Female ejaculation banned [TW: Discussion of rape, violence against women]

[The Feral Underclass]

The government have today banned a series of sexual acts in porn, including female ejaculation. Lol.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html?cmpid=facebook-post

[RedWorker]

So this is in the UK. Wasn't that already banned?

"The British Board of Film Classification provides a list of permissible content for videos seeking classification as 'R18' category videos, available only to adults from licensed sex shops. This permissible content includes aroused genitalia, and ejaculation and semen. Ejaculation is not qualified by gender, hence it would seem reasonable to assume that this would permit female as well as male ejaculation. However, on May 2001, a video entitled British Cum Queens (initially submitted as Squirt Queens), was finally passed with a R18 certificate having been cut by six minutes and 12 seconds because the ejaculation of fluid by female performers as a sexual response was deemed to be urolagnia, banned in accordance with the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The Board reasoned that the film did not show female ejaculation because, according to the 'expert medical advice' received by the Board, female ejaculation does not exist."

They claimed that it was 'urine'.

[The Feral Underclass]

Apparently not.

Women are also no longer allowed to sit on anyone's faces.

[RedWorker]

Are men allowed?

[The Feral Underclass]

Are men allowed?

Actually it just says face sitting, so I guess that includes men too.

[human strike]

I think a lot of fun could be had protesting this. :)

[consuming negativity]

i would love to see the part where they give a legal definition of the difference between "aggressive whipping", which is banned, and "non-aggressive whipping", which is seemingly still okay

i also wonder what is going through the mind of the person who had to pose for the picture at the top with the heel of the boot on the stuffed computer mouse. who even thought of that? and why is it so far off-center?

[JahLemon]

this is ridiculous lol

[RedWorker]

Interesting tidbits from the article:

"More worryingly, the amendment seems to take issue with acts from which women more traditionally derive pleasure than men."

But really, is banning "Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)" detrimental to women's pleasure? Who is getting physically or verbally abused in most porn?

"The new legislation is absurd and surreal," Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme added to Vice UK. "I mean, why ban facesitting? What's so dangerous about it? It's a harmless activity that most femdom performers, myself included, do fully dressed anyway. Its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable."

"Feminist"? But the reason male domination, unlike female domination, is no porn genre, and in fact is blended in mainstream porn, is that 'male domination' is the default, and that the whole enjoyment that most people derive from the 'female domination' porn is probably from that they are being dominated by someone who belongs, according to sexist notions, to the "weaker" gender/sex. And this seemingly provides the cornerstone for the 'sexual humiliation' enjoyed by the people who watch such porn.

So I doubt that female domination porn can be 'feminist' in the way being said here.

[Creative Destruction]

why is urinating banned in porn in the UK?

[RedWorker]

why is urinating banned in porn in the UK?

I don't know, maybe because of the general principle that the state belongs in the bedroom, considering that these rules are arbitrarily made just like the age of consent you have been recently defending so much? Someone picks and chooses, and it's not very objective.

[Creative Destruction]

I don't know, maybe because of the general principle that the state belongs in the bedroom, considering that these rules are arbitrarily made just like the age of consent you have been recently defending so much? Someone picks and chooses, and it's not very objective.

i haven't defended age of consent, so maybe you want to shut the fuck up, you arrogant dickwad?

[human strike]

Interesting tidbits from the article:

"More worryingly, the amendment seems to take issue with acts from which women more traditionally derive pleasure than men."

But really, is banning "Physical or verbal abuse (regardless of if consensual)" detrimental to women's pleasure? Who is getting physically or verbally abused in most porn?

"The new legislation is absurd and surreal," Itziar Bilbao Urrutia, a dominatrix who produces porn with a feminist theme added to Vice UK. "I mean, why ban facesitting? What's so dangerous about it? It's a harmless activity that most femdom performers, myself included, do fully dressed anyway. Its power is symbolic: woman on top, unattainable."

"Feminist"? But the reason male domination, unlike female domination, is no porn genre, and in fact is blended in mainstream porn, is that 'male domination' is the default, and that the whole enjoyment that most people derive from the 'female domination' porn is probably from that they are being dominated by someone who belongs, according to sexist notions, to the "weaker" gender/sex. And this seemingly provides the cornerstone for the 'sexual humiliation' enjoyed by the people who watch such porn.

So I doubt that female domination porn can be 'feminist' in the way being said here.

I can't imagine that's the reason why their porn work is being described as 'feminist.' I expect there's more to it. Also, there are lots of reasons why a man might enjoy being dominated by a woman (there's lots of reasons why someone might want to be dominated by anyone, and if you're a heterosexual man you'll most likely want a female dom). I find there's never one reason why different people are into the same thing - there always seems to be some variation. Which isn't to say that you're not right in what you say about how that dynamic might appeal to some for the reason you described.

[BIXX]

I think trying to label this or that porn as feminist misses the point, but I will say that the bans are stupid as shit.

[Illegalitarian]

I thought female ejaculation was essentially urine.. everything I've read seems to suggest that there is no real scientific consensus on what this phenomenon is (I'm not really sure it could be called ejaculation, since the vast majority of the time female orgasm does not include this.. action)

That's beside the point though... so much wrong with this.


>Urine is not ok but shit is apparently fine

"No sexual penetration with any object that could be used for violence"... like a penis?

[The Feral Underclass]

"No sexual penetration with any object that could be used for violence"... like a penis?

This.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I don't know, maybe because of the general principle that the state belongs in the bedroom, considering that these rules are arbitrarily made just like the age of consent you have been recently defending so much? Someone picks and chooses, and it's not very objective.

it's my understanding that this law concerns pornography and not private sex acts.

of course all porn is exploitative and sexist, but banning the most explicitly violent kinds looks like a good start imo

[human strike]

it's my understanding that this law concerns pornography and not private sex acts.

of course all porn is exploitative and sexist, but banning the most explicitly violent kinds looks like a good start imo

Is porn that stars exclusively men sexist? (John Stoltenberg wrote an interesting piece on the objectification of men in gay porn)

"most explicitly violent kinds" - what makes it more violent?

[synthesis]

the whole enjoyment that most people derive from the 'female domination' porn is probably from that they are being dominated by someone who belongs, according to sexist notions, to the "weaker" gender/sex.

It's always nice to hear why people like something from someone who doesn't like the thing in question, especially when that thing is a consensual act that has been criminalized.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Brought to you by a government seemingly filled with child molesters

[RedWorker]

It's always nice to hear why people like something from someone who doesn't like the thing in question, especially when that thing is a consensual act that has been criminalized.

I'm not sure what you are meaning to imply here. I was merely theorizing from a feminist point of view. I am against the state regulating sex or pornography.

[synthesis]

I'm not sure what you are meaning to imply here. I was merely theorizing from a feminist point of view. I am against the state regulating sex or pornography.

I thought it was pretty clear what I was implying, that your analysis of female domination is crude and stupid.

[RedWorker]

I thought it was pretty clear what I was implying, that your analysis of female domination is crude and stupid.
Don't just make arbitrary claims, enlighten us. And I can hardly think of there being any alternative explanation for male domination being mainstream, blended in with regular porn, while female domination is its own independent category.


It's always nice to hear why people like something from someone who doesn't like the thing in question, especially when that thing is a consensual act that has been criminalized.

Tell me, who is there to theorize from a feminist point of view* about female domination porn? People who like female domination porn? Please. If the ones who watch female domination porn feel attacked by my post, then by all means don't. The only way the linguistic construction "consensual act that has been criminalized" can be relevant is if I supported its criminalization - which I do not, in any way.

* Note: I do not claim to have any monopoly on this. The range of feminist positions about female domination porn may be a completely broad spectrum.

[consuming negativity]

i'm a switch (enjoy the top and the bottom, depending) and IMHO the whole "female domination" bit as a term is sort of shitty insofar as it's really just domination porn but they put the "female" at the beginning to distinguish it i guess from "regular" domination porn where the guy is on top, which is actually sort of sexist but that's not what this conversation is about

but like it isn't the fact that it is a /woman/ who is daring to be on top :rolleyes: that somehow gets me off

it's just the fact that i'm a switch who is attracted to women. like she should be a woman because that's what i like but the fact that she is a woman in and of itself is not part of the fetish beyond the sexual attraction bit

if that makes sense

like the "female" part is not part of the fetish itself

at least not for me

/2¢

[Red Son]

..sorry, I've slipped into a reverse coma and woken in the 50s or something.

Legislatiing over consensual sexual acts, whether they're filmed for release or not, seems a little invasive...ironically

[TC]

If something is consensual on a superficial formal level, then regardless of the power dynamics involved, the social hierarchy of the participants, the relations of financial dependence, the asymmetries in bargaining power, or the outright degradation and dehumanization of one of the participants, we can't judge it. The fact that its consensual removes it from the scope of possible political inquiry, its just personal private stuff.

...

...

Oh wait, I don't think that. Because I'm not a rightwing libertarian, I'm a leftist.

[FSL]

If something is consensual on a superficial formal level, then regardless of the power dynamics involved, the social hierarchy of the participants, the relations of financial dependence, the asymmetries in bargaining power, or the outright degradation and dehumanization of one of the participants, we can't judge it. The fact that its consensual removes it from the scope of possible political inquiry, its just personal private stuff.

...

...

Oh wait, I don't think that. Because I'm not a rightwing libertarian, I'm a leftist.
So few people get this. Capitalism is consensual in most cases.
Lack of concent means a lot, existence of consent not always.

Of course the moral crusade from a right wing government does nothing to rectify "the power dynamics involved, the social hierarchy of the participants, the relations of financial dependence, the asymmetries in bargaining power, or the outright degradation and dehumanization of one of the participants" but thankfully you don't need to support either side.

[Comrade #138672]

Sexist bourgeois moralism.

[Zanthorus]

So this is in the UK. Wasn't that already banned?

Yes. The new law only means that video on demand services now have to comply with the same regulations as DVD's. The law won't have any real effect on porn consumption either, people who want to see the banned practices are still well within their rights, it just means that porn containing those acts can't be made in the UK.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

If something is consensual on a superficial formal level, then regardless of the power dynamics involved, the social hierarchy of the participants, the relations of financial dependence, the asymmetries in bargaining power, or the outright degradation and dehumanization of one of the participants, we can't judge it. The fact that its consensual removes it from the scope of possible political inquiry, its just personal private stuff.

...

...

Oh wait, I don't think that. Because I'm not a rightwing libertarian, I'm a leftist.


it's a sad day for revleft when old conservative men in parliament have a better sense of this than the whole of this community but im not surprised

[The Feral Underclass]

it's a sad day for revleft when old conservative men in parliament have a better sense of this than the whole of this community but im not surprised

You think the Tory party pushed through this legislation because they believed that pornography was exploitative and sexist?

[The Feral Underclass]

The sex industry is no more exploitative than any other industry, and the moralism in this thread is incredibly patronising to thousands of sex workers. Sex workers don't need you people to make moral pronouncements about their jobs, they require solidarity in their struggles to take control over their workplaces.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

liberalizing the sex industry will only accomplish the opposite, clearly

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

those politicians clearly dont agree that we should blindly accede to the sex industry and its abhorrent practices just because it's allegedly "consensual"

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

those politicians clearly dont agree that we should blindly accede to the sex industry and its abhorrent practices just because it's allegedly "consensual"

Hear, hear! Thank goodness we have the UK Tories around to protect common decency!

[Sasha]

liberalizing the sex industry will only accomplish the opposite, clearly

yeah, its clearly much better to be working illegally and under duress for a mobster then in a clean, safe environment as a self employed professional under a negotiated contract...

[The Feral Underclass]

liberalizing the sex industry will only accomplish the opposite, clearly

Why is the sex industry any more abhorrent (your word) than working down a mine, in a sales office or in a Starburcks? Why shouldn't sex workers be protected at work or have more control over their workplace?


those politicians clearly dont agree that we should blindly accede to the sex industry and its abhorrent practices just because it's allegedly "consensual"

The premise of your moralism is what, exactly? That work is exploitative and often sexist? I don't understand what is particularly remarkable about that position or why it would inform such a puritanical view of sex. Perhaps you could explain...

I mean, what is fundamentally problematic to you with someone wanting to sexually dominate someone else who wants to be sexually dominated? What is problematic with being whipped or pissed or if being whipped or pissed on is want someone wants to have done to them? Indeed what is problematic about someone wanting to do that as a job?

What is it this mysterious thing that exists within a consensual relationship that you and others think somehow confuses consent?

[synthesis]

i'm a switch (enjoy the top and the bottom, depending) and IMHO the whole "female domination" bit as a term is sort of shitty insofar as it's really just domination porn but they put the "female" at the beginning to distinguish it i guess from "regular" domination porn where the guy is on top, which is actually sort of sexist but that's not what this conversation is about

I think it's a pretty shitty term as well - I mean, why not just call it BDSM and ban that? (Probably because that wouldn't be specific enough to enforce. I kept it as "female domination" - I actually thought about that for awhile - because of the rhythm of the post.) Mainly I found it to be a really bizarre inclusion in the list - I mean, get rid of that and the female ejaculation and you might have a case that it's being done to protect sex workers.

And for all the talk about sex workers not being treated differently from any other workers - which I completely agree with - it seems that they're a step apart because of the fact that leftists will happily side with "old conservative Parliament members" on legislation that affects them without even a second thought for the actual material interests of the sex workers that are affected.

[Loony Le Fist]

It always amazes me to see how some of the biggest fucking prudes are leftists.

[Sasha]

Its mostly the tankies and cosplayers that are the worst chauvinists, then again, I guess USSR nostalgia by now fits the dictionary definition of a reactionary...

[Loony Le Fist]

The government have today banned a series of sexual acts in porn, including female ejaculation. Lol.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html?cmpid=facebook-post

You must be very disappointed TFU. :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Redistribute the Rep]

What is it this mysterious thing that exists within a consensual relationship that you and others think somehow confuses consent?

Material hierarchies and power dynamics, prehaps? Don't get me wrong, I don't think sex work should be banned because of this, as that I believe would be more harmful to the workers, but this was a really stupid question. It's like the libertarians who say that workers aren't exploited because they signed a contract and werent physically forced to do so.

[The Feral Underclass]

Material hierarchies and power dynamics, prehaps? Don't get me wrong, I don't think sex work should be banned because of this, as that I believe would be more harmful to the workers, but this was a really stupid question. It's like the libertarians who say that workers aren't exploited because they signed a contract and werent physically forced to do so.

But I'm not necessarily talking about work, I'm talking about sex acts. People are arguing that these acts, irrespective of consent, are problematic. So does this mean that these sex acts should never be performed, even if in private between two consenting adults? Or is it just if it's work? And if it is just work, why is this work more "abhorrent" than any other work, if it is, as you point out, just the same as any job where you have to sell your labour?

I don't think there is anything stupid about asking that question if you consider the answer is most likely born from some puritanical moralism.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[synthesis]

Material hierarchies and power dynamics, prehaps? Don't get me wrong, I don't think sex work should be banned because of this, as that I believe would be more harmful to the workers, but this was a really stupid question. It's like the libertarians who say that workers aren't exploited because they signed a contract and werent physically forced to do so.

Well, what is it about money that makes sex non-consensual as soon as it enters the mix? (So to speak.) Is it the fact that the money is largely in the hands of men, and therefore when money enters the equation it means that the content is being generated for the pleasure of men? Because this seems to be less and less the case the further feminism progresses in liberal capitalist societies and women accordingly start to become a viable consumer base for pornographers and whatnot. I think this really illustrates the absurdity of these crypto-conservative leftists supporting a ban on "female domination" in pornography.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Well, what is it about money that makes sex non-consensual as soon as it enters the mix? (So to speak.)

Money being a unit of exchange required to obtain necessary resources to sustain life in an economy based on generalized commodity production, therefore causing people to take jobs they don't want out of economic necessity? This shouldnt have to be explained to a leftist


I think this really illustrates the absurdity of these crypto-conservative leftists supporting a ban on "female domination" in pornography.

There's only one user in this thread who supports the ban, and I generally dont really see many of this "crypto-conservative" leftists you speak of. More often I see leftists defend sexual relations and the porn industry from all criticism, using bourgeois arguments like "well it's all fine if it's consentual", an argument that certainly would not fly if applied to any other industry. I suspect some leftists just want to view sex this way because they are afraid of being compared to conservatives, causing them to suspend all materialist analysis.



I don't think there is anything stupid about asking that question if you consider the answer is most likely born from some puritanical moralism.

Actually, the answer if you ask a group of leftists is more likely one that resembles what TC, FSL and others in this thread have stated. Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on if the question is stupid, but personally I think questions that ignore all material hierarchy, power dynamics, and relations of financial dependence that exist in a capitalist society are stupid. It's certainly not something I would expect from a leftist, sounds more like something a confused liberal thing would say

[PhoenixAsh]

for anybody under any illusion that this is one out of some feminist idea of protecting women: r 18 is a rating for people under 18...and once again censorship is passed under the guise of "OMG the children"

r18 is established for the psychological, physical and moral protection of the development of children.

The method and, not the end, is important here and this is petty petit bourgeois moralism.

[The Feral Underclass]

Actually, the answer if you ask a group of leftists is more likely one that resembles what TC, FSL and others in this thread have stated.

Which is what? They haven't actually responded to my question...


Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on if the question is stupid, but personally I think questions that ignore all material hierarchy, power dynamics, and relations of financial dependence that exist in a capitalist society are stupid. It's certainly not something I would expect from a leftist, sounds more like something a confused liberal thing would say

Hmm, well for a start my question just presumes those things are a given. My questions move beyond this reductive view of yours, which really is just fairly obvious and actually something I've already alluded to in previous posts. If you go back and read what I said more carefully, the purpose of my questions was to understand the scope in which consensual relationships were problematic by their logic and secondly to understand why, if their framework only applies to work, this particular work is more "abhorrent" than any other work.

Sure all work consists of "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics," but why is that a particularly significant point to make? Surely that's just obvious...

[Redistribute the Rep]

Which is what? They haven't actually responded to my question...

Well, you said in your post you were considering the answer would be something coming from "puritanical moralism". But if you read their posts I think they already answered your question quite nicely.



Hmm, well for a start my question just presumes those things are a given.

Huh? The presumptions this question were based on appear to be precisely the opposite. You ask about a "mysterious" thing that "somehow" confuses consent. The wording ostensibly implies a disbelief that anything could possibly confuse consent


You see, my questions move beyond this reductive view of yours, which really is just fairly obviously and actually something I've already alluded to in previous posts.If you go back and read what I said more carefully, the purpose of my questions was to understand the scope in which consensual relationships were problematic by their logic and secondly to understand why, if their framework only applies to work, this particular work is more "abhorrent" than any other work.

Sure all work consists of "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics" but why is that a particularly significant point to make? Surely that's just obvious...

TFU, I think you're just going to great lengths to defend a question that obviously wasn't well thought out. Looking back at your question as you suggested just reaffirms its stupidity. If you were wondering why someone viewed this framework as only applying to work and and as more abhorrent than other work then that information really wouldn't be found by asking such a question.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, you said in your post you were considering the answer would be something coming from "puritanical moralism". But if you read their posts I think they already answered your question quite nicely.

Can you point out where that is?


Huh? The presumptions this question were based on appear to be precisely the opposite. You ask about a "mysterious" thing that "somehow" confuses consent. The wording ostensibly implies a disbelief that anything could confuse consent

TFU, I think you're just going to great lengths to defend a question that obviously wasn't well thought out. Looking back at your question as you suggested just reaffirms its stupidity. If you were wondering why someone viewed this framework as only applying to work and and as more abhorrent than other work then that information really wouldn't be found by asking such a question.

Erm, I'm not "defending" my question, I'm trying to explain it to you so that you're not confused any more.

This is the question you're having a problem with, right: "What is it this mysterious thing that exists within a consensual relationship that you and others think somehow confuses consent?"

So am I right in thinking that in your interpretation of my post, I am literally acknowledging something mysterious that exists within a consensual relationship that confuses consent and asking Rosenpenis to articulate this mysterious thing to me?...

Aside from the fact you've completely had a brainfart and failed to grasp the fact I was being facetious, you've also taken that question completely out of context. If you actually read the entire post:


"The premise of your moralism is what, exactly? That work is exploitative and often sexist? I don't understand what is particularly remarkable about that position or why it would inform such a puritanical view of sex. Perhaps you could explain...

I mean, what is fundamentally problematic to you with someone wanting to sexually dominate someone else who wants to be sexually dominated? What is problematic with being whipped or pissed or if being whipped or pissed on is want someone wants to have done to them? Indeed what is problematic about someone wanting to do that as a job?

What is it this mysterious thing that exists within a consensual relationship that you and others think somehow confuses consent?"

What I am saying is that his argument is stupid because it implies there exists some mysterious thing that confuses consent when sex is involved. Why does "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics" make consent any more confusing when it comes to consensual sex acts between two adults in private or as a job, or why is this "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics" any more abhorrent than any other work. That's the point of my question...The only way that you could think there was a difference is if you have some puritanical moralism when it comes to non-conforming sex acts.

[synthesis]

Money being a unit of exchange required to obtain necessary resources to sustain life in an economy based on generalized commodity production, therefore causing people to take jobs they don't want out of economic necessity? This shouldnt have to be explained to a leftist

I think you missed the relationship between that question and both the rest of that post and the post that it was responding to. You've pretty clearly taken that out of context in order to make it seem like a much more basic question and to shift the focus away from the overall point being made. I'll hold off on responding further in this post until you've had a chance to revisit it.


There's only one user in this thread who supports the ban, and I generally dont really see many of this "crypto-conservative" leftists you speak of. More often I see leftists defend sexual relations and the porn industry from all criticism, using bourgeois arguments like "well it's all fine if it's consentual", an argument that certainly would not fly if applied to any other industry. I suspect some leftists just want to view sex this way because they are afraid of being compared to conservatives, causing them to suspend all materialist analysis.

In my case I think it's more that I find it interesting how nobody who, let's say, opposes the opposition to the ban (as opposed to supporting the ban) seems to see any problem with "old conservative men in Parliament" targeting what is, at the end of the day, a consensual sexual act, particularly when they single out things like female ejaculation and the long-marginalized BDSM subculture.

It is conservative at its very core and to not even remotely attempt to acknowledge the conservative roots of the legislation hints, to me, at a little conservatism in whoever is currently missing the point.

[synthesis]

Aside from the fact you've completely had a brainfart and failed to grasp the fact I was being facetious, you've also taken that question completely out of context.

I do believe I see a pattern emerging.

[The Feral Underclass]

I do believe I see a pattern emerging.

I guess it's difficult sometimes to understand someone when you can't hear their inflection, although I'm usually spending time in threads trying to convince people that I'm not being facetious.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Can you point out where that is?



I don't think there is anything stupid about asking that question if you consider the answer is most likely born from some puritanical moralism.



So am I right in thinking that in your interpretation of my post, I am literally acknowledging something mysterious that exists within a consensual relationship that confuses consent and asking Rosenpenis to articulate this mysterious thing to me?...

Nope, this is my interpretation of your post:


The wording ostensibly implies a disbelief that anything could possibly confuse consent


What I am saying is that his argument is stupid because it implies there exists some mysterious thing that confuses consent when sex is involved. Why does "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics" make consent any more confusing when it comes to consensual sex acts between two adults in private or as a job, or why is this "material hierarchy" and "power dynamics" any more abhorrent than any other work. That's the point of my question...The only way that you could think there was a difference is if you have some puritanical moralism when it comes to non-conforming sex acts.

Yea, so just ask if he sees this as any more exploitative in work as in private life, or any more exploitative than other work, and leave it at that. I think you meant to point out that sex work is no more of an exploitative relation than other types of work, without denying that both are exploitative. But your question seems to imply that you wouldn't find either exploitative, as they are a "consenual relationship." Kind of like how liberals facetiously ask "so a worker who agrees to work there is being exploited? Did someone hold a gun to their head"? It sounds like you wanted to ask if there was something about sexual relationships in particular that confuse consent even more so than a nonsexual relation, so as to dismiss that possibility? But the question i was responding to just says consentual relationships, leaving one to assume it was dismissing the possibility of there being exploitation in any such relationships, sexual or otherwise


You've pretty clearly taken that out of context in order to make it seem like a much more basic question and to shift the focus away from the overall point being made.

Well, if you look at my original post you'll see that I don't disagree with TFUs overall point and didn't try to shift the focus away from it, I just wanted to point out that this particular question was dumb. I did not mean for it to be a criticism of his overall point and I made that pretty clear in my post if you want to go back and read it



In my case I think it's more that I find it interesting how nobody who, let's say, opposes the opposition to the ban (as opposed to supporting the ban) seems to see any problem with "old conservative men in Parliament" targeting what is, at the end of the day, a consensual sexual act, particularly when they single out things like female ejaculation and the long-marginalized BDSM subculture.

It is conservative at its very core and to not even remotely attempt to acknowledge the conservative roots of the legislation hints, to me, at a little conservatism in whoever is currently missing the point.

Like I said, only one person in this thread thus far has supported the ban, and even he acknowledged the conservative roots. You say nobody seems to see any problem with the conservative parliament members. I can't pick out a single person who doesn't see a problem with them in this thread, can you name one?

[The Feral Underclass]

Yea, so just ask if he sees this as any more exploitative in work as in private life, or any more exploitative than other work, and leave it at that.

:glare:

I don't really understand why you think it's appropriate to tell me how to construct my posts. My post wasn't even directed at you and since I'm fairly certain that Rosenpenis will be able to understand me, I don't really see how it's your place to tell me how to speak to him. The fact you were unable to understand a post that wasn't even direct at you is not really my problem, nor does it give you the right to tell me how to say things.


I think you meant to point out that sex work is no more of an exploitative relation than other types of work, without denying that both are exploitative. But your question seems to imply that you wouldn't find either exploitative, as they are a "consenual relationship." Kind of like how liberals facetiously ask "so a worker who agrees to work there is being exploited? Did someone hold a gun to their head"? It sounds like you wanted to ask if there was something about sexual relationships in particular that confuse consent even more so than a nonsexual relation, so as to dismiss that possibility? But the question i was responding to just says consentual relationships, leaving one to assume it was dismissing the possibility of there being exploitation in any such relationships, sexual or otherwise

Well whatever, I'm glad you're able to understand me finally.

[synthesis]

Well, if you look at my original post you'll see that I don't disagree with TFUs overall point and didn't try to shift the focus away from it, I just wanted to point out that this particular question was dumb. I did not mean for it to be a criticism of his overall point and I made that pretty clear in my post if you want to go back and read it

*sigh* I was referring to this question:






Material hierarchies and power dynamics, prehaps? Don't get me wrong, I don't think sex work should be banned because of this, as that I believe would be more harmful to the workers, but this was a really stupid question. It's like the libertarians who say that workers aren't exploited because they signed a contract and werent physically forced to do so.

Well, what is it about money that makes sex non-consensual as soon as it enters the mix? (So to speak.) Is it the fact that the money is largely in the hands of men, and therefore when money enters the equation it means that the content is being generated for the pleasure of men? Because this seems to be less and less the case the further feminism progresses in liberal capitalist societies and women accordingly start to become a viable consumer base for pornographers and whatnot. I think this really illustrates the absurdity of these crypto-conservative leftists supporting a ban on "female domination" in pornography.
Money being a unit of exchange required to obtain necessary resources to sustain life in an economy based on generalized commodity production, therefore causing people to take jobs they don't want out of economic necessity? This shouldnt have to be explained to a leftist
I think you missed the relationship between that question and both the rest of that post and the post that it was responding to. You've pretty clearly taken that out of context in order to make it seem like a much more basic question and to shift the focus away from the overall point being made. I'll hold off on responding further in this post until you've had a chance to revisit it.Well, if you look at my original post you'll see that I don't disagree with TFUs overall point and didn't try to shift the focus away from it, I just wanted to point out that this particular question was dumb. I did not mean for it to be a criticism of his overall point and I made that pretty clear in my post if you want to go back and read it

Moving on...


Like I said, only one person in this thread thus far has supported the ban, and even he acknowledged the conservative roots. You say nobody seems to see any problem with the conservative parliament members. I can't pick out a single person who doesn't see a problem with them in this thread, can you name one?

Well, if you're only asking for one, this post was thanked by both TC and Rosa Partizan:


it's my understanding that this law concerns pornography and not private sex acts.

of course all porn is exploitative and sexist, but banning the most explicitly violent kinds looks like a good start imo

I also can't tell where you think anyone seeking to justify these laws has acknowledged that the conservative roots of this legislation are any problem whatsoever. This:


it's a sad day for revleft when old conservative men in parliament have a better sense of this than the whole of this community but im not surprised

Is not acknowledging that as a problem. It's actually literally chiding leftists for not being as on the ball with issues of sexuality as "old conservative men."

[Redistribute the Rep]

:glare:

I don't really understand why you think it's appropriate to tell me how to construct my posts. My post wasn't even directed at you and since I'm fairly certain that Rosenpenis will be able to understand me, I don't really see how it's your place to tell me how to speak to him. The fact you were unable to understand a post that wasn't even direct at you is not really my problem, nor does it give you the right to tell me how to say things.


well if you write that all consentual relationships aren't confused in any way (implied by your question), then that doesn't mean the same thing as writing that an exploitative relationship involving sex is no more exploitative than an exploitative relationship without sex. But, that's fine if you want to continue saying things you don't mean, don't let me tell you what to do.



Well, if you're only asking for one, this post was thanked by both TC and Rosa Partizan:




it's my understanding that this law concerns pornography and not private sex acts.

of course all porn is exploitative and sexist, but banning the most explicitly violent kinds looks like a good start imo



I wasn't asking for a post that supported the ban, I was asking for a member who denied that there were conservative roots of this and denied such conservatism was a problem. Judging by his other posts , this user doesn't support the ban on for the same reasons as the conservative parliament members.


I also can't tell where you think anyone seeking to justify these laws has acknowledged that the conservative roots of this legislation are any problem whatsoever. This:

[QUOTE=Dr. Rosenpenis]
it's a sad day for revleft when old conservative men in parliament have a better sense of this than the whole of this community but im not surprised


Is not acknowledging that as a problem. It's actually literally chiding leftists for not being as on the ball with issues of sexuality as "old conservative men."


Well the author says its a "sad day", implying some derision for conservatives, as he would expect leftists to be far ahead of conservatives on such an issue, so I really don't think this can be taken to mean leftists should be more conservative

[Teacher]

Isn't the person defending all these sexual acts the same person who says men aren't allowed to talk to women in public? Don't see how I'm ever going to get to the point of having a woman pee on me if I'm not allowed to approach her and say "hi."

[Illegalitarian]

Uh oh here comes the paternalistic moral police to tell us how wrong sex work is

I think caning might be my new fetish. I want someone to cane me now. Thanks, tories!

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

yeah, its clearly much better to be working illegally and under duress for a mobster then in a clean, safe environment as a self employed professional under a negotiated contract...

this is a pipe dream
there are plenty of places where sex work is legal and what youre describing seldom if ever occurs. not to mention the fact that sex work is not simply like any other kind of work for the obvious reason that it amounts to the flagrant reproduction of patriarchal power relations of control, domination, objectification and dehumanization of women, in most cases. just because it happens in private and is technically consensual, doesnt make it exempt from the social conditions of gender inequality

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

this is a pipe dream
there are plenty of places where sex work is legal and what youre describing seldom if ever occurs. not to mention the fact that sex work is not simply like any other kind of work for the obvious reason that it amounts to the flagrant reproduction of patriarchal power relations of control, domination, objectification and dehumanization of women, in most cases.

Have you never met a woman a woman who has worked in service or hospitality?

But, seriously, to imagine sex work as somehow "unique" is just part of deeply problematic narratives that normalize the everyday sexualization of, harassment of, and violence against women and queer people. The fact is, in patriarchal society, almost all work is implicitly sex work - it's just that woman are never really compensated as though it were the case.


just because it happens in private and is technically consensual, doesnt make it exempt from the social conditions of gender inequality

And, yet, conservatives find it necessary to pass legislation against porn, but fail to move in any meaningful way against the rape culture which you correctly point out contextualizes porn. Think about what you're actually saying: Porn is bad and consent is complicated because of social conditions of gender inequality. It follows that, having established the root of the problem, that going about pruning the branches is at best a superficial move.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i agree that it's a superficial move. but surely porn is in itself part of the rape culture. just because it's not the sole culprit doesnt mean that it should be ignored and left alone. i think that the left should demand more, and not less, like many here are calling for.

now i agree with your other point about everyday violence against women. but addressing that surely doesnt mean that more egregious violations should be tolerated, does it?

i cant see where all the outrage comes from if not from a defense of the liberalization of the sex industry and/or a bunch of allegedly leftist men whining about their cummies

[synthesis]

I wasn't asking for a post that supported the ban, I was asking for a member who denied that there were conservative roots of this and denied such conservatism was a problem.

Earlier:


Like I said, only one person in this thread thus far has supported the ban, and even he acknowledged the conservative roots. You say nobody seems to see any problem with the conservative parliament members. I can't pick out a single person who doesn't see a problem with them in this thread, can you name one?

What you're "asking for" is clearly going to change based on every example presented to you, so I'm not going to get bogged down in this.


Well the author says its a "sad day", implying some derision for conservatives, as he would expect leftists to be far ahead of conservatives on such an issue

This is literally the exact same thing I said, just with a slightly different spin:


[His post] is not acknowledging [the conservative roots of the legislation] as a problem. It's actually literally chiding leftists for not being as on the ball with issues of sexuality as "old conservative men."

This exchange has become so, so tedious, so it's probably best if we just end it here.

[Loony Le Fist]

i agree that it's a superficial move. but surely porn is in itself part of the rape culture. just because it's not the sole culprit doesnt mean that it should be ignored and left alone. i think that the left should demand more, and not less, like many here are calling for.

now i agree with your other point about everyday violence against women. but addressing that surely doesnt mean that more egregious violations should be tolerated, does it?

i cant see where all the outrage comes from if not from a defense of the liberalization of the sex industry and/or a bunch of allegedly leftist men whining about their cummies

So if me and my partner enjoy recording our sexual escapades and distributing them that's contributing to rape culture? Can you really claim that all porn contributes to rape culture?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Capitalist exploitation is fine for the UK state, as long as it's not sex workers getting paid to sit on each other's face. :rolleyes:

[BIXX]

Isn't the person defending all these sexual acts the same person who says men aren't allowed to talk to women in public? Don't see how I'm ever going to get to the point of having a woman pee on me if I'm not allowed to approach her and say "hi."
Shut your dumbass mouth.

The problem isn't saying hi, its the fact that women are obviously being objectified when they get 9584737744 guys a day "just saying hi". In a club or whatever setting it might be different, kinda, but really unless conversation is natural (someone needs information, inquires, the other person has it, and responds or some such natural conversation starter) its most likely that you don't treat men the same and that probably has something to do with your place in society as a man, feeling entitled to a woman's time.

[consuming negativity]

pornography is a reflection of us, not vice versa

you can only change the reflection in the mirror by changing the person who is standing in front of it. or, you can only change the type of porn that people watch by changing the people and the society that they make up

pornography - the creation, viewing, distribution, marketing, industry, everything - all of that is social and it is created by groups of people within our society which consists of the people and their social actions. to pass a law trying to ban this shit is missing the entire point; namely, that it is a reflection in the mirror.

in fact, "you're gonna do this" with the threat of physical force behind it actually sounds sorta like something you'd see in the kind of porn being targeted here. i can't imagine why that might be the case when we look at how our society actually functions which is - from the family unit all the way up - by the abuse of force, power, and positions of authority

[Loony Le Fist]

Shut your dumbass mouth.

The problem isn't saying hi, its the fact that women are obviously being objectified when they get 9584737744 guys a day "just saying hi". In a club or whatever setting it might be different, kinda, but really unless conversation is natural (someone needs information, inquires, the other person has it, and responds or some such natural conversation starter) its most likely that you don't treat men the same and that probably has something to do with your place in society as a man, feeling entitled to a woman's time.

So what is the solution? For everyone to be a bunch of anti-social assholes that don't talk to one another. This is why this shit will never be resolved! On one side we have a group of people saying it's ok to grope people inappropriately, and on the other we have a group that says we should be a bunch of fucking drones that walk past one another! Fuck all that shit! How about we be fucking equally friendly to one another and fuck all this social contruction bullshit! Fuck! It's ok to say hi to people man! This makes me want to scream. I'm tired of everyones fucking social hangups! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh We all need to stop being a bunch of anti-social pricks! It's ok to say hello to people. Everyone should feel entitled to say hello to anyone! How fucking inconvienient is it to talk to any other person for a fucking second dude? Are you that fucking important that other people don't matter? How can you be a leftist and believe that no one is entitled to second of your time to say fucking hello? Anyone is entitled to say hello to me! I'm willing to talk to anyone, except if it's an emergency situation. Fuck off!

I'm drunk. LOL. :laugh:

[BIXX]

So what is the solution? For everyone to be a bunch of anti-social assholes that don't talk to one another. This is why this shit will never be resolved! On one side we have a group of people saying it's ok to grope people inappropriately, and on the other we have a group that says we should be a bunch of fucking drones that walk past one another! Fuck all that shit! How about we be fucking equally friendly to one another and fuck all this social contruction bullshit! Fuck! It's ok to say hi to people man! This makes me want to scream. I'm tired of everyones fucking social hangups! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh We all need to stop being a bunch of anti-social pricks! It's ok to say hello to people. Everyone should feel entitled to say hello to anyone! How fucking inconvienient is it to talk to any other person for a fucking second dude? Are you that fucking important that other people don't matter? How can you be a leftist and believe that no one is entitled to second of your time to say fucking hello? Anyone is entitled to say hello to me! I'm willing to talk to anyone, except if it's an emergency situation. Fuck off!

I'm drunk. LOL. :laugh:

I'm not saying its not OK to talk, but that when the talking is directed towards women as men feel entitled to their time I think there is a problem. If people were just being equally friendly then I wouldn't give a shit, but that isn't the case: its people being "friendly" to women.

You shouldn't drunk post. It makes you a fucking idiot.

Also no, no one is entitled to my time. In fact that one of the reasons I oppose capitalism and other oppressive bullshit: I don't believe anyone is entitled to me except me.

[Teacher]

Shut your dumbass mouth.

No. This comment was pretty uncalled for.


The problem isn't saying hi, its the fact that women are obviously being objectified when they get 9584737744 guys a day "just saying hi". In a club or whatever setting it might be different, kinda, but really unless conversation is natural (someone needs information, inquires, the other person has it, and responds or some such natural conversation starter) its most likely that you don't treat men the same and that probably has something to do with your place in society as a man, feeling entitled to a woman's time.

If I were sexually attracted to men I would imagine that I would try to flirt with them too. Not because I feel entitled but because that is a part of normal human interaction -- far more normal than getting pissed on. I just find it kind of funny that the most bizarre and arguably exploitative sexual acts are being defended here, but in the other thread normal human flirting is being denounced as unforgivable male chauvinism.

[PhoenixAsh]

I will say once again. The method is important.

The question whether or not these acts are contributing to patriarchy or domination of women or whether or not they should be banned is irrelevant to how this ban is being implemented and its motivation. This ban has nothing to do with liberating women. This ban has nothing to do with fighting rape culture. This ban is implemented because of the position that viewing these acts will morally, psychologically and physically hinder the development of children.

http://legislation.data.gov.uk/cy/uksi/2014/2916/made/data.htm?wrap=true

And it refers back to the Obscene Publications Act of 1959



The Obscene Publications Act 1959 & 1964
– England and Wales
The Obscene Publications Act 1857 –
Northern Ireland
The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 –
Scotland

It is illegal to publish a work which is obscene. A work is obscene if, taken as a whole, it has a tendency to deprave and corrupt a significant proportion of those
likely to see it. Under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, no offence is committed if publication is justified as being for the public good on the grounds that it is
in the interests of science, art, literature or learning or other objects of general concern. In Scotland, case law implies a similar test would be applied. In Northern Ireland, while there is no express defence of “public good” it is likely that English law would be taken into consideration.

Any discussion how these sexual acts play into patriarchy and the position of women in society in the context of the question whether or not these acts should be banned is of course fine. But discussing whether or not these acts should be banned in the context of a ban that has been clearly implemented outside this discussion should at the very least involve the question of why we are supposed to be revolutionaries and whether using petit-bourgeois moralism and the bourgeois justice system and governmental bans and regulations to reach certain goals is something we should condone and accept.

[The Feral Underclass]

this is a pipe dream
there are plenty of places where sex work is legal and what youre describing seldom if ever occurs. not to mention the fact that sex work is not simply like any other kind of work for the obvious reason that it amounts to the flagrant reproduction of patriarchal power relations of control, domination, objectification and dehumanization of women, in most cases.

Those relationships are reproduced everywhere. The sex industry isn't unique in that respect.


just because it happens in private and is technically consensual, doesnt make it exempt from the social conditions of gender inequality

What work or relationship is normally exempt from the social conditions of gender inequality? The issue here ins't pornography, the issue is patriarchal society and your attempts to make the issue here about sex is just a vile puritanical moralism. For many women the implication that female ejaculation, which is associated with an orgasm, should be something that is banned from enjoyment is tantamount to saying that women enjoying sex should be prohibited. Why is that not an issue?

The act of human beings having sex in front of other people for their enjoyment isn't a problem. The problem is class society that breeds gender inequality in every aspect of that society. Our focus should be on building solidarity amongst workers and fighting to smash capitalism, not defending conservatives for banning sex acts that actually do nothing except legislate against female sexuality.


i cant see where all the outrage comes from if not from a defense of the liberalization of the sex industry and/or a bunch of allegedly leftist men whining about their cummies

First of all I'm gay, so I have no interest in watching women ejaculate. Secondly, no one is defending the liberalisation of the sex industry. What is being said is that the sex industry isn't unique when it comes to gender inequality and your attempts to make it unique is born of nothing except some pernicious, narrow-minded moral world view. Sex workers are workers and therefore they require our solidarity in their struggles to take control of their workplaces and improve their conditions. If you object to that, then you're anti-worker and you have no right to lecture any one about being a "leftist."

[The Feral Underclass]

Isn't the person defending all these sexual acts the same person who says men aren't allowed to talk to women in public?

The only way you could have interpreted that argument as me saying men shouldn't be allowed to talk to women in public is if you're an idiot.


If I were sexually attracted to men I would imagine that I would try to flirt with them too. Not because I feel entitled but because that is a part of normal human interaction -- far more normal than getting pissed on. I just find it kind of funny that the most bizarre and arguably exploitative sexual acts are being defended here, but in the other thread normal human flirting is being denounced as unforgivable male chauvinism.

The inability of RevLeft members to understand the depths and scope of people's arguments here never ceases to amaze me. Choosing to wrap yourself up in some hyperbolic hysteria isn't a particularly unique trait for people on RevLeft, but you'd think that you'd at least try and not overreact. I mean, the fact you're saying that flirting was denounced as male chauvinism is bordering on trolling.

If you're not seriously going to engage with people's views on this board, why do you bother coming here?

[RedBlackStar]

First they opress us and then they take our kinky porn!

THEY'VE GONE TOO FAR THIS TIME!

[FSL]

yeah, its clearly much better to be working illegally and under duress for a mobster then in a clean, safe environment as a self employed professional under a negotiated contract...

It's funny how to some "progressive" people a self employed car salesman is a class enemy but a self employed sex saleswoman or drug dealer are the ideal.


No, what's clearly much better is nothing being a commodity, including sex. Does that mean that you wouldn't be able to buy sex? Yes, cry me a river.Along with every self respecting tory family man.

[FSL]

I mean, what is fundamentally problematic to you with someone wanting to sexually dominate someone else who wants to be sexually dominated? What is problematic with being whipped or pissed or if being whipped or pissed on is want someone wants to have done to them? Indeed what is problematic about someone wanting to do that as a job?

What is it this mysterious thing that exists within a consensual relationship that you and others think somehow confuses consent?

The same thing that was problematic with "house niggers" or working class fascism supporters.

[The Feral Underclass]

The same thing that was problematic with "house niggers" or working class fascism supporters.

Sorry, I'm not following you...

[FSL]

Sorry, I'm not following you...

They're examples of consensual relationships.

[The Feral Underclass]

They're examples of consensual relationships.

So you think that two adults in a consensual relationship in the privacy of their home performing sex acts on each other that turn them on is the same as the historical oppression, exploitation and forced assimilation of African people into Western society?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i thought we were talking about the sex industry. im positing that it's problematic in that it promotes rape culture and that it's responsible for and naturalizes the brutalization and dehumanization of women. it exploits power dynamics and gender inequality for the sadistic pleasure of its viewers. in that regard it's quite unique. of course the sex industry isnt solely responsible, but it is one of the most flagrant examples and im a bit surprised how quick you all are to stand up to defend it from regulation. i do think that private sex should also be called into question, but that's another issue. or not

[FSL]

So you think that two adults in a consensual relationship in the privacy of their home performing sex acts on each other that turn them on is the same as the historical oppression, exploitation and forced assimilation of African people into Western society?

They differ in scale.
This oppresion, exploitation and assimilation you speak of wasn't always forced either but consent doesn't magically make it something else.

[The Feral Underclass]

They differ in scale.
This oppresion, exploitation and assimilation you speak of wasn't always forced either but consent doesn't magically make it something else.

Then how are they the same in any way?

[Sasha]

One step away from all PIV (or PIB I guess) equals rape bullshittery..

[RedWorker]

im a bit surprised how quick you all are to stand up to defend it from regulation.

Why would we be for the state's censorship?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

i realize that this laws is conservative... but so are blue laws for instance and im not gonna complain about those either

[The Feral Underclass]

i thought we were talking about the sex industry. im positing that it's problematic in that it promotes rape culture and that it's responsible for and naturalizes the brutalization and dehumanization of women. it exploits power dynamics and gender inequality for the sadistic pleasure of its viewers. in that regard it's quite unique. of course the sex industry isnt solely responsible, but it is one of the most flagrant examples and im a bit surprised how quick you all are to stand up to defend it from regulation.

The existence of a culture of rape demonstrates that we live in a patriarchal society in which the sexual autonomy of women is seen as subservient to the sexual desires of men. The idea that women have no agency to make decisions about their sexualities, that they are prone to lie, to wear clothes that provoke or that they somehow do things that cause them to be raped is born from the logic that a woman's sexual autonomy either does not exist, or is irrelevant.

Your argument presupposes that women have no agency to make decisions about how they want to have sex and that participating in public or private sexual acts that demonstrate a certain kind of sex is somehow a cause for them to be raped. In that, you are reinforcing the very same victim-blaming and culture of rape you claim to be fighting.

A woman's sexual autonomy should mean them being allowed to participate in sexual acts that brutalise and dehumanise them if they want to, without the threat of rape. Instead of addressing the actual causes of rape, which is a patriarchal society, your motivation is to essentially apply blame (although I'm sure you don't see it like that) to the women who actually participate in that pornography, for promoting a culture that legitimises rape -- as if the existence of female sexuality is somehow a mitigating reason for them to be assaulted.

The problem here is not women who participate in sex acts, it's men who are not able to understand what sexual autonomy means. Instead of criminalising women for their work or for enjoying a controversial sex act, we should be blaming men for being rapists in the first place. If a man watches a film and then thinks it's legitimate to do that to someone who hasn't consented, that's not the sex workers fault (it's like saying video games cause people to be violent -- which we know full well is utter bullshit). Sex workers are not under any obligation to make sure men don't rape them. It's not their job to do that. It's the job of men to not be fucking rapists...I mean, the conclusion of your logic is that it's a mitigating defence for a man to say "oh I watched a video of a woman being tied up and whipped so I thought it was legitimate to rape someone."

I suppose we should just start telling sex workers and women to "do what they can to protect themselves from rape. (http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/09/article-2071890-0F1B8BB800000578-130_634x806.jpg)" It turns out that you're not actually supporting conservative men, you are one.


i do think that private sex should also be called into question, but that's another issue. or not

This view is consistent with the political objectives of someone who wants to establish a society that is totally absorbed into a strict and specific moral code. Of course, that's not really surprising considering your authoritarian interpretation of class struggle and the evident victim blaming that has just been exposed.

Suffice it to say, any political system that believes it is legitimate to regulate or admonish adults for their private sexual practices should be fundamentally opposed. It was only in the last 60 years that men like you were saying the same thing about homosexuals.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

i agree that it's a superficial move. but surely porn is in itself part of the rape culture. just because it's not the sole culprit doesnt mean that it should be ignored and left alone. i think that the left should demand more, and not less, like many here are calling for.

now i agree with your other point about everyday violence against women. but addressing that surely doesnt mean that more egregious violations should be tolerated, does it?

See, this is where we disagree. My feeling is that porn isn't necessarily one of the more "egregious violations" - in sex work, workers are explicitly paid for their sexual and emotional labour. In other fields (including "non-work" domestic and social spheres) women are simply expected to carry out sexual and emotional labour implicitly, and without compensation or acknowledgement.

That's not to say there isn't some terrible porn that contributes to rape culture along multiple axes - both in the way workers are treated in its production, and in the narratives it promotes about sex and sexuality. The thing is, these narratives have nothing to do with particular acts, and the banning of particular acts doesn't address any of these problems. If the British government wanted to ban the production of porn that only portrayed exclusively skinny white bodies as acceptable objects of desire, and portrayed other bodies only as objects of perverse fetishism, maybe I'd feel more confused about this. The thing is, that hasn't happened and, bluntly, won't.


i cant see where all the outrage comes from if not from a defense of the liberalization of the sex industry and/or a bunch of allegedly leftist men whining about their cummies

Uh, I can only speak for myself, but I'm pretty sure it comes from a place of engagement with the politics of radical sex workers. By and large, in my experience, they tend to favour the improvement of their working conditions as working conditions, not moralizing about the obscenity of particular types of sex.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

See, this is where we disagree. My feeling is that porn isn't necessarily one of the more "egregious violations" - in sex work, workers are explicitly paid for their sexual and emotional labour. In other fields (including "non-work" domestic and social spheres) women are simply expected to carry out sexual and emotional labour implicitly, and without compensation or acknowledgement.

you raise a good point tho i think it's not necessary to quibble over which systems of coercion are the most violent and dehumanizing. the point is that the sex industry is destroying women and promoting rape culture in a huge way. it's distinct from other fields in that it involves circumstances of extreme precariousness and a lack of legal protection from abuse under the guise of free speech and consent.


That's not to say there isn't some terrible porn that contributes to rape culture along multiple axes - both in the way workers are treated in its production, and in the narratives it promotes about sex and sexuality. The thing is, these narratives have nothing to do with particular acts, and the banning of particular acts doesn't address any of these problems. If the British government wanted to ban the production of porn that only portrayed exclusively skinny white bodies as acceptable objects of desire, and portrayed other bodies only as objects of perverse fetishism, maybe I'd feel more confused about this. The thing is, that hasn't happened and, bluntly, won't.

like i said earlier, all pornography is likely to involve rape, but explicitly violent acts are more likely to both involve actual sexual violence and promote rape culture. the infamous case of linda boreman is a good example. rape narratives have everything to do with certain acts mentioned in the law like verbal abuse, physical abuse, penetration with violent objects, humiliation, etc

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

tat, that is a ridiculous strawman. your attempt to portray my sex-critical and anti-pornography position as victim-blaming is something youve conjured in your mind and has nothing to do with the posts ive made here. i wont even bother addressing your silly arguments. ill just say that i (or the law in question) have at no point suggested that victims of pornography be blamed or criminalized

[Loony Le Fist]

I'm not saying its not OK to talk, but that when the talking is directed towards women as men feel entitled to their time I think there is a problem. If people were just being equally friendly then I wouldn't give a shit, but that isn't the case: its people being "friendly" to women.


I'm friendly to people I'm attracted to. That's just fucking normal.



You shouldn't drunk post. It makes you a fucking idiot.


I love you too. ::blows you a kiss::



Also no, no one is entitled to my time. In fact that one of the reasons I oppose capitalism and other oppressive bullshit: I don't believe anyone is entitled to me except me.

I think anyone is entitled to a second just to say hello. Fuck. That's some anti-social bullshit.

[Loony Le Fist]

tat, that is a ridiculous strawman. your attempt to portray my sex-critical and anti-pornography position


First off, how can you be critical of sex? That's just fucking normal. What is fucking wrong with you!

[The Feral Underclass]

tat, that is a ridiculous strawman. your attempt to portray my sex-critical and anti-pornography position as victim-blaming is something youve conjured in your mind and has nothing to do with the posts ive made here. i wont even bother addressing your silly arguments. ill just say that i (or the law in question) have at no point suggested that victims of pornography be blamed or criminalized

Your "anti-pornography" position is predicated on anti-women, victim-blaming moralism. You can call it a strawman all you want, but the logic you're employing only has this conclusion. Your argument is that this pornography contributes to the culture of rape, i.e. those women who do those jobs are directly contributing to the legitimisation and apologism around rape. How is that different to claming that women who get drunk directly contribute to their assault? Explain that to me.

And it's completely absurd to try and claim you're not suggesting their criminalisation when you openly support legislation against their industry! It's not the men who are going to lose out on this, it's the women who enjoy those sex acts and depend upon that work.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

in the same way that prostitution is often criminalized without criminalizing prostitutes. or child labour is criminalized without criminalizing child workers

maybe i havent been clear enough but what im saying is that women are coerced into sex work thru the power dynamics that exist between women in situations of economic and emotional vulnerability and the multi-billion dollar thugish pornography industry that exploits said dynamics to bully women into conditions of extreme precariousness and dependence. theyre the victims. the blame lies solely with the pronographers. i agree that there is a whole slew of problematic issues to be addressed in this whole scenario. but limiting the violence to which theyre allowed to subject the actresses is surely not a bad thing

[synthesis]

I posted this in another thread that was sort of on the same subject, and I think it's also relevant here.


Often, when I tell someone new that I’m a phone sex operator, they say, “Oh! How long did you do that?” Notice the the use of past tense. The assumption is, of course, that my time in phone sex was in the past, that I am no longer doing it, that I have left it behind and moved on to my obviously successful and lucrative career in playwriting and solo performance.

Pause for laugh break.

Yes. I find that hilarious, too.

I am glad that my profile and branding and visibility is high enough at this point that people think I must doing well, but really… it’s mostly PR. I need to make people think that I’m already big news, so they don’t want to miss me, so they want to book me. This isn’t marketing hyperbole, as much as it is simply my M.O.: I fake it ’til I make it. I am sure a lot of emergent performers do this, putting out their hype just slightly ahead of their performance curve, and stepping up to the plate with a prayer on every slightly shallow breath.

I am also quite sure that my colleagues in performance, those of us hovering around the same level of visibility and exposure and gig income… most of us have second jobs. Maybe even third jobs, but definitely second ones. Whether it’s the time-honored food-service position, or consulting gigs in tech writing, or office jobs, or arts administrators at various levels, or yes, phone sex… we have to make money somehow while we are striving to make money in some other way.

But not all of these second jobs are treated the same way. People accept without comment that actors might perform and continue to wait tables, or that playwrights would write in the evenings, after they’ve left the office. What is it about phone sex, and sex work in general, that makes it so hard to reconcile with other aspirations?

I don’t have all the answers, I never do. I just have thoughts, and they are these:

First of all, it is a not-unheard-of approach for writers to dip into some exotic field or lifestyle and then dip right back out when they’ve got enough material. I wonder if people assume that naturally I’d have followed that trajectory, because my first play Phone Whore is about phone sex, and, you know… Why would I still be doing phone sex, if I got what I needed from it, i.e. grist for the mill?

Oh, wait. What if I wasn’t doing it for the research? What if I needed the actual money? What if I still need the money? What if this option is, in fact, preferable to other paying-the-bills options?

Okay. It has become kind of okay to say, in some circles, that you did a little sex work, if you put it down to fun or research or empowerment. If you did sex work strictly for the money, you can only really admit it if you put it in the past, and remove any element of choice about it, as much as possible. To buy nice clothes? Not desperate enough. We’re talking paying for college, making money after a layoff, getting off the streets. In the past. In the popular cultural understanding, sex work is a last resort, and if it happened in the past, it means that you boot-strapped your way out of a terrible situation and props to you, and now you can leave that all behind you. We can only talk about “degrading situations” if we’ve triumphed over them, or if we’re actively working on getting out. That is the way a feel-good narrative works.

But saying out loud, in a broad-daylight way, that one does sex work for money, that one is currently doing it, that one has no immediate, focused, near-future plans for not doing it… that looks, to the outside eye, suspiciously like “giving up on ourselves”. “Undervaluing ourselves.” Obviously “not motivated enough”. Bleah. You know what? I felt a lot less valued in the office job I got laid off from in 2009, and I was getting a lot less of my own creative work done. But people think “sex work” = “unmotivated”, which doesn’t mesh with how they see me. Not that I need to break stereotypes, but…

POW. Did that hurt when your brain blew out sideways?

The truth is, there are many reasons why sex workers are doing the work we do, and as with any profession, some of us desperately want out, some love it, or are just fine with it, and some are doing it, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm, until our other plans pan out.

I fall in this last category, for sure. I do want to make my living writing and performing. But I don’t see what I’m doing as “rescuing myself”. I’m working toward success in performance, not away from some tragically wasted life in phone sex, boo hoo. No. I still do phone sex, and I’m really, really good with doing phone sex right now, and I’m in no particular rush to leave it, BELIEVE IT.

When I “make it”, when I get to the point that I make all my living in performance, I will tell people the periods of my employment in phone sex, if it’s relevant, but I won’t hide this life, or refer to it as a wacky little phase, or a terrible time that I got through. This is a decent fucking job that I’ve held for four years. It can be isolating as hell, and it’s a little marginal right now, but it’s easier on my feet than food service. And doing phone sex does more than pay the bills. It inspired my first play, and feeds my soul and my mind in a way that no other job ever has.

So my question to you is: why should I be so eager to leave that?I do think there's something to be said about all these people who are supposedly advocating on behalf of sex workers that "can't speak for themselves" and then go on to completely ignore anything said by actual sex workers on the subject.

[BIXX]

I'm friendly to people I'm attracted to. That's just fucking normal.
So you admit that you're better to people whose pants you want to get into?


I think anyone is entitled to a second just to say hello. Fuck. That's some anti-social bullshit.

No, its me not wanting to talk to every asshole on the street. Fuck that.

You're advocating the ridiculous position that we have to be equally nice to everyone but its OK if you're more nice to people even when they don't want it and it obviously has less to do with treating them like a human being and more about fucking them.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I do think there's something to be said about all these people who are supposedly advocating on behalf of sex workers that "can't speak for themselves" and then go on to completely ignore anything said by actual sex workers on the subject.

for the record i was the first person in this thread to cite an actual sex worker and all of what ive said is directly or indirectly based on the accounts of sex workers and feminist authors who study prostitution and pornography

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

like i said earlier, all pornography is likely to involve rape
All work under capitalism is exploitative, and sex work objectifies people (especially women), but saying all pornography likely involves rape? That's ridiculous.

[Lily Briscoe]

It's insane to me that anyone could actually believe the agenda of conservative sexual moralists has somehow aligned with the interests of sex workers.

I have a bunch of stuff going on at the moment so don't really have time to contribute anything beyond shitposting to the discussions here, but I just wanted to highlight this point, which I think is really important:
See, this is where we disagree. My feeling is that porn isn't necessarily one of the more "egregious violations" - in sex work, workers are explicitly paid for their sexual and emotional labour. In other fields (including "non-work" domestic and social spheres) women are simply expected to carry out sexual and emotional labour implicitly, and without compensation or acknowledgement.
I think the fixation on sex work as some kind of horrific aberration basically serves the function of whitewashing so-called 'legitimate' wage labor, which is ironic considering how many people end up in sex work precisely because of the inadequacy of 'legitimate' wage labor.

[The Feral Underclass]

maybe i havent been clear enough but what im saying is that women are coerced into sex work thru the power dynamics that exist between women in situations of economic and emotional vulnerability and the multi-billion dollar thugish pornography industry that exploits said dynamics to bully women into conditions of extreme precariousness and dependence. theyre the victims. the blame lies solely with the pronographers.

Here you are again, portraying sex workers as weak, damaged women without any ability or agency over their lives.

I'm afraid what you're saying is just not true. I have many friends who are sex workers in various roles, some are women, some are men, some are trans. None of them are emotionally vulnerable or have been bullied into it.

And in any case, most people have a job because their "economically vulnerable," it's called capitalism.


i agree that there is a whole slew of problematic issues to be addressed in this whole scenario. but limiting the violence to which theyre allowed to subject the actresses is surely not a bad thing

What violence? The violence of having an orgasm? The violence of ejaculating? You simply don't know what you're talking about.

Instead of perpetuating your hyperbolic, conservative, sexist moral views, you might consider directing your energy towards actual issues of violence that sex workers have to endure. It might be better for you and for them if you cut out your moralising, patronising sermon in which all sex workers are vulnerable, incapable women without any agency to make decisions, and realise that sex workers are an empowered, perfectly capable section of the class who need our solidarity. Here, go to this: http://prostitutescollective.net/2014/12/02/international-day-end-violence-sex-workers-17-dec/

[The Feral Underclass]

I do think there's something to be said about all these people who are supposedly advocating on behalf of sex workers that "can't speak for themselves" and then go on to completely ignore anything said by actual sex workers on the subject.

Because it's not really about the sex workers, it's about their personal moral agenda.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think the fixation on sex work as some kind of horrific aberration basically serves the function of whitewashing so-called 'legitimate' wage labor

This is an important point, well made.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

if prostitution were like any other job, why arent there as many male prostitutes as female?


And in any case, most people have a job because their "economically vulnerable," it's called capitalism.

and you support people, overwhelmingly poor women, subjecting themselves to serial rape because they have no other way to make a living under capitalism? that doesnt sound like "sexual autonomy" to me


It might be better for you and for them if you cut out your moralising, patronising sermon in which all sex workers are vulnerable, incapable women without any agency to make decisions, and realise that sex workers are an empowered, perfectly capable section of the class who need our solidarity.

tell that to the nine-year old girls working at truck stops all over this country


It's not the men who are going to lose out on this, it's the women who enjoy those sex acts and depend upon that work.

it's the men who control the industry and profit millions from womens bodies. women very seldom find their way out of poverty thru sex work. this is a documented fact

[The Feral Underclass]

if prostitution were like any other job, why arent there as many male prostitutes as female?

I really don't understand how your conclusion is derived from your premise. Prostitution is unlike any other job because women do it more? What about healthcare? Social care? Education? Parenthood? These are all industries and jobs where women dominate. Are you saying that jobs in which there are more women means that the job is different somehow? Are women a special category of human that need extra protection or something?

Your views are teetering on the edge of chauvinism, sir.


and you support people, overwhelmingly poor women, subjecting themselves to serial rape because they have no other way to make a living under capitalism? that doesnt sound like "sexual autonomy" to me

This is just a moralist caricature of prostitution. I mean, I accept that I am speaking with a first-world bias, but your assumption that all prostitutes do their work because they're emotional vulnerable and can't find other employment is largely false. Being a prostitute is incredibly lucrative. Why would someone work in a shitty factory job for minimum wage when they could be earning a months wage in one day?

Of course there are women who are forced into this and who don't have another choice, but women face that predicament all the time and we are specifically talking about consent here.

Selling our labour is all we have and sometimes the choice is either selling your labour to produce products to make someone rich and other times it's selling your labour to make someone cum.


tell that to the nine-year old girls working at the truck stops all over this country

Nice appeal to emotion, but that's fundamentally different, since a 9 year-old can't realistically consent to selling their bodies.


it's the men who control the industry and profit millions from womens bodies

You mean like industrialists? Yeah, it's called capitalism. But what about all those prostitutes who work independently? Why are the profits earned by sex work any different to the profits earned by factory labour?

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I really don't understand how your conclusion is derived from your premise. Prostitution is unlike any other job because women do it more? What about healthcare? Social care? Education? Parenthood? These are all industries and jobs where women dominate. Are you saying that jobs in which there are more women means that the job is different somehow?

yes. there's a reason why certain jobs are occupied overwhelmingly by women. in the case of sex work it has to do with the sexualisation of power. women are made vulnerable in order to be comodified by and for men. and this is what you call consensual.



This is just a moralist caricature of prostitution. I mean, I accept that I am speaking with a first-world bias, but your assumption that all prostitutes do their work because they're emotional vulnerable and can't find other employment is largely false. Being a prostitute is incredibly lucrative. Why would someone work in a shitty factory job for minimum wage when they could be earning a months wage in one day?

it's not. the vast majority of sex workers are not autonomous and obviously there's a reason for that also. the distinctions you insist on making between "bad" and "good" prostitution are based on moral judgements and overlook the fact that all prostitution is coercive and relies on gender-based inequality and therefore stands in stark constrast to sexual or bodily autonomy.


Selling our labour is all we have and sometimes the choice is either selling your labour to produce products to make someone rich and other times it's selling your labour to make someone cum.

so why are you talking about consent when you seem to understand that it's actually involuntary and coercive?
the difference is that the latter presumes to treat women as sex rather than human


You mean like industrialists? Yeah, it's called capitalism. But what about all those prostitutes who work independently? Why are the profits earned by sex work any different to the profits earned by factory labour?

where do prostitutes work independently? where do they earn the profits? when and where has this ever been applicable to prostitution at large?

[The Feral Underclass]

yes. there's a reason why certain jobs are occupied overwhelmingly by women. in the case of sex work it has to do with the sexualisation of power. women are made vulnerable in order to be comodified by and for men. and this is what you call consensual.

I know plenty of sex workers who are women who would smack you in the face for calling them "vulnerable" and you know, they'd be right to do so.

I don't call that consensual, because I don't accept your ridiculous argument that women are "made to be vulnerable." That's just your chauvinistic knight-in-shining armour complex.

Sex work isn't about "making women vulnerable," it's about the profit making power of selling your labour to fuck people. Sure, there are women who are forced into prostitution, but that's a whole different thing to what we're talking about, which is sex workers who do sex work because it is work.

Some jobs are dominated by women because society is patriarchal. I don't deny that. But turning women into some disempowered, vulnerable entity that has no agency to make decisions about what work they do in a capitalist society is chauvinism. Of course women will become sex workers, they can make money doing it -- and that's what work is. Giving your time to make money...It's the essence of class society.

If you want to live in a world where people don't have to sell their labour (whatever that labour is) for money then I suggest you get on with overthrowing capitalism, but until then, sex workers don't need your patronising, sermonising, right-wing chauvinist moralism, they need solidarity against regressive, anti-women legislation that criminilises their sexuality and their source of income.


it's not. the vast majority of sex workers are not autonomous and obviously there's a reason for that also. the distinctions you insist on making between "bad" and "good" prostitution are based on moral judgements and overlook the fact that all prostitution is coercive and relies on gender-based inequality and therefore stands in stark constrast to sexual or bodily autonomy.

So you're saying that sex workers, the majority of which you claim are women, are not free to govern themselves or control their own affairs? Is that what you're saying?

This isn't a question of distinguishing between "bad" and "good" prostitution, it's a question of understanding the nature of work. Sex workers do sex work because it's lucrative and because it's better work than other jobs they can find, while some people do sex work because they don't have a choice or because they're forced to do it. Is that "good" and "bad" prostitution? No, no work that people do under capitalism is "good," but that doesn't mean that all sex workers are emotionally vulnerable people who have no choice but to be sex workers -- that's just a ridiculous caricature.


so why are you talking about consent when you seem to understand that it's actually involuntary and coercive?
the difference is that the latter presumes to treat women as sex rather than human

All work is involuntary and coercive by the nature of class society. It doesn't matter what work you do, you're always going to need to do it if you want to survive. The point is that you are assigning some special, mysterious thing to sex work because it's sex, without any explanation as to why that is significant beyond pointing out that society is patriarchal and women are objectified, as if that was some great revelation.

People do jobs. Some people choose to be postal workers, some choose to be teachers, others choose to work in a factory, some choose to be sex workers and some other people are compelled into shitty jobs they don't want to be doing because there isn't an alternative, sometimes that's prostitution, other times it's working in a garment factory for 5p an hour...That's what living in capitalism is. That's the life of a worker.

There is no difference between having sex with someone for money and building a car for someone for money, except that the labour is literally different. Fundamentally they are the same thing and your attempts to attach some separate meaning is predicated on your vile anti-women, conservative moralism and nothing else.


where do prostitutes work independently? where do they earn the profits? when and where has this ever been applicable to prostitution at large?

Well, everywhere...Not every prostitute has a pimp or works for a company...In fact, a large proportion of prostitutes work for themselves. I can only say that from experience of knowing sex workers and being involved in sex work struggles.

From the Canadian Chezstella website, that is "By and For Sex Workers...a tool offered to sex workers so they may improve the quality of their lives and their working conditions"...


According to stereotypes, a pimp is a man who controls a sex workers’ work and income. The reality is that many sex workers work independently. Some choose to associate with colleagues to share their resources, such as a workplace. Some prefer working for various employers, particularly women or men who own escort agencies or massage parlours. Some associate with partners to ensure that they get help and protection in case of need. The stereotypical image of the pimp does not correspond with the different contexts for sex work. Sex work may, indeed, require maintaining professional relationships with third parties such as employers, managers, drivers or receptionists, for economical or security reasons, or to make sure that the initial agreement is respected. The criminalization of pimps (employers or third party) makes it difficult to perform sex work safely. Once again, this criminalization is seldom used to protect women against violence.

http://chezstella.org/stella/en/en/14answers

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

if prostitution were like any other job, why arent there as many male prostitutes as female?

Likewise textiles? Domestic labour? Nursing?

The fact is, the majority of the proletariat-proper is women. Why is it in any way surprising that, in a field concerning reproduction on fundamental a level, that women are the majority? Would one expect sex work to be a sudden aberration from this norm?

The rest of the above-quoted post can be understood similarly: A bizarre conservative obsession with women's sexual victimization/purity that fails to contextualize it within broader arrangements of white supremacist patriarchal capitalism.

[consuming negativity]

if someone is coerced into having sex that they do not want to have, that is rape

it isn't about conservatism it is about recognizing that our society has sanitized and commodified rape in a way that people consider to be consensual

does that mean we shouldn't allow sex work? only in the same sense that we should not allow wage labor. but just because some sex workers don't understand the capitalist mode of production doesn't make them any less exploited. if this were true, we wouldn't have a leg to stand on as anti-capitalists in a world of reactionaries who think that wage labor is consensual

[The Feral Underclass]

if someone is coerced into having sex that they do not want to have, that is rape

Characterising sex work as "rape" is helpful to what? No work is "consensual," is it? All work is "coerced." So what do you intend to achieve by making this characterisation? How does it improve or forward or the alter the debate? How does it help sex workers improve their conditions or help us fight capitalism? Other than making an already complicated dynamic and debate even more emotionally charged, what do you want the use of this term to accomplish?


it isn't about conservatism it is about recognizing that our society has sanitized and commodified rape in a way that people consider to be consensual

I'm sure the conservative attitudes aren't intended, but that is the consequence of these views. Capitalist society views all work as consensual. Sex work isn't unique, you just have a special word to describe it.

[consuming negativity]

Characterising sex work as "rape" is helpful to what? No work is "consensual," is it? All work is "coerced." So what do you intend to achieve by making this characterisation? How does it improve or forward or the alter the debate? How does it help sex workers improve their conditions or help us fight capitalism? Other than making an already complicated dynamic and debate even more emotionally charged, what do you want the use of this term to accomplish?

I'm sure the conservative attitudes aren't intended, but that is the consequence of these views. Capitalist society views all work as consensual. Sex work isn't unique, you just have a special word to describe it.

it isn't a [mis-]characterization, it is the truth. and if it makes people emotional, all the better, because they should be pissed off about it. the vast majority of rape is not the idea in our heads of a lone woman walking at night and being plucked from the sidewalk by some brute to be raped next to a dumpster in a dark alley. the vast majority of rape that happens in the real world is actually not considered rape at all. welcome to rape culture. it's not just some 14-year-old brat using rape as another word for "i beat you at this game". it is the legitimization of rape as a service to be bought and sold, it is the acceptance and normalization of coercive sex, and it is the subsequent denial that any of this is actually rape - and so much more. does that mean i want to punish, shame, control, or otherwise hurt sex workers in any way, shape, or form? of course not - as i said earlier, that would be to miss the point entirely. but at the end of the day, you can pull the "pragmatism" card or the "agency" card or whatever else, but you're in agreement with me about what this is so let's just be honest with ourselves and not sugar-coat reality to pretend as though the world isn't as fucked up and horrible as it actually is.

[The Feral Underclass]

it isn't a [mis-]characterization, it is the truth. and if it makes people emotional, all the better, because they should be pissed off about it. the vast majority of rape is not the idea in our heads of a lone woman walking at night and being plucked from the sidewalk by some brute to be raped next to a dumpster in a dark alley. the vast majority of real rape is actually not considered rape at all. welcome to rape culture. it's not just some 14-year-old brat using rape as another word for "i beat you at this game". it is the legitimization of rape as a service to be bought and sold, it is the acceptance of women's bodies as products, and it is also the denial that any of this is rape at all. if that makes me a conservative - to recognize the normalization of exploitation under capitalism - then so be it. does that mean i want to punish, shame, control, or otherwise hurt sex workers in any way, shape, or form? of course not - as i said earlier, that would be to miss the point entirely. but at the end of the day, you can pull the "pragmatism" card or the "agency" card or whatever else, but you're in agreement with me about what this is so let's just be honest with ourselves and not sugar-coat reality to pretend as though the world isn't as fucked up and horrible as it actually is. because most people actually don't understand what we understand - if we don't represent the truth, it won't be represented at all.

This is not an adequate response to any of the questions I asked you, instead you continue with this differentiation between sex work and all other work without providing any kind of explanation. I don't need you to explain to me how terrible rape is or what the different ways people can be raped, I need you to explain to me what the difference is between the coercive nature of sex workers and the coercive nature of all other work.

I'd also like to point out that your "analysis" doesn't seem to take into consideration what sex workers actually think about their work. Do they not get to have a say in this, or have you just decided for them?


at the end of the day, you can pull the "pragmatism" card or the "agency" card or whatever else, but you're in agreement with me about what this is so let's just be honest with ourselves and not sugar-coat reality to pretend as though the world isn't as fucked up and horrible as it actually is.

Actually I don't think I am in agreement with you. You have an incredibly simplistic, reductive and ignorant understanding of sex work and of capitalism. Not to mention your complete divisiveness of the idea of women having agency. I want to have a sensible discussion about the complexities of sex work, not get bogged down in some puerile emotional whining about how terrible the world is. Grow up.

[human strike]

The fact is, in patriarchal society, almost all work is implicitly sex work - it's just that woman are never really compensated as though it were the case.

Omg this. But, also, almost all sex is at least implicitly work (especially for women).

[human strike]

if prostitution were like any other job, why arent there as many male prostitutes as female?

Why aren't there as many male school teachers or nurses as female?

[consuming negativity]

This is not an adequate response to any of the questions I asked you, instead you continue with this differentiation between sex work and all other work without providing any kind of explanation. I don't need you to explain to me how terrible rape is or what the different ways people can be raped, I need you to explain to me what the difference is between the coercive nature of sex workers and the coercive nature of all other work.

I'd also like to point out that your "analysis" doesn't seem to take into consideration what sex workers actually think about their work. Do they not get to have a say in this, or have you just decided for them?

the difference between sex work and other work is that sex work involves the commodification and normalization of rape. hence why we call it "sex work". because it involves sex. you implicitly recognize that there is some distinction by the fact that you're calling it "sex work" and acknowledging that there is a term for a type of work that we are talking about that is different - in some way, shape, or form - from other types of work. which is not to de-legitimize sex workers as workers, but again, i'm going to call things as i see.

and as for the sex workers, they can think what they want, not that they need my permission to do so. i'm not trying to tell anyone what to do; nor am i trying to pass moral judgment on their decisions. i'm not trying to say they shouldn't be sex workers, i'm not trying to say that they are bad people, and i'm not trying to justify the stupid law that you linked to in the OP. i'm just calling a spade a spade. and if they don't want to recognize that the sex isn't consensual, well, that's their problem. most workers don't recognize that their employment is non-consensual and yet you're not going to accuse me of not taking their opinions into consideration... are you? because you'd be equally as wrong to do so. because whether or not they recognize the exploitation does not change the nature of it.

[The Feral Underclass]

the difference between sex work and other work is that sex work involves the commodification and normalization of rape. hence why we call it "sex work". because it involves sex. you implicitly recognize that there is some distinction by the fact that you're calling it "sex work" and acknowledging that there is a term for a type of work that we are talking about that is different - in some way, shape, or form - from other types of work. which is not to de-legitimize sex workers as workers, but again, i'm going to call things as i see.

The nature of the "rape" that is involved in sex work is the same as any job in which you are coerced into doing labour you do not want to do. The same dynamics apply in both cases. The fact that you can semantically define the coercive nature of sex work and you cannot do that for all other work does not mean that it is any different to the coercive nature of all other work. The fact that you can use the word "rape" to describe the nature of sex work and you cannot use the word "rape" to define the nature of, say, retail work does not somehow make sex work an entirely different species of work.

Of course there is a literal distinction between sex work and other work, because there is a literal distinction between all work. Retail work, construction work, factory work, health work, education work etcetera, they are all literally different kinds of work. But they all have exactly the same thing in common: It is work that people are compelled to do in order to survive. Your use of the word "rape" to describe sex work is nothing more than the convenience of language. There is absolutely no substantial difference between the dynamics of sex work and the dynamics of all the work that I have mentioned above.


and as for the sex workers, they can think what they want, not that they need my permission to do so. i'm not trying to tell anyone what to do; nor am i trying to pass moral judgment on their decisions. i'm not trying to say they shouldn't be sex workers, i'm not trying to say that they are bad people, and i'm not trying to justify the stupid law that you linked to in the OP. i'm just calling a spade a spade. and if they don't want to recognize that the sex isn't consensual, well, that's their problem. most workers don't recognize that their employment is non-consensual and yet you're not going to accuse me of not taking their opinions into consideration... are you? because you'd be equally as wrong to do so. because whether or not they recognize the exploitation does not change the nature of it.

What you're doing is attributing a word that conveniently exists in language to describe a particular kind of work. You're then assigning some special significance that somehow separates that work from all the other work based on a moralist sentiment. You fail to recognise the complex dynamics of sex work and the nature of all work that exists in class society, employing some emotional nonsense that simply shuts down the discussion because "the world is a terrible place."

Many sex workers don't recognise their exploitation, just as many workers in general don't recognise their exploitation, but this doesn't mean that the exploitation of sex work is fundamentally different to any work that exists. You just think it does because you have some moral attitude towards sex. Making someone cum for money is not fundamentally different to making someone profits for money. It's exactly the same dynamic.

The issue here is not about making people recognise that sex work is "rape" it's about making people recognise that all work is a form of rape.

[consuming negativity]

The nature of the "rape" that is involved in sex work is the same as any job in which you are coerced into doing labour you do not want to do. The same dynamics apply in both cases. The fact that you can't semantically define the coercive nature of sex work and you cannot do that for all other work does not mean that it is any different to the coercive nature of all other work. The fact that you can use the word "rape" to describe the nature of sex work and you cannot use the word "rape" to define the nature of, say, retail work does not somehow make sex work an entirely different species of work.

Of course there is a literal distinction between sex work and other work, because there is a literal distinction between all work. Retail work, construction work, factory work, health work, education work etcetera, they are all literally different kinds of work. But they all have exactly the same thing in common: It is work that people are compelled to do in order to survive. Your use of the word "rape" to describe sex work is nothing more than the convenience of language. There is absolutely no substantial difference between the dynamics of sex work and the dynamics of all the work that I have mentioned above.

i told you we were in agreement - you're the one who said we weren't.


What you're doing is attributing a word that conveniently exists in language to describe a particular kind of work. You're then assigning some special significance that somehow separates that work from all the other work based on a moralist sentiment. You fail to recognise the complex dynamics of sex work and the nature of all work that exists in class society, employing some emotional nonsense that simply shuts down the discussion because "the world is a terrible place."

Many sex workers don't recognise their exploitation, just many workers in general don't recognise their exploitation, but this doesn't mean that the exploitation of sex work is fundamentally different to any work that exists. You just think it does because you have some moral attitude towards sex. Making some cum for money is not fundamentally different to making someone profits for money. It's exactly the same dynamic.

The issue here is not about making people recognise that sex work is "rape" it's about making people recognise that all work is a form of rape.to elaborate, i never said that sex work is fundamentally different. it's just different in exactly the way you described. but no, all work is not rape. a form of rape? now that i think is using the word "rape" to make an emotional point. rape is specifically non-consensual sex (or sexual/sex-related actions - you know what i mean). there is no sex involved in digging ditches or making hamburgers. there is coercion involved in all work - which, again, i said - but no, it's not rape, that's just silly

[Lily Briscoe]

I think describing sex work in and of itself as "rape" is playing stupid semantic games anyway. You're redefining the word to suit your purposes, and the entire argument - as has already been noted - is essentially just an appeal to emotion. When people marry partly or entirely out of economic considerations, which they very often do, do you classify all sex in such marriages as "rape"? Of course you could, but that wouldn't really serve your argument about the exceptionalism of sex work.

It goes without saying that rape is an extremely common occurrence within the sex industry, but that is different from arguing that the simple exchange of sexual services for monetary compensation is rape.

and as for the sex workers, they can think what they want, not that they need my permission to do so. i'm not trying to tell anyone what to do; nor am i trying to pass moral judgment on their decisions. i'm not trying to say they shouldn't be sex workers, i'm not trying to say that they are bad people, and i'm not trying to justify the stupid law that you linked to in the OP. i'm just calling a spade a spade. and if they don't want to recognize that the sex isn't consensual, well, that's their problem."I'm not judging you, I'm just pointing out that you let yourself get raped for a living. You don't think you do? That's your problem." lol what patronizing trash

[synthesis]

"I'm not judging you, I'm just pointing out that you let yourself get raped for a living. You don't think you do? That's your problem."

"I can't bring myself to imagine anyone ever preferring sex work over other means of sustenance, therefore by definition it is physically impossible for anyone to do so."

[consuming negativity]

I think describing sex work in and of itself as "rape" is playing stupid semantic games anyway. You're redefining the word to suit your purposes, and the entire argument - as has already been noted - is essentially just an appeal to emotion. When people marry partly or entirely out of economic considerations, which they very often do, do you classify all sex in such marriages as "rape"? Of course you could, but that wouldn't really serve your argument about the exceptionalism of sex work.

It goes without saying that rape is an extremely common occurrence within the sex industry, but that is different from arguing that the simple exchange of sexual services for monetary compensation is rape."I'm not judging you, I'm just pointing out that you let yourself get raped for a living. You don't think you do? That's your problem." lol what patronizing trash

if i am "redefining rape", then you should tell me what rape actually is and why my definition of rape - non-consensual sexual encounters - is wrong.

as for marriage, interesting that you brought that example up, considering that marriage as a social institution was until very, very recently, exactly what you're talking about insofar as marriage was literally a contract for a woman to have her existence in society paid for in exchange for giving up virtually all of her rights as a human being, including her right to say "no" to sex with this husband, legally-speaking. and yes, i would say that sex in this situation is rape. regardless of whether or not she makes up a narrative in her mind to justify it and divorce herself from the reality of her circumstances.

[Lily Briscoe]

Except that the way you're defining rape is obviously far more complicated than simple "non-consensual sex" because there are plenty of cases where sex workers consent to the transaction (and, incidentally. sex work is not just prostitution but also stripping, phone sex, etc - it's a bit hard to see how transactions that don't even involve having actual sex could constitute "rape", but hey). Incidentally I also think workers in capitalism generally consent to doing whatever job they're doing (which is why I am able to call up my boss right now, if I so choose, and quit my job without any laws or armed thugs forcing me to continue). I just don't think 'consent' is the main issue.

[consuming negativity]

Except that the way you're defining rape is obviously far more complicated than simple "non-consensual sex" because there are plenty of cases where sex workers consent to the transaction (and, incidentally. sex work is not just prostitution but also stripping, phone sex, etc - it's a bit hard to see how transactions that don't even involve having actual sex could constitute "rape", but hey). Incidentally I also think workers in capitalism generally consent to doing whatever job they're doing (which is why I am able to call up my boss right now, if I so choose, and quit my job without any laws or armed thugs forcing me to continue). I just don't think 'consent' is the main issue.

i think it is sort of obvious that i'm not saying that phone sex operators, models, or strippers are being raped. although there are many strippers who are also required-but-not to be available to perform other services to patrons whom would then of course fall under this umbrella. really, i just don't think this concept is this difficult to understand. and considering that you aren't going to be able to provide me with an alternative explanation of rape, because the one i'm using actually isn't a redefinition but is instead the actual definition of what it means to rape/be raped, you have now fallen back on the "agency" argument, except you're taking it to such an extreme that i really don't even think you're actually a socialist. this sounds like some shit that a libertarian (ron paul type) would say. just because "armed thugs" (can we not use the word "thug"?) aren't going to kick your ass for quitting your job doesn't mean that quitting your job - for the majority of people - doesn't mean being in an extremely precarious financial situation. perhaps you have never experienced this, or perhaps you are attempting to justify your own victimization, or perhaps you never thought of it before, but seriously, this is just absurd that i'm even having to argue this point on revleft.

[Teacher]

Is The Feral Underclass a male?

[The Feral Underclass]

Is The Feral Underclass a male?

Why?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

i think it is sort of obvious that i'm not saying that phone sex operators, models, or strippers are being raped. although there are many strippers who are also required-but-not to be available to perform other services to patrons whom would then of course fall under this umbrella. really, i just don't think this concept is this difficult to understand. and considering that you aren't going to be able to provide me with an alternative explanation of rape, because the one i'm using actually isn't a redefinition but is instead the actual definition of what it means to rape/be raped, you have now fallen back on the "agency" argument, except you're taking it to such an extreme that i really don't even think you're actually a socialist. this sounds like some shit that a libertarian (ron paul type) would say. just because "armed thugs" (can we not use the word "thug"?) aren't going to kick your ass for quitting your job doesn't mean that quitting your job - for the majority of people - doesn't mean being in an extremely precarious financial situation. perhaps you have never experienced this, or perhaps you are attempting to justify your own victimization, or perhaps you never thought of it before, but seriously, this is just absurd that i'm even having to argue this point on revleft.

I think that there's some talking-at-cross-purposes happening here.

I think it's safe to say that your definition of rape is a bit MIM-y, or Dworkin-ish. I don't think that's necessarily an entirely incorrect line to take, but I'm not convinced that it can be hashed out in an appropriately nuanced way on RevLeft.

So, yes, in the context of patriarchy, there is a coercive element to all sex (and I don't mean that in hetero-exclusive terms). As long as gendering remains a fundamentally violent process, all gendered activity will bear the scars of that violence.

The thing is, this erases the subjective component of sex - there is a lot of sex that is not experienced as rape. There's even a lot of heterosexual intercourse that's not experienced as rape. And that experiential element is really crucial because, of course, some people do experience rape, and that qualitative difference is really important.

So, while I'd say you're certainly "dictionary correct" - and that this framing is actually really potentially useful and important - it can also erase really important distinctions in people's lived experiences of sex or rape.

[Lily Briscoe]

i think it is sort of obvious that i'm not saying that phone sex operators, models, or strippers are being raped. although there are many strippers who are also required-but-not to be available to perform other services to patrons whom would then of course fall under this umbrella. really, i just don't think this concept is this difficult to understand. and considering that you aren't going to be able to provide me with an alternative explanation of rape, because the one i'm using actually isn't a redefinition but is instead the actual definition of what it means to rape/be raped, you have now fallen back on the "agency" argument, except you're taking it to such an extreme that i really don't even think you're actually a socialist. this sounds like some shit that a libertarian (ron paul type) would say. just because "armed thugs" (can we not use the word "thug"?) aren't going to kick your ass for quitting your job doesn't mean that quitting your job - for the majority of people - doesn't mean being in an extremely precarious financial situation. perhaps you have never experienced this, or perhaps you are attempting to justify your own victimization, or perhaps you never thought of it before, but seriously, this is just absurd that i'm even having to argue this point on revleft.

1) Having sex for money is not "the actual definition of what it means to be raped".

2) I do think workers, both sex workers and workers in general, have agency, and I support workers struggling collectively and withdrawing their consent by going on strike, for example. I don't think they are eternal helpless victims who need social workers, lawyers, and middle class saviors to come lobby the state/police to "protect" them, which is the logical conclusion of your politics. It is patronizing nonsense.

[consuming negativity]

I think that there's some talking-at-cross-purposes happening here.

I think it's safe to say that your definition of rape is a bit MIM-y, or Dworkin-ish. I don't think that's necessarily an entirely incorrect line to take, but I'm not convinced that it can be hashed out in an appropriately nuanced way on RevLeft.

So, yes, in the context of patriarchy, there is a coercive element to all sex (and I don't mean that in hetero-exclusive terms). As long as gendering remains a fundamentally violent process, all gendered activity will bear the scars of that violence.

The thing is, this erases the subjective component of sex - there is a lot of sex that is not experienced as rape. There's even a lot of heterosexual intercourse that's not experienced as rape. And that experiential element is really crucial because, of course, some people do experience rape, and that qualitative difference is really important.

So, while I'd say you're certainly "dictionary correct" - and that this framing is actually really potentially useful and important - it can also erase really important distinctions in people's lived experiences of sex or rape.

my position is not that all sex is rape; homosexual or heterosexual. in fact, my position is not even that all prostitution is rape. but, as you said, nobody actually gives a shit about the nuance of my position. it is certainly possible for coercion and agency to coexist insofar as what we want to do and what we will be punished for not doing actually can align, but choices wherein the punishment is a factor in any way are spoiled (or, in your words, scarred) by the existence of the coercive force on them. this is what i think partially explains why some rape is not experienced as rape by the participants - it is made ambiguous by the fact that we are constantly making the best of a series of bad choices, and constantly doing so with all sorts of threats of force and other punishments on us to the point where we don't even really recognize them. or, as i said before, normalization happens where we experience these behaviors but don't recognize them as such because we're desensitized to the coercion.

but another partial explanation for it could simply be that we, as humans, like to delude ourselves into thinking that our situations are not what they are which is actually something that is very common among survivors of traumatic experiences such as rape. why? because to admit that we were victims is to admit that we were vulnerable, which is something that requires vulnerability which is made a lot more difficult when we are put in situations where we are exploited, coerced, or otherwise subjected to abuse. which isn't to even mention the psychological processes that go on when we are subjected to abuse but the society around us tells us that "that's the way things are" or that our situation is actually normal and that we have agency. that's the thing - taking responsibility for actions that were not fully within our control is simply wrong. it is us just pretending that we have more control than we actually do and it's a defense mechanism that unfortunately can lead to the denial of rape, victim blaming, or any number of other things.


1) Having sex for money is not "the actual definition of what it means to be raped".

2) I do think workers, both sex workers and workers in general, have agency, and I support workers struggling collectively and withdrawing their consent by going on strike, for example. I don't think they are eternal helpless victims who need social workers, lawyers, and middle class saviors to come lobby the state/police to "protect" them, which is the logical conclusion of your politics. It is patronizing nonsense.

#1 is a straw man, and #2 is just you misrepresenting me as a closet-liberal (which i suppose is better than a closet-conservative but come the fuck on)

fucking christ. recognizing the truth doesn't mean we stop participating in society and it doesn't mean we start supporting the exact opposite of what we actually support. the answer to coercion into our sex lives is not to introduce more coercion into them by inviting uncle sam and his kid-killing kop patrol into the bedroom to sort things out for us that we don't need sorted out. that doesn't even make sense if one, just for a moment, considers that my position is not that of a closet reactionary to be outed and guillotined but that of an anarchist

[synthesis]

So how a person interprets their own experiences doesn't matter to you at all? If someone doesn't interpret something the way you think they should, does that automatically mean they're deluding themselves?

[PhoenixAsh]

For sexwork to become the comodificatoin of rape you first need to establish that all sexwork is coerced. Otherwise it is just a meaningless emotional generlization akin to petit-bourgeois moralism.

[consuming negativity]

So how a person interprets their own experiences doesn't matter to you at all? If someone doesn't interpret something the way you think they should, does that automatically mean they're deluding themselves?

i just think we can view experiences in context and explain them.

only the individual person knows what their motivations are and so it is actually impossible for any of us who is not that person to definitively say one way or another that any of the situations constitute rape because we can't have all of the knowledge needed to do so because we aren't them

but, at the same time, simply being in the situation does not mean that your interpretation of it is correct. for example, have you ever been in an argument with someone and then later on you had an epiphany and realized that you were the one being the asshole and not vice versa? well the situation itself never actually changed based on your epiphany - you were always being the asshole even when you didn't think that was the case - and so you were simply misinterpreting an interaction previously. does that mean you need the government to swoop in and fix your argument? no, it just means that you are a human who is fallible and capable of making mistakes, misinterpreting things, and being unaware of your own motivations/actions.

i think the same basic logic can be applied to any situation or person in a situation, and that by doing so, we can partially account for the discrepancy between what we know is true and what is being reported. that is, we can look at the experiences in context and explain them, or include the experiences in our overall analysis of the situation. in short, i think that the sex workers themselves are the only ones who could truly make an accurate assessment of any given situation involving their own motivation as a factor in interpretation, but that overall, we can identify that rape is rape - that sex from coercion is rape - and that there is probably a lot of this going on in the sex industry given that much paid labor is done under threat of loss of livelihood; the same coercive factor that leads all of us to do work in the most palatable way we think that we are able.

[FSL]

1)
2) I do think workers, both sex workers and workers in general, have agency, and I support workers struggling collectively and withdrawing their consent by going on strike, for example. I don't think they are eternal helpless victims who need social workers, lawyers, and middle class saviors to come lobby the state/police to "protect" them, which is the logical conclusion of your politics. It is patronizing nonsense.

You think workers have "agency" so you support them in their decision to withdraw their consent.
Therefore you must support them in their decision to not go on strike and vote for more cuts or for deportations of immigrants or for censorship laws.

Isn't that correct? I mean saying that workers who do these things "don't know what's best for them" is pedantic and akin to middle-class savourism, isn't it?



The material reality doesn't give two shits what anyone thinks about it.
You might be bying sex and thinking it's a revolutionary feminist act, someone else might be voting for conservatives thinking doing that will improve his wages.
Anyone might think whatever they want and if that's enough for you then you're the definiion of a person who's satisfied with the world as it is. And that's a person I'd want very little to do with.

[PhoenixAsh]

i just think we can view experiences in context and explain them.

only the individual person knows what their motivations are and so it is actually impossible for any of us who is not that person to definitively say one way or another that any of the situations constitute rape because we can't have all of the knowledge needed to do so because we aren't them

but, at the same time, simply being in the situation does not mean that your interpretation of it is correct. for example, have you ever been in an argument with someone and then later on you had an epiphany and realized that you were the one being the asshole and not vice versa? well the situation itself never actually changed based on your epiphany - you were always being the asshole even when you didn't think that was the case - and so you were simply misinterpreting an interaction previously. does that mean you need the government to swoop in and fix your argument? no, it just means that you are a human who is fallible and capable of making mistakes, misinterpreting things, and being unaware of your own motivations/actions.

i think the same basic logic can be applied to any situation or person in a situation, and that by doing so, we can partially account for the discrepancy between what we know is true and what is being reported. that is, we can look at the experiences in context and explain them, or include the experiences in our overall analysis of the situation. in short, i think that the sex workers themselves are the only ones who could truly make an accurate assessment of any given situation involving their own motivation as a factor in interpretation, but that overall, we can identify that rape is rape - that sex from coercion is rape - and that there is probably a lot of this going on in the sex industry given that much paid labor is done under threat of loss of livelihood; the same coercive factor that leads all of us to do work in the most palatable way we think that we are able.

Weren't you the one who called sexwork the commercialisation of rape?

That means you called sexworkers rape victims and all those who frequent sexworkers rapists. You did that based on an assumption of something that might possibly be the case. In doing so you diminished rape and stripped it of all actual meaning.

You are doing this based on some mystification of and moralization about sex and sexual contact ascribing to it some meaning beyond work and confusing the act with the coercive nature of work itself.

[FSL]

So how a person interprets their own experiences doesn't matter to you at all?

Not in the slightest. How you interpret gravity doesn't change what gravity is. If you think you can float, you're just insane. I retain my right to be sane.



If someone doesn't interpret something the way you think they should, does that automatically mean they're deluding themselves?
How about I raise the stakes a bit. Anyone who sees consent in commodity exchange and defends it on principle, making this his guiding ideology even, is pretty much whitewashing capitalism and everything it brings.

[FSL]

Weren't you the one who called sexwork the commercialisation of rape?

That means you called sexworkers rape victims and all those who frequent sexworkers rapists. You did that based on an assumption of something that might possibly be the case. In doing so you diminished rape and stripped it of all actual meaning.

You are doing this based on some mystification of and moralization about sex and sexual contact ascribing to it some meaning beyond work and confusing the act with the coercive nature of work itself.

Work is coercive but sex work isn't?

Sex work is coercive but consensually?

[The Feral Underclass]

Not in the slightest. How you interpret gravity doesn't change what gravity is. If you think you can float, you're just insane. I retain my right to be sane.

So if a woman interprets her enjoyment of being tied up and whipped as pleasurable, she's not really finding it pleasurable, she just thinks she is? What happens if a sex worker enjoys the work she does, just as a car builder might enjoy doing the work they do, or a teacher enjoy doing their work? What happens then? Are they just thinking they enjoy it, but actually they don't?

[The Feral Underclass]

Work is coercive but sex work isn't?

Sex work is coercive but consensually?

All work is coercive, but communer and Rosenpenis seem to be making the argument that sex work is more coercive than any other work because you're able to call it rape. How does that make sense?

Sex work is consensual in the same way that all work is consensual...There isn't a distinction to be made.

[consuming negativity]

Weren't you the one who called sexwork the commercialisation of rape?

That means you called sexworkers rape victims and all those who frequent sexworkers rapists. You did that based on an assumption of something that might possibly be the case. In doing so you diminished rape and stripped it of all actual meaning.

You are doing this based on some mystification of and moralization about sex and sexual contact ascribing to it some meaning beyond work and confusing the act with the coercive nature of work itself.

you're right that it logically follows from the position that prostitution is frequently rape that the johns in question would be rapists

but i do not believe that recognizing that rape is more than a stereotype detracts from the meaning of the word, especially given that the meaning of the word lines up with what i'm talking about here.

calling a canoe a boat does not detract from the fact that a battleship is a boat

and really, we used to only think of rape as the example i gave earlier of lone woman walking at night in "a bad part of town"

now we recognize that spousal rape is rape, we recognize that drugging a woman can take away her ability to properly consent to sex, and we are more and more discovering how much of rape is not the exception to the rule that we think of in our mind when we think of the word "rape"

rape culture is not a new phenomenon, and rape has been a service to be bought and sold for thousands of years, which should not be surprising given that women were frequently treated as commodities to be bought and sold. hell, all people were if they were black up until the mid-1800s (in America), so really none of this should be surprising to you at all, and honestly i'm sort of baffled by how much flak i'm catching for my position here

[FSL]

So if a woman interprets here enjoyment of being tied up and whipped as pleasurable, she's not really finding it pleasurable, she just thinks she is?

Your suggestion is insulting.

What do you know of George Bernard Shaw? He was a playwriter and a communist, his most famous work being Pygmalion. Even more famous is the film adaptation "my fair lady".
But the way he wrote that play and the way it was presented was in the end extremely different. The female lead ends up with the male lead in typical (pre)hollywood fashion, despite the male lead thinking little of her, asking her to bring him his sleepers in one scene. In the play, she goes back to him "accepting her position". According to the actual script, she chooses a younger man closer to her in social status and builds a life with him.

He writes this in "what happened afterwards":


Eliza has no use for the foolish romantic tradition that all women love to be mastered, if not actually bullied and beaten. "When you go to women," says Nietzsche, "take your whip with you." Sensible despots have never confined that precaution to women: they have taken their whips with them when they have dealt with men, and been slavishly idealized by the men over whom they have flourished the whip much more than by women
http://www.classicreader.com/book/1126/7/

Women have no special deside to act slavish, no more than men at least. They find no special enjoyment in being tied and whipped, no more than men do. Both sexes have to a large extent and for millenia been slavish to a great number of despots. And they have been that "willingly" and voluntarily".
So willingly and voluntarily that even romantic plays and films need to have their endings changed to reinforce the ideas of "strong men" and weak people that follow them.


I don't care what she thinks, I care about what it is. She has been conditioned to think like that and through a ton of effort people will one day find enjoyment in freedom. If you believe this effort isn't needed because people "are already happy" and "consenting", then obviously you are happy with this world and have no place in discussions for a new one.

[consuming negativity]

All work is coercive, but communer and Rosenpenis seem to be making the argument that sex work is more coercive than any other work because you're able to call it rape. How does that make sense?

Sex work is consensual in the same way that all work is consensual...There isn't a distinction to be made.

>communer and rosenpenis

i am making my own arguments and i've already said that i don't think it is more or less coercive than any other work

but it is often rape

this really is not that nuanced of a position to have and i suspect your confusion is based on attributing rosenpenises (jesus fucking christ this name lmao) arguments to me.

but we're not the same person, and he was wrong if he ever argued that, so

[FSL]

All work is coercive, but communer and Rosenpenis seem to be making the argument that sex work is more coercive than any other work because you're able to call it rape. How does that make sense?

Sex work is consensual in the same way that all work is consensual...There isn't a distinction to be made.
Rape is a name for a coercive sex and can be a name for sex work in particular in the same sense that slavery is a term for coercive work in general.

Slavery is used, somewhat a-historically, to describe wage labor so even if rape isn't the best term available, it's certainly not wrong.

Do you have issues with the phrase wage slave as well? Do you think it's insulting to all those happy, consenting workers?

[The Feral Underclass]

Your suggestion is insulting.

No, no, no. You just think it's insulting.


Women have no special deside to act slavish, no more than men at least. They find no special enjoyment in being tied and whipped, no more than men do. Both sexes have to a large extent and for millenia been slavish to a great number of despots. And they have been that "willingly" and voluntarily".

Wow. Well, when you eventually venture out into the world, you're in for a big shock...For a start I know plenty of men who enjoy being tied up and whipped and I can assure you, there are women out there who enjoy it too.


I don't care what she thinks

And this is fundamentally your problem. You don't care about women. Instead you choose to patronise them and belittle their sexual preferences while disempowering them by turning them into victims and supporting legislation against their sexuality.


She has been conditioned to think like that and through a ton of effort people will one day find enjoyment in freedom.
If you believe this effort isn't needed because people "are already happy" and "consenting", then obviously you are happy with this world and have no place in discussions for a new one.

Let's assume for a moment that you are right about women being conditioned to think they like it, what are you going to do about the fact they do like it and will want to carry on doing it? How do you actually intend to take practical steps to stop women from liking it? I mean, I'm conditioned to think that eating saturated fat and sugar is really bad for me, and you know what, it really is, yet I love to eat donuts...I mean, I really love it. Do you intend for your Marxist-Leninist government to institute some kind of moral police force to go around making sure people aren't being tied up and whipped in their bedrooms?


Rape is a name for a coercive sex in the same sense that slavery is a term for coercive work in general.

Slavery is used, somewhat a-historically, to describe wage labor so even if rape isn't the best term available, it's certainly not wrong.

Do you have issues with the phrase wage slave as well? Do you think it's insulting to all those happy, consenting workers?

I don't care if you want to use the word rape to describe sex work. The point is that it doesn't actually add anything to the understanding of sex work, beyond creating some kind of emotive response. Technically you're not incorrect, but what does it actually contribute to the debate about sex work or work in general?

Sex work is just like retail work. It's no different in the dynamics that are involved. Work is work, whether it is sex work, retail work or health work. Calling it rape doesn't alter that or make it any more significant than any other work that people do. It just makes you look silly.

[The Feral Underclass]

>communer and rosenpenis

i am making my own arguments and i've already said that i don't think it is more or less coercive than any other work

but it is often rape

this really is not that nuanced of a position to have and i suspect your confusion is based on attributing rosenpenises (jesus fucking christ this name lmao) arguments to me.

I'm not confused. You're just backtracking.


but we're not the same person, and he was wrong if he ever argued that, so

You're not the same person, no, that's why I differentiated you both by using your separate names...

[PhoenixAsh]

you're right that it logically follows from the position that prostitution is frequently rape that the johns in question would be rapists

but i do not believe that recognizing that rape is more than a stereotype detracts from the meaning of the word, especially given that the meaning of the word lines up with what i'm talking about here.

calling a canoe a boat does not detract from the fact that a battleship is a boat

and really, we used to only think of rape as the example i gave earlier of lone woman walking at night in "a bad part of town"

now we recognize that spousal rape is rape, we recognize that drugging a woman can take away her ability to properly consent to sex, and we are more and more discovering how much of rape is not the exception to the rule that we think of in our mind when we think of the word "rape"

rape culture is not a new phenomenon, and rape has been a service to be bought and sold for thousands of years, which should not be surprising given that women were frequently treated as commodities to be bought and sold. hell, all people were if they were black up until the mid-1800s (in America), so really none of this should be surprising to you at all, and honestly i'm sort of baffled by how much flak i'm catching for my position here

And that is the point. A battleship is a ship and not a boat.

When you talk about boats and battleships turn up...people are going to be surprised because you provided them with inaccurate information.

The same is with calling sexwork rape. There is a distinct difference between the two and the difference is the voluntary nature and the substantial difference between the types of coercion you are talking about and what their implication is.

NONE of your examples you mention of what previously wasn't thought of as rape are even remotely similar to the coercion of having to work to survive.

The problem lies in where YOU are connection the coercion to and how you subtilly alter what coercion means in each context. And this is how you actually devaluate rape and detatch it from any meaningful implication in the real world.

You are catching flak, correctly, because of the petit bourgeois approach to sex as something mystical, the false generalisation, the hautain approach to consent, and your opinion on the ability of people who work in the field to understan their position better than the person who is far detached from it....and your diminishing of rape as a term.

[consuming negativity]

And that is the point. A battleship is a ship and not a boat.

When you talk about boats and battleships turn up...people are going to be surprised because you provided them with inaccurate information.

The same is with calling sexwork rape. There is a distinct difference between the two and the difference is the voluntary nature and the substantial difference between the types of coercion you are talking about and what their implication is.

NONE of your examples you mention of what previously wasn't thought of as rape are even remotely similar to the coercion of having to work to survive.

The problem lies in where YOU are connection the coercion to and how you subtilly alter what coercion means in each context. And this is how you actually devaluate rape and detatch it from any meaningful implication in the real world.

You are catching flak, correctly, because of the petit bourgeois approach to sex as something mystical, the false generalisation, the hautain approach to consent, and your opinion on the ability of people who work in the field to understan their position better than the person who is far detached from it....and your diminishing of rape as a term.

>voluntary nature of work

no. work is not voluntary. you're falling back on the same pro-capitalist argument that strix was, and again, i am baffled as to why i'm having to deal with this in a forum that is not opposing ideologies. especially from someone who is accusing me of having a "petit bourgeois" understanding of sex (what does this even mean?)

please show me how i have altered what "coercion" means anywhere.

please show me where i said that i understand the position of anyone better than they do when i actually said the exact opposite:


only the individual person knows what their motivations are and so it is actually impossible for any of us who is not that person to definitively say one way or another that any of the situations constitute rape because we can't have all of the knowledge needed to do so because we aren't themoh, and also please show me where i diminished rape as a term by calling rape what it is.

[PhoenixAsh]

Deep sigh.

Ok.

The coercion of having to work to survive is linked to the act of working. It is not linked to the subject of the work...this is where you go wrong. What you are doing is connecting the coercive nature of having to work to survive with the sexual nature of the work...in other words a specific act of sex. You are doing this because of some mystification and moralization of sex which attaches greater importance to sexual acts than to other work.

The sexworker chose the profession. They consented to the specific act. And as long as the service they provide proceeds along the consented path,....there is no rape.

Just because money or goods/services changes hand in exchange for the sex makes it no different from any other act of consentual sex.

The distinction between the coercive nature of having to work to survive and being coerced into sex...should be clear. And I for one do not understand why we should be having this discussion outside of gradeschool.

You are diminishing rape because you reduce it to something without any meaning by devaluing coercion.

[consuming negativity]

Deep sigh.

Ok.

The coercion of having to work to survive is linked to the act of working. It is not linked to the subject of the work...this is where you go wrong. What you are doing is connecting the coercive nature of having to work to survive with the sexual nature of the work...in other words a specific act of sex. You are doing this because of some mystification and moralization of sex which attaches greater importance to sexual acts than to other work.

The sexworker chose the profession. They consented to the specific act. And as long as the service they provide proceeds along the consented path,....there is no rape.

The distinction between the coercive nature of having to work to survive and being coerced into sex...should be clear. And I for one do not understand why we should be having this discussion outside of gradeschool.

You are diminishing rape because you reduce it to something without any meaning by devaluing coercion.

i never said it was linked to the subject of the work - all work that we do is coerced, including sex work

the thing is that sex work involves sex, and the non-voluntary actions are thus not making cheeseburgers or doing whatever other work, but are sex, and non-voluntary sex is rape

that it is detached from coercion (ie. there is no gun DIRECTLY to the persons's head) does not mean that the act is not being coerced externally and does not allow for consent in any meaningful sense

in other words, the coercion is being obfuscated and you are wrongly detaching the work of sex work from the circumstances that surround it, leading you to an erroneous conclusion that the work we do is voluntary even though we have no choice but to work. sex work, for sex workers, is just what they feel is the best decision to make in a situation where they are forced to make a choice. the sex is happening only because it is the worker's profession, and the profession is only had because of the coercion that compels all of us to sell our labor. the sex, therefore, cannot be considered consensual because it is only happening because of the coercion inherent to capitalism

[PhoenixAsh]

Except it is not inherrent to capitalism.

The coercion you think pressent is not linked to the act of sex but to the act of working. The specific work is irrelevant and you only attach meaning to it because it involves sex. And that is petit-bourgeois moralism.

But if you want to create some mystic debate about the nature of voluntary...then of course you can make the logical leap here and deduce that nothing we will ever do is voluntary and therefore everything is coerced. Hence in your version of coercion the term become meaningless.

[BIXX]

I would say that sex work is no different from any other work from the dynamics related to the labour itself. However sex work, and sex itself, are marked by gender, but this does not make all sex rape or mean that sex that involves this or that kink is rape, but that sex cannot currently be free. So the acts and the way women are used in sex work has some gendered violence to it, but the work aspect itself is no different.

[consuming negativity]

Except it is not inherrent to capitalism.

The coercion you think pressent is not linked to the act of sex but to the act of working. The specific work is irrelevant and you only attach meaning to it because it involves sex. And that is petit-bourgeois moralism.

But if you want to create some mystic debate about the nature of voluntary...then of course you can make the logical leap here and deduce that nothing we will ever do is voluntary and therefore everything is coerced. Hence in your version of coercion the term become meaningless.

>coercion is not inherent to capitalism

alright well i don't know how you can be an anarchist with that position, but you're literally telling me more than once in the same post that i am arguing the exact opposite of what i'm arguing and i'm seriously confused as to how you could possibly be misrepresenting my arguments in this way

for one, i never said that the specific work mattered. i said 50,000 times that it didn't and that it is rape because it involves sex - not that any other work was any less subject to coercion.

and furthermore, it is not some mystical debate. i never said anything about other actions outside of paid labor which is undeniably coercive. at this point i think we're gonna just have to agree to disagree because either you guys are not reading my posts or you're arguing with straw men in your heads that really i'm just tired of burning down

this is not that difficult of a position to grasp. and everybody i've talked to ITT is someone i consider smart, which just leads me to the conclusion that none of you want to consider the possibility that my position is valid which leaves me no other choice but to just abandon this thread and let you all keep pretending that i'm a closet liberal. or, uh, a "petit bourgeois" :rolleyes:

[PhoenixAsh]

Maybe if I explained it like this:

The coercive element in rape applies directly to the act of sex. Making that act involuntary. The outcome of the coercion is always a sexual act performed and the two are intrinsically linked.

The coercive element in work applies to work. The coercive element here does not directly apply to what you do but on the fact that you have to work to survive. The outcome is not intrinsically linked to a sexual act but to having to work.

The fact that somebody choses to perform sexual services for money does not transfer the coercive element to the act of sex itself....therefore making it very distinct from rape.

This does not negate that there are situations in which sexwork is forced on somebody. Making it rape. But in all those cases the coercive element is directed at having to perform sexual acts.

[consuming negativity]

Maybe if I explained it like this:

The coercive element in rape applies directly to the act of sex. Making that act involuntary. The outcome of the coercion is always a sexual act performed and the two are intrinsically linked.

The coercive element in work applies to work. The coercive element here does not directly apply to what you do but on the fact that you have to work to survive. The outcome is not intrinsically linked to a sexual act but to having to work.

The fact that somebody choses to perform sexual services for money does not transfer the coercive element to the act of sex itself....therefore making it very distinct from rape.

This does not negate that there are situations in which sexwork is forced on somebody. Making it rape. But in all those cases the coercive element is directed at having to perform sexual acts.

why does it matter if the coercive act is specifically targeted at sex or if it is targeted at work which results in sex?

like, i'm not trying to say that you're wrong that there is a huge distinction to be made between run-of-the-mill sex work and what you're referring to when you say rape

there is a huge and obvious difference between sex worker and client having sex and sex worker being sexually assaulted by potential client and i would never be so dense or ignorant as to deny this, but i genuinely feel that the term "rape" can be used to describe both encounters, and more

like the difference is very obvious there, but let's talk about other sorts of thing that fall under the definition of rape

if a woman and a man have went back to one of their apartments together and she has sex with him because she's young and he's a big guy and she's just scared of what happens if she says no, is that rape?

according to what i think, yes. it is rape because she did not want it. that doesn't make him immoral unless he was aware that she wasn't into it at the time, which frankly i think is sort of obvious if someone isn't into it, but then again i've done some pretty ridiculously ignorant things before so i won't pass judgement quite yet on hypothetical man.

but to me, the only kind of sex that is not rape is where all participants in the sex are able, willing, with ongoing consent and an active desire to participate that is not based in coercion of any sort be it financial, physical, or otherwise

does that mean that if i could choose one situation over the other, that there are not clear differences and obvious choices to be made? of course not. of course there is a very real and clear difference between sex work and what you're talking about when you say the word "rape". but again, i genuinely think that it is important to identify that everything here that we're talking about is rape and that the difference is in degrees of coercion. i think the only acceptable level of coercion is zero. which does not mean that sex workers do not have agency, and it does not mean that there are not real and clear differences in these situations which are all unique and pose their own challenges, but it does mean exactly what i'm saying - that the only truly consensual sex is where there is no obligation, expectations, or any coercive element whatsoever.

[FSL]

No, no, no. You just think it's insulting.



Wow. Well, when you eventually venture out into the world, you're in for a big shock...For a start I know plenty of men who enjoy being tied up and whipped and I can assure you, there are women out there who enjoy it too.



And this is fundamentally your problem. You don't care about women. Instead you choose to patronise them and belittle their sexual preferences while disempowering them by turning them into victims and supporting legislation against their sexuality.



Let's assume for a moment that you are right about women being conditioned to think they like it, what are you going to do about the fact they do like it and will want to carry on doing it? How do you actually intend to take practical steps to stop women from liking it? I mean, I'm conditioned to think that eating saturated fat and sugar is really bad for me, and you know what, it really is, yet I love to eat donuts...I mean, I really love it. Do you intend for your Marxist-Leninist government to institute some kind of moral police force to go around making sure people aren't being tied up and whipped in their bedrooms?



I don't care if you want to use the word rape to describe sex work. The point is that it doesn't actually add anything to the understanding of sex work, beyond creating some kind of emotive response. Technically you're not incorrect, but what does it actually contribute to the debate about sex work or work in general?

Sex work is just like retail work. It's no different in the dynamics that are involved. Work is work, whether it is sex work, retail work or health work. Calling it rape doesn't alter that or make it any more significant than any other work that people do. It just makes you look silly.

I don't care about women just as much as I don't care about people who "love capitalism", in the sense that I don't think everything begins and ends with their current emotions. Instead I think that their opinion should change and that this would be for the better.

If you want to change the opinions of those workers who love capitalism but see nothing wrong with the women who like to be exploited and respect their opinion, I guess you're a hypocrite.

And no, I don't support a police force that would be going around in people's bedrooms. But I would most certainly support anti sex-work legislation from my marxist leninist government and please don't go around saying this would harm the women employed there. They wouldn't be left unemployed.
It might harm all their clients though and I'm fine with that.

And I also support a change in the superstructure that would empower women and eventually decondition them and men alike of all traits of "master admiration".

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't care about women just as much as I don't care about people who "love capitalism", in the sense that I don't think everything begins and ends with their current emotions. Instead I think that their opinion should change and that this would be for the better.

If you want to change the opinions of those workers who love capitalism but see nothing wrong with the women who like to be exploited and respect their opinion, I guess you're a hypocrite.

[...]

And I also support a change in the superstructure that would empower women and eventually decondition them and men alike of all traits of "master admiration".

Any one who starts an argument by implying that workers "love capitalism" is very clearly completely out of touch with the working class. I don't know any worker who "loves capitalism." It's not "love" it's "what we've got." People don't "love" capitalism, they just live with it.

I also don't think you understand how sex works. Arousal is a physiological response to stimuli. When a person engages in an activity that they enjoy the brain stimulates the body by releasing hormones. When it is sexual the body releases hormones that induce your horniness: norepinephrine and serotonin arouse you and dopamine makes you feel happy. Blood then flows to the genitalia, causing the vagina to moisten and expand and the penis to be become erect. Those reactions can only happen if you encounter or participate in something that is capable of physiologically arousing you.

So how, in your strange little world, do you propose to "change" their mind about that? How do you actually propose to alter those physiological responses men and women have for dominatrix and the like? I mean, this point-of-view you have is very similar to what people were saying about gay men not so long ago. And we all know how well that worked out. Are you going to attach electrodes to people's genitalia?


And no, I don't support a police force that would be going around in people's bedrooms. But I would most certainly support anti sex-work legislation from my marxist leninist government and please don't go around saying this would harm the women employed there. They wouldn't be left unemployed.
It might harm all their clients though and I'm fine with that.

Why do you support anti-sex work legislation but not anti-retail or anti-factory work legislation?

[PhoenixAsh]

why does it matter if the coercive act is specifically targeted at sex or if it is targeted at work which results in sex?

like, i'm not trying to say that you're wrong that there is a huge distinction to be made between run-of-the-mill sex work and what you're referring to when you say rape

there is a huge and obvious difference between sex worker and client having sex and sex worker being sexually assaulted by potential client and i would never be so dense or ignorant as to deny this, but i genuinely feel that the term "rape" can be used to describe both encounters, and more

like the difference is very obvious there, but let's talk about other sorts of thing that fall under the definition of rape

if a woman and a man have went back to one of their apartments together and she has sex with him because she's young and he's a big guy and she's just scared of what happens if she says no, is that rape?

according to what i think, yes. it is rape because she did not want it. that doesn't make him immoral unless he was aware that she wasn't into it at the time, which frankly i think is sort of obvious if someone isn't into it, but then again i've done some pretty ridiculously ignorant things before so i won't pass judgement quite yet on hypothetical man.

but to me, the only kind of sex that is not rape is where all participants in the sex are able, willing, with ongoing consent and an active desire to participate that is not based in coercion of any sort be it financial, physical, or otherwise

does that mean that if i could choose one situation over the other, that there are not clear differences and obvious choices to be made? of course not. of course there is a very real and clear difference between sex work and what you're talking about when you say the word "rape". but again, i genuinely think that it is important to identify that everything here that we're talking about is rape and that the difference is in degrees of coercion. i think the only acceptable level of coercion is zero. which does not mean that sex workers do not have agency, and it does not mean that there are not real and clear differences in these situations which are all unique and pose their own challenges, but it does mean exactly what i'm saying - that the only truly consensual sex is where there is no obligation, expectations, or any coercive element whatsoever.


It is not that I do not understand your argument. I do.

The problem is that your argument makes rape a useless term which has no applicable meaning.

Lets take your example. Again the coercive element is directed to the act of sex. The fear is what will happen is she doesn't have sex.

Expanding on it the way you use it....

...means that whatever pressure somebody feels for whatever reason in whatever social action would constitute rape if the social action involves sex. That means that if somebody wants to start a family because that is what society dictates...the logical outcome is that there is an element of coercion and therefore all sex resulting from that is rape. And to make it even more clear why this is a problem...a rapist can be both a rape victim and a purpetraitor in the exact same act if there was a coercive element that drove him to having sex.

The problem with applying your appplication of the coercive elements is that it quite litterally becomes the case that 1). all sex is coercive to some extend or another and thus rape 2). nobody can distinguish the coercive element anymore much less the supposed victim and therefore it reduces, deflects or eliminates culpability 3). we all become victims.

There are other implications. But these three are more than enough to make rape a useless term which can not be applied in reality because it detatches all obligations from them. As a result consent becomes meaningless as well since nobody can actually give consent at any period.

Even the logical conclusion that all Johns are rapists becomes meaningless and actually quite untrue. Actually Johns are rape victims as well since there will obviously be coercive elements, expectations and fears playing into their decision to frequent a sexworker.

Probably unintentionally you are distinguishing between different kinds of rape which have different meanings based on the elements. We will need precursor words to distinguish between the types of rape based on the coercive element and how it relates to the act. We quite clearly get a distinction between different kinds of rape we are talking about in order to make the term understandable. We litterally do get terms like "legitimate rape" like Akin once used or "real rape" like Estrich did.

[Sasha]

Why do you support anti-sex work legislationbut not anti-retail or anti-factory work legislation?

Because in his Marxist Leninist government (telling choice of words that) there will be plenty of retail and factorywork standing, but sex work will be banned so these women (and men) will be rounded up by the police and forcibly put to work in the glorious Marxist Leninist back breaking factories.
But don't you dear call FSL a reactionary, this is all very very leftist.

[FSL]

Any one who starts an argument by implying that workers "love capitalism" is very clearly completely out of touch with the working class. I don't know any worker who "loves capitalism." It's not "love" it's "what we've got." People don't "love" capitalism, they just live with it.
What a cop out.
Ok, workers who vote for center-right or center-left parties don't necessarily love capitalism. They do hate communism or anarchism though, don't they, at least some of them? Maybe they don't do that either? And maybe there are in fact some workers who do love capitalism and the "dream". And there certainly are workers who praise their bosses for giving them jobs and their daily bread.

So answer the question, what about them? Do you care about their opinion, respect it, recognize it as the correct one because after all they're consenting adults with agency?



I also don't think you understand how sex works. Arousal is a physiological response to stimuli. When a person engages in an activity that they enjoy the brain stimulates the body by releasing hormones. When it is sexual the body releases hormones that induce your horniness: norepinephrine and serotonin arouse you and dopamine makes you feel happy. Blood then flows to the genitalia, causing the vagina to moisten and expand and the penis to be become erect. Those reactions can only happen if you encounter or participate in something that is capable of physiologically arousing you.

So how, in your strange little world, do you propose to "change" their mind about that? How do you actually propose to alter those physiological responses men and women have for dominatrix and the like? I mean, this point-of-view you have is very similar to what people were saying about gay men not so long ago. And we all know how well that worked out. Are you going to attach electrodes to people's genitalia?

You don't need to enjoy something to become aroused. You're saying that men can't get raped and that women who get raped and become aroused in the process (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape) actually wanted to get raped. Actually in this fucked up world someone might get aroused exactly by not enjoying something, because they have learnt that that is their place in society and that's the situation that makes them feel comfortable.

A racist person would feel great seeing a foreigner get abused. He enjoys the activity and their brain also releases happy hormones. I don't think it will take electrodes to their brain, just many years or generations or centuries of education.
I certainly won't say "well, he gets off to that, fair game".



Why do you support anti-sex work legislation but not anti-retail or anti-factory work legislation?
No kind of private employment should be allowed. That's basically the difference between capitalism and socialism, you know.

[FSL]

Because in his Marxist Leninist government (telling choice of words that) there will be plenty of retail and factorywork standing, but sex work will be banned so these women (and men) will be rounded up by the police and forcibly put to work in the glorious Marxist Leninist back breaking factories.
But don't you dear call FSL a reactionary, this is all very very leftist.

The choice of words was in fact his.
Factory work is back breaking but sucking your dick must be a dream job for millions of women.

I certainly hope "my marxist leninist government" rounds up all the idiotic pseudoleftists though. We could put you in the back breaking factory jobs and have the women who are currently sex workers spend their time leisurely as your supervisors. Everybody -except a few idiots- win.

[Sasha]

Why don't you take your madonna whore complex and shove it up your deeply sexist arse... Your a class enemy through and through and a moralist reactionary to boot.

[consuming negativity]

It is not that I do not understand your argument. I do.

The problem is that your argument makes rape a useless term which has no applicable meaning.

Lets take your example. Again the coercive element is directed to the act of sex. The fear is what will happen is she doesn't have sex.

Expanding on it the way you use it....

...means that whatever pressure somebody feels for whatever reason in whatever social action would constitute rape if the social action involves sex. That means that if somebody wants to start a family because that is what society dictates...the logical outcome is that there is an element of coercion and therefore all sex resulting from that is rape. And to make it even more clear why this is a problem...a rapist can be both a rape victim and a purpetraitor in the exact same act if there was a coercive element that drove him to having sex.

The problem with applying your appplication of the coercive elements is that it quite litterally becomes the case that 1). all sex is coercive to some extend or another and thus rape 2). nobody can distinguish the coercive element anymore much less the supposed victim and therefore it reduces, deflects or eliminates culpability 3). we all become victims.

There are other implications. But these three are more than enough to make rape a useless term which can not be applied in reality because it detatches all obligations from them. As a result consent becomes meaningless as well since nobody can actually give consent at any period.

Even the logical conclusion that all Johns are rapists becomes meaningless and actually quite untrue. Actually Johns are rape victims as well since there will obviously be coercive elements, expectations and fears playing into their decision to frequent a sexworker.

Probably unintentionally you are distinguishing between different kinds of rape which have different meanings based on the elements. We will need precursor words to distinguish between the types of rape based on the coercive element and how it relates to the act. We quite clearly get a distinction between different kinds of rape we are talking about in order to make the term understandable. We litterally do get terms like "legitimate rape" like Akin once used or "real rape" like Estrich did.

this is precisely the problem with trying to make a "cut-off" for what amount of coercion is acceptable and therefore not rape. what if she said it was okay an hour ago, but now she's way too drunk to consent to anything? does it change depending on if she's your wife, if you've discussed the situation before, or if you just met her? what about if she's scared and the intimidation was purposeful but not immediately obvious as such? what if her fear comes not from anything he did but from the situation, because she's a woman in a bed and now believes that she is expected to have sex? what if she doesn't feel that way, but knows that she could be raped anyway and that society would blame her for getting in bed in the first place, so she lets it happen no matter if it would become violent or not?

the problem here is not with the definition being used. as you said, and as other users have said, it's not that i'm wrong, it's that you want a term to describe sex that is more obviously and immediately violently coerced or forced. well i didn't invent language, i have to use what i have, and viewing rape as coerced sex means that every situation i just listed in the last paragraph is a situation that is rape. that we cannot differentiate between these situations easily with our language is probably an effect of the fact that until very recently, there was only one kind of rape and everything else was considered consensual even though it very much was not at all. but why should i stop using words correctly because our language is inadequate to describe reality?

to address your argument that all sex becomes rape, well, i don't think that's true. i could easily frame something that is obviously rape as "we both want to have sex because it is the means to me not getting shot in the head by this guy who broke into my house". but obviously that is not consensual at all, right? the problem is that you're putting internal motivation and external motivation under the same umbrella. internal motivation is fine, but external motivation is not. when the motivation is external - i need to have this sex because it is my job because i have to have a job or else i won't be able to continue surviving - THAT is what makes it non-consensual. because without the threat of poverty the sex worker would not be a sex worker in the first place. very far divorced from the situation, yes, but it is what it is. that's a lot different than wanting to have sex with someone because you want to do the specific action itself, which is consensual, and which happens all the time. and, just to address it for the sake of doing so, i also think that two heterosexual persons of differing anatomy deciding to have a child together is consensual.

i mean, i see your point that it gets very murky and that coercion is, whether we like it or not, very pervasive in our society, but then i don't think that that should be ignored just because it is inconvenient for us to recognize that pretty much our entire society is based on people using, coercing, and forcing each other to do things that we don't actually want to do.

[The Feral Underclass]

What a cop out.
Ok, workers who vote for center-right or center-left parties don't necessarily love capitalism.

A cop out you agree with...?


They do hate communism or anarchism though, don't they, at least some of them? Maybe they don't do that either? And maybe there are in fact some workers who do love capitalism and the "dream". And there certainly are workers who praise their bosses for giving them jobs and their daily bread.

You're trying to argue that because some women like being dominated by men that this is somehow comparable to having "love" for capitalism, ignoring the fact that having an opinion and having physiological sexual enjoyment are not the same thing.


So answer the question, what about them? Do you care about their opinion, respect it, recognize it as the correct one because after all they're consenting adults with agency?

No, I don't "respect" that political point-of-view - but I don't disrespect the individual (unless they're actively hurting me). How is that useful? In any case, having a political point of view is not the same as a physiological reaction to sexual enjoyment...


You don't need to enjoy something to become aroused. You're saying that men can't get raped and that women who get raped and become aroused in the process (http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape) actually wanted to get raped. Actually in this fucked up world someone might get aroused exactly by not enjoying something, because they have learnt that that is their place in society and that's the situation that makes them feel comfortable.

Getting a hard on and getting a moist vagina aren't the complete basis for arousal, they are the just part of the mechanical results of sexual stimuli. It is just a physiological reaction to someone touching your penis or your vagina. A vagina will lubricate because that's what it's supposed to do, that doesn't mean that someone is "aroused" beyond that mechanism.

People can get erections just by sitting on a moving vehicle, but that doesn't mean dopamine, seratonin or norepinephrine have been released. It doesn't mean they're turned on, it just means that the vibration of the vehicle is simulating stimulation that releases nitric oxide. The fact that your body is moving around also increases blood flow that firms up your erection.

Does that mean that someone is aroused? Partially sure, but not in terms of the actual chemical necessities for enjoyment, no. Unless sitting on a bus turns them on. Conversely, people might get an automated response to stimuli when they are being raped, but does that mean they have a sexual enjoyment to being raped?

People who enjoy dominatrix actively seek it out time and time again as a primary sexual desire because it specifically releases norepinephrine, seratonin and dopamine when they view or participate in it -- The erection and the moist vagina are not the important part, the chemicals are. The hard on and moist vagina just aid what you want to achieve -- an orgasm. Do they do that by sitting on a bus or being raped? There is a difference between the mechanical responses of an organ and the complete physiological state of arousal. It might seem subtle to you, but it exists.


"well, he gets off to that, fair game".

You don't have a fucking choice mate.


No kind of private employment should be allowed. That's basically the difference between capitalism and socialism, you know.

But you support legislation against sex work now. And if you're only talking about "private employment," presumably this means people can do it for free? Free brothels, for example?

[FSL]

No, I don't "respect" that political point-of-view - but I don't disrespect the individual (unless they're actively hurting me).

But you support legislation against sex work now. And if you're only talking about "private employment," presumably this means people can do it for free? Free brothels, for example?

Another cop out. You don't respect that political point of view and what? You don't respect it but accept it and decide to do nothing about it? You are not interested in changing their opinion and you don't think that this would be for the best?
Do say so if that's the truth. The way I see it you can be one of two things. A hypocrite who only respects and accepts as a given the opinions of women who "just happen to decide they like to be exploited" as if that hasn't been the norm for millenia, or a downright reactionary who accepts everyone's slavishness as a "right" and a choice. Which one is it?

No, I don't support sex work legislation now. That wasn't your question and that wasn't my answer but you obviously don't care about such details.
People do have sex for free you know. It's called having sex with someone you like. It's not such an odd concept.




Actually in this fucked up world someone might get aroused exactly by not enjoying something, because they have learnt that that is their place in society and that's the situation that makes them feel comfortable.People who enjoy dominatrix actively seek it out time and time again as a primary sexual desire because it specifically releases norepinephrine, seratonin and dopamine when they view or participate in it
Bulimic people seek food time and time again not because it makes them "happy" but because it makes them not sad. They eat it, hate themselves and proceed to eat more.

The question here isn't whether someone has control of their body and is able to decide what to eat but to establish that in cases like these people actually lose control of their bodies due to whatever shit they're going through.

As I said someone might feel "at home" causing or suffering pain but that is a result of everything else, not some decision made in a vacuum about someone's preferences.

[The Feral Underclass]

Another cop out. You don't respect that political point of view and what? You don't respect it but accept it and decide to do nothing about it? You are not interested in changing their opinion and you don't think that this would be for the best?
Do say so if that's the truth. The way I see it you can be one of two things. A hypocrite who only respects and accepts as a given the opinions of women who "just happen to decide they like to be exploited" as if that hasn't been the norm for millenia, or a downright reactionary who accepts everyone's slavishness as a "right" and a choice. Which one is it?

I don't understand how you have gone from me saying I don't disrespect people to I'm politically inactive...:lol:


People do have sex for free you know. It's called having sex with someone you like. It's not such an odd concept.

But in your point-of-view anyone who has sex with someone they like by deciding they want to dominate each other, that they're not really consenting to that and they don't really enjoy it, they just think they do because they're conditioned. That has been your argument.


Bulimic people seek food time and time again not because it makes them "happy" but because it makes them not sad. They eat it, hate themselves and proceed to eat more.

The question here isn't whether someone has control of their body and is able to decide what to eat but to establish that in cases like these people actually lose control of their bodies due to whatever shit they're going through.

As I said someone might feel "at home" causing or suffering pain but that is a result of everything else, not some decision made in a vacuum about someone's preferences.

This is a picture representation of your argument. (https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5055/5399805046_0d30e4dd70.jpg)

[PhoenixAsh]

The choice of words was in fact his.
Factory work is back breaking but sucking your dick must be a dream job for millions of women.

I certainly hope "my marxist leninist government" rounds up all the idiotic pseudoleftists though. We could put you in the back breaking factory jobs and have the women who are currently sex workers spend their time leisurely as your supervisors. Everybody -except a few idiots- win.

So basically your ML government supports slavery and forced work. Good to know that you are not a total hypocrite :rolleyes:

And you are not at all sexist here. You think of sexworkers and automatically think of women....tsk, tsk...your petit-bourgeois moralism is showing here. Goes well with the whole cryspto fascist authoritarianism you are advocating.

Now I am sure your local KKE needs to prevent another revolution from happening and have some GD members hold speeches to striking workers...after that I think they have another round of handing over actual revolutionaries to the cops to do. So why don't you go join them?

[Lily Briscoe]

You think workers have "agency" so you support them in their decision to withdraw their consent.
Therefore you must support them in their decision to not go on strike and vote for more cuts or for deportations of immigrants or for censorship laws.

Isn't that correct? I mean saying that workers who do these things "don't know what's best for them" is pedantic and akin to middle-class savourism, isn't it?

I think workers have agency and that they're not simply passive victims. I think they become aware of their agency through collective struggle. I support workers collectively withdrawing their consent because I am a communist, which is why I don't support the other things you listed. I'm assuming you're trying to make some sort of argument, but God knows what your point actually is.

The logical conclusion of classifying sex work as rape, being that rape is a crime, is supporting the criminalization of sex work (unless you're going to argue that rape should be legal), which is where the 'middle class saviorism' comes in. "Protecting" sex workers by cracking down on their ability to make a living, 'for their own good' of course.

I think the 'solution' to the problem of sex work is the same as the solution to work in general, that it isn't some aberration or some special case but that the nature of sex work is completely consistent with the nature of work in general under capitalism, particularly "affective labor" and so-called "women's work".

[Rafiq]

What is the strongest indication that Communism has ideologically been reduced to a cosmetic trend? That Communist ideology is now a code which is simply adhered to and identified with. Something is true, apparently, or something is deemed more favorable... By merit of its fulfillment of a certain conscious identity. How infinitely ironic is it that the left, despite its petty bourgeois degeneration and "opposition" to society, has been able to perfectly conform ideologically to western de-industrialization and the rise of consumer culture - logically leading to an obsession of identity politics and single issue campaigns. It is conveyed here that the issue of sex work is simply a "disagreement" over where it fits in the anti-capitalist struggle.

There have been nine pages over this topic. What does that alone indicate? At least as far as this website is concerned, there is no consistent ideological consensus regarding the topic. Both sides of this debate are essentially two sides of the same pathetic coin, they meet each other as equals in their utter impotence to ideologically articulate, or account for sex work - every single fucking discussion like this only goes to show that all the postmodern Left is good for today is discovering new ways to violate Occam's Razor. Both an emphasize on the 'sanctity' of individual choices and petty bourgeois socialist puritanism are indicative of a kind of intellectual parasitism - these narratives are both born of the same ideological womb, or should I say: Both leech off of the same fundamentally ruling ideological assumptions. There seems to be this striking tacit agreement between all users that Communism as a movement is something of an impossibility and that the only real debates are ones similar to this: Fine-tuning and chiseling the antagonisms of present society rather than creating the conditions of its super-session.

This is a rampant and pervasive problem in general, and generally, I keep my mouth shut. Every few months or so we see some new revleft controversy over some kind of isolated, single-issue (usually sexual nature), firey debates over snipped ethical or moral issues. This is what I mean by violating Occam's razor: There are no radical ideological mechanisms which can simply account or incorporate something like sex work. Instead we have circular reasoning, we have rampant eclecticism and pathetic ass-covering.

There can only be one Communist articulation of prostitution: Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes – and the latter’s abomination is still greater – the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head. Isn't this all the more relevant today? Prostitution is precisely and nakedly manifests the fundamental relations of capitalist production and exploitation, it is the bare expression of existing sexual relations as they exist. Prostitution can be consensual, just as wage-labor is consensual, but this is not sufficient grounds for justification.

Communists ought to meet the commodification of sex with disgust, they ought to meet the existing sexual relations which put a price on female sexual agency with hatred. How can we talk of sexuality without oppression when some users claim that consequentially, prostitution could persist in a hypothetical post-capitalist society?

Is it deemed natural that the favors of women are bought by men as a general rule of prostitution (with exceptions, as anything)? Female sexuality can never be free so long as female sexuality can be bought or sold. Yes prostitution is a form of systemic rape just as the conditions of wage-labor are fundamentally a form of slavery. The difference is that in this form of essential rape, there is no single individual male culprit: Capitalism is the greatest rapist of all.

Communists therefore ought to defend prostitutes and attack pimps, while acknowledging fervent opposition to the condition of prostitution.

[Lily Briscoe]

The SPUSA has spoken. Rafiq, do you ever actually say anything, or do you just type to read yourself pontificate?

This is mostly a rhetorical question, because I can't really imagine how the answer could be any more obvious.

[Rafiq]

So if a woman interprets her enjoyment of being tied up and whipped as pleasurable, she's not really finding it pleasurable, she just thinks she is? What happens if a sex worker enjoys the work she does, just as a car builder might enjoy doing the work they do, or a teacher enjoy doing their work? What happens then? Are they just thinking they enjoy it, but actually they don't?

She is finding it pleasurable, but why she finds it pleasurable has a basis beyond her individual mechanisms of "free choice". Free choice is never grounds for justification because it doesn't exist.

Communists don't care about the sanctity of "individual choices". They care about destroying the conditions of slavery and exploitation - slavery is more then being held against one's will: it designates a fundamental relationship of power.

[Rafiq]

The SPUSA has spoken.

You're intellectually worthless. Even if I was still in the SPUSA, this alone would be grounds for disagreement. The pathetically sectarian left apparently is incapable of confronting arguments for what they are. Some kind of identification with some sect has to be made - as though all posts are made representative of the organization the user belongs to. Not everyone is an 870, Strix. Don't you dare make me out to be some kind of fucking apologist. Like, what the fuck have you said, Strix? What have you said that wasn't predictable or obvious? "I think this" or "I think that". The difference between posts like yours, and posts like mine, is that I recognize that my opinion alone is worthless. No, I don't post because I think "my two cents" is worth shit. I don't think it's worth anything because "I" posted it. I never regurgitate others' posts, I simply thank them or privately agree. I don't think anyone cares about "what I think". The point is to post consistently as a Marxist - as a Communist - of whom as a rule all are capable of being.

If you, however, search up threads regarding this topic, you will find billions of posts which are identical to yours.

[Lily Briscoe]

No, you are just an embarrassing tool who engages in ridiculous posturing and never actually says anything at all. I feel bad for you, honestly.

[Rafiq]

No, you are just an embarrassing tool who engages in ridiculous posturing and never actually says anything at all. I feel bad for you, honestly.

If these are the standards of language, then any consistent radical must be forever silent.

[consuming negativity]

the only part of rafiq's post that i disagree with is the part where he says we're all useless even though we agree with him.

which, whatever, you all might not recognize that we're in agreement but if so it is only because you're still caught up on the word-usage debate which really doesn't matter because everybody seems to have the same understanding of what is going on but that we're talking past each other and miscommunicating/misunderstanding each other

which is sort of to be expected given the venue and maybe you guys see it differently than i do but generally like 90% of the arguments on these forums are either because 1. someone is talking about shit when they don't know what they're talking about, or 2. people who know what they're talking about are talking past each other and using different words to describe the same thing.

*shrug*

nothing to be angry about

[Rafiq]

the only part of rafiq's post that i disagree with is the part where he says we're all useless even though we agree with him.


Recognizing that we are all useless means recognizing that I too am useless.

[The Feral Underclass]

the spusa has spoken. Rafiq, do you ever actually say anything, or do you just type to read yourself pontificate?

This is mostly a rhetorical question, because i can't really imagine how the answer could be any more obvious.

Rafiq Here. Rafiq Speak. Debate Over!

[The Feral Underclass]

She is finding it pleasurable, but why she finds it pleasurable has a basis beyond her individual mechanisms of "free choice". Free choice is never grounds for justification because it doesn't exist.

Hark, hear the harbinger of a totalitarian state.


Communists don't care about the sanctity of "individual choices". They care about destroying the conditions of slavery and exploitation - slavery is more then being held against one's will: it designates a fundamental relationship of power.

When it comes to people's bodies you don't have much of a say in it, I'm afraid.

[PhoenixAsh]

Apparently sexwork is directly linked to women these days.

Facts are a little different.

In Sweden young males who sell sex outbnumber women 3 to 1 (based on 2006 study) in at least the category sexwork <26 years. With an overall prevalence rating of 0,1% of women active in sexwork against 0,3 of all men.

In general 25%-35% of all sexworkers in Europe are male, Transgender or gender Queer.

So reducnig this to the female gender as a given...is...extremely sexist, reductionist and pretty much based on faulty information. Apparently for some leftist...thinking prostitution is thinking women. Really classy to rise above your patriarchal upbringing.

[FSL]

I think workers have agency and that they're not simply passive victims. I think they become aware of their agency through collective struggle. I support workers collectively withdrawing their consent because I am a communist, which is why I don't support the other things you listed. I'm assuming you're trying to make some sort of argument, but God knows what your point actually is.

I think you understand what my point is perfectly well, which is exactly why you and the rest of the chauvinist crowd tiptoe around it.


Workers need collective struggle to become aware of their agency? But sex workers in particular are born with it? I'm sure there are far more advanced struggles, better organized unions etc when it comes to say steel industry workers than sex workers and yet the steel industry workers who do participate in these struggles, be they for better working conditions, increased pay etc are hardly all "class conscious" and "aware of their agency" as you put it.
So why are sex workers making use of this agency by default whereas the rest of the workers only realize they have it after spending years and years and years in the class struggle?

I think it's because you always have the option to fuck the former but not the latter.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

this video is massively relevant

zpYegz1OqHA

two things i wanna highlight...


Based on information from the women themselves, women in prostitution are observed to be prostituted thru choices precluded, options restricted and possibilities denied.

we as communists should be fighting against such conditions of precariousness for all workers. this is a particular field where all workers are almost universally found in such situations. there is a difference between working to get by and having to submit yourself to otherwise intolerable work because you have no other way to survive. it's not okay for children to spend all day begging in the streets just because all work under capitalism is precarious anyway. it's not okay for factory workers to be subject to 16-hour workdays without sundays or holidays just because all work under capitalism is exploitative. furthermore, the comodifiation of peoples bodies by prostitution dehumanizes its victims. when your body and sex become your means of exchange that precludes any bodily or sexual autonomy.


Harm-elimination is not part of the sex work agenda [the agenda of legalizing and liberalizing prostitution] because it is inconsistent with sex-for-sale. Street ou house prostituted womens measures levels of post-traumatic stress, PTSD, is equivalent to that of combat veterans, victims of torture, or raped women. PTSD results from going through attrocities that you cannot mentally sustain. It often produces and accompanies dissociation. Dissociation meaning you put the violation away. You leave mentally. You repress or deny it or act like it isnt there inside you or disappear the self who knows it happened in order to get through the day. Often women in prostitution also are addicted to drugs. Many use substantial amounts of alcohol too, as a result of what theyre going through. Sometimes the drugs are pushed on them by pimps to addict them. These substances as well as this psychological strategy partially numb the pain of the constantly being reinfflicted trauma. What's going on here is distancing the body and the psyche somewhat from what is being done. And of course it makes her, the drugs and the alcohol, dependent on the pimp for the next fix. The abuse that is constant in prostitution, indeed endemic to it, requires dissociation from yourself and the world to survive so you may create a whole other self. Now if you cant live inside your own head and be who you are and do this, is that what freedom looks like? Being subjected to constant rape, being beaten to stay, being persecuted from looking for other options, sustaining the trauma of a warzone or a torture chamber, needing drugs to keep doing it, is this what you mean by employment?

[Sasha]

So would you support bourgeois laws that would ban kids from the street begging on penalty of arrest, would you support bourgeois laws that would criminalise people for working a 16hour workday in a factory without a law to force the bosses to pay a living wage?
No you wouldnt, no one here objects to laws criminalising rape and forced prostitution, do not make this into a strawman about that. You want to legislate what people out of freewill and with full consent could be doing, which means this is solely about the fact that you happen to have moralist objections to what they happen to be doing.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

ive already addressed that exact matter in this thread
and it's also one of the first issues addressed by mackinnon in the video i linked
if youre not gonna make any effort then dont bother to chime in at all

to reiterate, labour laws dont criminalise victims of exploitation. and sex laws dont criminalize victims of sexual violence. it's not about criminal law at all tbh

[Lily Briscoe]

Workers need collective struggle to become aware of their agency? But sex workers in particular are born with it? I'm sure there are far more advanced struggles, better organized unions etc when it comes to say steel industry workers than sex workers and yet the steel industry workers who do participate in these struggles, be they for better working conditions, increased pay etc are hardly all "class conscious" and "aware of their agency" as you put it.
So why are sex workers making use of this agency by default whereas the rest of the workers only realize they have it after spending years and years and years in the class struggle?I never said sex workers are "making use of their agency by default". Really you're not addressing anything I've actually said.


I think it's because you always have the option to fuck the former but not the latter.
This is pretty rich. I'll just say this: I suspect you are far more representative of the 'john' demographic than I am.

[FSL]

I never said sex workers are "making use of their agency by default". Really you're not addressing anything I've actually said.

That they use their agency must be considered a given, considering you support them in their free and unobstructed decision to do what they are doing.
So sex workers might not be making use of their agency? That makes all the "but they have agency" talk pretty useless I'd say.

Then again, they might have agency in choosing whether to use their agency or some crap like that.
In theory, we're all free I guess.

[Sasha]

ive already addressed that exact matter in this thread
and it's also one of the first issues addressed by mackinnon in the video i linked
if youre not gonna make any effort then dont bother to chime in at all

to reiterate, labour laws dont criminalise victims of exploitation. and sex laws dont criminalize victims of sexual violence. it's not about criminal law at all tbh

But your sexlaws do criminalize people exercising their personal freedoms and bodily autonomy, even if its only one in many that makes it bad legislation.

Your defending druglaws because heroin is bad for you m'kay...

[synthesis]

That they use their agency must be considered a given, considering you support them in their free and unobstructed decision to do what they are doing.
So sex workers might not be making use of their agency? That makes all the "but they have agency" talk pretty useless I'd say.

She said that workers become aware of agency that they already have. If I was inclined to be generous I'd say that this is an extreme case of bad reading comprehension, but based on what I know about you I think it's far more likely to be utterly shameless intellectual dishonesty.

Furthermore I think the accusation that people "support [sex workers] in their free and unobstructed decision to do what they are doing" says a lot more about your own rather exaggerated paternalism than it does about anything anyone else has said here.

[Habermas]

How are they going to enforce this? Are they going to look at every pornography video made in the UK and figure out if it meets these arbitrary rules? If so that's probably why they made the stupid standards in the first place.

[Loony Le Fist]

Under capitalism we equate work with slavery. So consider what this makes sex work under it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with pornogrophy or sex. I'm just saying that under capitalism (while it can be lucrative for some) it is still slavery. I particularly don't like the combination of sex and slavery being used to describe something. Which is particular to the case of sex work, specifically under capitalism.

[Rafiq]

Hark, hear the harbinger of a totalitarian state.



When it comes to people's bodies you don't have much of a say in it, I'm afraid.

I'm just waiting until I get the O.K. that I can flame you without repercussion, considering that all you've fucking done is hurl personal insults at me. Oh yes, Rafiq, the oriental barbarian speaks as though he's the leader of hunnic hordes. Where do these personal connotations derive some? Why aren't they applied to any other users? You want to play this game, let's do it, Feral. Shut the fuck up or post something useful.

Totalitarianism? Oh no! The irony, however, is that this isn't even going to be an argument about why totalitarianism doesn't and cannot exist. Let's assume it's real. What's more "totalitarian", recognizing that you are not free, while you are not free - or thinking you're free while you are not? A simple question any child could answer. All your posts are fucking trash, Feral. Do everyone a favor and stop replying to threads or users.

The fact that you're going to misconstrue this as an argument about restricting what women can do with their bodies reflects that you're an intellectual dwarf and nothing about the text you're replying to. Communists don't support the right of women simply to "choose" what they can or can't do with their bodies not because we are against sexual freedom or will. The point is that none of this exists in a vacuum. It represents real fundamental relationships of power: Sexual relations. It's not that we oppose women's freedom to do what they want with their bodies (this is PATHETIC! Why do I have to explain this? You don't fucking understand how logic works. Either that, or your'e a lying coward).

The point is that reducing the struggle for female sexual emancipation to some universal struggle for everyone to do what they want reflects nothing more than ideological weakness. We aren't concerned with free choice. We are concerned with sexual emancipation. Communists don't bother with the sanctity of individual choices. We are concerned about the implications of those choices and from where they derive. We don't oppose women's sexual freedom - but we oppose the freedom to exploit and to oppress. We oppose the freedom to spread vicious lies and the "individual" freedom to spread darkness and poison. We oppose the freedom of capital. Not even an abstract-ideal society could consist of "individuals" simply being free and making free choices based on some independent freedom. Humans are social animals. If that's what you're after, quit being a Leftist and retire into nihilism. Regarding your standards of freedom, no one can be free.

Freedom for Communists is not about freedom to make choices out of preference. This is the ideological logic of de-industrializaiton and our consumer-based economies. It's about freedom of necessity. It's not about expressing your preferences or who you are. We don't simply oppose free individual choices. We recognize that they don't exist.

Oh, and if you respond to this as a troll, or continue your personal attacks and the administration takes no action, I'll consider that such an allowance renders the ability for the sword to cut both ways and I'll cease to so desperately restrain myself from 'flaming'.


Apparently sexwork is directly linked to women these days.

Facts are a little different.

In Sweden young males who sell sex outbnumber women 3 to 1 (based on 2006 study) in at least the category sexwork <26 years. With an overall prevalence rating of 0,1% of women active in sexwork against 0,3 of all men.

In general 25%-35% of all sexworkers in Europe are male, Transgender or gender Queer.

So reducnig this to the female gender as a given...is...extremely sexist, reductionist and pretty much based on faulty information. Apparently for some leftist...thinking prostitution is thinking women. Really classy to rise above your patriarchal upbringing.

Apparently Sweden constitutes the world. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes worldwide are of the female gender. Even those (And if we are ever to evaluate prostitution as a GLOBAL phenomena, consensual prostitution is also something of an exception!) prostitutes who are biologically male, assume the connotations of the female gender of bourgeois society. If you were to actually read my post, you would realize that I mentioned there were exceptions. While there might even be whole countries in which even the majority of sex-workers are male, this would change nothing. Prostitution, as it exists in our capitalist totality, assumes the character of the female gender. Your first mistake is assuming that the female gender is simply a reflection of females biologically. Wrong. Capitalist sexual relations are hardly biological, they are compromised of 'archetypes' or ideological objects which people strive to fulfill.

So yes, I can reduce this to the female gender. It's like how people say that "To reduce domestic violence to the female gender is sexist"... Is it? Is it sexist to recognize that the female gender is fundamentally predisposed to oppression in capitalism, that it is oppressive in character? Maybe for a Men's Right's activist. Recognizing patriarchy is not reproducing patriarchy. Ignorance toward oppression reproduces oppression. Perhaps the connotations of prostitution wouldn't be the female gender if we were living in a genderless society free from sexual oppression. That isn't the fucking case, however. So proceed, lament in horror that a Leftist recognizes existing sexual relations for what they are. Do you know anything about sex trafficking and prostitution as a facet of capitalist society? How many men are kidnapped and enslaved to forcibly penetrate women compared to the opposite? Or are you going to say the connotations of "submissive/active" roles in sex are simply "natural"? That's the only fucking thing that's sexist.

Ignorance toward the real phenomena of patriarchy and female sexual slavery is the only thing worth being shocked about... From a self declared feminist.

Of course you'll predictably respond to this by skimming through my arguments and calling me a "sexist" again and pulling more straw men out of your ass. Yawn. Rather boring at this point.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm just waiting until I get the O.K. that I can flame you without repercussion, considering that all you've fucking done is hurl personal insults at me.

Boohoohoo.

If a woman wants to have her body dominated by a man, there's absolutely fuck all you can do about it and your boring self-justifications can go fuck themselves. And so can you :)

Ciao ciao.

[Rafiq]

The SPUSA has spoken. Rafiq, do you ever actually say anything, or do you just type to read yourself pontificate?

This is mostly a rhetorical question, because I can't really imagine how the answer could be any more obvious.


No, you are just an embarrassing tool who engages in ridiculous posturing and never actually says anything at all. I feel bad for you, honestly.



Rafiq Here. Rafiq Speak. Debate Over!


I can't possibly fathom how posts like this are simply allowed. How the fuck does this constribute to the discussion at all? Of course people are free to disagree. But I thought that voicing disagreements was supposed to extend beyond saying "Ur dumb lul". If you disagree, you're going to have to explain why, otherwise - shut the fuck up.

Maybe Rafiq Here. Rafiq Spea. Debate Over! Is actually not a joke. Since you have proven yourself incapable of actually responding to anything I've written, this actually seems to be the case. The debate is over.

[The Feral Underclass]

I can't possibly fathom how posts like this are simply allowed. How the fuck does this constribute to the discussion at all? Of course people are free to disagree. But I thought that voicing disagreements was supposed to extend beyond saying "Ur dumb lul". If you disagree, you're going to have to explain why, otherwise - shut the fuck up.

Maybe Rafiq Here. Rafiq Spea. Debate Over! Is actually not a joke. Since you have proven yourself incapable of actually responding to anything I've written, this actually seems to be the case. The debate is over.

What is there to respond to? It's the same drivel over and over and over again. You're just predictable. It makes you a laughing stock and I'm past taking you seriously. Everything you say is the same nonsense and I can barely be arsed to read it, let alone respond to it.

And for someone who doesn't care about my opinion, you spend a lot of time caring

[Rafiq]

Boohoohoo.

If a woman wants to have her body dominated by a man, there's absolutely fuck all you can do about it and your boring self-justifications can go fuck themselves. And so can you :)

Ciao ciao.

How the fuck is this subtracted from my argument? How is this even a real response? When the fuck have I said otherwise? Fucking troll.

So domination as some kind of fetish, or pleasurable experience is the same as real domination with regard to capitalist sexual relations?

Put a gun to a women's head. If she chooses to be sexually assaulted, there's absolutely fuck all anyone can do about it


What the fuck is the difference here? How can you actually be dominated if it's some kind of kinky preference? Or is this all domination, exploitation and oppression is for you? Even though I never really voiced any fucking indication that I'm opposed to women's sexual freedom, as a matter of fact, I explicitly advocated it - your agument itself is garbage.

If workers choose to be exploited, as they are, it's their choice and there's nothing you can do about it boo hoo.

How the fuck is this any different? This paradoxical logic is prescisely why Communists don't give a shit about the "sanctity" of individual choices. We don't care about individual choices but relationships of power. The fact of the matter is that women choosing to be "sexually dominated" (By the way, how is this done? Are you suggesting that 'passive' roles in sex designate domination? Like what the fuck are you actually talking about? BDSM? How the fuck is this relevant? Explain to me a single meaningful exmaple of how women can choose to be sexually dominated in the sense of the word that I mean). Let's play the devil's advocate. Let's say Communists don't give a shit about BDSM. Which we don't, politically. If someone were to attack the practice of BDSM, we would give a shit about defending it. Why? Not because we care about choices. But because we recognize that all attack has intent. In this case, the agency here is sexual conservatism or reactionary morality. We oppose this in principle. This is the difference.

[Rafiq]

What is there to respond to? It's the same drivel over and over and over again. You're just predictable.

Yes, how I portray those who are fundamentally and self-righteously ignorant is generally the same. Has it ever occurred to you that this is because the way you, among others respond to me - is the same in character? Who the fuck are you to be so dismissive? Go ahead, call me a laughing stock. It doesn't change anything. Laugh away, Eppur si muove.

[The Feral Underclass]

How the fuck is this subtracted from my argument? How is this even a real response? When the fuck have I said otherwise? Fucking troll.

Then what are we talking about? If women can choose what sexual activity they engage in, what is the objection? Women have to sell their labour to survive. That's what women do in capitalism. Whether it's sex work or retail work, it's still work and neither is any more significant than the other.


So domination as some kind of fetish, or pleasurable experience is the same as real domination with regard to capitalist sexual relations?

Specialities in prostitution usually only happen if the prostitute is inclined. I mean, I'm sure there are examples of that not being the case, but at least those sex workers I know usually either specialise because they are particularly good at that speciality and like it, or are very clear about what they will and will not do.

But no, they're not the same thing, since one is a job and one isn't.


Put a gun to a women's head. If she chooses to be sexually assaulted, there's absolutely fuck all anyone can do about it


I don't accept the premise that sex work is sexual assault.


Yes, how I portray those who are fundamentally and self-righteously ignorant is generally the same. Has it ever occurred to you that this is because the way you, among others respond to me - is the same in character?

I don't like you and I think I've made that clear to you a number of times, yet you insist on engaging me in your endless bullshit. Maybe you should just stop talking to me, then I wouldn't have to make fun of you.


Who the fuck are you to be so dismissive?

Who are you to be so arrogant as to think I owe you anything...Just because you speak, Rafiq, doesn't mean people have to give a shit.

[Lily Briscoe]

I can't possibly fathom how posts like this are simply allowed. How the fuck does this constribute to the discussion at all? Of course people are free to disagree. But I thought that voicing disagreements was supposed to extend beyond saying "Ur dumb lul". If you disagree, you're going to have to explain why, otherwise - shut the fuck up.

Maybe Rafiq Here. Rafiq Spea. Debate Over! Is actually not a joke. Since you have proven yourself incapable of actually responding to anything I've written, this actually seems to be the case. The debate is over.

I'm sorry about flaming you; I was in a bad mood when I made those posts. I do find it really exasperating trying to wade through your text walls of grandiose polemics, though, and wish you could just start saying what you meant and leaving out the Zizek impersonations or whatever it is that you're trying to do.

I think prostitution is absolutely a reflection of the oppression of women in class society, and often it takes an absolutely horrific form. I'm not interested in prettying it up and touting self-employed prostitutes who "love what they do" or whatever, but the emphasis on the horrors of prostitution is very rarely in earnest--it tends to be part of an agenda. And it isn't a coincidence that people are trotting out these 'horrors' in a thread about conservatives in the British state censoring certain forms of pornography.

The real bone of contention, it seems to me, isn't whether prostitution is 'good' or 'bad', or some abstract defense versus opposition to prostitution, but about what people see as the 'solution'. Is it something you can 'abolish' within capitalism/class society, e.g. by activists lobbying the state to criminalize this or that. Or is the solution to prostitution the same as the solution to wage labor: working class (including sex workers) self-emancipation.

[BIXX]

Yes, how I portray those who are fundamentally and self-righteously ignorant is generally the same. Has it ever occurred to you that this is because the way you, among others respond to me - is the same in character? Who the fuck are you to be so dismissive? Go ahead, call me a laughing stock. It doesn't change anything. Laugh away, Eppur si muove.
The difference between you and everyone else is that you're wrong but you try to hide that fact that you don't know what you're talking about behind massive walls of text that don't mean shit but sound kinda impressive. But once we've lifted the veil its obvious your posts are useless- and ultimately you just shit up a lot of threads.

[Loony Le Fist]

...
Whether it's sex work or retail work, it's still work and neither is any more significant than the other.
...

Depending on the type of work the level of intimacy with customers would change. What about greatly increased chance of exposure to infectious diseases? There are significant risks to some kinds of work, despite available safety equipment. We can't really draw an equivalence here, just as we couldn't between a retail worker and a tree trimmer (another risky job), right? I agree both are being exploited.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

strix, trotting out the horrors of prostitution as you put it, is meant to portray what happens to women in the industry. and there's a myth that nothing can be done about it; that it's an inevitability of unequal gender dynamics or capitalism. and maybe it is. but something can be done about it. and not the liberalization of the industry that many here propose. but sex laws to bar men from pimping and buying women, which have been instated in several countries recently. fighting for this is perfectly consistent with fighting against patriarchal capitalism. certainly more so than defending libertarian nonsense in the sex trade.

[Rafiq]

Then what are we talking about?

Of course you didn't knwo shit this whole time. How predictable. Why don't yout ry and glance at my meaningless walls of text and maybe there you'll find your answer. Do you want another one that would essentially repeat the same thing? Go back to my original post and try again.


Specialities in prostitution usually only happen if the prostitute is inclined. I mean, I'm sure there are examples of that not being the case, but at least those sex workers I know usually either specialise because they are particularly good at that speciality and like it, or are very clear about what they will and will not do.


Okay, this has nothing to do with what I've said.


I don't accept the premise that sex work is sexual assault.


That's not the argument. The argument is about the "sanctity" of individual choices alone. My point is that your defense of prostitution in capitalist society being solely a matter of "free choice" is inconsistent bullshit. Of course Communists oppose prostitution as they do wage labor. The point is the abolition of both. We don't campaign against prostitutes not because it was there "free choice", but because this would fundamentally be a step in the wrong direction - it would be exemplary of real reactionary trends in thought. We still oppose prostitution in principle, or more importantly, the sexual conditions which demand the existence of prostitution. That was my fucking point this whole time. It's just not as simple as this - it never can be.



I don't like you

Just because you speak, Rafiq, doesn't mean people have to give a shit.


As if your personal problem with me constitutes some kind of relavence as far as real arguments over truth go. I don't care about you personally or who you are. If you tout garbage, you bet your ass I'm going to call you out. That doesn't mean I care about you as a person, I care about attacking your shitty arguments. The fact that you can't understand this fundamental difference makes you an intellectual barbarian. People don't have to give a shit, but if people don't give a shit - they are in no position to form a qualified argument, position or standing in the matter. I am nothing, Feral, I am posting things I recognize as true. Things which would be true even if I was dead. This has nothing to do with me, and that's what you don't fucking understand.


The difference between you and everyone else is that you're wrong but you try to hide that fact that you don't know what you're talking about behind massive walls of text that don't mean shit but sound kinda impressive. But once we've lifted the veil its obvious your posts are useless- and ultimately you just shit up a lot of threads.


I'm wrong, yet there hasn't been a single real attempt to demonstrate how or why I am wrong. All we have are... more of what you've just said: Personal attacks which come from nowhere. The fact of hte matter is that those walls of text actually contain real arguments and points: if these "walls of text" are essentially meaningless, it's your job to thoroughly demonstrate this - otherwise, shut the fuck up.

The only reason my posts are so large is because I get nothing but straw man attacks if I keep it simple. If I thoroughly explain myself, apparently it's "tl;dr" but if I keep it simple people conform my arguments to something they are capable of addressing - straw men. What is the underlying trend? People who attack me (NOT disagree with me) are usually full of shit and cannot address my posts for what they are. Why? Because they are true.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

but something can be done about it. and not the liberalization of the industry that many here propose. but sex laws to bar men from pimping and buying women, which have been instated in several countries recently. fighting for this is perfectly consistent with fighting against patriarchal capitalism. certainly more so than defending libertarian nonsense in the sex trade.

But what do sex workers' own organizations say about these laws? Perhaps an example from an actual - relatively radical - organization involved in front-line day-to-day work by and for sex workers would be a good place to look for answers? (http://chezstella.org/)

[The Feral Underclass]

My point is that your defense of prostitution in capitalist society being solely a matter of "free choice"

:lol:

I love that you tell me I don't know what's going on and I should read your posts when you don't even know what my argument is in the first place. This is why you're such a prick. You come into threads pretending you're this superior intellect on issues and arrogantly chastising people for not reading your posts, when you don't actually care about what other people say or think, all you care about is being right.

I have never once defended prostitution and certainly not as "free choice." In fact, I spent about four pages arguing about how sex work, just like all work, is an act of coercion...But I mean don't let what I actually post get in the way of what is most convenient to you.

[Lily Briscoe]

strix, trotting out the horrors of prostitution as you put it, is meant to portray what happens to women in the industry. and there's a myth that nothing can be done about it; that it's an inevitability of unequal gender dynamics or capitalism. and maybe it is. but something can be done about it. and not the liberalization of the industry that many here propose. but sex laws to bar men from pimping and buying women, which have been instated in several countries recently. fighting for this is perfectly consistent with fighting against patriarchal capitalism. certainly more so than defending libertarian nonsense in the sex trade.

And again, the 'solution' is lobbying the state, and the agents of change are activists, conservative moralists, social workers, lawyers - in short, middle class professionals. That's not the way that I approach politics. Not to mention that militant sex workers have come out in virtually unanimous opposition to these laws.

A bill criminalizing the purchase of sex, on par with 'the Nordic model', was brought recently by the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Again, I'm curious how it is that people think the agenda of anti-woman right-wingers has managed to align with the interests of sex workers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Of course you didn't knwo shit this whole time. How predictable. Why don't yout ry and glance at my meaningless walls of text and maybe there you'll find your answer. Do you want another one that would essentially repeat the same thing? Go back to my original post and try again.

Lol, I know what you're literally talking about, what I mean is, if you agree that women have choices over their body what is the purpose of your argument? In terms of engagement with sex workers and with legislation against them, what is the point? There isn't one.

Yes, prostition represents "real fundamental relationships of power" but then what? That's just an entirely redundant point to make. Sure, communists concern themselves with the implications of choices but when has that ever been in dispute...Your post was meaningless waffle.


Okay, this has nothing to do with what I've said.

Yes, it does. You asked, "So domination as some kind of fetish, or pleasurable experience is the same as real domination with regard to capitalist sexual relations?" My response relates specifically to that question.


That's not the argument. The argument is about the "sanctity" of individual choices alone. My point is that your defense of prostitution in capitalist society being solely a matter of "free choice" is inconsistent bullshit. Of course Communists oppose prostitution as they do wage labor. The point is the abolition of both. We don't campaign against prostitutes not because it was there "free choice", but because this would fundamentally be a step in the wrong direction - it would be exemplary of real reactionary trends in thought. We still oppose prostitution in principle, or more importantly, the sexual conditions which demand the existence of prostitution. That was my fucking point this whole time. It's just not as simple as this - it never can be.

Yes, your fucking point this whole time is basically to say that prostitution as a form of work has to be opposed...What an illuminating contribution. Of course communists oppose prostitution as wage labour, of course communists want to abolish both. Of course we can discuss the conditions which demand its existence...But how does that relate to anything being discussed here? All of these things have already been said.


As if your personal problem with me constitutes some kind of relavence as far as real arguments over truth go.

Well, my personal problem is relevant when your whining about people being rude to you...


I don't care about you personally or who you are.

Then why do you care how I respond to you?


I am nothing, Feral,

Finally something we can agree on.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

And again, the 'solution' is lobbying the state, and the agents of change are activists, conservative moralists, social workers, lawyers - in short, middle class professionals. That's not the way that I approach politics. Not to mention that militant sex workers have come out in virtually unanimous opposition to these laws.

A bill criminalizing the purchase of sex, on par with 'the Nordic model', was brought recently by the Democratic Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Again, I'm curious how it is that people think the agenda of anti-woman right-wingers has managed to align with the interests of sex workers.

what makes you think that the nordic model is right-wing?
besides, what you and garbage disposal unit claim contradicts research that proves that the vast majority of women in prostitution want to leave the industry but cant. perhaps asking whether prostituted women want better working conditions or to lose their jobs is like asking sweatshop workers the same thing. the point is that leftists shouldnt defend either sweatshops or prostitution, despite the fact that most people in those situations may not agree because they depend on those jobs and not because they want them. i stand with the majority of prostituted women who are struggling for better opportunities but cant leave prostitution because of the systems of coercion that keep them there

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

besides, what you and garbage disposal unit claim contradicts research that proves that the vast majority of women in prostitution want to leave the industry but cant.

Likewise fast food. Most workers hate work, b/c work.
The thing is, criminalization doesn't effectively offer people paths out of work.

In any case, I'm doing my best to listen to radicals who are actively involved in sex work. Where are your ideas coming from?

That you didn't actually engage with the link I posted above, in my mind, speaks to some serious half-assery in approaching this.


perhaps asking whether prostituted women want better working conditions or to lose their jobs is like asking sweatshop workers the same thing.

Well, exactly. You might notice that sweatshop workers tend to fight for better working conditions, not for the outlawing of sewing sneakers.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

my point was that given the choice even sweatshop workers would likely choose to keep their jobs rather than do away with the sweatshop and its inherently poor conditions for fear of losing their livelihoods. that doesnt mean than we shouldnt fight against sweatshops.

im not proposing criminalization of prostitution. im defending sex laws against pimping and solicitation. its different. under criminal law, all participants are guilty. under sex laws, the victims are protected. like with sexual violence and harassment.

my ideas are coming from marxist and radical feminists. like the one ive mentioned which you also failed to address. if you post a link to some material ill read it and address it. ill even post it again: http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/MacKinnon.pdf. it's not as long as it looks because over half is footnotes

here's one bit:

Sex work proponents often insist that prostitute unions or collectives
give the women the control and protection they need.54 Given the conditions
and preconditions of entry, the nature of treatment in the industry, and the
place of sexuality in the status of women, what would a union change?55
Suppose how much and what kind of sex was bargained over and put in a
labor contract. Could it be enforced? Suppose the person collecting the
money a prostituted woman makes is a former prostitute now called union
organizer. Does that make her not a pimp? Suppose organized crime still controls.
Does being in a unionized brothel eliminate your PTSD? Make it
easier to leave? If people with the fewest choices are still railroaded into the
industry and kept there, and control of the relations and conditions is not
possible as a practical matter while still providing what prostituted people
are there for, nothing is changed. The issue here is not only, as a principled
and practical matter, whether organizing prostitution transforms the unequal
relations it institutionalizes, but whether not being in prostitution is thereby
strengthened into a human right.
Recently when Ruchira Gupta, recognizable as the founder of Apne
Aap, an organization that works to free trafficked women and abolish prostitution
through organizing,56 and I were walking through Sonagachi, a red
light area in Kolkata, some of the women who lined the street reached out
their hands to us, calling “we need to talk to you.” As we approached, two
older, larger women from the prostitutes’ union DMSC,57 which originally
began with the goal of empowering women in prostitution,58 angrily interposed
themselves between us, demanding of me loudly, “Are you married?
Do you have children? You should get married!” The moment these women
appeared, the two who had tried to make contact with us shut their faces,
eyes guttered out. As we walked away, a ******* of male pimps emerged to
follow close behind us so that every woman along that street who saw us
saw these men at the same time. The women turned away, hands shaking.
Whatever they had intended to say, they had no choice even about talking
with us. The impression left was that the choices the union gives them are
ones that keep them in prostitution—their vaunted organized independence,
in the words of Simone de Beauvoir, “the deceptive obverse of a thousand
dependencies.”

[synthesis]

my point was that given the choice even sweatshop workers would likely choose to keep their jobs rather than do away with the sweatshop and its inherently poor conditions for fear of losing their livelihoods. that doesnt mean than we shouldnt fight against sweatshops.

What? So "doing away with sweatshops" is more important to you than organizing and radicalizing the workers in those sweatshops? Of course they'd rather keep their jobs if revolution doesn't seem like a viable alternative, otherwise they'd starve. As though it's possible to "do away with sweatshops" without doing away with capitalism in general, which is a fundamentally different issue.

[Rafiq]

:lol:

I love that you tell me I don't know what's going on and I should read your posts when you don't even know what my argument is in the first place. This is why you're such a prick. You come into threads pretending you're this superior intellect on issues and arrogantly chastising people for not reading your posts, when you don't actually care about what other people say or think, all you care about is being right.

I have never once defended prostitution and certainly not as "free choice." In fact, I spent about four pages arguing about how sex work, just like all work, is an act of coercion...But I mean don't let what I actually post get in the way of what is most convenient to you.

Since you seem to invest so much energy into worthless abstractions like the magnitude of intellect, you clearly identify yourself in these terms. For that reason, let me take this argument slowly, since I'm now talking to both the arguments you're setting forth and your ego, apparently.

I don't know what the argument is in the first place? This isn't about whether I possess superior intellect. The problem was your deployment of this argument: So if a woman interprets her enjoyment of being tied up and whipped as pleasurable, she's not really finding it pleasurable, she just thinks she is? What happens if a sex worker enjoys the work she does, just as a car builder might enjoy doing the work they do, or a teacher enjoy doing their work? What happens then? Are they just thinking they enjoy it, but actually they don't?


Which by now, as you should know, since apparently you've changed your mind, is completely bullshit as an argument. Never in any argument do my accusations of others solely stem from their self-identification. There are many racists who don't like being called racists ("I never said I'm a racist") - there are many anti-semites who would rarely directly of Jews. You get the idea. Likewise, the entire basis of your false association with prostitution as just another form of wage-labor rather than the bare, almost highest manifestation of existing sexual relations... Is that it's based on individual choices (because they may or may not find it enjoyable). My qualm is with the idea that choosing something, or preferring something alone is grounds for its justification. That our "choices" or "preferences" are actually derived solely from ourselves as individuals (hence my usage of the word "free choice"). This is the problem. (Sorry if that was too large of a wall of text, I do deeply apologize. Fingers crossed I won't get laughed at!)

Now your first response to this argument was that "I don't have a say" in what women choose to do with their bodies. Clearly, what you deduced from this argument is that I implied that since free choice doesn't exist anyway, we're free to restrict them. Here's the quote if you want to further accuse me of making things up: Hark, hear the harbinger of a totalitarian state. But that pre-supposes free choice exists, and it's simply up to us Communists to restrict them. That without forceful, willful restrictions, women - who are apparently predisposed to want to become prostitutes because it's enjoyable, would choose to be exploited. The point is that to abolish the sexual conditions from which sexual exploitation is derived, is the only way sexual exploitation might be abolished.

So there is no contradiction between fervently condemning prostitution, even if women "like" doing it or find it enjoyable. That's not grounds for its justification - and opposing legislation against prostitutes (rather than pimps or Johns, which I would be supportive of). You claim that this is a worthless argument, but it isn't. As you can see, I didn't respond to your initial argument with giant walls of text. I simply, and succinctly wanted to demonstrate a prevailing pathology which was present throughout the thread and whose culprits were not limited to you. I wanted to stress that this can't be an argument about the sanctity of individual choices or preferences. This is after all a false freedom - and an inconsistent, dare I say hypocritical argument.

I would even go as far as saying that framing female sexual emancipation in terms of the consumerist logic of free choice (which is clearly what you are employing) is a false dichotomy and itself the worthless argument.




Yes, prostition represents "real fundamental relationships of power" but then what? That's just an entirely redundant point to make. Sure, communists concern themselves with the implications of choices but when has that ever been in dispute...Your post was meaningless waffle.

Then what? Then don't tout nonsense like "What if she enjoys it? Who are you to tell her that her enjoyment isn't real? It clearly is real!" - what the fuck is the point here? What you said was that because X person finds something pleasurable, apparently that's enough to indicate that it doesn't designate oppression - or moreover, that the individual perception of oppression as something else of people can somehow invalidate the notion that they are being oppressed. Don't deny it. Just shut the fuck up and accept you were wrong - or, actually defend your initial points. The problem, Feral, isn't that I'm attacking you for things you are always consciously aware of. If I say that your arguments are inconsistent, that means you aren't actively thinking about some things when you tout the bullshit that you do. I don't think you were consciously saying "Hur dur, free choice is so great" when you posted your nonsense - but none the less it's the only logical conclusion of what you posted, you infered it without even knowing it. I don't care about your self-declared views on free choice. I care about destroying a pervasive pathology which cares about the sanctity of free choice. If I call someone's views paradoxical, it assumes two things

1. That people don't intentionally hold paradoxical views - no one holds inconsistent views on purpose.

2. That I would necessarily be presenting something to the person which they were not necessarily thinking about when they made their inconsistent post.

Is that okay, champ? Sorry if it the walls of text were too long. I know how sensitive your eyes are.


Yes, it does. You asked, "So domination as some kind of fetish, or pleasurable experience is the same as real domination with regard to capitalist sexual relations?" My response relates specifically to that question.


No, you talked about the prevalence of specialties in such services. Again worthless. I accuse you of equating actual domination (i.e. patriarchy, capitalist sexual relations) with domination as some kind of sexual fetish, and you respond by saying "well, some prostitutes do it". What the fuck? I ask you again: Can women choose to be dominated or oppressed? The question is no. Sorry, Feral, wanting to get kinky and actual relations of domination aren't synonymous.

QUOTE]Well, my personal problem is relevant when your whining about people being rude to you...
[/QUOTE]

My problem has always been the fact that you somehow think you're qualified to even post anything when your arguments consistent of garbage personal attacks. Sorry but your personal problem with me has nothing to do with truth. You might let the world know that you think I'm such an ass, but you're still pathetically wrong.



Then why do you care how I respond to you?


Again, because we're having an argument over truth - I don't care about having a personal argument with you. If I did, I'd fly to the UK and beat the shit out of you. I don't care to get personal on the internet. You're replying to my posts in a dismissive way: You might not like me, but that doesn't render my posts as wrong. You fail to make this distinction. I don't care about how rude you are, I care about the fact that you think you can pass your rudeness off as a real objection to the content of my argument.

[Rafiq]

Oh and Feral, your fake pragmatism is pretty hilarious too. We're on an internet forum. Nothing here is going to affect legislation or anything of that matter. Demonstrating that the views you espouse are indicative of a wider ideological pathology might, however, be of actual use to users here in their struggle to understand Communism (or what it is not) today.

[Rafiq]

Jesus Christ, dude, chill out.

I wasn't actually threatening Feral. I'm just saying that if I have actual personal beef with someone, I wouldn't settle it by hurling words at them on an internet forum. Meaning I'm not interested in Feral personally, or anyone personally for that matter - but the content of their posts and its relevance as far as a 21st century Communism is concerned.

[synthesis]

I wasn't actually threatening Feral. I'm just saying that if I have actual personal beef with someone, I wouldn't settle it by hurling words at them on an internet forum. Meaning I'm not interested in Feral personally, or anyone personally for that matter - but the content of their posts and its relevance as far as a 21st century Communism is concerned.

I deleted that post, for the record, because you edited out the giant bold font and the invective that genuinely caused me concern about your blood pressure level. If you'll delete the post I've quoted, I'll delete this one and we can make like it never happened.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Wait, Catharine MacKinnon, really? White TERF-y radfem lawyer with a history of collaborating with religious conservatives?
This would be lol-worthy, if it weren't someone in a position of power who gets cited as an important feminist:

Conservatives talk about the real injury that, say, pornography causes; liberalism trivializes that injury and defends it as the ‘free speech’ of pornographers. It makes more sense in terms of women’s life experiences to hear someone talk a right-wing ‘law-and-order’ line that at least acknowledges the reality of sexual violence against women. What I’m saying is that I’m not at all alarmed, as someone who, among other things, practices law, about the prospect of litigating before Judge Thomas. I feel I can talk to this man…I’m really opposed to the way that some women’s groups have been first off the starting block to condemn Thomas, based on scanty evidence about his views on abortion.

A great start when looking to prioritize the voices of sex workers in their own struggle. Only . . . no.

I admit that Gupta is more complicated, and my familiarity with Apne Aap is relatively limited. I would say - and I want to point to Robyn Maynard of Stella and No One Is Illegal (http://robynmaynard.com/) as having been the person I picked this up from - that it's deeply problematic to conflate trafficking and sex-slavery with sex work (much as conflating kidnapping and slavery with wage labour is theoretically confused).

Actually, on this topic broadly, I recommend Robyn's essay on "carceral feminism" (http://robynmaynard.com/237-2/).

[PhoenixAsh]

I would like to note, once again:

Sexworker =/= women. Stop equating the two.
25-35% of all sexworkers are men, trans, queer...ie. not women.
In Sweden male sexworkers outnumber female sexworkers under 26 by 2 to 1.

Apparently our resident moralists seem to be unable to wrap their heads around these facts.

And it is kind of striking that either male sexworkers aren't all that important to their arguments...or that the problem they have with sexwork is not with male sexworkers.

[Hermes]

I would like to note, once again:

Sexworker =/= women. Stop equating the two.
25-35% of all sexworkers are men, trans, queer...ie. not women.
In Sweden male sexworkers outnumber female sexworkers under 26 by 2 to 1.

Apparently our resident moralists seem to be unable to wrap their heads around these facts.

And it is kind of striking that either male sexworkers aren't all that important to their arguments...or that the problem they have with sexwork is not with male sexworkers.

you would still say that it's important to recognize the different ways in which female sexworkers are exploited, how several different things potentially intersect in their societal relations, etc, yes?

[consuming negativity]

but that means that 75% of sex workers are women.

and that, most likely, although i don't know, transpersons and homosexuals are over-represented as well

why are men so underrepresented with women so overrepresented? are we just going to deny this now for the sake of accusing people of being sexist?

why did the mujeres libres work so hard to try to convince women not to be prostitutes? were they secret conservatives who hated sex workers and women and fun?

there is a reason that this is happening in a thread about "female ejaculation" being banned, strix, and it is because the topic is about banning sex work. not because we're (see: us communists, anarchists, etc. who are not conservatives) all secretly trying to fuck over prostitutes. that doesn't even make sense in the context of who we are, so maybe it's just fucking wrong and paranoid as shit.

i don't know where i heard this but it's so true, that fascists look for communists and communists look for traitors. there is no secret agenda being pushed here. there is no latent sexism under our recognition that everybody except men are overrepresented as sex workers and that, i'd be willing to bet, men are overrepresented among johns. it's not because women are weak. it's not because men like sex more. it has to do with fucking society.

y'all will sit and tear each other apart over disagreements that don't even exist and it's just the dumbest shit i've ever seen. you know, after some point, there's really nothing else that can be said. and that point was probably before i even started posting itt, but damn

[PhoenixAsh]

Yes that means that 75% to 65% of sexworkers are women. That means YOU are ignoring 25-35% of the sexworkers in order to make your point.

And no. I am not accusing people of being sexist here....I am saying that they are sexist...since those people continuously and repeatedly mentioned women when they talk about sexwork. Apparently the other 30% doesn't really count and is not important to their arguments. What is more...in some countries men actually outnumber women in sexwork.

But that is not important here. What you are doing here illustrates that once again. Immediately you are shifting the focus back to women....while glossing over one third of the sex workers.

And that leads me to believe what I said before. The opposition to sexwork is not motivated by theory by by gendered moralism wrapped in ideological rhetoric.

But we are NOT talking about this in a prostitution and sexwork thread here. We are discussing this in a thread about government controll over what can and can not be viewed by people in order to protect the moral, psychological and physical development of children.

THAT is what we are talking about. And some people jump on the conservative bandwagon for all kinds of reasons....npne of them have anything to do with revolutionatry ideology however...and advocating blanket bans on sex, sexwork and pornography....so we can protect the women. Because that is the main constant in their argumemts....they think whores...and therefore they think "women".

[Sasha]

well the legislation is framed explicitly as a "protect the women from degradation" issue so little wonder the resident knights in shining armor with a madonna - whore complex are all over it as flies to a pile of shit.

[consuming negativity]

it's not that the men and other genders don't count, it's that the ideal type of a sex worker is a woman, and so in our minds we will think of a woman. it's not that your explanation doesn't make sense, it's that it's just not true. meanwhile, you are busy focused on 1/4 of the sex workers, why? are you a MRA who wants to concentrate on a minority of sex workers to the exclusion of the majority and of reality? or are you just slinging shit as if we didn't already come to an agreement - namely, that our positions were distinguished only by opinions about word usage. you don't need to defend yourself from the MRA accusation, and i shouldn't have to defend myself from allegations of sexism.

and if you go back to my arguments you will find that more than anything else, i classified sex workers as "workers" or "persons" which are gender-neutral terms. the context of the thread can often matter but in this case, it simply doesn't. you can take it into account, but if we're telling you not to and that that isn't our point, to say "no, it is your point" is to call us liars - on top of calling us sexists - which is not only not true but it is preventing any serious debate in this thread. not just because none of the actual arguments are being rebutted, but because this entire thread is just ego-saving behavior, venting, and general bullshit. i'm done with it and am only posting here as a public service to try to keep you guys from wasting your time rehashing the same shit yet again.

[The Feral Underclass]

Which by now, as you should know, since apparently you've changed your mind, is completely bullshit as an argument. Never in any argument do my accusations of others solely stem from their self-identification. There are many racists who don't like being called racists ("I never said I'm a racist") - there are many anti-semites who would rarely directly of Jews. You get the idea. Likewise, the entire basis of your false association with prostitution as just another form of wage-labor rather than the bare, almost highest manifestation of existing sexual relations... Is that it's based on individual choices (because they may or may not find it enjoyable). My qualm is with the idea that choosing something, or preferring something alone is grounds for its justification. That our "choices" or "preferences" are actually derived solely from ourselves as individuals (hence my usage of the word "free choice"). This is the problem. (Sorry if that was too large of a wall of text, I do deeply apologize. Fingers crossed I won't get laughed at!)

But Rafiq, my argument isn't and has never been that prostitutes choose to be prostitutes because they enjoy doing it, my argument to FSL is that people can enjoy the work they do. The reason I made that argument was because FSL claimed that certain sex acts that included power dynamics (whether because of prostitution or not) could never be enjoyed, as they were the result of social conditioning and meant that the person only thought they enjoyed it.


So how a person interprets their own experiences doesn't matter to you at all?


Not in the slightest. How you interpret gravity doesn't change what gravity is. If you think you can float, you're just insane. I retain my right to be sane.


So if a woman interprets her enjoyment of being tied up and whipped as pleasurable, she's not really finding it pleasurable, she just thinks she is? What happens if a sex worker enjoys the work she does, just as a car builder might enjoy doing the work they do, or a teacher enjoy doing their work? What happens then? Are they just thinking they enjoy it, but actually they don't?


Your suggestion is insulting.

And so on and so forth.

As you can see, I am not saying that "choosing" something is justification for prostitution. In fact, I wasn't making a justification for anything. I was merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to claim that people's subjective experience of certain sex acts -- which includes prostitutes -- is invalid.


Now your first response to this argument was that "I don't have a say" in what women choose to do with their bodies. Clearly, what you deduced from this argument is that I implied that since free choice doesn't exist anyway, we're free to restrict them. Here's the quote if you want to further accuse me of making things up: Hark, hear the harbinger of a totalitarian state. But that pre-supposes free choice exists, and it's simply up to us Communists to restrict them. That without forceful, willful restrictions, women - who are apparently predisposed to want to become prostitutes because it's enjoyable, would choose to be exploited. The point is that to abolish the sexual conditions from which sexual exploitation is derived, is the only way sexual exploitation might be abolished.

So there is no contradiction between fervently condemning prostitution, even if women "like" doing it or find it enjoyable. That's not grounds for its justification - and opposing legislation against prostitutes (rather than pimps or Johns, which I would be supportive of). You claim that this is a worthless argument, but it isn't. As you can see, I didn't respond to your initial argument with giant walls of text. I simply, and succinctly wanted to demonstrate a prevailing pathology which was present throughout the thread and whose culprits were not limited to you. I wanted to stress that this can't be an argument about the sanctity of individual choices or preferences. This is after all a false freedom - and an inconsistent, dare I say hypocritical argument.

I would even go as far as saying that framing female sexual emancipation in terms of the consumerist logic of free choice (which is clearly what you are employing) is a false dichotomy and itself the worthless argument.

Poor Rafiq. Next time I suggest you pay more careful attention to what people are saying to each other before you decide to jump in with your walls of text.


Then what? Then don't tout nonsense like "What if she enjoys it? Who are you to tell her that her enjoyment isn't real? It clearly is real!" - what the fuck is the point here? What you said was that because X person finds something pleasurable, apparently that's enough to indicate that it doesn't designate oppression or moreover, that the individual perception of oppression as something else of people can somehow invalidate the notion that they are being oppressed. Don't deny it.

No, that's not what I said, that's what you think I said. As I pointed out before, you didn't actually pay attention.

The purpose of making the point I made was to argue against FSL's notion that people who do sex work are somehow these automated, emotionally vulnerable people who have absolutely no enjoyment of their work whatsoever. I was trying to dispel the myth perpetuated by FSL that prostitutes are invariably a certain kind of person.


No, you talked about the prevalence of specialties in such services. Again worthless. I accuse you of equating actual domination (i.e. patriarchy, capitalist sexual relations) with domination as some kind of sexual fetish, and you respond by saying "well, some prostitutes do it". What the fuck? I ask you again: Can women choose to be dominated or oppressed? The question is no. Sorry, Feral, wanting to get kinky and actual relations of domination aren't synonymous.

My response to you was: "But no, they're not the same thing" so I don't understand why you're confused about my position...My aside about specialities was nothing more than a return to the discussion I was having with FSL.

There are two different kinds of "domination" we are talking about. We are talking about domination in terms of the sexual exploitation of women and the coercive nature of work (in this instance sex work) and domination as a sexual fetish. The act of work is an act of domination invariably, and while they are not the same, one can enjoy the work, irrespective of the essential nature of that work.

FSL seems to think it is impossible for people to enjoy doing sex work because of the essential nature of work. That not only dismissive of sex workers, it attempts to establish sex work as something more significant than any other work.


My problem has always been the fact that you somehow think you're qualified to even post anything when your arguments consistent of garbage personal attacks. Sorry but your personal problem with me has nothing to do with truth. You might let the world know that you think I'm such an ass, but you're still pathetically wrong.

Rafiq, you came into this thread and completely misread a debate. You then imposed yourself on it with your angry invective laden diatribes and expected me to take your seriously? Which part am I to take seriously exactly, the part where you make up an opinion for me and attack it angrily, the part where you insult me or the part where you practically threaten me?

I don't see why am I under any obligation to take anyone seriously who misunderstood me, won't listen when they're told they misunderstood and then insults and practically threatens me. This is classic Rafiq and it's incredibly tiresome.


Again, because we're having an argument over truth - I don't care about having a personal argument with you. If I did, I'd fly to the UK and beat the shit out of you. I don't care to get personal on the internet. You're replying to my posts in a dismissive way: You might not like me, but that doesn't render my posts as wrong. You fail to make this distinction. I don't care about how rude you are, I care about the fact that you think you can pass your rudeness off as a real objection to the content of my argument.

We're not having an argument over "truth" my dear, we're having an argument over your fragile state of mind. Anyone who claims that if they cared about a personal argument on the internet enough they'd fly to another country, track someone down and assault them is clearly balancing on the precipice of ill health. I suggest you take a step back and calm yourself down.

[Lily Briscoe]

there is a reason that this is happening in a thread about "female ejaculation" being banned, strix, and it is because the topic is about banning sex work. not because we're (see: us communists, anarchists, etc. who are not conservatives) all secretly trying to fuck over prostitutes. that doesn't even make sense in the context of who we are, so maybe it's just fucking wrong and paranoid as shit.

Yes, it's not as if anyone who has called themselves 'communists' has ever had anti-working class and deeply conservative politics. That couldn't be; they call themselves 'communists' after all.

And if some 'communists' advocate/justify abortion restrictions, or the bourgeois state banning sex work, or calling striking workers back to work, we should all just ignore it, because at the end of the day, we all call ourselves 'communists'.

No thanks.

Also, you and I already live in a society where prostitution is banned, and it is fucking over sex workers on a daily basis, so this isn't just some abstraction.

Anyway, I'm getting pretty bored of this discussion, so will probably give it up after this post.

[human strike]

Porn censorship to be protested with mass 'face-sitting' outside Parliament



Fully-clothed demonstrators are hoping the recent porn legislation will be annulled

Christopher Hooton

Wednesday, 10 December 2014
Around 500 people are to simulate sex at Old Palace Yard in Westminster on Friday, as MPs debate the recent changes to UK pornography regulations (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/a-long-list-of-sex-acts-just-got-banned-in-uk-porn-9897174.html) and the effective banning of certain sex acts the government deems morally damaging.



The Audiovisual Media Services Regulations 2014 banned "physical restraint", "strong physical and verbal abuse" and potentially "life-threatening" acts from being depicted in online porn on 1 December, in a barrage of ambiguous new rules.
#PornProtest will attempt to break the Guinness World Record for 'face-sitting' (an act that could face censorship) and hold a 'Sex Factor' game show, both using fully-clothed participants.
It coincides with the debate of a motion put forward by Liberal Democrat MP Julian Huppert (http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2014-15/605) to annul the AMSR changes.
The protest is the brainchild of Sex Worker of the Year 2013 Charlotte Rose, who said: "These laws are not only sexist but they taking away people’s choices without consent. http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article9914386.ece/binary/protest.jpg
"Personal liberty is what we are fighting for on Friday which no one has the right to take away from somebody else."
Miss Rose joked on the Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/events/751869001527441/) for the protest that there will be "facial colour charts for health and safety to ensure no one is being suffocated" by face-sitting, monitored by adjudicators.
"Pornography is the canary in the coalmine of free speech: it is the first freedom to die," renowned obscenity lawyer Myles Jackman told London24. "If this assault on liberty is allowed to go unchallenged, other freedoms will fall as a consequence."
If it isn't annulled, the ASMR could mean other acts such as bondage, whipping, penetration by certain objects, humiliation and choking are banned in UK-produced pornography.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Wait, Catharine MacKinnon, really? White TERF-y radfem lawyer with a history of collaborating with religious conservatives?
This would be lol-worthy, if it weren't someone in a position of power who gets cited as an important feminist:


A great start when looking to prioritize the voices of sex workers in their own struggle. Only . . . no.

I admit that Gupta is more complicated, and my familiarity with Apne Aap is relatively limited. I would say - and I want to point to Robyn Maynard of Stella and No One Is Illegal (http://robynmaynard.com/) as having been the person I picked this up from - that it's deeply problematic to conflate trafficking and sex-slavery with sex work (much as conflating kidnapping and slavery with wage labour is theoretically confused).

Actually, on this topic broadly, I recommend Robyn's essay on "carceral feminism" (http://robynmaynard.com/237-2/).

im not sure where the author got her information that prostitution remains the same under the swedish model. it's quite well documented that prostitution and violence against women in prostitution has decreased in countries that have adopted similar laws. tho i agree with the author in that women found to be trafficked shouldnt be forcefully deported.

catharine mackinnon, by the way, is a marxist

[Rafiq]

I would like to note, once again:

Sexworker =/= women. Stop equating the two.
25-35% of all sexworkers are men, trans, queer...ie. not women.
In Sweden male sexworkers outnumber female sexworkers under 26 by 2 to 1.

Apparently our resident moralists seem to be unable to wrap their heads around these facts.

And it is kind of striking that either male sexworkers aren't all that important to their arguments...or that the problem they have with sexwork is not with male sexworkers.

Apparently Sweden constitutes the world. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes worldwide are of the female gender. Even those (And if we are ever to evaluate prostitution as a GLOBAL phenomena, consensual prostitution is also something of an exception!) prostitutes who are biologically male, assume the connotations of the female gender of bourgeois society. If you were to actually read my post, you would realize that I mentioned there were exceptions. While there might even be whole countries in which even the majority of sex-workers are male, this would change nothing. Prostitution, as it exists in our capitalist totality, assumes the character of the female gender. Your first mistake is assuming that the female gender is simply a reflection of females biologically. Wrong. Capitalist sexual relations are hardly biological, they are compromised of 'archetypes' or ideological objects which people strive to fulfill.

So yes, I can reduce this to the female gender. It's like how people say that "To reduce domestic violence to the female gender is sexist"... Is it? Is it sexist to recognize that the female gender is fundamentally predisposed to oppression in capitalism, that it is oppressive in character? Maybe for a Men's Right's activist. Recognizing patriarchy is not reproducing patriarchy. Ignorance toward oppression reproduces oppression. Perhaps the connotations of prostitution wouldn't be the female gender if we were living in a genderless society free from sexual oppression. That isn't the fucking case, however. So proceed, lament in horror that a Leftist recognizes existing sexual relations for what they are. Do you know anything about sex trafficking and prostitution as a facet of capitalist society? How many men are kidnapped and enslaved to forcibly penetrate women compared to the opposite? Or are you going to say the connotations of "submissive/active" roles in sex are simply "natural"? That's the only fucking thing that's sexist.

Ignorance toward the real phenomena of patriarchy and female sexual slavery is the only thing worth being shocked about... From a self declared feminist.

Of course you'll predictably respond to this by skimming through my arguments and calling me a "sexist" again and pulling more straw men out of your ass. Yawn. Rather boring at this point.



Good old pheneoix. Apparently the female gender is solely biological. Male sex workers, in our society, assume the archetype of the female gender. I literally said you were going to skip through my post and say the same thing. And that's exactly what you did.

[Rafiq]

We're not having an argument over "truth" my dear, we're having an argument over your fragile state of mind. Anyone who claims that if they cared about a personal argument on the internet enough they'd fly to another country, track someone down and assault them is clearly balancing on the precipice of ill health. I suggest you take a step back and calm yourself down.

And this is where the debate ends. You now claim to renounce your previous arguments, in your inability to defend them - and claim that I simply misconstrued them as something else. You're misconstruing your initial points in order to conform to my attacks on you.

Now it may be very well that I "misread your post" and that you were truly, actually trying to make the argument that if women find something pleasurable, she is actually finding it pleasurable (I.e. She isn't pretending). It strikes me bizarre that anyone would argue otherwise - and it is logical to assume that what FSL really meant was that even if women do not experience something as oppressive - and instead pleasurable - that does not invalidate the existence of oppression. But you're right, maybe his whole argument was about neurology and nothing else. Again, a logical mind would infer otherwise - considering the character of this thread being whether prostitution is uniquely oppressive or not. If what you say is true... About both your posts and FSL's (it really doesn't look that way, but let's play the devil's advocate) - then that's quite exceptional.

However, you responded as though the same ideas which you now seemingly agree with were "totalitarian", and you then accused me of wanting to control women's bodies. Do you deny this? So even if I initially misread your post, you're the one who conformed perfectly to my initial accusations against you. Then again, I don't really care to have an argument over what you really meant. I could compile all of your posts in this thread and show the pattern - but they're available for everyone to read. Let them decide.

And no, I don't care to have real personal beef over the internet. You're not within proximity of my life, I don't know anything about you besides the fact that you're a petty bourgeois ideologue - and that the ratio between how long you've been a leftist, and how much you've actually learned is rather pathetic. Not only would I have to care about a personal argument enough, I would have to care at all. And I don't. And can't.

[Rafiq]

it's not that the men and other genders don't count, it's that the ideal type of a sex worker is a woman, and so in our minds we will think of a woman. it's not that your explanation doesn't make sense, it's that it's just not true. meanwhile, you are busy focused on 1/4 of the sex workers, why? are you a MRA who wants to concentrate on a minority of sex workers to the exclusion of the majority and of reality? or are you just slinging shit as if we didn't already come to an agreement - namely, that our positions were distinguished only by opinions about word usage. you don't need to defend yourself from the MRA accusation, and i shouldn't have to defend myself from allegations of sexism.

and if you go back to my arguments you will find that more than anything else, i classified sex workers as "workers" or "persons" which are gender-neutral terms. the context of the thread can often matter but in this case, it simply doesn't. you can take it into account, but if we're telling you not to and that that isn't our point, to say "no, it is your point" is to call us liars - on top of calling us sexists - which is not only not true but it is preventing any serious debate in this thread. not just because none of the actual arguments are being rebutted, but because this entire thread is just ego-saving behavior, venting, and general bullshit. i'm done with it and am only posting here as a public service to try to keep you guys from wasting your time rehashing the same shit yet again.

The problem is that people don't recognize even these ideological predispositions as real. They think such archetypes can be done away with, with conscious political correctness. We are talking about a widespread ideological pathology. The human mind is not exempt from the real. Patriarchy cannot be fought with correct terminology.

However what people don't understand is that even male prostitutes conform to the ideological archetype of the female gender on an overwhelming scale (exceptions within this scale are just that - exceptions). I'm not just talking about 'submissive' sexual acts. I'm talking about their standing in existing sexual relations. It is female (and again, female is not biological - gender relations are not biological).

[Rafiq]

so little wonder the resident knights in shining armor with a madonna - whore complex are all over it as flies to a pile of shit.

Sorry, but who are you talking about? I explicitly mentioned how such legislation is to be opposed.

[The Feral Underclass]

You now claim to renounce your previous arguments, in your inability to defend them

I can't renounce an argument I never made.

[Sentinel]

Yeah, so I have always been for example leaning towards support for the swedish model for prostitution laws (I saw the discussion diverted a bit into that direction). I believe far more people are forced or coerced to work as prostitutes, and in inhumane conditions, either outright or de facto out of economic necessity, than choose it out of free will alone and I think it is too often very hard to control if this is going on.

And I believe it can be very unpleasant unless one does enjoy it, more so than most other lines of work, although it obviously is a job like others if that is the case. Porn is a bit of a different matter in my opinion, for example as it by default leaves evidence - it could however definitely be made more controllable to be safe, sane and (truly) consensual.

Obviously people are coerced into doing it all the time, and that should be fought. But I don't think outlawing porn is the answer. I could understand specifically banning violent porn whose origins can't be verified as being safe, sane and consensual - and why not also (if it is produced by workers for profit) performed by workers with decent conditions, while we are at it.

However this whole implication created by for example a blanket bdsm - or some other fetish - porn ban, that people who are specifically into these things (yes I also believe such people seek these porn jobs) somehow automatically wouldn't know what they are doing as much as the next person, is an example of pure moralistic garbage, and that's also what this whole piece legislation in general sounds like.

[PhoenixAsh]

it's not that the men and other genders don't count, it's that the ideal type of a sex worker is a woman, and so in our minds we will think of a woman. it's not that your explanation doesn't make sense, it's that it's just not true.

Right, and you can't see how incredibly sexist this position is?



meanwhile, you are busy focused on 1/4 of the sex workers, why?

I am nto bussy focussed on 1/4 of the sexworkers. I am telling you you are a sexist for equating sexwork with women as a default.


are you a MRA who wants to concentrate on a minority of sex workers to the exclusion of the majority and of reality?

I'm am opposing your sexist, petit-bourgeois moralism which simply rejects 30% of the sexworkers because they do not fit their ideal stereotype of the whore-woman.



or are you just slinging shit as if we didn't already come to an agreement - namely, that our positions were distinguished only by opinions about word usage. you don't need to defend yourself from the MRA accusation, and i shouldn't have to defend myself from allegations of sexism.


No, actually you should not to me...but you shoudl seriously ask yourself the question why you are automatically equating sexworkers with women. Throughout this debate the default argument has revolved around women. Yours as well. Read back.


and if you go back to my arguments you will find that more than anything else, i classified sex workers as "workers" or "persons" which are gender-neutral terms.

And then we have all the examples to clarify your position... which incidentally and coincidentally all featured women or revolved around the status of women.

Not to mention that regardless of you not being the target of my posts you were the one responding to them by sidestepping over 25-35% of the sexworkers and declaring them rather unimportant compared to women.



the context of the thread can often matter but in this case, it simply doesn't. you can take it into account, but if we're telling you not to and that that isn't our point, to say "no, it is your point" is to call us liars - on top of calling us sexists - which is not only not true but it is preventing any serious debate in this thread. not just because none of the actual arguments are being rebutted, but because this entire thread is just ego-saving behavior, venting, and general bullshit. i'm done with it and am only posting here as a public service to try to keep you guys from wasting your time rehashing the same shit yet again.

cry me a river.

[PhoenixAsh]

Apparently Sweden constitutes the world. The fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes worldwide are of the female gender. Even those (And if we are ever to evaluate prostitution as a GLOBAL phenomena, consensual prostitution is also something of an exception!) prostitutes who are biologically male, assume the connotations of the female gender of bourgeois society. If you were to actually read my post, you would realize that I mentioned there were exceptions. While there might even be whole countries in which even the majority of sex-workers are male, this would change nothing. Prostitution, as it exists in our capitalist totality, assumes the character of the female gender. Your first mistake is assuming that the female gender is simply a reflection of females biologically. Wrong. Capitalist sexual relations are hardly biological, they are compromised of 'archetypes' or ideological objects which people strive to fulfill.

So yes, I can reduce this to the female gender. It's like how people say that "To reduce domestic violence to the female gender is sexist"... Is it? Is it sexist to recognize that the female gender is fundamentally predisposed to oppression in capitalism, that it is oppressive in character? Maybe for a Men's Right's activist. Recognizing patriarchy is not reproducing patriarchy. Ignorance toward oppression reproduces oppression. Perhaps the connotations of prostitution wouldn't be the female gender if we were living in a genderless society free from sexual oppression. That isn't the fucking case, however. So proceed, lament in horror that a Leftist recognizes existing sexual relations for what they are. Do you know anything about sex trafficking and prostitution as a facet of capitalist society? How many men are kidnapped and enslaved to forcibly penetrate women compared to the opposite? Or are you going to say the connotations of "submissive/active" roles in sex are simply "natural"? That's the only fucking thing that's sexist.

Ignorance toward the real phenomena of patriarchy and female sexual slavery is the only thing worth being shocked about... From a self declared feminist.

Of course you'll predictably respond to this by skimming through my arguments and calling me a "sexist" again and pulling more straw men out of your ass. Yawn. Rather boring at this point.



Good old pheneoix. Apparently the female gender is solely biological. Male sex workers, in our society, assume the archetype of the female gender. I literally said you were going to skip through my post and say the same thing. And that's exactly what you did.

Rafiq,

The only reasons I even read your petit-bourgeois moralism is because I have to.

You are still a sexist. You are still a petit-bourgeois moralist.

No matter how you wrap it up and try to convince yourself that you are not.

Your analysis of sexwork is dreadfull and shameful. The equation with male sexworkers as female earily reminiscent of the Soviet Era's and indeed every other patriarchal institutions dismissal of homosxeuality. Your knowledge about women and their porn enjoyment (made by sexworkers) or their habits regarding sexwork is non-existant. And your position on free will not existing is laughable and pittyfull....

So go right ahead and remain in denial.

Have a nice day.

[Rafiq]

Behold, Pheonixash's intellectual prowess. With stunning precision, he manages to destroy Rafiq's posts through calling him names without explanation.

You're a kangaroo, Phoenix. No matter how you wrap it up and try to convince yourself that you are not. See? I can talk out of my ass with fervent conviction too.

[BIXX]

Behold, Pheonixash's intellectual prowess. With stunning precision, he manages to destroy Rafiq's posts through calling him names without explanation.

You're a kangaroo, Phoenix. No matter how you wrap it up and try to convince yourself that you are not. See? I can talk out of my ass with fervent conviction too.
The difference being that again, you're wrong. Its like trying to convince a liberal that their solutions to oppression and whatnot are worthless, they just won't listen.

[Rafiq]

you're wrong.

Are you trolling? "I'm wrong"?

Doxxer, I'm actually interested. If there's some secret, reveal it. What am I missing here? If I'm wrong, how? What's this big secret you're not telling me?

In reality, you know I'm right. You simply cannot properly express your disagreement because your disagreement itself is not based on any real standard of reason, but your feelings. You don't like my posting style, or me - naturally there has to be something wrong with what I'm posting. The fact is, we aren't talking about something so vague as "oppression" itself. I claim - as every Marxist understands, that the female gender has connotations which go beyond the female sex. I simply don't understand how this is wrong.

As any moron should know, even if prostitutes are biologically male - their ideological-relationship to production and society assumes the archetype of the female gender. The reason the connotations of prostitution as being female has nothing to do with females biologically. Any idiot who has a semblance an understanding of psychology can understand this well. It's funny that you compare to me a liberal when in fact Phoenix's arguments are inherently liberal - touting exceptions as a counter-argument - the mark of a liberal. If an anti-Semite claims that Jews control the world - and the response is that not all of the people who control the world are Jewish (which is the typical liberal response) - this grants to the enemy and allows the pre-supposition that this conspiracy is real. A Marxist, conversely, would say that even if all of the world's most powerful people were Jewish, this wouldn't make a difference as far as the fundamental character of our condition is concerned - which necessarily makes impossible the notion of an ethnic-wide conspiracy.

This is the problem with political correctness as being the forefront of arguments. Even if 70% of prostitutes in Sweden were male, this wouldn't change the fact that the ideological connotations of prostitution - is female. According to the genius himself, recognizing these connotations - and dare I say, recognizing patriarchy itself... Means you are somehow in favor of it.

What's the answer, according to Pheonix? We live in a genderless, classless society and to say otherwise is to be a sexist. Sexism for Phoenix is the mere recognition of sexism as a predominate force of society. According to his logic, rather than being something structural or institutional - sexism is just a matter of what people choose to believe.

To deny that the female gender is fundamentally subject to oppression is to reproduce sexual slavery and oppression in tongue.

dirty doxxer's response: ur wrong lol. i cant say why becuase your just wrong. u cant be rite, ur rafiq, becuz u posted it it wrong. if s0me1 legit posted it, it wud be ok

[Rafiq]

"The difference is that you're wrong"

I'm actually laughing. This is literally hilarious. Are you a child? This has to be the most pathetic last resort I've ever seen. I just forget sometimes that a lot of people think with their ass as a general rule.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Your analysis of sexwork is dreadfull and shameful. The equation with male sexworkers as female earily reminiscent of the Soviet Era's and indeed every other patriarchal institutions dismissal of homosxeuality.


Are you seriously equating acknowledging common attitudes toward sex workers in capitalism with actually holding said attitudes? This is just as silly as the people calling others racist for pointing out racism. I notice that on women's issues Revlefters like to use arguments that they would otherwise point and laugh at if made by a liberal on some other issue.

The statistics you provided don't even support your argument. One age group in one country is not representative of a global phenomenon for one. And the 35% of sex workers are not female could be used to support the counterargument, as that's far too disproportionate to be due to random chance alone. What the fuck causes such a disparity then, if not random chance? What do we gain from saying that sex work isn't gendered, when we ignore obvious systemic roots of inequality in the process of doing so? Is it just because you don't want to appear sexist, so then you disregard the causes of sexism? I would say this is much more sexist and allows patriarchal relations to go unchallenged, not unlike the "colorblind" liberals

[PhoenixAsh]

And now we get the traditional onslaught of Rafiguenesque rants where he is trying to hide the fact that he wasn't actually talking about gender at all but about women as in the subset of humans with all the pronouns to boot.

So apparently all sexworkers now are not only reduced to the single category of women and female...they are also refered to as "she".

Which of course utterly belies his post-fact justification. A justification which in fact is also belied by a large part of history...but never mind those facts...because facts are irrelevent to Rafiq.

You didn't recognize anything Rafiq....you are in fact actively contributing to the genderized stereotyping with your petit-bourgeois moralist drivel and shitty analysis.

[PhoenixAsh]

Are you seriously equating acknowledging common attitudes toward sex workers in capitalism with actually holding said attitudes? This is just as silly as the people calling others racist for pointing out racism. I notice that on women's issues Revlefters like to use arguments that they would otherwise point and laugh at if made by a liberal on some other issue.

The statistics you provided don't even support your argument. One age group in one country is not representative of a global phenomenon for one. And the 35% of sex workers are not female could be used to support the counterargument, as that's far too disproportionate to be due to random chance alone. What the fuck causes such a disparity then, if not random chance? What do we gain from saying that sex work isn't gendered, when we ignore obvious systemic roots of inequality in the process of doing so? Is it just because you don't want to appear sexist, so then you disregard the causes of sexism? I would say this is much more sexist and allows patriarchal relations to go unchallenged, not unlike the "colorblind" liberals

Actually they do support my argument because my argument is that some people here consistently and systematically reduce sexwork to:

1). women

Which is why they actually get worked up about the issue....because their sensitivity can't allow for female sexual conduct outside their moralist approach to sexuality.

Consistently and automatically sexworkers are reduced to that specific group. There is NO question or debate about what causes the disparity....because the non-female part of the group doesn't feature into their argumenst or considerations....at all.


2). the position of women as sexworkers

....and not the position of women as consumers of sexwork and sexwork related products. Which they do not even consider...at all.


3). And these arguments: But how can women like this? But they don't actually have free will! And OMG they only think they want it but hey don't actually want it because they don't understand what they want!

...and those are paraphrasing some of the arguments here in the thread. All of which come down to the simple fact that women can't want what they want because they don't have free will or don't understand their own position. And one even made the very direct argument: "I don't care what women want"



So no. The debate about disparity is not the issue here. The issue is their attitude. And in their attitude lies the problem. Not only does it lead to shitty analysis of sexwork and the complexities surrounding the issue...but it also shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are talking about and an extremely suspect approach to the matter based on the, as Sasha rather cruedly pointed out, madonna whore complex. So what we have here is a bunch of men moralizing about womens sexuality...while ignoring 35% of the group they are talking about. Some of them, by the way, using language and classifications which are predominantly used by social conservatives, petit-bourgeois moralists and the former Soviet elite in their repression of homosexuals and non CIS gendered people. You may not find that problematic...I however do find that extremely problematic.

[Rafiq]

And now we get the traditional onslaught of Rafiguenesque rants where he is trying to hide the fact that he wasn't actually talking about gender at all but about women as in the subset of humans with all the pronouns to boot.


God you're a clown. There isn't a single thing you have written that I have not thoroughly addressed ten times. In case you don't remember, here was my initial post:

Is it deemed natural that the favors of women are bought by men as a general rule of prostitution (with exceptions, as anything)? Female sexuality can never be free so long as female sexuality can be bought or sold. Yes prostitution is a form of systemic rape just as the conditions of wage-labor are fundamentally a form of slavery. The difference is that in this form of essential rape, there is no single individual male culprit: Capitalism is the greatest rapist of all.


You see, when Marxists talk about "as a general rule" (and I can provide actual examples from Marx himself, if you like) - we tend to mean as a general tendency or archetype within capitalism. What this means is that it is an established systemic predisposition, but as with anything there are exceptions - but that's all they are, exceptions. For example, the female gender is clearly rationally explicable in reference to the necessity of capitalism to control the production of children. But because this gender is a reflection of a structural necessity, rather than a reflection of females biologically, to conform to the female gender doesn't qualify you to be of the female sex.

One example of this is rape-culture in prison. Many men are made to conform with the female gender out of the ideological necessity of its presence in these mini-societies. And this extends beyond simple sexual desire - rape in prison is never solely about fulfilling sexual needs. Further evidence for this is found in the overwhelming tendency of "feminized" (whatever you want to call it) men in prison forced to perform everyday non-sexual tasks otherwise associated with the female gender. But of course, according to Phoenix the liberal post-modernist, we live in a gender-less society in which all of the problems are traced in a lack of political correctness.

Now I'm going to simply explain how Phoenix has made an ass out of himself.


Consistently and automatically sexworkers are reduced to that specific group. There is NO question or debate about what causes the disparity....because the non-female part of the group doesn't feature into their argumenst or considerations....at all.


2). the position of women as sexworkers

....and not the position of women as consumers of sexwork and sexwork related products. Which they do not even consider...at all.


Phoenix's fundamentally liberal pathology is demonstrated in his reliance on exceptions. I am sure that Phoenix recognizes systemic racism in the United States. Phoenix, can you make explicable why we have a black president? What about the phenomena of wealthy black people and poor white people? Are you just going to ignore those poor whites... And make it as though black people can't be oppressors too? We do live in a post-racial society after all, don't we? By you ignoring the phenomena of wealthy black people in positions of great power, among other important exceptions, all you're doing is dodging facts because they don't agree with your argument.

Okay, Phoenix, you can be a moron and ignore this whole text - but honestly, confront this here. How is this argument different from yours? I can't even infer more than two possible answers, which would be:

But I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking about sexwork.

Which of course would be incredibly stupid. You fail to address the point: If our conclusions and deductions have to be equally characterized by exceptions, how does oppression even exist on this level? How are women oppressed when there are plenty of independent, female business owners? How does patriarchy, or sexism even exist considering all of the exceptions?

For Marxists, we recognize that oppression in capitalism concerns ideological archetypes (which have real effects, mind you), not simply everyone on a personal level. There is no conspiracy of sexists and racists - capitalism, which isn't conscious, is systemically predisposed to racism and sexism. Exceptions are therefore possible - but exceptions can never be definitive in character.

The second answer would be even weaker: "But male sexworkers are less of an exception!"

Disregarding the fact that they do assume the archetype of the female gender, in their relationship to production - this is rather meaningless. Is your comprehensive, detailed and sophisticated understanding of racism solely based on statistics? What is the breaking point? Does something become a significant exception past 15% 20%? 30%? What does the ratio have to be in order for it to be significant enough to be characteristic? This is why your method is stupid.

What's left to say? I've destroyed you. I don't even like to boast, but I really have here. It's painful, I type these words with a degree of sympathy for you - I feel like I'm humiliating you. Makes me almost want to let you go on thinking you're not a complete moron.

[Rafiq]

You'd make a great Men's Rights Activist Phoenix. There's literally no difference between your argument and "women can be sexist too!".

Am I a racist for recognizing that we live in a racist society?

[Rafiq]

and the former Soviet elite in their repression of homosexuals and non CIS gendered people. .

Hey, here's a simple question: Can you provide one example of this terminology which apparently I'm mimicking?

Note: the answer is not "ur a sexist! ur a moralist! lulululu even tho my position is compeltely moralist and based oon nothing else den liberal morals lul"

[PhoenixAsh]

God you're a clown. There isn't a single thing you have written that I have not thoroughly addressed ten times. In case you don't remember, here was my initial post:

Is it deemed natural that the favors of women are bought by men as a general rule of prostitution (with exceptions, as anything)? Female sexuality can never be free so long as female sexuality can be bought or sold. Yes prostitution is a form of systemic rape just as the conditions of wage-labor are fundamentally a form of slavery. The difference is that in this form of essential rape, there is no single individual male culprit: Capitalism is the greatest rapist of all.


You see, when Marxists talk about "as a general rule" (and I can provide actual examples from Marx himself, if you like) - we tend to mean as a general tendency or archetype within capitalism. What this means is that it is an established systemic predisposition, but as with anything there are exceptions - but that's all they are, exceptions. For example, the female gender is clearly rationally explicable in reference to the necessity of capitalism to control the production of children. But because this gender is a reflection of a structural necessity, rather than a reflection of females biologically, to conform to the female gender doesn't qualify you to be of the female sex.

One example of this is rape-culture in prison. Many men are made to conform with the female gender out of the ideological necessity of its presence in these mini-societies. And this extends beyond simple sexual desire - rape in prison is never solely about fulfilling sexual needs. Further evidence for this is found in the overwhelming tendency of "feminized" (whatever you want to call it) men in prison forced to perform everyday non-sexual tasks otherwise associated with the female gender. But of course, according to Phoenix the liberal post-modernist, we live in a gender-less society in which all of the problems are traced in a lack of political correctness.

Now I'm going to simply explain how Phoenix has made an ass out of himself.



Phoenix's fundamentally liberal pathology is demonstrated in his reliance on exceptions. I am sure that Phoenix recognizes systemic racism in the United States. Phoenix, can you make explicable why we have a black president? What about the phenomena of wealthy black people and poor white people? Are you just going to ignore those poor whites... And make it as though black people can't be oppressors too? We do live in a post-racial society after all, don't we? By you ignoring the phenomena of wealthy black people in positions of great power, among other important exceptions, all you're doing is dodging facts because they don't agree with your argument.

Okay, Phoenix, you can be a moron and ignore this whole text - but honestly, confront this here. How is this argument different from yours? I can't even infer more than two possible answers, which would be:

But I'm not talking about racism. I'm talking about sexwork.

Which of course would be incredibly stupid. You fail to address the point: If our conclusions and deductions have to be equally characterized by exceptions, how does oppression even exist on this level? How are women oppressed when there are plenty of independent, female business owners? How does patriarchy, or sexism even exist considering all of the exceptions?

For Marxists, we recognize that oppression in capitalism concerns ideological archetypes (which have real effects, mind you), not simply everyone on a personal level. There is no conspiracy of sexists and racists - capitalism, which isn't conscious, is systemically predisposed to racism and sexism. Exceptions are therefore possible - but exceptions can never be definitive in character.

The second answer would be even weaker: "But male sexworkers are less of an exception!"

Disregarding the fact that they do assume the archetype of the female gender, in their relationship to production - this is rather meaningless. Is your comprehensive, detailed and sophisticated understanding of racism solely based on statistics? What is the breaking point? Does something become a significant exception past 15% 20%? 30%? What does the ratio have to be in order for it to be significant enough to be characteristic? This is why your method is stupid.

What's left to say? I've destroyed you. I don't even like to boast, but I really have here. It's painful, I type these words with a degree of sympathy for you - I feel like I'm humiliating you. Makes me almost want to let you go on thinking you're not a complete moron.

Rafiq, you couldn't humiliate me if you tried.

All this is "blablabla"-filling for the fact that you used genderized pronouns illustrating you were not at all debating sexwork but were equating sexwork with women automatically and as a foregone conclusion. Your entire frame work and ranting against female sexuality and their chosen expression of it as inconsequential self denial makes you a petit-bourgeois moralist who uses Marxism paired with preposterous intelectualism as a blanket. So this "oh but men take on a genderized female role" is a mere bullshit obfuscation for the fact that you have a madonna whore complex and are unwilling to adress that issue. And this is the sole reason why you only talk about women.

Added to this is your analysis of sexwork.

Any fool knows that any analysis which pretends to be comprehensive can not focus solely on a small part of the issue and ignoring the rest. Not only is a substantial part of the sexworkers non-female or non-CIS gendered female...women also make up a significant part of the consumers side of the services and products produced by sexworkers. Something which you conveniently seem to forget.

For all your examples...you apply them incorrectly and stupidly. You can not define racism as a purely black problem and ignoring the racism against other non-white groups such as latino, arabs etc. regardless of the fact if they make up the vast majority of a specific population or not.

Nor does your example of a Marixist response about racism or anti-semitism actually make sense in the light of your arguments. The Marxist response to sexwork is not to describe it in gender terms or reduce men to an "ideological archetype" but to define it as it is: a class issue.

Traditionally and throughout history sexwork has predominantly been practiced by the lower classes in society regardless of the economic mode of production and the subsequent class relations in that society. Women make up the large part of the lower classes. And THAT is a gender issue. But women and men have been active as sexworkers, albeit in very different situations, circumstances and degrees of openness depending on the moral standards of that society. Each facing different problems and positions in society. But sexwork was never purely a women's issue and substantial parts of sexwork has always been done by men and trans/queer gendered. Each group facing enirely different social realities and problems.

This is however not an exception. You don't seem to know what the word actually means. So let me explain this, because apparently you skipped a few classes. If something is structural then it is NOT an exception. An exception is something which does not conform to the rule. When something is structural it is part of the rule. So when you call something which is structural and exception...then your idea and concept of the rule don't match up with reality.

So no. Male sexworkers are NOT an exception AT ALL. And this is where your little example of racism goes wonky again and also shows your general lack of understanding of the issue at hand: Never was there any substantial section of the black population white.

You know this. And in order to fix it you grab back to social conservative terminology and rhetorics. Terminology and rhetorics which are problematic because they are traditionally solely used by social moralists in order to repress certain sexualities and genders and sexuial activities. So it is oddly fitting that you do so in this debate. Unfortunately...this shows your colours.

But all this is a sidetrack.

Nobody said that sexwork was not genderized or that women do not make up the majority of sexworkers. The only reason you focus on this is because you are trying to take the attacking position because you were called out on your petit-bouergeois sexist moralism and faulty analysis.

The fact of the matter is you were focussing solely on women (including the use of female pronouns making all your arguments post-fact hillariously dishonest). The fact of the matter is that you are therefore ignoring the complexity of the issues. And, as you later implied by your subsequent arguments, completely ignore the issues faced by non-female sexworkers as completely irrelevant. After all...they are practically women anyways. And you are ignoring the substantial role women play in the consumption of sexwork. This makes your entire analysis of sexwork a gross simplification based on one sided facts.

You still have not addressed these issues other than saying that these are unimportant and ranting about racism and anti-semitism and how real Marxists call male sexworkers genderized females.

But that is really no surprise from somebody who takes the position that women are merely misled creatures who do no actually understand what they truely want or can understand their own bodies and minds.

K. Thanx for playing.

[consuming negativity]

W8qcccZy03s

please explain what the term "petit-bourgeois moralism" even means

like i don't want this post to be a literal "no u" but in the context of the internet you sound like a MRA who is desperately trying to uphold the poor men at the expense of reality

which i am decent enough as a person to recognize is a mischaracterization but the idea that i am sexist for recognizing that our society is sexist is really....

well, it would be like saying i'm racist for recognizing that the inner city is filled with black people (in America)

and yet i understand why - it originates with slavery, then through jim crow and the great migration, and then finally through the flight of capital combined with racist housing policies on the part of the us government

similarly, the majority of sex workers are women. this is just a fact. if you deny it you are denying reality and substituting your own. i brought up the point of the mujeres libres thinking that it would perhaps ring a bell in your mind given that nobody has enough gall ITT to accuse the mujeres libres of being sexists. and yet you are by attacking me for agreeing with them that, ultimately, prostitution should not exist. for men, for women, for persons outside of the gender binary, for persons regardless of sex, orientation, or anything else. it just shouldn't exist. neither should wage labor. neither should rape, murder, or the rest.

this is not, as you say, "petty bourgeois moralism" (which is in and of itself a meaningless term) but rather it is an acknowledgement that sex in our society is poisoned by the sexism in our society and that women ARE ACTUALLY disadvantaged in our society and that this means things such as:

they are more likely to be prostitutes despite not wanting to because of their financial situation
they are more likely to be taken advantage of, not in a sexual sense, but in general, to be more vulnerable to exploitation
they are more likely to be impoverished
to experience institutionalized sexism

like this is just reality. so, my position is basically that yours is a rejection of this reality with a subtitute of your own. only with you and with MRAs have i ever had to defend myself against accusations of forgetting the men and other-gendered persons who are participants in the sex-based economy. it's simply ridiculous. you are the epitome of a liberal who would deny reality but not even understand why it is that you want to.

[BIXX]

Are you trolling? "I'm wrong"?

Doxxer, I'm actually interested. If there's some secret, reveal it. What am I missing here? If I'm wrong, how? What's this big secret you're not telling me?

The fact is that others in the thread have tried to explain why you're wrong but you're incapable of listening. Seeing as I don't ha e superpowers I don't see the point in trying with you. The fact is that yes, you are wrong, but no matter what I say you would never be convinced, because you cannot accept that you're wrong.

So yeah, you're wrong. I'm not gonna perform the Sisyphean task of explaining to rafiq that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 when they are convinced it equals 5. Instead I'll just have to resort to knowing they are wrong.

[PhoenixAsh]

please explain what the term "petit-bourgeois moralism" even means

like i don't want this post to be a literal "no u" but in the context of the internet you sound like a MRA who is desperately trying to uphold the poor men at the expense of reality

which i am decent enough as a person to recognize is a mischaracterization but the idea that i am sexist for recognizing that our society is sexist is really....

well, it would be like saying i'm racist for recognizing that the inner city is filled with black people (in America)

and yet i understand why - it originates with slavery, then through jim crow and the great migration, and then finally through the flight of capital combined with racist housing policies on the part of the us government

similarly, the majority of sex workers are women. this is just a fact. if you deny it you are denying reality and substituting your own. i brought up the point of the mujeres libres thinking that it would perhaps ring a bell in your mind given that nobody has enough gall ITT to accuse the mujeres libres of being sexists. and yet you are by attacking me for agreeing with them that, ultimately, prostitution should not exist. for men, for women, for persons outside of the gender binary, for persons regardless of sex, orientation, or anything else. it just shouldn't exist. neither should wage labor. neither should rape, murder, or the rest.

this is not, as you say, "petty bourgeois moralism" (which is in and of itself a meaningless term) but rather it is an acknowledgement that sex in our society is poisoned by the sexism in our society and that women ARE ACTUALLY disadvantaged in our society and that this means things such as:

they are more likely to be prostitutes despite not wanting to because of their financial situation
they are more likely to be taken advantage of, not in a sexual sense, but in general, to be more vulnerable to exploitation
they are more likely to be impoverished
to experience institutionalized sexism

like this is just reality. so, my position is basically that yours is a rejection of this reality with a subtitute of your own. only with you and with MRAs have i ever had to defend myself against accusations of forgetting the men and other-gendered persons who are participants in the sex-based economy. it's simply ridiculous. you are the epitome of a liberal who would deny reality but not even understand why it is that you want to.

The MRA argument is too infantile to even address and speaks of intelectual poverty....most commonly used when there is no actual counter argument to be made.

The issue is not a recognition of the proportionality or the genderization. There was however no such recognition and there was sole focus on the link between women and sexwork at the exclusion of everything else making sexwork automatically synonymous with women and vice versa. The problems and arguments against sexwork were entirely based on the female aspect of sexwork and the fact that it impacted women and how women conducted their sexuality.

Read that sentence again...and try to understand what we are talking about.

This automatic link and moralization what women do, like, want, feel and should like want and feel and do is the issue and is why Sasha mentioned the Madonna-Whore complex. It is the driving sentiment behind the agitation against sexwork and sexual expression based on the fact that it is performed and done by women.

When people make arguments like: "I don't care what women want" or "Women do not know or understand their own oppression and their lack of free will" or "female sexuality is simply conditioned reflex" this should raise immediate alarm bells.

It is that mentality which is petit-bourgeois...the moralization about what and how women should experience sexuality and use their sexuality within any given context.

This menatlity is aggravated by the fact that the reduction and dismissal of sexwork by excluding 1 in 3 sexworkers who are in fact not women or CIS women but whose exploitation and experiences are apparently inconsequential for the analysis about sexwork and the position it has in society regardless if they vary from the female experience.

This makes the analysis on sexwork in totality flawed and faulty because it is based on the presumed (based on subjective moralization about womens sexuality and sexual related behavior) effect on women rejecting the notion, and in some cases explicitly stating that this is inconsequential, that some women have a completely different approach towards sex and sexual behaviour....but extrapolating it to all sexworkers as if these experiences are similar and monolithic.

Or as Rafiq said: men in sexwork are genderized women.

It is also the victimization of women, denying them agency and making their position and views immaterial. That might be the case in some instances. But Marxist female sexworkers have regularly made their position known as contrary to this view as early as 1911.

It also rejects the current strong development were the role of women is not limited, if it ever was, to that of sexworker but expanding to structural consumers of the services and products of sexworkers.

It is mainly in the consumer role that the thread originated and the main criticism is directed against the new laws (which incidentally have nothing to do with the position of women at all) where these laws are actually diametrically opposed to where women produce their own porn outside of the economic context, their prefered niches of porn to consume and their expression of sexuality and the branches of the porn inductry that operate outside of the main stream porn industry amongst which it targets predominantly the independent producers of safe space porn for women. These facts have been more than once denied in this thread as either irrelevant or were simply dismissed as being untrue.

The move to legislate and limit female sexuality has always been a petit-bourgeois (class) driven issue. As is again the case with these new laws.

So no. The defense is not against you not mentioning men. The defence is against the argumentation against sexwork originating in the false idea that sexwork is synonimous with women and the mentality that it should be opposed because it negatively affects womens virtues.

[consuming negativity]

but nobody itt is arguing in favor of the stupid fucking laws

*slams head against wall*

[PhoenixAsh]

but nobody itt is arguing in favor of the stupid fucking laws

*slams head against wall*


I have not said it is about the laws but rather the mentality behind the arguments and the views on sex work.

[consuming negativity]

actually, fuck it, i think you might be right

[Sasha]

most of the sex workers that i know do that job because they enjoy it, they are good at it and make more money than doing something else, all three perfectly acceptable reasons to do it, most people in "normal" jobs score at best a two out of three.
interestingly the people who enjoy it the most, are best at it and make the most money are specialized in exactly the kind of fetishes targeted by this ban. which again proves this (both the legislation and all the bull by the people who support it here in more or lesser extent) is not about protecting the workers, its about moral judgment.

[Rafiq]

The fact is that others in the thread have tried to explain why you're wrong but you're incapable of listening. Seeing as I don't ha e superpowers I don't see the point in trying with you. The fact is that yes, you are wrong, but no matter what I say you would never be convinced, because you cannot accept that you're wrong.

So yeah, you're wrong. I'm not gonna perform the Sisyphean task of explaining to rafiq that 2+2 does indeed equal 4 when they are convinced it equals 5. Instead I'll just have to resort to knowing they are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I just think it's kind of funny that you probably don't even know what I'm allegedly wrong about in the first place. Without even joking, want to know what role you're playing here? You remind me of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amBByw1k6qo. That's all you are. You're not contributing anything or demonstrating anything. You're just hurling shit.


Rafiq, you couldn't humiliate me if you tried.

So this "oh but men take on a genderized female role" is a mere bullshit obfuscation for the fact that you have a madonna whore complex and are unwilling to adress that issue. And this is the sole reason why you only talk about women.

Clearly, you're doing a fine job of this on your own. What can we expect, Phoenix? You haven't addressed anything. This is literally all circular reasoning. You have yet to demonstrate how explicitly this is "petite bourgeois morality". You yet to tell us how somehow, because we recognize the in-existence of free choice - I am saying prostitutes are particularly not capable of of free choice. How? Literally, how? Certainly, in this particular instance, I am attacking the notion that oppression can be justified because it is "chosen" or perceived as enjoyable. I fail to see how this means my standards of criticism are themselves wholly particular to the phenomena of prostitution.

The only particularities as far as prostitution is concerned is the bare expression of exploitation and the denial of women sexual agency and identity. Upon the supersession of property-relations, for example, work of course will become a necessity for survival. You see, this can't be the commodification of sex alone - a sexual identity, as well as sexual acts, which are connontated with the male gender are rarely present in prostitution. How many John Wayne-esque prostitutes exist? How many prostitutes exist that emulate males as a societal sex symbol? You yourself claim that you recognize that prostitution is gendered. You go further to claim that this is just a coy I'm using to justify some kind of unconscious sexual disorder. You however provide no evidence. Indeed, you call me a petite-bourgeois moralist, you claim that I Just want to control women's bodies - but your only evidence for this is that I'm a petite bourgeois moralist who wants to control women's bodies. You haven't even demonstrated how - for example,

Being aversed toward prostitution in principle is somehow exemplary of petite bourgeois morality. But this is rather specific. Alexandra Kollontai, who I'm sure no one would accuse of "petite-bourgeois morality" claims here:

Prostitution is alien and harmful to the new communist morality which is in the process of forming. The task of the party as a whole and of the women’s departments in particular must he to launch a broad and resolute campaign against this legacy from the past. In bourgeois capitalist society all attempts at fighting prostitution were a useless waste of energy, since the two circumstances which gave rise to the phenomenon – private property and the direct material dependence of the majority of women upon men – were firmly established. In a workers’ republic the situation has changed. Private property has been abolished and all citizens of the republic are obliged to work. Marriage has ceased to be a method by which a woman can find herself a “breadwinner” and thus avoid the necessity of working or providing for herself by her own labour. The major social factors giving rise to prostitution are, in Soviet Russia, being eliminated. A number of secondary economic and social reasons remain with which it is easier to come to terms. The women’s departments must approach the struggle energetically, and they will find a wide field for activity.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm

Now this is far more "socially conservative" then anything I have ever written here. And yet, I don't think anyone would be able to say that Kollontai is a "petite-bourgeois moralist" with a "madonna-whore complex". What you could use, however, is a retort to historicism (which by the way, isn't wrong just because it's historicism) to claim that while in her respective context opposition to prostitution may have not been petite-bourgeois, but as a result of the global changes of capitalism and capitalist sexual relations, to emulate this kind of position would be explicitly petite-bourgeois. This wouldn't be a terrible argument (though I suspect your eclecticism would disallow you from even coming to this conclusion).

The problem, however, would stem from the necessity of demonstrating how these fundamental changes (in capitalism, and sexual relations) necessarily place such Communist opposition to prostitution as characteristically petite-bourgeois. You haven't even come close to doing this. And while taking the same measures against prostitution would perhaps be contextually petite-bourgeois today, or replacing a thorough analysis on sex-relations today with this may be petite-bourgeois - the fundamental Communist opposition to prostitution in principle - just as the opposition to exploitation in general - remains. Has prostitution taken a different form? Yes, the essence is the same.

Though I suspect your accusations of "petite-bourgeois morality" do not actually stem from anything nearly as complex. I suspect this is because in an earlier thread, I condemned you for being a pedophilia/child abuse apologist. If this qualifies me for "petite-bourgeois morality", I am absolutely shameless.


...women also make up a significant part of the consumers side of the services and products produced by sexworkers. Something which you conveniently seem to forget.


Can you actually back this up with real data? Women make a significant part of the consumers as far as sexwork goes? Since we are talking about the phenomena of prostitution in capitalism - I would like you to compile data to back this up. I will cut off my balls and send them to you if women make up more than 10% of the consumers globally. And I mean that.

Women do by no means compose a significant portion of the consumers of prostitution. What utter cack! Still, even if 50% of the consumers were women, this would have to represent a fundamental ideological change as far as sexual relations go. Symptomatically, we don't live in a society where the number is even close to being a significant fraction. I mean, even if this were true - which it isn't - the ideological connontations of prostitution have not changed, so something, either this sudden spontaneous rise in female consumers, or a fundamental ideological connotations of prostitution - would have to go.

Again, prostitution is completely rendered. I mean, you even admitted this. What is the discussion now? That I'm not emphasizing exceptions enough? Again, exceptions cannot be definitive. Workers co-op's exist, but this doesn't undermine the fundemental nature of exploitation and wage-labor relations. Sure you can go live on a mountain somewhere completely isolated from society and live in Communism - I'm sure these kinds of places exist, but this would be exceptional and not definitive.


For all your examples...you apply them incorrectly and stupidly. You can not define racism as a purely black problem and ignoring the racism against other non-white groups such as latino, arabs etc. regardless of the fact if they make up the vast majority of a specific population or not.


You're beyond redemption. You're literally, plainly, a stupid person.

You miss the point. And how the fuck do you make this again a political correct argument? You COMPLETELY miss the point!

Okay, let's change the point: Let's make the categorization non-white people and white people. If we recognize that non-white people are systemically oppressed, we also have to take into account that exceptions exist - many non-whites are successful capitalists, exploiters, people in vast positions of power. That doesn't change the actual character of white domination, however - because white domination is archetypal. You build this straw man that I'm denying non-biologcially female sex workers exist. Your argument is that "white people aren't black". That's not the point. You're confusing two different arguments here:

The first one is that exceptions are not defintive.

And the second, and separate argument I have made is that even if we DO assume they are definitive, prostitution is gendered. Now I'm not saying that white people are capable of being black. I'm saying often times black people are capable of being in positions of wealth and power - positions often associated with whites. I'm saying that because racism is structural, even black people can often times harbor fundamentally racist sentiments against other black people. Replace black with "non-white", it doesn't matter. I can't even tell if you're genuinely stupid, or you're dishonestly dodging the point. Either way, I've destroyed you.


It's not an argument even about the direct facts about the matter (even though they are consistent). It's about LOGICAL CONSISTENCY. The prominence of male prostitution is exceptional. Not because 30% is too low of a portion, but because it deviates (but not TOO much) from prostitution characteristically in its relationship to our societal totality. You don't understand what I mean by exceptional. If 90% of prostitutes in Sweden were males, it would still be exceptional.



Traditionally and throughout history sexwork has predominantly been practiced by the lower classes in society regardless of the economic mode of production and the subsequent class relations in that society. Women make up the large part of the lower classes. And THAT is a gender issue. But women and men have been active as sexworkers,

This is almost outrageously pathetic. To suggest that the "lower-classes" are fundamentally genderless is absolute nonsense. You're being deliberately ignorant here. Do you honestly think reality conforms to this? If prostitution wasn't qualified to the female gender, we would be living in a genderless society. We don't. It just so happens that prostitution is a logical consequence of existing sexual relations and not just the necessity of poor people to make a living. Prostitution is unique to patriarchy. End of discussion.


This is however not an exception. You don't seem to know what the word actually means. So let me explain this, because apparently you skipped a few classes. If something is structural then it is NOT an exception. An exception is something which does not conform to the rule. When something is structural it is part of the rule.


That's correct, however, this assumes that exceptions are based on portions, or percentages alone. This is rather shallow and infantile. Furthermore, it fails to recognize that western Europe is itself incredibly exceptional regarding the phenomena of prostitution. For someone who idolizes backwardness with his orientalist-romanticism, it is surely Euro-centric of you to ignore that the whole world operates in this capitalist totality.

But that's deviating from the point a bit too much. Let's even assume Europe is the world and is the best qualification for our understanding of prostitution. Let's assume that. This wouldn't change the fact that biologically male prostitutes are overwhelmingly gendered as female. Take that away, and your statistical significant of 30% would probably drop down pretty fucking low.


You know this. And in order to fix it you grab back to social conservative terminology and rhetorics.


You and your vomit inducing self rightoeus ignorance. In fact, it's ironic that someone who advocates defending child abusers from the state prattles of petty bourgeois morality. You say I use soviet elitist terminology, and I employ petite bourgeois morality. Totally not schizophrenic. Which social conservatism am I guilty of, Phoenix?

Notice how I really don't even care about your accusations. If opposing exploitation and prostitution in principle, if opposing child abuse qualifies me as being socially conservative, I really don't care. Evidently, however, outside of Pheonix's head, it doesn't.


But that is really no surprise from somebody who takes the position that women are merely misled creatures who do no actually understand what they truely want or can understand their own bodies and minds.

Yes, because I said women specifically, and not every living person. Your idealism is appalling - the idea that if someone is not acting on their free choice, they have to be "misled" by some conscious entity is not only idealist - it's infantile. Even sophisticated idealists (Hegel) would reject such nonsense.

Phoenix! You elitist! No surprise that from somebody who takes the position that poor workers are merely misled creatures who do not actually understand what they truly want or can understand their own bodies or minds. Your idea of class consciousness is so elitist. If workers choose to enter into conditions of wage-labor and exploitation, you're in no position to argue otherwise.

Go ahead and respond with more Occam's razor. This is actually hilarious now. I absolutely adore how you just make shit up even when there is explicit evidence otherwise (Like how I literally addressed this accusaiton a few pages ago... Yawn).

How much effort do you think this takes? I'm going weaker by the minute reducing myself to your nonsense. Your posts read like someone whose on an eternal hangover. You can't even properly grasp the scope of your own arguments beyond regurgitating the same thing over and over again. How many times have you said "You're just trying to cover X by saying X"? It's the same argument. Sure, my posts might be walls of text, but everyone - compare them to Phoenix's. To Phoenix's muddied, splattered messy shit spasms, my posts are like detailed Baroque sculptures.

[Sasha]

nope you just come of as a cock, now a screaming cock..

[Rafiq]

nope you just come of as a cock, now a screaming cock..

No! The cannons have been unleashed! Fuck. After all that, Sasha, I might as well just agree with you. You've convinced me. You've made a post which is meaningful - your purpose was to convince me, right? Or was it just some kind of infantile drive to shout no when you're confronted with something you don't like?

"They enjoy it, what's the problem"? I love how you say that shit. What makes you think you're exempt form the standards of this discussion? Admit it, you haven't read a single post of mine. You haven't.

Come back here when you have something to say beyond "you're wrong". Both you and doxxer do this. So what makes you exempt from discussion? Do you both think you're better than me or something? How so? Am I not "legit" enough?

How about fuck off.

[Sasha]

nope, you dont get to decide what is meaningful discussion nor who can participate in which way around here, we let you post page after page of your drivel and you let us call you a cock if you start screaming like a pedantic little child. thats how it works.

[Rafiq]

Revleft rules:

Flaming is universally not permitted on RevLeft. While we understand that many issues discussed here are controversial and emotionaly charged, all members are required to maintain civil decorum. This means that personal slurs, name-calling, threats, derogatory slurs, and/or any other vareity of personal attack are not permitted.


Please do not post any one-line posts like "I agree", "Good point", "Hear, Hear", or whatever to increase your post count. If you have nothing productive to say, don't say it! Notorious spammers/one-line posters will be banned.


Thanks for allowing me to post page after page of "my drivel", I'm so very grateful. But this isn't against the rules. Unless you're the one who actually makes the rules around here, I would expect you aren't exempt from them. You're a forum admin. This is how you conduct yourself? Like who the fuck is we here? I really doubt all of the administrators here agree with you. Speak for yourself. Or are these kinds of political positions now general policy?

Sorry Sasha but your bouncer attitude does you no intellectual credit. You're still wrong. What you say is still worthless.

[Sasha]

bouncer attitude? intellectual credit? seriously? wanna go there?

also you really cant go and quote them rulez after you started screaming in your post (also against the rules hence why i called you a cock, seemed like a better reply than editing your post and infracting you, i rather not act like a teacher, or a bouncer for that matter unless really necessary)

[Rafiq]

bouncer attitude? intellectual credit? seriously? wanna go there?

also you really cant go and quote them rulez after you started screaming in your post (also against the rules hence why i called you a cock)

I always keep it civil before being the recipient of personal attacks. I wasn't posting large letters before I got all this shit hurled at me. Let's be real here: I don't care if people want to attack me and sling all this shit. What I do care about is fairness and consistency. Where were you when Feral just started throwing personal attacks at me?

So if it is within consistency of the rules to punish me for using large letters, that's fine. I don't have a problem with that. But I expect consistency. I expect penalization for other users also violating discussion-based rules, too. That includes yourself, Feral, Pheonix and doxxer.