Rape is outdated and old-fashioned. Gangrape is the new trend.

Gang rape occurs when a group of people participate in the rape of a single victim. Gang rape occurs all over the world.

Gang rape 1

Gang rape 2

Gang rape 3

Gang rape 4

Gang rape 5

Gang rape 6

Gang rape 7

Gang rape 8

Gang rape 9

Gang rape 10

Things that encourage men to gangrape women:

1.Cultural misogyny.


Calvin Klein ad.

Dolce & Gabbana ad.

3.Gang bang pornography.

A gang bang pornographic film is a type of film in which a woman get fucked by many men in front of cameras, for money. The woman has to suck constantly some penises while her body gets invaded by some other penises, they penetrate her vagina, her anus however they like, sometimes they prefer single penetration, sometimes double. Even though double penetration is extremely painful, the woman has to repeatedly say ‘yes, yes’ to tell her audience that she is getting pleasure from the torture. It is part of the deal. She is aware of the risks of her anal and vaginal rupture but she has limited options. She has to accept everything or almost everything she is asked for and she has to smile and fake orgasm for money.

6 to 12 men used to fuck a woman in gang bang films made in the 1980s. But in The World’s Biggest Gangbang (1995) a woman was fucked by 300 men. Since then many films were made to show that a woman can be fucked by an infinite number of men.

And many more…


  1. Gorbachev says


    It hardly seems worth commenting any more: Virtually every post you make not directly addressing Bangladesh and India, and some that do, are based on tired tropes and silly artificial issues built from nothing.

    You’re a culture warrior trying to create wars where none exist.

    Gang rape is common around the world, but more common in some places than others. it’s associated with:

    – Wars
    – Gang / drug related situations of all kinds
    – Lawlessness, generally
    – Lack of impulse control or enforcement of social mores

    In places where social mores are rigidly enforced, which can vary within a society, gang rape is almost unheard of.

    Inside a society that seems controlled, however, there are always pockets where evil things go on.

    I understand hating gang rape. But Dolce and Gabanna ads?

    Taslima, you’re grotesquely trivializing sexuality and the deviations that cause such pain. You may not realize it, but gang rape does not emerge because people see a few Dolce and Gabanna ads.

    I’ve shown this blog post to several people here, every one of them women, all of them self-declared feminists, but one. I’m sure you dismiss anyone at all who disagrees with you as “Not really feminist” (definition: Someone who doesn’t happen to agree with you), but this is the general take.

    – Clearly, you have a severe problem with sexuality. You dislike open sexuality, you dislike depictions of sexuality, and you dislike the consumerist nature of modern sexuality. In fact, all of modern life is consumerist – from food to housing to sex. Sex is not special.

    – You seem to have issues about the convergence of male and female sexuality. In other words, men and women need to be regulated to be together. All five of the women sitting here think the state should be as far as humanly possible from their bedrooms.

    – You have a very Old Nanny approach to what *OTHER* people do in their bedrooms. You have no problem mystifying sex and creating bizarre justifications by trivializing serious problems.

    If there are no actual, real issues – like gang rape – then it behooves activists to remain quiet until an issue worth addressing appears.

    More to the point, real issues, like gang rape, should be approached with the appropriate intellectual consideration and general applied intelligence required to give the subject the dignity it deserves.

    Your frivolous cultural analysis holds virtually anything you ever see when your eyes are open in public as symptoms of the great malaise.

    I could invent a hundred controversies based on things I see and frivolously link them to what I consider great crimes.

    How about:

    A boy and girl holding hands on the subway in Boston is a signal of the general oppression of homosexual people. Why? It reinforces heteronormativity. Down with Norms!

    You show a profound lack of good judgment, intellectual rigor and overall good sense. Not one woman I’m aware of – and all of them are “feminists”, though perhaps not of the species you approve of – think you’re approaching any of these issues with the severity and dignity you should.

    You’re a lover of controversy, obviously. You like to shock. You make grotesque generalizations for the sake of doing it, and they’re all absurd.

    Either you’re a shallow, vain attention-hound, or your brand of callow and irresponsible “activism” translates poorly in the West.

    In the quiet moments at night, consider that you tend to alienate those who would support you.

    • says

      If I had been in the room, I would have told you that those ads are f*ing horrendous. You’ll notice, in the details, it hints at violence and that is NOT cool.

      The devil is in the details – and just like you are accusing Nasreen of attempting to get attention in a gratuitous way, I think perhaps you should look at those ads and use the same measurement tools to decide who is instigating the manufacture of conflict.

      I absolutely agree however, that there are much bigger fish to fry than these sorts of ads.

      It also pisses me off that she paints all gang bang films as gang RAPE films – because this just isn’t true – at all. Conflating porn and rape (even “extreme” porn) is disregarding the agency of women; which is sort of the whole problem isn’t it? The assumption that gang bang films are necessarily depictions of a woman being over-powered and being shared by the men instead of a woman being served by several men at once (a common female fantasy) is a symptom of the problems that we need to be tackling.

    • ik says

      Those ads are bad (at least in this culture. If we were in utopia already, they might be OK.)

      However, to me NONE of the pictures seem specifically gang-rape-ey. Not sure what happened to that poor women being restrained by riot cops, but until you actually say what’s happening, it seems pretty questionable.


    • malo says

      “It hardly seems worth commenting any more: Virtually every post you make not directly addressing Bangladesh and India, and some that do, are based on tired tropes and silly artificial issues built from nothing.”

      You probably *should* stop commenting. You disagree with Taslima just for the sake of disagreeing with her, and your comments contribute nothing to the discussion. If you are so offended, then leave. Nobody forces you to read this blog,
      but I’m sure you will continue with your numerous condesending, insulting, nit-picky, ridiculously long posts, anyway.

      “You may not realize it, but gang rape does not emerge because people see a few Dolce and Gabanna ads.”

      Actually, I’m pretty sure she *does* realize it. Do you actually believe that Taslima is suggesting that an ad, by itself, can cause men to rape? No,of course you don’t really believe that; you just need to build a strawman for your dumb argument.

      Obviously, it’s the misogynistic culture that allows such ads to be produced, in the first place, that encourages rape. Ads and porn work together to desensitize consumers to images of women being abused, and so abuse is normalized. Gang rape, and images of gang rape are part of a culture of misogyniy. And btw -I don’t see how Taslima’s ethnicity is relevant. Rape happens everywhere, and it is ALWAYS the result of misogyny, and nothing other than misogyny. Misogyny is the same everywhere.

      • Taru Dutt says

        Malo – well said. It seems that Gorbachev gives his royal white male permission when Taslima talks about Islam and the condition of women in South Asia, but gets his panties in a knot when she talks about anything else. Perhaps he imagines Taslima needs his endorsement to talk about anything Western or non-Islamic. He appears to think she, as a non-white woman, should confine herself to her own immediate culture. The moment Taslima talks about topics beyond South Asia or Islam, up comes Gorbachev, almost foaming at the mouth with indignation. His arguments are as condescending as they are ridiculous, and yet he continues blogdogging Taslima – I guess that’s what attention-mongers do.

      • says

        Thank you! The amount of misogynist comments on the page of this fine thinker are astounding. Including those who insist on denying the tremendous levels of violence and coercion perpetrated against women and girls on this planet, systemically, every day and every hour. Thank you Taslima Nasrin for your voice and your writing and your passion.

  2. Jasmyn says

    Gang-bang porn isn’t as terrible as you’re claiming. I had a friend who picked up and moved from our small TX hometown to LA to pursue porn. She did some gang-bang scenes, and didn’t seem to mind. Her biggest complaints about the job were that she had to keep up with her manicure (she’s an absent minded type) and once she agreed to do a normal scene that featured “full bush.” She preferred a bit more grooming. While she was working, and HIV outbreak occurred. She assumed it was most likely because of IV needle drug usage. She packed up her things and came home. She was never forced to do anything she didn’t want to do. There was more financial incentive for some scenes over others (gangbangs pay more than solo, girl on girl pays more than straight), but she wasn’t ever expected to do something she didn’t want. They could always find another actress.
    For her, she got to do something she enjoyed and make money. I do that too (I’m a dog groomer) but she made waaay more money that I do. Just because someone’s idea of sexuality isn’t the norm doesn’t make it wrong. She chose to capitalize on her sex drive. She’s not a victim. Claiming she is is a slap in the face to women who are actually objectified. There’s so much actual sexual injustice that complaining about porn or ads seems to be a wanton distraction from actual issues.

    • Gorbachev says

      So much of what Ms. Nasrin writes seems to be either gratuitous, frivolous or falsely controversial.

      I’m not actually often in disagreement with her: Gang rape is terrible. It’s also a problem. It’s been a problem since the dawn of humanity.

      I just don’t think these ads she finds have the tiniest thing to do with it. Ms. Nasrin seems to suffer from the “nanny” syndrome: She wants to tell others how to be properly sexual. It permeates her writing on every level.

      I have the very distinct feeling she’s missed out on the whole “Independent woman” feminism of the West. She seems married to a class-based, Marxist ideology that refuses to see women as actors, but rather views all women as class-based victims a priori. Women in her world are incapable of being fully human, because they’re victims.

      If you ever meet any actual, living, breathing Western women who are even remotely independent, most of Ms. Nasrin’s posts end up being mildly offensive to their individuality and independence. I know a lot of women, and I have the deepest respect for them – as human beings. Not “as women”.

      In order to back up this bizarrely ideological worldview Ms. Nasrin has, she seems to see “figures of Jesus in the pasta” everywhere.

      I wonder if she has any idea how to read Western culture – whether it all just seems like some terrifying zoo to her, filled with bizarre images and incomprehensible gobbledygook?

      I must conclude that she’s either very, very naive and not particularly media-savvy, which sounds kind of colonial of me to say, but there it is, or she’s deliberately trying to stir up controversy where there is none.

      Or she’s lazy: She wants to indict all of Western culture, is unable to find suitable evidence, so simply invents things in the shallow mists of her imagination.

      Her posting about prostitution and her recent “interview” with Stella Mar are further evidence of this. Stella Mar is famous, and most of her story is, at best, shallow “prostitution porn” for the prohibitionist industry; she’s the most extreme and notorious of the English-language bloggers on the subject. No researcher gives her the slightest credit: it’s entirely possible, if not probable, that at the very least, her story is grossly exaggerated, if not invented entirely. It reeks of the kind of “save me Jesus” stories that the religious converts trade with each other.

      The last alternative is that Ms. Nasrin is just not a very critical thinker, and has a lot of issues with people generally. She never escaped the closed, confining, intellectually stunted worldview she endured growing up in a Muslim country where free thought wasn’t allowed.

      She’s showing no great degree of it here.

    • No Light says

      Not to mention justifying it with racist tropes.

      “Silly brown woman, you’re just interrogating our superior culture from the wrong perspective. I know you can’t see them, but the hundreds of women in my room agree with me”

      • Taru Dutt says

        Nolight: Exactly. Gorbachev is not only a dyed-in-the-wool misogynist – he is appallingly racist as well. Taslima, you’re doing something right if you can evoke so much unease in minds – I use the term loosely – like Gorbachev’s. And others here anxious to promote misogynist cruelty in the name of sexual self-determination. Keep on keeping on, Taslima.

        As for misogynists, if I were a believer I would pray that girls be not born of their loins. What a hellish existence for the girls – their fathers would think of them as inferior, but pretend otherwise. The very worst kind of emotional manipulation. The kind of hell in which so many women already dwell – where they are looked down upon but assured that they are treated as equal. Gaslighting – that most horrific of emotional abuses. The girls would grow up knowing something wasn’t right, but be assured they were imagining things. Yes – that sort of emotional cruelty is brother under the foreskin to physical rape, and can be every bit as cruel and damaging.

      • ik says

        Oh, dear.

        MOST accusations of ‘playing the race card’ are bullshit. The one that I make now is NOT.

        In fact, Taslima often acts like a race-swapped version of the condescending white cultural imperialist who assumes that the norms in their own culture must necessarily be right for everyone.

        Of course, some of the norms in her culture (and some of the norms in my culture) might actually be right for everyone. But this is never argued for or even discussed.

        I fully agree that all of the images she posted are PROBLEMATIC and may well be MISOGYNISTIC. I do find them creepy. I fully agree that a lot of porn (including possibly the majority of ‘Gang Bang’ porn) is really misogynistic. But it usually IS NOT RAPE NOR IS MEANT TO BE A DEPICTION THEREOF.

        I am becoming convinced that if Taslima saw a rich, completely unfettered woman agree to have sex with a man she already was attracted to, and have some noticeable but ultimately insignificant material gain thereof, Taslima would want the man tried for rape and when his lover testified in his name and stated that she consented, Taslima would then accuse _her_ of perjury.

        • Gorbachev says

          Ik is correct.

          There’s more than a small amount of aggressive, judgmental pushiness about everything Taslima has written.

          She has firm beliefs, runs roughshod over other peoples’ opinions, refuses to present any evidence for anything, and has the most ideologically absolutist moral positions.

          Don’t listen to me. Read what she writes, how she writes and how she responds to any criticism.

          She has her opinions – and the rest of the world can go to hell. Facts be damned!

          If you disagree with me, YOU HATE WOMEN!

          This is the kind of “feminism” that drove women away from “feminism”.

          In fact, she’s actually admitted that anyone who disagrees with her is, in fact, not a feminist in her book.

          So there we go. Anyone who doesn’t agree with Ms. Nasrin, by definition, must be a misogynist woman-hater out to exterminate all women. Maybe by not giving them helmets for motorcycles.

          It’s been a good number of blog posts now, and I think Ms. Nasrin has more or less established herself as a non-reasoning ideologue of the very worst kind.

          If this is “feminism”, I week for feminists everywhere.

          (I say this tongue in cheek: her brand of feminism no more represents feminism than Stalinism represents social democracy).

    • mmmmm says

      Same here. What’s more is the things listed (culture of misogyny, advertising, porn) are all influences that can, to a greater or lesser degree, normalise and minimise this. I think you can indeed argue that, not one of us is free of the influences of the prevailing culture. Could be expanded more, but it’s at least part of it.

      I get sick of the ‘prude’ argument, being concerned about porn is not the same thing as being anti-sex. I see the argument not all of it is bad or harmful, but a significant proportion of can be problematic, misgynistic and exploitative and at some point that does need to be addressed in a critical fashion. Even the anecdote re a worker above mentions an outbreak of HIV, I mean does anyone think they are really protecting the health of those within the industry? Is this worth protecting if it happening. If not, what can be done about it? (Note: don’t you dare criticise my porn isn’t the right answer).

        • says

          Nina Hartley did attempt some sort of unionization, but it was not successful.

          The last I heard there has been a call for the mandatory use of condoms by some of the largish, big name producers (I think it was Shane of Shane’s World who was attempting this, but I could be wrong. She also sold her company a long time ago.) The problem of course is that, when you are selling fantasy, the reminder that condoms are a good idea sometimes breaks that illusion.

          I haven’t been in-the-know for a very long time and even when I was, I wasn’t directly involved at all.

          I think the big irony here is that probably the best way of diminishing the impact of problematic patriarchy pushing porn is to make porn.

          • aw says

            The porn industry is larger than the film, television, music, and video game industries combined. I don’t see how more would help.

            The industry says they’re catering to the market. If you think ‘men like ’em young and degraded’ is insulting to men, it’s not coming from feminists, it’s coming from pornographers.

          • says

            I’m saying that the porn market is only now wising up to the fact that women are a very large part of their market. Producers do cater to the market, but generally they make porn that THEY like and it sells. With a more diverse crew of producers, you’ll see the products change.

            Really though, the worst porn is generally either very small producers/off the grid production (for obvious reasons). I’ve been asked about that sort of thing, and then got to kick someone the hell out of my store, but I really know nothing about it (I’m not just saying that I don’t – I don’t.)

            The most horrible degrading mainstream crap (as far as the depictions) isn’t always hardcore. I’ve seen much more disturbing images looking at the back of boxes at the “Family” video stores than “Bookstores”.

    • uncephalized says

      No one here has so far argued anything remotely approaching a pro-gang rape position.

      What has been argued is that things that Taslima is pointing out as gang rape are, in fact, not. And that conflating voluntary interactions that an uninvolved person happens to find yucky with violence does a disservice to the victims of actual violence.

      • ik says

        It is vaguely possible that people making anti-Taslima arguments might be very slightly increasing the amount or severity of gang rape in the world. Thoguh I doubt the perpetrators read this blog, nor those who defend them.

        That is unlikely and even if true, our anti-gang-rape, pro-having-sex-how-you-want-even-if-Taslima-doesn’t-like-it, anti-trivializing-rape-by-calling-everything-rape arguments are undoubtedly having greater benefits than costs.

  3. Gorbachev says

    Excuse me?

    I’m a staunch opponent of all kinds of violence towards women, or towards anyone else, for that matter.

    I just consider gang rape something very serious.

    Ms. Nasrin considers ALL PORN essentially “objectification of women” and therefore tantamount to rape. This, despite the fact that the advent of porn has had two huge effects: The net reduction of sexual crimes of all kinds and the opening up of the “normal” sexual world, just as our culture became very promiscuous (which is not necessarily a bad thing).

    Ms. Nasrin seems to be firmly in the Old Nanny school of Sexual Propriety: the only difference between her and the Taliban is hard-line ideological root of her authoritarianism.

    Women and men, both, don’t need to be told what is and is not acceptable, especially if there’s no violence involved.

    Gang-bangers should be hunted like dogs and punished to the maximum possible extent of the law, at all times. Gang rape is a horrible crime. In war zones, it’s incumbent on people to guard their friends and family and even total strangers from potential gang rape.

    I’d never, ever support rape. I’m just not like Nasrin is:

    She sees ghosts of patriarchy in the woodwork all around her. She reads reality from tea leaves, apparently. metaphorically speaking.

    Her issues are all important. I’d just like to see her approach them with a modicum of intellectual rigor and dignity.

    • No Light says

      So Taslima’s a Talibani now too? So that’s her, Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Zvan, Greta Christina, Rebecca Watson et al.

      Wow, the Taliban’s getting really diverse these days, is this Second Wave Talibanism?

    • ik says

      I wish people would use that comparison less. Though it is worryingly apt.

      It’s gettign to be the new Godwin.

  4. says

    Gang bang pornography? The ridiculousness of the woman being forced into it aside, this is the logic that playing an FPS video game (First Person Shooter) will make people go on an actual shooting rampage.

  5. Gorbachev says

    Look, I agree the idea that she’s from angladesh so she doesn’t get Western culture is absurd. But people say that about Western people when they comment on other cultures all the time. I’m trying to give her credit:

    I want to find out why she’s relying on the most strained of ideological tightropes and deliberate muckraking in order to make tendentious points.

    The most obvious reason she has such poor reasoning behind her arguments is this:

    She’s trying to stir up mud where there is none. She’s an ideological prude who seeks to confine women into “proper” roles. She as much as said so several posts ago: She doesn’t regard the majority of “feminists” as “sufficiently feminist: because they don’t agree with her.

    This is the same tired, “cultural warfare” feminism that divided the feminist community in the 1980’s and 90’s It’s divisive, intellectually vapid and embarrassing.

    it’s right out of Mackinnon’s playbook.

    Mackinnon was wrong on almost all counts. So was Dworkin. On porn, porn usage on the internet, a porn highway undreamed of in 1985, has been estimated to have reduced violent crime across the board by vast numbers. It’s also desensitized men to sex – meaning, they don’t seek it nearly as much.

    As far as gang banging goes:

    Playing violent video games may, indeed, reduce the incidence of violence in society. Many studies show this, as well.

    Dworkin and Mackinnon had it precisely, exactly, completely wrong. Porn is not the theory and rape the practice. Porn seems to be almost a release valve for frustrated male sexuality. The vast majority of researchers have said this for almost 20 years.

    I’m just trying to work out why Ms. Nasrin is saying what she’s saying. It’s not even well-presented: Her examples are shoddy and trite.

    gang rape is a serious and tragic phenomenon. Posts like this do actual rape victims such a profound injustice it’s repulsive.

    It’s Ms. Nasrin’s intellectually weak and overblown argumentative style that’s really bothering me.

    I agree, all these things are serious issues, but in bald fact Ms. Nasrin doesn’t approach them in this manner.

    I’m curious why. Is she aware of this? If she is, is it deliberate? Is it an attempt to undermine feminist talking points through obfuscation and trivialization?

    If I were more suspicious, I’d think she was a male chauvinist plant writing as a feminist, trying to embarrass women.

    She should use some degree of rigor in her arguments. Any degree of rigor.

    • says

      So – because someone writes long posts you can completely disregard what they are saying?

      I think the poster is being too combative and should simply present the research (with references, or at least with enough information so that those studies can be found), especially since zie is complaining about rigor.

      However, simply dismissing the points (because zie did actually make points) because zie uses lots of words is…umm…stupid.

      Sorry, I was looking for a euphemism there and failed.

      • Who Knows? says

        The bulk of Gorbachev’s comments here are condescending and insulting Ms. Nasreen’s intelligence. He is a pompus ass who cleary lives by the old saw, If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit.

        His points aren’t worth the time needed to read them.

        • says

          I don’t agree completely with how he presents his arguments either – but he does present a few key points that nobody is bothering with because they would rather just attack him.

          I’ve asked him to present information on the studies that he alludes to – and he has not done that. However, I know they exist. I also have experience with the retail-end of the industry and have some intuition about the culture of it.

          Among the mainstream porn industry and the fans of that industry – I would characterize the treatment of women more as a “goddess worship” patronage than anything else. Social norms of respect for the talent (as well as other women in every aspect of the industry) is strongly socially enforced. There is a more traditional ethic of protecting women. If a woman is disrespected there is swift action against the offending person. Believe it or not, even swearing in front of women is more taboo than in the general population.


          Not having a lot of time to find something better and suffering from the fact that journal articles doing studies on the subject tend to require subscriptions that I don’t have – that’s what it is. However, it is something. What we have between the disagreement between Nasreen and Gorbachev is well – not a whole lot.

          I think a more productive conversation might be to discuss specific movies or production companies and call them out on how sex is depicted and how they operate. Of course, ironically, that’s sort of a difficult conversation to have because of obscenity laws.

          However, we certainly can look at the two advertisements that are presented to us – both of which (especially the second one) show the woman in a ultra-submissive posture in every element of the presentation. In the second one, the woman’s movement is being limited in a way that would make it difficult for her to remove herself from the situation. Her arched body may indicate an attempt to break free from this. It’s sort of f*ing awful and the people who produced that photo to sell what-ever-the-hell they are selling should be ashamed and in a better world completely ruin their business.

  6. says

    The Calvin Klein & D&G adverts have disturbed and shocked me, they are glamorising a horrific crime. By putting that on a billboard we are saying that gang rape is socially acceptable, we are allowing ourselves to become immune to an image that should be disturbing, instead it’s just becoming more and more familiar. If images glamorising rape have become mundane, then sooner or later so will gang-rape, and what comes after that? Glamorised captivity? Torture? All these images, porn etc are just fuelling the minds of men to think it’s awesome and ok, when really they should feel disgusted by it. I don’t care if porn stars/models feel cool about being gang banged infront of a camera, they don’t have to live with the memory/ordeal of it as an actual victim does. Women are human, they’re mothers, they’re daughters, they’re sister’s, and it’s just sad that in this day and age that’s the best advert a fashion brand can come up with.

    • ik says

      I… REALLY do not like those adverts. They are kind of creepy. On the other hand, UNLIKE the horrific Belvedeere Vodka ad, they do not directly suggest rape at all. If we were living in utopia, and rape was always seen as completely horrible by everyone, these posters would just be some kind of weird BDSM thing. We are not living in utopia, so the presence of these in general culture (as opposed to, say, kink culture which has a need for this kind of aggressively sexual image and has built up a better consent culture) is pretty bad.

      But still not rape.

    • ik says

      Yes, women are all of those things. They are also lovers, and, occasionally, sexually submissive.

      Those ads are still really bad and should not be used as general purpose ads.

      • says

        those adverts are absolutely suggestive of rape/gang rape

        and yes women are lovers and sexually submissive, but to a random group on men in whatever scenario those adverts are placed… not really

        if you’re advertising clothes, surely the worst way to show the clothes is have the woman lying down

        those ads have nothing to do with fashion

  7. aw says

    I don’t understand why saying that one finds this attitude and imagery demeaning, dehumanizing, and threatening is controversial. Because sex? Pornography is above question? It’s okay to treat people like this if it gets you off?

    I assume it’s understood that video games don’t involve actual people. And video games and mainstream movies and advertising are also criticized for perpetuating sexism and rape culture. But all the rape, all the sexism, all the racism, all the homophobia, all the trans hate is A-Okay, as long as it’s porn?

    Your crotch is not a sacred cow.

    • says

      No – she just defined a gang bang video as a rape video and that is not true.

      Pointing that out is not saying that all porn is awesome and that porn actors and actresses don’t encounter problems or that no porn producers are jack-asses who take advantage of people.

      It’s simply pointing out that gang bang videos are not rape videos – the same way that any sort of sex video is not a rape video.

      • aw says

        Oh, you don’t like her tone and style. Why are you still reading?
        People react when they feel demeaned and threatened. This shit’s pretty demeaning and threatening. I don’t need soft words to talk about rape and oppression. I don’t expect them, and I appreciate when others don’t use them to minimize the very real damage women suffer when they’re treated like this.

        This is rape culture.

        • Mikey says

          How does conflating group scenes with gang rape, there by making trivializing real cases of gang rape, and taking away a sex worker’s autonomy by claiming she is always raped and never had a choice helping to fight against rape culture?

        • says

          What? That’s not what I said at all – unless she is using “rape” as some sort of metaphor or something – she is stating untrue things.

          I don’t think it helps to state untrue things.

          Not all gang bang videos are depicting rape and not all gang bang videos are actually rape.

          The actress who starred in the “World’s Biggest Gang Bang” video is a human being. Her name is Annabel Chong, and even though the producers do have a lot to answer for, she was not raped. The film does not present the acts as rape either. If you care to find out about her, there is a documentary about her you can watch.

          “The World’s Biggest Gang Bang III” starred Houston. (I’ve actually met Houston.) She was not raped. The film does not present the acts as rape either. She also made a ton of money. When I met her, she was doing a public appearance for her fans (mostly, but not exclusively men) who were lined up to get her autograph and a picture with her.

          Also, double penetration is not necessarily painful – at all. Just putting that out there. For many people it is uncomfortable (especially if not attempted properly), but many of these actresses have essentially trained their bodies to be able to do certain things – male porn actors do the same. (Think of it along the lines of contortionists at a circus or something. It looks like it hurts, but it most likely does not.)

          Look – the porn industry is not all peachy-keen – and a lot of very valid criticism can be leveled against it. However, making false statements does NOT HELP. If you actually CARE (instead of just enjoy being appalled), I would suggest reading Nina Hartley.

  8. says

    I remember watching an interview with a well known pornography actress, belladonna, where she described her first gang bang porn scene. She wasn’t told that it was going to be like that, and she described it as something she couldn’t imagine anyone wanting to do.

    I get sick of reading the comments here. a bunch of porn sick dudebros show up to say how right it is for them to wank to the pain of vulnerable women (they don’t think vulnerable women are in it apparently), or how their attraction to surgically altered women is “natural”, or how prostitution is really empowering to women, etc. Such a visceral reaction to common sense observations about the condition of modern women… its depressing.

    I am so glad you blog here though, its nice to have a radical voice mixed in with all the fluff feminism.

    • says

      Yes, what happened in your anecdote is pretty horrid. Many porn actresses are not treated well and how producers go about producing pornography is varied. The actors generally treated the worst are male actors who do gay scenes – but I suppose that doesn’t jive with your women-are-always-victims theory. Women get paid more – but that’s not the end all. You will find stories of absolutely disgusting practices as well as the oddly mundane – and yes, the occasional woman who actually really does enjoy her job.

      Perhaps you could share the name of the producers of the film where Belladonna was not sufficiently briefed on the nature of the scene she was acting in before filming? Then we could all be pissed off together.

      Or – you could continue to accuse everyone who doesn’t buy into the ALL porn is rape rhetoric as “sick dudebros” or like to “wank to the pain of vulnerable women” or really like plastic surgery…err some other stuff you want to throw in there.

      What I would like from the anti-porn crowd is simple: specificity. Without that, you’re just treating sex-workers like shit – like children needing your judgment and your help regardless of their actual situation or what they want from you. You are doing nothing to reform the industry or call-out their sins. You aren’t empowering those within the industry to minimize their vulnerability to undo pressure (economic, social, etc), their ability to demand safer working conditions, or the dignity of being treated as individuals.

      The original poster and some of the comment authors have come very close to blaming sex workers for gang rape. I was pretty sure the party-line of most reasonable people was that the people who actually rape should be blamed for rape. The way that Nasreen and many others refer to sex workers in general simply angers me because I don’t have the luxury of seeing sex workers in an abstract way. I see them as people because I have met a few who are celebrities. For all I know they secretly hate the industry and stay within it out of habit or a sense of necessity. They may hate the filming of every scene they have ever been in. However, I’m going to ask them before I assume. A great number of the scenes in porn certainly are problematic in strengthening various aspects of the patriarchy – but not all are – at least not any more than your average TV commercial for laundry detergent.

  9. ik says

    This is the way it ALWAYS goes.
    Radfem (Is Taslima a radfem? She sometimes acts like one, but most of the time is much more rational) tells about true abuses in some sexualized social interaction in which women most often provide and in which exploitation of women is frequently present. However, she dehumanizes the women and treats the abuses as intrinsic to the interaction and her characterization as fully general.

    A crowd of men and women, feminists and nonfeminists respond. They agree with the problematicness and the presence of abuse, but they take the time to actually figure out where there is and is not abuse. They also try to decide what people find abusive, whether people vary in what they find abusive, and whether it is common for people to like things that other people find abusive.

    Radfem accuses everybody of supporting rape, of being male, of being ‘pornsick’ (whatever the hell that means), of being ‘dudebros’ (which where I come from refers to frat boys who probably don’t read this blog and who may actually exploit women) and of being motivated by their own sexual desires. I do not think anybody here has talked about their own sexual desires. People have talked about what other people are willing and unwilling to do, mostly.

    If there is at least one vulnerable woman in the sex industry (there are many, many of them) then the sex industry is problematic and the vulnerable women (or men) need to be helped. If there is at least one non-vulnerable woman in the sex industry (Within the legitimate business in developed countries, and probably elsewhere, there are a LOT of them), then not all women in the sex industry are vulnerable and telling them, ‘what do you mean you were not raped’ or No True Scotsmanning them with true claims of privilege is not exactly helpful.

    I wonder if Taslima and/or Skeptifem think that polygyny is bad because it represents a man being entitled to multiple women AND at the same time polyandry is bad because it represents a women being dominated and outnumbered by men. Certainly it is all too often the case, but a lot of the time (Most of the time?) it’s just sex with unequal numbers of partners of each gender.

    Actual gang rape, committed by force, threat, substantial economic pressure, or brainwashing (much less common now than even just a hundred years ago, varies by culture, also varies by type) is always very bad. And liking it is no excuse. This is obvious and none of us argued against it.

      • Gorbachev says

        I know one woman who sought out and had several encounters with multiple men. She did this as a fantasy exploit – her own. In each case, the men involved were extremely respectful.

        She was the only female I’ve ever heard or known in real life who did this. Perhaps there are others, I have no idea. However, it seems to me that Ms. Nasrin’s change and edit here has some effect on moderating her post. It’s no longer as grotesquely polemic. It’s still a gross generalization, but not quite as awful.

        Ms. Nasrin still seems to demonize male interest in females, on an intrinsic level. As long as there’s no lack of consent and no implied lack of consent, I would leave the issue to people.

        As far as taking ads like this as promoting anything at all–

        Sex sell. If you use pretty girls in bikinis and hot guys without clothes to sell things, then it gets old really fast. You need to up the ante.

        Soon, group sex between models becomes the go-to level for using sex to sell things. I’ll put money on the ad companies knowing what works and what doesn’t. They’re just interested in selling things, not putting people down or being morally repugnant.

        If ads like this successfully appeal to the target demographic, then it says more about what people really want, what they find radical or cool, and what they see as acceptable than anything else.

        bear in mind the classic “bodice-ripper”, the romance novel in which the attractive male characters seem to be commanding, powerful and overwhelm the strong, independent woman with his charm and force of will. Typically, he’s unable to control himself in the face of her intense attractiveness. Any resistance she has is worn down or broken by the sheer power of his masculine will.

        Go read any of the tens of thousands of such novels currently on sale. Or, perhaps, explore the topsy-turvy world of dominatrix/dominator in S&M culture.

        Sex is not a clean, easily quantifiable subject. It involves power, coercion, fear, joy, freedom, vengeance, pleasure, sometimes pain and jealousy.

        If publishers gain a vast market from publishing such novels, then they’re providing what a large segment of women actually want in their fantasy men.

        About a third of the women I’ve been with have had strong fantasies of being “whores” – no longer the good girl, they want to be temptresses, sexualy powerful, irresistible, be dominated by or dominate men. My current Significant Other is a very strong woman – and she perversely desires the opposite in bed.

        By singling out one thing in advertisements, Ms. Nasrin and the Dworkinite types who stage this kind of phoney cultural warfare are trying to restrain a fundamental, defining force in human lives. This is the same action that Taliban engages in, or the Vatican, or any repressive social order.

        If the advertisers sell more product (likely to women, BTW, not to men) using these ads, then clearly they’re appealing to a powerful subconscious – emotional aspect of the female (and male) psyche.

        *THIS IS THEIR JOB*.

        The job of advertisers is to bypass the rational brain and convince you to buy something, whether or not you need it. It’s the be-all and end-all of advertising. I worked in advertising. This is how it’s understood.

        To draw extreme conclusions from an ad like this is to ignore the cultural and temporal context. It mistakes implication for intent. And it substitutes reason where only fantasy reigns.

        It shows a profound misapplication of analysis in media. This is not how the human media brain works.

        As I said, the article remains a shallow, deeply misconstrued attempt to generate ideological war where none actually exists.

        And as far as sex goes – to let people who think I’m some misogynist know, I have very strong views about female liberation and feminism. I feel that women are best served in a climate where individual action, agency and freedom are maximized.

        All sex without consent is unacceptable if the non-consenter so deems. All sex, no matter what happens, ever, between consenting adults is
        beyond reproach.

        No person, regardless of their status, their self-defined identity, or their power, should have the right to make the slightest judgment of what any other person voluntarily does with their own consent. Ever.

        I smell a lot of “People should not do this!” in more or less everything Ms. Nasrin writes.

        This is what I’m looking for.

        If giving women total agency, treating them as the absolute equal of men, and expecting nothing less than that men respect their consent in all things, as human beings, is not a misogynist position.

        That said, porn, romance novels, and advertisements are the stuff of fantasy and image. Misconstruing these for reality is like being upset at war movies for promoting war.

        Fantasy is fantasy. Learn how to distinguish.

        • Gorbachev says

          Ps please disregard any errors or breakage in trains of thought, I write this from a cellphone with a tiny little window.

        • says

          Mr. Gorbachev, you are either a owner of a sex industry, or a sex trafficker or a pimp or a client. Prove me wrong. It is amazing how you try to brainwash people to believe that prostitution is a noble profession and there is no difference between a woman becoming an astronaut or an engineer or a doctor and a woman becoming a prostitute.

          • Taru Dutt says

            Taslima – Gorbachev is here to beg your attention. His attitude is racist and condescending, and he really – like many women also do – dislikes women. He also lies as consistently as he projects, telling that you see patriarchy everywhere, when in fact it is he who sees many espousals of feminism as a threat to his patriarchy. He consistently attempts to tell you what to write and say, while accusing you of telling others the same.

            It’s possible that he is feeling insecure at a non-white woman like you being so mouthy and stubborn as to refuse to accept his white male diktat. Let him feel insecure – the more he tries to tell us what to do or say, the more we will do or say what we want.

            Just another racist misogynist with an imperialist, condescending mindset. Allow him to continue begging for your attention. He can’t stop himself, it seems. Pity it only makes women like us more mouthy and stubbornly outspoken.

          • says

            Seriously, reacting the way you are with accusations such as that is not reasonable. Prove to me you aren’t part of the sex industry!!!! – is not an argument at all.

        • says

          I have to disagree with you a bit here.

          The ads are rude. Even if they appeal to many women and men, they are rude. A couple having loud sex so I can hear it or see it in a public place or my own home is rude.

          I suspect we are on the same page as far as getting law enforcement involved in that sort of thing. However, it is still rude.

          If consent is the measure of what should be considered acceptable and unacceptable, disseminating sexual imagery or sounds (or any imagery or sounds for that matter) that a “reasonable person” would consider upsetting is rude.

          And before you flip out – I know that some argument could be used to an oppressive effect. A “reasonable person” (as culturally defined) could become upset by a woman showing her face or a man not wearing a cap or some other sort of unreasonable thing. I’m talking about a balance here – and frankly sometimes it’s awesome to be rude and you should be rude.

          However, just like ik points out – these images are disturbing because of their cultural context. Because a reasonable person can look at them and see a coercive act (especially with the second one – holy crap), because about 1 in 6 women in the U.S. have been raped, because gang rape happens – showing an image that could be seen as depicting a glamorized version of that PUBLICLY is f-ing rude. Unlike the novels that you mentioned, which I can avoid if I feel like it pretty easily – advertisements are splayed all over and splaying imagery that is disturbing for many people (from BDSM scenes to mutilated fetuses to co-ed naked T-shirts) might be protected speech (and should be) but it is STILL RUDE. Me having sex in my own backyard would be rude, even though its my own backyard. Porn shops with windows into the inside would be rude.

          This isn’t a black and white idea – we don’t give advertisers a pass because they are doing their jobs.

          I know what an advertisers job is too. They figured it out a long time ago that it isn’t about giving information so that someone can make an informed decision about purchases. It’s about making an association with the product and a good feeling. It’s just a bunch of Pavlovian conditioning – because we consume with our pleasure responses. However, by using female sexual fantasy as a pleasure response association for their brand name – they also just put up a bunch of pictures that appear to depict gang rape into a heterogeneous population that may very well be upset by it or even triggered; who really had no say in whether or not they would be subjected to the image while going about their daily lives. So yeah, rude.

          Whether the depiction of a glamorized gang-bang with elements showing the female as submissive or possibly coerced (porn or advertisement or whatever) desensitizes the viewer – well, who the heck knows. There is some evidence to suggest that it certainly does. However, as you pointed out, there is no sufficient evidence that would suggest that it increases sexual violence. That doesn’t mean it is a good thing. It doesn’t mean that it isn’t rude – or even that it shouldn’t be met with a negative response.

      • says

        I appreciate your edit Ms. Nasreen. Reading it now, it is much stronger. For the record – no, I don’t think the majority of gang-bang flicks are particularly edifying!! I agree with you on that point.

    • Anat says

      To ik:

      I wonder if Taslima and/or Skeptifem think that polygyny is bad because it represents a man being entitled to multiple women AND at the same time polyandry is bad because it represents a women being dominated and outnumbered by men. Certainly it is all too often the case, but a lot of the time (Most of the time?) it’s just sex with unequal numbers of partners of each gender.

      This depends on how they are practiced. In traditional societies that hold polygyny as a norm there is indeed a domination of the women and in the one society I read about that practiced polyandry as a norm there indeed was domination of the women involved. Not because of sexual access of one person to many people of the opposite sex per se but because women were disempowered in those societies to begin with. I wouldn’t be surprised if in a society in which women hold economical and political power and where they receive support to leave a marriage that isn’t working without fear for themselves or their children (including fear of losing access to said children) it would be possible to have marriages of any number of people of either sex without oppression, but it hasn’t been tried yet, at least not on a large scale.

  10. Abdulla Madumoole says

    When Taslima tweeted “Rape is outdated and old-fashioned,gang rape is new trend” I responded “New generation believes in team work” but of course, it was in a lighter vein. Probably what she wanted to highlight is that the new trend is more dangerous to girls than the traditional one man show. I fully agree with her, girls are more vulnerable these days. She has written a lot about gang rape without actually writing anything about it. She has very bluntly pointed fingers at 2-3 inspirations which promotes gang rape. Thought provoking, thanks Taslima.

  11. Gorbachev says

    Ms. Nasrin,

    A sex-trafficker needs to be associated with selling sex.

    I’ve never paid for sex, never been remotely involved in the sex trade. I did know a prostitute, but was never her customer. I never worked for her or helped her in her job; in fact I was disturbed by it.

    But Ms. Nasrin has once again shown how low these “advocates” go: Anyone who does not agree with her, or is not a paternalistic nanny like her, must be a pimp.

    This is very weak.

    Ms. Nasrin, you are no feminist. You pretend very well, but what other feminists have said about you seems to be absolutely true.

    Your inability to compose logical and well-reasoned arguments disappoints. Given your reputation, I expected more clear-thinking and reason from you.

  12. Gorbachev says

    Ms. Nasrin,

    You really do need to get out and meet actual women in real life. If you need to believe I’m some porn director or Vegas pimp, then go ahead. Maybe I have a basement full of underage sex slaves and a few thousand more in containers being delivered from the Philippines.

    Believe it or not, I’m so far from being a misogynist woman-hater bent on enslaving the female sex it’s almost laughable that you would suggest it.

    You have quite the reputation for dealing with the rampant, near-genocidal nature lack of women’s rights in South Asia and the Muslim world.

    Your authoritarian, hate-driven scare tactics may be suitable for such environments, but I fear your lack of subtlety, your inability to reason, and your hopeless muddling of issues makes you ill-suited to work in the far more nuanced world of Western feminist circles.

    There are hundreds of thousands of accomplished, independent, varied women in the West, leading successful and fulfilling lives.

    Some of them have casual sex with strangers for fun.

    Some of them are stay-at-home moms.

    Some of them are university professors of almost any subject you can imagine.

    Some of them are spiritually inclined.

    Some of them are atheists.

    Put any adjective or noun in there you want.

    Almost all of these women will disagree with your doctrinaire, extremist views. Some may agree on some points, others on different points, but I would like to point out:

    There are many feminisms under the broad “feminist” tent.

    your brand is among the worst. As one female friend put it, your writing represents one thing very effectively:

    You are one of the most patronizing writers in this field.

    You seem to have contempt for these poor, wretched, helpless and hapless semi-children you call “women”.

    Give me a break.

    The more rope you’re given, the more you seem to hang yourself. I’ll put money on a large number of lurkers here reading these discussions and wondering where the free thought is.

    You’re not practicing it.

  13. Taru Dutt says

    Another suggestion regarding where Gorbachev is coming from. Taslimadi, you have recived international laurels for your humanist, feminist and freethinking work. How dare a lowly brown woman like you walk off with so many accolades where a superior white man like dear Gorbachev is reduced to begging for your attention online? After all he is white. He is – gasp, swoon, flutter – male. How come HIS opinions don’t get the same attention and applause as yours? A tad bit of jealousy here, perhaps? Correction – EATEN up with jealousy that an inferior South Asian female is geting so much attention and admiration while nobody bothers about Gorbachev, the successor to Socrates (if perhaps only in his own estimation?)

    The above theory might explain why Gorbachev dogs your blog – is that a new term there – blogdogger? – and tries with increasing desperation, including patronizing racist comments, to share some of your limelight. His hope might be that if he does this hitching his wagon to your star long enough and persistently enough, the world will finally recognize him for the towering (note phallic symbol here) intellect he might already believe himself to be. No-one thinks he is? Fine; he’ll wail and bawl on your blog till they do! So nyah-hah!

    Piggybacking on the brown woman’s work to get some of her fame. A great compliment to you, Taslima – and something rather different to him.

    • says

      Yeah, I will agree that it was a bit off-putting for Gorvachev to mention Nareen’s ethnicity as a means of defining her perspective FOR her, which isn’t cool.

      Now, you mentioning Gorvachev’s gender and race was completely non-gratuitous, reasonable, and not a means of projecting a manufactured perspective on him because….?….ah……

      Seriously, what the hell people? Even if he was all the things you say he is, which I have NO idea because I don’t know him and (unlike some) don’t pretend to know – when Nasreen essentially accused him of being a sex trafficker or a pimp instead of addressing any of what he said AT ALL that was completely ridiculous.

      If someone is dogging your blog and you don’t like what they say or how they say it then don’t respond. If it is threatening or inappropriate (which none of what he said has been, even if he has been argumentative) you ban them. You don’t just insult them and accuse them of stuff. It’s just bizarre.

  14. Taru Dutt says

    Also, one more thing. The bloke was in advertising. No wonder when you criticized the subliminal messages in ads, his dander was up. He was a professional mind-manipulator in that sense – ads create perceptions in people’s minds, and can make them think that wants are needs. Now you, Taslima, arrive and start unpacking the bag of tricks of the ad trade, uncovering the misogynist assumptions that can lie beneath them. Obviously ad-man Gorbachev’s not gonna like that. Too much glasnost for him.

    The man’s rather sad, really.

  15. Mixhele says

    Once again, tough stuff. It’s late and I’m tired so all I will say is that the theme I see in this post is the rather important issue of objectifying women to the point that our desires are unimportant. That’s the link, in my mind at least, between say advertising, porn, misogeny and rape. I am not anti-porn and I am ambivalent about sex work in general. However, I feel it isn’t unfounded or radical to point out the foundational cultural things that underpin rape culture. It is not necessarily about how the sex worker was treated on set (Taslima’s point, sort of) but rather way it these movies do or do not reinforce rape culture.

    As usual, Taslima, you make me think, even after work and two glasses of wine. Keep on, keeping on.

  16. Gorbachev says

    Alright, I knew the “racism”! charge would come up. It’s standard operating procedure.

    Tactics used by hard-line neofeminists who don’t have a solid argument:

    1) Silence by shaming
    2) Silence by ideological name-calling: “Racist! Misogynist! capitalist!” > Insert meaningless aphorism here.
    3) Ignore evidence or words.

    Not only am I not racist, I have the deepest respect for someone in Taslima Nasrin’s position : Drummed out of her own country by religious zealots, berated and browbeaten by a culture that is, by modern standards, positively medieval when it comes to basic rights for anyone, let alone women and children, and given short shrift in the West, except for a few perfunctory honors doled out by feminist who treat her like a cute pet, not quite sure what to do with her.

    All of the issues she feels most strongly about are massive, earth-shattering issues in her own country of origin, but when compared to issues facing women in, say, the US, are titanic by comparison. Women being burned alive; women being sexually mutilated; women being forced into marriage; women being hounded from the day they’re born; women being sold into domestic slavery. I mean, suddenly a wage gap for women over 35 (not now experienced by the 20-30 set who work full time) doesn’t seem so critical. What the hell are Western feminists supposed to say against a holocaust of real, vicious misogyny? It makes ALL concerns in the west, all social issues, for both men and women, seem trite and silly by comparison.

    These are real issues.

    So you can dismiss me, but Ms. Nasrin must relaize that the halls of academic Western feminism are populated by strange ideological animals.

    I didn’t work *in* advertising: I worked in media. I knew lots and lots of advertising people.

    More to the point, I know a lot of women. I studied mainstream feminism in the 1990’s. I produced dozens of news documentaries on a vast range of topics.

    You can call me a pimp, a sex trafficker, a misogynist, a lying advertiser – anything you want.

    ** This is a way to silence opposition. It’s not a way to argue or debate. It’s the method used by Central Parties to keep the rank and file in order.

    • says

      Hey Mr.Non-racist Gorbachev,

      Since you’re so non-racist and care so much about women’s rights won’t you please voice opposition to all the rape in the European countries with the lowest percentage of Muslims like Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine?

      You see the countries in Europe with the lowest percentage of Muslims like Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Ukraine have the very highest murder rates in Europe and least immigration

      Sweden’s murder rate is extremely low, yet it’s reported rape rate is very high. Sweden’s murder rate in 2011 (with more Muslim immigrants) has decreased all the way down to 0.86, now lower than all US states except for 1

      Most of the reported rapes in Sweden involve no injuries or violence and are similar to the Wikileak’s co-founder’s rape case.

      We know from the murder rate that type of rapes in Sweden aren’t the forcible lethal kind. We also know that with a 0% Muslim population Sweden’s reported rape rate would still be higher than New Zealand’s.

      So what do you think Lithuania’s reported rape rate would be if they had Sweden’s unique rape laws and a high level of reporting rapes? Lithuania’s rape rate would probably be above 300 then, lol

      You see when Europeans are reported for rape the victim usually has injuries or is dead like in this Lithuania gang rape http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/lithuanian-pair-wanted-in-gang-rape-case-16036319.html unlike in the case of when non-white males are reported in racist/atheist countries like Sweden

      It’s much harder for a white female to report a European than it is for a white female to report a non-white male, so Europeans are reported much less, they are also convicted much less.

      New Zealand also has a low percentage of Muslims and a high reported rape rate, but NZ doesn’t have Sweden’s strange unique rape laws so NZ’s rape rate is probably more real.

      The reported rape rate is also the least objective of all crime statistics.

      There could be many countries with a high number of actual rapes and a low reported number and vice-versa so the reported rape rate gives us no objective data.

      The murder rate on the other hand is calculated by objective deaths and is much more objective than the reported rape rate.

      So you won’t please voice opposition to all the rapes in the purest European countries that have the highest murder rates in Europe, the lowest percentage of Muslims, and the least immigration?

      If you’re concerned with ending rape in general shouldn’t you also encourage all females to report rapes (regardless of it’s a Muslim rapist or not)?

      Why don’t you travel to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, or Ukraine and get those women to report rapes more often? But be careful, you might get murdered there…

      I will always oppose all rape in general, not just “Islamic” rape or whatever

  17. Gorbachev says

    On Racism: No racism here.

    At most, Culturism: For obvious reasons, Western culture is far better at protecting women’s rights *today* than anything in South Asia, where there truly is a war against women going on.

    A serious war.

    And, actually, throughbout almost the entire Muslim world.

    I’ve traveled in almost every Middle Eastern country. Everywhere Islam has touched, it has destroyed women’s rights. If you wish to debate this or call me racist, believe me – I’ve seen *actual* slave markets, I’ve seen clerics and even women defend the murder of women for “honor”, I’ve seen refugees fleeing maurauding Muslim armies bent on slavery and torture, I’ve spent copious amounts of time in places like Egypt, where atheists are murdered and their killers set free.


    Calling me a racist?

    You trot out “white male” to shut up dissent. What if I were a white female? My opinions don’t differ markedly from those of my white female colleagues. OR for that matter, from my black female colleagues ,of which there are more than a few.

    How about the ex-Muslim Indian activist I once interviewed, who spends her time pushing for prostitutes’ rights in New Delhi? Was she a racist?

    Please. If you’re going to ignore opinions and silence people, use something with some bite.

    The way you’ve tossed around “white”, “male” and I’m sure “Privilege” will come up soon, you sound like a thoughtless first-year undergrad. Give me a break.

    When you’ve interviewed fleeing South Sudanese being chased by butcherous Muslim slave traders, while being under attack, or fended off twelve angry Pakistanis who are trying to tear a Christian girl limb from limb for trying to go to school, we’ll talk.

    You know who’s disgusting: People like you, nameless commenter, who use blind ideology like a shield. You turn feminism into a cruel mockery of itself.

  18. Gorbachev says

    If I pointed Ms. Nasrin to blogs showcasing the life histories of actual prostitutes, if I pointed her to women who aggressively do not want the state in the bedroom’s nations, I’m sure she would simply fail to read them.

    She as much as said that any woman who disagrees with her is not a true feminist.

    So this is the “No True Scotsman” dilemma?


    What Ms. Nasrin is selling is an ideology characterized by:

    1) Extreme, overbearing Paternalism

    2) Judgmentalism: The brand of feminism that seeks to tell men and women what to be or to brand them Traitors or to exile them

    3) Moral certitude: The kind of absolute, unthinking moral certainty that misses as often as it hits and allows fo rno critical thought. This is what makes her *mode* of thinking similar to that of the Taliban or any religious nut: For her, her opinions function as a religion, as an ideological belief system, not as a fountain of careful reasoning and consideration of evidence .

    4) Dismissal: Any argument that does not uimmediately agree with her opinion is dismissed as Misogyny! < Insert any convenient aphorism here.

    Any state that used her views without serious introspection to create public policy would create a dystopian nightmare of egregious proportions for the majority of the population, both male and female.

    Commenters like you don't help her much.

    She won't even consider reading or crediting the actual women in the world who don't subscribe to Police State Sexual Judgement. This would be the vast majority of women.

    No wonder this brand of poisonous feminism was discarded by almost all Western women in the 1980's.

    Whether or not she wants to admit it, Ms. Nasrin's views on some of these subjects resembles nothing more than a Stalinist throwback to a bygone – and better forgotten – age.

    Worse, she brings the most crass, slogannering approach to all of these issues, effectivley treating both women and feminism with a trite and insultingly superficial lack of seriousness and intellectual rigor.

    You can dismiss me as male, as a misogynist, as reactionary–

    But I'm among the most progressive of men, a wholesale and absolute supporter of women's rights in every shape and form, a strong advocate for true equality and a very strong advocate for gender-neutrality in all public policy of any kind.

    I upbraid men I know for being sexist pigs. I've hired women over men on many occasions, and have worked hard to only consider skills and abilities. I deliberately choose my male associates to encompass only those who treat women with respect.

    I think violence in relationships is disgusting and should be censured.

    How is any of this misogynist?

    You can construct whatever false image you need to to dismiss any comment I make, but there's one thing I require above all else in order to credit someone's opinion:

    Cold hard reason. Facts. Back them up.

    I'm prepared to back up everything I ever say with solid evidence. Is Ms. Nasrin?

    If she thinks ressurecting the stale 1980's debate over pornography and prostitution and sex, generally, is a good idea, let her present evidence for connections between porn and rape, let her present evidence for connections between prostitution and the genera ldegradation of women, let her present evidence for why any government or social body has any place in anyone's bedroom.

    She can't. I challenge her to.

    What she offers is not free thought: it's the Dworkinite goose-stepping of an ideological puritan.

    And at the risk of sounding like a "Oh he's calling her a prude!" guy, …

    There are problems with porn and prostitution. But social censure and sex are a VERY TOXIC mix.

    Punishing "deviant" behavior has been used to oppress gay people, lesbians, transsexuals, older women with younger men, inter-racial relationships – you name it.

    UNLESS someone is being ACTIVELY injured, and there is no CONSENT, all sexual activity should be literally beyond reproach.

    All the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the world need to take their personal opinions about the sex lives of anyone else and stow them.

    do yo unot see the danger of making someone the Sexual Moral Authority?

    Apparently, Taslima Nasrin doesn't.

    Perhaps she'd like to volunteer to fill the first

    Feminist Moral Guard position?

    It appals me that "feminism", or "neo-feminism", can be so closely associated with unthinking, irrational moral rectitude.

    This is a "free thought" space. I'd like to know where the free thought is here.

  19. Gorbachev says

    Solution to prostitution:

    Make it completely legal. Tax it as income. Allow prostitutes to go to police and courts to enforce contracts and protect themselves.

    Create agencies to help prostitutes of both genders. Normalize it.

    Al lof the bad working conditions emerge from one simple policy: the criminialization of prostitution. We will never, ever get rid of it. Many women will be forced into it if it’s associated with crime.

    A good proportion of the “normal” relationships people have approach prostitution in one form or another, anyway. It’s sophistry, trying to determine where prostitution stops and normal relationships start.

    Ms. Nasrin wants to eliminate sex slavery? Eliminate slavery. Not sex.

    Ms. Nasrim wanrs to eliminate rape? Punish rapists to the full extent of the law, don’t get rid of porn.

    Ms. Nasrin wants to protect female passengers on motorcycles? Enforce helmet laws for both driver and passenger. Get more women driving the motorcycles and more men riding them.

    New Zealand represents a non-nannyish, successful model for dealing with prostitution.

    In Sweden, they don’t even know how many prostitutes there are. Government ministers (male and female) have been caught running underground prostitution rings. Absolutely normal, middle-class women engaging in prostitution have been arrested and are often FORCIBLY “assisted” when caught, even though they’re not supposed to be punished.


    That way lies state oppression and crushing social judgement.

    I vote:

    Let sex be wohlyl unregulated beyond requiring consent between any participating parties.

    If my neighbor wants to be gay and have loud sex, go for it.

    *MY opinion of his gay sex has no place in public*.


    I can back this up with solid, excellent arguments. Can Ms. Nasrin back up her demand for Interfering Oppressive State?

  20. Taru Dutt says

    Oh dear. “I’m not racist.” NOW we’re convinced. We just needed to hear that. A deep, ineffable peace fills our hearts, a conviction so strong nothing can now shake it, that Gorbachev isn’t racist. He SAID so. What more do we want? – especially after hearing phrases like “when you’re given more rope” – as though the great white hope is here to give the rope, the permission to speak, the contents of the speech. Consistent condescension. Consistent patronizing. Consistent lying – as though Taslima is telling people how to have sex, as though she has no right to pick apart violently misogynistic images in that most message-rich of texts, advertisements. Taslima, Taslima, how could you? Do you not know you need the white father’s permission first? What IS it with us uppity brown women? Huh?

    But it’s not racist. Bringing up someone’s ethnicity gratuitously never is. Say why? Cos the great white hope TOLD us so! What’s wrong with our piddling little non-white brains that we even dare to discuss topics the non-racist racist has declared us unworthy to speak about – like Dolce and Gabbana ads. Let’s confine ourselves to talking about Islam and Hinduism and S. Asia, for so sayeth the non-racist racist, that we shall do, and lo, so shall it be. Not. Repeated hints that we lesser mortals must not dare to criticize the unsavoury misogyny in Western culture have gone unheeded. What to do?

    But alas, the non-racist racist needs to share Taslima’s limelight. What better way than, in spite of hating many of her posts so very, very much, consistently to blogdog her? Freud would’ve loved it.

    Oops. There – a non-white woman said “Freud.” I don’t have a permission slip – not even a Freudian one! Oh, what shall I do? Oh, please, please! Oh great white father, look clemently upon thy erring brown handmaiden! Pardon her her lapse and guide her back to the path thou hast picked out for her, lest she stray.

    I realize I even said “Socrates,” in another post. Oh there is no hope for me now. I shall be sent back to my ghetto…

  21. Taru Dutt says

    “Eliminate slavery. Not sex.” The unblushing lie that Taslima want to “eliminate sex.” Golly, it must be exhausting, lying so much. Lying in post after post after post after post that Taslima said things she didn’t or didn’t say things she did. I know I’d be tired, lying so much, but then I have no experience in advertising.

  22. Gorbachev says

    Ms. Nasrin has stated on multiple occasions that no woman can willingly submit to prostitution. Go read her previous posts and comments.

    her solution: All prostitution should be banned.

    Though no studies show a positive link between sex offences and porn, her solution: Eliminate porn.

    My contention:

    The moment you start regulating anything that goes on in the bedroom, you wade into a murky quagmire.

    read her post by Stella Mar.

    Ask her directly if she supports the New Zealand model for dealing with prostitution.

    Almost everything published about the Swedish model has been shown to be a lie: it has not reduced prostitution; it has not made conditions safer; it may, actually, have increased rapes, trafficking and general abuse.

    Ms. Nasrin is speaking as a moral busybody intent on inquiring into what other people do in their own bedrooms.

    She’s openly stated that feminists who DISAGREE with her position, and feminists are pretty much divided on it, with the more libertarian types taking my position (which actually comes from feminist arguments, good solid feminist arguments, incidentally), ARE NOT FEMINISTS.

    “No true scotsman” dilemma.

    her position is weak, and she’s never presented an iota of non-emotional fluff evidence. Nothing.

    On the other hand, if asked, and I haven’t been, I can burden this comment space with thousands of pages from the other side.

    She is unable to present any credible evidence at all that her patriarchal, paternalistic approach to regulating other peoples’ sexuality is anything but moral rectitude cruelly masquerading as concern for women as prostitues and porn victims.


    *the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation”. Some famous Canadian said it, but it was well-said.

    What should we do next? brand homosexuals as mental deficients or deviants?

    Ban BDSM?

    Ban sexual practices some Star Chamber of Quasi-Feminist Orthodoxy dislikes?

    I’m calling Ms. Nasrin out on her judgmental tendencies.

    This is perfectly legitimate. I’ve never said anything here that even approached misogyny. I’m the furthest from a misogynistic male. If I’m a misogynist, then there’s less than zero hope for the human race.

    I’d like Ms. Nasrin to create a cogent, consistent blogpost backed up with solid evidence for her contention that sex should be regulated and some consensual sex made illegal.

    She’s openly said that no prostitute acts out of her own free will and that no woman would willingly take money for sex.

    This is a bald-faced untruth. It’s so staggeringly untrue, do profoundly ignorant of what many female homo sapiens do on a regular basis, that it boggles the mind that she could remain to completely ignorant of the society in which she lives.

    I tried to give her *CREDIT* by suggesting it was because she was from a very differnet society – one that active promotes a real war on women – but you then called me racist for making this possibly exculpatory statement. In fact, calling me racist for this trivializes actual racism, as well. Perhaps this is a pattern.

    This is a series of Free Thought Blogs. it’s supposed to be charactrized by reason, evidence and clear thought.

    In her time here, despite a warm welcome, Ms. Nasrin has failed to use reason, evidence or clear thought. She’s promulgated the most tired tropes, ignored comments that disagree with her and dismissed evidence, and she’s gone further.

    She’s openly stated that anyone, no matter their feminist credentials, who disagrees with her is no true feminist. She’s said this openly.

    She’s made inflammatory statements with no connection to reality and then been upset when people take issue with it.

    And yet I’m a racist, misogynist, woman-hating blowhard?


    If anyone is being a blowhard here, it’s not me.

    I’d just like Ms. Nasrin to back up any of her personal opinions with some evidence or reason.

    There’s nothing else in what she’s written on the relevant subjects but her own personal moral opinions about the sex lives of others.

    I have gay friends who are terrified of her kind of reasoning. Such reasoning has been used for a hundred years to deny them basic rights.

    “Gay people are sick. We need to help them. Their opinions of their state are irrelevant: We need to cure them.”

    This is the exact attitude she uses with prostitution.

    Can you see why I’m a little vexed by what she delusionally calls “feminism”?

  23. Gorbachev says

    Here is some good reading for you.

    “Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil. Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil. – Eric Hoffer

    It’s fairly common these days to hear people marveling at the fact that neofeminists and religious fundamentalists agree on the prohibition of prostitution and porn, but actually it’s not remotely surprising.

    Though [secular] religions concern themselves with physical reality and avoid talk of the soul, the Divine or other such esoteric concepts, they are yet religions because they insist on rigid adherence to a morality and interpretation of reality (i.e. an approved set of both “truth” and facts) derived entirely from knowledge revealed in sacred scriptures by the founders of the religion. The dogma of…neofeminism…must be accepted unquestioningly by adherents; dissidence is suppressed and any scientifically-sound facts which contradict the teachings are denied…the Scandinavian countries infected with institutionalized neofeminism are every bit as irrational and ideologically-driven as the staunchest theocracy.

    They have been taught not to think, and they learned their lessons well. So the predictable reaction of such an indoctrinated feminist to prostitution or porn is the same as that of her conventionally-religious sisters: she condemns it as sinful, and attacks any defense of it as blasphemy against the catechism which has been drummed into her.”

  24. Gorbachev says

    And another one.


    The entire piece is worth reading, but there’s a writer who is able to make cogent arguments. She’ll even debate with you and *concede* points if you have a superior argument. She doesn’t just say “This is what I think and if you disagree with me You’re a woman-hater!” That’s much like the reaction of Communist “outers” who would finger dissidents or people who didn’t hang their Mao pictures with enough respect.

    “But now we’re seeing a new kind of feminist; most third-wave feminists enjoy being women, like men, enjoy sex and have internalized “equality” rhetoric to the point where they don’t want men to be treated unfairly any more than they want women to be. They accept sex work as a valid choice, support a woman’s right to engage in BDSM and some have even spoken out against the way modern law treats men. For the present, the neofeminists still dominate the establishment and still control the majority of grant money and legal discourse involving women, but that can’t last forever;

    and when that day comes perhaps “a woman’s right to choose” will become something more than merely a euphemism for abortion.”

    Feminism is not about being someone’s judge and nanny.

    It’s about treating ALL PEOPLE as INDIVIDUALS and as AGENTS with FULL AUTONOMY.

    In the other direction lies tyranny – whether of the religious or the ideologically religious.

    What consenting adults do in their own time is wholly their own business – not the business of anyone else.


    Explain to me again how this is anti-feminist or misogynist?

    Good luck.

  25. left0ver1under says

    I cannot believe what I am reading, some…”people” trying to say, “Gang rape is not all that bad”.

    Anything I might have said I now feel too nauseous to say.

    • says

      When you get done throwing up could you please dig up any suggestion by anyone on this blog that could be construed as “Gang rape is not all that bad.”

      Because nobody said that.

      If that’s what you read, you’re reading it wrong.

      A women deciding to have sex with multiple men in one sitting is not gang rape, in the same way that the sex I had with my husband the other night wasn’t rape.

      If you don’t see any difference – that is sort of nauseating.

      If you can’t have an honest discussion here – what the fuck is the point?

  26. BBBShrewHarpy says

    Gorbachev said:

    You trot out “white male” to shut up dissent. What if I were a white female? My opinions don’t differ markedly from those of my white female colleagues.

    If you were a female, white or otherwise, you would not have written much of what you wrote. You clearly have experienced a lot in your life, and have given things a lot of thought, and you probably even mean well.

    There is one fundamental thing you will never ever experience or understand from the perspective of a woman, and that it is the issue of Consent. You discuss it a lot, and it is in your discussion of Consent that you sound most like a dudebro. Consent is murky for women. I don’t know any women who have not at some point said “Did I agree or was I forced?”. And “forced” doesn’t mean held at gunpoint or pinned down, but can simply be a “Ok I guess” response to feeling insecure in a situation, potentially physically overwhelmed, inadequately sexual, sexually inadequate, trained to please and hide one’s self. Feminism has tried to address this with the idea of Enthusiastic Consent, which seemed like a step forward until it became a cliché.

    You may never hear this from the thousands of women you know, but that doesn’t mean they don’t feel it.

    • says

      I am a woman and I agree with a great deal of what he is saying – however, I also agree with your criticism to a great degree.

      The idea that all capable adults should be treated as though they have agency, autonomy, are making their own decisions – is compelling.

      However, the infantilization of women comes in many forms (I’m speaking with a perspective from the U.S. Midwest here), and simply asserting emphatically that women have complete autonomy can only go so far to resolve real power differences.

      I agree with him in many ways however, that the reverse can be just as problematic. If you always assume that the woman does NOT have power in a particular situation – it is also infantilizing, and places responsibility on the men in the situation as if the woman was a child.

      The solution, I think (as I stated earlier) is simply to be more specific about situations and dynamics. Otherwise, the knee jerk reaction is always going to be to assume what they are based on our specific perspectives.

      A man may be more likely to identify with feeling as though too much responsibility is being put on him. A woman may be more likely to identify with having to navigate power differences that give real consequences for making the “wrong” choice or to act in a non-compliant way.

  27. says

    The amount of misogynist comments on the page of this fine thinker are astounding. Including those who insist on denying the tremendous levels of violence and coercion perpetrated against women and girls on this planet, systemically, every day and every hour. Thank you Taslima Nasrin for your voice and your writing and your passion.

    • Jennie says

      Put yourself in a woman”s high heels, you ignorant f#*king bastard. Would YOU want to be brutalized by 5 or more men shoving their cocks up your asshole? Sometimes double penetration, sometimes single? How about being forced to give two blowjobs at once WHILE getting spat on and having your asshole fucked repeatedly?! Would you enjoy THAT?! How about against your will? Wow, sounds like alot of fun, doesn”t it? And in the end, all of these scumfuck men will ejaculate all over your face and ass, ok? Think rationally about what you just wrote. You are a hateful, misogynistic, ignorant, unfeeling, unempathetic TYPICAL MALE. And-there are a countless number of men JUST LIKE YOU in society in astounding numbers. Some of you have actually raped, molested, gang raped, or even fantasized about it. My conclusion- YOU ARE ALL GUILTY!! You all have no heart-fantasizing about something wild like that? Yes, I am sure women have done it. BUT to actually have it done or be paid to do it? No thanks. Oooh, the scumfuck producer shall give me 5 grand or whatever the fuck amount of money I’ll get to end up having p.t.s.d., possible internal injuries, be traumatized for life (drugs and alcohol addiction is prevalent in the porn industry), to degrade myself and let a bunch of scumbag guys do it, to have flashbacks, etc?! No way. Remember, imagine YOURSELF being gang raped by a bunch of crazy and violent men..gang rape is not so appealing is it? And for those advertisements, how sad that they are promoting violence against women and girls. How sad. I wonder what kind of heartless, misogynistic pig came up with these ads? BINGO! A gay or heterosexual MAN!

      • Hardy says


        Let it be clear to all females. Don’t you do fashion so that we are attracted to you, to fuck you. Don’t be prude. Your holes are only to be stuffed? You have 3 holes that can be penetrated by our cocks. You have a socket and to plug it – always.

        We do this because we love holes and love to see the pain in holes. We are not guilty, we just love it when you continue to surpass you limits. Nature has made it that way.

        Why should I imagine being myself gangraped? That job is yours. If it instills fear in you, then it instills glee in me.

  28. Hardy says


    Let it be clear to all females. Don’t you do fashion so that we are attracted to you, to fuck you. Don’t be prude. Your holes are only to be stuffed? You have 3 holes that can be penetrated by our cocks. You have a socket and to plug it – always.

    We do this because we love holes and love to see the pain in holes. We are not guilty, we just love it when you continue to surpass you limits. Nature has made it that way.

    Why should I imagine being myself gangraped? That job is yours. If it instills fear in you, then it instills glee in me.

  29. Natural one says

    Attachment theory is implicated in ones allowing to be denigrated (for money nonetheless), and in wanting to injure and denigrate others. Obviously we are failing our children by not giving them a secure love attachment as children and causing personality disorders to bloom. Happy people dont whore themselves out or torture other people, those people have damaged souls.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *