SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
When the church doors open, only white people will be allowed inside.
That’s the message the Asatru Folk Assembly in Murdock, Minnesota, is sending after being granted a conditional use permit to open a church there and practice its pre-Christian religion that originated in northern Europe.
Murdock council members said they do not support the church but were legally obligated to approve the permit, which they did in a 3-1 decision.
“We were highly advised by our attorney to pass this permit for legal reasons to protect the First Amendment rights," Mayor Craig Kavanagh said. "We knew that if this was going to be denied, we were going to have a legal battle on our hands that could be pretty expensive.”
City Attorney Don Wilcox said it came down to free speech and freedom of religion.
“I think there’s a great deal of sentiment in the town that they don’t want that group there," he said. "You can’t just bar people from practicing whatever religion they want or saying anything they want as long as it doesn’t incite violence.”
After permit approved for whites-only church, small Minnesota town insists it isn't racist
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 30 2020, @05:58AM
I think you are viewing violence as some sort of zero-sum phenomenon, which she did not claim. The violence is inherent into the act of sex itself. Whether the penetrator is the one actively pushing the object into another or the penetrated is the one pushing themselves onto the other. This also holds for other types of sexual activity as well. After all, if you aren't initiation contact with the other and stimulating erotic areas, you aren't really doing "sex" so to speak. Penetrative intercourse takes this one step further by taking one person's body and overcoming whatever resistance is provided to insert said penetrating object into the penetrated entrance. Who is doing the active part doesn't really change that underlying requirement.
Now it is true that her own abuse and proclivities may color how severe that problem is. In addition, she was writing said pieces decades ago before civil rights for those she saw as disadvantaged had advanced in popular culture and pornography. Today, I think it is easy to see that the violence, despite being inherent, is not necessarily a requirement given adequate work and it is clear that she didn't either back then. Instead, she made clear many of the issues and their solutions that have subsequently been worked towards. Many people at the time had no idea or otherwise internalized such features that they couldn't see them until pointed out and that is the purpose she tried to fulfill.
Regardless the underlying violence also doesn't mean that there are not other sex acts that are even more violent. Sex with a loving partner (or five) can have positive aspects that override and outweigh any negative aspects. Proper consent can negate any violence conveyed. Assault perpetrated against you can outweigh any violence in any sex acts that are also done by multiple orders of magnitude. You point out that people can often be shortsighted and only see problems that affect them directly, but to assign said individual views to the field as a whole is a mistake. But it does make me wonder, if your ally in ending sexual assault is not the feminist, who is it? After all, women not being equal doesn't somehow stop them from sexually assaulting others.