for those who insist on liking Dan Savage

[valsa]

Deelaem doesn't need me to defend her, but I would have just felt like a heel standing by while she was being trashed when I have respect for her. It was just an authentic response on my part, but I should not have waded in.

As for your other attacks, you can think what you want, Valsa. I know that a back and forth with you never ends, so I cede the argument to you. These are my impressions; that's it. If those are the sorts of things you think about me, have at it.

I don't think it was bad that you defended someone you respect. I just hate that deelaem is incredibly manipulative and you fell for it hook, line, and sinker. She's only being trashed because she has a habit of saying offensive, insanely bigoted things, then running away and letting someone else clean up the mess. No one is holding a gun to her head and forcing her not to defend herself here, so I don't see why you feel the need to do it so vigorously.

As for ceeding the argument, fine. We can each go back to our corner, so to speak.

[duplessis3]

. I'm fine with prostitution being perfectly legal, as long as the buying of sex is not. But I absolutely do not buy into the idea that sex work is empowerful in the least.

So...if prostitution is legal...but the buying of sex is not...then what exactly is the prostitute doing?

And I'm betting that sex work might not be empowering to YOU (nor to me) but that doesn't mean that it isn't to someone else, male or female. If someone says it empowers them, I'm willing to believe them.

Prostitution in NV would work a lot better if it were legalized in all counties (It isn't legal in Clark, where Vegas is nor Washoe where Reno is) and the illegal prostitutes were prosecuted for operating without a business license. I also have probelms with the brothel system, which perpetuates the man with money making the real cheddar. (And no male pros for those interested in that, no couples with a prostitute, etc.) There should be some kind of independent owner/operator system. This current system is another example of slut shaming. (Which is also why I think there isn't much demand as far as we know for women seeking men or women sex workers. Bad enough to have more than one partner but to PAY FOR IT? )

[CanadianHippie]

Hippy, are you now in charge of handing out the litmus tests for Feminists? I certainly missed that email in my in box.

Well, a lot of people have expressed that you are always the one whining "what about the menz". You probably do not feel that's fair, but that's the rap you have here with a lot of posters. So anybody can say someone else is this or that.

I think it's ridiculous to say that Deelaem is not a "true feminist". You may disagree with her, but that's really a bridge too far.

Uh, in case you missed it, I clearly state it was "my personal opinion".

[jaelh]

CanadianHippie, I think most of the "choice" argument is going to run something along the lines of - no free agency to chose prostitution. We live in a world that so 'pornographises' and fetishises sex (from toddler pageants through the virginity pledges and purity rings) that every womans agency is compromised. It's an easy line to take at one end (see trafficked women and young girls saving their family from destitution) but harder for those who've not accepted the agency principle to see at the other end (high end courtesans and call girls making thousands a night).

There are two issues: one, how do we deal with prostitution? Harm minimisation, if you will.

The other (in this paradigm) is how do we get rid of the purchase one human beings sexuality? This is a much broader issue: is it possible to get rid of the purchase of sex when sex *is* regarded as a commodity? Whatever the instance of women purchasing sex, I don't think it's controversial to assert that the male purchase of women is far and away the more common experience. And from this - the "fuck toilet" is an extreme way of saying that prostitutes (porn stars... even the "sexxy" co-ed) are there to be a repository for male desire.

I don't see it to be problematic for one group to decry prostitution all out, and others to work to minimise harm.

Perhaps some varient of Hilary Clinton's abortion should be rare, legal and safe comment would work well here as a middle ground? Prostitution should be rare, legal and safe. Maybe you disagree with the rare bit. Or the legal bit. But surely that might be something we could aspire to (leaving aside abolitionists to fight the battle as they need to).

Valsa - that was a great definition. We have to somehow work in an acknowledgement of the intricacies of human sexuality into any radical abolition/grabbing by the roots of the patriarchy. How we have sex IS part of the hierarchy: transforming sex is part of transforming the system in and of itself.

[Patsy]

I'm not a radical feminist, but I'm also not a 'choice' feminist, so I'd like to add to what jaelh said: I don't feel that saying women should be FREE to CHOOSE prostitution, being a housewife, etc. means that those choices are made in a vacuum, or that we should pretend that they are made in a vacuum. (Further, saying "why aren't there many women in top engineering jobs?" doesn't mean we're all collectively sneering at you, personally, the housewife, and telling you, personally, that you shouldn't have been free to make that choice.)

Anything else I'd say here would just be repeating what jaelh already said quite well, so I'll butt out now.

[Constance Vigilance]

I would like to know where deelaem is in all this, and why she is happy to sit by while others defend her. She should defend her own words, surely.

However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that deelaem isn't a feminist. I mean, clearly she is. From what I've seen here, I don't think she is a misandrist either. A lot of radical feminists tend to fall down this rabbit hole of the idea that all sex work must be made illegal/all women who engage in sex work are collaborators etc. I have a real problem with those who would deny the agency of women who don't agree with them.

"Radical feminists in Western society assert that their society is a patriarchy in which men are the primary oppressors of women. Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy. Radical feminism posits the theory that, due to patriarchy, women have come to be viewed as the "other" to the male norm and as such have been systematically oppressed and marginalized. They also believe that the way to deal with patriarchy and oppression of all kinds is to address the underlying causes of these problems through revolution."

That fits me too, but I am not in favour of transphobia, ignoring issues of race/class/disability and their intersection with the oppression of women, or uniformly anti-sex work (and sex workers), which separates me from many (not all) who would describe themselves as radical feminists.

I found deelaem's contrast of "her radical feminist views" and those with "moderate feminist views" (i.e. everyone else) pretty ridiculous, because I am about as immoderately feminist as they come. I just don't agree with her on this issue. That does not make her More Feminist Than Me. Indeed, I would argue that my respect and concern for women who choose to be sex workers (gasp! traitors!!) makes me More Feminist Than Her, if we want to play that pointless game. But I don't, because what is the point?

Edited for riffles and word choice.

[eohiken]

Ok, define "pressure" in sexual relationships. I am assuming that we are talking about heterosexual sexual relationships. A request by a man to his partner to try a sexual activity in and of itself is not pressure, it's a request. Is the pressure economic? Physical? Is the assumption that the man holds economic power in the relationship and therefor the woman must comply with his sexual demands? What if a woman requests anal sex? Is anal sex an inherently disempowering act for a woman to engage in?

If the issue is about agency, then shouldn't the discussion focus on correcting power imbalances so that women can manifest any sort of sexual life she choses? I don't understand why is the focus on the analysis on particular manifestations of sexuality. I get that in many parts of the world, women have no agency over their bodies. I get that in first world countries, many women have reduced agency because of societal beliefs and economic inequality, but I don't understand why my sex life and the sex lives of other straight women of privilege require so much scrutiny.

Not necessarily just het relationships, QUILTBAG community live within our heteronormative culture and can feel the same/similar relationship pressures.

A request is just a request? Really? This culture is saturated with gender performance and appearance expectations. In this cullture, the description of certain sexual acts are used as insults, and yet the request to perform them is not loaded question?

Sure, pressure to comply to sexual requests can be economic or physical, but it's not always that simple. Pressure to keep a partner(boyfriend especially), to not appear frigid, to conform to peer group, often, it's many subtle pressures at once, not one big one.

It's rather hypocritical to not apply feminism to one's own life before pushing it on other people/cultures.

[eohiken]

. I'm fine with prostitution being perfectly legal, as long as the buying of sex is not. But I absolutely do not buy into the idea that sex work is empowerful in the least.

So...if prostitution is legal...but the buying of sex is not...then what exactly is the prostitute doing?

And I'm betting that sex work might not be empowering to YOU (nor to me) but that doesn't mean that it isn't to someone else, male or female. If someone says it empowers them, I'm willing to believe them.

Prostitution in NV would work a lot better if it were legalized in all counties (It isn't legal in Clark, where Vegas is nor Washoe where Reno is) and the illegal prostitutes were prosecuted for operating without a business license. I also have probelms with the brothel system, which perpetuates the man with money making the real cheddar. (And no male pros for those interested in that, no couples with a prostitute, etc.) There should be some kind of independent owner/operator system. This current system is another example of slut shaming. (Which is also why I think there isn't much demand as far as we know for women seeking men or women sex workers. Bad enough to have more than one partner but to PAY FOR IT? )

The crime in prostitution is the rape, so that's the crime which should be prosecuted. Sex work, and all it's current human right's attrocities, exists because of demand. The supply responds to the demand, not the other way around. To reduce the supply, curtail the demand.

Before everyone gets up in arms about calling prostitution pay-for-rape, this doesn't necessarily remove all agency from sex workers. It's more than possible to agree to be raped for money and do it as a conscious choice. Professional fighters are physically assaulted for money, and this is considered acceptable and not victimization.

[valsa]

However, I don't think it's reasonable to say that deelaem isn't a feminist. I mean, clearly she is. From what I've seen here, I don't think she is a misandrist either. A lot of radical feminists tend to fall down this rabbit hole of the idea that all sex work must be made illegal/all women who engage in sex work are collaborators etc. I have a real problem with those who would deny the agency of women who don't agree with them.

It's not so much the sex worker thing that makes me believe she's a misandrist as her whole body of posting, including posts that imply or outright state that we shouldn't care about men and boys who are raped or abused (particularly when she actually gets mad if someone brings up that it isn't only women who can be victims)

It is probably a little too much to say she's not a feminist (you can be both a feminist and a misandrist at the same time)

It's more than possible to agree to be raped for money and do it as a conscious choice. Professional fighters are physically assaulted for money, and this is considered acceptable and not victimization.

Wow, the problem with your hypothesis here is that the definition for assault does not include lack of consent, whereas the definition of rape does. You cannot consent to an action that, by definition, needs to not be consented to.

[eohiken]

(Economic) coercion irrodes consent.

[valsa]

So if I sign up to work for a company, the fact I need the paycheck means I've actually been taken advantage of and am not able to consent to work there?

[nimerha]

Just because you disagree with someone, it doesn't make their posts ignorant and offensive. What others are you talking about and what have they pointed out?

And isn't that exactly the point I was trying to make?

Austin, I am way, way late replying to this and am sorry for derailing the thread somewhat, but I just wanted to clarify: I was referring to "fuck toilets" and the automatic assumption that sex workers are only ever women and their services only ever used by straight men, ergo sexual work equates abuse of women, by men. Constance Vigilance and CanadianHippie pointed that out on the first page.

Going to read the rest of the thread now.

[eohiken]

It can. Look at human rights violations in Asian factories. Just because they are being tokenly paid, doesn't mean they consent to the treatment they receive.

[valsa]

It can. Look at human rights violations in Asian factories. Just because they are being tokenly paid, doesn't mean they consent to the treatment they receive.

Two separate issues.

Those people did consent to the job, just not the working conditions. For instance, a prostitute can consent to sex (the job itself) but if the guy starts hitting her in the middle of it (the bad working conditions), that's the only part she did not consent to.

[eohiken]

I don't see the difference. Factory workers are not generally outright abused, they work long hours in poor conditions, often doing dangerous things - that's the job they sign up for.

[Constance Vigilance]

It's not so much the sex worker thing that makes me believe she's a misandrist as her whole body of posting, including posts that imply or outright state that we shouldn't care about men and boys who are raped or abused (particularly when she actually gets mad if someone brings up that it isn't only women who can be victims)

It is probably a little too much to say she's not a feminist (you can be both a feminist and a misandrist at the same time)

I haven't seen those posts. :shock: In fairness, it is a pretty standard derailing tactic when the abuse of women is being discussed to say "but men get abused too!!!" as a way of stopping discussion about women. But I haven't seen anyone take that to the point where they are saying we shouldn't care about men or boys who are abused. So I'll have to rescind my statement on that front, because I didn't see the posts so I don't know.

[Constance Vigilance]

I don't see the difference. Factory workers are not generally outright abused, they work long hours in poor conditions, often doing dangerous things - that's the job they sign up for.

So we fight for regulation, fair pay, prevention of abuse, safe conditions. You know, the things we should be fighting for for sex workers.

ETA: And yes, we fight for an overhaul of the system and equality of opportunity. Is there any reason we can't do the two simultaneously?

[valsa]

I haven't seen those posts. :shock: In fairness, it is a pretty standard derailing tactic when the abuse of women is being discussed to say "but men get abused too!!!" as a way of stopping discussion about women. But I haven't seen anyone take that to the point where they are saying we shouldn't care about men or boys who are abused. So I'll have to rescind my statement on that front, because I didn't see the posts so I don't know.

I can't find all of them but here are two-

On a thread talking about a city decriminalizing domestic violence, she had this to say when someone mentioned that both male and female victims of DV would suffer:

Oh Jesus Christ on a cracker, you went there, didn't you? What about the poor menz?! :roll: The rate at which men are victims of DV compared to women is negligible. And men have about a zillion more options for getting out then women do. I have zero sympathy.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3702&hilit=male+abuse

And this was on a thread about the FBI changing crime reporting definitions to count male victims of rape for the first time:

Yeah, adding men to the definition was the most important thing to add to rape laws. After all, women are treated completely fairly now when they make a rape report.

/big, fat, hairy sarcasm :roll:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6589&p=166774&hilit=rape#p166774

[eohiken]

As mentioned up thread, even in places where prostitution is legal and regulated, it's far from a safe, respectable occupation.

Like I said, hypothetically speaking, I have no ethical problem with the act of trading sex for cash. Our current culture is just too poisoned for it to be made safe at this time.

[valsa]

I don't see the difference. Factory workers are not generally outright abused, they work long hours in poor conditions, often doing dangerous things - that's the job they sign up for.

Constance Vigilance already said it.

If the working conditions suck, we can work to improve them. But just because the work sucks doesn't mean the workers didn't consent to do the job.

[eohiken]

and I said I don't think it's possible to improve working conditions for sex worker until demand is reduced to the point where only those who choose the job do the job.

[valsa]

and I said I don't think it's possible to improve working conditions for sex worker until demand is reduced to the point where only those who choose the job do the job.

So since that's never going to happen, does that mean we should just say "screw this" and not try to improve working conditions? (also, I don't think what you mean by it not being possible- it's absolutely possible to improve working conditions of prostitutes by extending rights and protections. It's not going to be perfect but it can be easily improved from where it is now)

[2xx1xy1JD]

Not necessarily just het relationships, QUILTBAG community live within our heteronormative culture and can feel the same/similar relationship pressures.

A request is just a request? Really? This culture is saturated with gender performance and appearance expectations. In this cullture, the description of certain sexual acts are used as insults, and yet the request to perform them is not loaded question?

Sure, pressure to comply to sexual requests can be economic or physical, but it's not always that simple. Pressure to keep a partner(boyfriend especially), to not appear frigid, to conform to peer group, often, it's many subtle pressures at once, not one big one.

It's rather hypocritical to not apply feminism to one's own life before pushing it on other people/cultures.

What exactly is meant by "this culture"?

WHICH culture?

If this is a critique of a specific culture, then are we saying that the phenomenon is culture-specific? Does it not exist in other cultures?

Also, is it not hypocritical to advocate strongly for women in one culture (eg. saying that the mere suggestion by a partner to try certain activities is oppressive) while failing to respond or even silencing other women who dare to criticize misogyny in THEIR cultures?

[nimerha]

A request is just a request? Really? This culture is saturated with gender performance and appearance expectations. In this cullture, the description of certain sexual acts are used as insults, and yet the request to perform them is not loaded question?

Sure, pressure to comply to sexual requests can be economic or physical, but it's not always that simple. Pressure to keep a partner(boyfriend especially), to not appear frigid, to conform to peer group, often, it's many subtle pressures at once, not one big one.

It's rather hypocritical to not apply feminism to one's own life before pushing it on other people/cultures.

I disagree here on a very fundamental level. Yes, sometimes a request is just a request, and a sex act is just a sex act. It is the coercion and pressure that is wrong, not the sex acts or behaviours themselves. You're not doing anyone any favours if you demonize the latter - all you'll get is offended cries of people who genuinely enjoy [the act] and participate in it in a healthy, non-coercive, fully consenting manner, as well as help the abusers who can now point to the first group and rightfully say your argument is invalid.

There are no intrinsically feminist pro-woman (sexual) acts, or misogynist anti-woman acts. Woman-on-top PIV intercourse can be non-consensual just as much as a heavy BDSM scene, that is, not at all, or it can be full out rape. Furthermore, what you are saying is that the act of requesting or communicating a sexual want is, in itself, coercive and abusive. To be honest that attitude makes me equal parts sad and angry, because do we really need to stigmatize an open conversation about sexual wants and needs anymore than it is? In my opinion people should talk about sex more, not less, more openly, more honestly, more respectfully, and more open-mindedly. Why wouldn't we concentrate on how to request sexual acts in a way that is not coercive, loaded, creepy or abusive instead of limiting what can be asked for?

I like to think I am consciously working on applying a culture of consent and feminism to my life, sexual and otherwise. It has very little to do with the kind of sex we engage in with my partner, though, and all with the nature of our communication, our attitude to said sex, and our respect for each other.

Really, do whatever you like in bed, get your rocks off five ways til Tuesday, but don't pretend it futhers the cause of gender equality.

Uh, I didn't know that I was supposed to further the case of equality when I have sex! You mean, other people do? When they engage in their egalitarian, clean, feminist sex acts? Or do I get a pass because I am a lesbian and when I ask my partner to go down on me, I am making her submit to a woman instead of the patriarchy? Please advise.

Mostly, the idea is to personally examine the rationalization and motivation of sexual relationships.

Yes! Exactly. Examine your motivation. Examine the power dynamics in a relationship. Use what you find to make it healthy, equal, dignified, respectful and above all consensual, and if you do that, if you strive with all your might towards that... then what the fuck does it matter what particulars get you and your partner off?

Fundies tell me that what I engage in, in the bedroom, is sinful and wrong (but some of them say, hey, go ahead, it's your soul you're condemning). You are telling me (in my understanding), that what I engage in, in the bedroom, is wrong, anti-woman, and to a degree immoral (but hey, go ahead, get your rocks off). I am not that finding much of a difference.

[eohiken]

I'm not saying, "screw it," I'm saying we're working on it from the wrong angle. Treating the symptoms and not the disease. Focusing on the legitimacy of prostitution as an occupation while being flippant about the abuse inherent in the system (saying regulation will solve it all - it doesn't) isn't doing the job. The main issue is how men view women, and by extention, the state of being a whore (in particular, although non-het sex work shares a lot of same issues).

There have been many studies on the motivations of paying for sex, Dr Martin Monto has done a number, and by in large, it's not about the sex itself. Most men who hire women for sex are in relationships and/or have NO problems fulfilling their sexual needs without paying for it. The interpretation is, men are motivated to buy sex for the power of the transaction. With domination and oppression being the cause and sex being the means, we're pretty shit out of luck until men cease being entitled to using women's bodies to stroke their egos.