Why does Belle Knox consider herself a feminist?

[Harmony Blue]

Is this from a sex positive point of view? She considers pornography empowering while Sasha Grey on the other hand feels that it ruined her life on the other hand. Why such a difference in opinion?

[graegoyle]

1. Because stupid people believe stupid things.

Actually, lots of "smart" people do, too. And some stupid people believe intelligent things, as well.

Wait, what?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. I consider myself Queen of Bakerfield.

Doesn't make it so, though.

[Squinch]

37. Yes, but I think you are the Queen of Bakerfield too, so that's different. Your majesty.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. omg ... I really did just LOL.

thanks for the chuckle, dear Squinch ....

truthfully, my cats are named Prince and Princess so ... stands to reason, right

[Squinch]

42. .

[joeybee12]

60. Of course it doesn't make it so...

I AM the HRH, the Queen of Bakersfield!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

61. ... lol ...

<---- me in deep curtsy

[joeybee12]

63. And continue in that pose until I deem it proper to rise...

In other words, try to get used to it...I'll check back tomorrow!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

64. Please note the lack of S in my Bakerfield. From one Monarch to another -

I enjoyed my visit to your fair and sovereign state. Please feel free to visit mine at any time you find mutually convenient

[joeybee12]

67. Actually, I don't live there...I'm a monarch in abstentia!

There are so few of us left with royal blood that we have to perform double duty.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

70. mea culpa ... lol

a Royal's work is never done

[hifiguy]

122. Nice to meet you, your highness.

I am His Grace, the Duke of Prunes (it's a Zappa reference).

[opiate69]

3. I'm not sure I agree with you 100% on your policework there, Lou.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sasha-grey-i-m-proud-to-say-i-have-no-regrets-about-porn-career

"Don’t worry, I haven’t found Jesus. One thing is for certain, I’m proud to say I have no regrets, I genuinely feel I accomplished everything I could as a performer.

[nomorenomore08]

4. Anyone can label themselves anything. So what?

(Note that I'm not saying she's not a feminist. Not my place to decide that.)

[LeftyMom]

5. I don't know. Ask her or at least read her writing.

Nobody here reads minds.

[Squinch]

38. There's a thought.

[Chan790]

6. I've never heard Sasha Grey say porn ruined her life...

in fact, this interview from Daily Beast from a few months ago gives an opposite impression alongside its attacks on anti-porn feminists and defense of Belle Knox.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/12/sasha-grey-on-her-secret-true-detective-cameo-open-windows-and-the-duke-porn-star-backlash.html

I was watching Chelsea Handler on Piers Morgan the other night and they were discussing the Duke porn star, Belle Knox, and the subsequent backlash. And she said something to the effect of, “The reason why people have a problem admitting that they watch porn, even though everyone obviously does, is it’s a tacit admission that you’re not having sex.”

I do think that. And not just that, people don’t want to get shit from their friends, or—in most cases—girlfriends. A lot of people that are anti-pornography feel it destroys relationships, but people are going to jerk off no matter what. Even if people aren’t watching porn, they’re going to jerk off. So people live with this odd fear that they don’t want to admit it.

It reminds me of the Victorian Era, in a way—the idea of keeping up appearances. Everyone back then was so obsessed with creating this veneer of civility, yet behind closed doors, they were all frequenting brothels, etc.

The other strange thing is this constant judgment of porn performers and the porn industry, even if everyone watches it. And we expect that kind of behavior from rock stars and from rich and famous actors who travel the world and can get any woman they want, and we somehow justify that behavior because their careers are “legitimate.”

The backlash to the Duke porn star strikes me as more than a little absurd. One of the worst op-eds I’ve read on the subject was in Time, and the writer criticized her claims of “empowerment,” writing, “In most adult films, women are depicted as objects who are there to please the man in whatever way he might choose.”

It’s ridiculous. I didn’t read her whole essay—just blips online—but I read a quote where she said, “I wanted to prove how ridiculous this could be,” which is interesting, and I’m fascinated by that. But do I think that this discredits her? Absolutely not. People said the same thing to me. They said, “If you’re so smart, why did you do porn? You’re not a feminist.” I never declared myself a feminist. I believe in the empowerment of women and men everywhere. But to say that porn only depicts what men want? One of the reasons I did porn was because I had things I wanted to experience and try and do, but I was so ashamed of them, and in doing porn I realized, “There are women like me, and why should women be portrayed as a victim? Why can’t we take control?” And if you’re putting yourself in that position, that’s your choice.

Right. The counterargument proposed by that misguided Time author is that, even though women wield more power in porn and are paid more, and are the ones who achieve “star” status over men, porn tastes—and the content—is governed by the taste of men.

But you can say that about anything! The male gaze. You can say that about romantic comedies. You can say, “Women are naïve to think that it’s a man’s role to give the woman a perfect house and two kids.” That offends me as a woman. I think romantic comedies are anti-feminist. That kind of shit offends me. I was raised to believe in myself, take care of myself, and not let other people take care of me. Traditional marriages are fine, but there are a lot of other people out there who feel differently. So, to say that porn only satisfies male tastes is ridiculous. I went to Russia and Siberia and other fucked up places and I’ve met tons of women who have told me, “You’ve changed my life.” Not all women are alike.

[Eleanors38]

13. Yeah, OK, but did she have to join Peta? Sheeesh.

[joshcryer]

15. She's been distancing herself for business reasons.

She'll probably get an HBO show (Game of Thrones has lots of porn stars) or a STARZ show eventually.

[Atman]

39. Kinds of proves she is pretty smart.

Last edited Wed Aug 13, 2014, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

She's been on several national TV shows, she's got some name recognition...now move on. Capitalize on the fame. The ridiculous hang-up we have that people don't/shouldn't have sex is a curiously Christian/Islamic notion. IOW, RELIGIOUS in its origins. If "Belle Knox" wants to f**k, be it on camera or in the privacy of her own home, why is that more offensive than the wars we engage in or the barbaric sports which fill 60,000-seat stadiums? Why is it YOUR problem what she does? If you don't like porn, don't watch porn. I don't like football, so I don't watch football. I don't parade around demanding laws against football, or the shaming of football players.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. Chelsea's wrong a couple of times even in her first paragraph.

And she said something to the effect of, “The reason why people have a problem admitting that they watch porn, even though everyone obviously does, is it’s a tacit admission that you’re not having sex.”

First, actually, not everybody does watch porn. Lots of folks, sure, but not everybody. Second, again on her being overly sweeping, watching porn and having sex are not mutually exclusive. You can still watch porn even when you're getting plenty of sex. Some folks even do the two at the exact same time.

When you start from incorrect axioms at the center of your argument, you're not going to wind up anywhere useful.

[LittleBlue]

7. Like most professions

your experience may vary. edit- as others pointed out, it seems Sasha Gray never said that.

She considers herself a feminist and also a "sexual person". She's... enthusiastic, I'll say that. If she's faking it she's damned good at acting.

[freeplessinseattle]

8. Yes! My god, the condescending attitude towards sex workers disgusts me

It blows my mind that anyone can call themselves a feminist and not support women making their own damn choices! Why is is so hard to believe that women are perfectly capable of making their own sexual choices?

[LittleBlue]

9. Some of them don't accept the concept of choice

If Belle Knox makes a choice they like, it's a choice. If not, then it's a societal/patriarchal/whatever thing imposed on her.

[ismnotwasm]

151. LOL

[BainsBane]

12. That's the problem with not actually reading people's arguments

Last edited Mon Aug 11, 2014, 07:18 AM - Edit history (1)

If you actually are interested in how Knox sees the issue, the only sensible approach is to read her writings.

Regarding the issue more broadly:
Some sex workers are adult women who choose to do the work, often through economic privation but they nonetheless choose it. However, not everyone believes, as one member insisted, that 9-14 yr olds "choose a profession" in prostitution willingly. Additionally, some of us actually think slavery (people these days like to call it human trafficking) is a bad thing. Shocking, I know. Some describe young girls making themselves available to adult men as a sign of their own sexual empowerment. I happen to disagree. Unfashionable as it may be, I know that it is in fact rape when the girl or boy is underage. I'm one of these awful feminists that believes rape is a crime and should be treated as such, and that children and teens are not put on this earth to make themselves available to predators.

If you actually read what feminists write, it helps. Of course if you agree all "sex," regardless of consent or age, must be provided to men on demand, and that doing so is somehow a woman's choice, YMMV.

Then of course there is the fact many don't survive work in the sex industry--that mortality is high, through suicide, murder, and even serial killers. This post provides an example. http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981
Now I understand it's unpopular to consider the lives of people in the sex industry (or those living amongst it)and one must pretend that none of this occurs because men who use their services don't like to be reminded of minor details like human rights. Reality, however, is very different from theory. But some of the middle- and upper-middle class prefer theory to reality. They refuse to consider the actual circumstances of the sex industry because it's a buzz kill, and really the crucial point is for men to have what they want, when they want, with no regard for the consequences.

What could ever be wrong with feminists to care about human lives? It is so out of vogue, so un-Ayn Rand.

Then there are opinions of leftists like these, Chris Hedges:

And Noam Chomsky

&feature=player_embedded

Some people care about inequality, class exploitation, and harmful working conditions. Others do not. Others invoke "choice" because they have unqualified faith in the virtue of the free market and care little about the consequences. Not everyone shares the same values. Not everyone cares about inequality and human rights. Some elevate the interests of capital and patriarchy above concerns about inequality and human rights. People disagree. Capitalism depends on the mantra of choice, whether for sex workers, fast food workers, migrant labor, or labor in unsafe manufacturing facilities, in order to justify their accumulation of capital. Many buy into those notions and repeat the ideas they have been taught from early age. Some claim they care about workers rights but somehow exclude sex workers from their concerns. I suspect they also exclude every other industry that they benefit from in some way. Regardless, those arguments serve to justify inequality and neoliberal capitalism more broadly.

[treestar]

66. Because maybe they think women are driven into it by the patriarchy?

Women of the 19th century had that "choice" too, along with the "choice" to get married and have children and not work, etc.

A society in which sex was truly equal wouldn't have prostitution, because it wouldn't be something women could sell or men could buy.

Trying to pretend they are ordinary "workers" making a choice to take on that particular "job" is ridiculous. How many men get to "choose" that job? Why don't they? Because there is no market for it.

Supply and demand here is driven by male supremacy.

[freeplessinseattle]

76. How are they "driven" into a job that pays well and allows them to be their own boss?

Unlike most people commenting on DU, I actually personally know sex workers, and believe me they are smart cookies who find it insulting and dis-empowering when those looking in from the outside attempt to force their morals on them.

Just because someone else might find their work distasteful doesn't mean they do. To tell them that they are simply victims that don't know any better is beyond condescending.

[BainsBane]

94. You've clearly ignored the points people have made

in order to advance a once dimensional view. Pay well? What evidence do you have of that? "Allows them to be their own boss"? Being knocked around by pimps? What are you even talking about? You first said the sex industry. Have you changed the subject because those comments certainly don't apply to most prostitutes.

You clearly know very little about the issue and are determined to keep it that way. That is why you don't understand. Understanding requires reading and thinking about perspectives that don't confirm your one-dimensional stereotypes.

[hughee99]

137. According to the woman herself, it pays pretty well...

http://time.com/2873280/duke-porn-star-belle-knox-college-cost/

"To make matters worse, my income now makes me ineligible for the $13,000 in aid I was receiving. My bill for next year will be a staggering $62,000. And I will pay this all on my own; the financial aid office does not care that I am legally financially independent. They view it as my parent’s responsibility to foot the bill.

But my porn work pays the exorbitant tab for one simple reason: Demand for porn actresses, especially extremely young ones like myself, far exceeds supply. How interesting that the same basic principle explains why my tuition bill is so high in the first place."

I'm not suggesting it pays well for everyone, but if she can afford tuition at Duke without financial aid, SHE must be getting paid pretty well.

[treestar]

99. It pays well and they are their own boss?

It won't pay well in the future when they are older. And it might not pay at all - if they don't get the money from the client, they can hardly go into court and sue. And they are in danger of disease and being assaulted, forced to do something they don't want, or even being killed. How are you your own boss then?

How is it empowering to do that for a living? If they are smart, they can't find something legal? With benefits and the protections of the law.

I would call that person disempowered. Unable to find a job where they don't have to deal with those dangers. Any dangerous job like in a coal mine would be better.

If they find that condescending, too bad. They are just trying to feel better about themselves but deep down they cannot possibly feel good about it. Anyone can put on a front.

[PersonNumber503602]

10. Maybe she feels that women should be able to choose their paths in life

without being told that they're too dumb to know what's good for them. If a man wanted to become a porn star, most people wouldn't try to start huge discussions about his personal life choices. She's probably all for equality and doesn't think that's fair.

She may also change her mind at some point in her life. She's still young and still has lots of time to figure things out... or maybe she already has it all figured out for the most part. I dunno, it's her choice to decide what's right or good for her. Seems to fit my understanding of what feminism is. Maybe I lack a understanding though.

[seaglass]

11. Don't know, probably because of her ability to disassociate.

Weeks started watching porn at 12, was raped in HS, suffered from depression and was a cutter. She described her first consensual porn experience (with Facial Abuse - one of the worst):

While Weeks maintains that everything that happened at the shoot was consensual, it was not the best experience. "They try to figure out what makes you tick and fuck with you. I remember getting naked, and the guy said, 'You have cuts on your legs. You're a cutter.' He could tell I had written the word 'fat' in my thigh, so he started calling me fat." Once they called "action," she was pushed to the ground and slapped. "And I said, 'Stop, stop, stop. No, no.' And then they stopped, and they were like, 'We have to keep going.'

"And I was like, 'Just please don't hit me so hard.' But it went on like that, me getting hit, pushed, spit on. I was being told I was fat, that I was a terrible feminist, was going to fail all my classes, was stupid, dumb, a slut. But I got through it. You know how you kind of zone out sometimes? I just disassociated." It wasn't until she got back to Duke that she felt the weight of it all. "I remember just being a wreck, like, 'Oh, my God, what have I done? This is the most embarrassing thing ever. What if somebody finds it?'"

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-blue-devil-in-miss-belle-knox-meet-duke-porn-star-miriam-weeks-20140423#ixzz327lW3iwU
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[redqueen]

23. These types don't give even a fraction of a shit.

Their priority is defending the multi-billion dollar industry. Their claims to be concerned about the freedom of the women involved are belied by the way they studiously ignore this stuff, which is the norm in this industry.

No respect, absolutely none.

[redqueen]

26. Just wanted to say thank you for posting this here.

I was hoping someone would.

For all the good it will do...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. Disassociation =

Dissociation (psychology)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Disassociation)
This article is about the psychological experience. For other uses, see Dissociation (disambiguation).

In psychology, the term dissociation describes a wide array of experiences from mild detachment from immediate surroundings to more severe detachment from physical and emotional experience. The major characteristic of all dissociative phenomena involves a detachment from reality, rather than a loss of reality as in psychosis.[1][2][3][4] Dissociative experiences are further characterized by the varied maladaptive mental constructions of an individual's natural imaginative capacity.[citation needed]

Dissociation is commonly displayed on a continuum.[5] In mild cases, dissociation can be regarded as a coping mechanism or defense mechanisms in seeking to master, minimize or tolerate stress – including boredom or conflict.[6][7][8] At the nonpathological end of the continuum, dissociation describes common events such as daydreaming while driving a vehicle. Further along the continuum are non-pathological altered states of consciousness.[5][9][10]

More pathological dissociation involves dissociative disorders, including dissociative fugue and depersonalization disorder with or without alterations in personal identity or sense of self. These alterations can include: a sense that self or the world is unreal (depersonalization and derealization); a loss of memory (amnesia); forgetting identity or assuming a new self (fugue); and fragmentation of identity or self into separate streams of consciousness (dissociative identity disorder, formerly termed multiple personality disorder) and complex post-traumatic stress disorder.[11][12]

Dissociative disorders are sometimes triggered by trauma, but may be preceded only by stress, psychoactive substances, or no identifiable trigger at all.[13] The ICD-10 classifies conversion disorder as a dissociative disorder.[5] The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders groups all dissociative disorders into a single category.[14]

Although some dissociative disruptions involve amnesia, other dissociative events do not.[15] Dissociative disorders are typically experienced as startling, autonomous intrusions into the person's usual ways of responding or functioning. Due to their unexpected and largely inexplicable nature, they tend to be quite unsettling.

more at link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disassociation

[redqueen]

68. Oh look. Still no responses from the sex industry's valiant defenders.

Well that is quite a surprise. I'm so very shocked.

I never thought for one minute that people here would just ignore this.

[redqueen]

79. Wow! STILL nothing?

I can't believe it!




It's almost like if anything challenges their Utopian fantasy they not only will bend over backwards rationalizing it, but they'll also sometimes just straight up ignore it!

[seaglass]

81. Oh, probably just a bunch of people have me on ignore. I'm sure that's it. n/t

[redqueen]

82. If the RAH RAH PORN YAY dumbassery continues I might have to make it an OP. nt

[marions ghost]

91. That is REALLY sad

--and she thinks this is fun? Life as a porn star freak--this is the last part of the article you posted...

Don't know which is sadder--the Duke porn star or the guys who pay $50 for the quick resale panties she picked up at Target....

-------------

The next time I see Weeks, she's "Belle Knox" and at the Trump Taj Mahal casino in Atlantic City for Exxxotica – a Comic-Con-esque convention for the porn industry. When she arrives at her booth on Saturday, a line of men hoping for the chance to meet her has already formed. Wearing a "schoolgirl" outfit of a plaid skirt, fishnets and a tank bra emblazoned with BJU, she sets about gamely signing photos of herself wearing a dog collar and posing with men who grip her tiny waist and grin sheepishly for $10 a shot. When one guy calmly expresses his great desire to perform shockingly lewd acts with Knox, she doesn't miss a beat. "Thank you!" she replies cheerily. Nina Hartley ("Still a great ass from the Eighties," one guy says in passing) swans over from the neighboring booth with some motherly advice: Never do anything on camera that she wouldn't do at home.

At 9 p.m., Knox retires to her hotel room to change into a lacy black dress, eat cold french fries and count her newly made $980. Soon her presence is required at the red-carpet step-and-repeat, where Polish porn-star sisters Natalia and Natasha Starr, in complementary bodycon dresses, can't seem to keep their boobs from "slipping" out, and Miley May, a dead ringer for Miley Cyrus, twerks giddily. Everyone puckers and pouts and vamps it up. But Knox mostly stands there, tiny and wan, staring off into the middle distance, looking less like Belle Knox than Miriam Weeks.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-blue-devil-in-miss-belle-knox-meet-duke-porn-star-miriam-weeks-20140423#ixzz3A7dQMz00
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

[Kurska]

14. Of course, a truly empowered woman must be ashamed of her sexuality and not consume porn.

Women are delicate flowers who must be saved from the seedier side of life. A real feminist would recognize that erotic content taints a woman.

[Squinch]

44. Link to where anyone here said anything like that, please.

[Kurska]

78. Oh it isn't phrased like that

I just find it hilarious how despite the path the ends sometimes are the same for the left and the right.

[Squinch]

85. So you can't link to anywhere where anyone said anything like that. Thanks.

[Kurska]

104. Isn't like we're in a thread that questions if a woman can be a feminists who have a positive

view of porn or anything.

But yeah, no one would use that exact terminology, it is called hyperbole.

I'm sure people can think up perfectly reasonable explanations on why a member of a women's liberation movement needs to be restricted in her sexual expression to be considered the right kind of member.

[Squinch]

114. So, confirming, you can't link to any such statements.

[Kurska]

116. You want an example of someone dictating feminist's sexuality for them

Right here.

[Squinch]

117. Uh-huh. So no link.

[Kurska]

119. Would I need to provide you a link to the flowers when you're in the garden? n/t

[Squinch]

120. Right. So there is no link to a post where anyone said anything like what you describe.

[Kurska]

121. Call outs, get hidden

Seen it happen, but I'm sure you got my best interest at heart.

[Squinch]

134. Got it. You can't provide a link to anyone saying anything like what you describe.

[Kurska]

135. Call outs get hidden

Can't bait me friendo

[Squinch]

136. So let's review the posts that say what you describe: Oh, right. There are none.

[LanternWaste]

176. Predatory Payday Lenders are fully consensual contracts between two adults.

Predatory Payday Lenders are fully consensual contracts between two adults. Hence, all progressives should support them as is?


(insert distinction without a difference here to validate bias...)

[Kurska]

182. Yeah, cause reasonable restrictions on otherwise allowed activities (like maximum interest rate).

Totally means the government has a right police our private sexual behaviors.



Thanks for proving my point.

Either total anarchy or your body is property to the state. No middle ground possible, apparently.

[nomorenomore08]

102. Careful now... That much straw is a fire hazard...

(And for the record, I have no problem with "erotic content" whatsoever. But that doesn't mean that exploitation of workers, sex workers included, isn't a discussion-worthy subject. I just wish this country wasn't so damn knee-jerk anti-labor/anti-union.)

[Scout]

16. she gets more attention that way n/t

[gollygee]

17. Different people have different experiences

and there's lots of disagreement among feminists.

[nomorenomore08]

103. That too. n/t

[Rex]

18. They don't live in a binary world where there are only two answers?

IF ONLY DU could operate outside of binary thinking. Sigh.

[Bettie]

19. Different experiences cause different opinions

I'm not sure who Belle Knox is, but honestly, if she feels empowered by it, who are we (general we) to tell her that she's wrong?

People have differing opinions on many issues. People have differing experiences of the same situations. Why should this one be universal (in either direction)?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. Why do minors inevitably come up when there are discussions of pornography and prostitution here?

Minors lack agency and consequently are precluded from making many decisions adults make. One of those decisions is the decision to engage in sex for commercial purposes.

If an adult engages a minor to engage in these acts or engages in these acts with a minor he or she is scum and belongs in the hoosegow.

[The Straight Story]

21. I noticed that as well. I think the reason is simple:

Women who make choices others don't like are seen as children and need to be 'corrected' and protected.

Don't like women making a choice to get paid for sex? Tie it to children being held against their will/etc because women are just like kids and need protected (Just, uh, don't hold open doors for them because that would be sexist and you thinking they are weak - it's ok to see them as weak and treat them that way when it comes to sexual choices though, so be as benevolent as you like then, it is accepted and encouraged).

[DemocratSinceBirth]

22. It seems they want to infantalize men and women

If adult men and women , being of sound minds and bodies, want to engage in commercial sex that is their right. I see some posters deliberately trying to obscure that core issue by invoking images of underage sex and white slavery. When they do that , their motives if not their marbles are open to question.

There are laws on the books against false imprisonment and sex with minors already.

[alp227]

93. See posts 24 and 48...

Unfortunately, reality doesn't compound with theory.

[gollygee]

24. Prostitution can't be separated from minors and sex trafficking

It's simply the reality of the situation. And even if there were legal brothels, those legal brothels would increase demand beyond the small legal supply, and that vacuum would lead enterprising capitalists to bring more of the children and trafficked women in. (Who would also be cheaper and younger and therefore more desirable in those ways.)

I don't know how many porn actors are introduced to that business before 18 so I'm not sure about that. But you can't have a realistic discussion of pornography without acknowledging how many are underage or start as prostitutes when underage.

But your image of prostitution is far away from reality. You can keep telling people to only discuss your myth of prostitution, but people will probably bring in facts regardless.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2013/March/prostitution-and-human-trafficking

This project has provided an innovative method to address prostitution. Success stories of women rescued from sex trafficking provide a human measure of this effort. From the project’s inception in August 2011 through April 2012, the APD vice detail has saved 29 women from their traffickers. Almost 40 percent are under 18 years old. Of those juveniles, records indicated that 77 percent were missing persons. Traffickers transported 81 percent of the 29 out of their home counties.

and then, of the adults:

In over 100 arrests, most of the women expressed that prostitution was not their career of choice. In a 1998 study, 88 percent of the prostituted women surveyed stated that they wanted to leave the sex trade industry.1 The majority of prostitutes interviewed by APD vice investigators believed that selling themselves was their only alternative for survival. Further investigation showed that these women shared similar circumstances that led them to prostitution. Many came from dysfunctional homes, had few friends or family members who cared about them, and were drug addicts or alcoholics. Arrest and contact data indicated that most of these women were between 18 and 29 years old. Unfortunate situations and poor choices made them vulnerable.

Most of the women described their path into the sex trade as a boyfriend transforming into a pimp or a girlfriend becoming a prostitute. A man recognized the woman’s situation and gained access through affection, compassion, and a promise to care. He became a companion who listened, understood, and shared the desire for a better future. The new beau quickly made an offer—leave with him and he would take care of her. She left for a better life. The man quickly moved her to another county or state. Once relocated, the partnership transitioned into an abusive domestic relationship. The man dominated the woman and controlled where she stayed, when and what she ate, what clothes she wore, what she did, and when she did it. Even if the woman could call for help, she had no one to rescue her. The man told her that they needed money and that she would have to earn it. People see a pimp as someone who obtains customers for a prostitute. The reality is that they use manipulation, threats, and violence to keep these women from leaving. They depend on the women they recruit into prostitution. These men use mental, emotional, and physical abuse to keep the women generating money.2 Out of fear or a desire to be cared for, hookers protect their pimps. The men abandon women who are unable or unwilling to provide any more revenue. Most prostitutes recognize their actions as illegal; however, a substantial number of them truly are victims.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. Bill O'Reilly uses that same argument to oppose the legalization of marijuana

That if adults have access to it so will minors.


There are already laws on the books against false imprisonment and statutory rape. Prohibiting pornography and prostitution because minors might engage in these activities makes as much sense as prohibiting the use of marijuana because children might access it.

[redqueen]

27. Massive logic fail.

The problem isn't minors being able to access prostitutes. The problem is minors being forced by coercion or circumstance into BEING prostitutes.

I don't know how many times it has to be pointed out to you that your burning desire to make an analogy between porn/prostitution and drugs is idiotic, but I hope someday it sinks in.

[TheSarcastinator]

28. their only hope is that false analogy

They know cannabis legalization is a popular issue and so they use it, hoping some of the shine will blind. To compare the two is incredibly deceptive.

[redqueen]

31. The flailing desperation in their dozens of threads is palpable.

It's as if the fact that the most progressive, gender egalitarian countries are slowly dissolving the imbalance which has fueled the sex industry for so long is viewed as a threat to something they feel entitled to... or something.

I mean, combine that fact with the fact that more and more women are embracing feminism at younger and younger ages - and not just the fun kind but the seriously critical kind - it must seem like a very threatening thing, to some.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. So only popular activities should be legal ?

Does that mean all our activities are subject to a potential plebiscite?

Lots of activities that many of us have engaged in would have resulted in imprisonment or worse in another era.

Thank god we have a living Constitution.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

35. So only popular activities should be legal ?

Does that mean all our activities are subject to a potential plebiscite?

Lots of activities that many of us have engaged in would have resulted in imprisonment or worse in another era.

Thank god we have a living Constitution.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. Hope you don't wait around for an answer.

Because nothing pisses some people off as much as choosy-choice "Frreeeeedumb"!

I had someone try to argue once that the only speech which was "free" under the 1A was speech which was aimed at furthering what this person felt to be appropriate social goals or aims.

In short, "yes, you have free speech---- as long as you say what I want!!!!"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

168. It's ironic when one's hypocrisy is pointed out

It's ironic that one of the foremost advocates of the legalization of drugs on this board is also one of the foremost proponents of criminalizing prostitution and pormography. I don't recall if it this thread or not that I pointed out to that person there is as much exploitation and mayhem at the wholesale and retail level of the drug trade with heavily armed gangs at home and abroad fighting among themselves for greater market share and fighting the authorities to keep from being arrested as there is exploitation and mayhem in the prostitution and pornography industry.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. Well, don't get me wrong- I think the prohibitionist/law enforcement approach to "drugs"

is a flat-out failure, too.

But "drugs" is another area where broad, non-distinguished labels and generalizations are not helpful, sort of like "porn". When people say "drugs" they don't usually mean alcohol and tobacco, even though those are far and away two of the most physiologically dangerous (alcohol) and addictive (nicotine) substances around. All "drugs" are not created equal.

I support- wholeheartedly, unreservedly- full legalization, regulation, taxation etc. of marijuana. I might even include psychedelic entheogens like psilocybin in that as well. I think addictive "hard drugs" like cocaine and heroin would be better addressed through harm reduction policies, although the gangs and foreign violence considerations you mention might be better addressed, also, through legalization and regulation. Best answer to meth is addressing the economic circumstances (working 3 minimum wage jobs and needing to stay awake, etc) that feed into meth use, educating people about the vile effects it has on them, etc.

And treatment on demand for addiction, as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

178. I am not in favor of the criminalization of drugs either.

My point is it is incongruous to oppose prostitution on the basis that some people are exploited in the industry while favoring the legalization of drugs because a lot of people get exploited in the illegal drug industry as well.

I also see some arguing that if you legalized prostitution , human trafficking would increase. That makes sense, Increased demand would lead to increased supply. Well, if you legalized drugs there would be more battles in nations like Mexico, Colombia, Thailand, and Afghanistan to control the market.

I just like to point out inconsistency or incongruity.

[Warren DeMontague]

179. Agreed on all points.

For me there are two related, but fundamentally different questions, too: one is

A) what sorts of real world on the ground answers and policies can be put in place (like, say, what is the specific regulatory framework within which something like marijuana can be legalized, and as we have seen the two states that have gone fwd with that have come up with diff. Approaches) and

B) the "theoretical" question or idea is the sort of across the board notion that consenting adults should be able to make their own decisions about what to do with their own bodies.

That doesn't mean, in my mind, that B) is always going to supercede or dictate A) 100%, but it should inform those real world policies and be at least the baseline or philosophical starting point.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. Your ad hominem is showing. (REDUX)

There are already laws against false imprisonment, i.e. human trafficking, ergo:

PENAL CODE
SECTION 236-237



236. False imprisonment is the unlawful violation of the personal
liberty of another.



236.1. (a) Any person who deprives or violates the personal liberty
of another with the intent to obtain forced labor or services, is
guilty of human trafficking and shall be punished by imprisonment in
the state prison for 5, 8, or 12 years and a fine of not more than
five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000).

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=236-237

That is the California statute that controls human trafficking . I suspect the statutes of the other forty nine states are similar.


But keep on conflating involuntary servitude with voluntary servitude. In your zeal you do a great injustice to the forner.

[TheSarcastinator]

33. and those laws have certainly solved the problem, right?

I mean, those laws work, right? Right?

I love how perfectly "progressive" doods (and yeah, I am assuming you're a dood: am I wrong?) turn into complete Libertarians when it comes to prostitution. I have also really "enjoyed" reading the argument (you didn't make it) after the shootings out West (that little punk who thought it was his right to get laid and so shot up his town) that prostitution should be legal to keep frustrated virgins from killing people. That was awesome.

I have SO much respect for doods who say prostitution is A-OK and should be legal.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

45. I don't know how we went from discussing consensual sex to a murder spree...

I'm sure there's a nexus there somewhere, I think...


It's not so much that I think prostitution is some sort of public good. It is that I think it serves no purpose for throwing Johnny into the hoosegow for soliciting Debby to give him a hand job and then throwing Debby into the hoosegow for giving it to him.

Doesn't make sense to me at all...It seems punitive and a waste of resources.

[nomorenomore08]

105. "Should be legal" =/= "is A-OK" necessarily.

One may simply see legalization as the lesser evil, though obviously it comes with its own set of problems. I'm not sure on that myself - though I do think the selling of sex (as an individual) should be decriminalized, at least, because keeping it illegal puts already vulnerable people in a worse position.

[Yavin4]

34. Prostitution is open and legal in Amsterdam

Are there any documented evidence of sex trafficking and exploitation of minors there?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

43. Google gives this =

https://www.google.com/search?q=+sex+trafficking+and+exploitation+of+minors+in+Amsterdam&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US fficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

[Yavin4]

47. I've read through a few of the links and I don't see any documented evidence or proof

that Amsterdam's legal prostitution is leading to sex trafficking in Amsterdam nor minors being exploited. If there were such proof, it would be the first story in your link.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. first link

http://girltalkhq.com/amsterdams-red-light-district-shocked-campaign-stop-trafficking/

Amsterdam’s Red light District Shocked By This Campaign To Stop Trafficking
February 13, 2014 at 2:00 pm

“Every year thousands of women are promised a dance career in Western Europe. But sadly they end up here…” says a powerful new campaign aimed at shocking ordinary citizens into the price of human trafficking.

Amsterdam is known for two things: marijuana and its infamous Red light District. Men and women come from all over the world to gawk at the women who stand in window displays around the city beckoning patrons into their lair to perform various sexual acts. Yes, they are prostitutes for hire who work in a brothel. Although this is technically legal in Holland, the act of human slavery in the 21st century is not.

This video was made by Belgian creative agency Duval Guillaume Modem and Belgian production company Monodot to raise awareness of sex trafficking throughout Europe in conjunction with Stop The Traffik organization.

The video shows 5 women at night dancing in the dimly lit red-hued windows of the Red Light district in a display that is more fit for a Britney Spears or Katy Perry concert. There are various onlookers who start gathering around, cheering the girls on with wolf whistles and cat calls. All of a sudden the thumping music stops, and so do the girls mid-step.

Up above the windows where they stand, you see the above words projected on to the screen and it is then you realize what this powerful display was aimed at showing. The audience is dead silent, and the looks on their faces is pure shock. There are no more cat calls, no more cheering and whistling, now that they know most of the girls in this industry are in fact victims of sex trafficking, rather than free women choosing this career.

more at the link above.

[Yavin4]

50. That article mentions a study from the ILO but that's misleading

The ILO study is about ALL human trafficking and not specifically about Amsterdam. The rest of the article is about a no trafficking video which also does not show direct evidence of people being trafficked nor minors being exploited.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

51. third link (and by the way. I am done with you and this)

DOES LEGALIZING PROSTITUTION PROTECT
WOMEN AND GIRLS?
Findings from countries and stat
es where prostitution is legal
Millions of women and girls around the world are exploite
d in the commercial sex industry (i.e. the buying and
selling of sex), which is often the end destination of
sex trafficking. While human rights activists, government
officials and the United Nations all agre
e that the trafficking of women and gi
rls for prostitution is a serious – and
growing – problem, there is disagreement as to the best wa
y to prevent trafficking and exploitation. Some believe
that targeting the demand for commercia
l sex that fuels sex trafficking while decriminalizing those exploited in
prostitution is the most effective way to curb sex trafficki
ng, while others argue that legalizing or decriminalizing
the commercial sex industry is the best way to weed
out and prevent exploitation and trafficking.
The legalization of prostitution includes legalizing th
e activities involved in and surrounding prostitution, and
often imposing regulations specific to the sex industry.
Countries and states that have legalized prostitution
include:
Senegal
(1969), states in Australia including
Victoria
(1994) and
Queensland
(1999), the
Netherlands
(2000) and
Germany
(2002).
The decriminalization of prostitution includes repealing
all laws or provisions ag
ainst prostitution, and not
imposing prostitution-specific regulations. Countries and stat
es that have decriminalized prostitution include the
Australian state of
New South Wales
(1995), and
New Zealand
(2003).
SEX TRAFFICKING AND EXPLOITATI
ON OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

NETHERLANDS:
In 2003, the Amsterdam Mayor stated that le
galization had failed to prevent trafficking,
saying “it appeared impossible to create a safe and contro
llable zone for women that was not open to abuse by
organised crime.”
i
In 2007, a government report noted that “
pimps
[i.e. traffickers]
are still a very common
phenomenon
.”
ii

[Yavin4]

54. You still have not provided proof, just conjecture. I've found an actual study that contradicts you

One major 2007 study done in the Netherlands to examine prostitution after the ban on it was lifted in 2000 found that legalization has succeeded in reducing number of underage workers and illegal immigrants working in the sex trade. “Minors were only very rarely found in licensed businesses,” and “researchers studying the non-legal prostitution sector did not encounter any underage prostitutes,” concluded the report, which was published online by a research institute funded by the Dutch Ministry of Justice known as Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum (WODC).

http://alison-bass.com/blog/2012/06/why-shutting-down-backpage-wont-curb-sex-trafficking-or-underage-prostitution/

[Tuesday Afternoon]

55. omg ... done. Done. DONE. so DONE.

stick a fork in me and take me out of the oven, I am so done.

[opiate69]

65. ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

72. ...

http://www.iamsterdam.com/en-GB/Media-Centre/city-hall/dossier-red-light-district/red-light-district-faq

[Tuesday Afternoon]

73. because that is NOT the Discussion. Never has been. Legal, consenting, sound minded, ADULTS is NOT

THE ISSUE.

No one is against that I know of.

Please post links where any one has stated otherwise.

on edit: even Alison Bass states and I quote =
“There are people who choose to engage in sex work, many of them because they have limited economic means,” she says. “We need to tackle those root causes first.”

[Tuesday Afternoon]

74. ...

This is a publication of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs
AVT12/BZ106006 1
Dutch Policy on Prostitution
Questions and Answers 2012

Introduction
In 2000, the Netherlands lifted the ban on brothels. This means that
running one is no longer a criminal offence. The ban was lifted for two
reasons: first, to improve the sector as a whole and the position of sex
workers by introducing licences, and second, to tackle abuses by taking
firmer action against businesses operating without licences.
An important aim of the policy is to put an end to the exploitation of people
for the purposes of prostitution: human trafficking. Trafficking was already
illegal before the ban on brothels was lifted, and it was the work of the
police and the Public Prosecution Service to combat it. There were
protocols, policy plans and special guidelines in place to tackle trafficking
in women associated with prostitution.
While policy on prostitution is the responsibility the Ministry of Security and
Justice, it also falls under the remit of the Ministries of the Interior &
Kingdom Relations, Social Affairs & Employment, Education, Culture &
Science, Health, Welfare & Sport, and Foreign Affairs.
A bill to regulate prostitution and prevent abuses in the sex industry is
currently being debated in the Senate. It is hoped that the bill, which is
expected to enter into force in early 2013, will strengthen efforts to crack
down on trafficking in persons as well as properly regulate the sex industry.

link: http://www.minbuza.nl/en/appendices/you-and-the-netherlands/about-the-netherlands/ethical-issues/faq-prostitution.html

[BainsBane]

75. Here

This study surveys 150 countries. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1986065

They find that human trafficking has increased in countries where prositution is legalized.

[Yavin4]

83. Popular Claims vs. Evidence-Based Conclusions in Human Trafficking

There was a study done by Sheldon Zhang at San Diego State University, who examined over a hundred academic articles based on trafficking, and found that very few of them used any original data, and most of them treated the claims of government organisations and NGOs as evidence. Very little in the way of empirical data collection to address these claims.

http://sexworkresearch.wordpress.com/2013/07/08/popular-claims-vs-evidence-based-conclusions-in-human-trafficking/

[Squinch]

84. YOu are working very hard here to believe in fairy tales. I bet you believe they are working

their way through college, too, don't you?

[BainsBane]

86. in other words

You prefer to deny the existence of those human beings because you find them inconvenient.
Point made. Those slaves are inconsequential compared to male sexual entitlement. The privileged always find ways to dismiss the importance of the exploited. That is essential to maintaining the poverty and exploitation that enables neoliberal capitalism to prevail.

[Yavin4]

89. No. I posted a link to an academic discussion which disputes your claims.

Even in the link that you sent, there are major caveats to that study.

[nomorenomore08]

108. There is admittedly some controversy (and uncertainty).

But you seem to be dismissive of any possibility that full legalization isn't a cure-all.

[Squinch]

46. Are you being sarcastic? If not, this is pretty sad.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

49. He isn't and it is.

[nomorenomore08]

106. I don't necessarily oppose legalization, mind you, but there is evidence (as noted downthread)

that it increases human trafficking to some degree. Just goes to show there's no perfect solution.

[Yavin4]

107. The "evidence" is in dispute, not clear cut.

There is no clear, cut study that says that legal prostitution increases trafficking.

[nomorenomore08]

109. Even if it's only a possibility, isn't it worth thinking about/discussing? Considering the gravity

of what's involved?

[Yavin4]

111. There's a possibility of increased addictions when you make marijuana legal

There's increased alcoholism when drinking became legal. The answer is to not keep these things illegal, underground, and invite a criminal element. The answer is to make it legal, regulate it, and track it so that if there is any trafficking, it can be stopped.

[nomorenomore08]

112. I can agree with that, in general.

Even if I'm not entirely comfortable with the analogy between buying/selling drugs and buying/selling human bodies.

[Yavin4]

113. Prostitution is not buying/selling human bodies

It's selling a sexual service. It's akin to buying a massage from someone.

[Rex]

124. So how can one perform a sexual service without using their body?

It is the selling of a body, to satisfy another sexually. To leave out the source is disingenuous at best.

[Yavin4]

126. Is a masseuse selling her body?

Hands are a part of the body. Is she selling her body to satisfy muscle aches?

[Rex]

127. Yes but we are talking about sex, that is what the sub-thread is about.

Selling sex, not a masseuse. If you want to change the subject, then we can do that too.

[Yavin4]

128. There are other professions where people "sell" their bodies

Dancers, boxers, football players, gymnasts, etc. We don't call that "selling your body". Why?

[Rex]

130. Because they are not having sex for money. They are selling their talents.

They are dancing for money, they are fighting for money, they are trying to win for money. etc..

So are you saying prostitution is nothing more than a sport or competition?

[Yavin4]

131. If you are using your body in a performance, then it's not "selling" your body.

At times, a sexual act is nothing more than any other physical activity, like boxing or swimming or square dancing, etc.

[Rex]

132. Well it is a physical activity, no doubt. But it is not a sport.

And it requires the selling of the body, otherwise there can be no sexual contact. No money = no sex. It is a business transaction.

[BainsBane]

53. Because minors are common in prostitution

Many if not most prostitutes start well under age. It comes up because it's the reality of the sex industry, not just some neoliberal theory than people so enjoy engaging it. It comes up because real people's lives matter.

I agree such men are scum, but there are a hell of a lot of them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

57. I understand this

If a woman or man of any age is coerced into prostitution the person or persons responsible for the coercion should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Nobody has the right to commandeer the use of another person's body against their will. And if that person is a minor the penalties should be much worse...

I just have a problem with putting a man or woman into jail and or prison for engaging in commercial sexual activities.


It's not so much that I favor legalization of prostitution and drugs for that matter. It's that I oppose criminalization. Jail and/or prison is a mighty unpleasant place to put those who if they are doing harm, the harm is mostly to themselves.

-Crack down on the pimps and traffickers. There are laws already on the book.
-For those men and women who are engaging in prostitution and want to get out of the profession there should be programs to help them get out.
-And for those men and women of sound mind and body who choose to work in prostitution and or pornography, after weighing all the risks and benefits, they should be left alone.

[redqueen]

69. And the ones who insistently pretend that these facts aren't related to these industries...

and therefore should nor be mentioned in threads where they just want to cheer the sex industry without being reminded of these facts...

[jeff47]

56. Because it's an easier argument to win.

Arguing that adult women are making the wrong choice is more difficult, because it requires taking away her agency.

Insisting that porn or prostitution always involves lots of minors excuses that. You're just trying to protect the kids, so it's OK to control the adult women as a side effect.

When making the argument, make sure to strip all the qualifiers from any study you reference ("As many as ###" becomes "###&quot . When efforts to help trafficked women and children don't find nearly as many women and children as you predict, just ignore them and keep making the same claims.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. I can't think of lot of things that are more messed up than human trafficking...

and having sex with minors but if a man or woman , being of sound mind and body, wants to buy sex or sell sex, I don't see the utility of putting him or her in the hoosegow.

[LittleBlue]

58. It's a way to invalidate the choices of adults

Legalize drugs? No, think of the children.
Legalize gay marriage? No, think of the children.
Legalize abortion? Babies!


People can't say "I morally object to this because it offends me" because their opinions would look silly. Children are like human shields in these debates.

[davidn3600]

62. Some feminists are doing what the GOP congress did in the late 1990s

It's the same shit the right-wing (the Republican congress) tried to do in the late 1990s passing several laws in an attempt to censor pornography on the internet suggesting that children are being exposed in both the production and viewing of it.

Most of those laws have since been struck dead by the US Supreme Court.

"We have to protect the children" is the oldest battle cry of censorship advocates. The Russians are doing it right now with their anti-homosexuality laws claiming gays need to be banned in order to... "protect the children."

[Warren DeMontague]

87. Because people can't or wont formulate arguments against consenting adult behavior

So they try to make the discussion about non-consent and non-adults, every damn time.

But porn, in particular, is an example of how legalization and regulation WORK. Despite hyperbolic and baseless assertions of widespread non-consent and non-adults in porn, the fact is that there is a bright legal line between legal adult porn and anything else, along with record-keeping documentation for commercial porn shoots to ensure things to that effect.

[Iron Man]

52. Are you asking if a feminist can only be anti-porn?

[LostInAnomie]

71. Because, whether you respect her decision or not...

... the power for a woman to determine what she wants to do with her body is a positive step for society.

[ZombieHorde]

80. According to my various women studies classes,

a feminist is someone who believes in equal rights/treatment for all sexes. Not everyone agrees with this definition, but many do seem to use it.

[Warren DeMontague]

88. Because she can call herself whatever she wants.

Sort of like how, because she's an adult, she can do what she wants with her body, including take off her clothes in front of a camera, even though that pisses some people off to no end.

[opiate69]

92. I AM NOT MAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[BainsBane]

95. I marevel at your single-minded determination

for years to participate in thread after thread on the subject without ever understanding a single argument made.

[Warren DeMontague]

96. Sort of like the single-minded determination to make arguments about consenting adults

about non-consent and non-adults, anything except the consenting adults the arguments are actually about.

Fact is- and I weighed in on the other thread, I've never been one to imagine there are easy answers to things like prostitution, but I do believe that economic exploitation issues would be best addressed from a bottom-up approach, in terms of a livable min. wage, a solid social safety net, etc. Whether that economic exploitation takes the form of women who strip because they can't make a living any other way, OR the form of the person who has to work 3 mini-mart jobs just to make ends meet... give the people at the bottom more options, is the way to address choice vs. desperation; rather than imagining that too many choices are available. But the fact is, since GD has been subsumed by "porn and prostitution", you have two glaringly different situations, one mostly legal and one mostly illegal.

And with porn, even when people don't like porn, even when people don't like the content in porn, the fact is that there is a bright legality line between adults and non-adults when it comes to porn; anything involving non-adults is very illegal, and should be. Furthermore, the commercial adult industry in the US has regulations and documentation to verify age as well as consent. The hyperbole about widespread non-consent and non-adults in commercially available porn, is simply made up.

So you have a situation where regulation combined with legality actually puts forth a framework for legal consenting adult behavior while criminalizing everything else.

Again, I'm not some big "prostitution ought to be legal" person, but I am certainly sympathetic to the argument that consenting adults ought to be free to make their own decisions about their own lives and bodies, and that includes, IF it is their choice, having sex in exchange for money.

[Violet_Crumble]

98. Yr one of the few DUers I've seen touch on the root issue....

I've never been one to imagine there are easy answers to things like prostitution, but I do believe that economic exploitation issues would be best addressed from a bottom-up approach, in terms of a livable min. wage, a solid social safety net, etc.

In my neck of the woods, prostitution is legal, safe, and highly regulated. Commercial brothels are legal and their location's restricted to two light industrial/retail suburbs here. And all the dire warnings from a few here at DU isn't what has happened here. There's no street prostitutes (that's illegal anyway) no increase in human trafficking, and no children involved.

I was wondering after reading some of these threads what the difference is between here and the US, where there are prostitutes on the streets and pimps and stuff. It's what you said. Here we have a solid welfare net, a minimum wage, that while not comfortable, combined with government benefits and subsidised housing is enough to survive on. The US needs all that shit, and that's what left-wingers in the US should be talking about and advocating, not going on about how bad prostitution is and how terrible porn is. That way they'd have a win coz they'd know that women who become sex workers are doing it because they want to, and they'd be happy that sex workers wouldn't be working in dangerous environments and are protected. Over here sex workers even have their own union, but wanting that for US sex workers is probably a wish too many, as I figure there's an aversion to unions in the US.

While I'm at it, I thought I'd drop an interesting interview into this thread. It's Stoya and she's talking about her feminism and feminism in relation to porn. I really relate to this paragraph in particular:

Stoya: Feminism and Me

To me, the word feminist is heavy with sometimes-opposing connotations. When feminists fight for the rights of all people to be paid fairly by specifically campaigning to correct male/female pay inequalities or defend the rights of people with fertile uteruses to have accessible birth control, I think it is a wonderful thing. When feminists persecute anyone who isn’t biologically female or infantalize other women who make choices they disagree with, I find it offensive. When feminists debate whether the act of applying lipstick is empowering or not, I find it trivial. My disagreement with some of the extremes of feminism isn’t the reason I’m frequently uncomfortable calling myself a feminist though. I’m conflicted about applying the label to myself because I rarely do things specifically for the purpose of furthering women’s rights. Avoiding giving a straight answer about whether I’m feminist or not is kind of a cop-out though. Shirking the word feels like turning my back on the women who fought to give me many of the advantages I have. So here goes: Hi, I’m Stoya. My politics and I are feminist... But my job is not.

http://www.vice.com/read/stoya-feminism-and-me

[seaglass]

115. Thanks for linking to that interview VC, it was interesting. I don't know who Stoya is but she

definitely has her shit together. I particularly liked this line:

So here goes: Hi, I’m Stoya. My politics and I are feminist... But my job is not.


I know in my life which choices I make support feminism and which ones don't. Some choices may seem trivial to others - take my husband's name when I marry - not a trivial decision; shave my legs and armpits and anywhere else - trivial. I wish we could all just be comfortable and confident with the decisions we make and accept as Stoya has that some of the decisions we make are not feminist, they do not forward equality for women and they may actually harm perceptions of women.

[Violet_Crumble]

149. My daugter's a bit of a fan of Stoya...

I like her because she's an incredibly intelligent woman who says some interesting things. That article made me realise that women who are feminists can work in fields that aren't feminist and still be feminists. I've never gone to work and thought whether or not my job's a feminist job or whether when I do everyday stuff whether it's feminist or not.

I'm glad you enjoyed the article

[redqueen]

156. She knows she's privileged. And she doesn't pretend that porn is feminist because she chose it.

At least she has that much straight.

[seaglass]

166. Yes, because something may be personally empowering does not mean it's empowering for women

as a whole. I appreciate that she gets that, many do not.

[BainsBane]

100. You mean the irritating people who talk about prostitution as it really is?

as opposed to a theoretical notion of what others want to pretend it is? Yeah, I can see how that would bum people out determined to avoid thinking thinking about underage sex and enslaved workers they consider inconsequential. Why deal with evidence when theories of captialist Utopias are so much easier?

You weighed in on the other thread and then went right back to creating one-dimensional strawwomen to mock. That, in my view, nullifies your other post and shows that thoughtful OP had no impact on you whatsover.

It's all an abstract game to you and others here. Raise the standard of living. Right. Like when is that going to happen? How? In the face of jobs going oversees and structural changes in the economy that most hurt the poor? With a government that won't pass a basic raise in the minimum wage? You know it won't, but reality is irrelevant. That you say it is enough to wish away the existence of millions of minors who are forced into prostitution either through desperate economic privation or forms of extra-economic coercion--an abusive parent, enslavement, etc. If it were about theoretical scenarios, any idiot could come up with a solution. Reality is far more complex.

The fact is without severe poverty, prostitution would be exceedingly rare. The Cuban experience makes that clear. Under Batista, American men came to Cuba to go to the casinos and hire prostitutes. That ended with the Revolution, and prostitution became a metaphor for American exploitation of Cuba. Prostitution was rare until the Soviet Union abandoned subsidies to the Island shortly before its collapse. Prostitution has since returned because people are struggling as they didn't under the Soviet era. The ability of men to buy sex depends on severe poverty. I don't for a minute think the people who see commodification of sex as sacrosanct want that to go away.

You can talk about adult consensual behavior all you want. It doesn't make it the exclusive or even dominant transaction in that industry. A great deal of prostitution is of underage girls and boys. Many if not most prostitutes start underage. You had a first hand account of that in Ism's HOF OP which you clearly made a point of ignoring. There is always the argument one poster made that girls as young as nine "willingly choose prostitution as a profession," which he believed made having "sex" with them consensual.

There is no way to find a solution that minimizes harm when people adamantly ignore that harm. That people consistently refuse to to deal with the sex trade as it actually exists makes clear they cosider those lives inconsequential. The self-serving capitalist ideology of the rights of the individual is about propping up power and privilege. The unyielding focus on the individual as the repository of rights, as opposed to the common good, privileges those who have the means to assert their rights over others. It's as true in Citizens United as in this discussion of prostutiton. Those on the other end of it--the poor, teens and children--are exploited, abused, and raped, which is what an adult does when he purchases sex from someone under the age of consent.

I think if you were actually confident in your position on this issue, you would not feel compelled to trivialize the arguments of others. That tells me you can't deal with the arguments as actually articulated and instead feel compelled to create a parody to mock them.

[Warren DeMontague]

101. "you mean...." you do realize, there, you did it again?

I'm sorry, I've mostly said my piece. When I say what I think, I'm "mocking". Again, you don't like what I have to say, so you either have to get indignant about the way I say it, or you try to pretend I'm saying something I'm not.

But I'll respond to a few points herein;

"Raise the standard of living. Right. Like when is that going to happen?"

I don't know. I do know that "livable minimum wage" has gone from far left pipe dream to concrete policy proposal in some cities, in recent years. That's something.
When is prostitution going to be done away with? It's already illegal. And 5 minutes after "mocking" my argument, you suggest that economics in Cuba - although I have to imagine you recognize that Cuba under Castro might not be the best example - had the same effect for the poor there.

"That you say it is enough to..."

And again, followed by something I didn't say.

I don't for a minute think the people who see commodification of sex as sacrosanct want that to go away.

- well, next time I run into someone who 'sees commodification of sex as sacrosanct', I'll ask them. Personally, what I see as sacrosact is the right of consenting adults to make their own damn decisions about their own damn bodies. Maybe that's airy, imaginary theory, but that's the ONLY point I'm making. THANK YOU for saying I can "talk about adult consensual behavior all (I) want", because that's what I'm doing and I'm going to continue to do, whether or not it bugs you. Sorry.

A great deal of prostitution is of underage girls and boys. Many if not most prostitutes start underage.

I've made two, as near as I can count, points about prostitution- one is, I'm not some diehard legalization advocate, in fact I don't know what the answer is-- except, like I said, I think raising standards of living, livable min. wage, etc. would go a long way towards ameliorating the conditions which drive a great deal of economically desperate behavior, not just prostitution.. and two, again, if one wants to compare the mostly legal status of porn in the US with the mostly illegal status of prostitution-- like it or not, the US adult film industry has extensive documentation regulations to ensure everyone is over 18. I realize that flies in the face of oft-repeated hyperbole from some corners, but it is a simple and easily verifiable fact.

You had a first hand account of that in Ism's HOF OP which you clearly made a point of ignoring.

Please explain to me how I'm ignoring it, especially since I've said repeatedly that I'm not necessarily pro-legalization, however I AM sympathetic to arguments that consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions, including economic, with their own bodies? Those two positions may have overlap, but they're not necessarily identical. As for ism's OP, are you saying you want me to come into HoF and post the same consenting adult arguments which folks there repeatedly say drive them up the wall? ....I don't imagine you do.

There is always the argument one poster made that girls as young as nine "willingly choose prostitution as a profession," which he believed made having "sex" with them consensual.

...and why that poster's opinion is my problem, is absooo-fucking-lutely beyond me.

There is no way to find a solution that minimizes harm when people adamantly ignore that harm.

Another statement that sounds legit on the surface, but doesn't, actually, mean anything. Actually, I suspect that there are plenty of ways to find a "solution", from draconian laws and mandatory minimum punishments to legalization and regulation to something else-- and none of those are incumbent upon everyone recognizing anything. They're incumbent upon society taking a different tack with a very old problem. Again, I think the solution- and it would be a solution to many problems, not just this- would best look like a livable minimum wage and a better social safety net. Strict legal punishments for anyone involved with anyone underage, which I believe is an issue which is already taken very seriously in some parts of the country, including the pacific NW which is home to both ism AND myself.

But that particular solution would not address one particular focus from your posts, namely the "ability of men to buy sex". Regardless of what I personally feel about those men- and no, it's not what you would call anything resembling respect or sympathy- the fact is, economic exchanges for sex have been around for a very long time and are not likely to go away any time soon. There are two questions, one is ostensibly moral and one is practical. One would hope that a practical solution that would improve the lives of consenting adult sex workers and protect anyone else- would be the preferable outcome, even if it meant having to deal with a world where the moral issue of "men feeling entitled to buy sex" wasn't eradicated.

I think if you were actually confident in your position on this issue, you would not feel compelled to trivialize the arguments of others. That tells me you can't deal with the arguments as actually articulated and instead feel compelled to create a parody to mock them.

I don't actually have a position, as I've said (although I have full confidence in you to tell me what my position is, anyway) ... is it "mocking" if I laugh at the irony of your second sentence, there?

[BainsBane]

139. You don't have a position

other than mocking feminists. Understood. I should have realized that was the more important goal. To pretend you weren't doing that and don't do it all the time is ridiculous. It is your standard response in these threads. If you truly don't have a position, why the compulsion to trivialize the arguments of others?

No, I don't like what you say because you consistently refuse to deal with arguments women actually make and instead ridicule anyone who dares question your fantasy version of the sex trade.

Sure, you can ignore child prostitution and human trafficking. That is your right, but doing so signals you seem them as inconsequential in comparison to your fealty to capitalist notions of individual rights bound by class, race, and gender.

You do see commodification of sex as sacrosanct, as demonstrated by your adamant support for all things related to its commerce--SI and the industry of objectification, porn, and prostitution. Many here have decided anything relating to sex must never under any circumstances be questioned. Any discussion of the absence of consent, underage sex workers, child rape, or human trafficking is immediately dismissed for the absurd trope of "consenting adults."

As for ism's OP, you ignored it by never commenting on it or showing any concern for those people. That you again invoke choice and consenting adults, when she talked about child rape and how such "choice" was often a product of severe abuse. Instead what you went on as usual to mock people like her, who were lucky to survive that life, who have the nerve to articulate views you disagree with. You treat with derision her, me, and others who actually have experienced some of that industry, unless they share your view that all that matters is "choice"--the neoliberal mantra used to justify myriad forms of exploitation.

In your post immediately preceding the last one you criticized me for raising concerns about underage prostitution in a discussion you insisted was about consenting adults.

Sort of like the single-minded determination to make arguments about consenting adults
about non-consent and non-adults, anything except the consenting adults the arguments are actually about.

You ignore reality and think call people irritating who care about the reality of prostitution as opposed to the theoretical notion you hold in your head. If it were just about consenting adults there would be far less concern. I know it isn't because I was at a very young age regularly targeted by Johns, as was my sister. The creepy comment by the other poster PROVES it is not just about consenting adults. Insisting otherwise is to ignore evidence--evidence I have already linked to for you multiple times.

You'll have to forgive me if I confuse your responses about porn with prostitution since you engage in the same ridicule of opposing views in both subject matters. As for porn, we had a thread where people discussed LA's requirement to use condemns, condemning it, and showing no concern for the lives lost as a result of their selfish desire to see porn without condemns. So to pretend that is some sort of exalted status is ridiculous. I fault consumers of porn for those deaths. They set the demands for the industry and in doing so contribute to those lost lives.

And Cuba most certainly is a good example for the connection between poverty and prostitution. Why wouldn't it be? Rampant poverty under Batista was eradicated and prostitution waned to a trickle. The country lost Soviet subsidies, life got harder for ordinary Cubans, and prostitution again resurfaced. The sex trade depends on economic privation.

You have an excellent sense of humor and a keen wit, but there are times where it's just not appropriate. In my view, Redqueen's thread about the porn actress (though I disagreed with parts of her argument, mainly that the woman didn't know what she personally found degrading) and that libertarian nonsense on prostitution are two such cases, unless of course your point is to appeal to the peanut gallery by ridiculing feminists.

I wouldn't bother with any of this if I didn't think you were capable of better. Perhaps I'm just wrong about that.

[Warren DeMontague]

141. And--- again. I'm gonna point it out because I think you may genuinely not realize you're doing it.

You don't have a position other than mocking feminists. Understood.

That.... might have worked, if you left out the "understood". But by including it, you sealed the deal. In that, what you did was, you ascribed something to me via your own words, and then offered your assent to the thing which you yourself asserted as my position.

But again, that's something I never said. As for "mocking feminists", okay:

1) ....if my disagreeing and expressing my disagreement counts as "mocking", or my examining shoddy logic and debate tactics counts as "mocking". In that case, people mock disagreeing positions all the time here on DU, including you. I, for one, try awfully hard not to take, or make, it personal. DU would be a better place if more people were like me, oh yes indeed I think it would, and humbler too.

2) "Feminists". No, just people advancing certain points of view, who also happen to call themselves "Feminists" but by no means speak for all people who call themselves "Feminists" nor do those points of view represent the totality of "Feminist thought" on the matter. Furthermore, even "mocking" the points of view expressed is not the same thing as mocking Feminism or Feminists-in-general or even the specific people in question, see above.

you consistently refuse to deal with arguments women actually make and instead ridicule anyone who dares question your fantasy version of the sex trade.

There's not an argument, here, there's two people talking past each other. That's not an argument, even.

You do see commodification of sex as sacrosanct, as demonstrated by your adamant support for all things related to its commerce--SI and the industry of objectification, porn, and prostitution. Many here have decided anything relating to sex must never under any circumstances be questioned. Any discussion of the absence of consent, underage sex workers, child rape, or human trafficking is immediately dismissed for the absurd trope of "consenting adults."

Okay, that's a hot mess. Sports Illustrated is mostly a sports magazine. I've already said all I want to on objectification, although if someone has a more solid scientific study than the one that used upside down people in bathing suits, I'm all ears. I've also said my piece on porn versus prostitution (which I've never "supported", adamantly or otherwise) in that it appears to me that the legal and regulated status of one DOES address the question of non-adults AND non-consent, at least insofar as regulations require documentation pertaining to both, as opposed to the illegal, and unregulated, status of prostitution. The only person dismissing and pursuing absurd tropes is you, because the question of consenting adults just seems to make you mad, as if it is inconceivable, princess bride-fashion, that ANY adult could ever, under any circumstances, consent to something like taking their clothes off in front of a camera so other people could look at it.

I didn't "dismiss" those other things, in fact I addressed them by saying that a legal framework for porn in the US provides a regulatory structure within which one can ensure consent and adulthood. That doesn't mean "I think prostitution should be legal", but like I said, it's already illegal, and everyone seems to agree that whatever is being done now doesn't work as well as it ought to. How that means that I'm 'dismissing' those other things by reiterating that I think consenting adults should be free to make their own decisions about their own bodies, I don't understand. What you seem to want, here, is for anyone who says the irritating words "consenting adults" to immediately stop upon hearing the words "non-consent" and "non-adults" and go "oh, that shit about consenting adults? Forget it, what was I thinking?"


If people didn't distinguish between consent and non-consent, or adults and non-adults, they wouldn't use phrases like consenting adults.

You ignore reality and think call people irritating who care about the reality of prostitution as opposed to the theoretical notion you hold in your head. If it were just about consenting adults there would be far less concern. I know it isn't because I was at a very young age regularly targeted by Johns, as was my sister. The creepy comment by the other poster PROVES it is not just about consenting adults. Insisting otherwise is to ignore evidence--evidence I have already linked to for you multiple times.

What happened to you sucks, FWIW I am sorry you went through that- and I support vigorous law enforcement and prosecution of anyone who would, I guess proposition is probably too kind a word, children. Again, I never said I thought prostitution "should be legal", however, all the reality anecdotes that have come up, have come up under the situation as it stands currently. So again, whatever is being done, could stand some improvement, no?

As for porn, we had a thread where people discussed LA's requirement to use condemns, condemning it, and showing no concern for the lives lost as a result of their selfish desire to see porn without condemns.

I don't condom condemns. Sorry, strike that, reverse it.

Still, again, this seems sort of a funhouse mirror interpretation of what went on in that thread, the comments I recall mostly had to do with a shifting landscape for porn and the porn "industry", which like all content producers has found itself on a drastically diff. playing field due to the internet, and is likely far less geographically tied to southern CA to boot. Beyond that, again, "porn" is less a monolithic industry than a means of expression. If someone likes to watch free posted videos of, say, an exhibitionist married couple who have sex without condoms, how is that contributing to anything? Again, there are sort of broad categorizations and assumptions which maybe even applied a couple years ago, and don't now. That said, I don't recall really weighing in on the condom law one way or the other.

And Cuba most certainly is a good example for the connection between poverty and prostitution. Why wouldn't it be?

Sure, fine.

Rampant poverty under Batista was eradicated and prostitution waned to a trickle. The country lost Soviet subsidies, life got harder for ordinary Cubans, and prostitution again resurfaced. The sex trade depends on economic privation.

Which was the same point I was making about a livable minimum wage, etc.

You have an excellent sense of humor and a keen wit, but there are times where it's just not appropriate. In my view, Redqueen's thread about the porn actress (though I disagreed with parts of her argument, mainly that the woman didn't know what she personally found degrading) and that libertarian nonsense on prostitution are two such cases, unless of course your point is to appeal to the peanut gallery by ridiculing feminists.

I wouldn't bother with any of this if I didn't think you were capable of better. Perhaps I'm just wrong about that.

Well, life is too short to do things any other way, as far as I'm concerned. If I've said things that are genuinely hurtful to people, directly, I certainly am open to being called on it and considering apologizing, but I actually try pretty hard not to go there. I think I've gotten better about that over the years. However, how I feel about things is pretty plainly laid out in the words I write. If believing that consenting adults, as a general rule, ought to be free to make their own decisions about their own bodies- and accepting that when I say "consenting adults" examples not involving consenting adults by definition don't apply - counts as "libertarian nonsense", it's another silly label I'll just have to live with.

As for RQ's thread, in my experience she's perfectly capable of holding her own on DU, and if she didn't want people arguing with her, she wouldn't have posted an OP that she knew would draw contentious replies, including to the more ridiculous pieces of her own wording. That thread is a glaring example of the silliness of "porn wars" on DU, right down to people offering total strangers unsolicited lectures on their masturbatory habits. Yes, I'm gonna make fun of that sort of thing. I mean, come on.

[BainsBane]

142. I didn't mention it because I don't think RQ can hold her own

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 01:56 AM - Edit history (3)

Clearly she can. The point is the issue itself. I'm glad you at least now admit you were mocking. That at least is honest.

To claim you are mocking shoddy arguments is a cop out. You are creating strawwomen and ignoring actual arguments. The shoddiness is your own refusal to deal with what people actually argue.

"Feminists". No, just people advancing certain points of view, who also happen to call themselves "Feminists" but by no means speak for all people who call themselves "Feminists" nor do those points of view represent the totality of "Feminist thought" on the matter. Furthermore, even "mocking" the points of view expressed is not the same thing as mocking Feminism or Feminists-in-general or even the specific people in question, see above

Do you actually think I am a complete idiot and believe all feminists think the same way? You think I can't read, and that I don't read? Yes, I get that the popular version of feminism in some quarters is limited to those issues that make women more sexually available to men. I do not share that view of feminism and am still allowed to call myself a feminist. Men who continue to imply or outright insist those who disagree with them on such issues are not real feminists, in comparison to themselves, reveal very clearly where they stand on women's rights. I really don't care to hear that bullshit. There is extensive literature on the subject of feminism that coincides with the views that the "feminists" you ridicule espouse. There is not so much respected literature from the POV of men who refuse to consider women who don't adhere to their views feminists. Certainly there are women who disagree on all kinds of issues. Whatever they call themselves, I don't give a shit. Invoking them as an excuse to insist those who don't support the neoliberal project aren't real feminists is insulting and reactionary. Clarence Thomas supports revoking the Voting Rights Act. Alan West supports all kinds of positions hostile to civil rights. So what? No single gender or race all thinks alike. Some go out of their way to justify exploitation. They are entitled to their positions as are those who disagree with them.

You did share your support by recing the libertarian thread on prostitution over the others. You showed your opposition to people like me and Ism by mocking us. I am one of the "feminists" who you think not quite a "feminist" because we don't defer to you on all matters. It really is awful when women don't know their place.

Saying you support enforcement of laws is meaningless when you have many times been shown evidence that legalization increases the kind of exploitation I referenced. You insist on theoretical discussions rather than dealing with actual evidence because your position does not conform to reality.

Lastly, never say I'm one to admit an error when I make one. Your point about "feminists" up above proves me wrong.

I wouldn't bother with any of this if I didn't think you were capable of better. Perhaps I'm just wrong about that.

I fault myself for being a slow learner. Plus the comment was on the condescending side. If anything, you have shown yourself remarkably constant on these issues and no doubt know your own mind. I will from now on consider it made up and see you as identical to others who express similar contempt for "feminists" and their views.

[Warren DeMontague]

143. Again, talking past each other, I'll only make three points and make them brief:

1) specifically in RQ's thread, the mocking was directed at her use, in her OP, of the phrase "precious wank sessions". You don't see that as mock-worthy, I do, and in fact I think it highlights what those threads are actually about, to the folks with what appears to be a deep emotional investment in them.

Do you actually think I am a complete idiot and believe all feminists think the same way? You think I can't read, and that I don't read? Yes, I get that the popular version of feminism in some quarters is limited to... etc etc

2) I'm not the one suggesting, "F is A". Pointing out that "some F is not A" is also not suggesting that "all F is not A". You know, like Venn Diagrams. You are the only one here seemingly demanding strict adherence to any definition, furthermore you seem to be claiming some sort of special all-purpose exemption to having assertions challenged merely by claiming to speak for all F or F in general.

Invoking them as an excuse to insist those who don't support the neoliberal project aren't real feminists is insulting and reactionary.

3) which would be terrible, again, if it was something I actually did. I didn't. Find where I suggested you or anyone else isn't "a real feminist". I've never said you are, or aren't anything, except maybe someone with a slight tendency to argue against their own straw creations rather than the actual words of other posters.

Also, I have no idea what "the neoliberal project" is. And if I thought you couldn't read I wouldn't bother responding to you.

[BainsBane]

144. Your use of quotation marks around "feminists" was quite clear

Playing cute doesn't change anything.

[Warren DeMontague]

147. I've told you at least 7 or 8 times that you keep putting words in other people's mouths

I suppose 9 isn't going to make a difference.

And also, no, if you actually look at the sentence in question, that is very clearly NOT what the quotation marks mean. If you disagree with that interpretation, repost the relevant section you have in mind and I will show you how your interpretation is incorrect.

[BainsBane]

150. Your words

"Feminists". No, just people advancing certain points of view, who also happen to call themselves "Feminists" but by no means speak for all people who call themselves "Feminists" nor do those points of view represent the totality of "Feminist thought" on the matter. Furthermore, even "mocking" the points of view expressed is not the same thing as mocking Feminism or Feminists-in-general or even the specific people in question, see above

Please don't bother showing anything. This has long grown tedious. I post it merely as evidence.

[Warren DeMontague]

155. And if the quotes meant what you are asserting they mean, then I'm calling the people who disagree

with you on porn, prostitution 'not real feminists', too.

[Violet_Crumble]

145. I'm a feminist and I don't agree with you at all...

Yes, I get that the popular version of feminism in some quarters is limited to those issues that make women more sexually available to men.

I'm a feminist and I support legalised prostitution how it works here where I live, and don't have a problem with mainstream porn. I don't hold those views because I want to make women sexually available to men. That's an offensive attack on feminists who don't think how you think on porn and prostitution....

[BainsBane]

146. Did I say you had to agree with me?

Did I ask you? Did I name you? You didn't even enter my mind when I said that, but you go ahead and be pissed off because I have the nerve to express a different point of view. Deal with it.

I'm not even getting into those issues with you. You clearly decided to pick a fight without even bothering to read my views on the subject. You don't give a damn about my experiences with prostitution, why should I care about your being offended by a comment that wasn't directed at you or intended to be about you? You yourself chose to take it personally. That itself says a lot.

[Violet_Crumble]

148. Last time I checked this is a discussion forum where people disagree all the time...

I disagreed with something you said because I thought it was offensive to feminists like me who do support legalised porn and prostitution. It's called disagreement, not being pissed off, picking a fight, mocking, or whatever else you want to try to call it. It's disagreement. Get used to it.

I've got no idea why yr going on about it being about me. Or about you. All I said was that I disagreed with what you said about feminists wanting to make women sexually available to men. If you didn't mean it to sound like you were defining why other feminists are feminists, then by all means explain what you meant to say, but I'm not interested in getting into some flame-fest...

[stevenleser]

152. The reactions of you and 2nd wavers to folks like Violet and LadyHawkAZ are interesting,

particularly when you juxtapose those reactions to ones that you and 2nd wavers on DU have to men who say the same things that Violet and LadyHawkAZ say (obviously we can't say we were in the industry in the same way that LadyHawkAZ was but aside from that the same points...)

Violet's assertions regarding legalization in Australia are extremely damaging to the narrative that you and others are trying to push regarding legalization. I suppose if I was as invested in the second wave narrative as you are, I would be tempted to angrily dismiss them as well. I would hope I would have a more mature reaction, but I can't say for sure.

What is interesting is that if an Australian man had said the same thing Violet had just said, you would attempt to dismiss him by saying "All you care about is that women continue to be sexually available to men"

I hope that inconsistency strikes you as problematic, because it is. It suggests that a man cannot have the same viewpoints for the same reasons. I hope I will not see that kind of accusation from you in the future, and I hope I can count on you to try to correct others who would say those things in the future, particularly those who identify with you on this issue.

When you angrily dismiss Violet and LadyHawkAZ without addressing the things they point out, it highlights the problems with your positions, it doesnt make them go away.

So let me reiterate what I have seen from the second wave narrative on porn and prostitution on DU:

1. It is heteronormative. The objections in the second wave narrative cannot and do not even attempt to fold LGBT prostitution and LGBT porn into it's arguments.

2. It angrily dismisses verifiable facts that contradict their point of view

3. The anger and dismissiveness is gender specific and heavily uses negative gender stereotyping, a highly problematic situation when coming from people who claim they are attempting to bring about gender equality. Third wave women asserting viewpoint 'A' are angrily dismissed, third wave men asserting viewpoint 'A' are angrily dismissed with the accompanying accusation that the only possible reason for their viewpoints is that they want women to be sexually available to men.

4. It attempts to assert conclusions in studies that exceed the limitations of the studies. Asserting that, for instance, human trafficking is increased by legalization when the studies themselves are careful to limit their conclusions to inflows of trafficking to those legalized countries, not an increase in trafficking itself.

5. It promotes a gender biased solution to prostitution that because of the gender bias, would almost certainly create equal protection issues. This gender biased solution would offer no improvement for sex workers above straight legalization but they press for it anyway? Why? Well, it is hard to get into the heads of people doing this, but the gender biased solution would only make it illegal for the johns, i.e., provide a way to prosecute men in the heteronormative view of adult sex work which is the only view that 2nd wavers seem to have. Combined with #3, it does start to lend itself to a particular interpretation which is that what 2nd wavers want above all regarding porn and prostitution is for the men to be punished, not for sex workers lives to be improved.

[BainsBane]

153. Bullshit

Last edited Sun Aug 17, 2014, 03:44 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm not the one running around saying people aren't real feminists if they disagree with me. And I'm not a fucking wave. I'm a person. You have no right to label me anything.

Point four is patently false. Demonstrably false. A study of 150 countries that has been posted around here multiple times looks at not just countries where it has been legalized. It's been posted so many times I'm sick of reposting.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5349821

I'm also tired of the middle- and upper-middle class plotting how to reintroduce prostitution back to my neighborhood while keeping their suburban enclaves where the Johns actually live pristine. Prostitution laws are local. Work to legalize it where you live. Put it next to your daughters schools and let them grow up being preyed upon by adult men like my sister and I did. Leave poor people out of your neoloiberal fantasies.

My reaction to Violet has to do with how she has treated me and her unyielding support for people who made personal attacks on me, including calling me the worst person the poster has ever met. I don't need to cater to anyone who has made clear they see me as a lesser form of human, who regularly talks crap about feminists who have the nerve to disagree with her. I talked to the other poster you mentioned at great length and listened to her, until she decided disagreement entitled her to make personal attacks instead of arguments. I do not dismiss them because of views. I dismiss them because of how they treat me, and that is my right. You don't know the first thing about what is going on here.

I have discussed prostitution until I'm blue in the face. You clearly haven't read any of my posts on the subject, including in this very subthead, so I'm not interested in your free association. And spare me your lectures. When you grow up in an area where prostitution is in fact legalized and have men try to hire you for sex on a regular basis starting at age 9, then you can talk to me about the experience. Until then, leave me out of your capitalist Utopias.

Prostitution laws are state and local. GET IT? You don't need my agreement to legalize it right now. You can go work to legalize it in DC. Naturally it won't go in Georgetown. Those who promote legalization will ensure it's put in a poor area so it leads to further economic deterioration. Go talk to people in those neighborhoods where it proliferates and talk to them about your ideas for legalization. You'll get an earful. Tell the people in Rhondo in St. Paul they should have a strip club back where they finally, after decades of community activism, got it taken down and a library put in its place. Tell them how middle-class and upper-middle class men's right to buy sex means more than their daughters and sons rights to be free from harassment and child rape, and how their desire for a library instead of the sex trade is just so "second wave."

It's all theoretical to people like you. You dismiss real human lives because they don't fit your neoliberal theories. There are real human beings with real experiences with this subject: http://www.democraticunderground.com/125548981 That so many of them are now dead is of course irrelevant compared to the only thing that matters: profit and male entitlement.

[stevenleser]

154. Your link YET AGAIN confirms my point. In fact, you only addressed one of my 5 main points.

You threw anger at the idea that you are labeled a second wave feminist. You tried to justify why you angrily dismissed Violet, and you attempted to address my comments about the study, but you did not address any of the rest of it.

And the link you posted again reaffirms what I said about the study you keep posting.

"The researchers analyzed cross-sectional data of 116 countries to determine the effect of legalized prostitution on human trafficking inflows."

Inflows, inflows, inflows. That is what it tends to increase. It does not increase trafficking. it does not try to say that people who would not otherwise be trafficked were trafficked because of the legalization.

Do you know why they use the word inflows? Because they are specifically saying they only analyzed whether legalization tends to increase the amount of people trafficked to that country. They did not analyze whether those folks were intended for another country but were redirected.

This is exactly what I wrote in the post to which you replied. You reinforced my point.

As to some of the rest, if you hope to assert that it is bullshit that gender biased responses are given to people who express agreement with the push for legalization, I hope you will tell those who agree with you not to give gender biased responses anymore. John Smith shouldnt get a different kind of response from folks on your side of the issue than Sally Johnson would when they express the same point.

[redqueen]

157. Why do you think that matters?

Ending the trafficking of people into ANY country to be rented out as sex slaves by men is a GOOD THING.

You seem to think that since they'd be trafficked elsewhere they might as well be rented out anywhere else is acceptable.

Why is that?

[stevenleser]

158. Why do I think being trafficked to country B is probably just as bad as country A?

that's an odd question, isn't it? I would ask you why I should think otherwise.

In general I think it is probably just as bad to be trafficked to one country as another, however, if we take a generic person and say OK, Person A is going to be trafficked for prostitution, nothing in what either of us is proposing will stop that, but would I want them trafficked to a country where prostitution is legalized versus one that isn't, I would say a country where it is legalized. Because I think there is a higher chance in that country that they will be able to seek help from the authorities in dealing with their situation.

If inflows are increased to countries where it is legalized, then IMHO, traffickers are being stupid and it is going to hurt them. But I'm fine with that. The traffickers can go to hell.

I think the argument is very similar to, if person A is going to abuse and become addicted to drugs, would I want them to be in a country where drugs are legalized, or one where drugs are illegal. Obviously, there is a much stronger coercive factor to human trafficking, but at the end of a day, you have a person in a bad spot and where is their outcome likely to be better? That part is the same. A person with a drug addiction is much better off in a country where drugs are legalized. In addition to all the other things they have to overcome to dealing with their issue, at least the authorities isnt one of them.

[redqueen]

159. No, I didn't ask you if it was just as bad.

And no, what I am proposing limits the market for trafficked women and children.

You seem to think that having them trafficked to where buying sex is legal is somehow better for them.

So you create the market, then say that since the market you're supporting has created the demand for such slaves, you're just going to hope that they can get help in the country where it's legalized.

How it makes more sense to you to engage in that wishful thinking, rather than to observe that reducing demand actually does help by reducing the market for prostituted women and children.


Women and children are not drugs. That analogy makes no sense. You aren't talking about treating addicts. You're talking about creating a market which is attractive to human traffickers. Dressing it up as being akin to 'helping addicts' is offensive.

At the end of the day, the outcome is likely to be better for the women and children who are trafficked to meet the rising demand created by legal prostitution if those markets are not created in the first place.

[stevenleser]

160. No, what you are proposing does not do that. It does not limit the markets.

it does not help sex workers or trafficked people in any way more than legalization does.

[Warren DeMontague]

162. One would imagine people are heading to CO and WA to buy pot right now, too.

because it is legal there.

If it was legal in all 50 states, that traffic would likely diminish.

[BainsBane]

181. How could I possibly give a response that is not gender-biased?

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 11:14 PM - Edit history (1)

What a ridiculous notion. I'm a woman. I can't speak from any other position. Bias exists. It can't be wished away.
If you think I only make that point about male entitlement to men, you are mistaken.

I didn't address most of your post because I didn't read most of it. You began with an insult. What do you expect? You are entitled to agree or disagree with anyone you choose. You are not entitled to label me or insist that I have an obligation to heed those you happen to agree with. You also entered a discussion by lecturing me without actually bothering to read the posts in the subthread where I laid out my actual concerns. That you hurl second-wave as a pejorative. You ignored entirely that the principal basis of my argument was class-exploitation, not gender, which you did because you were arguing with second-wave strawwoman and not me.

I see the heteronormative charge regularly used as way to dismiss the voices of women. I linked directly to a post discussing prostitution of men, a post you ignored. You accuse me of ignoring evidence and you have done just that. The fact is the vast majority of Johns are male. Whether they hire women, men, or very often underage teens and children, they are still men. Moreover, the entire notion of rights as vested in the individual rather than the common good is gender- (along with class- and race-) based. It is at once about class, race, and gender. Poor neighborhoods where prostitution is located are largely, though certainly not exclusively, populated by people of color. White men from middle- and upper-middle class areas come into those neighborhoods to hire prostitutes and along the way prey on little girls and likely boys, as I mentioned in my OP on the subject. I can not speak from the perspective of a little boy being hit on by Johns because that way not my experience. I have always been in a female body. That is the only experience I know. Your very use of the term heteronormative imagines that means only men, which is just about always the case when people use it as a way to delegitimize women's perspectives (and yes, I know I am not all women, just as when I mention I had peaches for breakfast that doesn't imply I ate every peach in creation).

Your objection to a study of inflows is problematic. You first insisted researches look only look at countries where it was legalized. Clearly the linked study shows that isn't true. Inflows means increased trafficking into the country, which makes sense given the fact there is increased demand with legalization. So what is your point? The same traffickers would have simply sent them elsewhere if not for legalization so those people enslaved aren't relevant?

It does not increase trafficking.

At best you have no evidence for this point. You also ask for evidence that is difficult if not possible to attain, which is the sort of thing people who have never conducted research don't bother to think about. The only way in which slaves become visible to researchers is through law enforcement or participant observation of their places of labor. You expect researchers to access data from the point at which slaves are captured? How? Do you think immigration officials are they meticulously counting illegally trafficked human beings? Do you think traffickers turn over customs invoices with precise counts of their cargo? Have you given any thought whatsoever to how such data might be acquired? Or do you, as it appears, simply want to dismiss studies you find inconvenient to your own agenda?

As to the other evidence, my life and that of Ism's, you clearly found it too insignificant to comment on. You accuse me of dismissing someone who you insist should be heeded because she shares your views, while dismissing the real life experiences of people who have lived among the sex trade. You can't bother to comment on the fact an entire population of young people is now through prostitution--murder, drug overdose, suicide, and even serial killers-- and that I grew up being preyed upon from a very young age by adult men. That you refuse to consider the lives of people with actual experience on the matter does indeed make me angry. You ignore that and then lecture me for not falling in line with neoliberal theories that ignore the reality of my community? No. I won't do that. I have a right to care about the well-being of my neighbors and the children in my community over capitalist profits, and I will continue to do so until the day I die. I will under no circumstances become an apologist for commodification of human beings. My soul is not for sale. If you find that so objectionable, don't read my posts.

[stevenleser]

184. That is an interesting dodge so let me give you an answer you cannot dodge.

When Violet_Crumble and LadyHawkAZ give the same reasons regarding legalization of prostitution and policies regarding porn that men give, NOT adding the accusation for the men that "the only reason you think/say that is because you want women to be more sexually available to men" is the way to not be gender biased in this context.

[mythology]

189. There's no way to prove a negative

All we can do is say that if country A does action B and the result is C and country D takes the opposite action of B and gets the opposite of result C there's probably a distinct causal relationship, especially when it happens in multiple countries. At some point it has to logically stop being a weird random unrelated coincidence.

You seem pretty dead set on the idea that prostitution should be legal and will nitpick to find any reason to ignore the evidence that is there because it doesn't fit your world view.

[stevenleser]

191. Thats not the issue. The issue is exceeding the boundaries of a studies results.

If you are going to put forth a study as proof of your claims, you cannot exceed the conclusions of the study. That is what is being done here. No one is being asked to prove a negative. This is the study they put forward and whose conclusions they changed.

[Violet_Crumble]

165. A few points...

And I'm not a fucking wave. I'm a person.

I don't claim to be well versed on feminism when it comes to the bookish type stuff, but even I'm aware of the three waves of feminism. You weren't called a wave. Steven was referring to one of the three waves of feminism. I don't see how anyone could take offense at that as the different waves of feminism have been discussed a lot in both feminist groups at DU. I did a quiz someone posted in one of the groups and it said I was a third wave feminist, but after reading about them all, I think there's bits of each that I agree with...

http://archive.pacificu.edu/magazine_archives/2008/fall/echoes/feminism.cfm

Work to legalize it where you live. Put it next to your daughters schools and let them grow up being preyed upon by adult men like my sister and I did. Leave poor people out of your neoloiberal fantasies.

It's legal where I live. It's not next to schools or any residential suburbs. I did hear that for a very short time an illegal brothel was operating in my townhouse complex, but when neighbours complained to the committee about all the cars coming and going, they called the cops who immediately shut it down.

My reaction to Violet has to do with how she has treated me and her unyielding support for people who made personal attacks on me, including calling me the worst person the poster has ever met.

Huh. Got any links to show how terribly I've treated you? It's just that I don't recall any of this at all, and don't appreciate reading someone trying to justify why it's okay to dismiss what I say and get nasty when I haven't done anything to warrant it. What you said about feminists who support legalised porn and prostitution was offensive and blatantly incorrect. But I want to focus on the issue (see my post upthread), and I wish you'd stop trying to make it personal...

Prostitution laws are state and local. GET IT? You don't need my agreement to legalize it right now.

I think anyone with an IQ higher than zero knows that already. What I suspect the problem is, is that you confuse people disagreeing with yr views as being attacks on you or asking for yr permission or agreement.

strip club...<snip>...library

So there can't be both in one city? Someone needs to tell my local politicians. They've got this zany idea that this town's big enough for both...

[BainsBane]

180. Since you know prostitution is a local issue

Last edited Mon Aug 18, 2014, 10:32 PM - Edit history (1)

there is no reason to invoke entirely irrelevant examples of Australia. I am sure if I Googled for a second I could find references to all kinds of child prostitution and human trafficking along with that legal prostitution in Australia. You will of course ignore that just as you ignore the experiences of people like me and ism because our lives are inconsequential compared to the middle- and upper-middle class men whose rights to sex on demand to buy and sell human beings trump our wishes, and those of children in our communities, to be free from predation, rape, and, murder. Those are our real life experiences with prostitution. Most of Ism's friends are dead now because of it. But ignore that. Real human lives get in the way of neoliberal narratives that privilege profit over human lives. These discussions are like talking to economists, who care only about theory and dismiss any human experience that falls outside their faith-based notions in the infallibility of capitalist markets.

Why should I get offended? Because I and not you or Steve define who I am. You had a fit because of a comment I made that had nothing to do with you, and you ask why I'm offended over being falsely labeled? I think for myself. I don't adhere to any particular wave, and that is my right. Second-wave and sex-negative are used as pejoratives and commonly invoked to belittle feminists and feminism. There are a limited number of labels I accept: Marxist, feminist, Democrat, leftist, woman, and Minnesotan.

That you so glibly dismiss the decades of community activism on the part of the African American community of Rhondo to dislodge a strip club and finally some years later get a library is not surprising. I talked about neighborhoods, not cities. You obviously know nothing about growing up or living in such a community, so your comments are entirely irrelevant. What you think happens in Australia has no relevance whatsoever to my city. Neighborhoods in my city once blighted by the economic destruction and predatory activity that accompanied de facto legal prostitution have been revitalized. To do that, they have to drive out the sex industry, and that took a great deal of work. So now little African American children can go to the library rather than be preyed upon by pedophiles from the suburbs drawn into the area because of the strip club and surrounding prostitution. My childhood neighborhood is now full of immigrant-run businesses and restaurants that provide jobs, and little 9 yr old girls don't have to be propositioned for sex as they walk home from the grocery store as I was.

Since prostitution is local, what I think about the issue and what my community does has no impact on your life, and you have no reason to so glibly dismiss our experiences to support your classist notions. Plotting to reintroduce prostitution into poor neighborhoods is to exploit them as Third World playgrounds for the benefit of men of means. We spent decades in that Third World status and said enough. That is OUR right.

As for the history between us, I have already confronted you on those issues. I will not search for links of discussions that you yourself engaged in. I made myself quite clear at the time.

My views have nothing to do with you. Outside of this one post, nothing I say relates to you, so you have no cause to become offended.

[Violet_Crumble]

183. There's a few flaws in what you posted...

Since you know prostitution is a local issue there is no reason to invoke entirely irrelevant examples of Australia.

So, let me get this straight. For some reason you think it's only yr 'local issue' that should be discussed here at DU? That mine is 'entirely irrelevent'? I'm calling bullshit on that. I suspect the reason you don't want to talk about how it is here in the territory I live in is because it doesn't gel with yr narrative. I've got every bit as much right to talk about how prostitution is legal here and how sex workers have lots of protection that they don't have in the US as you've got to talk about whatever it is you think is relevant to a discussion.

I am sure if I Googled for a second I could find references to all kinds of child prostitution and human trafficking along with that legal prostitution in Australia.

Go google then. The results should be interesting.

You will of course ignore that just as you ignore the experiences of people like me and ism because our lives are inconsequential compared to the middle- and upper-middle class men whose rights to sex on demand to buy and sell human beings trump our wishes, and those of children in our communities, to be free from predation, rape, and, murder.

There you go inventing something that I most definitely don't think. Here's a reality check for you. I don't know what yrs or someone elses experiences are because I don't know what they are. But instead you decide to launch into a totally offensive and disgusting slur that I think pedophiles and sex traffickers are more worthy than you. You should apologise for that...

Why should I get offended? Because I and not you or Steve define who I am.

One point. I haven't defined you as anything. As for you getting offended? After reading what I just did where you said I think yr life is inconsequential compared to pedophiles and human traffickers, I care about as much as you care about offending me in yr initial post where you made a false claim about feminists who support legalised prostitution and porn. After all, if you'd cared about offending me, you wouldn't have made it even worse by writing what you did in the paragraph above...

That you so glibly dismiss the decades of community activism on the part of the African American community of Rhondo to dislodge a strip club and finally some years later get a library is not surprising.

I don't care if they're African/American, Amish, Orthodox Jews, or a collective of vegan Morrissey worshippers. All that time invested in what for what reason? To get a library? What an anti-climax. Libraries are sooo pre-internet. I would have gone for the gold and tried for an IKEA. Their Swedish meatballs are to-die-for!

What you think happens in Australia has no relevance whatsoever to my city.

Correction. It's what I KNOW about what happens where I live. There's no what I *think* about it. Have you read the legislation I've posted more than a few times here at DU? It applies to the territory I live in, not NSW or Victoria, where I don't know how it works. I'm happy to post it again if you'll read it and go through it line by line and tell me what yr objections to it is...

Since prostitution is local, what I think about the issue and what my community does has no impact on your life, and you have no reason to so glibly dismiss our experiences to support your classist notions.

Again, get used to the fact that this is a discussion forum. Yr not the only person here and you don't get to dictate what's relevant and what's not, especially when you've been talking away about prostitution in other countries. And 'glibly dismiss' translates as 'someone dares to disagree with you.' And I don't have classist notions, and have no idea why yr coming up with this stuff...

As for the history between us, I have already confronted you on those issues. I will not search for links of discussions that you yourself engaged in. I made myself quite clear at the time.

Translation: there's not one single link handy to that stuff you've accused me of. I haven't ever been nasty or offensive to you...

Outside of this one post, nothing I say relates to you, so you have no cause to become offended.

So now yr telling me what I should or shouldn't be offended by? I do get offended when I see someone trying to paint a completely incorrect and offensive picture of why other people, feminists amongst them, support legal porn and prostitution.

Y'know, there's one thing I don't get here. When it comes to universal health-care DUers are always pointing to examples in countries like my own as how it could be in the US. Yet when it comes to legalised porn and prostitution, suddenly examples somewhere where there's a welfare safety net, safe working conditions for sex workers, no pimps, no street prostitutes, and no stigma attached to being a sex worker, then it becomes all irrelevant for some reason. What I'm really curious about is what people who spend so much time talking about how terrible prostitution is and how much more terrible it is if it's legal, see as a solution? It's illegal in many parts of the US, so do they want the status quo to continue? I'd hope not, coz I've seen enough episodes of Cops to see how horrific it is. Or do they want it decriminalised? Or made legal with strict regulations?

[Warren DeMontague]

161. Well said.

Reading some of the posts, it's hard not to wonder if there's more bubbling beneath the surface; like when people pepper an OP ostensibly about improving conditions for porn performers with random, weird fusillades against "precious wank sessions"

[AverageJoe90]

90. And, TBH, it *CAN* be empowering.....in the right circumstances.

However, though, experiences will vary. Unfortunately, Sasha Grey isn't alone herself; a fair number of other women have indeed gone thru some tough shit with the porn industry as well.....it DOES have a dark side.

More than anything, the culture needs to keep changing. To be truthful, though, I'm not terribly certain just exactly what would be needed, in this particular case.

[nomorenomore08]

110. I share your ambivalence, to a large extent. And I don't pretend to have definitive answers.

But I think all voices - supportive, opposing, and in between - need to be heard. Especially those of people who've experienced that world firsthand.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

97. My buddy eschews internet debates and discussions

My buddy eschews internet debates and discussions because the terms are never defined.

If a person's goal is to eliminate pornography it is incumbent upon him or her to come up with a plan on how to do so.

The first step would be defining it and then punish those who make and consume it. Since millions and millions and millions of men and women in the U. S. consume it that doesn't seem practical. Punishing those that produce or act in it doesn't seem practical either as it can be produced anywhere.

[kcr]

118. And then there are the posters who completely distort the viewpoint of others

For example, claiming people are calling for a ban merely because they criticize.

[nomorenomore08]

138. +1

[Warren DeMontague]

163. So when Icelandic pols actually did call for a ban & some people here went nuts in celebration

...what was that about?

[redqueen]

169. At some point in time, in a country far, far away, a ban was proposed.

So anytime porn is criticized, certain types of people immediately start howling about freedom and bans in an effort to derail the discussion.

It's quite sad, really. But desperate times call for desperate measures I suppose.

[Warren DeMontague]

193. Yes, far in the mists of time, like last year or so.

And completely irrelevant, except when the go-to protestation is raised that "no one here supports banning porn" and there it was, a proposal to ban porn, and those same folks who "dont support bans" were swinging from the rafters cranking kool and the gang, popping champagne corks-

...at least until the trial balloon went "pfffffffffffffffffttt"

[Warren DeMontague]

194. Know what the best thing about talking to one's own self is?

snappy comebacks are easy!~

[hifiguy]

123. it can be summed up in the old acronym

YMMV, which applies to everything in life.

[brooklynite]

125. Maybe she gets to be a feminist because...

...she believes women should be able to do what they want, rather than have patronizing moralists decide what's best for her.

Just a thought.

[alp227]

133. Hmm...false dilemma there.

"women should be able to do what they want, rather than have patronizing moralists decide what's best for her."

So just because "patronizing moralists" object to porn automatically means women aren't "allowed" to do porn?

Ideas should be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism; anyone who's easily swayed by "patronizing moralists" probably was never committed, y'know to being immoral in the first place.

[redqueen]

170. The dogma of Choice Feminism says any choice a woman makes MUST NOT BE CRITICIZED

because A WOMAN MADE IT!!! 1!!11!!

It's basically a way to depoliticize feminism.

Can't imagine who'd want to do that, though.

[jakeXT]

140. Here is Sasha Grey commenting on the Belle Knox empowerment

The backlash to the Duke porn star strikes me as more than a little absurd. One of the worst op-eds I’ve read on the subject was in Time, and the writer criticized her claims of “empowerment,” writing, “In most adult films, women are depicted as objects who are there to please the man in whatever way he might choose.”

It’s ridiculous. I didn’t read her whole essay—just blips online—but I read a quote where she said, “I wanted to prove how ridiculous this could be,” which is interesting, and I’m fascinated by that. But do I think that this discredits her? Absolutely not. People said the same thing to me. They said, “If you’re so smart, why did you do porn? You’re not a feminist.” I never declared myself a feminist. I believe in the empowerment of women and men everywhere. But to say that porn only depicts what men want? One of the reasons I did porn was because I had things I wanted to experience and try and do, but I was so ashamed of them, and in doing porn I realized, “There are women like me, and why should women be portrayed as a victim? Why can’t we take control?” And if you’re putting yourself in that position, that’s your choice.

Right. The counterargument proposed by that misguided Time author is that, even though women wield more power in porn and are paid more, and are the ones who achieve “star” status over men, porn tastes—and the content—is governed by the taste of men.

But you can say that about anything! The male gaze. You can say that about romantic comedies. You can say, “Women are naïve to think that it’s a man’s role to give the woman a perfect house and two kids.” That offends me as a woman. I think romantic comedies are anti-feminist. That kind of shit offends me. I was raised to believe in myself, take care of myself, and not let other people take care of me. Traditional marriages are fine, but there are a lot of other people out there who feel differently. So, to say that porn only satisfies male tastes is ridiculous. I went to Russia and Siberia and other fucked up places and I’ve met tons of women who have told me, “You’ve changed my life.” Not all women are alike.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/12/sasha-grey-on-her-secret-true-detective-cameo-open-windows-and-the-duke-porn-star-backlash.html

[redqueen]

171. "even though women wield more power in porn and are paid more,"

More Fox-news style bullshit.

The women in front of the camera get more per-act than the men on camera.

But they are NOT making more than the producers, directors, studio owners, etc. - who are, naturally, almost all men.

And the quip about them wielding more power is a cruel fucking joke.

[jakeXT]

173. I wonder how the industry is surviving at the moment and competing against free

Earlier this month, the adult-film star Siri hosted an Ask Me Anything session on Reddit. As is the case with most porn-star Q&As, Siri mostly fielded softball questions about the business and her personal life. Does she watch her own porn? Yup, with her husband. Does she fake orgasms on camera? Actually, not often. Did anything surprise her about porn when she first entered the industry? She’s got a detailed (and NSFW) response.

At one point, however, the conversation took a marked turn:



...

Siri says that piracy “has seriously affected my ability to make a living,” and she estimates that she sends DCMA takedown notices to tube sites at least once a day.

“Performers have to work much more than twice as hard than they did 10 years ago to make a living,” she said. “I love my job, but I also think I would really like to be able to do my job, and not have to waste my time sending takedowns to torrents and tube sites because all my stuff is getting stolen.”

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/siri-the-porn-star-who-loves-the-internet/

[redqueen]

174. The idea that female porn performers make the most money in the industry is bullshit.

Internet piracy or not.

It is Fox 'news'-style mendacity intended to portray the industry as being more beneficial to the women performing in it than it actually is.

[WinkyDink]

167. All people are creatures of their society. And Western society has become pornographied.

We now see young women in public attired in ways men once paid good money to see in darkened theatres.

The culture wars have always been about women and the control thereof. The Middle East wants its females covered; the West wants them naked. That there are women in both cultures who behave willingly in accordance with these male desires ought not be a surprise.

[redqueen]

172. Belle Knox was beaten and spat on in her first job as a porn 'star'.

Even after she said "no" and asked them to stop hitting her so hard, they continued right on doing so.

This isn't about dress codes. It is about a multi-billion dollar industry which for some strange reason (not really) way too many on the left simply cannot bear to see it criticized.

Which is why we see bullshit about bans, and dress codes, and implications that anyone who dares to speak ill of the seemingly sacred porn industry is not a real feminist, is a moralizing prude, etc. etc. ad nauseam.

It is pitiful. And it is so sadly clear why it happens.

[WinkyDink]

185. Did I say anything about a dress code? I said what disparate cultures want of females. The West pays

women to be naked. Some of these women will always declare that compliance is empowering. Yes, here it is about the money. Would there be a porn industry if legit careers for these "stars" made billions and were available to them (unlike, say, picky Goldman-Sachs)? Who knows?

"Belle" was not taken to a porn studio under threat of violence; THAT step she took willingly. But it is because she has been culturally brainwashed. Why she stayed, post-violence, is a psychological problem that battered women share and I did and do not, thank God.

[Warren DeMontague]

186. No, what's surprising is that anyone continues to try to flog that ridiculous false equivalence.

No one in the west is mandated to go out in short shorts or a bikini.

You are desperately trying to conflate people choosing to do things that seem to personally bother you - like "young women in public attired in ways men once paid good money to see in darkened theatres" - with people being forced to do things, like women in countries where they face violence or arrest if they go out in public without facial coverings.

The rest of your argument downthread- that anyone who makes a choice you don't agree with is 'brainwashed' and as such not actually making a choice for themselves- is just plain goofy.

[Android3.14]

177. Because pornography has little to do with feminism

You want strong women in porn, there's that fetish.
You want men and women treating each other with equal respect, there's that too.
You want clothed women humiliating a naked man, go for it.
You want B&D, S&M, and any other kink, you can find it in porn.

[Warren DeMontague]

187. but what about people who get off on telling other people what not to get off on?

Where is the understanding and tolerance for their kink?

[Android3.14]

188. People tolerate that kink just fine

Isn't that a subset of B&D called orgasm denial or some such? The problem arises when anyone tries to push their kink on someone who just isn't into it. That's not cool.

[Warren DeMontague]

190. Like when Rick Santorum tried to get me into wool sweater vests.

I'm like, man, whatever works for you, but I'll pass.

[Android3.14]

192. Exactly!

Porn - It's a cornucopia of bipartisan gender neutral disgust and pleasure.