9 ms·

Not all consent is created equal. Momentary consent does not justify a lifetime of oppression and discrimination. Prostitution is an act of violence against all

Not all consent is created equal. Momentary consent does not justify a lifetime of oppression and discrimination. Prostitution is an act of violence against all women and should be prosecuted as such. http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitute-is-legal-but-paying-one-isnt#.gr4lYdGAm http://www.buzzfeed.com/jinamoore/in-sweden-being-a-prostitu...

dethstar 12y ago
Could you expand on the "not all consent is created equal" part? Is it related to other things such as sexual slavery?
- x0x0 12y ago
  If a starving or addicted person does X for $Y, is that true consent? While you're not literally raping the person, it's closer to rape than consent imo.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    If we go down this logical path, I'd say society already has lower-than-minimum-wage and/or dangerous jobs being done by people who have no feasible alternative... so we've kinda already accepted that this situation will occur for some people. Not saying this is okay, just saying that legalized prostitution as a profession would just be another dangerous job in a long list of other extremely hazardous jobs people probably shouldn't do, but end up doing anyway.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Continuing down that logical path, it's impossible to have a truly consensual business transaction of any sort because the involvement of currency makes it coercive.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - smtddr 12y ago
        I think the implied part of this discussion is "captive". The person must at least feel that there is no other choice. We see that in prostitution, in illegal immigrants working in horrible conditions, Dubai laborers[1], etc. In contrast, a Software Developer in the Bay area can hardly claim such conditions. 1. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/migrant-domestic-workers-uae-beaten-abused http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/mi...
        Kalium 12y ago
        I think the implied part of this discussion is that there are transactions taking place with a power imbalance between the parties. If that is not acceptable, most of capitalism will promptly fall apart.
      - dredmorbius 12y ago
        While I tend to agree that many (though not necessarily all) transactions exhibit a power imbalance, I disagree strongly that it's currency (or money, or other forms of exchange) which make it so. Though if you'd care to expand, I'd be interested in your argument.
        Kalium 12y ago
        You're right, it's not currency that creates the power imbalance.
  - meric 12y ago
    You suggest they aren't capable of making rational decisions as an adult in their own interests, and consequently implicitly comparing them to mentally-ill people who are wards of the state.
    - x0x0 12y ago
      That is literally true of addicts, so yes. Just like we don't let impaired people enter into binding contracts.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - tsotha 12y ago
    That implies every financial transaction is rape.
    - m_eiman 12y ago
      Not every financial transaction is of the kind "sell this or starve" (including a lot of the sex sold, I'm sure).
      - tsotha 12y ago
        Then it's not an argument against prostitution so much as an argument against selling things to poor people.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        Or perhaps against buying things (or work) from poor people?
        tsotha 12y ago
        True. I'm sold. We need a law against having financial dealings with poor people. Think of the children.
        detcader 12y ago
        No, a man using a woman for sex when she can not give consent is already called "rape" and is illegal, because we as a civilization understand that this causes significant trauma for individuals -- that is, it's categorized as "violence". Buying services and goods, on the other hand, is not violent, like rape is, although we could see the fact of poor people (or all people, really) having to sell portions of their lives to strangers to survive as unfortunate and alienating. This is, I think, where Marxism comes from.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        I think you misunderstood, because you missed the sarcastic tone that I perceived in the previous parent comment. I agree with what you wrote, of course. I may not like the existence of prostitution, but in order to have others respect my strange preferences, I'll have to respect the strange preferences of others, as long as it's consenting adults doing things.
  - iopq 12y ago
    If a starving person works for Walmart for $10 an hour, is that slavery?
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      Possibly. If their personal situation is sufficiently bleak, and there are mechanisms that are arbitrary and unfair helping to keep them in that situation. However, it's almost universally true that any given person has far more choice than they are aware of.
      - iopq 12y ago
        Sure, then working and prostitution is the same thing. You give your time and services so that you receive payment. Both could be coerced in a bad way like slavery, or being forced into prostitution. Then the argument is if a person is not forced into prostitution but chooses it as their livelihood, shouldn't it be acceptable?
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I'm completely sympathetic to that view, but if the person has the choice of prostituting her/himself or starve, and you ban the first option, what so you think will happen? If you want to prevent these situation you're describing, you need to give people a third option, that enables them to avoid the first two. Criminalizing prostitution will just harm those you want to help. EDIT: from your other post, it seems we're in agreement.
- cmsmith 12y ago
  For an extreme example, it's generally considered a bad idea to let people get paid for 'donating' organs. In addition to the practical problem (paid donors are more likely to lie about the condition of the donation), there is an ethical problem - the rich can buy health at the expense of the poor. The actual cost to the donor is related to the chance they might need that lung or kidney in 30 years, and is nearly impossible to quantify or for the donor to give informed consent. Of course, we do let 18 year olds pose naked for magazines without considering the cost of not being able to run for political office in 30 years. In that case the long term cost is lower and easier to anticipate. Prostitution is somewhere between those examples. It attracts those without other options, who might not be able to rationally weigh the risks of future medical or psychological harm against a current financial gain.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Do you support the legalization of abortion? I think the exact same argument would apply, do you disagree?
x0x0 12y ago
You can find the people forced into prostitution sympathetic and deserving of support to find a different occupation, yet simultaneously support legalization as a harm reduction measure. Prostitution, much like drugs that get you high, isn't going away. As Bill Hicks said, we had a war on drugs, and the people on drugs won. The minimal net harm position appears to be legalization, std testing, and severe penalties for abusing or coercing prostitutes.
- detcader 12y ago
  There is a thing called the Nordic Model, which is a third option.
  - makomk 12y ago
    The Swedish/Nordic Model just means that women in the industry aren't directly criminalised for having sex for money (so long as they have the legal right to work in the country). It still makes it illegal for women to take safety measures like hiring a bouncer or driver to protect them from violent clients, or working together with another woman for the same reason. It also makes it a criminal offence to knowingly rent a flat to a prostitute. It's almost exactly the opposite of harm reduction - it makes it legal to sell sex, but only in ways that are high risk. Hell, I've seen activists in the UK who see this as a positive, because the added danger will encourage women to leave the industry.
    - detcader 12y ago
      You leave out the Nordic model's compontent of social programs that give women all the means to exit the industry. Why would one leave this out...?
tsotha 12y ago
"...an act of violence against all women"? What a load of hyperbolic crap. How does the act of two people making a mutually beneficial transaction amount to "violence" against anyone? Of course other women don't like it, but that has nothing to do with "trafficking" or "violence". They don't like it because it reduces the amount of power they have over men. EDIT: Incidentally, there's no reason to hold up Sweden's infantilization of women as an example for anyone else. There's no reason to believe women aren't capable of making their own decisions, but if that's the case they shouldn't be participating in public life.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  There are lots of women who are coerced into prostitution, either directly or structurally. But I agree that the existence and frequency of problems is not inherent, ie that it doesn't preclude some women from taking up such work as a free choice. Of course other women don't like it, but that has nothing to do with "trafficking" or "violence". They don't like it because it reduces the amount of power they have over men. That's a bunch of hyperbolic crap too, though.
  - tsotha 12y ago
    >There are lots of women who are coerced into prostitution, either directly or structurally. "[s]tructurally"? What does that mean? I agree forcing a woman into prostitution should be against the law, but if she see's it as the best of her options then that's her decision. >That's a bunch of hyperbolic crap too, though. No, not really. Almost all sex is transactional at some level. Women who don't sell it for cash don't want to compete with professionals in the same way manufacturers try to keep out low-priced imports.
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      By structurally, I mean due to economic or social structures that leave some people with little alternative to this type of informal economic transaction (the downsides of informality being a lack of access to legal and financial resources that support workers in other sectors, albeit imperfectly or in untimely fashion). If it's the best option because of some lack of educational opportunities or social policy that puts people at a disadvantage (eg by creating a ghetto) then that's a problem. No, not really. Almost all sex is transactional at some level. Women who don't sell it for cash don't want to compete with professionals in the same way manufacturers try to keep out low-priced imports. I disagree, and think your view is overly reductionist and overly simplistic. Sex work involves a much more diverse set of situations than your stereotypical and rather cynical appraisal of gender-economic relations. It's not that the popular social structures like monogamy don't have any economic dimension, but the assumption that this is the only thing that motivates anyone is as much a denial of agency as the notion that all prostitutes are helpless victims of evil patriarchy.
EdwardDiego 12y ago
Stop treating women like children. Did you know that they can make their own decisions just like men? FYI, there are male prostitutes also. And prostitutes with a variety of other gender identities also.
- detcader 12y ago
  Stop treating religious people like children. Did you know that they can choose their own religion just like atheists? It's not like they were raised from infancy on their ideologies and beliefs, and subject to social pressure if they thought or spoke out of line. Your second line is non-sensical. There are white people in Ferguson, so we should ignore the federal report that finds the police department running debtor's prisons for county revenue. Right? "Women" refers to the group of biologically female [1] human beings, which is about half the world's population. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientation-gender/female-male-intersex http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientat...
  - EdwardDiego 12y ago
    None of that has any relevance to my comment? My sole point in the second paragraph was that prostitution is not solely a woman's domain. So is prostitution violence against all genders? If so, why specify women? If not, why not?
    - detcader 12y ago
      The existence of people in the sex industry (yes, it's in fact an industry) who are not women doesn't disqualify the relevance of women's social position in the world to the industries (they are industries, sorry) of prostitution and mainstream pornography, which are primarily oriented toward straight male customers. I don't know what to tell you if you can't parse the first paragraph of my comment.
      - stcredzero 12y ago
        Weirdly, while certain feminist positions started with insisting that women and men be treated the same, other positions by self-styled "feminists" are simply the insistence that women must be treated differently. ("False equivalence") Being part of a sexually dimorphic sentient species with strong instincts for the social "outgrouping" of different "others" is an awesomely weird experience. At other times, it really, genuinely sucks. The basic problem with humans, is that we are wired up so we can't always recognize everyone else as fully "human." When it comes to this, it definitely "takes two hands to clap." Were it to be truly otherwise, many of the problems of the human condition would be solved. (Consider the above a reference to you and the gp commenter.)
detcader 12y ago
The question that always gets me: You have stories of women being threatened with injury or death to perform or to service johns. How do you know that the women in the porn you watch or the prostitutes or strippers you use are _not_ being coerced? How can you be certain? Thanks for making the important point. I'm glad you're downvoted into invisibility, it only exemplifies the nature of the sex-positivity movement -- to silence any criticism. There is no hope for honest debate because the ideology is intellectually dishonest from the start, it's a means to an end. The work of Gail Dines is probably a better source than BuzzFeed though.
- yungchin 12y ago
  I've never thought about this topic before, and from your comments it shows you have given it careful thought, so probably this is going to have some fundamental flaws, but I was just thinking: We do seem to have found solutions, however imperfect, in other domains where workers were always vulnerable. How do you know your new tech gadget wasn't produced with child labour, or in some horrible sweatshop? There's a long list of things, probably including at least labour unions, investigative journalism, and a lot of legislation. But for all those things to work, it has to all be a somewhat legal enterprise to begin with. You probably can't build a brand for a brothel-chain that's widely recognised to treat their workers well, if that's an illegal activity. What strikes me as patronising about the nordic model, that you mention up in the thread, is this: if I'm legalising your job, but still go after your customers, that means I'm still not taking your job seriously, or?
  - detcader 12y ago
    I'm glad to see a comment on this issue raising honest points, which is uncommon to see. In 2015, using a lot of tech is far less optional than using pornography and sex workers, which is optional (as in, optional = bool(True)) in every case. For the both the necessary and optional physical products, there should be more involvement in campaigns for favorable trade legislation and worker conditions, and I think we're all guilty of lack of participation in this, which is only made easier by the entrenched influence of the companies involved. From reading a lot of different people, I don't think the feminist advocates for the Nordic model "don't take sex work seriously". I think they identify porn and prostitution as socially harmful to women as a class and physically and psychologically damaging to individaul women in a too-large amount of cases, and would rather see women exit en masse through programs that help them find support and work elsewhere, than anything else -- toward the eventual abolition of prostituion. (I think the opinion is split on whether prostitution is inherently harmful -- that is, in a post-gender world where there is no trance of social definition of women as stores of resources to be extracted for pleasure and service, would prostitution still be socially harmful? -- but I don't think it matters for the questions at hand.) Here are some links to introduce a camp of thought that is never given a chance in the mainstream: http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/qotd-the-prostitute-is-not-a-human-being-but-a-symbol-of-sexual-transgression-with-which-one-can-adorn-oneself-like-an-earring/ http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/qotd-the-p... http://sarahditum.com/2014/02/24/who-do-you-listen-to/ http://sarahditum.com/2014/02/24/who-do-you-listen-to/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxBJf9UtWg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxBJf9UtWg https://firewomon.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/is-choice-really-a-choice-if-you-have-no-choice/ https://firewomon.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/is-choice-really-... http://www.thepinkcross.org/pinkcross-articles/october-2011/ex-porn-star-corina-taylor-story http://www.thepinkcross.org/pinkcross-articles/october-2011/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvC_sEURXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvC_sEURXA http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014/01/08/violence-teenagers-and-gonzo-porn/ http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014/01/08/violence-teenager... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/pornography-world-anti-porn-feminist-censorship-misogyny http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/pornogr... http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornographyisaleftissue.htm http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornographyisale... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/05/conversation-gail-dines-anna-arrowsmith http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/05/convers... If any of these links are broken, I suggest trying the WayBack Machine.
tallanvor 12y ago
Can you explain how a man buying sex from a male prostitute is an act of violence against all women? Or a women paying either a man or a women for sex? Forcing or coercing someone to have sex, whether for money or not, is wrong, and I doubt you'll find anyone on here who disagrees with that. But there are, in fact, people who actually freely choose to have sex for money, and even enjoy it, and enjoy the relationship they have with their clients. Should these people really be treated as criminals and prevented from doing the job they like and can earn a living by doing? I think there are pros and cons to legal prostitution, and if you're against it, then come up with real reasons to argue against it. Don't try to shut down the debate with a clearly false statement that prostitution is an act of violence against an entire gender.
- detcader 12y ago
  craigsmitham meant straight male johns using the prostitution industry. You know this, and yet act like you don't. This is called "intellectual dishonesty". craigsmitham seems to endorse the Nordic model, where prostitutes are not in fact "treated as criminals". It's useful to read the material that people link, even if you disagree with them.

dethstar 12y ago

Could you expand on the "not all consent is created equal" part? Is it related to other things such as sexual slavery?

x0x0 12y ago
If a starving or addicted person does X for $Y, is that true consent? While you're not literally raping the person, it's closer to rape than consent imo.
- smtddr 12y ago
  If we go down this logical path, I'd say society already has lower-than-minimum-wage and/or dangerous jobs being done by people who have no feasible alternative... so we've kinda already accepted that this situation will occur for some people. Not saying this is okay, just saying that legalized prostitution as a profession would just be another dangerous job in a long list of other extremely hazardous jobs people probably shouldn't do, but end up doing anyway.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Continuing down that logical path, it's impossible to have a truly consensual business transaction of any sort because the involvement of currency makes it coercive.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - smtddr 12y ago
      I think the implied part of this discussion is "captive". The person must at least feel that there is no other choice. We see that in prostitution, in illegal immigrants working in horrible conditions, Dubai laborers[1], etc. In contrast, a Software Developer in the Bay area can hardly claim such conditions. 1. http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/migrant-domestic-workers-uae-beaten-abused http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/oct/23/mi...
      - Kalium 12y ago
        I think the implied part of this discussion is that there are transactions taking place with a power imbalance between the parties. If that is not acceptable, most of capitalism will promptly fall apart.
    - dredmorbius 12y ago
      While I tend to agree that many (though not necessarily all) transactions exhibit a power imbalance, I disagree strongly that it's currency (or money, or other forms of exchange) which make it so. Though if you'd care to expand, I'd be interested in your argument.
      - Kalium 12y ago
        You're right, it's not currency that creates the power imbalance.
- meric 12y ago
  You suggest they aren't capable of making rational decisions as an adult in their own interests, and consequently implicitly comparing them to mentally-ill people who are wards of the state.
  - x0x0 12y ago
    That is literally true of addicts, so yes. Just like we don't let impaired people enter into binding contracts.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- tsotha 12y ago
  That implies every financial transaction is rape.
  - m_eiman 12y ago
    Not every financial transaction is of the kind "sell this or starve" (including a lot of the sex sold, I'm sure).
    - tsotha 12y ago
      Then it's not an argument against prostitution so much as an argument against selling things to poor people.
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        Or perhaps against buying things (or work) from poor people?
        tsotha 12y ago
        True. I'm sold. We need a law against having financial dealings with poor people. Think of the children.
        detcader 12y ago
        No, a man using a woman for sex when she can not give consent is already called "rape" and is illegal, because we as a civilization understand that this causes significant trauma for individuals -- that is, it's categorized as "violence". Buying services and goods, on the other hand, is not violent, like rape is, although we could see the fact of poor people (or all people, really) having to sell portions of their lives to strangers to survive as unfortunate and alienating. This is, I think, where Marxism comes from.
        ptaipale 12y ago
        I think you misunderstood, because you missed the sarcastic tone that I perceived in the previous parent comment. I agree with what you wrote, of course. I may not like the existence of prostitution, but in order to have others respect my strange preferences, I'll have to respect the strange preferences of others, as long as it's consenting adults doing things.
- iopq 12y ago
  If a starving person works for Walmart for $10 an hour, is that slavery?
  - stcredzero 12y ago
    Possibly. If their personal situation is sufficiently bleak, and there are mechanisms that are arbitrary and unfair helping to keep them in that situation. However, it's almost universally true that any given person has far more choice than they are aware of.
    - iopq 12y ago
      Sure, then working and prostitution is the same thing. You give your time and services so that you receive payment. Both could be coerced in a bad way like slavery, or being forced into prostitution. Then the argument is if a person is not forced into prostitution but chooses it as their livelihood, shouldn't it be acceptable?
- icebraining 12y ago
  I'm completely sympathetic to that view, but if the person has the choice of prostituting her/himself or starve, and you ban the first option, what so you think will happen? If you want to prevent these situation you're describing, you need to give people a third option, that enables them to avoid the first two. Criminalizing prostitution will just harm those you want to help. EDIT: from your other post, it seems we're in agreement.
cmsmith 12y ago
For an extreme example, it's generally considered a bad idea to let people get paid for 'donating' organs. In addition to the practical problem (paid donors are more likely to lie about the condition of the donation), there is an ethical problem - the rich can buy health at the expense of the poor. The actual cost to the donor is related to the chance they might need that lung or kidney in 30 years, and is nearly impossible to quantify or for the donor to give informed consent. Of course, we do let 18 year olds pose naked for magazines without considering the cost of not being able to run for political office in 30 years. In that case the long term cost is lower and easier to anticipate. Prostitution is somewhere between those examples. It attracts those without other options, who might not be able to rationally weigh the risks of future medical or psychological harm against a current financial gain.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Do you support the legalization of abortion? I think the exact same argument would apply, do you disagree?

x0x0 12y ago

You can find the people forced into prostitution sympathetic and deserving of support to find a different occupation, yet simultaneously support legalization as a harm reduction measure. Prostitution, much like drugs that get you high, isn't going away. As Bill Hicks said, we had a war on drugs, and the people on drugs won. The minimal net harm position appears to be legalization, std testing, and severe penalties for abusing or coercing prostitutes.

detcader 12y ago
There is a thing called the Nordic Model, which is a third option.
- makomk 12y ago
  The Swedish/Nordic Model just means that women in the industry aren't directly criminalised for having sex for money (so long as they have the legal right to work in the country). It still makes it illegal for women to take safety measures like hiring a bouncer or driver to protect them from violent clients, or working together with another woman for the same reason. It also makes it a criminal offence to knowingly rent a flat to a prostitute. It's almost exactly the opposite of harm reduction - it makes it legal to sell sex, but only in ways that are high risk. Hell, I've seen activists in the UK who see this as a positive, because the added danger will encourage women to leave the industry.
  - detcader 12y ago
    You leave out the Nordic model's compontent of social programs that give women all the means to exit the industry. Why would one leave this out...?

tsotha 12y ago

"...an act of violence against all women"? What a load of hyperbolic crap. How does the act of two people making a mutually beneficial transaction amount to "violence" against anyone? Of course other women don't like it, but that has nothing to do with "trafficking" or "violence". They don't like it because it reduces the amount of power they have over men. EDIT: Incidentally, there's no reason to hold up Sweden's infantilization of women as an example for anyone else. There's no reason to believe women aren't capable of making their own decisions, but if that's the case they shouldn't be participating in public life.

anigbrowl 12y ago
There are lots of women who are coerced into prostitution, either directly or structurally. But I agree that the existence and frequency of problems is not inherent, ie that it doesn't preclude some women from taking up such work as a free choice. Of course other women don't like it, but that has nothing to do with "trafficking" or "violence". They don't like it because it reduces the amount of power they have over men. That's a bunch of hyperbolic crap too, though.
- tsotha 12y ago
  >There are lots of women who are coerced into prostitution, either directly or structurally. "[s]tructurally"? What does that mean? I agree forcing a woman into prostitution should be against the law, but if she see's it as the best of her options then that's her decision. >That's a bunch of hyperbolic crap too, though. No, not really. Almost all sex is transactional at some level. Women who don't sell it for cash don't want to compete with professionals in the same way manufacturers try to keep out low-priced imports.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    By structurally, I mean due to economic or social structures that leave some people with little alternative to this type of informal economic transaction (the downsides of informality being a lack of access to legal and financial resources that support workers in other sectors, albeit imperfectly or in untimely fashion). If it's the best option because of some lack of educational opportunities or social policy that puts people at a disadvantage (eg by creating a ghetto) then that's a problem. No, not really. Almost all sex is transactional at some level. Women who don't sell it for cash don't want to compete with professionals in the same way manufacturers try to keep out low-priced imports. I disagree, and think your view is overly reductionist and overly simplistic. Sex work involves a much more diverse set of situations than your stereotypical and rather cynical appraisal of gender-economic relations. It's not that the popular social structures like monogamy don't have any economic dimension, but the assumption that this is the only thing that motivates anyone is as much a denial of agency as the notion that all prostitutes are helpless victims of evil patriarchy.

EdwardDiego 12y ago

Stop treating women like children. Did you know that they can make their own decisions just like men? FYI, there are male prostitutes also. And prostitutes with a variety of other gender identities also.

detcader 12y ago
Stop treating religious people like children. Did you know that they can choose their own religion just like atheists? It's not like they were raised from infancy on their ideologies and beliefs, and subject to social pressure if they thought or spoke out of line. Your second line is non-sensical. There are white people in Ferguson, so we should ignore the federal report that finds the police department running debtor's prisons for county revenue. Right? "Women" refers to the group of biologically female [1] human beings, which is about half the world's population. [1] http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientation-gender/female-male-intersex http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-info/sexual-orientat...
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  None of that has any relevance to my comment? My sole point in the second paragraph was that prostitution is not solely a woman's domain. So is prostitution violence against all genders? If so, why specify women? If not, why not?
  - detcader 12y ago
    The existence of people in the sex industry (yes, it's in fact an industry) who are not women doesn't disqualify the relevance of women's social position in the world to the industries (they are industries, sorry) of prostitution and mainstream pornography, which are primarily oriented toward straight male customers. I don't know what to tell you if you can't parse the first paragraph of my comment.
    - stcredzero 12y ago
      Weirdly, while certain feminist positions started with insisting that women and men be treated the same, other positions by self-styled "feminists" are simply the insistence that women must be treated differently. ("False equivalence") Being part of a sexually dimorphic sentient species with strong instincts for the social "outgrouping" of different "others" is an awesomely weird experience. At other times, it really, genuinely sucks. The basic problem with humans, is that we are wired up so we can't always recognize everyone else as fully "human." When it comes to this, it definitely "takes two hands to clap." Were it to be truly otherwise, many of the problems of the human condition would be solved. (Consider the above a reference to you and the gp commenter.)

detcader 12y ago

The question that always gets me: You have stories of women being threatened with injury or death to perform or to service johns. How do you know that the women in the porn you watch or the prostitutes or strippers you use are _not_ being coerced? How can you be certain? Thanks for making the important point. I'm glad you're downvoted into invisibility, it only exemplifies the nature of the sex-positivity movement -- to silence any criticism. There is no hope for honest debate because the ideology is intellectually dishonest from the start, it's a means to an end. The work of Gail Dines is probably a better source than BuzzFeed though.

yungchin 12y ago
I've never thought about this topic before, and from your comments it shows you have given it careful thought, so probably this is going to have some fundamental flaws, but I was just thinking: We do seem to have found solutions, however imperfect, in other domains where workers were always vulnerable. How do you know your new tech gadget wasn't produced with child labour, or in some horrible sweatshop? There's a long list of things, probably including at least labour unions, investigative journalism, and a lot of legislation. But for all those things to work, it has to all be a somewhat legal enterprise to begin with. You probably can't build a brand for a brothel-chain that's widely recognised to treat their workers well, if that's an illegal activity. What strikes me as patronising about the nordic model, that you mention up in the thread, is this: if I'm legalising your job, but still go after your customers, that means I'm still not taking your job seriously, or?
- detcader 12y ago
  I'm glad to see a comment on this issue raising honest points, which is uncommon to see. In 2015, using a lot of tech is far less optional than using pornography and sex workers, which is optional (as in, optional = bool(True)) in every case. For the both the necessary and optional physical products, there should be more involvement in campaigns for favorable trade legislation and worker conditions, and I think we're all guilty of lack of participation in this, which is only made easier by the entrenched influence of the companies involved. From reading a lot of different people, I don't think the feminist advocates for the Nordic model "don't take sex work seriously". I think they identify porn and prostitution as socially harmful to women as a class and physically and psychologically damaging to individaul women in a too-large amount of cases, and would rather see women exit en masse through programs that help them find support and work elsewhere, than anything else -- toward the eventual abolition of prostituion. (I think the opinion is split on whether prostitution is inherently harmful -- that is, in a post-gender world where there is no trance of social definition of women as stores of resources to be extracted for pleasure and service, would prostitution still be socially harmful? -- but I don't think it matters for the questions at hand.) Here are some links to introduce a camp of thought that is never given a chance in the mainstream: http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/qotd-the-prostitute-is-not-a-human-being-but-a-symbol-of-sexual-transgression-with-which-one-can-adorn-oneself-like-an-earring/ http://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/qotd-the-p... http://sarahditum.com/2014/02/24/who-do-you-listen-to/ http://sarahditum.com/2014/02/24/who-do-you-listen-to/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxBJf9UtWg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbxBJf9UtWg https://firewomon.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/is-choice-really-a-choice-if-you-have-no-choice/ https://firewomon.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/is-choice-really-... http://www.thepinkcross.org/pinkcross-articles/october-2011/ex-porn-star-corina-taylor-story http://www.thepinkcross.org/pinkcross-articles/october-2011/... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvC_sEURXA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HvC_sEURXA http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014/01/08/violence-teenagers-and-gonzo-porn/ http://www.bad-housekeeping.com/2014/01/08/violence-teenager... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/pornography-world-anti-porn-feminist-censorship-misogyny http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/24/pornogr... http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornographyisaleftissue.htm http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornographyisale... http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/05/conversation-gail-dines-anna-arrowsmith http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/05/convers... If any of these links are broken, I suggest trying the WayBack Machine.

tallanvor 12y ago

Can you explain how a man buying sex from a male prostitute is an act of violence against all women? Or a women paying either a man or a women for sex? Forcing or coercing someone to have sex, whether for money or not, is wrong, and I doubt you'll find anyone on here who disagrees with that. But there are, in fact, people who actually freely choose to have sex for money, and even enjoy it, and enjoy the relationship they have with their clients. Should these people really be treated as criminals and prevented from doing the job they like and can earn a living by doing? I think there are pros and cons to legal prostitution, and if you're against it, then come up with real reasons to argue against it. Don't try to shut down the debate with a clearly false statement that prostitution is an act of violence against an entire gender.

detcader 12y ago
craigsmitham meant straight male johns using the prostitution industry. You know this, and yet act like you don't. This is called "intellectual dishonesty". craigsmitham seems to endorse the Nordic model, where prostitutes are not in fact "treated as criminals". It's useful to read the material that people link, even if you disagree with them.