Only Children

[nomadthethird]

You only think you're arguing with a fundie, because in fact that's the only argument you know how to have. You assume - and require - an antagonist who thinks that missionary-position sex between married couples is God's Law and everything else is filthy and unclean. The fact that I'm not that antagonist, and that that's not my position, has once again escaped your notice

No, I think you sound like a fundamentalist on this issue because you do. You continually posit some "center" you get to speak from that no one else has access to, where you have the inside story, you're authentic, and no one else is. You get to decide that everyone else in the world who has sex excessively, in your view--or even those who merely talk about sex in language you don't approve of --are "hedonists" who are having sex in some kind of bad faith.

There's that, and there's the special pleading. Culturdidit.

You've provided not one shred of data or evidence for your theories about things like "porn causes rape", and such. These have been mercilessly obliterated by sex researchers in the past 15 years, but I suppose the actual numbers don't matter when you live in Culturdidit bliss.

I find that sex, in my own life and in the (reasonably varied) lives of others I know, is something about which I have fairly mixed feelings.

And? Who doesn't? Do you think you're special in this? This is an entirely trivial point.

I don't believe that having rules about when it's "OK" to have sex will really help to separate the good from the bad. I don't believe that there's a right way to do it that will make everything wonderful. So I'm really very uninterested in trying to define and enforce rules about what kinds of sex people should be having. (Obviously we must treat as criminal violations of others' freedom to decide whether they want to be having it or not).

As I said before, the single loudest voice in the U.S. that speaks up in criticism of the dominant modes of sexual production in this culture are sex positive feminists. In fact, we're the only ones in most cases, since the fourth wave has joined forces with the gay coalitions, to actively lobby for political and legal change. You imagine that somehow being sex positive means that you're not allowed to criticize culture, which is just ridiculous on every imaginable level. But it's standard Zizek-disciple drivel.

Where sex is sold, it's sold as something simplified, de-complicated: something about which one will have only good feelings (all the pleasure, none of the complications!). The God-botherers' image of sexual fulfilment as divinely-approved intimacy with a loving spouse is false because it is just such a simplification, a tidying-up of a complex area of life (of course in their own fashion they acknowledge the complexity as well, but as something that has to be prayed about in the hope that it will go away). But rival images of sexual fulfilment (whether Hugh Hefner's or Candace Bushnell's) are equally false, and they all have their own equivalent to the religions' imaginary Daddy In The Sky who smiles on the bliss of those who obey His commands. Part of what I mean, therefore, by being "sex critical" is dismantling the images that hold us captive.

First, you realize you're talking to a former femme domme/professional switch right? One who actually knows about those worlds, who ACTUALLY lived it, who actually understands firsthand many of the factors that are involved in the psychodynamics of sex work? And that everytime you say something about the world of sold sex, you just sound utterly clueless to me. Like you have no clue what you're talking about. That's because you don't. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, "simple" about what's going on in the psyches or the underground economies implicated in sex work.

There's also nothing inherently "true" or "false" about images, there are just images. This is where you lose me, and anybody else who isn't basing their thinking on some pseudo-spiritual ideal; in any given society, there will be images of sexual fulfilment, pleasure, desire, whatever. These need not be separated into "true" or "false" categories so that we can simplify our arguments--in fact, since images tend to form a part of the feedback loop in the big Desire picture, they are integral to who we are. There is no "real" us hiding somewhere underneath these representations, as nice as it might be to wish there were. All you can do is change, not find some "real you" underneath who you've become. Becoming doesn't end at some magical point. There's no such thing as static, stable identities that exist floating above or below the world of images and biology and physical bodies and anything else you can think of.

 

[nomadthethird]

Read Anne Bolin and Patricia Wehelan's sex positive tome/anthropology textbook Human Sexuality and get back to me on how "uncritical" of the dominant culture sex positive feminists are. There are plenty more where that came from, too.

I'm really starting to be amused by the boilerplate Euroacademic "criticisms" of sex and sex positive feminism...first, it's ohnoez!!!! too deconstructive and stuck on dismantling rather than building up. Then it's, ohnoez!!! not critical enough of culture and not based on dismantling enough.

The real issue is that it's not a pie-in-the-sky doctrinaire form of metaphysical woo. That's what they don't like about it.

 

[poetix]

No, I think you sound like a fundamentalist on this issue because you do. You continually posit some "center" you get to speak from that no one else has access to

Where do I do this, though? I don't really talk about myself very much at all, or attempt to position myself as being in some "right" place - in the first instance, I don't believe there is any such place. You're the one who wants there to be such a a place, it seems to me, and for yourself to be in it.

, where you have the inside story, you're authentic, and no one else is. You get to decide that everyone else in the world who has sex excessively, in your view--or even those who merely talk about sex in language you don't approve of --are "hedonists" who are having sex in some kind of bad faith.

I don't think I'm critical of excess, as such. One could be a hedonist in principle and very moderate in practice, being easily satisfied.

You've provided not one shred of data or evidence for your theories about things like "porn causes rape", and such

I don't have a strong view on the correlation, or not, between the availability of pornography and the incidence of rape. You do: you think more porn means less rape, i.e. that there's a negative correlation. I gather there are studies that say this. I believe there are studies that say the opposite, too. It's probably sensitive to a variety of other conditions.

I do think that pornography has a part to play in establishing attitudes towards sex, which might affect the way people feel about rape as well. More porn might mean more acceptance of sexual coercion, and less identification of that coercion as rape, for example. In general, porn gives a simplified view of sex: no-one ever says "no" in PornWorld, or even "actually, I quite liked what you were doing just then - could you possibly carry on doing that, instead of moving on to thrusting in and out of my rectum - which, frankly, does next to nothing for me". I'm sure porn performers have the same complex inner lives as the rest of us, but you'd never guess from the product they appear in.

As I said before, the single loudest voice in the U.S. that speaks up in criticism of the dominant modes of sexual production in this culture are sex positive feminists

But they don't. They're massively uncritical - committed, on principle, to not being critical - of the real dominant ideology, which is not the Christian Right's silly attempts to force everyone into chastity belts but the formatting of sex as a commodity. They think that's just cool.

First, you realize you're talking to a former femme domme/professional switch right?

If you say so. Kind of the labour aristocracy of sex work, isn't it? And see what I mean about who wants to be in the position where what they say has some special authority and significance because it's them saying it?

There's also nothing inherently "true" or "false" about images, there are just images.

Those that hold us captive do so because they convince us that they are true, or could be true if we deserved it - which, somehow, we never quite do.

 

[nomadthethird]

This just keeps getting better all the time.

I don't presume to know why everyone else on earth does what they do sexually. I'm very interested in understanding, rather than patly dismissing and judging, behaviors. I believe this is an essential step--the first step--in finding a way to change the ones that are causing problems. You can't properly criticize what you don't understand.

Where do I do this, though?

You just called anyone who identifies as sex positive a "hedonist" several times in the thread. Do I need to cut and paste them all?

I don't have a strong view on the correlation, or not, between the availability of pornography and the incidence of rape. You do: you think more porn means less rape, i.e. that there's a negative correlation. I gather there are studies that say this. I believe there are studies that say the opposite, too. It's probably sensitive to a variety of other conditions.

What was it...? four months ago that you were arguing this position pretty adamantly. I never said anything about "cause", just correlation. But there's not a shred of evidence that porn causes rape. There's plenty of evidence that supports the theory that economic, socio-economic, educational, community, and family factors do, though. Tons of it.

And actually, people DO say no in porn, but usually it's eroticized. So what? Studies show something like half of women (at least) fantasize about what they call "rape" or what most researchers would call "submission" or "domination." Not unproblematic, of course, But getting rid of porn is not going to change what thousands of years of patriarchy has put asunder. In fact, I'd argue that further stigmatizing public displays of female sexual expression only reinstates the patriarchal status quo. Submission fantasies are complex. And anal sex? So what. Unpleasureable? Says who?

They're massively uncritical - committed, on principle, to not being critical - of the real dominant ideology, which is not the Christian Right's silly attempts to force everyone into chastity belts but the formatting of sex as a commodity. They think that's just cool.

Any examples, or is this just a bald assertion? The sex positive feminists I know don't think sex work is "cool", they think it's a complex issue, and that ultimately the rights and safety of sex workers need to be protected by the government. The real dominant ideology regarding public policy in matters of sex most certainly IS the Christian Right's "abstinence only education" nonsense, which, it has been amply demonstrated, was directly responsible for a huge increase in STDs, teen pregnancy, and abortion over the past 15 years, not to mention the further spread of AIDS in Africa. It will take decades to begin to undo the damage.

If you say so. Kind of the labour aristocracy of sex work, isn't it? And see what I mean about who wants to be in the position where what they say has some special authority and significance because it's them saying it?

Well, I worked at sort of middle-of-the-road place (Elizabeth's, fyi) in the garment district for about six months. Not exactly ritzy as far as dungeons go, on the tame side in terms of services rendered. No penetrative "sex" allowed* (mostly foot work, trampling, leather fetish, lite medical, etc.) so it wasn't anything like streetwalking of course. Dom/mes are nowhere near the aristocracy of sex workers, though: that would be the $4000/night escorts.

Of course, this relatively brief experience doesn't put me in a special position in terms of being "right", but it does give me some kind of insight into the business that you might lack. Sort of the way someone who has played football would probably have a better understanding of its ins and outs than I would, having never even watched a game. I know there's a ball, and a goal, and points, and forwards. That's about it...

*With one exception that I won't get too graphic about, but it's technically illegal so we didn't advertise.

 

[nomadthethird]

Can I see some links to studies that correlate rape incidence and porn consumption positively? Thanks.

 

[nomadthethird]

coda

Telling, isn't it, that your argument hinges on the fact that prostitution is situated within capitalism, and that this makes it somehow extra-bad--as if your job isn't sitting in the same mire? What makes your job magically transcend capitalism? How are you not a shill for corporate/capitalist interest everytime you wake up and go to work? Why do special rules apply to affluent white males like you and not poorer women who are typically involved in prostitution? Why is their job somehow more capitalistic than yours, or more embedded in ideology? Why would it be infinitely better for them to go work for Pepsi Co. or Viacom (with all of the horrible wrongs they would be contributing to there) than it would be for them to take cash for a blow job?

If this were just about capitalism, the reductio would go like this: we'd all have to stop making money and earning a living now and just go on a hunger strike. The fact of the matter is, this is about sex, not capitalism. The reason people get upset about prostitution is because of the nature of the work, not the fact that money is exchanged in the process, as it is in any other business transaction. There is a deep-seated fear of/bias against women having sex for reasons other than procreation within marriage in our patriarchal culture. There is a deeply held view that women are naturally less sexual than men are, that women in their natural goodness, innocence, and purity can only be coerced into sex (which is low, dirty, bad) against their will. The criminalization of prostitution, and the near universal stigmatization of women who have worked as prostitutes, is an outgrowth of these beliefs. This is where your argument comes from, ultimately, when you strip away the rhetoric about capitalism that could apply to any job. The "criticism" of sex work only works to further stigmatize a group that already faces prejudice at every turn.

As for being name-called a "hedonist", I find it funny that you can't see how easily I could turn this around on you, or anyone with children and a spouse. Since the world is wildly over-populated and can't even support the people who are already here, anyone who is truly interested in the "common" good could never ethically justify bringing more children into the world. The urge can be very strong, sure, but only a moral imbecile would give into it. Your selfish lifestyle choice to have children (who will consume all kinds of resources that could have gone to an AIDS orphan or foster kid) is pure hedonism--an impulsive act based on your own personal pleasure without regard for the common good. Since marriage is the central institution of patriarchy (as you've suggested before, this is the reason why gay people shouldn't be seeking the right to marry), you could only have married for selfish, hedonistic reasons, right?

I didn't do this because it would be ridiculous. Your lifestyle preferences are not "bad", even if I don't personally like them.

And to think-- instead of having a protracted argument over the semantics of the term "sex positive", we could have tried to bridge a gap, create some meaningful unity along a set of axes that we can agree on, and use our time and privilege to find ways to help those in need, like sex workers.

 

[poetix]

When it comes to prostitution, the particular horror (for feminists) lies in the notion that women's bodies, and the sexual use thereof, are commodities to be bought and sold. In the acceptance of that notion, and then in its promotion: the claim that this is perfectly OK, no different from any other barter. In the assumption underlying this claim, which is that the proper use of women's bodies is for the sexual convenience of men, in particular men with money (who control, thereby, the resources needed for survival: access to housing, food, healthcare). This is the assumption underlying patriarchal marriage customs, to which prostitution is a supplement, not an alternative.

I don't have the kind of relationship to my own body that would mean that I could accept giving blowjobs as part of my daily work as readily as I can accept writing some SQL to summarize the past quarter's sales figures. The latter makes demands on my time and attention, both of which are certainly precious to me, but it is possible to give one's time and attention to a task and feel that the rest of one's selfhood remains largely uncommitted. It is not possible for my to give my body to someone and feel that the rest of my selfhood remains uncommitted in the same way (I'm not talking about total, lifelong commitment here; just an inability to remain detached, to feel that one has no skin in the game); I feel that I would have to have been psychically mutilated in order for this to become possible. I doubt most women are much different - and this has nothing to do with imagining that women are very especially "pure", or have some special moral instinct with respect to sex.

Perhaps there are some people, men and women, who are just wired differently; it takes all sorts to make a world. But I don't think that prostituted people are generally in prostitution because they're wired differently; I think that in most cases something fairly awful has been done, and is continually being done, to them. In such cases, and regardless of how they rationalise it to themselves, the best thing that can happen is for it to stop. Just give them the fucking money, if they need the money. But stop using them as fucktoys. That's no way to treat a human being.

Perhaps I have already been psychically mutilated, and that is why I feel as nonchalant as I do about writing SQL to report someone else's profits to them. I don't however feel that I need to be especially defensive about it: if someone wishes to say that my work involves exploitation, mental dissociation and a quite unwholesome set of assumptions about what I am for and how my capacities can legitimately be used by those with more power than me, I'm willing to listen. I don't feel that a proper response would be for me to declare myself "work positive" and denounce them for patronising and degrading office workers.

 

[poetix]

Equally, as a married person and parent, I've no objection to critiques of both marriage and parenthood - I have a somewhat jaundiced view of both myself. Why should I insist that all of my life choices have been good ones? Many of them have been compromises; some of them (although not, as it happens, marriage and parenthood) have been compromises that I feel quite strongly I should not have made.

 

[nomadthethird]

so much for "not-knee jerk pathologizing"

When it comes to prostitution, the particular horror (for feminists) lies in the notion that women's bodies, and the sexual use thereof, are commodities to be bought and sold.

First, feminists are not a monolith, and all feminists do not agree with you on this issue. How about men's bodies being bought for hard labor on construction sites, and so forth? Or don't men's bodies count? I keep forgetting--men can't get psychically damaged, they're intellectually superior to (=less emotional than) women.

In the acceptance of that notion, and then in its promotion: the claim that this is perfectly OK, no different from any other barter. In the assumption underlying this claim, which is that the proper use of women's bodies is for the sexual convenience of men, in particular men with money (who control, thereby, the resources needed for survival: access to housing, food, healthcare). This is the assumption underlying patriarchal marriage customs, to which prostitution is a supplement, not an alternative.

You still don't get it. You're still assuming that only women are being "used" in this situation, and they are the only "used" parties, and that any time a women decides to exercise her sexuality outside of your specifications (a loving relationship, I'm guessing), she's just "being used." Clearly, you don't realize that Johns are often the most vulnerable, sick, and desperate men out there. A lot of them have personality disorders and have extreme trouble negotiating social or romantic relationships. A lot of them have post-traumatic stress from childhood sex abuse or other things (war, for instance). A lot of them are scared silly of women or autistic or just can't get laid otherwise in the way they'd like to. There is no reason to assume that "using" is a one-way street w/r/t prostitution. There are all kinds of arrangements in life that are mutually beneficial, and it is up to x or y person to decide what arrangements they feel comfortable entering into. Nobody’s asking you to become a prostitute or a porn actor if you don't feel comfortable with that.

It is not possible for my to give my body to someone and feel that the rest of my selfhood remains uncommitted in the same way (I'm not talking about total, lifelong commitment here; just an inability to remain detached, to feel that one has no skin in the game); I feel that I would have to have been psychically mutilated in order for this to become possible. I doubt most women are much different - and this has nothing to do with imagining that women are very especially "pure", or have some special moral instinct with respect to sex.

Projection. Speaking from the center again--are you so sure you're the one who hasn't been damaged in some way? Your language here is also telling, when you say you "give" your body in sex? Why must one frame sexual relations this way? You seem hell bent on it. But many people do not frame it this way; many people think of sexual activities as a (temporary and fleeting) sharing of bodily pleasures, not a 'giving' of anything to anyone.

Funny that when people bring up these concerns they don't extend them to include male prostitutes (who exist, you realize…) I turned on the TV last night and saw a documentary series on CNBC called Dirty Money (yes, so dirty that money, dirty with the sweat of a million icky whores), this particular episode being an installment on prostitution. They mentioned the problems that often come along with prostitution (and NOBODY denies that these exist), but they never, not once, mentioned male prostitutes. These poor feeble-brained women were all "tricked" into "giving" their bodies to men-not-their-lawfully-wedded-husbands---and, GASP, the horror--they didn’t even seem that sad or upset up about it! They must be really "mutilated", because they're not neurotic and bourgie about sex.

But I don't think that prostituted people are generally in prostitution because they're wired differently; I think that in most cases something fairly awful has been done, and is continually being done, to them.

You think so, eh? That’s all that matters. Not the mountains of literature and data to the contrary, which indicate that several factors wind up wiring people very differently when it comes to sex, as is the case with any psychological characteristic.

Perhaps I have already been psychically mutilated, and that is why I feel as nonchalant as I do about writing SQL to report someone else's profits to them. I don't however feel that I need to be especially defensive about it: if someone wishes to say that my work involves exploitation, mental dissociation and a quite unwholesome set of assumptions about what I am for and how my capacities can legitimately be used by those with more power than me, I'm willing to listen. I don't feel that a proper response would be for me to declare myself "work positive" and denounce them for patronising and degrading office workers.

No one was being 'defensive' about critiques of economic realities like capitalism. What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy inherent in your sense of moral superiority and outrage. You still don’t understand that sex positive has nothing to do with championing prostitution, as if it’s an entirely "good" thing. It's about refusing to subject women to a clichéd patriarchal stereotype about how women can’t compartmentalize the sex act and their psychic gestalt.

Of all the jobs I've had, domme-ing was by far the most ethically straightforward of them, and the one I probably have the fewest issues with from the standpoint of the "common good." It was by far the most interesting, engaging, and rewarding one in many respects. In fact, I fell into it because I was forced by my own sense of moral outrage to leave a job writing pharmaceutical grants in medical publishing. I was in a managerial position there making a very decent salary--a lot of people would think I was insane for giving up that position-- but the things I was expected to do made me sick to my stomach (one of them being "downplay" the polypharmaceutical implication of Crestor in the kidney failure and death of thousands of people.) There was nothing like this in the dungeon to contend with. There were people (many of whom could never experienced such a thing elsewhere in life) creating a "safe" space in which they could explore the more difficult aspects of their own psychological needs. I don't regret having a role in this for my clients.

Equally, as a married person and parent, I've no objection to critiques of both marriage and parenthood - I have a somewhat jaundiced view of both myself. Why should I insist that all of my life choices have been good ones? Many of them have been compromises; some of them (although not, as it happens, marriage and parenthood) have been compromises that I feel quite strongly I should not have made.

I'm open to hearing critiques of the economic, social, and political situations that often create the incentive for people to prostitute themselves. I'm open to talking about the psychological issues that are common in the world of underground sex. I care about these people very much--this is real to me--and I'm in the middle of changing careers so I can be in a better position to help them and people like them. I'm not open to blanket condemnation of anyone who desires differently from you. (And once again, nobody ever said prostitution was necessarily a "good" choice, just that it’s one among many and it has benefits and trade-offs and downsides for those who choose it.)

 

[poetix]

First, feminists are not a monolith, and all feminists do not agree with you on this issue.

It would probably be more accurate to say that I don't agree with all feminists on this issue, since it's the arguments of feminists that have brought me to the position I hold in the first place. I agree with those feminists rather than some other feminists, to the point of agreeing with the first lot of feminists that the second lot aren't much cop as feminists. Not that it's up to me, but it is to some degree up to them, and I take one side rather than another, as little as that matters.

One of the things that interests me about this issue is precisely that it's divisive - it cuts right down the middle of feminism, and separates two really quite radically different views of the world. Choosing the one that's currently not all that hip or popular is one particular way in which I like to make myself obnoxious.

How about men's bodies being bought for hard labor on construction sites, and so forth?

For people on "my" side of the question, it's so unarguably obvious that it's not the same that it's incredibly frustrating when people try to treat the two things as equivalent - we tend to feel they're either arguing in bad faith, or kind of autistic in some way. Men working on construction sites would by and large consider it hugely beneath their dignity to sell their bodies for sex. This is not a mindless prejudice on their part; it reflects their understanding of what sex is, and what the person whose sex can be bought has been turned into.

Projection. Speaking from the center again--are you so sure you're the one who hasn't been damaged in some way? Your language here is also telling, when you say you "give" your body in sex? Why must one frame sexual relations this way?

It's not obligatory. But it's very common, and not only or even especially for women. The body in sex is a body that is open to some other body, whether penetrated (or penetrating) or not. A whole lot of boundaries that usually exist between bodies are suspended in sexual intimacy; that is part of the peculiar joy and strangeness of it. A particular physical apartness and independence is given up, even in the "temporary and fleeting" (a half-truth, this) exchange of pleasures.

In a couple of days' time, I'm going to the dentist. He'll probably do some quite uncomfortably intimate things to the inside of my mouth, and part of why I'm going to let him do them (besides the fact that I need the work doing) is that I assume it's not an act of pleasure for him; if he got off on it too obviously, he'd be done for malpractice. Clearly there are forms of non-sexual physical closeness, in which bodies come into close contact without there being, after all, much skin in the game. What is happening when this contact is sexual - pleasurable, self-shattering - for one party, and not for the other? You may choose to see it simply as a service rendered; but I think that one party is being dehumanized by the other. The user can only accept the detachment of the used because the latter is not altogether real for him.

 

[mistersloane]

I've known alot of prostitutes over the years of all genders, and interestingly the one who I think was best at it - i.e. most successful - was a very strange character.

I remember them saying to me once that they had no interest in people whatsoever, and I believed them, and thought them sociopathic, literally having an antisocial behavioural trait. Consequently they went on to become one of the USA's Very Famous porn stars.

I always thought it was telling, and felt glad that I'd encountered someone who I think was, well, very close to being a perfect whore. Most other people I know who've done it for any protracted time it fucks up amazingly, but I'm not sure it fucks you up anymore than being a therapist or an analyst.

 

[nomadthethird]

Oh good lord you're boring with your "truths"...

I've known alot of prostitutes over the years of all genders, and interestingly the one who I think was best at it - i.e. most successful - was a very strange character.

I remember them saying to me once that they had no interest in people whatsoever, and I believed them, and thought them sociopathic, literally having an antisocial behavioural trait. Consequently they went on to become one of the USA's Very Famous porn stars.

I always thought it was telling, and felt glad that I'd encountered someone who I think was, well, very close to being a perfect whore. Most other people I know who've done it for any protracted time it fucks up amazingly, but I'm not sure it fucks you up anymore than being a therapist or an analyst.

Yes, it's quite certain that the reason why I can be a dom is the reason why I can dissect a cadaver without flinching. And why I like to do it, and find it fascinating instead of repulsive.

I have decided to donate myself to the medical establishment for this reason. You might call it a gift, you might call it a disease. I don't really care. I think people who are squeamish are braindead conformity drones who just don't understand things very well. They don't know that the bacterial cells in their body vastly outnumber the cells that makeup this body. They don't know they're just particles and macromolecules and random stuff that doesn't give a damn about them.

They really beleeve in loooveee, yaaayy!! Grouphug.

 

[nomadthethird]

a therapist or an analyst.

which basically = bisexual switch anyway

I've found my calling in life

 

[nomadthethird]

Choosing the one that's currently not all that hip or popular is one particular way in which I like to make myself obnoxious.

Everything you've said in this thread is straight out of the right's playbook. Everything. Down to the specific wording. I could be reading an abstinence only health pamphlet.

beneath their dignity

It's beneath mine to work on a construction site and spend the rest of my life at the chiropractor's, fwiw. This particular job also has implications as far as "identity" is concerned; it's considered lowly, backbreaking work that you only do if you absolutely have to, becuase you have no education or skills, and you do it for no longer than you absolutely must. The foreman degrades you. You work in excess of 50 hours a week. You lose your job seasonally and have to sit around on unemployment (very distressing for a lot of people, but especially males) for extended periods of time, probably on schedule I pain meds for all of your injuries and impairments. You are the one who does all the labor, but most of the money goes straight to the "house"--the owner of the company. The owner is your pimp.

A particular physical apartness and independence is given up, even in the "temporary and fleeting" (a half-truth, this) exchange of pleasures.

It is if you're into it. If you're not, nothing happens. You can stare at the wall and wait for it to be over. Whistle. Count backwards from 100 in units of 7.

Perhaps this is difficult for teh mens to understand, because they cannot 'have sex' without being aroused to some degree. Women can, it happens all the time. It's not that hard to figure how female prostitutes (or male bottom pros) shut themselves off from non-existent "pleasure" that they're not experiencing in the first place.

You may choose to see it simply as a service rendered; but I think that one party is being dehumanized by the other. The user can only accept the detachment of the used because the latter is not altogether real for him.

How about the one who's such a loser that s/he has to come crawling to a "mistress" three nights a week to drain his/her bank account dry? How is s/he not dehumanizing him/herself?

 

[grizzleb]

Is there actually a default 'human' position anyway? I think the paradox of that kind of statement lies in the fact that it is systems of exchange and such like that do make us human. For example I would call my office job 'dehumanizing' but it's this office job and all the other ones like it that keep the world going. As soon as we step out the jungle and start plowing fields or whatever we're generally engaging in a practise that you could describe as dehumanizing, but this is what sets us apart...

Took me a while to work out who was arguing for what there, all that patriarchy jibes getting thrown about. Howabout a society where power and dominance isn't valorized?

Anywaynomadthethird, you moan about poetix's hidden mystical centres which I agree with, but you have your hidden centre as well with your patriarchy/matriarchy shit. Are there any 'matriarchies' in existence that aren't just some tribe in fuck knows where? And the rest of the world is patriarchy?

 

[nomadthethird]

you moan about poetix's hidden mystical centres which I agree with, but you have your hidden centre as well with your patriarchy/matriarchy shit. Are there any 'matriarchies' in existence that aren't just some tribe in fuck knows where? And the rest of the world is patriarchy?

Lulz. Is there something wrong with being a tribe in whothefuckknowswhere? Didn't you just say something about not valorizing power? The only "real" cultures are huge empires, is that what you're implying here?

I simply pointed out that matriarchal cultures--which are more common in non-Western societies--have lower incidence of rape, abuse, sexual inequality, sexual double standards, etc. This is just an anthropological finding, feel free to look it up if you like. It's not some kind of mystical center. Just a model that we can look to for clues on how to move away from the mess we're in now.

 

[grizzleb]

I wasn't saying that, I was saying that you couldn't directly compare their situation with ours. It's a different world, a tribe that is studied by anthropologists and the society we are living in now. Beyond simple structure here we live in a totally different way. Not better I hasten to add but different, and to blame all our problems on 'patriarchy' seems a little like jumping to the conclusions you want to. Is it in the interests of men to criminalise a practise they participate in?

I mean, from my standpoint marriage and nuclear families are very much not held with as much importance as they were, casual attitudes towards sex are very much the most common viewpoint nowadays.

You advocate a 'move towards matriarchy' now if by that you mean women at the centre of the household, etc then jesus christ, how far away from that are we? Are families even relevant in that sort of way in the west in the 21st century anymore? I don't really see male centred families as playing a huge amount of importance. I don't see female centred families as being either, and that's precisely my point.

Anyway, I basically agree with you on the actual points being debated. Just get mildly annoyed with having to take the blame for everything again as a white male. Either exploiting women by supporting the sex industry or trying to control them by supporting marriage and so on. meh

 

[nomadthethird]

No, grizzle, I wasn't trying to advocate a return to some kind of literal tribal existence where a high priestess oversees all civic ceremonies. I'm simply advocating a return to the idea that women are sexually powerful, that they are sexual agents, and that they are not unilaterally victims of the superiorly animalistic sexual nature of men.

It may help to fill in some background for you: what you're witnessing here is a clash between generations within feminism. Poetix subscribes to what's usually termed "second wave" feminism (as spearheaded by Andrea Dworkin, specifically), which, while most contemporary feminists admire its zeal and efforts, has long since fallen out of favor within the feminist establishment. (More so in the States than in the UK, obvs.) I identify more with the fourth wave of feminists who have merged with the queer activists. Rhetoric has shifted seismically in the past 30 years, so that "feminism" is no longer a movement just about women burning bras, but is about the politics of sexuality, gender, and sexual identity in general.

What Poetix doesn't let on to, and it may be because he doesn't realize this, is that the second wave feminists were by and large 1) white, 2) upper middle class and 3) college educated, all-around privileged women. Their views on sex work largely reflect a class bias that has been around for centuries: the middle class has looked down on those who couldn't afford to cling to their lofty religious-based ideals since forever, and not just on this issue (think single parenthood, etc.) When black women and sexual minorities joined the movement in the late 80s, what had always been taken for granted, dogmatically, by feminists--i.e. the strict structuralist notion that visual representations of women achieving sexual pleasure could only ever exist as being-for the "male gaze", the pleasure of the male viewer, to the exclusion of female viewers--was subjected to closer scrutiny.

The introduction of women of color, who made up the base of sex work in this country (always have and still do), into the debate completely changed the tone of the discussion. Many black women and sexual minorities who refused to call sex workers "traitors", "whores", and other names, and who advocated for the rights of sex workers rather than the abolishment of sex work, caused a huge rift to form in the power structure within feminism. The war rages on, with black feminists and trans/gay/queer theorists on one side, and paleo-feminists on the other. (See if you can't instantly recognize the ways in which class colors this "debate" by checking out the blogs that advocate the different positions.)

This schism has not yet been bridged. I wish it would be, the sooner the better, because every time a feminist accuses another feminist of being not a real "feminist", we lose valuable time and resources on what poli sci majors call a pointless "purity test"--the sure sign of decadence within the ranks.

 

[grizzleb]

No, grizzle, I wasn't trying to advocate a return to some kind of literal tribal existence where a high priestess oversees all civic ceremonies. I'm simply advocating a return to the idea that women are sexually powerful, that they are sexual agents, and that they are not unilaterally victims of the superiorly animalistic sexual nature of men.

If you didn't mean that then what has that got to do with matriarchy/patriarchy, which I thought had more to do with family structures etc?
Or is it more to do with exactly what you said, vis a vis women's sexual identity? And like I mentioned, I think that things aren't as bad as you imply. It's pretty much accepted that women are sexual agents as much as men nowadays.

N
It may help to fill in some background for you: what you're witnessing here is a clash between generations within feminism. Poetix subscribes to what's usually termed "second wave" feminism (as spearheaded by Andrea Dworkin, specifically), which, while most contemporary feminists admire its zeal and efforts, has long since fallen out of favor within the feminist establishment. (More so in the States than in the UK, obvs.) I identify more with the fourth wave of feminists who have merged with the queer activists. Rhetoric has shifted seismically in the past 30 years, so that "feminism" is no longer a movement just about women burning bras, but is about the politics of sexuality, gender, and sexual identity in general.

What Poetix doesn't let on to, and it may be because he doesn't realize this, is that the second wave feminists were by and large 1) white, 2) upper middle class and 3) college educated, all-around privileged women. Their views on sex work largely reflect a class bias that has been around for centuries: the middle class has looked down on those who couldn't afford to cling to their lofty religious-based ideals since forever, and not just on this issue (think single parenthood, etc.) When black women and sexual minorities joined the movement in the late 80s, what had always been taken for granted, dogmatically, by feminists--i.e. the strict structuralist notion that visual representations of women achieving sexual pleasure could only ever exist as being-for the "male gaze", the pleasure of the male viewer, to the exclusion of female viewers--was subjected to closer scrutiny.

The introduction of women of color, who made up the base of sex work in this country (always have and still do), into the debate completely changed the tone of the discussion. Many black women and sexual minorities who refused to call sex workers "traitors", "whores", and other names, and who advocated for the rights of sex workers rather than the abolishment of sex work, caused a huge rift to form in the power structure within feminism. The war rages on, with black feminists and trans/gay/queer theorists on one side, and paleo-feminists on the other. (See if you can't instantly recognize the ways in which class colors this "debate" by checking out the blogs that advocate the different positions.)

This schism has not yet been bridged. I wish it would be, the sooner the better, because every time a feminist accuses another feminist of being not a real "feminist", we lose valuable time and resources on what poli sci majors call a pointless "purity test"--the sure sign of decadence within the ranks.

If some feminists think that sex workers are morally negative and another feminist thinks that that is a simplistic view, then surely you aren't talking about simply feminism anymore, and are talking about morals?

And lose valuable time and resources against what? You haven't really explained to me what patriarchy consists of in modern western societies really. And what a 'move towards matriarchy' would consist of. I'm not having a go btw, I basically agree with what you are saying. edit: regarding sex work.

 

[poetix]

To be fair, my lot did have Audre Lorde.