Sorry for disturbing your hermetically sealed feminist echo chamber with another perspective, but I find this kind of feminism - the kind that looks with unnuanced judgment and condemnation on normal male sexuality, and seeks to bully and shame men into submission over it - to be abhorrent, and will speak out against it whenever and wherever I see it - even on feminist blogs.

Feel free to now call me a troll, if you like. Or a creep. Or a loser. Or whatever other invective you can think of. You don't know me. So I don't care.

"Those who aren't as likely to find an actual girlfriend now have a wiki of their own to pore over on lonely nights."

That sentence, I maintain, was meant to belittle, demean, shame, and ultimately, bully anyone who may have the audacity to admit to liking a site like Chickipedia. Stuff like this is not unusual in feminism. Its just that nobody ever calls feminists out when they are being the bullys.

I would also argue that that one sentence encapsulates the whole point and intent of Ms. Harding's post: to take an innocuous and ultimately quite mild aspect of normal masculine sexuality - in this case, looking at women's bodies - condemn it as perverse and, to use the Broadsheet pejorative of choice, "creepy," and thus to similarly accuse, shame, and bully those who happen to enjoy it.

Also, take a second look at my posts, and you will see that I never claimed that there was only one normal male sexuality. All I did was argue that the impulse of most men to want to look at women's bodies - the act in question here - is, in fact, normal.

You point out a difference between (a) a normal, heterosexual male who, without actually knowing a particular woman in any kind of intimate detail, merely appreciates the physical, objective beauty of her body, and (b) a person who views women only as that physical object, and not as anything more deep, complex, or valuable. You then ask your reader not to conflate the two.

I would say to you, first of all, that person (b) is rare indeed. Those people are called sociopaths, they are generally recognized to have a mental illness, and they certainly don't make up the bulk of society. Category (a) describes typical sane normalcy - as well as the bulk of the audience for pornography.

I would also say to you that Kate Harding is the one that is conflating these two types, in order to justify condemning the type (a) people who she happens to be personally uncomfortable with. And this is not right. Just because she is not comfortable with something or someone does not make it, or him or her, wrong and worthy of scorn.

Regarding violent or degrading porn: setting aside the fact that degredation is subjective, I recognize that there is a segment of the porn market (not the bulk of it, just a segment) that can be safely described as rough or degrading. However, most of what I have seen of it has a clearly ironic strain running through it, and is obviously not taking itself seriously. The performers were playing up caricatures, the men being mostly brutish cads, and the women playing up either the dumb bimbo or the degraded slut. Often, they seem to be both reveling in these roles. The whole thing is usually quite obviously meant as a sarcastic in-your-face to both polite society and to those who actually do seek to conflate the two categories you lay out above in order to impose their own tastes and comfort levels on everyone else.

I myself have my own concerns about the safety and healthiness of playing too deeply with those roles and ideas, as I do believe that one can be consumed by the role that one plays. However, I do think that there is more nuance to the subject than one sees on the surface. I also don't believe that such consumption by a role is by any stretch inevitable, and I think that people must be allowed to come to know their own limits for themselves with regard to stuff like this.

I think "lonely pathetic losers" is an unkind and unfair way to characterize a group of people who are not causing any harm to anyone else. How about "shy, awkward introverts." I think that's a fairer, and more accurate, way to phrase it.

I also think that your three part classification scheme is in fact overly broad and simplistic. The types you mentioned are certainly there, but there are others as well.

"I suppose if someone thinks he simply has no other choice, it's possible for him to hire a prostitute without necessarily having a degraded view of women. But in that case, it's still just a really sad situation all around, hardly fun or empowering like the pro-sex crowd claims."

I would agree with you that the situation you describe above is not ideal. But regardless, that shy awkward man who feels he has no other choice gets lonely nonetheless, and has sexual needs like everyone else. Would you rather he remain unhappily wallowing in his own loneliness, instead of accessing the only outlet for sex and intimacy that he sees available to him?

Obviously, as a permanent fix, this is problematic in terms of personal growth. However, sometimes temporary fixes are not only necessary, but good. Everyone should be free to wrestle with their demons in their own way and on their own time.

sorry. I love bad jokes.

Have fun.

In fact, I believe after the 2006 election, impeachment was, in her words "off the table." She even spoke out against Feingold's earlier motion to censure Bush, despite the fact that she is not in the Senate and has no say on that matter.

Code Pink needs to get their facts straight.