Home » Z Blogs » Noam Chomsky's Blog » Hustler Interview Context

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.

Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.

Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky
Bio: (More)

All Chomsky Blogs

Recent Chomsky Content

ZNet Articles

ZMag Articles

ZCommentaries

ZAudios

ZVideos

Blog Posts

Books

ZStores

Hustler Interview Context

By Noam Chomsky at Jul 12, 2005

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version

Change Text Size a- | A+

Noam, can you tell folks how it came about that you have an interview in Hustler and your feeings about it being there? I give 100s of interviews. I received a letter from someone named Sinclair, requesting an interview for a journal that she described as "the most politically progressive, outspoken entertainment magazine today. We regularly feature exposés and articles from such writers as Pulitzer Prize winner David Cay Johnston; Greg Palast, the BBC reporter who broke the 2000 Election scandal in Florida; and Susie Bright, the famed feminist, author and activist. In the last year, we've exposed war profiteers, the Bush/Saudi royal family connections, election fraud, a nuclear waste cover-up scandal in Colorado, and the dirty secrets of the beef industry." I had never heard of the journal, but that is normal. I wrote the usual form response asking her to contact my office to see if she could arrange an interview. There apparently was an interview, routine I suppose. I don't remember anything about it. That's the last I heard. I never got a transcript to look at, as is the normal procedure, so I assumed they had dropped the plan. When I was informed that Hustler was planning to publish something -- what, I do not know, since they never contacted me with their proposed version -- and was told what the journal was, I had a letter sent to Sinclair insisting that they withdraw whatever they are planning to publish because they had completely misrepresented themselves, and also making it clear that I never would have agreed if I had known what the journal was; and that aside, they were not authorized to publish anything. There was no response. That completes the series of events. Of course, it is inconceivable to carry out investigations of the innumerable journals, radio programs, documentary producers, etc., that ask for interviews. Sometimes that naturally leads to errors. For example, very recently, I had an interview with a leading neo-Nazi journal in Germany that I'd never heard of, and that had presented itself to me as a mainstream journal of political affairs. Neo-Nazism, needless to say, is no small matter, particularly in Germany. They did send me a transcript to edit, in the normal fashion. When the interview appeared, I received a number of letters from people in Germany who were quite surprised. I described the facts, and that ended the matter. As to how I felt about being misled in this way by a disgusting journal, the answer is: exactly as in the case of the neo-Nazi journal. Naturally one tries to avoid such travesties, but they are an inevitable consequence of trying to be as available as possible to inquiries -- while, of course, lacking the time and resources to carry out investigations beforehand for very frequent interviews. I should add, perhaps, that like all of us, I sometimes agree to interviews, even to publication, in journals that have an utter hideous role and record. I trust it is not necessary to give examples, or to explain why.

Comment On This Blog Post See All Comments (400)

Need for rape videos

By Anonymous, Anonymous at Jan 07, 2007 17:33 PM

There are men too that fanticise about being raped and enjoy seeing such depicted. It helps them releave sexual needs by masturbation. This is the start of censorship and eventual elimination of all sexual material by the prudish minority. We must fight this attempt to constrict and limit sexual knowledge.

Reply this comment

why do you fear violence?

quit pretending this is about women's oppression. It's about aesthetics & class. Hustler is gross, and lower class rednecks read it Almost all humans seek higher status in the social hierarchy. THe media and other institutions tell them to attain higher status by believing certain ideas. The elite of society control these institutions; therefore those ideas that identify HIGH status humans are just those ideas that FAVOR the elite. There are really two ways to be a holder of high status ideas: 1) hold high status ECONOMIC ideas, or 2) hold high status SOCIAL ideas. 1) High status economic ideas: certain ideas are "sacred": neoliberalism is sacred, free trade, globalism, low taxes, low govt regulation: all sacred, other individualistic ideas about how all things darwinian/randian are good, communism is bad, etc. 2) High status social ideas: sacred ideas include the following: dark skin good, white skin bad; identity politics == good; gays sacred; redneck are low class, and so is male sexuality; the holocaust is sacred; feminism is sacred; immigrants are sacred, THe One True Journalism is sacred, etc. Adopting either set of sacred ideas gives you a shot at "high status". Or at least it is necessary, but perhaps not sufficient. All of the ideas above in both categories favor the elite, econonically. This forum is filled with people who seek to acquire high social status by adhering to idea set #2.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Jul 30, 2005 09:21 AM

While he took exception to the interview, he went into it with his eyes open and felt no need to explain how he ended up in such a terrible and evil publication. So what's the lesson here, that lying a country into a war that has probably claimed over 100,000 lives is morally superior to pics of five guys jizzing on one consenting and compensated female? That a paper which endorsed the attempted toppling of Venezuela's democratically elected leader or that shows flagrant anti-Arab bias in its reporting and punditry, is better than one that publishes the occasional anti-Semitic cartoon? Someone else correctly said that Madison Avenue and Hollywood are equally abusive of women and with far greater impact. But, again, I'd doubt if anyone would mind Noam showing up in any of a hundred widely-read women's mags which telegraph on behalf of Corporate America the fundamental inadequacy of their readers' hair, skin, complexion, clothes and figure. And appearing in Hustler doesn't endorse the subjugation of women any more than appearing the Times endorses the War in Iraq but it most certainly reaches a readership that should get acquainted with Chomsky and very likely won't otherwise. Please. Let's quit pretending this is really about women's oppression. It's about aesthetics and class. Hustler is just, well, gross, and lower class rednecks read it. End of story.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Mm2594, Impendingexpat at Jul 30, 2005 08:55 AM

I think the most cogent thing I read in all of this was an immediately-ignored comment that most leftists would consider it a good thing were Chomsky to be featured in the Wall Street Journal. I'm pretty sure they'd feel the same way about Chomsky featuring prominently in the Times, too, even though, largely through the work of Chomsky and his ilk, we know the New York Times is a long-time aider and abettor (sp?) of racist war, generally contemptuous of democracy, an enthusastic promoter of 'Free Trade' and all the other things Big Capital and Big Empire require of Big Media. Indeed, Chomsky made himself available to the Grey Lady not too long ago for a silly 10 questions thing, where he was ridiculed with belittling questions (Why do we have so many words for genitals, Noam?) and implicitly accused of being a self-hating jew. cont'd

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Friesen, Don at Jul 30, 2005 06:36 AM

I can really sense the love here... I just had an annoying discussion with my boss about Iraq and how he thinks if a person (he meant muslim, cuz he clarified) were to blow up some people in new york city, again, the military would go after not just the terrorists but their families, friends, etc. I said that that was already happenning...that historically, 90% of casualties in any war are civilians. This angered my boss...and so it went, on and on. Why am I posting this here? Well, I feel people on this thread have touched a nerve at the core of some very complex issues. Problem is, most people in this discussion mean well, I think. People are being really quite rude towards others that they most likely have a lot in common with. And share similar passionate and sincere concerns. On the other hand, the discussion with my boss was very similar in tone, and we have almost no philosophical connection, but he pays me(for making him money). I guess I'm saying that trying to get people like my boss to have a wider view of this world is quite important. But he likes porn...so he's already a lost case...too bad.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 30, 2005 02:16 AM

cryofan wrote "I assume that you have googled my username and found that I am a cryonicist and have a contract to preserve my brain after death, hopefully to live again in the distant future. It appears that you prefer that I remain dead upon legal death, then...." You apparently take yourself *very* seriously, and are in a far different class than where I come from. I don't even have health care. No I didn't do an internet search. I got it out of my dossier on you. ;-) No, maybe you forgot, but you were talking about it earlier and I assumed it. Maybe you didn't notice your screen name reveals it? Death after death? It's about all my little female anti pornography brain can deal with in this time and space. I'm not thoroughly convinced the human race deserves to survive at all, much less by these means. About you specifically? Let's just say if there's a choice to be made, rather than the ideas you've expressed on this blog--and the hateful way you have expressed them--I personally would rather somebody's poodle take your place for thawing out 400 years from now. Preserving your mind in my opinion seems a waste of resources, but maybe you'll surprise me. Nikki Craft http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 23:04 PM

Hey Cryofan, I don't thnk cryonics will ever be included in universial health care.. Do you really have a contract to preserve your brain? Wow..Sounds like futurama..Though I wouldn't want to be resurrected 1000 yrs from now and have my head put in a jar in some zoo beside Koko the talking gorilla. I don't mean to be rude but your position here is untenable. Would you support the KKK because it is a white working class organization? You may well be able to persuade them the merits of universal health care. If a few black fellows get beaten up by the white working class clansmen they can get medical treatment free of charge because of medicare. That is a nice trade off, isn't it? I am sure you don't realize it but this is the logical conclusion of your argument. I visited your blog and found that you actually have lots of useful and insightful things to say on the economical front. Instead of arguing a ridiculous position here why don't you take on some real right wingers on the other znet blogs? There are at least two rightwing trolls around picking fight.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 29, 2005 21:23 PM

haha. bwong thanks for your posts of late. I really appreciate the thought process you are going through and admittng to it along the way. Maybe we'll want to save your brain after all, but cryofan's should be, upon his death, quickly flushed down the toilet. Those ideas aren't at all worth preserving. I assume that you have googled my username and found that I am a cryonicist and have a contract to preserve my brain after death, hopefully to live again in the distant future. It appears that you prefer that I remain dead upon legal death, then....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 20:22 PM

cryofan wrote: What more PERFECT programming strategy could have been adopted by the elite than what we have in evidence right here? To program left activists to HATE all things white, in a country where whites are 65-70% of the population?! My reply: So you believe misogyny, racism and pediophillia are "white values" that should be retained? Since you're also including the Left as part of this conspiracy to destroy these "white values," then you must be including the Right as part of those who support violent porngraphy and its depiction of the "white values" of misogyny, racism and pediophillia . cryofan wrote: To associate leftism with hatred for middle/lower class whites, in a country where middle/lower class whites are by far the largest bloc? What a PERFECT strategy! My reply: Your hatreds are apparent. We speak out against violence aimed at women, ethnic minorities and children...and that makes us anti-white, anti-middle and lower class. I resent your accusation that white middle and lower class people are misogynist, racist and pro-pediophilia. The depth of your hatred of white, middle and lower class people is apparent, as is your support for violent pornography that promotes hatred of women, children, and minorities. You're exactly the kind of person that makes my activism necessary.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 29, 2005 17:24 PM

bwong wrote: "What a shocker when I found out Flynt doesn't look like Woody Harrison at all!" haha. bwong thanks for your posts of late. I really appreciate the thought process you are going through and admittng to it along the way. Maybe we'll want to save your brain after all, but cryofan's should be, upon his death, quickly flushed down the toilet. Those ideas aren't at all worth preserving. Yes you are right, Flynt does portray women as dirty, and that is definitely anti-sex, but the hatred of women exposes him as a male supremacist and not a puritan. It's not progressive to support those values. There's more and more pornographers using violent subordination. How long do you think the corporations and consumers are going to be satisfied with simple f*cking? It doesn't work that way. The limits are there to push. Do a search on the rape sites on the internet. There's probably thousands of them. Before you continue to give a carte blanche nod to pornography you might want to look into that. You aren't being a discriminating as you should be and you shouldn't be trusting the corporations turning out this stuff any more than you trust Exxon to do the right thing. When did you ever find any company on mainstream media that could get across body positive messages? Why do you think the pornographers are going to be any better at it? Nikki Craft http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 17:00 PM

"The movie focuses not on pornography but on free speech.." Niki What a shocker when I found out Flynt doesn't look like Woody Harrison at all! Freedom of speech and expression is a noble cause but it is also true that people with intention of making nasty speeches have a vested interest in defending freedom of speech. The fact that they stand up for a worthy cause doesn't make their messages less nasty. I have no problem with pornography per se, WR and I have gone through that many times and I would want to leave it as that. But the way Flynt uses pornographic images to degrade and humiliate his opponents(usually female) and other groups (blacks, Jews, batterd women, gays, etc) has little to do with pornograhy and sexuality.It has a sexual dimension but basically it is political.(Admittedly even "normal" porns have a political dimension but they are mostly sexual) It is interesting that Hustler uses sexualized images as a tool to insult. That reveals a lot about how they percieve sexuality: it is a dirty and degrading thing that you can use as a weapon to insult your enemies. It is exactly opposite to any "sex positive" message they claim to forster. Actually, in Flynt's head sex is associated with filth and degradation. He has a lot in common with the anti-sex Puritans deep down.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 29, 2005 16:42 PM

What more PERFECT programming strategy could have been adopted by the elite than what we have in evidence right here? To program left activists to HATE all things white, in a country where whites are 65-70% of the population?! To associate leftism with hatred for middle/lower class whites, in a country where middle/lower class whites are by far the largest bloc? What a PERFECT strategy! The poliitical tactics of the elite are like some sort of evolved animal, where it has adapted perfectly to its environment, where its every physical attribute is suited to some survival strategy....a thing of terrible beauty. You are their perfect tools, like terminator robots sent out into the political world, on a mission to associate leftism with JUST the right ideas that would cause the lower middle class whites to turn from leftism. "Sarah Conner?" If only I could somehow convince you all to embrace rightwing economic ideals (instead of leftwing economic ideals), while still holding onto your white-middle/lower-class-hating social ideals. Reprogramming the Programmed! Turning you against your masters! What perfect carnage!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 16:36 PM

"I specifically mentioned in that post how that reaction does not represent the typical reaction of the Muslim community.." Prokurkus, You did issue a disclaimer. But you went on arguing as if "muslims" celebrating 9/11 was widespread. Otherwise I don't see your point of bringing it up over and over again as if this behavour of a small minority of "Muslims",--which you admitted,-has any significant for the WIDESPREAD abuses (of even non muslims minorities!) in post 9/11 America. That leads me to suspect maybe you made your disclaimer only to cover yourself and you didn't really mean it. BTW, if, as you insisted, Bogado never mentioned, and hadn't alluded to "white males" beating up Muslims how is her statement racist??!! It is a FACT that white males didn't suffer any post 9/11 backlash. But, as noted, your attempted critique of her "racism" is much more clearly and unequivocally racist. Cryofan, What "truth" hurts? That you have eggs all over your face?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 29, 2005 16:18 PM

truth hurts, huh?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 29, 2005 16:11 PM

Cryofan, I don't see how you can say it is over reaction to condemn BLATANTLY racist and misogynist images such as those depicted in Hustler. You can have health care, education and concetration camps for minorities at the same time. You can have a socialist economy where gays still get beaten up and women still endure second class status. I agree one should talk about "intersection" of race, gender and class as oppose to navel gazing identity politics,but that is not the same as forgetting everything else but economics. Basically you say we should shut up so you can build your "socialist" paradise on the back of women and minorities.Implicit is the assumption that this is still a straight white male country. What difference does it make to us who are not straight white males whether they adopt socialism or capitalism if either way we are screwed? You remind me of the Bosheviks who said the position of women in the revolution is on their backs. I thought the left has evolved.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 15:41 PM

cryofan wrote: you and Aurora Bogusado and other deeply-programmed identity-politics leftists need to realize that focusing on things like the above is just wasteful political activism, and more specifically, in this case, looking out for and protecting Jewish interests is the LAST thing that needs to be done in this country. Here you are worrying about swastikas!? Could you BE any more irrelevant?! If you wanna really change anything about America, how about looking for more important things, more TIMELY things, like maybe things that affect the white working class majority, and ALL working class Americans, like oh maybe umm....UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE???? My reply: The misogynists and racists are really crawling out of the holes now, aren't they? Why worry about a little racist hate when the "white" needs are so badly neglected? Who gives a damn about women being raped, tortured and murdered when men are being victimized because their "healthy sexual activities" like rape and molestation are being named as perverse violence?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 29, 2005 15:23 PM

Oh and then the one about the funny little Jewish girl with the Star of David necklace. "Chester the Molester" with a swastika on his sleeve, holding a bat in the air and using a dollar bill on a stick to lure the little girl. The girls mom looks on smiling as she runs along trying to get the dollar. You know what Jews are like. They want that dollar. And Chester laughs with the bat ready to beat her over the head with it. Well, it doesn't sound real good. But then again, you and Aurora Bogusado and other deeply-programmed identity-politics leftists need to realize that focusing on things like the above is just wasteful political activism, and more specifically, in this case, looking out for and protecting Jewish interests is the LAST thing that needs to be done in this country. In the name of the sweet two-fisted Jesus, Jews can look out for themselves! No one can do it better! And I say this as someone who has lived with and worked with jews for many years. Hell, I even worked part-time at a Holocaust museum. Here you are worrying about swastikas!? Could you BE any more irrelevant?! You simply SCREAM of mass media programming. Talk about generals who are always fighting the LAST war.... If you wanna really change anything about America, how about looking for more important things, more TIMELY things, like maybe things that affect the white working class majority, and ALL working class Americans, like oh maybe umm....UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE????

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 29, 2005 14:57 PM

In his fantasies Prokerkus just wishes he had so much entitlement to victimhood. Him fantacizing about violent acts to a black woman, no matter what her position (and I hate Rice, too) is way different than a victim of rape fantacizing about retaliation against the man who attacked her. Nikki Craft, http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 14:47 PM

Prokerkus wrote: And tell them to arrest people for committing the offense of dancing? The ACLU would love to hear that one! A lot of people have been arrested for less. Protestors are routinely arrested for doing nothing more than sitting down. My sister's boyfriend was arrested because he drove her new Camaro in Beverly Hills–despite the fact that they called her at work and verified he had permission to be using her car. He was black. I doubt he would even have been stopped if he was white. He certainly wouldn't have been arrested. But your assumption that the only action police take is arrest is telling. You don't know much about police tactics. Prokerkus wrote: Here is what you said:"Perhaps you didn't hear about the white men assaulting Muslims in retaliation," To which I responded: "Speaking of assumptions - Why do you assume that it was only white men that assaulted Muslims? My reply: Because that is what was in the media reports. Again, just like with Bogado, you take one statement and try to use it in a context that wasn't there. She a racist, per you, and bwong and I believe only white men are racist, per you, based on nothing at all. You're the only one posting racist statements. You're also the only one justifying violence, both on the pages of Hustler and in real life.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 14:23 PM

Prokerkus wrote: The statistics you gave detailing the violence against women. I said that I doubted that you knew any of the offending men that had committed these acts personally. You're wrong. I've known men who have raped, battered and killed. I've known women and other men who were their victims. None of them are "just statistics." Prokerkus wrote: And tell them to arrest people for committing the offense of dancing? The ACLU would love to hear that one! Anyway, I think you're lying. Anyone that sees a picture of someone they knew getting murdered and then see people celebrating it and not even have a THOUGHT of committing a violent act against them?? My reply: The violence against Muslims and others (as bwong mentioned) that occurred was not a mere "thought." Those were actual atrocities committed on innocent people. I don't see you mourning those victims. I also don't see you mourning the women who are the victims in the stats I posted. Instead, you try change the focus to the men who committed those atrocities, implying they are also victims. Friends of mine have been raped, battered and murdered. I saw pictures. I also saw them. I've seen their unapologetic rapists, abusers and murderers. I never thought about retaliating. I left it to the police. I don't care if you believe it or not. I guess you can't envision anyone who doesn't practice violence.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 29, 2005 10:54 AM

Pokerpus wrote: "Badago" it's Bogado.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 29, 2005 10:44 AM

"Who is just statistics?" The statistics you gave detailing the violence against women. I said that I doubted that you knew any of the offending men that had committed these acts personally. "No. I would call the police and let them handle it. " And tell them to arrest people for committing the offense of dancing? The ACLU would love to hear that one! Anyway, I think you're lying. Anyone that sees a picture of someone they knew getting murdered and then see people celebrating it and not even have a THOUGHT of committing a violent act against them?? Come on. "Where did bwong or myself say only white men could be racist? " I quoted it before but I guess I'll do it again. Here is what you said:"Perhaps you didn't hear about the white men assaulting Muslims in retaliation," To which I responded: "Speaking of assumptions - Why do you assume that it was only white men that assaulted Muslims? Why can't they be black, Hispanic or Asian? Why must they be men at all? Because white men are evil and necessarily must be the bad guys?"

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 29, 2005 10:15 AM

"Actually I said Bodago's statement can be interpreted differently and it may or may not be racist. Please read my post carefully again." I did read your post carefully the first time, you gave the impression that it could be racist or could not be, I did not think that was in dispute. "If it wasn't about Muslim why did you say muslims dancing in the street after 9/11? " Because WildRider was trying to connect Badago's comment (OK to be a white male...) with racism against Muslims even though Badago never mentions this herself. Despite going off topic, I thought I'd add a few of my own personal experiences on why perhaps those events happened. But WildRider was the one who brought it up. I have asked numerous times for her to establish the connection between Muslims violence and Badago's statement. So far it has been unanswered. "You take one or two isolated instances and generalize to suggest that was the typical pattern hence all muslims were fair game." Wrong. I specifically mentioned in that post how that reaction does not represent the typical reaction of the Muslim community. Here is my exact quote: "I'm NOT saying this represents the general Muslim response to 911" (caps added)

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 29, 2005 03:06 AM

btw, If I'm not mistaken, most of the quotes using the misspelling result for Aura Bogado's last name begin with Prokerkus. He's obviously spend a great deal of time, errr, examining the pornography issue and most likely Hustler, from all he says and knows. I find it highly unlikely that he truly considered Aura Bogado's side of things too seriously otherwise he would have come away from Hustling the Left knowing more than how to articulate Hustler's every sordid defenses for all the unethical acts they commit.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 29, 2005 02:44 AM

Everybody is writing, and quoting--me too--saying "Badogo". It's BoGADO. Let's spell it right. This is a fabulous young activist and she deserves our respect and enough care to do that. Thanks! Nikki Craft http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 02:26 AM

Prokerkus wrote: But the thing is, what's hateful to hardcore feminists and what healthy, sexually active American men think is just crude or vulgar, can be a very fine line to cross. My reply: So you think that a healthy sex drive in American men centers around stalking, kidnap, rape, molestation, and other violent predatory behavior? Prokerkus wrote: The point though, is that in our wonderful country this is covered under our 1st Amendment. Just watch the movie "People vs Larry Flynt" http://faculty.washington.edu/baldasty/jan20.htm People v. Larry Flynt. 1996. How do you make a movie about a porn king? Hustler included examples of violence and sexual violence against women (dead women, beaten women, women in chains, etc.). The movie focuses not on pornography but on free speech. First Amendment issues stressed; Flynt's opponents shown as bigoted, narrow minded Puritanical public officials. Feminist protests about Flynt empire ignored. Scriptwriters: the intellectual arguments of feminists are less cinematic than the idea of government putting you in jail. So there's an emphasis on Flynt versus the government, with Flynt the hero standing up for free speech against narrow minded public officials. Ads included a picture of Woody Harrelson (playing Flynt) with his mouth gagged. Early reviews were good, but a backlash set up -- primarily from people who didn't like the porn that Flynt's empire produces.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 29, 2005 01:58 AM

Prokerkus wrote: Now you're changing the subject completely and ignoring many of the questions I asked you. No, I'm not. Violence against women is why we're protesting Hustler. That goes on all day, every day, both before and after 9/11. You're trying to change the subject by claiming Badogo is a racist. She isn't the focus. She isn't the one publishing a monthly magazine that is racist, misogynic and pro-pediophilia. She isn't the one raking in millions by harming others while claiming to be a progressive free-speech hero. Prokerkus wrote: Because to you they're just statistics, I doubt you know any of these men personally. Who is just statistics? What men? Are you claiming that only men died in the terrorist attacks or that only the men's deaths were important? Prokerkus wrote: Furthermore, if a group of men were dancing in the streets outside your house upon hearing that someone you KNEW and loved was raped and murdered, you wouldn't be tempted in the slightest to take some physical action towards them? No. I would call the police and let them handle it. Prokerkus wrote: Why do you (and WildRider and Bodago) assume that only white men can be racist or are the only ones that can take action against Muslims? Where did bwong or myself say only white men could be racist?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 28, 2005 20:02 PM

"if a group of men were dancing in the streets outside your house upon hearing that someone you KNEW and loved was raped and murdered, you wouldn't be tempted in the slightest to take some physical action towards them? " By your logic any Iraqi seeing the jingoistic, cheerleading coverage of shock and awe by CNN or Fox should be excused for taking some "physical actions" against any American. I know there were rednecks bars where patrons watched the war on big screen sport TV. Every time a bomb dropped they cheered and applaused. Based on your insight perhaps we shouldn't be too upset if some "Muslim" who saw his country destroyed and his coutrymen slaughtered for sport decided to place bombs in the bars? BTW, what I described was much more widespread than "muslims dancing in the street" after 9/11 and it was almost patriotic to do that. I know that happened often in Canada, one can only imagine what it was like in the U.S.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 28, 2005 19:41 PM

"the numbers don't make sense: How could 93% of the readers make over 50,000 yet the median be only slightly more than 50K?" Prokerkus You did you math wrong. The numbers say only 50.7% make $50,000 OR MORE(hence 50,000*+*)Not 93%. 26% make $75,000 or more means 50.7%-26% = 24.7% makes BETWEEN $50,000 and $75,000 ; and only 26%-15.9% = 10.1% make BETWEEN $75,000 and $100,000. BY ADDING all the percentages you overcounted by including the catagory between 75,000 and 10,000 TWICE and the catagory of more than 100,000 THREE TIMES. The reported median is correct given the data. "I think the statement is racist. Why do you assume that only white men can be racist or ..Where does Bodago establish that she is referring to violence against Muslims? " No, I didn't assume anything. Actually I said Bodago's statement can be interpreted differently and it may or may not be racist. Please read my post carefully again. If it wasn't about Muslim why did you say muslims dancing in the street after 9/11? And that is way more racist than Bodago's vague statement. You take one or two isolated instances and generalize to suggest that was the typical pattern hence all muslims were fair game. You didn't put it so crudely but it was clear in the way you excused the hooligans by insinuating a signifcant number of violent blacklash were brought on by the Muslims themselves.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 28, 2005 18:26 PM

"$50,000+50.7% $75,000+26.0% $100,000+15.9% MEDIAN$50,571" I do think Playboy and Hustler are different but even with your Playboy statistics, the numbers don't make sense: How could 93% of the readers make over 50,000 yet the median be only slightly more than 50K? "My reply: 3,030 people died in the September 11, 2001.. This carnage is dwarfed by the victims of violence against women" Now you're changing the subject completely and ignoring many of the questions I asked you. The topic in which I mentioned 911 was Badogo's racist statement that in was "OK to be a white male" She does mention ANYTHING about Muslims. I also notice that she does not elaborate on her comment in any of the other exchanges nor does she respond in either of her two articles on Zmag. "I'm angry enough to do something about these cultural terrorists... I don't retaliate with more violence though. " Because to you they're just statistics, I doubt you know any of these men personally. Furthermore, if a group of men were dancing in the streets outside your house upon hearing that someone you KNEW and loved was raped and murdered, you wouldn't be tempted in the slightest to take some physical action towards them? Bwong - I think the statement is racist. Why do you (and WildRider and Bodago) assume that only white men can be racist or are the only ones that can take action against Muslims? Where does Bodago establish that she is referring to violence against Muslims?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 28, 2005 07:14 AM

I do not oppose to having Fylnt as an strategic ally on some specific issues in fighting the Bush white house and his fundamentalist cohorts. But we shouldn't spin Flynt as a "progressive", which he clearly is not. Pat Buchanan may play a useful role in the anti globalization campaign. But that shouldn't make him an instant hero for the anti-globalization camp. He is still the same bigot/idiot he is even though in this instance he has a shared goal with the left(at least in some limited way) The tactical question of "brodadening the camp" raised by some is a valid one. But even from a purly pramagtic standpoint it is unwise to get too cozy with a scum bag like Flynt.Close association with such a person provides a lot of ammunitions for your enemy and alienates a lot of your friends. It may not always be a bad idea to be interviewed in Hustler. That depends on the context and what one hopes to achieve. You want to reach certain audience yet you don't want to appear as endorsing Flynt's bogus progressive credential. This is a fine line. There is a difference between Hustler and other media outlets. Other corportaions don't pretend to be progressive. Chomsky can publish in the NYT without running the risk of legitimizing it. It is a neutral forum. Not so with Hustler.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 28, 2005 07:10 AM

bwong: "BTW, according to the email exchange posted by Prokerkus none other than Robert Jensen was interviewed by Hustler for his opinions on pornography and censorship. That would be rather odd if Flynt does not believe in free speech, no matter how self serving the reason may be. This also raises the question why Jensen was not condemned for doing the interview by the same people who fault Chomsky for an oversight?" We don't know how the interview was handled, and there's a whole story to how that interview came about, however realize this: An anti pornography activist doing as committed as Robert Jensen is doing an interview in a pornographic magazine and articulating his critique of the sexxxism industry along with his analysis around race and class and the war is HUGELY different than some leftie using a magazine that's has declared a war against women to further their critique of the war in Iraq without mentioning sexxxism.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 28, 2005 06:17 AM

bwong wrote: BTW, according to the email exchange posted by Prokerkus none other than Robert Jensen was interviewed by Hustler for his opinions on pornography and censorship....This also raises the question why Jensen was not condemned for doing the interview by the same people who fault Chomsky for an oversight? I must have missed that. I'll go back and reread. If he was published there, I'd like to know which issue and/or see the article.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 28, 2005 04:19 AM

"Larry Flynt is not for free speech. When Aura Bogado tried to speak he worked for a YEAR in Hustler to intimidate her into silence." I tend to agree that Flynt is a sleaze bag but I think words like "intimidation" and "silencing" are used a bit too freely. If Flynt tried to use his influence to shut down the radio station or get Bogado fired I agree that he was trying to deny her right to free speech. But insulting her with a cartoon, however bad taste it was, is not the same. No one, including Flynt imagined Bogado would shut up voluntarily because of a crude insult. It just reflected badly on Flynt himself. I agree the depiction is crude and disgusting and insulting your opponent is not a good form in debate. But I don't think this is an instance of Flynt attempting to censor opposite opinions. In the same way I don't think the cartoon depicting Ann Coulter being anally raped by the donkey was meant to shut her up. She has quite a big soap box and powerful backers of her own. BTW, according to the email exchange posted by Prokerkus none other than Robert Jensen was interviewed by Hustler for his opinions on pornography and censorship. That would be rather odd if Flynt does not believe in free speech, no matter how self serving the reason may be. This also raises the question why Jensen was not condemned for doing the interview by the same people who fault Chomsky for an oversight?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 28, 2005 04:09 AM

cryofan wrote: victimology, identity politics? It's time has come and gone. Abandon it, now! My reply: I'll stop talking about victims and their rights when there are no more victims. Silence only benefits the abusers. Bwong: I can't believe we're actually agreeing. Your last two posts are great. Thanks for speaking out.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 28, 2005 03:46 AM

'Badago's racism came from stating that in the post 911 world "It was OK to be a white male" ' Prokerkus Her statement can be interpreted in different ways. She might be simply saying that "white males" didn't suffer any backlash like other minorities(not just "Muslims" btw, see below)In that case it is not racist. On the other hand, she might be insinuating "white males" are beating up "Muslims" thus lumping all the rednecks under the blanket "white male". In that case the statement is inflamatory, if not outright racist.It is like saying the Muslims bombed the towers as if being muslim is the only defining attribute of the 9/11 terrorists. Unfortunately in an attempt to critique Badago you feel the need to defend the racist backlash against muslims. Your post reinforces the "us" v.s "them" mentality after 9/11. I am sure you're against roughing up "Muslims" just because of their religion your post leaves no doubt that you consider them aliens. I'm sure there were Muslims killed in the towers too. Your excuse for the hooligans is appalling. I wonder how many picked up the base ball bat because they saw "Muslims" dancing in the street. Even Hindus and Chinese got beaten apparantly for 9/11. I heard nervous Chinese Americans flying the American flags to prove their loyality. At least for some people, 9/11 was just a convenient excuse to act out their racist urge.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 28, 2005 02:53 AM

from www.theonion.com WASHINGTON, DC—A coalition of extraterrestrials representing some two trillion lifeforms across the five major planetary confederations descended on Earth Monday to speak out against "the demeaning, degrading and hurtful portrayals" of aliens in the planet's media. "Attention! People of Earth!" said Gnortakk, Son Of K'Tzazzghn, spokesbeing for Extraterrestrials For Media Equity. "The preponderance of stereotypical and condemnatory images of non-Earth species in your films, TV programs, books and video games can no longer be tolerated." "For years, we have endured your planet's depiction of aliens as either ruthless, tyrannical conquerors or bumbling, ineffectual, 'comic relief' creatures," Aegon, Fifth Of The Five, said. "It's high time humanoids presented positive, realistic images of aliens going about their everyday lives." Presenting a montage of clips from such Hollywood fare as Independence Day, Mars Attacks!, Species, Men In Black, Sphere, and the Alien trilogy, Aegon noted that the films' extraterrestrials are portrayed as "ruthless, arbitrary murderers, bent on destroying the human race." ///////// victimology, identity politics? It's time has come and gone. Abandon it, now!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 28, 2005 02:48 AM

Prokerkus wrote: if you knew someone in those 2 towers and then looked out your window and saw people dancing in the streets, I'm sure you wouldn't like that very much either. My reply: 3,030 people died in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, 2,801 more were injured. This carnage is dwarfed by the victims of violence against women: “Every two minutes, somewhere in America, someone is sexually assaulted. According to the US Department of Justice's National Crime Victimization Survey, there were a total of 247,730 sexual assaults in 2002 (the most recent data available). Of the estimated 247,730 violent sex crimes in 2002, 87,000 were completed rapes. That comes out to one rape every 362 seconds or so, or about one rape every six minutes.” http://www.rainn.org/every2minutes.html Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (CDC 2003). Nearly 25% of women have been raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner at some point in their lives, and more than 40% of the women who experience partner rapes and physical assaults sustain a physical injury (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000b). http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm I'm angry enough to do something about these cultural terrorists who practice violence against women as a "right" of male privilege. I don't retaliate with more violence though.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 28, 2005 02:22 AM

Prokerkus wrote: Praising Barnes & Nobles for having Noam Chomsky books is also silly, they aren't in business to spread anarchist propaganda. Praising Loews Theatres for having a Michael Moore movie is just silly; they aren't in business to spread progressive viewpoints. My reply: But they are in the business of selling books and showing movies. They don't care about the content. They care about profits. You're praising Flynt for being anti-corporate when he is the poster boy for corporate greed. Here's what his daughter has to say about him: http://www.dullesnow.org/porn.html Dirty Money -- Porn 500 Flynt's daughter, Tonya Flynt, [is] concerned. Growing up with the sultan of porn as her father, Flynt experienced the devastating effects of the porn industry and the rapacity with which her father pursued it. She recalls the day he took her into his office, opened a briefcase full of money and said: "Tonya, that's power. That's what I care about." She says, "He always tried to hide behind the First Amendment and free speech," but it was only to hide business interests in the seedy world of porn. "I'm not sure if the Fortune 500 companies really understand what they're advocating," Tonya Flynt says, "or if they're like my father, and it's all about the money."

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 28, 2005 01:52 AM

Prokerkus, I agree with you about Michael Jackson and would add that that is one of the verified harms of porn. There are others, but I'll stick to this theme now. You stated: It is common knowledge that porn magazines are generally bought by working class men. Rich people don't need to buy a 3.99 smut mag I couldn't find the demographics for Hustler but don't imagine them hugely different than for Playboy except I suspect the percentage of women would be lesser. I may be wrong, but we can start here. GENDER Male 82.7% Female 17.3% AGE 18-2425.5% 25-3427.9% 35-4421.3% 45-5415.5% 55+9.7% HOUSEHOLD INCOME $50,000+50.7% $75,000+26.0% $100,000+15.9% MEDIAN$50,571 MARITAL STATUS Married 39.9% Single45.9% EMPLOYMENT STATUS Employed full-time69.0% Professional/managerial17.3% Student*9.4% *Student and/or currently attending Source: http://www.playboy.com/mediakit/print_demographics.html

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 27, 2005 23:09 PM

bwong wrote: "Flyint is for free speech and against the religious right, but that is likely for self serving reasons." Larry Flynt is not for free speech. When Aura Bogado tried to speak he worked for a YEAR in Hustler to intimidate her into silence. Larry Flynt said "This One's for YOU Aura Bogado" and took a woman tied to a car and put a ball in her mouth to shut the Bitch up. Look at it if you dare. http://hustlingtheleft.com/bogado1.html Aura is a 22 year old immigant from South American working for YOUR issues and Hustler attacked her in their magazine for for a year for her two lousy emails. Instead of speaking up for speech you guys called her a RACIST. You've made him into one, but Larry Flynt is no free speech hero. He only cares about *HIS* speech. Larry Flynt does everything he can to shut up anyone who he disagrees with him. He uses the money he's made from racism and misogyny to further this myth, and shut up and discredit all dissent, and you all are helping him. What's so progressive about that? Nikki Craft F.U.C.K. (Feminists Uncovering Censorship Knowledgeably)

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 22:35 PM

Well, I changed my mind. I haven't read Hustler. I was under the impression that it is just another porno mag with some articles similar to Playboy. I was willing to grant that the porno images in Hustler was much more racy(or much more "vulgar" and "disgusting" depending on your taste and asthetics). In short, I thought Hustler was sort of a gutter edition of playboy. The almost single minded focus on porn by posters like David, Anthony, Graeme, Joeblog and WR et al appeared to confirm my assumption. But I was wrong. No matter how one's feel about porn, what appears in Hustler's catoon falls in a different catagory. Cryofan's defence that comic makes fun of Chester just doesn't cut. Chester is always depicted as setting up ingenious traps for his preys, --young girls. The specific nature of the traps often invokes racist stereotypes and guess what, Chester always wins. Is this "making fun" of Chester? Even if it were making fun of Chester that would be pretty lame, child molestation is not "funny" to begin with! But this is beyond the pale. Then the racist stereotypes are just too numerous to list (African American women with STD etc). There is a line between mere bad taste and hateful speech. I think Hustler crosses the line by a wide margin. And I am not a stereotypical PC lefitst. Usually I have pretty high threshold for bad taste(perhaps much too high as WR and ST would certainly say)

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 27, 2005 21:30 PM

Prokerkus: WildRider - I gave you a 3 post response to your comments, all of them went the max of 1500 characters, can you please respond to more than 1 line? My reply: I intend to. When I wrote that, it was the wee hours of the morning. I'd spent a long day writing already and didn't have the oomph for more. Before I can do an indepth reply to your post today though, I have to edit, print ( have to go buy more ink first, bummer) and send a piece, finish another piece and do more work on still a third. Deadlines have to come first since they pay the bills. However, I have every intention of replying in more depth to your posts. Please be patient. I'm not really ignoring you.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 27, 2005 20:26 PM

"Guess someone forgot to tell that to Michael Jackson" I said "generally", Michael Jackson is exceptional in MANY ways lol. I trust it is not necessary to explain why. Furthermore, Jackson is a perfect example of a rich person using his money to lure sex objects, in this case children, who he has no relationship with into his mansion for his "pleasure." Most likely he uses those mags to get the kids sexually excited rather than on himself. WildRider - I gave you a 3 post response to your comments, all of them went the max of 1500 characters, can you please respond to more than 1 line? This is what I hate about "debating" with some people; you take an hour or two out of your day to respond (because of the restrictions on this site) to their comments and they either ignore you outright or take 1 line out of it and then go back to their talking points. It seems that there is only a select number of people on this site that is interested in having any kind of back and forth discussion, the rest are just interested in repeating their talking points over and over again or at most, take 1 line and try to give a witty response to it. I guess I should only be attempting to communicate with the former since the latter is a waste of time.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 27, 2005 19:25 PM

bwong wrote: I have to say the Cartoons are very disgusting and vile. . Thank you for that condemnation. It is important to have men taking a stand against these violent images. The question is my mind is: how do we stop them? More and more corporations are profiting from the violence in porn. Mainstream corporations like Marriot, GE and the likes. http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=2041&department=CWA&categoryid=pornography bwong wrote: Flyint is for free speech and against the religious right, but that is likely for self serving reasons. Those who willfully do harm to others often wrap themselves in the cloak of their "rights" while systematically violating the rights of their victims. Timothy McVeigh was a supporter of the right to bear arms. Is he a hero for supporting this right or a cold-blooded terrorist who thought nothing of murdering hundreds, even the children he knew were in that preschool? Flynt is no different than McVeigh. He advocates violence against others, then claims his free-speech rights are paramount.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 27, 2005 11:54 AM

I have to say the Cartoons are very disgusting and vile. But that is quite a seperate issue from pornography. It is difficult to spin Flyint into a "progressive" for printing these hateful stuffs. Flyint is for free speech and against the religious right, but that is likely for self serving reasons.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 27, 2005 11:44 AM

There's the one with the little blind girl with the dog. Chester is luring the seeing eye dog with a steak! The dog is drooling. Chester has a smirk. Hahahahah. Chester's pants are down around his knees and the dog is following the meat. Chester's all erect and shit, big dick hanging down his leg, ready to jump the little blind girl and rape her. She's just skipping along oblivious cause she can't see anything. Blind girls are so stupid. Tell us how this ridicules the molester. Who does this cartoon make fun of except the little blind girl? MESSAGE: You can fuck one if you use the right lure. Maybe I'm wrong. What's your take on this cartoon? Oh yeah and there's the one of Ann Coulter "BEING ANALLY VIOLATED BY THE DEMOCRATIC DONKEY!" She's tied to a four post bed and the donkey has a huge bulging hot dick sweating with big bulging eyes. Be sure to see this one. It'll make you so hot. http://www.hustlingtheleft.com. Greg Palast is close in with Hustler magazine. He says good things about it. He says the left needs to get an erection and y'all are apparently willing to get it by Any Means Necessary. Palast also had a conversation over dinner about how the radicals could get the Democrats to take more aggressive stands. Maybe this is what they came up with? Wow what strategic wizards. Somebody ought to ask the democrats how they feel about Larry Flynt making them into rapists in the pages of Hustler magazine. Nikki Craft http://www.hustlngtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 27, 2005 11:18 AM

Cryofan wrote: "Hustler does not glorify or condone pedophilia with their Chester the Molester cartoon--they MAKE FUN of it....there IS a difference...." Larry Flynt is making fun of child molesting for the last 30 40 years in most every issue of his magazine just like WildRider is satirizing a radical feminist analysis of it. The cartoon with the wimpy nerdy fag holding the can behind him that said "AIDS RELIEF FUND" with a red face and sweatin', mouth open, shocked like, looking at the big guy with the cool nazi tatoo holding a tire iron with a beer in hand and big writing on his t-shirt that says "DEATH TO ALL FAGS!" and the fag he's like ohhh! "Sorry, wrong house!". Hustler knows how FAGS are. I know you're thinking "Yeah, right on L.A.R.R.Y!! You're such a great progressive and we love you like our brother, Larry." Oh and then the one about the funny little Jewish girl with the Star of David necklace. "Chester the Molester" with a swastika on his sleeve, holding a bat in the air and using a dollar bill on a stick to lure the little girl. The girls mom looks on smiling as she runs along trying to get the dollar. You know what Jews are like. They want that dollar. And Chester laughs with the bat ready to beat her over the head with it. Defend those images individually. Tell us how the last one makes fun of the child molester. Nikki Craft http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 27, 2005 10:47 AM

Prokerkus wrote: It is common knowledge that porn magazines are generally bought by working class men. Rich people don't need to buy a 3.99 smut mag Guess someone forgot to tell that to Michael Jackson.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 27, 2005 09:01 AM

"Perhaps you didn't hear about the white men assaulting Muslims in retaliation, even though the victimized Muslims didn't have anything to do with the attacks?" What does that have to with Bodago saying that "It was OK to be a white man" in the post 911 world? She didn't say "It was OK to be racist.." or that it was ok to hate muslims, she just said It's OK to be a white man. Period. Speaking of assumptions - Why do you assume that it was only white men that assaulted Muslims? Why can't they be black, Hispanic or Asian? Why must they be men at all? Because white men are evil and necessarily must be the bad guys? It also should be pointed out that there were many instances after 911 where Muslims danced in the streets to celebrate. I personally know of one specific instance in Paterson, NJ. I'm not saying this represents the general Muslim response to 911, but it does represent a disturbingly large segment of it. Now if you knew someone in those 2 towers and then looked out your window and saw people dancing in the streets, I'm sure you wouldn't like that very much either. You might even get psst off enough and do something about it. But of course we can't talk about that; Muslims must always be the victim, white men always the perpetrator. So now WildRider and others will search through the history books looking for things whites did to Muslims to explain why this happened because of course, people of color can never do wrong, they are the victim, always.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 27, 2005 08:30 AM

"To praise Hustler for having the best anti-corporate parodies is silly. The porn industry isn't in business to slam the corporate world." Praising Barnes & Nobles for having Noam Chomsky books is also silly, they aren't in business to spread anarchist propaganda. Praising Loews Theatres for having a Michael Moore movie is just silly; they aren't in business to spread progressive viewpoints. Praising Sony records for releasing Rage Against the Machine... well you get the idea. When one lives in a capitalist society it is often necessary to use capitalist channels to spread information. Porn is a HUGE multi-billion dollar industry, to just ignore that market is what would be truly be silly and highly counter productive. It is common knowledge that porn magazines are generally bought by working class men. Rich people don't need to buy a 3.99 smut mag; they can get the real thing quite easily as they are many a woman who would be lured by a man with lots to spend and would pretty much do whatever the man wanted in order to have access to that lifestyle and security. Rich men can also buy professional, high class callgirls and escorts whereas poor men could not. Pornography for most working men represent an escape from the troubles of their daily life into a fantasy world where they can masturbate to beautiful women making quite a lot of money posing for those magazines. Rich men don't need that kind of escape as they can very easily buy the real thing, literally or not.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 27, 2005 08:09 AM

"So women deserve to be objectified in pornography because they look nice?" It's a little more than looking "nice." One can go out with a shirt and pants and still look "nice." However, when women wear makeup, short skirts, belly shirts, push up bras, low cut shirts that reveal cleavage, wear bikinis and thongs, me thinks it's a little bit more than just looking "nice." Women obviously wear those things to look/feel sexy AND to be admired by the opposite sex. They'd be quite naive if they think wearing the things I just mentioned would not result in it. Wearing revealing outfits and accentuating certain parts of the body is going to have an effect among heterosexual men. "How do you know that? Do you have the demographics of his readership? Do you have proof they read the parodies?" The question could be made of just about anything. Can you prove that the readers of the NYT don't skip over to the sports section? Does that stop Chomsky and others from criticizing the news in it? Obviously some will, others will not. Hustler magazine typically displays these progressive articles on their front cover (a la Chomsky) so it's hard to believe that it is not being noticed. I suspect a common reaction among Hustler's readers is "Who's Noam Chomsky?" The very fact that they heard his name alone might open up a HUGE set of possibilities: Maybe next time they see a Chomsky book at Barnes & Nobles, they won't be so quick to pass it up in favor of Ann Coulter.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 27, 2005 05:49 AM

Prokerkus wrote: As for Flynt's supposed exploitation of women, read how he responded to that: I think we can be forgiven for that because most women, especially if they're single, present themselves as sex objects. My reply: Another man who can't tell the difference between exploiting and objecting others for the sake of profit and a person choosing to be sexy. Amazing how many men can't understand that distinction. Prokerkus wrote: Badago's racism came from stating that in the post 911 world "It was OK to be a white male" Whereas I guess it wasn't OK before 911? My reply: Another problem with comprehension? Perhaps you didn't hear about the white men assaulting Muslims in retaliation, even though the victimized Muslims didn't have anything to do with the attacks? You have a very low standard drawn before claiming someone is a racist ( one sentence that you misconstrued) and an embarrassingly high and ridiculous standard drawn for excusing porn pimps who became millionaires by promoting violence against everyone except white men.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 27, 2005 03:46 AM

Prokerkus wrote: NOWHERE in the porno world would have anything close to the hard-hitting anti-corporoate parodies that this mag has. My reply: So, the multi-million dollar corporate empire of Larry Flynt is the place to go for anti-corporate information? What kind of logic is that? To praise Hustler for having the best anti-corporate parodies in the porno industry is silly. The porn industry isn't in business to slam the corporate world but to service male sexual demand. Prokerkus wrote: Larry Flynt is exposing millions of working class American men to progressive thought who otherwise never would have. My reply: How do you know that? Do you have the demographics of his readership? Do you have proof they read the parodies? Prokerkus wrote: I see nothing wrong with having a healthy sexual appetite and even a few crude FANTASIES every once in a while. My reply: There's a difference between a healthy sexual appetite and the violent, misogynistic, racist, pediophilic image exhibited on Hustler's pages.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 27, 2005 03:43 AM

Prokerkus wrote: I think the critics of Larry Flynt should take good hard look at the these set of images: http://www.larryflynt.com/ad_parodies_gallery/index.htm NOWHERE in the porno world would have anything close to the hard-hitting anti-corporoate parodies that this mag has. Larry Flynt is exposing millions of working class American men to progressive thought who otherwise never would have. Right on, dude! Right on! Flynt for President! I wish I could have voted for him for gov of CA. As for women presenting themselves as objects, there ya go... To Nikki: Hustler does not glorify or condone pedophilia with their Chester the Molester cartoon--they MAKE FUN of it....there IS a difference....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 27, 2005 03:29 AM

Prokerkus wrote: "Consider the evidence: Women wear makeup. They wear perfume. They buy bras designed to lift and accentuate their cleavage. They wear tight-fitting sweaters and belly shirts with low-rise jeans that stop barely a gnat's eyelash over the pubic line-all to show off their assets. Women buy fashion magazines like Vogue and Cosmo to learn the latest styles intended to make them more alluring." He goes on but you get the idea." So women deserve to be objectified and demeaned in pornography because they like to look nice? Women have the right to wear whatever they want, look however they desire and not be harrassed and objectified or raped by men. Why does this always come down to blaming women for men not being able to control themselves! It is absolutely ridiculous that because a woman wants to look nice because it makes her feel good she becomes a commodity. So what if Larry Flynt tries to 'expose' the corporate world' sins. Who cares. He is a pornographer making his money off the backs of women. He is despicable. He can't buy forgiveness with a few anti-corporate attacks.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 26, 2005 22:59 PM

I think the critics of Larry Flynt should take good hard look at the these set of images: www.larryflynt.com/ad_parodies_gallery/index.htm NOWHERE in the porno world would have anything close to the hard-hitting anti-corporoate parodies that this mag has. Larry Flynt is exposing millions of working class American men to progressive thought who otherwise never would have. I see nothing wrong with having a healthy sexual appetite and even a few crude FANTASIES every once in a while. Honestly, who hasn't had them? As for Flynt's supposed exploitation of women, read how he responded to that: "I've been accused of presenting women as sex objects. I guess that's true. Men like to look at women. Men see them, at least on one level, as sex objects. But I think we can be forgiven for that because most women, especially if they're single, present themselves as sex objects. No, no, ladies. Don't deny it! Consider the evidence: Women wear makeup. They wear perfume. They buy bras designed to lift and accentuate their cleavage. They wear tight-fitting sweaters and belly shirts with low-rise jeans that stop barely a gnat's eyelash over the pubic line-all to show off their assets. Women buy fashion magazines like Vogue and Cosmo to learn the latest styles intended to make them more alluring." He goes on but you get the idea. BTW - Badago's racism came from stating that in the post 911 world "It was OK to be a white male" Whereas I guess it wasn't OK before 911?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Jarrett_gabriel, Anonymous3 at Jul 26, 2005 21:31 PM

But don't believe me LOOK at them and then defend the images individually" No thank you, I don't see the point that would make. I refer to Bwong's answer on this one. If you think that Hustler is a typical porn magazine, you are mistaken. I personally am not against pornography per se, but I am opposed to the racist, anti-semitic, racist and homophobic cartoons that are a regular feature in Hustler. Unless you go on the hustling the left website and take the time to examine the cartoons for yourself, you have no idea what Hustler stands for.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 26, 2005 17:33 PM

"But don't believe me LOOK at them and then defend the images individually" No thank you, I don't see the point that would make. I refer to Bwong's answer on this one. Look I'm sure I will find a lot of crude and even gross sexual humor in there. But the thing is, what's hateful to hardcore feminists and what healthy, sexually active American men think is just crude or vulgar, can be a very fine line to cross. The point though, is that in our wonderful country this is covered under our 1st Amendment. Just watch the movie "People vs Larry Flynt" "Look Willy-Little Norma's been named V.D. Poster Child of the Year!"" I don't know what VD is, sorry. "Let's start with the one done by a convicted child molester who was employed by Flynt for decades" He was freed upon appeal. Larry Flynt has published the works of Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Micket Z, Greg Palast and many other progressive authors. Feminist Molly Ivins personally complimented him. His outspoken progressivism has undoubtedly cost him some readers. I just think we have much bigger fish to fry than attacking Hustler and a few sexually healthy American men who enjoy it. For better or worse, boys will be boys and most men enjoy sex and naked women.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 26, 2005 12:54 PM

http://hustlingtheleft.com/rangewar.html Prokerkus sez "I am convinced that Larry Flynt is a sincere member of the progressive community...Bogado comes across as racist, intolerant and very closed minded." Here's our proof that Flynt is a racist publisher who teaches and preaches rape and child molesting in his publication. Let's start with the one done by a convicted child molester who was employed by Flynt for decades, did jail time for molesting his daughter, one of Larry's closest comrades, "Chester The Molester". It's of a man on a bed with three children tied up on the bed with him, a bat within reach, with dildo and torture gear laying around with the child rapist writing out his list of things to do. Let's talk about the KKKer radio announcer in his white pointy hat costume talkin' out on the radio saying "Now here's a little heartbreaker called 'Loving You Is Harder Than A Nigger's Head'" from June 1990. Let's talk about the one with the black crack whore girl with cum all over her face and her black mom and dad looking on adoringly saying "Look Willy-Little Norma's been named V.D. Poster Child of the Year!" Oh yea and then the one of Hitler in a back yard cook out with an apron on that says "Jew B Que" Defend them. Tell us how progressive Larry Flynt is. Please tell us how these Hustler cartoons illustrate that Flynt is Progressive and then post your proof that Aura Bogado is a racist. Thanks, Nikki Craft http://www.hustlingtheleft.com

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 26, 2005 12:24 PM

Prokerkus wrote: "I am convinced that Larry Flynt is a sincere member of the progressive community...Larry Flynt has been complimented by the likes of feminist Molly Ivins, Greg Palast, and Michael Moore." We've got that exchange on our webiste, but we've got the *pitures* (free porn pant, pant) that prove Larry Flynt manufactures contempt against women, the disabled, people of colors, jews, children, animals and animal rights activists. But don't believe me LOOK at them and then defend the images individually.--Nikki Craft http://hustlingtheleft.com/rangewar.html Launching Into Histerics: Larry Flynt's Over-reaction to Aura Bogado Flynt's screeching, hate-adled, racist, woman-hating rant against Bogado for holding hate-speech king (aka Flynt) and Not In Our Names (aka NION) accountable for hopping into the PAC-sack together appears below. Ah, the life of politics and the politics of life in contemporary America: you cry, you laugh, OR you are outraged. It is with dry eyes, a modicum of humor, and a healthy, constructive dose of outrage that we contend that the porn emperor and his suitor were caught wearing no clothes. We contend Flynt's histeria might have to do with the fact that he's gotten too used to being the only clothed one in his court. (And by clothed we DO mean unexamined.) This is where the Flynt's brand of "freedom of speech" has taken us. This is where oppression-protecting conservative libertarianism has taken us. Read on, friends.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 26, 2005 10:02 AM

I for one have decided to read "Hustling the Left" as well as read Susie Bright's reply. I then logged on to LarryFlynt.com to get his version of events. I spent far more time looking into this than I had previously imagined. My conclusion is this: Badoglio's arguments were unconvincing and I am convinced that Larry Flynt is a sincere member of the progressive community. Without mentioning the fact that the Left needs to connect with white men, Bogado comes across as racist, intolerant and very closed minded. You guys should read the FULL exchange of emails on this site: http://www.larryflynt.com/notebook.php?id=81 Amazingly, you will find Hustler responding to her with: "Aura Bogado launched into a high-octane tirade at the news of Hustler's support, called Flynt a "Pig," essentially accused him of supporting rape and casually intimated a link bewteen Hustler and child pornography. In an ensuing mass email Bogado then decried that "it's alright to be a white male" after Sept. 11th (as apparently it was not all right to be white, male and heterosexual before the terror attacks?)" No matter what we think of porn, Hustler employs consenting adults and women who like doing what they do. To call Flynt a "rapist" is just plain wrong. Larry Flynt has been complimented by the likes of feminist Molly Ivins, Greg Palast, and Michael Moore. Flynt has been attacked by the most radical and most militant of feminists that does the Left far more harm than good.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 26, 2005 02:51 AM

bwong wrote: "Where did I defend Hustler in particular? I don't think the specific nature of Hustler is very important in a general discussion as I have said many times." But that is what we are talking about. You are defending pornograpy - Hustler is pornography. A particularly vile piece of pornography. Noam Chomsky has an article appearing in Hustler! Why would we not discuss Hustler. You stated we were off topic a few posts ago - now we are back on topic and you say it is irrelevant. I am very, very confused. Bwong wrote: "Since he has answered most of your questions(and I have read them) so why not just look them up? Apparantly WR keeps a dossier on all these things so she can toss them out on cue(that creeps me out, really)" I think it annoys you because she holds you accountable. You can't say one thing on this blog and another thing on a different one. Your arguements are quite inconsistent as I have just demonstrated above. Now, are we talking about Hustler? ARe you going to get informed so that you can discuss this issue with some knowledge?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 22:55 PM

"No, I do not. However, we have been discussing Hustler and a link was provided some time ago for you to go and see what you were talking about.." Where did I defend Hustler in particular? I don't think the specific nature of Hustler is very important in a general discussion as I have said many times. Granted the imgages are disgusting,--I take your word for it,-- but what does that prove?Nothing other than that they offend your asthetics.You'll find much more offensive material (to some)in say, in a gay porn. I don't think it is appropiate for me to impose my asthetics on the gay community in the name of morality. "Thank you WR! I was getting a little tired of 'frederic already dealt with this..." Do you expect me to write hundreds of posts and create my own blog(like Federic does) just to redebate everything that we have gone through already? Get real. I don't have that much time. Since he has answered most of your questions(and I have read them) so why not just look them up? Apparantly WR keeps a dossier on all these things so she can toss them out on cue(that creeps me out, really)

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 25, 2005 21:53 PM

Appleman wrote: "Objectification happens to both sexes (Equally? No and I comdemn that) and I have absolutely no problem with men getting a little taste of their own medicine" And it is wrong. I challenge people when they objectify anyone. That being said though the objectification of women is much more problematic as it leads to exploitation, violence and rape. The women objectifying Brad Pitt are not about to go and rape a man as they view him as property. There is a direct correlation between the dominant discourse in our society, which allows women to be objects, and violence against women. WR wrote: "Since you let Frederic do your thinking for you, here's a quote from him: "To seriously advocate a position requires at least a little checking of and knowledge of common opposing arguments, yes." " Thank you WR! I was getting a little tired of 'frederic already dealt with this..." Bwong wrote: ""Chester" was brought up as a rhetorical question and I don't think even ST expects an answer. Do you seriously think I should dig out all porn and sex sites and while these are only peripherially on topic?" No, I do not. However, we have been discussing Hustler and a link was provided some time ago for you to go and see what you were talking about. You chose not do that. Why don't you go to Hustling the left and see what it is that your defending. In your defence of Hustler you are saying that 'chester the molester' is ok.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 21:20 PM

bwong, while you're busy defending porn (which you claim never to see or use. If true, any such defense cannot be based on fact), this is what Chomsky had to say about it: From an email exchange between Nikki Craft and Chomsky: NC: Aura Bogado wrote an article entitled "Hustling the Left" that discusses the cooptation of the left by pornographers. For exercising her free speech rights, she was rewarded by having her name featured in Hustler next to images of women bound in rope and tied down on top of cars like hood ornaments or shot deer. Given that Hustler has recently declared a "war on feminists," I am quite concerned. Chomsky: You should be. As the letter to Hustler clearly explained, I would never have agreed to the interview if they had not so grossly misrepresented themselves, and if I had any idea what they were. NC: what was it you found out about Hustler that caused you not to want your interview to appear in Hustler? Chomsky: I was informed that it was a pornographic magazine that publishes degrading material about women. NC:I believe I can conclude from this exchange that you do employ a standard against publishing in pornographic publications that degrade women. Chomsky: Certainly. That's why I insisted that they withdraw the interview when I learned what the journal was, and how they had misrepresented themselves. read more at http://hustlingtheleft.com/

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 20:53 PM

bwong wrote: "Chester" was brought up as a rhetorical . My reply: Chester is anything but idle rhetoric. I'm willing to bet ST does want you to take a look before you comment. bwong wrote: Do you seriously think I should dig out all porn and sex sites and while these are only peripherially on topic? My reply: I only asked you to visit one site that specifically addresses the issue at hand, which is Chomsky appearing on the pages of Hustler. Why do you always try to deflect real discussion by injecting grandiose statements? Can't discuss groping because it isn't rape. Can't discuss groping in Mexico because Mexico has other, "bigger" problems. Can't discuss anything because there is some bigger picture somewhere else that has little or nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Why do you come here if you can't discuss anything? bwong wrote: No, I haven't seen the pictures on Hustler but as I said before I don't see the point. My reply: If you can't see the point, then you shouldn't be trying to discuss the subject and certainly shouldn't be trying to confuse the issue with statements like "WSJ is worse than Hustler." If you've never seen Hustler or it's degrading filth, how could you know which is worse? bwong wrote: Chomsky has the right to decide who to grant interview to, based on whatever criteria he chooses. My reply: And we have the right to criticize his choices and his denial of responsibility for that choice.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 19:53 PM

"..you let Frederic do your thinking for you, here's a quote from him: "To seriously advocate a position requires at least a little checking of and knowledge of common opposing arguments, yes." " The two pieces of information are irrelevant to my argument. "Chester" was brought up as a rhetorical question and I don't think even ST expects an answer. Do you seriously think I should dig out all porn and sex sites and while these are only peripherially on topic? No, I haven't seen the pictures on Hustler but as I said before I don't see the point. Chomsky has the right to decide who to grant interview to, based on whatever criteria he chooses.Now we may question whether he makes his criteria sensibly, but those are all speculations as he hasn't explained what they are he and then he denied he has even heard of Hustler. If he hasn't heard of Hustler obviously he can't judge the mag other than it being dishonest. If we choose to argue porn in general, then as I say the specifics of Hustler is pretty much irrelevant. If you want to critique Christianity you need to come up with intrinsic arguments other than saying Catholic priests molest little boys. If you want to argue against communism you have to do better than Stalin was a monster. If you want to argue against shopping, you got to show why it is intrinsically wrong instead of just saying Walmart sucks. It is true that you should anticipate opposing arguments but not all of them deserve attentions.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 19:37 PM

Appleman wrote: I understand that women are objectified and I have strongly objected to it. Read what I wrote about Hustler. I probably used the strongest language to comdemn Hustlter than ANYONE here; for which I was also attacked for it. I used words such as "filth", "degradation", "the lowest common denominator", as well as many other similar insults. I'm sorry I missed your posts and I'm sorry you were attacked for standing up to the degrading filth contained in Hustler. Keep up the good work. We need men who aren't afraid to take a stand against porn, especially the worst aspects of it.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 19:09 PM

ST asked: "Have you looked at any of the images posted at hustling the left? " bwong replied: No.....Hustler may be particularly sleazy(I don't know as I have never read it), but that is not an argument against all porn. ... Federic has posted many sources on this already. I have nothing to add to that. ST asked: "I am guessing that 'chester the molester' is ok by you." bwong replied: Who is Chester? My reply: Since you let Frederic do your thinking for you, here's a quote from him: "To seriously advocate a position requires at least a little checking of and knowledge of common opposing arguments, yes." So, to live up to Frederic's ideals, I suggest you go to http://hustlingtheleft.com/ and find out for yourself who Chester the Molester is, along with all the other misogynic, racist, and pediophilic characters that appear on the pages of Hustler.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 25, 2005 19:08 PM

"Appleman can't seem to imagine such a thing as a 'Chomsky centrefold.' Why is that? " Because Noam Chomsky is an 80-year old man, is not in the entertainment business and is generally not thought of as being physically attractive. Even the original poster himself said that he was not being serious about it. I would have the same reaction if Madeline Albright or Janet Reno got that kind of response. "The reaction is quite interesting when the tables are turned. " I understand that women are objectified and I have strongly objected to it. Read what I wrote about Hustler. I probably used the strongest language to comdemn Hustlter than ANYONE here; for which I was also attacked for it. I used words such as "filth", "degradation", "the lowest common denominator", as well as many other similar insults. You won't see me complaining about if Brad Pitt or Orlando Bloom get "objectified" as they commonly do. Or the "cute" delivery guy for that matter. I've heard many a woman comment on the physically appeasing aspects of Mel Gibson out loud during a movie. Objectification happens to both sexes (Equally? No and I comdemn that) and I have absolutely no problem with men getting a little taste of their own medicine so to speak, indeed, some men (like bwong) might actually look forward to it! Not to say that double standards do not persist among many men, they do, just that you're barking up the wrong tree with this one.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 25, 2005 18:44 PM

bwong wrote: "The world capitalist system is responsible for massive death, war and neo liberal policies that creates massive poverty. The WSJ is a right in the middle of it as the mouthpiece of the Empire. Whateveer your view of pornography I don't think they are even comparable." I guess it is about perspective then and what is possible. Stopping the capitalist system is not really within the realm of possibility. Ending violence against women, one person at a time, is possible. I suggest that you check out the Hustling the Left website. It is quite an education. Bwong then wrote: "He said it was an oversight. I have no reason to doubt him." I think it is a pretty pathetic rationalization. bwong wrote: "Like what, other than making a disclaimer which he has already done?I don't think there is any legal recourse as someone has pointed out many posts ago." I am sure a smart lawyer somewhere could probably help him out. Perhaps he should hire a media savvy agent.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 17:50 PM

bwong wrote: Regardless of my view on prosititution I don't think Jesus legitimized it by hanging out with prostitutes and even saved one from stoning My reply: The woman who was threatened with stoning was not a prostitute. She was accused of adultery. She was brought to him as a challenge to his wisdom. Instead of answering directly, he wrote in the sand, then said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." He sent her away after her accusers disappeared. The only prostitute who is mentioned in his presence was one that came to Simon's house and washed Yeshua's feet. She didn't arrive with him, and she left when she was done. Both are used as metaphors for forgiving sinners. Neither has him "hanging out" with them. bwong wrote: I personally think Jesus probably wouldn't reject pimps and johns either My reply: Yeshua rejected those who hurt others. He especially rejected the customs that hurt women, going so far as to holding the men to a higher responsibility than they'd been charged with in the past. It is doubtful that he would have approved of pimps and porn. He indirectly spoke about johns when he told the men it was as bad for them to commit adultery as it was for their wives. Lucinda Marshall wrote: Jesus hung with the poor and criminal classes as well. My reply: Yeshua's followers were outcasts in society, many of them zealots who supported overthrow of both Roman occupation and the ruling Judiac elite.

Reply this comment

The user who created this comment no longer exists.

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 08:29 AM

"If Chomsky had the courage of his convictions he would do something about this. I guess that would be expecting too much." Like what, other than making a disclaimer which he has already done?I don't think there is any legal recourse as someone has pointed out many posts ago. He can fire his secetary. But that would be too harsh to cause someone's unemployment over an(presumbably) honest mistake. "For example, his presence in this disgusting piece of filth will serve to legitimize for some men" So if we appears in WSJ that would legitimize capitalism? Regardless of my view on prosititution I don't think Jesus legitimized it by hanging out with prostitutes and even saved one from stoning (he did say "woman, sin no more", instead of "woman, sin somemore now that you have a new lease of life",--though one character in the Brothers Karamazov claims that Jesus approved prostitution by teaching one should "love much",--but I digress)Assoication is not the same as legitimization. I personally think Jesus probably wouldn't reject pimps and johns either(so I disagree with Graeme here. But that's just my opinion, obviously I am no biblical scholar.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 08:05 AM

"So business and gross pornography are the same thing?" "Business" is arguably worse, much worse. The world capitalist system is responsible for massive death, war and neo liberal policies that creates massive poverty. The WSJ is a right in the middle of it as the mouthpiece of the Empire. Whateveer your view of pornography I don't think they are even comparable. "Have you looked at any of the images posted at hustling the left? " No. "Pornography is men's attempt to frame and define women's sexuality - to dictate to us how we should experience sex." Obviously not all women think that, not all porn anyway. Federic has posted many sources on this already. I have nothing to add to that. Hustler may be particularly sleazy(I don't know as I have never read it), but that is not an argument against all porn. "Chomsky is actually participating in the degradation and commodification of women." He said it was an oversight. I have no reason to doubt him. If he get carried by the WSJ does it follow that he is in the thick of preditory capitalism? The medium is a vehicle to reach people. By your argument Chomsky pretty have to shut up because all media outlets are owned and controlled by the the very people he oppose. I wonder what the interview was about.. "I am guessing that 'chester the molester' is ok by you." Who is Chester?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 25, 2005 07:46 AM

bwong wrote: "Back to the topic. I agree with Cryofan that it is not worse for Chomsky to be interviewed by Hustler than the Wall Street Journal." So business and gross pornography are the same thing? Have you looked at any of the images posted at hustling the left? How can you agree that this is ok? Quite frankly it boggles the mind! Pornography is men's attempt to frame and define women's sexuality - to dictate to us how we should experience sex. I am guessing that 'chester the molester' is ok by you. Not a big surprise given your position on other issues. I can understand Graeme's concern(one of his concerns but not all) that this would be a bad tactical move. The controversies it generates(if at all)may damage Chomsky's reputation and ecclipse his messsage. Oh my! Eclipsing Chomsky's message may be the 'worst' outcome of his article in Hustler!!! I can think of far worse outcomes. For example, his presence in this disgusting piece of filth will serve to legitimize for some men. Chomsky is actually participating in the degradation and commodification of women. If Chomsky had the courage of his convictions he would do something about this. I guess that would be expecting too much.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 07:16 AM

What is the point of forcing a poster to debate a position that he says, time and again that he does not hold and is unrelated to the thread's discussion? This is a classical power move on WR's part to set the terms of the debate. So much about feminist's "power within" v.s to "power over". Another possibility is that she simply is incapable of rational thought, which I doubt. Back to the topic. I agree with Cryofan that it is not worse for Chomsky to be interviewed by Hustler than the Wall Street Journal. I can understand Graeme's concern(one of his concerns but not all) that this would be a bad tactical move. The controversies it generates(if at all)may damage Chomsky's reputation and ecclipse his messsage. But it is unlikely. "Respectible" people often get interviewed and publish in playboy with their reputaion intact and without controversy. Hustler maybe more sleazy than playboy but the difference is probably marginal(I can't say for sure as I have never read Hustler) Appearing in Neo Nazi journals would definitely generate a lot more damaging publicity as well as providing ammunitions for the right to discredit Chomsky.I don't think Hustler would have the same effect. Chomsky didn't say why he would not want to be interviewed by Hustler. It might not have to do with porn perse. As Paul Street noted,amazingly, Chomnsky apparantly has never heard of Hustler!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 25, 2005 07:10 AM

check out this blog entry about the situation poor Noam Chomsky finds himself in...: http://alphamutt.blogspot.com/2005/07/i-was-only-following-orders.html The main blog at: http://alphamutt.blogspot.com/

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 06:54 AM

bwong wrote: I said, it is concievable that in SOME CULTURES groping was viewed as normal My reply: And I asked you to name one. bwong wrote: Even in OUR OWN society, gay men got groped ALL THE TIME and it is not considered big deal My reply: My gay friends would be surprised to know that. They strongly believe their bodies are not someone else's playground, especially without their permission. bwong wrote: In your paranoid mind pointing out the obvious difference betwen groping and rape(so as not to trivilaize rape)is "condoning groping" My reply: They are both sexual crimes. They both carry jail sentences. One doesn't have to endure the most heinous of crimes to expect lesser crimes to also be recognized as crimes. You were clear in your statements that groping is not terribly important. Even with them in front of you, you cannot admit that. Funny how you accused ST of distorting your words, then when faced with your exact words, you still claimed to be victimized because using your own words is a distortion. But on the other hand, you won't admit that a victim of a crime like groping has any right to complain. She should just deal with it. It is only in the area of sexual crimes that the victims are told nothing really important happened, so just deal with it. It's time to recognize that women deserve to be free of all unwanted sexual attention, up to and including sexual crimes, and to stop expecting women to put up with male sexual aggression.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 06:13 AM

"In all your denials, you haven't yet answered my question: Do you think society should sanction other violent crimes in hopes the perpetuators will lost interest" Your questions are all non sequiturs based on selective quoting and wilful distortions. I have never said society SHOULD sanction groping. That is a clear example of your distortion. I said, it is concievable that in SOME CULTURES groping was viewed as normal and the "victims" don't think much of it. Even in OUR OWN society, gay men got groped ALL THE TIME and it is not considered big deal. This came up when you mentioned Mexico. I admitted freely that I don't know how groping is viewed in latino culture. There is that possibility, but I also qualified that I could be wrong. My point was that your example was irrelevant in proving your point that women lived in fear every waking moment. I don't see how that legitimizes groping in OUR SOCIERY anymore than pointing out the FACT that it was a rite of passage for boys to have sex with older men in ancient Greece legitimizes pedophilia here. The point is that it is wrong to project our current social norms on the GREEKS and conclude that no boys were safe. Boys in ancient Greece didn't consider themselves victimized. In your paranoid mind pointing out the obvious difference betwen groping and rape(so as not to trivilaize rape)is "condoning groping". So saying that theft is not murder is condoining theft. What can one say to that brilliant logic?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 05:34 AM

Funny. In all your denials, you haven't yet answered my question: Do you think society should sanction other violent crimes in hopes the perpetuators will lost interest? Nor have you condemned gropers even now. You still maintain it is no big thing. I'm not distorting that. It's here for all to see. When you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 04:28 AM

"That isn't what either of us said. Your own words from the prior debate show you defend groping. That isn't in question. Your further minimization of groping as a sexual assault only adds to your misogynic statements that excuse men from assaulting women against their will and place the onus on them.. " You quotations of my "own words" are as usual out of context. I won't bother going through them again. It is enough to point out that all your accusations and mudslingling had been answered in the old thread in full and there is no point in revisiting them again. Federic Christie wrote several full length blog entries(on his own blog) along with pages after pages on znet just to clear up your wilful distortions, I haven't got the time and eloquence. If I were as spirited a defender of gropers as you claim why would I deny it now? That doesn't make sense. I can't help but feel that you're bringing this up, long after the original debate is over and the context lost just as an diversion. Nice try, you win(just because I am forced to write the last couple of posts) Since you won't apologize for spamming this thread in an attempt to "silence other's voice",--you would have made the accusation first if someone else did the same, as noted.I will apologize. I am guilty of playing your game.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 04:10 AM

bwong wrote: There is obviously a difference in degree and the mindsets of a rapist and a gropper are not the same. The former is not likely to resort to violent and is likely easily deterred. My reply: I'd like to see stats that say the groper is not likely to resot to violence and is easily deterred. I seriously doubt there is much of a difference in the mindset of a groper and a rapist. Both are crimes committed because the predator believes he has the right to dominate, violate and control his victim. bwong wrote: If you think drawing distinction between violent rape and groping is "defending groping" then so be it. My reply: That isn't what either of us said. Your own words from the prior debate show you defend groping. That isn't in question. Your further minimization of groping as a sexual assault only adds to your misogynic statements that excuse men from assaulting women against their will and place the onus on them.. bwong wrote: Where did I say society SHOULD accept groping? my reply: you wrote: "If society sanctions groping and no one cares about being groped they may lose their interests. " Do you think society should sanction other violent crimes in hopes the perpetuators will lost interest?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 03:47 AM

"Groping is sexual assault. Rape is sexual assault. Both are unwanted sexual acts forced upon a victime (usually a woman) by a perpetrator (usually a man)" No one disputes that but that was not the point. There is obviously a difference in degree and the mindsets of a rapist and a gropper are not the same. The former is not likely to resort to violent and is likely easily deterred. If you think drawing distinction between violent rape and groping is "defending groping" then so be it. Your logic is simply too devasating for me(you may do well to remember the context in which this is brought up in first place) I have no intention of resurrecting a dead debate which has nothing to do with the current topic and the original context is lost.Least of all, I won't waste my time going through old arguments with people who either have problems with comprehension or deliberately, fragrantly distorting opponents' views to score cheap points. As an example of fragrant distortion: "My reply: So do bank robbers, muggers and murderers. I haven't seen you defend any of those as culturally correct nor have I seen you advocate for society to just accept those crimes with the expectation that they will cease once accepted." Where did I say society SHOULD accept groping? To point out some cultures, such as the ancient Hebrews thought that it was normal to marry off 12 year old girls to 80 year old men is not the same as advocating pedophilia in OUR society. Gimme a break.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 25, 2005 02:06 AM

bwong wrote: "2) Groping is not the same as rape. A groper may not be a rapist." Groping is sexual assault. Rape is sexual assault. Both are unwanted sexual acts forced upon a victime (usually a woman) by a perpetrator (usually a man). Bwong further wrote: "I think WR owes everyone here an apology." Why on earth would WR owe anyone, let alone you an apology? She found your previous comments, which proved that you defend groping.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 01:29 AM

bwong wrote: I don't see how the cut and paste prove that I think groping is ok My reply: I saw a lot of defending of the male gropers and no condemnation. Your only condemnation was for the female victims. bwong wrote: Your gropers have to go about their business so furtively to avoid getting caught. My reply: So do bank robbers, muggers and murderers. I haven't seen you defend any of those as culturally correct nor have I seen you advocate for society to just accept those crimes with the expectation that they will cease once accepted. bwong wrote: Groping is not the same as rape. A groper may not be a rapist. My reply: Rape is not the only form of crime that falls under sexual assault. Groping is sexual assault. Gropers may accelerate their crimes to greater violence or may grope as a planned prelude to a crime of greater violence. Does a mugging have to include murder in order for you to find it deplorable? bwong wrote: It is concievable that in some societies it does not have the same connotation as in our soicety. My reply: Please show me one country where groping is socially acceptable. bwong wrote: Some may wonder how these old posts from another thread months ago may have to do with the topic at hand. Answer: nothing. My reply: You accused Shih Tzu Staff of distorting your words, so I posted your exact words. If you didn't want to deal with your own posts, you shouldn't have accused her.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 00:40 AM

I don't see how the cut and paste prove that I think groping is ok. If you can read, basically my points were 1)Your gropers have to go about their business so furtively to avoid getting caught. One man actually described in glorious detail how he was beaten up and have his penis "zapped" after he was caught in the subway. These showed that groping is NOT socially acceptible,exactly opposite to what you tried to prove with the groper anedotes. 2) Groping is not the same as rape. A groper may not be a rapist. 3) One has to careful when speaking of groping in other cultures. It is concievable that in some societies it does not have the same connotation as in our soicety. 1) is a point of logic, using data YOU provided. 2) and 3) are quite obvious, neither point should be controversial at all. Some may wonder how these old posts from another thread months ago may have to do with the topic at hand. Answer: nothing. If any of you do the same thing in a thread where WR is presently posting you will be accused of "silencing women's voice" by spamming. I think WR owes everyone here an apology.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 25, 2005 00:17 AM

Not as a defense but just to give the proper context. Robert Allen routinely makes over the top, crude insults repleated with sexual inuendos and cursing to men on the site he considers apologists for capitalism. I don't think his vulgarity is gender specific(see Chomsky's blog "end of capitalism?" on p.2 of this site, for example) Some posters did take exceptions to his style,but perhaps our objections were not strongly worded enough. After a while we gave up.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 25, 2005 00:09 AM

bwong wrote:: Obviously either you can't read or you diliberately misrepresented my position. Here's part of your original posts on groping. I don't see any condemnation here, only placing the onus on women to either stop the sexual predator via engaging in violence or just accepting the situation: bwong: (I am not saying this is the case for Mexico, but it is concievable that groping is a gesture of friendiless like hand shaking in some cultures, bwong: I would expect groping is a rather low prioirty for Mexicans comparing to the other problems they face. Once again you show how out of touch privileged women from the North can be. In the mean time if tourists are not happy,the reasonable advice would be "don't go". I don't think Mexicans should change their laws/ customs just to accomodate delicate tourists from the North....To me groping is rather trivial comparing to torture and death squads. bwong: The serial gropers you cited, again assumming they are not making up their stories, apparantly are turned on by the idea that they behave badly and the risks of getting caught....If society sanctions groping and no one cares about being groped they may lose their interests. Bwong: “You don't have to be a "victim". You can just slap the creep on the face... "Gropers" usually are creepy little wimps.” bwong: See what we mean? Just some confidence would go a long way in repelling these miscreants.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 24, 2005 23:57 PM

"Out of curiousity Bwong - what is your take on the equal marriage legislation which has just received royal assent? " IMO instititution of marriage is a way for the state to channelize and regulate sexual relationship. I would prefer the state to get out of the marraige business altogether(that would be truly undermining "the family") But failing that, equal opportunity is the still good. I think it was great(and the way the government outmanouvered the conservatives to pass it was beautiful) But I don't understand why gays want to get married in the first place. The image of an ideal gay marriage seem to be so incredibly hetrosexist and middle class: the white fence, the nuclear family, monogamy, even the 1.5 kid(adoption)/the dog(substitute for kids). It is interesting that some pre stonewall radicals are not too enthusisastic.They opin that somehow the gay movement loses a great deal of subversiveness and edges. It is co-opted into the main stream etc. I suppose social accpetence does carry a price. What do you think? "But it's perfectly appropriate to make statements as to how Condoleeza Rice" WR I didn't see RA's post. I joined the discussion late and don't read this blog very often. I think he was way out of line this time even by his usual standard.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 24, 2005 23:45 PM

bwong wrote: It is ridiculous to feature Chomsky in a skin mag not because of objectification, it is because Chomsky doesn't strike one as the appropiate "object" to be sexualize in this way. But it's perfectly appropriate to make statements as to how Condoleeza Rice should be gang raped? I didn't see you protest that objectification, which is far more grotesque and its implications horrendous.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 24, 2005 23:36 PM

"You also think groping is ok." Obviously either you can't read or you diliberately misrepresented my position. "There is a double standard when it comes to objectification. It is ok to objectify women but not ok to objectify men." That is not my view. Again, a casual reading of my post would reveal that I am all for equal opportunity "objectification", if you must use a word with negative connotation. "However, when men, particularly men like Chomsky, are objectified it is seen as ridiculous. Why don't you try and address the double standard?" I just did! Featuring Chomsky in skin mag(naked?) does seem ridiculous. But, at least for me, it is not because he is a male intellectual and it is beneath his status to be feratured that way. I just don't think he would look sexy or attractive in a lusty pose(the thought of it grosses me out) He strikes me as a bit too stern, too ascetic like to be associated with sexiness. On the other hand, Focault would have been a great S/M poster boy and he would probably have liked the idea. The point has noting to do with being male and intellectual. Just taste. "Rape and pornography, while both 'use sex' are destructive and violent." It is a big stretch to equate rape and porn. But if you'll pardon me, I won't repeat my argument. Anyone who by now still cannot see how blatantly absurd this is will never be convinced otherwise.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 24, 2005 22:58 PM

bwong wrote: If it is such a demeaning experience to be sexualized, why do young men and women go out of their ways to look attractive since time immemorial? My reply: Apparently you don't know the difference between objectification and wanting to feel sexy. The two have nothing in common. bwong wrote: ...this Puritan tendency is so ingrained that it may not even be apparant to the person who makes the arguement. One may THINK he/she is opposing to pornography for other reasons, the anti-sex bias is revealed only after some careful analysis. My reply: Yeah, yeah, yeah and women who object because their sexuality and sexual responses are being defined only from a male point of view are "frigid." Your words might be a bit more refined, but your argument can be found in cheap school yard taunts. Just another way of using personal attacks rather than dealing with the real issue. ShihTzu Staff wrote: More importantly, women can be objectified regardless of their other attributes, education or status. My reply: And over their objections, even when those objections are voiced one on one, where the most common response from the male offender is "Just deal with it" although it is often phrased different. ShihTzu Staff wrote: However, when men, particularly men like Chomsky, are objectified it is seen as ridiculous. My reply: It is viewed by men as ridiculous because men are the ones doing the objectifying for their own sexual purposes.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 24, 2005 22:18 PM

Bwong wrote: "I certainly don't mind being "objectified" if people find me good looking enough to be their object of desire." Why does this not surprise me? You also think groping is ok. You are also missing the point of my post. There is a double standard when it comes to objectification. It is ok to objectify women but not ok to objectify men. More importantly, women can be objectified regardless of their other attributes, education or status. However, when men, particularly men like Chomsky, are objectified it is seen as ridiculous. Why don't you try and address the double standard? Bwong further wrote: "Sex is a healthy appetide, men and women sexualize each other all the time" Of course sex is healthy. I would never disagree with that statement. Sex between consenting adults is healthy and desirable. Rape and pornography, while both 'use sex' are destructive and violent. Out of curiousity Bwong - what is your take on the equal marriage legislation which has just received royal assent?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 24, 2005 20:44 PM

Prokerkus, I know I said I was going to stay out. But the prolifieration of neo puritan, self righteous posts are getting to me. To answer Graeme, No, not all anti-porn arguments reduce to puritanism but a heck lot of them can be. Usually those are the overwhelming majority. This is especially true for single issue anti porn crusaders like WR, who don't seem to have a lot of problems with capitalist exploitation in other, non sexual context. I should also add that this Puritan tendency is so ingrained that it may not even be apparant to the person who makes the arguement. One may THINK he/she is opposing to pornography for other reasons, the anti-sex bias is revealed only after some careful analysis. And please lay off on Cryofan. True, he's a one issue guy who focuses exclusively on economics, but his criticism of single issue identity politics is not without mertit. And he's no more tunneled vision than WR and ST.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 24, 2005 20:22 PM

"Objectification is insulting and demeaning" This is only your personal opinion. I certainly don't mind being "objectified" if people find me good looking enough to be their object of desire. If it is such a demeaning experience to be sexualized, why do young men and women go out of their ways to look attractive since time immemorial? Sex is a healthy appetide, men and women sexualize each other all the time It is ridiculous to feature Chomsky in a skin mag not because of objectification, it is because Chomsky doesn't strike one as the appropiate "object" to be sexualize in this way. I don't think he strikes anyone as "sexy" in the physically(like having a "nice ass")But hey, Federich said he is damn close to having a hard on while reading Chomsky. Is that not fetishization in another way? On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if Focault was featured in some gay S/M mag and he would have liked it. Joe, No one here says Huslter is a model of progressive business.Bu you can't go from Huslter to say porn is intrinsically bad(at least ST made an intrinsic argument) Being replused by Warmart's business practice is quite different from saying department stores are immoral. You need a different argument if you want to catagorically condemn shopping.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 24, 2005 20:08 PM

Shih Tzu: great post with great points. I hope everyone gives them some serious thought. Terence wrote: I worry that you apply your analysis of "left" male thinking to all of us. My reply: Why do you worry, Terence? If I wrote "American soldiers are killing Iraqi civilians," would you assume I meant all American soldiers and all Iraqis? How about "Africans are dying of AIDs"? This is a red herring. It arises every time women make a critical statement about men, especially one that hits too close to home. It is meant to force women to back off, to be overly-cautious in what they say, to double-qualify everything until the meaning is so diffused the original intent of their words are lost, so flaccid their words are ineffectual. I approach my writing different. I assume men are intelligent enough to know if they are part of the class being discussed and if not, to sort themselves out. If they can't sort themselves out of that class, then they must be a part of it and need to hear my words with their full impact. Terence wrote: Personally, out of twenty or more fairly close friends of both sexes, I know nobody who doesn't despise Hustler from the bottom of his/her heart. And for all the right reasons, the reasons you are so commendably committed to exposing and condemning. My reply: Good. Can I assume that loathing goes so far as to actively speak out on a regular basis against porn and the harm it does women?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 24, 2005 18:56 PM

Appleman wrote: "Good Grief! Now I've heard everything! Chomsky as a centerfold on Hustler!?! On the front cover no less! I think he will go just for the article though if he goes for anything, I mean really, can you imagine such a thing? A Chomsky centerford?!? Who would even think of that? "Nice ass"?? Come on! I guess we can't accuse you of being without a strong imagination, "Prokerkus" lol" I find your comments quite telling. The comments you are reacting are the kind of thing that happen to women every day. Here we have Noam Chomsky, the great intellectual, being objectified for his body and appleman seems to think it is ridiculous. Objectification is insulting and demeaning; it is the very essence of pornography. It happens to women every day. Advertisements, television shows, movies all show women as a sum of their parts - with particular emphasis on the physical parts. Appleman can't seem to imagine such a thing as a 'Chomsky centrefold.' Why is that? The objectification of women allows pornography and rape to continue unabated in our society. The reaction is quite interesting when the tables are turned.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 24, 2005 08:41 AM

"Who knows? Maybe they'd even put Chomsky on the cover or something! I always thought he had a nice ass! (Just a joke btw, calm down. I don't even know what his ass looks like)" Good Grief! Now I've heard everything! Chomsky as a centerfold on Hustler!?! On the front cover no less! I think he will go just for the article though if he goes for anything, I mean really, can you imagine such a thing? A Chomsky centerford?!? Who would even think of that? "Nice ass"?? Come on! I guess we can't accuse you of being without a strong imagination, "Prokerkus" lol

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 23, 2005 03:52 AM

joeblogs56 wrote: WR - your feminist insights are much needed here. My reply: Thank you. It's nice when someone actually listens and tries to understand. joeblogs56 wrote: But if you think that the Kennedy's and Clinton are 'left' then you have simply not been listening to the left bloggers and commentors here at znet. My reply: You're right. I haven't. But then these are the same people who call me a feminist who is so radical that my opinions are reactionary, who have tried to convince me that I must silence my opinions in order to preserve the feminist movement and who have claimed that men have more right to define the feminist movement than women do.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 23, 2005 03:10 AM

bwong wrote: Jesus might have been a composite character who never existed. My reply: There is that possibility. There is no known historical record independent of the scriptures. Some Nag Hammadi texts refer to him as a mythological being and many of his legends exactly mirror the mythologies of other dying man/gods like Mithras. However, I do not think historical reality changes the ultimate reality of the spiritual and moral messages that are attributed to him.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 23, 2005 00:11 AM

Oh yea. Just wanted to add that I do appreciate Graeame being here and spending his time and responses with everyone. Thanks Graeme.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 22, 2005 23:59 PM

Jesus might have been a composite character who never existed. The documentary "The God Who Wasn't There" by Brian Flemming is not a scholarly work, but raise some thought provoking questions nevertheless. http://www.thegodmovie.com/ A more serious work which questions the existence of historical Jesus is Tom Harper's book "The Pagan Christ"

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 23:48 PM

Graeme wrote: I think most Christians get their gender roles from Paul rather than Yeshua/Jesus. My reply: Precisely. Paul usurped the teachings of Yeshua and imposed his own. In his denial of the right of women to lead, he didn't even attribute it to God, as is still the custom, but started his order with "I will not allow..." Graeme wrote: On your first post: I think your right/left equation is too simplistic, and the right does far more damage to women than the left. My reply: Thanks for catching my error. Unfortunately, this format does force one to over-simplify. I've debated with myself as to which side does more damage. The right definitely does on a political level, but both do on a personal level. At the bottom of all the rhetoric, men from both sides believe it is their right and privilege to use and abuse women any way they see fit. Married Senators Gingrich and Hyde publicly railed for family values, against sexual permissiveness and against abortion while secretly obtaining abortions for their mistresses. John Kennedy repeatedly disrespected Jackie by having multiple sex partners in the White House. Ted left his pregnant secretary to drown. Nixon beat Pat. We all know about Clinton, but not as many know of an incident with the Shrub and Laura where he deliberately accelerated and ran his car into their garage after she criticized a speech he'd just gave. This is a classic DV terrorizing tactic.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 22, 2005 23:11 PM

cryofan posted on Friday, July 22 at 02:03 AM this is why it is probably useless to post on internet boards: no one really cares about doing anything--only in winning points. Obviously, my saying that demonizing male sexuality is playing identity politics and fits right into the balkanization strategy of the elite, was NOT promoting porn. How on EARTH is that promoting porn? And this comment of yours falls right in line with other "rebuttals" to my comments. You take my point and twist it around, nazify me, make me out an extremist, etc etc etc. SOP.... graeme wrote: Spoken like a true Stalinist. Thanks for making my point! I win! Ha ha ha ha!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 23:07 PM

Graeme wrote: It is an important distinction. I don't imagine your or I are remotely as busy as he is, and furthermore neither of us reach a fraction of the audience he does. He prioritizes, and rightly so. This is the opposite of irresponsibility. My reply: I doubt he is any busier than I nor does he prioritize more, although he may reach a larger audience. However, by making that argument, you've returned to the "He's too important to be held responsible" position. Graeme wrote: How is he supposed to track down the record of each and every college journal and garage-published magazine that contacts him for interviews? My reply: Very easily. First, there are the periodical and publisher indexes which are available on all college computers. Second, there are books called "Writer's Markets" which list publications from all over the world. Either would take about thirty seconds to find out all he'd need to know about any publication. If he doesn't want to do it himself, then his staff could do it for him. That is what staff is for. We all, no matter how important or how busy, are responsible for our decisions. If we abandon that principle, then we abandon all morality. Do you think that would be Chomsky's argument? If so, please point me in the direction of his words that support that stance.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 22, 2005 22:47 PM

Getting back to the topic of discussion: Should Noam Chomsky go on Hustler? I say why not? It can't hurt and can only raise some publicity. As for Chomsky putting standards on what mags he should be in, remember that Chomsky has already been in Neo-Nazi publications: remember the whole Roberto Faurisson affair? I don't see how Hustler could be any worse than being in a book of a Holocaust denier. Who knows? Maybe they'd even put Chomsky on the cover or something! I always thought he had a nice ass! (Just a joke btw, calm down. I don't even know what his ass looks like)

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 22:33 PM

Graeme wrote: Whatever, this is a detail that does not detract from my point. My reply: My argument is not to invalidate your point but to expand it. Yeshua was a feminist. Women were the sponsors of his ministry for the because he repeatedly worked to elevate their position in defiance of the prevailing culture. When Martha scolded Mary for participating in religious discussions rather than being in the kitchen cooking, Yeshua chided Martha. "She has chosen the better part and it shall not be taken from her." He stopped the stoning of the adulteress but went further, telling the men that they too were guilty of adultery when they cheated on their wives. Until then, adultery was considered a crime against the husband and charged against the wife and her lover. The husband was free to have as man dalliances as he wished. When Yeshua taught this, the men howled, "We might as well be eunuchs." The Nag Hammadi scriptures cite him as loving Mary Magdalene above all others. He taught her things he didn't teach them. He often kissed her on the lips and Peter asked him why he loved her more than he loved Peter. He appeared to her first after his resurrection. He left many women as teachers and leaders in his ministry. Christians who believe women should be subordinate to men do not believe in the teachings of Yeshua, who revered women and would be just as appalled to day by the abuse of women as he was then.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 22, 2005 22:21 PM

Cryofan continues with his unsupportable, holier-than-thou, "my cause matters but nobody else's does Concentrate on just a few egalitarian matters: Tax the wealth/income of the upper class heavily. Cut the military drastically. Use that money to provide healthcare for all, low cost college and to reduce regressive taxation of the lower class. Increase the incomes of American workers by protecting them from competition against workers in low wage countries, including immigration from low wage countries. Re-industrialize America. Let all residents vote (currently we have 10-15 million legal and illegal immigrant neoslaves who are taxed and cannot vote). To get across many of these ideas, we need to build an ideological foundation based on a revisionist version of social history. Teach this ideological foundation and social history through visual entertainment. Forget all the rest of the crap. We are puny and tiny compared the elite propaganda machine. We can't afford to waver, go off message or waste our energies on things that affect only some relatively small segment of Americans or that allow the elite to depict us as being against the common people. You're both hypocrites. If these debates offend you so much feel free to leave immediately. I don't buy into the Fauxleft victimology/identity-politics scam--thus, I do not automatically seek offense. I am angry and saddened, but not offended. See, your vocabulary betrays your indoctrination....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 22:04 PM

Roger the Anti-Chomsky wrote: Yes but this is a far-Left website; how many conservatives do you think actually go on here? My reply: Your points are well-taken. I would like to make an additional point that violence against women should not be a political football. Both right and left are guilty of that violence, and both are guilty of ignoring the need to force it to stop. The first step in stopping the violence is to stop thinking of women are men's property. The right is more direct. Man is head of household. Woman needs to be subordinate to him, to obey him and service him sexually without complaint. Single women who are sexually active are sluts and deserve what they get. The right takes the opposite approach: women have a right to be single and make their own choices–but then their actions say that single women are fair prey. They endorse porn, even violent porn (under the guise that it's actually good for women). They crow about how much money women make as lap dancers, prostitutes, porn stars etc, and give no thought to how ludicrous this sounds, that they're saying women selling their bodies in all the various ways men want to be sexually serviced is the most likely way for women to obtain a decent living instead of being able to do the same via careers that men value for themselves. If women said that about men, there would be howls of outrage, yet women are supposed to just accept this ugly double standard.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 22, 2005 20:21 PM

Cyrofan we've disagreed before but I have to agree with you about most people being here just for the talking points. Too often here people just want to "win" their silly little debates and prove to everyone that "Ha Ha! I'm smarter than youuuu!" Which is really what it comes down to if you think about it: Intellectual masturbation. Other times, "debates" just end up as an exchange of talking points with neither side really caring about what the other is saying, just caring about appearing more "clever" than the other. This is not to say that there are not some very good, truly intelligent people on this site, there are, I would not be here otherwise. But unfortunately, those people seem to not use their time very wisely: Take a look at Graeme and all that he has been writing lately. He has these epic debates with stubborn reactionaries like Roger, spends an awful amount of time answering one-line comments by the King of US-propaganda one liners, Realpc which elicit 2 page responses by him only to have Realpc either ignore it entirely or just respond with another one-line post. It seems like such a waste of time to me. Just think about what Graeme and others could have done with that time furthering a worthy cause or communicating with people here that are actually interested in rational debate, discourse, the exchange of ideas and ACTION when those ideas come to fruition.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 22, 2005 10:03 AM

It still boggles my mind that supposedly leftist men are porn promoters here on Znet. this is why it is probably useless to post on internet boards: no one really cares about doing anything--only in winning points. Obviously, my saying that demonizing male sexuality is playing identity politics and fits right into the balkanization strategy of the elite, was NOT promoting porn. How on EARTH is that promoting porn? And this comment of yours falls right in line with other "rebuttals" to my comments. You take my point and twist it around, nazify me, make me out an extremist, etc etc etc. SOP.... Hypothesis: in general, the more educated a person is in political matters, the more brainwashed they are, the more programmed they are to play into an elite strategy. THat is why the only effective political action going on right now in the Americas is by the indian campesinos/peasants in south america. Those people have not been soaking in mass-media elite propaganda for years. No rightwing talk radio, no neoliberal network news, no fauxleft identity-politics journals, no years of TV watching, no bogus "education". Well, back to my documentary. I gotta learn how to make flash animations. Talking to people who have less exposure to political media is where it is at....maybe in 10 years those people will be online...

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By The, Roger at Jul 22, 2005 07:45 AM

"My reply: I didn't see anyone on the right rushing in to denounce Robert Allen's gleeful embracing of the rape culture. Neither the right nor the left has the moral high ground here. " Yes but this is a far-Left website; how many conservatives do you think actually go on here? I can only think of myself and perhaps Real PC, who isn't an "everyday" contributor and is really more centrist/center-right than hard right or conservative. Lefties outnumber Rightists here by huge margins and is very likely that most conservatives would rightly condemn this if they had seen it. Furthermore, I have condemned Robert Allen's offensive comments multiple times on other threads, such as "The End of Capitalism?" by Chomsky. Later on in the thread however, he started making those same sexually graphic analogies about my parents, whom he did not know of, of course and had zero relevancy to the discussion. At that point, I decided to ignore him as best I could and stop responding to his posts. Which is why I did not respond to this one.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Staff, Shihtzu at Jul 22, 2005 07:18 AM

Frederic wrote: "Paul, from what I've heard Hustler, like Playboy, actually contains very good articles that leftists would like. Things that can't get published in the NYT or WSJ get published in those kind of rags." So you read those magazines for the articles? What a lame excuse to consume and support the pornographic industry that demeans and degrades women. It still boggles my mind that supposedly leftist men are porn promoters here on Znet. Clearly you are missing a key piece of analysis that would allow you to think critically when it comes to pornography. Airbrushed models in made up scenarios are not art. It is exploitation plain and simple...and you are the consumers.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 01:57 AM

Graeme wrote: Okay, but as far as I know Jesus was still known to associate with prostitutes. "My reply: He allowed a prostitute to wash his feet and dry them with her hair. Is it so important that she was a prostitute? The fact that he was publicly associated with any woman who wasn't his wife was considered morally corrupt. Graeme wrote: Not "too important," too busy. My reply: a difference without distinction. I'm busy too. I imagine the same is true for you. Does that give us the right to act irresponsibly? Graeme wrote: the point is to hold power accountable, and point out and excuse injustice when one sees it. My reply: I agree. Only in my case, it's holding patriarchal power and male privilege accountable while pointing out the injustices. Graeme wrote: He vets his own interviews, probably because he doesn't want anybody else to censor anything for him. My reply: That makes him more accountable, not less. If you reread his statement, he speaks of referring the prospective interviewer to his office staff, thus they have some role to play. Either way, the buck stops with him. He has the responsibility to do no harm by voluntarily lending his good name to an irresponsible publication.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 00:49 AM

Graeme wrote: "[Jesus] is famous for associating himself with the poor and downtrodden of society, including prostitutes (Mary Magdalene etc.), not their oppressors." My reply: Nowhere in the Bible is Mary Magdalene (whose feast day is tomorrow) identified as a prostitute, a fact the RCC admitted back in the 1960s. However, I agree that Yeshua identified with society's outcasts, both male and female. (BTW, no one ever called Yeshua "Jesus" to his face. In Greek, the language of the NT, Je-Sus literally means 'Hail Zeus'.) Graeme wrote: "As if he has the time to research every single publication in the world. My reply: The old "I'm too important to be held responsible" defense? I thought he was ethically superior to our politicians. Was I wrong? He didn't have to look up anything, only demand that his office staff be diligent in vetting those who want an interview. However, even though Chomsky should have been more careful, at least he had the good grace to be embarrassed by appearing on Hustler's pages, did not defend the viciousness of violent porn and did not claim the right to a holier-than-thou throne as others are doing on his behalf. That said, I would like to note I am not right or left. I am squarely in the middle. I've been slowly wading through these posts and am impressed with some of the arguments you've been making. The posting limitations here will probably keep me from responding to them as much as I'd like though.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 22, 2005 00:27 AM

Roger the Anti-Chomsky wrote: "However, don't be surprised by the Left's (non) reaction to this. You see, "he's one of us" so it's ok...." My reply: I didn't see anyone on the right rushing in to denounce Robert Allen's gleeful embracing of the rape culture. Neither the right nor the left has the moral high ground here. The right uses religion to define, demonize and control women's sexuality. The left uses porn. The right tries to shame women into hiding their body parts under the guise of sexual sin and defends this distortion when women protest. The left relentlessly uses the media for vulgar displays of women's body parts and defends this vulgarity when women protest. Both end up spawning sexual violence against women. Our culture uses the male perception to define sexuality. Men desire sex all the time, thus women who don't are "frigid". The husband's "right" to marital relations dominated our legal system for centuries and when the concept of marital rape began to wend its way into criminal statutes, men on both the right and the left howled in outrage. The concept of women having the right to demand sexual satisfaction is relatively new in origin and has created a male backlash as to women's "selfishness." The majority of opposition to women's reproductive rights comes from male-dominated institutions. Most important and most telling: both the right and the left deny responsibility for their role in the sexual degradation of women.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Friesen, Don at Jul 21, 2005 07:43 AM

And, on the case of objectifying women, Hustler is no match compared to television and it's MTV's, Muchmusic's, etc. These teen, young adult stations take the mainstream audience to dizzying heights of bizarre portrayals of women as eye candy and slutty video props. But even so, I highly doubt anyone here thinks Chomsky should say no to the opportunity to go on those stations and reach that audience. One could even argue that the Hustler audience knows that he/she is viewing fantasy far more likely than the MTV audience thinks they are seeing fantasy on their favorite videos and "reality" shows. I don't want a bunch of stupid posts saying that I'm defending hustler, or a delusional misogynist or whatever...save it. I just think Chomsky, or anyone, shouldn't have to check a list of appropriate networks, mags, blogs, interviews, etc. before saying they'll do it. Oh..and btw, Graeme, if neo-Nazis want to publish some of Chomsky's work, then that too is fine by me. But we'll argue that one when the situation actually comes up.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Friesen, Don at Jul 21, 2005 07:22 AM

Graeme, when I said "I'm sorry Mr. Chomsky, that this has to be discussed in such detail", I wasn't literally apologizing to him obviously, but saying it as a comment on how I feel about this being so heavily discussed. But thanks for adding this clever statement, "Just to let you know, Chomsky doesn't actually read these things (in fact this isn't really a "blog" at all)" Also, Graeme, where did you here this little gem, "Jesus "hung out" with prostitutes, not johns; an important distinction perhaps" I grew up in a very religious home and I never heard Jesus actually considered "johns" to be so intolerable that they didn't even make it on his list of acceptable undesirables to hang with. But I'll have to take your word for it. There have been a lot of smug little snippets put into peoples posts here. I don't blame cryofan for getting a little colorful in some of his comments because this debate over whether an article by Chomsky in Hustler would serve more to legitimize the abuse and belittling of women than it would increase the awareness of the important points he has to offer society, is a bit much.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 21, 2005 04:21 AM

As to Chomsky's poor excuse for appearing on the pages of a misogynist, racist, pro-pediophilia publication: That's all it is, a poor excuse. Chomsky: "I never got a transcript to look at, as is the normal procedure, " My reply: Normal procedure to preapprove an entire article? No reputable publication, let alone a disreputable one, would agree to that. The most they would offer is the chance to verify his quotes are accurate. Chomsky: "I never would have agreed if I had known what the journal was; and that aside, they were not authorized to publish anything. There was no response" My reply: There was no response because they didn't need his permission to publish an article about him. He's a public figure. They can write–and quote–him at any time. The only control he could have exercised was to refuse the interview. To pass off that responsibility with a casual "I had never heard of the journal, but that is normal" still leaves the responsibility squarely on him. When one has a position of power, one has a responsibility to use that power wisely. That obviously wasn't done in this case.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By The, Roger at Jul 21, 2005 03:57 AM

Three Cheers for Wild Rider!! I salute you sir! However, don't be surprised by the Left's (non) reaction to this. You see, "he's one of us" so it's ok. Robert Allen does this sort of thing all the time, but never gets called on it. Speaks volumes of the Left and their double-standards. I wonder what else the Left will refuse to criticize because "one of our guys" did it... As for this whole American Left being out of touch with the blue collar (white) male: It's completely accurate! Cryofan has got it right but no one is heeding his message. You know, I remember seeing a bumper sticker once that said :"I just neutered the cat. Now he's a liberal." You may brush this off as just "infantile" propaganda but it's subliminal message is clear to blue-collar, "average" Americans who don't read Chomsky everyday, who aren't reading Zmag all the time. That message is: The Left isn't masculine, isn't patriotic, isn't sticking up for guys like you; they're drinking lattes, eating sushi, traveling to Bolivia, talking about East Timor and trashing America 24-7. And you know what? Often enough, that's accurate. And while those same "average Joe" Americans may not be able to compete with you guys "culturally" or "intellectually" you know where they will get back at you? At the polling booth. Because there will ALWAYS be more "average Joes" than elitist intellectuals.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Wildrider, Wildrider at Jul 21, 2005 03:26 AM

Robert Allen wrote: "...I'd pay good $ to see 5 Iraqui freedom fighters doing that number [seeing five men roughly and almost violently have sex with one woman in every orifice to the point where she appears to be in pain. Then, they conclude by ejaculating all over her face] on Condi Rice". My reply: I'm surprised none of you commented on this disgusting embrace of the rape culture. Patriarchy depends upon women living in fear of male retaliation, and this is a prime example. The lack of comment shows how ingrained it is in our society to suggest or recommend sexual violence as a way of controlling women who are perceived to have moved outside of society's proscribed boundaries. It isn't a coincidence that the act described is rented or purchased daily by the thousands, by men who are just "indulging in harmless fantasy." This "fantasy" about inflicting sexual violence on the woman with the most power in the executive branch perfectly reflects how women are perceived and treated throughout our society. And how porn helps shape those fantasies and the repression of women via violence. Nikki, good to see you here. Your comments are always strong and to the point. I hope you continue to post.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cmzimmermann, Cmzimmermann at Jul 20, 2005 18:47 PM

I have not had time yet to go through the entire thread here, however it seems to me that taking a look at Foucault's work on the history of sexuality would be quite instructive in this discussion.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 20, 2005 17:57 PM

"Bwong - Didn't you say that this was gonna be your last post about 3 or 4 posts ago??" Yes, I did. I am not disciplined enough and got carried away.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gwbush212121, Prokerkus_ at Jul 20, 2005 17:39 PM

Bwong - Didn't you say that this was gonna be your last post about 3 or 4 posts ago?? I'm not telling you to stop writing, I just don't get it when people say it's going to be their last post, only to write more. Is that just to bring more attention upon yourself or something?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 20, 2005 00:53 AM

" but wouldn't it necessarily follow that he[Jensen] should be against "non-puritanical" sex in many other formats, not just porn?" I would be the logical inference based on what he wrote, in particular his emphasis on the distinction between "romance"(sex with emotional connection) and porn(sex as "pumping"(my word)) "..but do you not believe it is possible to be anti-porn without being anti-sex (whatever one's motivation)?" I agree in general the psychological state of an author should not nullify his/her argument and the "subtext" is USUALLY irrelevant for appraisng an argument. But I think such consideration is warranted in Robert Jensen's particular article. He made his case relying on an aweful lot of his SUBJECTIVE impressions on what is 'degrading" and very little by way of actual data and logic.For example, he spent a quite a bit of time describing the facial expression of a female actor, whom he claimed was in pain while being penetrated. And then he made all sorts of unsubstantiated claims linking rape, sexual abuse and porn. At best he might have demonstarted some correlations, but correlations don't equal causation. Any student in social science knows that. I found the piece emotionally manipulative but scant in substance. He was also too eager to push the guilt button. I think to understand where he was coming from an examination of his implicit,--actually not that hidden,--puritan premises is in order.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 20, 2005 00:04 AM

"But the same thing could be said about anything, i.e. "there is a difference [between] being against underlying social causes behind militarism and being against militarism itself," " That's not an analogy. Militarism clearly CAUSES great harm and destruction whether it is a symtom of something else or not. I have yet seen a *convincing* argument that porn in general causes social harm other than moral majority styled hysteria. "No, but it[porn] is unique in some ways" Of course it is unique. In the same way that any particular industry is unique. But you seem to be saying that it is uniquely "bad' in some ways. I certainly don't see it. Can you elaborate? "Do you really think most "anti-sex" activists are secretly class warriors in disguise?" My original comment was a side remark about tax on "junk" food, not particularly related to porn. But we can certainly persue along this line. Consider "John laws". They are often supported by the same anti porn crusaders. While it may not be the intention, it is not accidental that John schools are apparantly full of horny immigrants who can only afford street hookers. Clients of escort services are not considered "johns' by the law.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 19, 2005 22:13 PM

"My point is that the manufacture of consent and the dissemination of ruling-class ideology takes place perhaps just as significantly in the corporate-crafted commercial and entertainment "popular culture" as in the news and commentary media" Street I agree. Perhaps to digress a bit, I think in the capacity of being the vehicle of dominant ideology "Hustler"(and other smudge mags) is no worse than Hollywood, and definitely has a much smaller circulation and a lot more marginal in terms of popular acceptence. That's a reason why I think the porn angle has been overplayed by some comments here. These comments reveal quite a bit about the sexual hang ups of our society.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 19, 2005 21:44 PM

"Obviously, but the idea of raising prices for McDonald's and the like is still a very good idea, considering how vastly underpriced the food really is, compared to the cost it has on the developing world" I don't think if you can pass a legislation taxing only Mcdonald's but not the local mom and pop burger joint, or the falafel.It may not stand up in court. The proposed law was really taxing CHEAP food, not junk food. If a restaurant charges you $4 for a burger it is junk but if it charges you %6 somehow it becomes more wholesome? All Mcdonald has to do is to raise the price. Instead of collecting an extra $1 as tax, it can raise the price by $1 and pockets it itself. The hidden cost of food is a different matter, unrelated to junk food perse. E.g healthy fruit and veggetables availiable off seasons carry a lot of hidden transportation costs. "The problem is for many people it really is a choice between McDondald's and an upscale restaurant" That was basically my point in reponse to David. "How? People want to make porn only for the rich? " In Europe, crusade against porn occured only after the invention of photography, which drastically reduced the cost of making pornographic images.Porn became much more availiable for the lower class. Before porn material was hand drawn and only the wealthy could afford them. You draw the conclusion.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 19, 2005 21:21 PM

"'Serious' is subjective, obviously. Clearly our society has major problems with sex; I tend to see a lot of porn as a symptom of these problems, while you perhaps see it as some kind of antidote." I don't see porn as either an antidote or a problem. Porn has many dimensions. In my last post I was merely commenting on one aspect of it, in response to David. Will porn still have a market if we are less hang up about sex? You bet. For some porn is an outlet for frustrated sex drive, but there are also many who have healthy sex lives but still watch porn (with their partners) There is a difference in being against certain underlying social causes behind porn and being against porn itself. Similarly one should seperate the business model of porn and the product. Much of what people say about objectional business practises and exploitation can be adapted to any industry to various degrees. The porn industry is not nearly the wost. E.g: you may have a problem with large book publishers ripping off lesser known authors and monopolize distribution. But this is not an argument against books. "Jensen wasn't arguing against, say, premarital sex, but porn, which is a different thing." Not directly. But his comment on porn v.s romanace is clearly informed by his anti-sex prejudice. He anxiety as a guilt ridden, ex porn consummer is dripping from his essay. I think puritanism is essential in understanding Jensen.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Street, Paul at Jul 19, 2005 20:17 PM

On and on with the porn debate, as if Hustler was the timeless template for the evaluation of pornography qua pornography instead of being a generally reactionary product of historically specific late-capitalist culture. Here's something nobody has touched up: the world's leading left intellectual (who I hold in very high esteem and who I must have quoted at least 200 times by now)says he could not identify Hustler (do I have that right? I think I do). Maybe this is partly generational, but I asked my 72-year old mother (not a porn enthusiast!) if she'd heard of Hustler and she knew it right off. My point is that the manufacture of consent and the dissemination of ruling-class ideology takes place perhaps just as significantly in the corporate-crafted commercial and entertainment "popular culture" as in the news and commentary media that tends to garner the attention of our often admirably highbrow left intellectuals. I haven't looked at a Hustler myself in a good long while I must admit but my educated guess tells me it contains no small of hegemonic messaging from the dominant socioeconmic and imperial powers that be and that its particuar version of porn is related to that messaging.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 19, 2005 19:26 PM

"Someone on my blog asked if the popularity of porn was a result of a culture that refuses to deal with sex in a serious way." But one can also argue that it is the result of taking sex TOO seriously. Jensen made the point that sex for sex's sake (porn) is vile but it is good when emotional attachment is involved(romance). This sums up our Puritan heritage on sex: sex is dirty and "degrading" unless it is redeemed by 'love". What if people just want to have sex for fun without the emotional commitment that goes with "romance"? It may sound sleazy, but only because our culture fundamntally regards sex as sleazy and requires a lot of policing, instead of recognizing it as a healthy human appitide. To persue your fast food analogy further. Not all fast food is junk food. A nice falafel in my town costs $2.50 cdn. If you don't like that you can always walk over to China town or Korean town to get a nice bowl of noodle for about $3. Fast, cheap and wholesome. But if all that is availiable is Mc burgers, and full course meals that costs $15, many would choose Mcdonald's simply because they can't afford a full course meal or don't want to pay $15. Our government planned to raise the taxes on meal for less than $5 in the name of discouraging the consumption of "junk food".If implemented the result would be only rich people can neat out. That has some parallelism with the anti sex crusaders. Thankfully the government backed off eventually.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Jautter, Mind at Jul 18, 2005 23:45 PM

All very interesting and I've read comments from many people new to me on Z-Blog, but who I'd really like to hear from is the guy who can masterbate and climax to a Chompsky interview.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 18, 2005 22:36 PM

"As somebody said here, human sexual norms are created by society (including "Hustler") at least as much as they are reflected by them. " I am not sure if "Hustler" represent the sexual norm of Norh American culture. I don't know the context of the statement you cited, but apparantly it can be interpreted as a defence for hard core XXX porn(definitely outside of the accepted norm) Supposedly gay sex is outside the sexual norm, but I don't see how this fact is relevant to the "morality" of consenting adults engaging in gay sex(or watching gay porn) "I'm not trying to turn "sexual fantasies" into anything, but I don't see why any particular realm of human behaviour should be completely off-limits to rational political analysis just because people tend to do it in private." No one say you can't. But keep in mind that sexuality is more primal than politics. I think Federic made a good point early on. People(I don't mean you specifically) shouldn't confuse asthetics with morality.A talented artist is able to sublimate his sexual fantasies into say, a fiction, for which he wins the Nobel prize. A less talented Joe, on the other hand, masturbates with Hustler. What's the difference? Asthetics, that's it. "I also think that accepting "Hustler" as equating with "natural" sexual fantasies is a dangerous and wrong step" I don't. I don't think what is "natural" is relevant. Some may argue gay sex is "not natural".

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 18, 2005 19:36 PM

Cryofan is correct that persuing identity politics as an be all and end all is a distraction. But the alternative is not to simply ignoring legitimate 'cultural" oppressions based on race, geneder and sexual orientation, etc. Rather, we should seek to integrate these movements within a broader context. Not to comment on Hustler in particular(I find it in bad taste)I do think anti-sex puritanism often masquarades itself as "leftist" views. Self righteousness and a compulsion to control seem to be the underlying threads for such attitude. My own view is close to those expressed by Antony earlier on this blog, though unlike him, I almost never consume porn (just don't turn me on, maybe I have low sex drive or something..) I disagree with Graeme's idea of seperating "good porn" from "bad porn". How do you draw the line? Are S/M, bondage bad? I am sure there are many fetishes one can think of. Sexuality can be a dark and mysterious realm and to some folks it is what makes it exciting.Attempting to turn sexual fantasies into some politically correct, clinical exercise is missing the point. Most people are able draw the line between reality and fantasy. Men who visit dominatrix usually don't enjoy being abused in real life. In fact, they tend to be well to do and occupy powerful positions in society. I should stop because i already broke my promise of refraining from any more porn debate.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 18, 2005 16:30 PM

RIGHT! We must fight against offensive hate-speech! THAT is what is wrong with America--all them little drawings with ideers in 'em! Never mind all those distractions about how the war machine is killing 100K+, or how the healthcare extortion system is killing 18K Americans yearly, or how our college students go into massive debt, or how the rich are stealing us blind by making the rest of us pay taxes out the yahoo, and how CorpGovMedia is destroying our job base, or how our Constitution was designed to create a government that is deliberately inefficient and designed to stifle innovation and change. These are just distractions. We don't need to be focusing all our energies on these silly things. We don't need to be focusing our energies on communicating these minor problems to all Americans. We have plenty of money, time, power, enough to look at more important problems. No, instead, offensive hate speech is where it is at. There is the real problem. EVERYONE needs to identify themselves with some particular identity group and always always always be vigilant for hate speech that offends us and our particular identity group. That is the law of the FauxLeft, and I will obey it, lest I be cast out from the Faux Left, and be cursed and doomed to wander the ideological desert for 40 years....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Jarrett_gabriel, Anonymous3 at Jul 18, 2005 15:49 PM

Just out of curiosity, has anyone bothered checking out the cartoons regularly presented in Hustler magazine? I find it odd that people are equating Hustler with pornography, when the most serious problem with Hustler is that it has cartoons, which are racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, and homophobic. It has cartoons that: - make fun of the fact, that some children get sexually assaulted; -it has a cartoon with Adolf Hitler wearing an apron which says “Jew-b-Que;” it has a cartoon that refers to blacks using the ‘n' word; - it has a cartoon which has a sign which says that if anyone wants to be raped they can call the rape hotline; and it just goes on from there. This is quite offensive, and I am surprised no one has pointed this out. Can we at least agree that Chomsky had good reason not to be associated with this magazine? These cartoons are extremely hateful and offensive.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 18, 2005 04:06 AM

The elite forces in our society encourage people to express political rebellion via these sorts of identity politics outlets, like this porn thing, or gender politics, gay rights, anything to do with ethnicity. Just so long as it pits one part of common society against another. Or common society against a particular member of the elite. This thing that nikki (and many other similar political activists) has, it is something that has developed in her through the influences of the media, mostly, and academia. The media has to have drama and conflict as a part of its content, but some areas of political expression are off limits, it seems. But other areas of political expression encouraged. This encouragment seems to be exerted by the frequency of coverage of certain areas and the way that such political activists are treated. The media seems to encourage political activism in the area of identity politics and non-economic issues, but not political activism concerned with recognizing and controlling the power and machinations of the elite, or economics-oriented activism. So I think that nikki is just going along with expression her political rebellion in ways that are find favor with the media.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Tolsen1, R4d20 at Jul 18, 2005 03:23 AM

"Clever metaphor, but I doubt that the readers of Hustler would read Chomsky even if he were thrown in somehwere between Asian lesbians and group sex photo layouts." Vontrary to poular opinion, guys actually DO read these things. Looking a naked women is nice, but does get boring, and sooner or later the readers eventually make it to the articles. Anti-porn activists face one HUGE practical hurdle - most people of both sexes like porn in at least small doses. I'm not a pollster, but most young adult women I know like porn in some circumstances, and oppose it being banned in their name. Furthermore, the VAST majority of men HAVE consumed pornography since their teen years and have come out as perfectly well-adjusted people in perfectly healthy relationships. Saying "porn causes rape" or "porn causes broken homes" to a person who has casually consumed porn for decades, has never even thought about raping a woman, and is in a long term loving relationship, is a predictably hard sell to make.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Gammon101, Bwong at Jul 17, 2005 23:17 PM

'I don't quite understand cryofan how the distractions of the working class should be idolized? How football and beer should be the roots of the new American Revolution? That all seems to be a distraction tool used to dull the minds of the proliteriat.'MTBRAD Let's be realistic, I don't think most people think about "revolution" all the time. Mor should they With due respect, you sound like some religious fundamentalist who thinks one should only think about "salvation" every waking moment and all else are "distractions". What do you think people should do? Pulling long faces all day and talk about nothing but oppression? You find such people in abundance in the evangelical churches, except they talk about Jesus instead of Marx. I assure you "normal people" don't like to hang out with such obsessive individuals, regardless of politics. To quote Emma Goldman, "I want no part in your revolution if I cannot dance"(paraphrase) And to paraphase one of Hemmingway's characters " Religion is opium for the masses, music is opium for the masses, sex is no doubt opium for the masses, so is sport.. what do you want with the masses? Operating on them without anethestics?" PS pornography has been debated to death in Lucinda Marshall's blog,--and which apparantly led to the 1200 sec rule,-- so I will refrain from commenting on the subject.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 17, 2005 03:42 AM

I looked at your website, nikki. Lokos like you are attacking hate speech that comes in the form of porn, in your opinion. That's real keen, Nikki! I know that, speaking for myself, I love how the American Left has abandoned the idea of an egalitarian, broad-based welfare state, like that found in Europe. I love how the American Left has instead focused on things such as hate speech, anti-porn, womyn's rights, affirmative action for "under represented minorities", and other similar actions. Who cares about universal healthcare, anyway? I know that I would trade healthcare for stopping Hustler mag, et al. Who cares about no-tuition universities or longerm, multiyear unemployment benefits like they have in Europe. THey're just soft, anyway. Good for you! You and I must have money and a good career. We can afford to have the American left take this course. As for anyone that is middle aged and unemployable with no healtcare, well, fark 'em, I say! Let's get it on with this Hate Speech thing!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 17, 2005 02:32 AM

"nude women"? [!] If you're on the most "preeminent intellectual in the world's" website writing within a thread entitled _Hustler Interview Context_ then why aren't you at least informing yourself of the very content you're supposed to be commenting on? There's only been several visitors to "Hustling the Left" off this page so most of you obviously can't be bothered. If you can't be any more concerned than that about active inquiry then why do you think anyone would ever care anything about preserving your minds or your brains? Sorry, but it's really true. You want to defend this magazine, at least look at the what you're defending. And while you're at it your defense would have a lot more credibility (and courage) if you wouldn't do so hiding behind fake names. Come on! Here's your chance to see some real Hustler porn fer free. http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/gallery/ Nikki Craft

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Friesen, Don at Jul 16, 2005 20:42 PM

Good God..does anyone remember what started this kind of anger? If you ask me, the wall street journal is probably read by some of the most powerful, cold-hearted, greed driven people that ever lived. If Mr. Chomsky was published in that publication I suppose we'd all be rejoicing because he was reaching "good" people. Why someone who may look at nude women is more vile than the kind of person who supports, maybe even enables, a system so broken that even over 100,000 dead Iragi's doesn't make him/her flinch. We need to find out why this is and who the real enemies are. I'm not trying to find out here whether porn is right or wrong. This is still about reaching an audience...powerful or not.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 16, 2005 20:27 PM

But probably the most important question facing modern science is whether or not the human mind can survive the physical death of the body. That IS an important question. The mind is inextricably linked to the brain, however. So why not use the word "brain," instead. Without some sort of quick action at the time of death, autolysis occurs soon after ischemia (no blood to brain, hence no oxygen to brain). Autolysis renders the brain structure to a soupy consistency within 24 hours or so at room temps. However by lowering temps to 40 F or so, autolysis is greatly postponed. So where does that get you at this point in time? Nowhere! However, there are people who are lowering the brain into liquid nitrogen to retard biochemistry to such a degree that the brain is unchanged for thousands of years. Then at some point in time, it is hoped, humans will be able to revive and restore these brains, and the persons within, to health. It's called cryonics.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jul 16, 2005 20:17 PM

The idea of racism is strange. It cannot withstand rational scrutiny and at it's core there seems to be a perverted sexuality. The notion of the Pure Aryan for example. What does that mean? After all there are many short, squat, deformed, ugly, stupid, Pure Aryan's. And many "non-Aryans" who surpass every measure of "desirable" human characteristics. But probably the most important question facing modern science is whether or not the human mind can survive the physical death of the body.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 16, 2005 19:36 PM

Cryofan please respond to this comment made by Greame, it reflects the opinion of most people on this blog, myself included: "cryofan: enough with the patronizing nonsense. Why are people who disagree with you automatically "faux left," and "molded by dogma?" Can't you respond to their arguments on their merits without resorting to unsupportable ad hominems?"

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Bauerly, Mtbrad at Jul 16, 2005 18:31 PM

I don't quite understand cryofan how the distractions of the working class should be idolized? How football and beer should be the roots of the new American Revolution? That all seems to be a distraction tool used to dull the minds of the proliteriat. Your attack on, or more acurately your generalizations concerning Foux Left academia, seems to me to be brought about by some sort of resentment for people who have devoted their lives to a cause and who have gained a point of access because of their hard work. Sure, some are just corporate lackies disguised as lefties, but not all. Most egregious of your notions is your representation of a seperate and distict male sexuality, utter nonsense. Male sexuality is constructed and policed by societal norms, ie. pethouse and porn creates male aggressive sexuality it does not simply respond to it.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 16, 2005 15:29 PM

Chomsky is (rightly) disdainful of the publications themselves, not the people who read them. In the name of the sweet, two-fisted Jesus! No wonder the Left is on its a$$. You are a microcosm of the Left: it's all about neonazis and demonizing male sexual urges and rednecks.....(yeah, I know you didn't mention rednecks yet, but I am sure you will get there....) We don't really know what "kind" of people read Hustler. But...they can be reached in other ways Reaching and persuading people is a zillion dollar business. So it aint exactly easy. It takes money. The Elite have money. We Anti-elite don't. YOU TAKE WHAT YOU CAN GET. And if we have a chance to take Hustler, we take it! We cannot afford to be "disdainful"! Just imagine the right: Chomsky endorses hardcore porn! Chomsky is a neo-Nazi! etc. etc. The more publicity for Noam and his exposure of power and privilege, the better. Whip up a media storm of righteous indignation about Chomsky being in a porn mag? Oh, the horror! Oh, the mortification! Oh, the publicity! Gosh, a scandal about this in the media might mean that some plumber might actually read chomsky's words...what horrors might that bring on? Why, the Left might become a BLUE COLLAR Left. And we can't have that, now, can we? Those plumbers are nasty creatures who read porn. They drink BEER instead of latte! Again, sorry for the sarcasm and the hyperbole, but the Left is dead in America, and I know why.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 16, 2005 15:01 PM

Chomsky has the same right to refuse to associate himself with Hustler as he does to refuse to associate himself with a neo-Nazi publication; Of course he has the right. Goaliemask never said otherwise. Sorry to be so blunt, but that is a ridiculous argument. We NEED this. it may be that some neo-Nazis may benefit from reading Chomsky, but that can hardly be his main concern. It MAY be that a NeoNazi would benefit from reading Chomsky? No kidding! And it MAY be that the sky is blue. Again, apologies for my sarcsam, but we are not about making argumentation points here. We want to change America. And if if Noam has some cachet (and we KNOW he has the goods on the elite), then if he has a chance to put his works between some of the hottest porn this side of Usenet, then he had DAMM WELL BETTER DO IT! Again, this blog aint about sports or something. This is super serious stuff. And please, stop worrying so much about NeoNazis. Stop making Neonazuis the scapegoats of the world. Neonazis are just a few stupid kids getting attention. It's the elite that we need to focus on. Hell, HITLER was just a mostly just a tool of the banks and megacorporations who got out of control. I realize I am attributing things to you that you may not have actually said, but again, like David, your words seem to model those of the fauxLeft elite, in whose dogma you seem to be been well versed. So here I am speaking to the adherents of the fauxLeft in general.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Friesen, Don at Jul 16, 2005 06:11 AM

I'm sorry Mr. Chomsky, that this has to be discussed in such detail. When trying to get a message accross to as many people as possible it seems self defeating to limit oneself to only "appropriate" venues/audiences. And who has the right to dictate what sort of person should be allowed to stumble across a very meaningful and perhaps enlightening article. Right wing christians would be proud of this kind of bogus debate....meanwhile, Jesus himself hung out with the undesireables of society. If Hustler is only read by insensitive, racist, misogynistic men...isn't that one of the best forums for someone like Mr. Chomsky to share his thoughts. Who knows, it might even effect just one person who doesen't noramally post on Znet.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Nikki, Nikkicraft at Jul 15, 2005 23:03 PM

http://www.hustlingtheleft.com/ For decades Larry Flynt, "free speech hero," has been wooing and using the Left to lend legitimacy to his corrupt, dehumanizing, and expanding empire. We reject this knowing or unknowing alliance. At this site you will see who on the Left has been used by Larry Flynt: some unwillingly, some willingly, and some enthusiastically like Greg Palast. You can read their own explanations of how some, like Noam Chomsky, were misled to be in Hustler magazine, you will be alerted to which groups Flynt routinely targets for abuse, and you will find analysis of Flynt's speech relative to the speech of those he participates in oppressing. If you are concerned about corrupt corporate limitations on human freedoms, civil rights, speech rights, and animal rights, we invite you to visit Hustling The Left. This site was created for responsible speech to exist and be dispersed freely by you about the harm done by corporate pimp Larry Flynt and his pornography empire, including his collaborators, apologists, and his financially well-endowed bevy of lawyers. This site exposes how Flynt's harassment and bombastic bluster in response to our speech; and how he has used harassment and intimidation techniques. Oppressed and systematically silenced people have no media empires, or reliable access to mainstream media, through which to speak critically about media, culture, and the politics of each. This site provides a forum for radical voices to be heard.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 15, 2005 16:14 PM

One more thing I want to make clear to David, regarding the core elite of the FauxLeft. David you are NOT a member of that core elite. You are instead trying to BECOME a member of it. But you did not create this quasi-institution that pretends to represent the little guy, but instead furthers the goals of its core elite by gaining power by pandering to a disparate coalition based on identity politics, a coalition that represents a decided minority of Americans, and most of whose needs are not met institutionally. You are just trying to fit into one of the systems that you are presented with as a choice. The system you chose may well be better, fairer than the other side. But in my view, it falls far short of meeting its purported goals. And this system is moribund, an institutionalized victim of its ineffectiveness and its past successes, and a victim of the other side's effectiveness. No, I attack the SYSTEM that molds you into a tool of the elite. I do not attack you. I was much the same when I was your age in many ways. Nothing unsual there. You try to model the dogma of whatever system you are trying to fit into. This is completely natural.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 15, 2005 08:17 AM

I want to make it clear that I am not attacking David. I realize that he is just trying to make his way in life and doing the best he can. I did not say the things I did to make him feel bad. But I have to tell the truth as I see it.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Antiamerican800, Bernardo at Jul 15, 2005 00:18 AM

Well of course this raises the whole problem of what pornography IS. But sex is a very primitive impulse, albeit a very powerful one. It has nothing to do with the higher brain functions. But a good scientist for all his/her intelligence is still only a fragile animal doomed to a mere 100 years of life at best on this planet.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 14, 2005 23:51 PM

The kind of pornography and demeaning of women that Hustler and its ilk produce are what is "degrading and disgusting" not just to women but hopefully of men as well. Pornography CAN be tasteful and non-offensive to women, just like fast food can be nutritious and healthy, but unless we start changing this it will never happen. And if the Left doesn't do it, no one else will, McDonalds and the Hustlers of the world are making too much money to care. That is the Left's responsibility. I also donate to organizations, attend meetings, and travel and give money to 3rd world countries as well. The West has a moral responsibility to do so. I can't stand the culture sometimes. It is our duty to go out and explore NEW and different cultures, not just our own. And yes it is important to respect the environment and encourage people to drive in cleaner vehicles. I look up to the 3rd world as a beacon of hope of what is possible and what we can do, as priveleged Westerners, to improve their lives through our actions, to show compassion for our less priveleged brothers and sisters all over the world is probably reaching as close to the greatest height of morality that one can get.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 14, 2005 19:24 PM

We "alienate" segments of the population because they're told we're a bunch of effete fools. That is just one part of what they are told; they are also told that the Left is for the minorities and women and against them. They are told that the Left has a culture that is against their culture, and that the Left looks down upon rural white males. What if they were told that the Left were space aliens who wanted to imprison their souls for research? Do you that would be as effective as what they are bbeing told now? Why not? Maybe because there is a lot of truth in what they are being told? Yes, that package of propaganda stretches and ignores a lot. But it would not work if there were no truth to it. But you are sliding off from what I am primarily dealing with. You are getting into the Rightwing propaganda machine explicit talking points. I aint particularly interested in their explicit points. I am more interested in the subtext, which is what I am bringing out here. THe right depends on unvocalized truths, and they do not voice them explicitly, because that would open up areas of thought that the right would rather not bring out into the open. The Left elite also divert attention from these issues into identity politics.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Krizman, Chris at Jul 14, 2005 18:16 PM

I agree with cryofan. After visiting znet for several years, I have just now starting looking at the blogs and their comments. I have to say that this one has surprised me and I hope it is not an indication of the general attitudes of the radical left. I can't see the views of DavidM and especially of Appleman of being anything but destructive to gaining any kind of popular support. Imposing your concepts of morality and "decency" onto large portions of the population, and alienating them by calling them filth, scum, uneducated, etc. is ridiculous. Do you alienate every other segment of the population who doesn't adhere to your specific moral values? People who have various other vices; watching corporate television, smoking cigarettes, pumping gas into their cars, shopping at Walmart, wearing NIKE shoes, etc. etc.; do you look down on them and belittle them as much as you do the person who buys the occasional smut mag?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 14, 2005 17:11 PM

Filth and degradation? We are not talking here about some hobby or some sports team. We are talking about the future of our country, OUR future. This is serious stuff. Sorry if David got offended, but I guess victimology tends to do that. As for traveling to the 3rd world to help the poor, I wonder if that is telescopic philanthropy, at best, and resume-polishing at worst. Yes, of course the neoliberal elite of the Faux Left would prefer that philanthropy be constrained to personal good deeds and works. However, I would prefer to tax the wealth of the rich and use it directly. And I say we work on this country first, THEN worry about countries. If we could gain more control over the corporate machine-media-govt complex, we might be better able to help the 3rd world that way.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 14, 2005 15:39 PM

Congrats David M! You are completely correct! And I applaud you for your patience in dealing with all this as it truly is insulting even to respond to such filth and degradation.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 14, 2005 08:24 AM

I have lowered my intellect in responding to this strange personal attack It was not meant as an attack on you. Just a (hopefully) pertinent observation. The front page of your blog says you are a student. I am not exactly being Sherlock Holmes, here. And you are certainly not exceptional at being indoctrinated by the FLE academic arm. All the other serious liberal arts students are right there with you, trying as hard as they can to model the dogma. You are totally unexceptional! And over there in the business-economics dept are the serious rightwing students, similarly modeling the tenets of the neoliberal dogma. Same story, different rules. It all works out in the end--the rich get richer, the poor, well, they get along, right? As for porn, it is a HUGE business. If you as a male find it disgusting, then that IS exceptional. Again, this just goes to show how the core elite fauxleft has built a synthetic Bizarro World of dogma. Of course the fundies have that whole religion thing going on, so they have their wackiness. Each to his own, but none for me, thanks....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matrix4, Appleman at Jul 14, 2005 06:53 AM

Pornography is disgusting. Those that watch it are disgusting. It is both degrading to women and a complete embarassment to men that have any respect of females. I for one am glad the good professor is not going down in the gutter with the riff-raff and the most sleazy, uneducated elements of the US population. Let them dabble in their own misery, immorality and unelighteness. If this is where the "male sexuality" is then I am proud that the left will have absolutely no part of it. We should only communicate with those that preach AGAINST sexism, female submissiveness and male dominance, to not do so and condone this kind of exploitation makes us lose our very own soul.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 14, 2005 02:15 AM

Well, I emailed Noam about this. He responded by saying that and he had not known about this blog posting and was not entirely clear about the exact details of the entire matter (he does a lot of interviews). He said that interacting with typical readers of hustler was a good thing, but that he could reach that audience elsewhere (easier said than done!), and that Hustler was undignified. I am paraphrasing, of course....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Thewaughster, Rastaman at Jul 14, 2005 01:47 AM

Hi DavidM32285 Robert Jensen (sp?) said that women in porn are "not human beings, but three holes and two hands." That's a pretty idle description of women in porn, hasn't he heard of footjobs? Boom boom! Bad joke, but some think the ability to laugh is a capacity that will save us from facism. I'd like to see progressive thought feature in as many places as possible; but social justice in a magazine designed to encourage 5 against 1? Like sardines and ice cream, they don't go together. It's Mr Chomsky's right to decide where his words will appear. That he chooses to disassociate social justice from prurience at large indicates a division between rational discourse and erm, self-pleasuring. Now if Mr Chomsky discussed pure philosophy in the Hustler interview, then a case could be made for the two areas to finally merge in that physical masturbation would at last be linked to its mental correlate. Until then, I reckon he did the right thing. Rastaman

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Krizman, Chris at Jul 13, 2005 23:52 PM

I don't know if Chomsky didn't want his article in Hustler because of its content or because they were dishonest in dealing with him. It doesnt matter it his choice where he wants his content to show up. But the reason I'm signing up and posting here is that I don't agree with the rhetoric about pornography in the comments here, and I don't think it is at all constructive for progressing any political and social change in the U.S. The left should be completely in favor of free speech on all levels, first of all. And believing only certain types of slimy/evil/abusive people look at pornography is elitist and most likely hypocritical. Pornography is not harmful in any way and various studies have shown that it can actually lower crime, giving sexual predators an outlet. And then there is the whole argument of what constitutes pornagraphy at all. But we dont need to get into that. Hustler actually is a very political magazine, and has done all the things listed in Chomsky's post. It sells because of sex, but also is filled with political commentary that many people would never come across otherwise. I dont see what the problem is with being interviewed by them.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Neptunert, Maninblack at Jul 13, 2005 20:51 PM

Here in Nevada, there is no shortage of not only Porn, but prostitution. I feel that having the legal brothels and thier semi-legitimate cousins pornography are better legal and taxed and out in the open. I've lived in other area of the country where there are laws that make crimes out of things which are not crimes. Whatever regulation that is put in place regarding vice is ultimately useless in erridcating what it is targeting. Look at the abject failure of the War On Poor People...I mean War On the Constitution...no no it's the War On Drugs. 190,000 women arrested for drug law violations. Families broken up. 150,000 women (per familywatch.org and november.org)behind bars. 2/3 of which are mothers. The attempt to legislate morality and control human appetites causes more harm and degradation to both women and families than any porn or legal prostitution. Not that abuses don't occur, but when these things are legal and taxed and easily reviewed, it is a better situation.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Matt6440, Mattb at Jul 13, 2005 20:39 PM

Noam is in Hustler? How does he look?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Allen, Robert at Jul 13, 2005 17:25 PM

"But, I suppose I would wonder about someone who is turned on by seeing five men roughly and almost violently have sex with one woman in every orifice to the point where she appears to be in pain. Then, they conclude by ejaculating all over her face." It wouldn't turn me on, but I'd pay good $ to see 5 Iraqui freedom fighters doing that number on Condi Rice.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By The, Roger at Jul 13, 2005 16:55 PM

Nope, I wouldn't like your ideas at all. Which is why of course I'm glad you aren't in charge of the Left right now, you might actually win if people followed your advice about connecting with working class white Americans. You wouldn't win with my vote of course. But then again, what's the chance that will happen?

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 13, 2005 16:41 PM

Please David don't be so Puritan. Well, David is a serious student, and he's trying to mold himself to the doctrines of the FauxLeft Elite (FLE); he is being indoctrinated by the academic arm of the FLE, a major indoctrination arm of the FLE. Yes, the FLE does hew to a rather bizarre, Puritanesque, perverse, nature-denying moral code; it serves the interests of a certain subset of the elite: successful female yuppies. The strong male sexual drive, testosterone-driven ambition and male bonding is a hindrance to the career prospects of high-flying female yuppies. Tha is one of the reasons for the FLE demonization of male sexual drives. The FLE prioritize not universal healthcare or childcare for all children, or basic jobs for the unskilled, but instead focus on improving the career prospects of the most powerful of the FLE--female yuppies. It's ALL about the glass ceiling, dontcha know. FARK the poor, they say. Sure, give 'em lip service and a few crumbs, but the concerns of the FLE are mainly about what their core client elite want. And the FLE sure do like illegal immigration (gotta have those cheap nannnies for the upper class!). So they indoctrinate students like David into the dogma of the core of the FLE. THe FLE operates much like a mirror version the Right, but with a somewhat different set of elite-friendly doctrines, mainly to suit their particular set of core elite.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 13, 2005 16:04 PM

As a loyal conservative Republican I will say this: I am sure glad that people like cryofan aren't in charge of the Left! They might actually win an election for a change. yeah, but something tells me you would not like my ideas about high taxation of income and wealth along the lines of Sweden and Denmark, in order to pay for a stronger social safety net, or my ideas about a 30 hour work week, or my ideas about cutting 75% of the military, or my ideas about restricting many areas of non-industrial commerce to very small businesses only. Or my ideas about junking our constitution and the presidency, the senate, and giving most power to tax and regulate commerce back to the states.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Garrett, Dana at Jul 13, 2005 07:21 AM

What is there to debate here? Hustler duped him. That was bad form to say the least. If he doesn't want his words (given under far less than informed consent)to be printed in a certain mag, then that is his affair. This is a non-issue.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By The, Roger at Jul 13, 2005 06:41 AM

"What MORE could the elite want, than to have the Left divide itself up into factions, embrace victimology and spoils-politics, and demonize the white male, esp. the blue collars. THat is a WET DREAM for the elite. Until the Left discards identity politics, and turns its aim SOLELY upon the elite, the Left in America will remain moribund, save for a major economic collapse." Wow. I'm stunned..speechless! A lefty that actually has some kind of basis in reality of the lives of average white Americans??!? As a loyal conservative Republican I will say this: I am sure glad that people like cryofan aren't in charge of the Left! They might actually win an election for a change.

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 13, 2005 03:35 AM

go on, now, demonize that male sexuality! Preach it, my Leftist Brothers! Way to balkanize the working classes! Especially the blue collar male! They are Pure Evil!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By K, Mr at Jul 13, 2005 02:57 AM

The 'Right' has no morality so maybe the 'left' has to sink into a gutter or two to bring the words of wisdom to the unenlightened and bring light into the dark pit of porn. Utilizing some key phrases and antidotes might help curb some of the more dysfunctional aspects of this industry. maybe they'd even print his thoughts on the industry itself. Wow i'm sure the little right-winger elite would love their wives to read that!

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Kafka, Chucky at Jul 13, 2005 02:51 AM

Nah, big deal. Noam was just tricked and that's about it. No need to think too much about it. However, can't help but ask one question: why didnt the secretary ask for say, name card and whatsoever, to let the interviewee first identify which journal the reporter represented? Anyway it is still sort of funny when you think about it..... I can tell my girlfriend "Oh, hon, I bought this issue of Hustler cuz of Noam!"

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 13, 2005 02:07 AM

Do you think that the degradation of women in the pornographic industry is acceptable and a good thing? If not, why should Noam support an that very industry? oh, absolutely, David! That is all very important! Top priority! Now, please, David--we have a even more urgent task: the deck chairs on the ship decks outside need rearranging. Oh, and just disregard that ABANDON SHIP alarm you hear....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By Cryofan, Cryofan at Jul 13, 2005 01:40 AM

Oh, please, Noam, discard the identity politics that has killed the American Left. HUSTLER mag is EXACTLY where you want to be! Their audience is THE core voting component of the Right--working class white males 18-45, especially blue collars. You need to get in their heads. How better to do that than spliced between porn? And now let's move on to identity politics--meaning gender politics, feminism, racial-politics, racial-and-gender SPOILS politics. What MORE could the elite want, than to have the Left divide itself up into factions, embrace victimology and spoils-politics, and demonize the white male, esp. the blue collars. THat is a WET DREAM for the elite. Until the Left discards identity politics, and turns its aim SOLELY upon the elite, the Left in America will remain moribund, save for a major economic collapse. Fire away, meat puppets, tools of the FauxLeft elite....

Reply this comment

Re: Hustler Interview Context

By K, Mr at Jul 13, 2005 00:16 AM

Yeah who's your agent Noam? How come you have to be subjected to all the 'riff-raff' you should fire your secretary. Hey you should not have refused the Hustler interview because that degenerative magazine does have readership and those hominids who flip through the pages of porno should be exposed to your views albeit these sorry souls would have no other opportunity to hear your wise words of wisdom. Changing mental maps while reading porn. Sick but effective. Anything goes in the new world order and if the Neo-cons can dream up an endless war you should be able to propagate within the porno sphere of influence. Even porno readers can vote. Maybe you should try Playboy 1st if you have not already. Start with Playboy then work to Hustler. One must start desensitizing oneself to the ever changing dynamics of social engineering. I only live in this world to consume. Desensitized to the point of apathy.

Reply this comment

Comment On This Blog Post See All Comments (400)

Africa

Mideast

Iran

Iraq

Israel/Palestine

North America

US

Europe

Asia

Venezuela

Latin America

All Places

Activism

Politics/Gov.

Economy

Globalization

Ecology

Global Warming

Vision/Strategy

Parecon

Parsoc

Feminism/Gender

Culture/Race

Intl. Relations

Alternative Media

Media (Main)

Science

Social Policy

Pop Culture

Human Rights

2008 Election

All Topics

Blogs

Noam Chomsky's Blog

Recent Chomsky Content

ZNet Articles

ZMag Articles

ZCommentaries

ZAudios

ZVideos

Blog Posts

Books

ZStores

By Noam Chomsky at Jul 12, 2005

Need for rape videos

why do you fear violence?

Movies

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context

Re: Hustler Interview Context