point there and i was a bit divided when i read the post first by that bloke. If you look at it one way then it seems like he wants to give constructive critique to help the writer to evolve, but if you then watch his statements then it becomes more obvious that he is actually using traditions in English, spelling and rhetoric(some that are even false to show some persons perspective in its most extreme form has been a part of rhetorical debate even since the day of Socrates’). I think that he has personal reasons for defending Hustlers right to "free speech"(a right that seems to always demand the silencing of any critical voice especially the ones that he is targeting with his free speech as for example non-whites, it is rather survival of the fittest than free speech for all, a capitalist value in other words).

If he has been misunderstood then im willing to read his explanation. All i can see right now is an attack on a great writer for not living up to the bourgeoisie norms of debate which is more or less a defence of Larry Flynt who’s atrocities appear banal through his short and weak comment about him compared to his loooong critique against the critique against Hustler.

Where i read about Hustlers atempts to rape his daughters? From several sources(some of them links from the debate at Zmag). I am pretty sure that he even went on trial on at least on ocuasion and one of his daughters has wrote about the rape in her selfbiography. As a fat capitalist he was of coarse not found guilty. I am afriad to go into detail on it tough since i might mix up the trial against the Chester-writer from the time he raped his own daughter(seem to be something of a tradition on Larry FLynt Publications).

And about the perspective on sexual oppression from the females at the top of Hustler:

"...laughing and constantly smiling. They're typically Buddhists,

which may explain why they seem so peaceful, loving, and content."

Carolyn SInclair writing (June 2004 issue, "An American Woman in Thailand") on

why women sold into sexual slavery (at the ages of 9 and 10) in

Thailand are so happy about it.

"Come on over to Thailand. I'll buy you a whore!"

Carolyn Sinclair calling a LFP staffer from Thailand.

And another unrelated gem of enlightment from Carolyn:

"No one in Ireland has a career. I know this to be true."

Carolyn claiming Ireland has no professionals -- lawyers, doctors, or

engineers.

Jack>> The paedo priest hysteria ??? Do you have any knowledge of the amount of child-rape* inside the catholic priesthood? Or are you one of those people(like Mambla and some other queer-activists) that preach man-boy love relationships and so called "cross generational love relationships"(i.e. the rape and abuse by adult people of small kids) ? Sorry for being offensive but i would really like to know.

*= There a huge amount of rape of nuns also btw, so there has really been a tolerance against sexual atrocities inside the priesthood of the Catholic Church.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 19 2005 09:31
Quote:
Citat:

And what the hell are writing about radical feminism being authorian. Valerie Solana is anti-state. Andrea Dworkin is anti-censorship(but for giving women the right to sue misogynic material just as people can sue racists material).

The fact that you point to Valerie Solana and Andrea Dworkin makes me wonder if your trying to defend radical feminism or set it up as a strawperson.

Valerie Solana is clearly a fucking mentalist, whose SCUM manifesto is a an embarrasment that isn't fit for even 17 year old angsty riot grrrls, it's sub situationist rhetoric and complete lack of cogent argument places it on a par with Mein Kampf.

Andrea Dworkin has been taken apart so many times on libcom that it seems pointless to go through the motions again.

Seriously there is an interesting debate to be had on porn but the inherent moralising of most radical feminists, their smug pronouncements on peoples subjective sexualities and it's complete disregard and pathologising of the actual thoughts and experiances of women who don't share their world outlook means that we will need to move to more fertile approachs before it can begin.

Revol68>> I gave two examples of anti-authorianism by people who has been defined as radical feminists. Radical feminisms roots are usualy either anarchists or socialist but since the left usualy have a much bigger intrest of dealing with isues that harm men and look at women like if they were some sorts of minority women has(like black nationalists) been forced to organize on their own. When radical feminists fights for changes in the law the goal is usualy to create more freedom for women(as well as other groups) and remove some of the tools that can be used to opress women. It is not about ruling men(or women) it is about removing patriarchal despotism and thus rather anarchistic/socialistic than authorian. You must remember that we dont live under equal anarchy today and male supremacy and the effect it has had on the amount of power for woman and men in the state and the economy.

Is it Authorian to fight Apartheid?

Should we strive to make an end of the authorian rules that stop's Bosses from firing anyone who organizes in a union, in the name of anarchy?

I leave it there since i am much more intrested in hearing what you and other people here has to say on the issue of hustler.

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 19 2005 12:35

I marked som parts of the text that i think that most of you people on this page might find intresting.

Revol 68>>> I found this interview with Flynts Daughter where she talks about being raped by her father. I hope that you find it usuefull.

...........................................................................................................

Press Conference Protesting The People vs. Larry Flynt, New York.

January 7, 1997

Here is a Speech by Tonya Flynt at a feminist demonstration against the film about her pornographer / perpetrator father, Larry Flynt:

Taped, and transcribed by Melissa Farley Dec. 27, 1996.

"I want everybody to know that I'm not against free speech, I believe in it very much.That's why we all have the freedom to be out here tonight. But I don't think that's what this is all about. As a matter of fact, I'm sure it's not. I was involved in every aspect of my father's life. I was there during the times that this movie portrays. During the court hearings - I was there."

"His life is not about free speech. He could care less about whether or not we have the right to be out here. And I guarantee you that he doesn't want me out here speaking my mind and telling you the truth about what he did to me, and about what his life is really all about. As a matter of fact, he's threatened my life several times. He put a contract out on my life. He sexually abused me and my sister. He's a very violent man."

[in response to hecklers from the crowd] "It's not about censorship, it's not about free speech, it's about violence against women and what he really stands for. [applause] That's really what all of this is about: to tell you that too many people are violating women and children today.I know because I was a young child - I was violated.Very badly.And pornography was used in that violation.

He used the pornography to abuse me, saying that it was OK.He degraded me to the point where [he said]'You see Chester the Molester, you see what these women are doing,see it's OK, see how the young girls are enjoying their fathers.'That was the kind of thing that he did.He validated himself through the pornography."

"So please don't confuse the issue:it's not about free speech at all, it's about his treatment towards women.He's just covering it up and using the First Amendment as an excuse to violate women. It's not an excuse - he doesn't have that right.I'm opposed to him and that's why I'm here today."

[request from audience]"I've been asked to speak about the sexual abuse.I don't know how many of you - probably a lot - have been sexually abused as a child. It's very devastating.One out of three have been sexually abused. Someone inside had something negative to say when the cameras were on them but then they came to me in private and said 'you know, I was sexually abused, I can sympathize with what you are saying.'"

"You know,freedom of speech wasn't used when he was violating me.It was all about - 'you know, this is what children are doing with their fathers, this is OK.'I was a grieving child over it.It hurt me significantly.It hurt my mind.

I just hope everybody that goes and sees the movie realizes that free speech is not absolute.You can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theatre.And some of these things are for the good of people.It's not about free speech - it's about violence against women,being tied up and raped and tortured.A lot of people that don't use pornography don't know what it's really all about. If you look at a magazine today, you'll see the serious violations that are going on; what's keeping the depravity of the pedophiles and people out there that are committing these violent crimes against women and children."

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Aug 19 2005 17:31
Wendal wrote:
Jack>> The paedo priest hysteria ??? Do you have any knowledge of the amount of child-rape* inside the catholic priesthood?

confused

Wendal - you are all over the place here. You are systematically misunderstanding and distorting everybody's arguments on here - particularly Rob Mills, who you try to paint as a racist because the person who wrote the first article isn't white!

I don't care what colour she - or anyone else - is. Larry Flynt's patently a dick. That first article is hysterical shite.

I would like to know if that cartoon was still in the mag...

Wendal
Offline
Joined: 4-11-04
Aug 19 2005 20:16
John. wrote:
Wendal wrote:
Jack>> The paedo priest hysteria ??? Do you have any knowledge of the amount of child-rape* inside the catholic priesthood?

confused

Wendal - you are all over the place here. You are systematically misunderstanding and distorting everybody's arguments on here - particularly Rob Mills, who you try to paint as a racist because the person who wrote the first article isn't white!

I don't care what colour she - or anyone else - is. Larry Flynt's patently a dick. That first article is hysterical shite.

I would like to know if that cartoon was still in the mag...

As you could see later in my post, i asked him if understood him right since i sincerily want to now that cuz if he meant what he appeared to mean with calling that a "hysteria" then it is realy fucked.

My point is in no way to call him racist. I have no intrest in playing dirty or trying to win some debate with some sort of smear-campaign.

What i wanted to point out is that he is on no basics at all that the non-white feminist woman who wrote the article might be a nazi and to show how much sense his statement made i pointed out that it would be more logical(but in no way logical or in any way legitimate) to call him a nazi since there ARE nazi anarchists but realy few non white women who are Nazi's since nazism is anti-women anti-feminist and and anti anyone who is not white. This post is meant both for him and you.