or maybe it means a woman who is paid for sex but doesn't like her job, or maybe it means a woman who feels she was subjected to some sort of emotional of social pressure etc. which is what a lot of broadsheet feminists like you are referring to when they talk about rape. Maybe the difficult to grasp distinction between these two gradations of rape accounts for the fact that different causes might be believed to be behind them.

only extreme fear resulting from the most severe abuse can keep kids from screaming when they are in pain. The capacity to repress strong emotion in order to achieve a goal (other than survival) is an ability that comes with sexual maturity.

Are you suggesting that this is the norm, and do you agree with the poster who claims that an 8 year old who was taught to repress strong emotion would quietly accept this treatment.

In all likelihood they are, when 18 year olds having sex are considered child abuse victims (or women of any age who are being paid) or when renaissance nudes are considered pornography and their presence creates a "hostile environment" for female college professors, or when propositioning someone more than once is rape, or when wiping a kid's ass is child molestation if the kid (or its mother) is annoyed with you for some reason, it is hardly surprising that the ability to make "fine distinctions" "down there" is lacking.

it is just as likely that his involvement would be taken as evidence of his belief in patriarchal ownership of you and refusal to grant you human rights:

involvement=patriarchal domination due to belief in female inferiority and an attempt to keep women down.

lack of involvement=neglect and lack of caring due to a belief in female inferiority and an attempt to keep women down.

Is this just a rhetorical flourish or do you really think that women aren't enjoying the interaction but are instead getting off on their "financial dominance" or something. I've assumed that when, or if, women pay for "it" that this belief system would be called into question. Maybe I'm wrong, I doubt it though because I think it is far more likely that when women pay for it their motives will be "discovered" to be COMPLETELY different than those of male oppressors.

Uh, they aren't straight if they want to have gay sex, bi maybe.

we CAN, potentially, get rid of certain TYPES of authoritarian religion, but the broader religious impulse is probably innate. The proponents of traditional religion enforced by coercion are very well served when the issue is presented as a choice between them and NO religion at all.

someone having "normal" amounts of sex doesn't need to shave for this reason of course, but since males, especially young ones (and ugly ones of all ages), have to rely so much on porn given the difficulties of finding women to have sex with it isn't at all surprising that porn standards have influenced how men see sex. Reading more than that into it just illustrates the sexual hysteria and prudery that causes porn to be a much bigger part of more peoples lives than it would otherwise be. I'm not suggesting that porn would ever disappear completely if more women were interested in more sex, but there would likely be less of it.

No but if you were male sex might have for reasons other than your own choice.

is that porn is an example of and a representative for all the things about sex that men and women disagree about, (why, when, with who, how often, what ruins it, what doesn't etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....) obviously this, in some form, is never going to stop being talked about.

This isn't much of an argument for you because fundie lunatics (of both the Christian and Moslem flavor) aren't against murder, at least of anyone who disagrees with them about anything.

for every person at every level suffering health consequences from trying too hard to be thin, there are thousands who suffer equivalent damage by not trying hard enough i.e. they are too fat, which contrary to popular myth DOES mean they aren't trying hard enough since EVERYONE can be a healthy weight, even if the amount of food they have to eat (actually NOT eat) to do it varies.

so you are saying then that controlling what men think about when they jerk off is necessary to achieving feminist goals? How do you plan to achieve this, wearable brain scans? or are you going to be moderate and limit your activities to controlling everything that is said, written or viewed? If this isn't what you are referring to please explain specifically what pornography being "consumed in a way which undercuts feminist goals" means and how you would prevent this and what would constitute "consumption of pornography" which would NOT undercut feminist goals.

men are far more interested in what women think that what magazine publishers/movie makers/whatever think and the only reason they settle for the latter is because the former is unavailable. The catch of course is that you can't influence how the game is learned and played if concern with keeping the equipment out of the wrong hands and the wrong people off the field overwhelms all other considerations to the point where nothing ever(or rarely) happens.

but if you don't show it the actor might not be enjoying it at all and that is even worse. I wonder how long it will be before porn will be made that will allow men to dub themselves into all the male roles. It might then be possible to show more realistic looking sex because the need to "prove" authenticity as an aid to vicarious enjoyment would be less.