Oh yes, siftbot, lick me with that silver tongue. Run your sifting buds up and down my tuffs of fur. Yes! I like it JUST like that. Make that coat shine. Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr...

Can you perhaps lick my genitals next? It has been some time since I washed them and I have an interview tomorrow. Mama always said, "Never go into an interview a smelly pussy."

It's a difficult thing to really justify or demonize because sex is a head game, a dance but also a match of submissiveness versus dominance; it can become violent and abusive through the ebb and flow of permission and denial. One moment I'm smacking her ass during sex, after a year of smacking her ass, she needs to be spanked before sex even begins, and now 10 years later there's whips and clamps and shackles. It all started with a mildly amusing smack to the ass that over time became a mutual fetish.

All of that extreme abuse porn is a matter of course, just like the secret fetish in a relationship starts with something innocent then leads to something semi-professional. This is the end result of a fetish that started with Deep Throat in the '70s opening the world to oral sex. Now it's facial abuse. She doesn't need a deep throat, now she just needs to undergo a hazing.

Will regulation change an industry piloted entirely by desire and sex starved user demand? Or would the culture simply evolve around the regulations?

Japan blurs out genitals, so what happens? The culture evolves around the restrictions and now we have a thriving bukkake subgenre. You want cum in eyes? Niche. Cum in hair? Niche. Cum on teeth? For real though, the focus is on teeth. We don't even need genitals now! Just pick a spot on the body and then ejaculate in mass! What a phenomenon.

Niches form and when they trend, that's when you end up with a popular site like facial abuse.

But hazing porn exists in the reverse and is also quite popular. Pegging? Come on, where's my face sitting fans? Hey now, there's also a lesbian variety of big assed Brazilian women who abuse skinny blond girls. I don't know what they're saying, but clearly it means something along the lines of dig that white caucausian nose further up my brown latin pussy. One woman is empowered, the other not so much, but she likes it, so... empowered? But who watches it? Men? Surely not women. Well, I know several women who watch the shit out of lesbian domination porn.

I had the absolute pleasure to sit with some really open lesbians and watch lesbian domination porn where the women wrestle each other, and the winner gets to fuck the loser in humiliating and abusive ways. I mean... the topic of empowerment is tough here. If you do porn just own it. Damn. Come on, it's just sex. People just like giving each other a hard time and they're always worrying about the next generation, even though they know humans are all dirty, filthy, sex craved fiends.

I think the most abusive porn I've watched (was sort of forced to watch) was a man having his penis hit with a hammer by a very mean woman. He liked having his penis hit with a hammer for some odd reason.

You're still missing my point.

No one NEEDS (your word) a church to "complete them". I'm not saying there are no positives to belonging to a church (sense of community, charitable works, etc), but those can all be found elsewhere.

This is demonstrably true and has nothing to do with being an atheist.

I really don't care if someone else is religious or not, as long as (as you say) they're a good person. Frequently, that's in spite of or even in direct contradiction to their churches teachings. And quite frankly, as you don't suck at your religion, I really don't care what you believe. Problem is, lots of people really do suck at it, as we were sadly reminded once again this weekend.

One more thing:
>> You don't like religion being all judgey? I recommend you stop doing it yourself, and let people be.

What gave you the idea I don't like judging other people? I judge people ALL THE TIME.

It's how I decide who I want to be friends with, who I want to employ, hell, even which pub I want to go to. If you don't judge, you don't think. I just don't judge people for things I don't have a problem with (gender, sexual orientation, race, etc). On the other hand, I ABSOLUTELY judge people if they are spiteful, petty or have terrible taste in music

No, I have zero problems with the church judging people for immoral acts. I just vastly disagree with them on what constitutes an immoral act (they generally seem to be pretty down on two people loving each other if they don't have the right set of genitals, I'm more opposed to child sexual abuse, for example).

So yeah, I judge.

I'm sitting here judging the hell out of those assholes in Paris for example. And there's "nothing wrong with that. Judging is human."

@SDGundamX

We can criticise religion generally - for it's falsehood, for it's stultifying effect on the mind, for the shadow the faithful cast over an enlightened world.

We can criticise religions individually - for the divine exhortations to genocide in each of the abrahamic canons, for the promise of infinite torture by a benevolent god in both christianity and islam, for their arbitrary or bigoted taboos, and particularly of the newer creeds - islam, mormonism, scientology - for what we know to be the bad character of their founders.

And, as you say, we can criticise the behaviours of individual believers, communities or sects - catholicism on condoms and the spread of aids, genital mutilation in africa (which you're quite right to point out has cultural roots that pre-date islam, though it would be disingenuous to claim religion has no reinforcing or propagating effect on that practice).

I wholly disagree that this last is the only or most meaningful critique to offer of religion. There are fundamental tenets of these ideologies on which all their denominations, however fractured, can be said to agree.

Allow these people their diversity, their specificity and their subtle variation of interpretation and you're in danger of chasing a thousand little fish at once, in a thousand different directions, while the religious school as a whole shifts, shimmers, dazzles and slips away. I prefer to play the dolphin pack: surrounding, corralling, squeezing and finally devouring the enemy entire.

Attacking the religious text is a strawman in my opinion.

There's all sorts of outrageous (by modern standards) stuff in the Bible, Koran, Talmud, and other major religious texts. How could there not be? They were written hundreds to thousands of years ago at a time when reading and writing was limited to the wealthy or elite (i.e. priest classes). Much of that stuff is outright ignored or at the very least acknowledged by deemed less important by practitioners of those religions in modern societies.

All literature is open to interpretation and this includes religious texts. The fact that there are tens of thousands of denominations of Christianity with differing opinions about what it means to be Christian and how to behave as one gives testament to this. While there aren't as many named denominations in Islam, if you actually look at how it is practiced locally in say urban Malaysia (i.e. no Bhurka for women) compared with rural Afghanistan (i.e. full body covering required) you can see there's huge diversity there as well.

So if you want to judge the religion, then you actually have to take the time to make an informed opinion by looking at who does what and why they do it. And when you do that, you tend to find that there's this complex inter-relationship between religious teachings, economics, politics, ethnicity, history and so on which make it difficult to assign full blame to any one "thing" such as religion. The female genital mutilation example I used above makes this pretty clear.

Sticking solely with criticising the religious text puts a critic on very unsure footing, as at the end of the day all the critic is really doing is criticizing a specific interpretation of the text (i.e. their own understanding). That's why, as I said, it's something of a strawman argument since you're really arguing against an interpretation you yourself have created.

It is much better, in my opinion, to look at how specific groups are interpreting and enacting the text, and then criticizing their actions (or the effects of their actions) in the event that there is a negative effect. But in doing so I think it quickly becomes apparent that those actions are almost always enacted locally as opposed to globally. In other words, they are the actions of a specific group of people in a specific place at a specific time who have been influenced by all the factors (history, economics, etc.) I mentioned above.

And when you reach that conclusion you realize you're not criticizing Islam anymore, you're criticizing one groups' interpretation and enactment of Islam in specific context.

On the other hand, if you ask which type of criticism gets you more views on TV or more headlines in newspapers...

See, I agreed with everything you said up until that last statement (that I quoted below).

All organized religions brutally and mindlessly suppress individual freedom. But lately the target de jour seems to be Islam. People like Sam Harris got off track when they forgot that the real target is the dismantling of all organized religion and focused almost exclusively on denouncing Islam--usually with obnoxious overgeneralizations and a complete lack of understanding how diverse Islam actually is.

And that's the major problem with the whole argument Dawkins and Maher are proposing (i.e. that you can't criticize Islam anymore). You can't criticise Christianity or Judaism or any other major religion without hugely overgeneralizing, either. Instead you need to target specific denominations within specific communities and how they practice the religion.

For example, are you upset about how "Christianity" has helped spread AIDS or protected pedophiles? Well then really you're really looking to criticize the Catholic church and it's stance on contraception and handling illegal activities within the church, not Christianity as a whole.

Upset with how gay people are viewed? Again, you're probably not looking to criticize the Lutherans, Presbyterians, and many other Christian denominations who have reformed in recent times to be accepting of LGBT members and clergy. It's not a Christianity problem so much as it is a problem of how specific people in specific places for specific cultural reasons interpret the texts of their religion.

Basically, I don't think it is a problem if people want to criticize how Islam is practiced in a specific context (say, for example, the use of female genital mutilation in some subsets of Islam in Africa). But I do think it is a problem when the speaker is simply set on demonizing the religion as whole rather than making a rational argument, for example overgeneralizing female gential mutilation (which actually pre-dates Islam and was incorporated into it later after Islam's rise of influence in the region) as an example of why Islam is evil.

Certainly people have the legal right to make such an argument (in the U.S. at least). However, I'm guessing most universities don't want to come across as looking in support of such ill-structured arguments that are more akin to tabloid magazine hit pieces than an actual intellectual argument which is grounded in facts and reason.

All that said, I have no inside information about the real administrative reasons why certain speakers have been declined/uninvited at specific college campuses.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

If you really watched the video you noticed that all the other guests were laughing in disbelief.. Which makes me think you didn't even watch it, just came here to spread you hate.

BTW, every time a person says that ISIS (or what ever terrorist organization is trending) should be killed only proves to be equally monstrous. I've seen people wishing to torture them, skinned alive, burned, genitals crushed.. Why is it justified if you do it but not when someone else is doing it?

I can bet that you are white christian male and yet your language is indistinguishable from the extremists You are no better, basically you are worse: you have no first hand experience, no personal reason to hate muslims but still you are more than willing to kill them and innocent peaceloving muslims in Indonesia, UK, France, Germany or USA indiscriminately...

That is the language of a frustrated teenager who has no idea what he is saying or why he is saying it. Grow up and develop some balls and maybe one day you're allowed in the grownups table, until then: shut up. If you are not a teenager, then you are just stupid.

"Burning behind me is eight and a half tonnes of heroin, opium, hashish and other narcotics which have been stolen from their rightful owners and destroyed in an act of vandalism so tremendous it amounts to a crime against humanity.

In this much larger pyre lie the smouldering corpses of those responsible. After witnessing the execution of their spouses and children, their skin was carefully flayed from their bodies, their eyes and genitals were removed and their bones were slowly ground into powder."

(Cut to footage of thousands of terrified people being herded toward a gigantic concrete pit. Bulldozers force them over the edge as the narration continues:)

"Those who enter first die quickly. Eventually their bodies cushion the fall of those behind, who are suffocated and crushed in their turn by the weight of ever more flesh."

(Cut to the pit being capped and sealed, the cries of those still alive inside are abruptly silenced. Zoom out to reveal dozens more exactly alike beside it; further to show the vast complex of huts and barbed wire fences, train lines and guard towers built to accommodate the multitude who pour in every day.)

"Each pit has a capacity of one million. There are sixty here and this is the correction centre of just one minor country. Thousands more are under construction worldwide."

Maybe he got so high he saw a better world. Of course he couldn't stop giggling.

At least Obama put a stop to it. Except for the CIA facility at Mogadishu's airport where they held people in an underground dungeon and comforted them with some electric current through the genitals. Yeah, except for that.

Also, let's not talk about the torture camps run by the military, by contractors or by the Iraqi forces trained and instructed by folks like Colonels James Steele, who had already run Salvadoran death squads. And while we're at it, let's not talk about the outsourcing of torture to the goons of Gaddafi, Assad and Mubarak.

By the way, Brazil just published documents about 20 years of torture. Who trained the torturers? The usual suspects...

Harassment is a bad thing, but I feel very sorry for anyone that does not engage in general pleasantness, and finds phrases like "how are you?" and "nice day!" to be a form of harassment. Worst still, to chastise and publicly present them as harassers on youtube .. what sort of lowlife do you have to be to do that? I don't care how many actual harassers you caught, that is not an acceptable method so put the net away and get the fishing rod out.

I say things like hello, nice day.. And if i'm in a queue and i think of something to say that i think someone might find funny or help someone out, i'll say it. I don't expect a reply, but if there's a fun person around then it might pass the time better. I asked someone of the female persuasion at my pool the other week if they were looking for the sauna (slightly hidden away) because i heard her talking to what i assume was her husband about the sauna. I do that for old men, old ladies, fat blokes, skinny women; all sorts.. i offer men and women help out of the jacuzzi if they need it. Her reaction was to say "No..... WHY?" very pointedly.

Well you know what? Fuck her - i did something nice and now she's the one that's being rude to others. I cannot fucking stand the high and mighty attitude of these people, as though they have never been guilty of accidentally doing something other people didn't want them to do. As though they have an inbuilt capability to read the motive of other people. Obviously i offered to explain the location of the sauna because i wanted to have sex with her in it (yeah, sex in a disgusting public sweat box & burnt genitals, my favourite), god forbid someone actually be nice to someone else. I felt like being rude back, but that'd make me worse than her.

There is a very fine line between being an activist against harassment, and being an unhinged arsehole who goes around over reacting and getting the wrong end of the stick and hurting people who were showing genuine honesty. I'm so sorry if you've been harassed in the past, but you don't see victims of domestic abuse blaming everyone that looks/talks at them funny in the street for all the pain they've suffered - which is substantially more painful and personality-warping than the average activist blogger jumping on the "trigger-warning" bangwagon.

Harassment exists and this blanket of "harassment" that these videos engender for all sorts of shit is distracting us from that issue, and to some degree turning people against the issue..... I mean, if i get unfairly treated like a scumbag for years by "mostly" women who assume i'm harassing them, do i get license to make videos about it and complain about women as a whole, judging every action of every woman to be one of harassment because of my own insecurities? That's why these kind of videos are so poorly received @EMPIRE.. the majority of the content is the videographer sneering at people for being pleasant and exchanging niceties, why should people laud that kind of behaviour? I expect that behaviour to be discouraged by women as well and i'd forgive them for taking more notice of the fewer examples of harassment than i did, because opinions are a bit selfish by nature.

And i didn't even question the validity of the supporting cast..... I'm sure Rob Bliss (OF ROB BLISS CREATIVE DOT COM EVERYBODY FAVOURITE AND LIKE PLS) would have no desire to help make this video more interesting! I quote his own philosophy here from his website, he believes in "giving people the content that they want." Interestingly worded remit... Why does no one ever question the source if it's a "reality" video? The guy practically states in his "approach" section that he aims to pander to people, he doesn't want to challenge viewer opinion...

Walloftext, sorry, but i don't like the sentiment of this video, and i will not let people in the comments tell me that i am a bad person for doing so - these are my reasons.

The rest of the video and Cenk's comments were great, but I still disagree with his interpretation of what Maher and Harris were suggesting.

Regarding the distinction between cultural "bad ideas" and religious "bad ideas": yes, we need to be careful what institution or establishment gets the blame for radical beliefs and bad ideas / practices. As Cenk suggests, it would be wrong to entirely blame Islam for stuff like female genital mutilation in the places where non-Muslim people also practice it. But if you ask Sam Harris about that, I'm pretty sure he'd say the same thing. Maher also, although he'd probably be a little more flippant about it.


But anyway, I liked this video a lot and thought it was very good food for thought. Even though I think the core of Cenk's dispute with the other guys is based on (in my opinion) an incorrect read on what they were saying, he makes a lot of very good points.

I think you missed the whole point of the video. When you say "Muslims" are you referring to people who live in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, or Canada? Because you're going to find wildly different rates of violence (towards women or otherwise) based on where those people are practicing their religion. In fact I'd wager you'd find more Christians and atheists beating their wives in a country like Canada than you would Muslims--probably for reasons that have nothing to do with religion (alcohol or substance abuse, history of being abused themselves, etc.).

Why do "Muslim countries" seem more violent or more violent towards women? Maybe because of the fact that the ones that are most talked about in the news have majority populations that live literally like it was 500 years ago? Or maybe because the ones that pop up in the news frequently (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, etc.) are controlled by autocratic regimes that rule with an iron fist and are far more concerned with keeping power than promoting democracy and human rights? Or maybe because of local tribal practices that pre-date Islam and have continued until today (i.e. female genital mutilation)?

If you're going to compare countries, then compare apples to apples. Compare Saudi Arabia to 1500s England in terms of the rights of women and religious freedom, because Saudi Arabia is an Islamic monarchy much as 1500s England was a Christian monarchy. Compare human rights in a developing country like Indonesia to early 1900s U.S., where other religions were ostensibly tolerated but Christian norms were de facto.

But comparing human rights in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to the modern U.S. and then generalizing the results to all "Muslim" countries is, as Reza mentioned, just stupid.