Thread 17893899

What would Andrea Dworkin think of the OnlyFans phenomenon in the West?

>>17893899 (OP)
She should start Dworkin on that weight

>>17893899 (OP)
It's a pretty big wrench in her theory that all women in porn are manipulated. I never understood why gender nationalists like to pretend as if only one section of this world is flawed and evil.

>>17893937
onw of my favorite videos that gets passed around on /gif/ is a Russian guy driving around offering whores a job for a few hours cleaning his house and cooking a meal. none of them accept even when he says he'll pay double what they'd earn sucking a dick. Women are just worthless whores.

that's one ugly yenta

>>17893899 (OP)
Literally who cares? The opinion of fat, dysgenic, rape apologist, retards is not in any way significant.

>>17893899 (OP)
Feminism is an extension of tikkum olam. It breaks down and demoralizes men on a societal scale to the point where the weakest attempt to give up being male and become transvestites just like Adam was according to their religion.

>>17893937
I agree with Dworkin that sexuality itself boils down to men controlling women.
In regards to OF, it's a strange paradox of women's lib. The point of women's lib is for women to amass enough wealth to escape being paired with a low-status male. With OF they can amass an incredible fortune.... by selling their body to low-status men. Which then enables them to be independently rich and even more picky in choice of partners. So, while they probably hate debasing themselves like that, the ultimate reward overrides the disgust impulse.

>>17894225
>sexuality itself boils down to men controlling women
Yes but they enjoy it so long as the man is attractive and masculine enough, and this natrual ordering of things deeply bothers all left-wingers, although many wouldn't even admit it to themselves. The reality is that they want to return to a world of the primordial soup, where there is no distinction or hierarchy.

>>17894485
Sadie Plant talks about this

>>17894485
>Yes but they enjoy it so long as the man is attractive and masculine enough
Are you telling me humans like when their partner is attractive? A very controversial take

>>17894485
They don't enjoy, it they prefer it. Even if the guys aren't particularly nice looking.

>>17894225
if we didn't, the human race would die. just know that.

>>17894225
also female pickiness = less people for your culture. not always a good thing since women actually select for retarded ogres. so kiss innovations and ingenuity goodbye.

>>17893966
its almost as if someone recording you and offering double the money to do something less gross than normal is suspicious and a red flag for him being a psycho who is going to take you back to his flat and behead you or some shit
unironic retard, actually think about things objectively every now and again

>>17894225
Monogamous heterosexuality is more restrictive on men, who natrually desire to impregnate as many foids as possible than women, who natrually desire a man to provide for them and their offspring. This is why patriarchy is needed to make sure men actually desire marriage to begin with. Of course in primitive societies and such things are a bit different but that's a seperate matter.

>>17894506
The truth doesn’t need to be controversial.

>>17894623
The objective fact is if he offered them a job that was involved more work than simply spreading their legs or opening their mouth they would not be inclined to take it. Some people make the calculus of the path of least resistance. You are introducing wild assumptions into this such as (A) that they wouldn't go back to his flat to have sex as a prostitute (B) That their decision making is wholly moral and virtuous and ethical instead of
>This guy wants me to do many hours of laborious and tedious work for twice as much
or
>Someone else will pay me half as much but it will be much less work, and because for whatever reason (bad or rational) I view sex as a mercantile exchange

Lemme put it this way: if your current job was 25 an hour, air conditioned, comfortable, lazy, you WFH and your work is very easy and I offered you 50 dollars an hour to pick pineapples in the Florida for 12 hours a day, would you take it?

That's the same rationale for the whores. I am not judging them necessarily, walk in shoes judge not lest ye be judged and all, but you're doing the opposite of him and immediately assuming the women is perfectly rational and virtuou

>>17894643
Apex fallacy. Most men didn’t reproduce for most of human history while most women did. Monogamy is good for the average man but bad for women and the men who are attractive enough to have harems.

>>17894667
If by monogamy you mean sexual monogamy? Yes. But I was talking about marrital relationships, the woman can always cuck the man which is why you need patriarchy to make the man actually want to take the risk to dedicate his resources to a woman and her offspring.

>>17894225
>sexuality itself boils down to men controlling women.
Dworkin never heard of alimony, asset splits, child support and family law courts...

>>17894667
>Most men didn’t reproduce for most of human history while most women did

>>17894830
https://investigativegenetics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2041-2223-5-13

>>17894623
You must be a stupid whore with HIV. Street walkers and escorts regularly do house visits. I guess it's easier for a simply minded virgin faggot like you to think they'd be more or less suspicious if they were asked to come over and suck dick.

>>17894623
RETARD, why would he have to do that to lure them in? they're whores, if he wanted to kill them he could just act like any ordinary client and they'd go to his flat.

>>17894225
how is this different from working a well-paying job you don't like?

>>17893899 (OP)
Dworkin would've hated OnlyFans... She saw all prostitution (even "empowered" sex work) as patriarchal exploitation repackaged as choice. Her take? "Liberated" selling of nudes is just capitalism commodifying women's bodies more efficiently. Expect a fiery rant about male demand and false agency.

>>17894683
What about them?

>>17895423
Not very.
>>17894534
I'm not defending female pickiness
>>17894643
Monogamy is socialism for men, otherwise you end up with harems and a sexhaver elite ruling over the sexless plebs

>>17894534
We don't need innovations, ingenuity or more people. What we need is more chads instead of beta males.

>>17895486
Why are you defending socialism of all things? Sex havers deserve to rule, everyone else is to lazy to improve yourself.

>>17895498
Because society can't function if the majority is disprivileged?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis

>>17895500
That's a lie commies sold you. In a beehive most worker bees never had sex at all and it functions just fine.

>>17893908
Fpbp. Kek

>>17895506
Ant colonies function with slavery, do you also think we should bring back slavery?

>>17895529
>bring back
I don't know where you live but in my country (United States) we never got rid of slavery.

>>17895506
>In a beehive most worker bees never had sex at all
>A worker bee is any female bee that lacks the reproductive capacity
Whoa crazy that creatures that can not physically reproduce don't reproduce. This is surely applicable to mankind.

>>17895429
How did she square that with lesbianism?

>>17893908
CARLOS

>>17893899 (OP)
She would have probably started her own OF seeing how much money it makes. Start her own feminism-survivor/reborn hedonist bbw queen or some niche shit like that. Women are all sluts without conviction after all.

>>17895543
nice joke. Now take your meds before you forget.

>>17893899 (OP)
She'd be OK with it because she is a jew and onlyfans is a Jewish company exploiting white women. She would spend her time fighting to free white women from thr oppression of marriage to white men

>>17894643
Monogamy is a social contract among men, the women werent consulted. The lower quality males gained a significantly increased chance at getting a mate and higher quality males lost out on their harems but they wouldnt have to worry about lower quality males teaming up and bonking their skulls open with a club

>>17893899 (OP)
She was just a misanthrope. Didn't like anyone or anything.

>>17893908
Radical feminism completely demolished

>>17893899 (OP)
The question to ask her is not what is forbidden, but what is allowed?

And under her systems it was just about nothing.

>>17895506
The majority of bees are worker bees, which are female and can't reproduce at all. A small minority of bees are males whose only purpose is to mate with a queen bee.

"She'd love it!"
- some Hitlerist retard

>>17895423
Do OF whores like what they are doing? Obviously it gets them money but it's just sad

>>17893899 (OP)
Her only good bit was telling Ginsberg she wanted to murder him

>>17894137
It can also be said Tikkun Olam attempts to reunite man and woman back into one being. I read somewhere (probably The Kings Two Bodies) that the monarchy was seen as similar but in a more abstract manner.

>>17894667
The best way is to ensure every man has someone but they'd kvetch over women being exploited which leads to me thinking they'd rather care too much about the sentiments of women and bottleneck the population than caring about the population as a whole.

>>17894683
Wasn't considered a serious issue in her day. It definitely happened but most academics (even today) would either chase you or laugh you out of higher education for bringing that up, even today. Academia is blinkered in that respect because it flies in the face of convenient narratives. That's probably a good argument for them losing funding as we currently speak. They're known for being extremely out of touch with the general public and display overwhelming amounts of hubris if called out on it. Im not gonna mention his name again but I can understand why he did it and to the extent. The Killing Fields were bound to happen.

>>17895506
No, its historic facts. And I'm the farthest thing from a communist.

>>17897841
>Ginsberg said, "The right wants to put me in jail." Dworkin responded, "Yes, they're very sentimental; I'd kill you."
lol

I wonder what she'd think if she saw /lgbt/ in 2025?

>>17893899 (OP)
Why’d so many women listen to this fat fuck? I thought ugly girls get bullied relentlessly by other women.

>>17893899 (OP)
>Men bad

>>17898035
She was on the fringe of feminism, not really a beloved mainstream author

>>17897111
Sounds like heaven. Lucky bastards

>>17893899 (OP)
She would start one herself to cater for fat fetishists.
And she would be happier than she was.

>>17895496
Sure lets just forget that whole quote Thucydides said. Yeah you're right. Lets just fight wars all day by throwing human excrement at one another. That'll show em!

>>17894225
>In regards to OF, it's a strange paradox of women's lib.
Was it Marx that said that Capitalism sublimates all criticism of it into itself? That is what I feel happened to Feminism.
It's WILD how Feminism went from Anita Saarkesian basically wailing on about "male gaze" to literally "showing everyone your pussy is empowering" in a matter of a few years.
When money is power, and showing your pussy gives you money, then frankly for a lot of women, Onlyfans IS the way they "empower" themselves. It's just funny that Feminism tries to play this off as actually good somehow, when it's really just Women internalizing the self as a commodity.

>>17895826
woman are only sluts if the men are lustful. There were no sluts during the crusades (ignore the few prostitutes).

>>17898184
women*

>>17898147
>It's WILD how Feminism went from Anita Saarkesian basically wailing on about "male gaze" to literally "showing everyone your pussy is empowering" in a matter of a few years.
The male gaze is about the power men have over women via sexualizing them. OnlyFans is about women gaining power in society via sexualizing themselves. Of course OF is controversial among feminists, as many of them believe it's not truly empowering as it still subordinates women to the male gaze, it just gives them wealth as a consequence of the free market. It's not like "OF is empowering" is a feminist consensus lr anything

I'm surprised her ''husband'' is still alive.I thought he died at some point but he's pushing 80+.

>>17897841
>>17897881
I mean he was a literal NAMBLA supporter, everyone has standards

>>17893937
>It's a pretty big wrench in her theory that all women in porn are manipulated
Her theory does have some merit though, OF an its offshoots are very manipulative you see it in media and ads everyday where they're pushing a narrative that a woman can live an easy life free of tax and debt by showing her coochie to a few strangers.

Then you have those gangs that run porn mills that take all the profit the girls make.

>>17898147
>Was it Marx that said that Capitalism sublimates all criticism of it into itself?
Guy Debord I believe

>>17893899 (OP)

Andrea Dworkin was a pagan, so she would absolutely encourage it.

>>17899264
Who believed that Spectacle was Marxism reifying itself?

>>17898962
I don't think women should have an easy life at all. In order for a portion of the populace to have rights another portion has to have less and men can't impregnate themselves

>>17895624
Lesbianism doesn't have the male gaze

>>17898296
He didn't look a thing like Brando

>>17893908
>>17894046
>>17894094
Chuds: Dworkin is le bad because she's fat and ugly
Also chuds: various prominent right-wingers like Göring, Himmler, Bowden and Sam Francis are le good even tho they're fat and ugly

>>17894667
>Most men didn’t reproduce for most of human history
Yeah, during the ooga-booga pre-agricultural times. The disparity between men and women reproducing went way down when states, governments and monogamy became a thing.

>>17900979
> during the ooga-booga pre-agricultural times.
That's a natural human condiction. Agricultral society is degenerate deviation. That's why it allows low quality males to bred.

>>17900639
>Göring
WWI ace who was had to take opiods because he was maimed is the same as a woman stuffing her face with slop

>>17900997
>ww1 made me fat o algo

>>17898231
He's finally free to enjoy the life, gotta make up for the lost time, you see.

>>17893899 (OP)
I'm still very ignorant about this women and her philosophy so sorry if this is a dumb question but:

Did she really believe it was impossible to produce porn ethically, without any coercion whatsoever? Even anonymously, with actors/actresses faces hidden? I understand why she had strong feelings about it, but I don't understand how a highly esteemed radical intellectual could be this retarded, so I think there's something big that I'm missing here.

>>17893899 (OP)
idk but feminism needs to fucking disappear, period

>>17902226
Preach

Did Dworkin ever try to explain the existence of men with a femdom fetish?

>>17899271

This.

>>17893899 (OP)
The crashout would be biblical. She'd flip out so bad you'd see a expletive driven rant ending in a massive aneurysm so large blood would flow out of her skull in amounts that would put Budd Dwyer's suicide to shame.

I'd love to see that happen... but the bitch is long since dead so we won't.

>>17893899 (OP)
She'd just change her opinion the same way she changed her opinion on pedophilia in response to pressure.

She wasn't a principled extremist , willing to be unpopular even among her own people.

>>17900997
>who was had
SAAAAR

>>17902753
Her body is undoubtedly spinning in its grave so fast we could use it as a source of free energy.

>>17898184
>woman are only sluts if the men are lustful.

Men have always been lustful therefore women have always and will always be sluts, assuming of course the modern day chasm between the genders, no doubt accelerated by modern day nonsensical gender politics/back and forths doesnt help widen the gap to the point it could jeopardize birth rates and the continuation of the species.

The general acceptance of the feminization of men is largely a disingenuous modern anomaly, which for better or for worst will correct itself in time. Dworkin also had massive tits, Im sure she would have excelled in her own niche, lots of bbw enthusiasts out there.

>>17902834
I forgot to attach my evidence, if anyone doubts the aforementioned mammary massiveness. Im sure a single titty could feed Andre the Giant.

>>17902834
That could just be solved by putting women on collective breeding farms

>>17902294
Or cuckold for that matter

>>17900985
Arguing against low quality men breeding is proto feminist pagan horseshit, which Christianity corrected. Thank God. There's a reason why feminists like Wicca and A lot of pagans are woke retards.

>>17893899 (OP)
>>17902842
It's a shame she let herself be so fat and gross, because her points about the sexualisation of females and whether truly consensual heterosexual sex even exists and whatnot would have been a lot more biting coming from an attractive (or at least decent looking) woman. She was actually a really smart person and surprisingly charismatic if you watch old interviews and panel shows with her from the 80s.
And I'm aware letting herself get fat and unattractive to men was a deliberate choice on her part and part of her point, so don't @ me. At the end of the day she didn't live to see her 60th birthday, so I hope literally dying was worth owning the male gaze

>>17903177
>She was actually a really smart person and surprisingly charismatic if you watch old interviews and panel shows with her from the 80s.
I've watched some of those panel shows and I honestly came away with the opposite impression, she rarely had anything interesting or insightful to contribute. Feminists in general are very boring to listen to, because it's obvious how disingenuous their arguments are

>And I'm aware letting herself get fat and unattractive to men was a deliberate choice on her part and part of her point
No it wasn't, she was a pig with no self-control and couldn't even own that much about herself without blaming men for it

>>17894643
True. Most do not realize the sexuality of men is what must be controlled.
Women want it unleashed because it gives endless chadaccess. Women do not like the consequences of chad sexuality.
>>17894667
That’s not even true and we can look at Hunter Gatherers TODAY. ALL of them are paired off before 25, often before they’re even 19, and all of them who survive reproduce.
The specific number from the study you think you’re referencing is 17:1. 17 females for 1 male.
Today the number of female to male reproduction is 21:1.
It’s getting worse.
It’s literally getting worse.
Also that first number 17:1. That likely isn’t even true, it’s based on haplotype analysis and assumes that patrilocality means only one male was reproducing. Which is untrue, it’s just that men tend to take women and trade women leading to less Y diversity than MtDNA diversity. Women weren’t actually reproducing more, they were just being given/traded over larger distances giving the illusion of more reproduction.
But today we can actually see who’s reproducing and who isn’t and it’s heavily against men.
We live in the most anti-human time in history.

>>17895529
A lot of people deserve to be enslaved and and a lot would benefit from being enslaved.

>>17903211
> we can look at Hunter Gatherers TODAY
Most of the human history means under 'agricultural' lifestyle, not in pre-historic times. That's when history was started to be written.

>>17903213
The issue with slavery coming back is it won't just be the one's that deserve it which are enslaved, it is so easy and profitable to do that it will become widespread and societal behaviors will shift to whatever acquires and feeds the slave trade. Modern American prisoners are basically slaves, and look at how hard the police state has been amped up since realizing that they could be paid practically nothing and forced to work. It also out competes labor, both skilled and unskilled, which will create an even larger urban poor problem than we already have.

>>17900546
Then why is lesbianism less persecuted than male homosexuality?

>>17903295
What does that have to do with anything?

>>17902294
Femdom fetish is still about men fetishizing women

>>17903295
Lesbians are far less common, male homosexuality also usually involves sodomy which is off putting to most. Beyond this both male and female homosexuality have very disturbing character traits, but because there are less lesbians, and women are generally less physically capable of exacting their will upon others, they get an easier time.

Lesbians do have a serious issue with domestic violence however, and in particular relationships where a woman discovers lesbianism later in life after having started a family, the new lesbian partner is often overtly hostile to the children. This is the same trend as the wicked step mother trope we see often, but there is a material truth to it and it is all the more severe in cases where a lesbian enters the picture. This is likely due to a variety of reasons, but almost categorically lesbians despise men and boys, coveting the daughters and sisters of these parties which inflames tensions.

This thread sent me on a wiki rabbit hole, and jeez did boomers seriously think that Ginsburg joined NAMBLA because ''he supports free speech''? Andrea was right.

>>17904004
If someone can just be jailed for life why kill them? I'm sure Ginsburg was worse but Dworkin doesn't sound like a very moral person.

>>17904004
She was right on Ginsburg being a freak but that doesn't make her right necessarily. Most boomers gave Ginsburg a pass because they are likely one of the most retarded generations ever to exist.

>>17893908
heh

>>17893908
a bit late for that

>>17903220
You make a point that I would like to expand upon, that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the topic. We don't have data, at least accurate data, for pre history. We need, as a society, to admit to ourselves, that the data we have acquired is flawed. We need to start over from the beginning.

>>17902145
I'm curious about this as well. I'm open to the idea of porn being inherently evil or whatever, but the arguments I've seen people make boil down to "all porn is wrong because unethically produced porn exists" and "go read Dworkin, I'm not going to justify my own position but it's definitely rational and not just based on an ick I have".
But I don't want to read Dworkin because my only interest in this topic is curiosity about the increasing fixation certain types of people seem to have on porn as the source of all societal ills. And it might be! But I don't know why it would be worse than the thousand other things destroying modern society that no one cares to address.

This retarded thread has been up for 4 days now. How long will we keep bumping it?

>>17894655
And yet it invariably is. Watch 5 minutes of any major news network complaining about something their designated Worse Than Hitler has done if you want proof.

>>17905926
Idk, I find it amazing that Dworkin is taken seriously as an intellectual at all

>>17905939
Have you even read her?
For example this guy hasn't >>17905842
It's like people base their opinions of her on her Wikipedia page summary

>>17906092
>Have you even read her?
I occasionally masturbate while reading "A Battered Wife Survives"

>>17906092
I'm >>17905842. I don't have opinions on her, I have opinions on people namedropping her in defense of their own views which I don't think make a lot of sense.

>>17893899 (OP)
>all sex is rape
This is intuitive and hasn't been refuted thoughever