dear andrea dworkin...

if pornography hurts the cause of women...
then romantic comedies hurt the cause of men.

sure, maybe porno demeans women. so maybe it puts men into a position of power yada yada and the objectified gaze of the male other blah blah all that deal. but these are merely instatiations of the larger problems created by film as a whole.

if the simulacrum that is pornography portrays a mythic universe in which all women are sitting around open-legged waiting for male consumption, that's shitty for women.

but nobody ever comments on the fact that the simulacrum that is the romantic comedy, (or rather the entire genre of romance) portrays a mythic universe in which men all fit into this pattern of greased-up pitiuary-retard loverboy, plein de confiance et joie de vivre. well, i'm a fat, cynical asshole nerd with no idea how to be all seductive and woo-ing-ish. and i'm sick of being held to an unrealistic standard.

so if porn needs to be made illegal, andrea, so does all romance.

and so does all film.

the thing that you miss, andrea, is that it's not pornography itself that causes problems. film is just one facet of the larger culture of simulacra that subsume us into the reality of their representation. so yes. porno might hurt the cause of women and hold them to an unrealistic standard. but men aren't exactly all hung like donkeys, either, nor can they all fuck for hours and hours on end without chemical assistance. and romance might hurt the cause of men and hold them to an unrealistic standard. but women aren't all sitting around waiting for some greasy Fabio type to come along and sweep them off their feet!

and we're not going to fit into your shitty notions of what men (or women!) should be!

fuck you, andrea dworkin!

(yeah, i know, ms. dworkin probably hates romance about as much as she hates porno. i just thought it'd be a fun way to frame this post.)