‘Open Source Sex’ Raids SF Chronicle; or, Violet Blue Gets The Big Payday

A special SmackChron 21-gun salute, congrats, and a tip of the hat (though, I’d settle for a lick of the clit, too) to world class, smart ass, and fine-ass sex author/blogger/sex radical progressive headbussa Violet Blue, on her scoring the ultimate gig of her rapidly rising career: she will be starting a regular sex column for the San Francisco Chronicle beginning middle to late September. 

Considering how much of a rebel and a critic of the media Violet is, that’s a high tribute indeed.

And she says that she will have full creative control of her words….without fear of censorship or editorial control.

Go here to read where Violet officially sends out the news; and here for the reaction from friends and colleagues from the sex-poz community.

Oh….and while you are there, feel free to check out her latest Open Source Sex podcast (warning, definintely NOT work safe), which features not only Violet reading a pretty steamy story about consensual domination; but which also (in the video/textcast version) includes some still scenes from the new adult video produced by Nina Hartley and Ernest Greene through Adam & Eve, O: The Power of Submission. (Actually, Ernest gets the credit as director and producer; Nina gets credit as associate producer and director, and also plays a (non-sexual) cameo role…but she still kicks serious ass, even in her forties. (Not to mention her own ass is still quite serious, too…if you catch me.))

 

 

The Final Chapter of “PunkAss Punks Pornstitution” (or “Just Bite Me, RMildred”)

[UPDATE (5-22-07): When I originally wrote this essay, me and RMildred were on opposite ends of the spectrum.  Since then, she has effectively rehabilitated herself and totally reversed my opinion of her, and she has lobbed some fine and effective missiles of her own with her own blog C*ntensquirten.  Given that, she is now totally off my "F'U" list, and is now in fact a member in good standing of the 101st FPHB.  I still stand by some of the main points I addressed here in this post last year (and Delphyne can still kiss where the sun don't shine).  -- Anthony]

 

Oh.  Freakin’. WOW. I guess that i deserved it for calling RMildred out on her bullshit…and it is expected that men who challenge antiporn feminist rhetoric get the same treatment…but the intensity is still rather stunning. I’ll just share with you the juicier comment posts…with my final response appearing last.  

caromboard Aug 22nd, 2006 at 8:40 pm

“I think the problem is that you just can’t see how anybody would make different choices than yourself”   Could you be any more patronizing? In case you hadn’t noticed, at least a couple of the people you’re trying to “educate” with your “vast knowledge” here seem to have been sex workers or done some form of sex work. I’m in favor of legalization, but honestly, if you’re talking about respecting and listening to sex workers, does that mean only those who say what you want to hear? I’ve been reading these threads and on one of them you told a former sex worker that she doesn’t know what she’s talking about when it comes to sex work. Huh? Somebody call Anthony so he can start calling people “hon,” explaining that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a frigid, anti sex prude and explaining how good it feels for a woman to have a penis inserted in her vagina. That last part was really educational for most het women, whatever would we do without having these things expalined to us by smarter, more rational beings.  

 My response to that:

Anthony Kennerson Aug 22nd, 2006 at 9:49 pm

Oh, and to think that this thread was actually going somewhere.   Ahhh, Carmonboard….can you please explain anywhere in my posts where I really said what you thought I said in this paragraph: “Somebody call Anthony so he can start calling people “hon,” explaining that anyone who doesn’t agree with him is a frigid, anti sex prude and explaining how good it feels for a woman to have a penis inserted in her vagina. That last part was really educational for most het women, whatever would we do without having these things expalined to us by smarter, more rational beings.” First off, where did I ever call anyone “hon”?? You must have me confused with some other board, because I simply don’t do that; and didn’t do that here, either. Secondly…I never said that anyone who opposed sex work was a “frigid, anti-sex prude”; only that quite a few of antiporn activists do have major problems accepting the sexual choices of others. Not quite the same, I think. And third….I said that most women do in fact enjoy having a penis inside them….that says NOTHING about those who don’t…or those who have had penises forced on them against their will. Unless you are implying that most het woman who say outright that they really do like het sex with consenting men are simply either lying or posturing, I fail to see the relevance. Oh….and let me get this: a present day sex worker who says she has no problem with her profession and who wishes to find ways to improve it from within should not be trusted and accepted; but a former sex worker who adopts antiporn/antiprostitution rhetoric should be??? And you accuse me of not listening to others, or of only listening to whatever fits my ideology??? What we have here is simply a chasm in philosophy that just cannot be bridged. I happen to believe that women should be trusted to make their own decisions on their sexuality; you happen to disagree in favor of imposing a restrictive “feminist” sexuality on them. Fine…we’ll just have to acknowledge our differences and move on. But please…if you are going to patronize me about my positions, at least have the decency not to distort or trivialize my views. Since I’ve established my views plainly enough, I will take the hint and exit from this thread. To each his or her own, as the saying goes. Anthony

53 Anthony Kennerson Aug 22nd, 2006 at 9:50 pm

OK….my apologies, Caromboard…sorry for the typo.  

Which in turn brought out these three posts in rebuttal….each one progressively more insulting:

caromboard Aug 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm

“can you please explain anywhere in my posts where I really said what you thought I said in this paragraph”   I’ll give it a shot. “First off, where did I ever call anyone “hon”?? You must have me confused with some other board, because I simply don’t do that; and didn’t do that here, either.” Ah, sorry Anthony, it wasn’t “hon,” it was “dear.” My bad, I should have been more accurate. There’s a tremendous difference between the two. Secondly…I never said that anyone who opposed sex work was a “frigid, anti-sex prude”; Uh, okay. “RM may not be as anti-sex as, say, Jerry Falwell or the Feminists Against Sex crowd….but in my view her absolute personal disgust with those women whose sexual practices and beliefs differ from her own comes pretty damn close to being anti-sex” ” “All that does is to make you look more and more like a crank antisex bigot in feminist drag” Nope, clearly you didn’t use the works “frigid” or “prude” so I’m wrong again. Doh! “And third….I said that most women do in fact enjoy having a penis inside them….that says NOTHING about those who don’t…or those who have had penises forced on them against their will.” OMG, really? Then lucky for me that I never suggested that that statement said ANYTHING about those who don’t or those who have had penises forced on them against their will. Whew! I dodged a bullet on that one. My point, which I think was already clear but I’ll reiterate again just for your benefit, is that unlike you, DEAR, women tend to actually have vaginas, and most of us who are heterosexual already know that most of us who are heterosexual tend to enjoy having a penis inside said vagina. We don’t need you to tell us that, Anthony, really, we actually *can* figure it out on our own (even, shockingly enough, many of the anti sex prudes, whoops, sorry, excuse me, the crank anti sex bigots in feminist drag, I would imagine). Therefore, when you may these statements : “I really, really hate to break this to ‘ya, Delphyne (not really), but for most women, consensual sex with a man (or group of men) really does feel pretty damn good, and penises aren’t the evil that you and your colleagues make it out to be.” “There is a reason why a woman just might allow a man’s penis (or a dildo, or a vibrator, or her fingers, or whatever object may subsitute) inside her vagina: IT FUCKING FEELS GOOD” it doesn’t actually come as much of a revelation. Thanks, anyway. I don’t have any idea what percentage of sex workers are happy with sex work, but I’d imagine that the percentage of women who don’t enjoy seeing other women or men patronized with typically sexist bullshit by assholes is pretty high. “Oh….and let me get this: a present day sex worker who says she has no problem with her profession and who wishes to find ways to improve it from within should not be trusted and accepted; but a former sex worker who adopts antiporn/antiprostitution rhetoric should be???” YES! That is *exactly* what I said. I thought I was being so clever about leaving that part about not trusting or listening to any sex worker who has no problem with her profession in invisible ink, but I should have known you’d find the secret 18 minute gap. You’re far too clever for the likes of the Feminist Vice Squad, no matter how deep undercover we go, you’ll find us. I believe I said I was in favor of legalization, I’m pretty sure I did, but that in no way makes this paragraph nonsensical, really. “And you accuse me of not listening to others, or of only listening to whatever fits my ideology???” This part of my comment wasn’t actually directed at you, but regardless, I was commenting on the phenomenon of the other guy in the prostitution threads who is, apparently, not actually a sex worker telling sex workers who disagreed with his positions that they don’t know a damn thing about sex work, as well as exasperated comments from others in those threads about respecting sex workers and listening to sex workers which also happened to be directed at sex workers. “What we have here is simply a chasm in philosophy that just cannot be bridged. I happen to believe that women should be trusted to make their own decisions on their sexuality; you happen to disagree in favor of imposing a restrictive “feminist” sexuality on them.” Um, yes. That’s absolutely clear from my post. We have a chasm in philosphy that cannot be bridged. I’m not sure what it is…I’m guessing that because I didn’t offer to suck your dick, then I must be a frigid anti sex prude? Sigh. Is there anything else I can do to escape my cruel fate? If I’m really, really nice and throw some condescending strawfeminist bs at other women, will you come over and explain to me about how my body works? Have pity on me Anthony, it’s hard for all of us out here who don’t have you to explain how we think and how we feel and why we’re radfems even if we’re not and what we’re saying and what it feels like when the wind touches our skin. “Fine…we’ll just have to acknowledge our differences and move on. But please…if you are going to patronize me about my positions, at least have the decency not to distort or trivialize my views.” Uh…yes, I shouldn’t have done that. Patronizing people is wrong. Distorting or trivializing their views is wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong.

56 KoalaZ Aug 23rd, 2006 at 1:56 am

Anthony Kennerson said–I happen to believe that women should be trusted to make their own decisions on their sexuality; you happen to disagree in favor of imposing a restrictive “feminist” sexuality on them.   Is there some logic I’m missing here, because I can’t see where he/she said anything like that. Maybe defending yourself from accusations that you accuse anyone who disagrees with you on anything of being anti-sex by accusing someone who disagrees with you on something of wanting to impose a restrictive “feminist” sexuality on everyone is completely logical, no evidence needed. I don’t get it, though. Geneva–I think there are a lot of different kinds/schools of feminism and feminists. And a lot of different opinions/approaches to all kinds of topics, including prostitution. I won’t say how I feel, because Anthony Kennerson will probably let me know anyway–if it turns out I’m imposing some kind of restrictive sexuality on you, I apologize in advance. I’m not sure what the typical feminist response would be. We hear a lot about radfem radfem radfem on the internet, but I can’t say I’ve ever met anyone who particularly holds the views that radfems are supposed to in community organizing. Maybe some do, but it doesn’t come up when I’m around. Not that I’m an expert in community organizing or anything, it’s just that it seems stuff gets blown way out of proportion online and its influence is exaggerated in a way that’s not always reflected IRL. There’s not as much theorhetical discussion, that’s more of an internet obsession in my experience at least. JMO

57 delphyne Aug 23rd, 2006 at 8:27 am

I’ve picked lettuces in a field IACB, so you’re not fooling me that that type of work is awful. Not being rewarded properly for your work is bad but that’s not what is being discussed here.   Seriously, set yourself up to be a male prostitute for a couple of days, you too Anthony. Both of you are such strong advocates of prostitution, it could only help your case to have direct experience. Most of your customers will be male but that shouldn’t bother you if prostitution is just like any other job.

But that was just a prelude for RMildred to fire off the mother of all responses (personal smack at moi highlighted by me):

R. Mildred Aug 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm

You’re saying people working in sweat shops or as migrant workers are never grossly mistreated?   Did I actually say that? Prostitutes get it worse, and they are exclusively injured by nothing more or less than the sheer hatred of women of johns like Antony Kennersen. (sic) And part of the reason why johns think they can do such things to prostitutes is that they are already wandering around with the assumption that they deserve to masturbate with a woman’s body (or even a man, irregardless of who is getting screwed, men are the primary consumer of the sex industry after all, and as the male gay community is rife with patriarchy, as was mentioned during the avarosis thing, that patriarchy may be at work there too shouldn’t be too surprising) whenever they like, irregardless of whether the women they do this with likes it or likes them even. This is male privelage. And yes, I know, I said “masturbate with a woman’s body”, but I consider sex to be a mutuality thing, and a sexual act that involves one person pleasuring themselves while the other person waits for it to be over with, is something I class as masturbation, not sex. Chalk it up to a person terminological thing, or whatever, if you will. Yes this means I am dismissive and hate Antony’s sexuality, I really don’t like johns, especially johns who consider sex to be a method through whic men enforce their power over women (which is not the same thing as what happens in S&M sex, where the illusion of the dom/sub power dynamic is arousing) those ones I hate as much as Ant implies that I hate prostitutes (who I don’t consider subhuman just because they are dehumanised by their profession btw). In theory I accept that there are probably some johns who aren’t total sleaze bag rapists, but they are about as numerous as gigolo customers, which is to say, not at all numerous. Most johns are guys with huge amounts of male privelage sloshing about their pants, and a deep seated hatred of women, and like with rape, the dynamic involved in prostitution from the john’s “end” is often one revolving around power rather than actual sexual satisfaction. Which is why I started this bloody fight, the idea that women being Prostitutes and performing in porn is primarily about women being free with their sexuality is bullshit, anti-fem bullshit at that. Which is one of the many reason why calling prostitution “empowering” is bullshit, and so and so forth…and now we’re here. And don’t start using “pornstitution” again people, you don’t know my opinions on porn, which are really complex, but when it comes right down to it, I’m not for the illegalisation for porn for the same reasons I’m not for the legalisation of prostitution – all that would happen is how women are abused in the industry would change, rather than the net amount of abuse really lessening to any degree. And I’m damned if I’m gonna let government decide what sort of porn is bad and what isn’t. anyhoo, here’s a study. It makes a conservative estimate of the rate of homicide among prostitutes, and still reckons that prostitutes are murdered at 6 times the rate of other jobs with ridiculously high rates of homicide. It’s an interesting study. And ONE MORE THING, I’m a fucking MARXIST feminist you nitwits, Jesus, it’s not like I went straight for the socio-economic dynamics involved in the oppression of women in the sex industry or anything, stop comparing Dworkin to me, she did some good work for women.

 Well…it is comforting to know that RM does finally come out against outright censorship of porn (But wouldn’t that make her the ultimate antifeminist, Sam??  Pony??  Witchy-Woo?? Anyone???) But what gets me is how by simply disagreeing with her positions, I become not only an "mysogynist" but an "asshole"….and even an outright "john" who lives solely to rape and abuse women….as if these fools knew me and lived by me enough to make such an asinine assumption.  But I guess that any man who dares to challenge antiporn feminism must expect the same treatment. And finally, here’s Pony to light the final fuse:

Pony Aug 23rd, 2006 at 5:16 pm

Sheezlebub I had two windows open and typed the wrong name. My apolgoies. I agree with this statement you’ve made, and was speaking of that type of remark, coming from the two self-proclaimed johns and the two self-proclaimed whores. Sorry. I’m not calling them sex workers. I have too much respect for sex workers.   ## And Geneva, I read Anthony’s misogynist bile, and IACB’s bile, and the sex-phobic and prude rhetoric lobbed at anyone who questions the status quo (see: the threads here and at Pandagon) and really want nothing to do with so-called “sex pos” folks. Sorry, but if questioning the status quo means that I have issues with sex, that I have an “irrational fear of sex,” that I’m a right-wing anti-sex fanatic, then I’ll opt out of that revoloution.  

The "self-proclaimed johns" are me and IAmCuriousBlue, I assume; and the "self-proclaimed whores" happen to be RenegadeEvolution and……Geneva??  Bitch | Lab??? Who knows??? As much as I would love to respond in kind to such personal insults, it just isn’t worth the time or the effort anymore….so I just posted this comment, which will stand as my final word on this subject and RMildred’s lunacy…hopefully forever.  Consider this my "Kiss where the sun don’t shine" moment:

Anthony Kennerson Aug 24th, 2006 at 1:45 am

 

WOW.

 

Just plain fucking WOW.  

 

Let me see here….I state clearly for about the third fucking time that I do NOT believe all radicalfeminists or antiporn activists to be “anti-sex prudes” or that even their personal sex lives has nothing to do with their stated public positions on sex work; yet I am tagged as an “misogynist” and nearly a rapist.

 

I point out that a lot of antiporn philosophy as expressed here on this thread comes more than a bit close to the stated erotophobic rhetoric of the Christian right in its projection of an restrictive sexual morality….and I am pilloried as an “asshole” who is just peddling “bullshit”.

 

I simply state that all women — whatever their experience in sex work may have been good, bad or ugly, liberating or exploitative — should have their experiences respected…and for that I am not only attacked as a “misogynist”, but as an actual “john” who actually abuses and rapes women for fun and pleasure.

 

Gee…it’s almost as if Pony and RMildred and the rest lived next door to me so long that they can say so much about me.

 

But it is this comment from RM that really takes the prize for brass balls:

Did I actually say that? Prostitutes get it worse, and they are exclusively injured by nothing more or less than the sheer hatred of women of johns like Antony Kennersen. [Ahhh, RM...if you are going to smack me, at least get my fucking name spelled correct....it appears on my signature line, you know.] And part of the reason why johns think they can do such things to prostitutes is that they are already wandering around with the assumption that they deserve to masturbate with a woman’s body (or even a man, irregardless of who is getting screwed, men are the primary consumer of the sex industry after all, and as the male gay community is rife with patriarchy, as was mentioned during the avarosis thing, that patriarchy may be at work there too shouldn’t be too surprising) whenever they like, irregardless of whether the women they do this with likes it or likes them even. This is male privelage. And yes, I know, I said “masturbate with a woman’s body”, but I consider sex to be a mutuality thing, and a sexual act that involves one person pleasuring themselves while the other person waits for it to be over with, is something I class as masturbation, not sex. Chalk it up to a person terminological thing, or whatever, if you will. Yes this means I am dismissive and hate Antony’s sexuality, I really don’t like johns, especially johns who consider sex to be a method through whic men enforce their power over women (which is not the same thing as what happens in S&M sex, where the illusion of the dom/sub power dynamic is arousing) those ones I hate as much as Ant implies that I hate prostitutes (who I don’t consider subhuman just because they are dehumanised by their profession btw). In theory I accept that there are probably some johns who aren’t total sleaze bag rapists, but they are about as numerous as gigolo customers, which is to say, not at all numerous. Most johns are guys with huge amounts of male privelage sloshing about their pants, and a deep seated hatred of women, and like with rape, the dynamic involved in prostitution from the john’s “end” is often one revolving around power rather than actual sexual satisfaction.

Now, RM…the fact that I happen to be a single Black man whose working class position as a middle-level supervisor and my location in South Louisiana does not allow me to even sniff at the opportunity to visit a prostitute, let alone actually have sex with one..does that affect your opinion of me as a “john” who lives to rape women?? Merely because I happened to call you out on your nonsense??

 

Just as you do not have to be a radical feminist to support antiporn ideology (and not all radfems do, BTW); you do NOT have to be a client of a sex worker or even a man to defend the notion that women can and do enjoy sex with men in a mutually enjoyable fashion. (And none of that in any way denies the negative expierences of women who are raped and abused, either.) But I guess that you don’t even have to be a millionaire or even an actual client of a prostitute to be an evil patriarch in RM’s mind…just having an erection will do.

 

And, I guess that my “hatred of women” (read, my opposition to the madness that is antiporn feminist philosophy) will forever damn me in the eyes of people like Delphyne, Sheelzebub, Sam, KoalaZ, RM and Pony. Well, ladies (and gentlemen), it’s just too fucking bad; because all your straw caricatures of me just won’t hold water to the truth….either about me or about the men and women you slander and distort so often.

 

Well…if that be your view, RM, then so be it. You your way; I’ll go mine, and forever hold our peace.

 

And to Bitch | Lab, IACB, KH and RenEv, my sincere and humble apologies for going over the top and going over the edge here; whatever disrespect I have for RMildred and the rest of the antiporn posse, I should have remembered that other people might not be as fired up as I am; and that they don’t deserve to be lumped in the same crosshairs.

 

And finally, for RMildred personally…my three middle fingers to allow her to read between the lines. I’m finally done here….I won’t venture here to contaminate this blog again with my presence or my “hatred of women”….I promise. Anthony

 

112 Anthony Kennerson Aug 24th, 2006 at 1:47 am

Sorry…that line on the fourth to the last paragraph should be “You go your way…” Unlike RM, I actually care about my typos.   I’m out. Anthony

 And indeed, I am…..finally.  To hell with radical feminists, with the antiporn posse, and with all the sex haters around there.  And a special middle-fingered salute to RM and Pony for convicting me as the rapist and "john" that I am….NOT.  If that is the best that you can do to insult me for calling you out on your bullshit…..well, just bite me.  (And not in Biting Beaver’s way, either.)

——————————————————————————–

UPDATE:  You know…why even bother debating these people when you hear shit like this:

Sheelzebub Aug 24th, 2006 at 8:50 am

Anthony, cut the crap. You are so full of shit it stinks to high heaven. You’ve gone around on your blog and in threads like this one declaring anyone who doesn’t agree with you anti-sex right-wingers. Reread your fucking posts. You said even in your hysterical rebuttal that we’re mirroring “erotophobic” rhetoric reminiscent of Christian right wingers. How odd. Here I am, basically tired of the same old same old when it comes to the “sex” industry, but I’m a fucking erotophobe and a right winger. Get a fucking clue. And drop the bullshit that you don’t use the spectre antisex prudes when you do it even in your so-called rebuttal. That comment Geneva made about how these conversations don’t occur in a vacuum? Goes both ways. You managed to alientate a pro-legalization feminist with your bile. Way to go.

And IACB,BL’s point was that she was targeted. Well, so are people who don’t agree with porn. Or people who do to a certain extent but are still tarred as anti-sex, squares, and “repressive” or who obviously have “issues” around sex anytime we say that the status quo and the system is fucked up, or that oh, a CEO getting sexual favors from his underlings is fucked up. It’s bullshit, and I’m fucking sick to the teeth of it.

You know what??  Fuck ‘em all.

If they aren’t capable of fucking reading what I say without resorting to name-calling, then that’s their problem, not mine.

Did I call you "erotophobic", Sheelzebub???  No.  I said that your rhetoric comes pretty damn close to the genuinely erotophobic rhetoric of the Christian Right.  That’s not the same as "calling you a right-winger", now isn’t it???

On the other hand, calling me a "john" and implying that the only reason for my agreement with RenEv is that I’m actually fucking her as one of her clients…how is that not the same or worse than my analysis of the actual consequenses of antiporn activism???

You’re pissed off???  Join the family…because I am just as pissed off as you are now.  I am just sick and tired of myself and other sex-positive men being smeared as rapists and child abusers merely because we happen to disagree with your politics. I am fed up with seeing women have their own personal sexual choices villified and crucified merely because they don’t reduce their sexuality to a narrow political agenda.  And most of all, I am sooooooooo pissed off with so-called "feminists" who talk the loudest about being so persecuted about their views, yet have no qualms to go straight to the personal insults and the smear when someone calls their bullshit out and reveals them to be exactly what they are.

If this is what passes for radical feminism these days, then just count me the hell out.

 

More Fun From PunkAss

I’m just going to repost here without comment the latest series of posts from the smackfest that is The Great Debate On  "Pornstitiution" and Blow Feminism; you may make your own assumptions while reading through.

belledame222 Aug 18th, 2006 at 1:33 pm

>Except if you’d remember waaaay back at the very start, 10,000 years ago, we had KH saying that prostitution was feminist and empowering and half a dozen other buzz words   I don’t, actually, sorry; at least I don’t remember her (or anyone) saying it was -categorically- empowering, feminist, yadda. Exact quote, please?

154 belledame222 Aug 18th, 2006 at 1:37 pm

..what I do remember is you calling her a “bloated parasite.” And wondering whether you use that sort of terminology for Walmart workers; or cube workers for giant fuckoff corporations, advertising, say (frankly I think in that instance it’d be at least as apt, if not particularly useful); or, well.  Also I think you might want to tread carefully before deciding other people are engaging in “willful self-deception” about their own motivations and so forth; not unless you’d like that critical lens turned sharply back on yourself.

155 belledame222 Aug 18th, 2006 at 1:46 pm

For example: RM, I could speculate that from here it looks like you’re the one who wants a “cookie” for -not- engaging in sex work, for whatever deep-seated reasons of your own, and are furious that someone who did make that choice is getting any attention and validation at all. And that for a while now in these “discussions,” you’ve been working out some serious rage that has little or nothing to do with the subjects at hand, all the while rationalizing that it’s “for our own good,” sociopolitically speaking; when actually it’s not doing a damn thing except relieving some of your own frustrations at others’ expense.  but, you know, I don’t live inside your head, and thus can only speculate; and so generally -try- to go off the words that are actually on the page rather than mind-read, tempting as it is for me, always, to try.

156 KH Aug 18th, 2006 at 2:18 pm

So now it’s all just about the hypocrisy. Forget all the other stuff, if only hookers would stop lying to themselves & pretending to have feminist ideas in their empty little heads, you stand ready to give them an absolving hug. How appetizing.  ‘Except if you’d remember waaaay back at the very start, 10,000 years ago, we had KH saying that prostitution was feminist & empowering & half a dozen other buzz words …’ You’re getting your bloated parasitic whores confused. I never said any such thing. Or is every single word you say – yes, including ‘and’ & ‘the’ – a lie? My thing was that abolitionist rhetoric about the inherently violent, coercive nature of sex work is incoherent, & that their policy proposals hurt sex workers, all of them. I mostly leave empowerment to subtler minds. And I agree that a lot of the rhetoric, not particularly here but in general, is overblown: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38558 But empowerment is about power. Power comes from increasing the range of alternatives open to women, not foreclosing any. Women choose sex work, like they choose anything else, because they judge it their best option in this world, not some other. ‘ … an inalienable right to masturbate inside another human being …’ You mean inherent, not inalienable. And nothing anyone has said here involves any such right. A trick with no money is out of luck, right or no right. A trick is out of luck if there’s no hooker around who’ll consent, right or no right. If really were such a right, no man would ever be sexually frustrated, there’d be wholesale fucking on the streets & in the church pews, everywhere, all the time, whether women consented or not. ‘ … ignoring the ones who get screwed over by full legalization …’ You beg the question. My point is that all sex workers are advantaged by decriminalization. It’s precisely the ones who want out, who most need help, who’re most hurt by current law & policy. Abolitionists argue that women are hookers only because their only alternative is starvation, homelessness, death. And many hookers do have only very bleak alternatives. But simply taking away the thing that, however loathsome to them, staves off starvation, homelessness, death, leaves them then with what? Starvation, homelessness, death. Women choose sex work because their other options are worse. Forcibly abolishing sex work leaves them with the worse options, the ones they’d rather be sex workers than accept. This is as true when the alternatives are terrible as when they’re the ones that the middle class enjoys. The only way to help anyone is to afford her better alternatives. Prohibition makes things worse, not better. And illegal markets are inherently violent (alcohol during Prohibition, drugs); criminalization leaves hookers outside the protection of the law, creates a climate of impunity that costs some of them their lives. In lieu of rational arguments against this view, you offer mostly semi-literate misogynistic hate speech. The alacrity with which abolitionists seek to foment antagonism between ‘privileged’ & other sex workers is disgusting, a crude attempt to arrogate to themselves a moral authority they haven’t earned. Like any ad hominem argument, it has absolutely no bearing on the real question of what law & policy best serves women, including poor, addicted, & trafficked women, who do sex work. It seeks – hopelessly – to elide the ties of interest & experience that bind sex workers of all kinds. Sex workers themselves recognize these attempts to split them for what they are. And really, Mildred, what have you ever done for a single whore, bloated, parasitic, or otherwise? More than me? So is all your bile really just about hookers’ use of feminist language, which you deem them unentitled to? If they’d just shut up & accept your understanding of them, & of feminism, then you’d deign to hug them for honestly, truthfully knowing their station? I don’t even believe that. You’ve already said too much. We know what you think, & there’s no taking it back. You’ll always view sex workers with a large measure of contempt, & they’ll always remember. Whores have long memories.

157 punkass marc Aug 18th, 2006 at 2:49 pm

God, Anthony, you’re one ginormous dick, aren’t you? Can you get through a tirade directed at RM without making sexual suggestions like “kiss it” or some of the nastier ones like “stick it up your… [something not on the body but still sort of implying that you badly wish you could say what you really mean]” you threw out there at B|L’s site?  If you knew anything about RM, you’d know she’s anything but anti-sex, dude. But it’s much easier for you to get on the warpath if she’s Mildolph Hitler, huh? You give pro-feminist men a bad name.

158 belledame222 Aug 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pm

I gotta say that language like “masturbate inside another human being” to describe sexual relations that one doesn’t approve of doesn’t exactly scream “sex-positive” to me; but, hey, whatever. it’s getting hot in here again, and not in a good way.

159 KH Aug 18th, 2006 at 4:28 pm

‘I’ve gotta say that …’  And every time I read the word ‘pornstitution’ my IQ drops 4 points. Merits of the argument aside, the rhetoric desperately needs a makeover.

160 Renegade Evolution Aug 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pm

RM (et all)  The level your tone here at the end has reached pure out condescending. It honestly makes me think you really do not give a crap about women who sell their bodies (in any manner) and do not, for one second, think of them as humans, but rather mobile, breathing, complacent accomplices in “the patriarchy’s quest to get off”.  Fine, you don’t think sex work can be empowering or feminist. You don’t have to. But suggesting that any woman involved in such work is deluded and lying to herself and more or less mentally flawed and incompetent is downright offensive, hateful, and well, wrong. Your tone of superiority is tantamount to epic hubris. Unless you have mastered the art of global wide telepathy and possess full scope of understanding regarding human motivation and psychology, you could not possibly know what any woman other than yourself truly finds empowering, liberating, feminist, whatever…yet that does not stop your from judging, and yes, I mean judging, anyone and everything that does not fall neatly in step with your party line. Whoring, of any kind, is not going anywhere. So long as people are willing to buy, and yes, WILLING to sell sex, people will do it. I also know there are plenty of women out there more than happy to use men for sex, status, and financial gain. It’s a business, and it can be both dangerous yet lucrative. Maybe you should take a step back and stop judging people who might actually enjoy the way they make a living, especially if they do see problems in the industry as a whole and are trying to change/help the situation. Not everyone is going to approach a problem with the same tactics you have chosen, but thinking there is only one way (your way) to solve a problem is not only erroneous, it is going to alienate a lot of people from even considering working with the likes of you. Sex workers are already viewed as criminals, and often, the pitiably scum of the earth, any particualar reason you feel the need to insult them even further? The last thing they need is your superiority and judgment.

161 Pony Aug 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pm

PunkAss Marc  Will you marry me? Or at least let me blow you? Ok fine.

162 belledame222 Aug 18th, 2006 at 6:12 pm

…

163 delphyne Aug 18th, 2006 at 6:33 pm

[Comment from me] “You see, RM, a real woman is not quite the reduction to a blow-up doll that you take her to be; she has nerve endings, feelings, and emotions. There is a reason why a woman just might allow a man’s penis (or a dildo, or a vibrator, or her fingers, or whatever object may subsitute) inside her vagina: IT FUCKING FEELS GOOD. To tell women that seeking consensual pleasure is to be condemned merely because it violates certain “feminist” principles is not only unconsciously dense and unfeeling; it is fundamentally fascist and…dare I say it…antifeminist. Oh…and what would you say about a man going down on a woman with his toungue and fingers; would that be considered by you to be “using the woman as a sex object”??? I mean, we are talking about a real living woman’s vagina, not a Fleshlight.  Last time I checked, most men who have consensual sex with women — whether they pay for it or not — do happen to have at least a fleeting concern with the woman’s feelings….as in, whether the woman actually gets as much pleasure from the encounter as they (the guys) get.”

 

OK, this was too funny to ignore. Are you seriously arguing that men who use prostitutes care if the woman they are sticking their penis into it ENJOYS it? And are you seriously arguing that yes she does indeed enjoy it? All those lucky prostitutes getting five or ten orgasms per night from those johns who don’t think she’s a blow-up doll – oh no they don’t. Thanks for clearing that one up Anthony. I can’t believe everybody let you get away with this bullshit. This is why it’s so hard to argue with many prostitution advocates, you seem almost completely detached from reality. Here’s a clue – most prostitutes use disassociation to get through the experience.

 

164 Anthony Kennerson Aug 18th, 2006 at 8:02 pm

First off, Marc, the phrase “Kiss it” wasn’t meant in the sexual tense; it was meant in the “I don’t really give a care anymore about what you think about me” sense. I’d rather have someone like Nina Hartley kiss my booty anyway….provided that I get the opportunity to kiss hers in return. 

RM may not be as anti-sex as, say, Jerry Falwell or the Feminists Against Sex crowd….but in my view her absolute personal disgust with those women whose sexual practices and beliefs differ from her own comes pretty damn close to being anti-sex…and thus, my view of her stands. And for the record, I long since ceased to being a “pro-feminist man”…if by that definition you mean someone who simply parrots antiporn feminism of the MacDworkinite school of thought. If that makes me in your mind an “antifeminist”….well, you can’t please everyone.

 

Now, to Delphyne: Hell yes, dear..I’m more than just implying; I’m stating flat out that some, if not most men who frequent prostitutes or consume porn, do in fact actually care a bit more than you think about the women whom they pay for the services they offer. The fact that some men do NOT care as much does NOT erase the basic fact that other men do…and all your attempts to paint clients as innate rapists looking for the next rubber doll to use and dispose of just won’t wash away that fact. I really, really hate to break this to ‘ya, Delphyne (not really), but for most women, consensual sex with a man (or group of men) really does feel pretty damn good, and penises aren’t the evil that you and your colleagues make it out to be. (And please note the adjective “CONSENSUAL”; contrary to your thinking, I still happen to know the difference between consensual sex and rape….and it is more than just lack of consent; it is motive and intent of direct physical and bodily harm.)

I’m not saying — and I have never said — that there aren’t sex workers who do happen to fit into your neat and tiny caricature as permanent victims and damsels in distress needing rescue by the Feminist Vice Squad, and those should indeed be helped to get out to the fullest extent possible. But to say that these women who do defend their profession are simply lying when they say that they really do enjoy the sexual aspect of their profession is nothing less than an arrogant and elitist and totally willfull smear and distortion…in other words, a damn lie. Call it “bullshit” if you will, Delphyne….but it is real.

 

Back to Marc: Funny..I thought that you had dismissed B|L as an antifeminist?? Why would my remarks (which were addressed to radfems and antiporn fascists in general; not to anyone in particular) in her blog matter to you so much.

 

I think that I’ve caused enough trouble for today…if you want to play some more, I’ll be at my blog, thinking about the next human blow up doll that I want to masturbate inside. Late, Anthony

  I’m just waiting with for baited breath for Witchy-Woo and Sam to jump back in with their tag-team effort to prove me wrong….  

RMildred Holds Her Ground; And A Certain ‘Dog Finally Snaps Back

I will say this for RMildred..she really does know how to hold her ground. Her latest response in the "Blow Is Totally Feminist, Though" thread, in rebuttal to some majestic dissection from KH and Belledame (particularly insulting phrases emphasized):

• 150 R. Mildred Aug 18th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
  Well, what KH and others said. i.e. if not actual “approval” (that language is familiar to me, too), at least just letting it the hell go already.  Except if you’d remember waaaay back at the very start, 10,000 years ago, we had KH saying that prostitution was feminist and empowering and half a dozen other buzz words I see anti-fems trot out time and time again when what htey’re talking about is nothing of the kind, is in fact a way to further depower and control women and their sexuality, and I’m sick of perfectly good words like that being killed through misuse – prostitution isn’t empowering, it isn’t feminist, anything that involves pleasuring johns cannot be feminist, anything that exists as a byproduct of the patriarchal assumption that men have an unalienable right to masturbate inside another human being, cannot be feminist. So seeing as the basic premise of way too many pro-legalisation types is inherently flawed, is wrong on so many levels, what is the purpose of using such terms? Let’s first of all discount people like that Girls Gone Wild guy, who use various feminist terms to legitimize their skeeviness wihtout actually giving a flying fuck whether what htey’re saying is true or – the point is to confuse the issue so that no one challenges them. So that leaves two other reason, one is that the person using hte terms gains from prostitution being accepted as empowering and feminst, and will in fact be able ot effectively highjack feminists to fight their battles for them – which is bad because hte patriarhcy is there remember – while ignoring the ones who get screwed over by full legalisation because suddenly prostitution is all about the magical empowering feminist vagina puppies, and all that bad stuff that goes on, well that will be illegal because rape and abuse laws are so strict these days right? The final reason is that they really belive wha thye’re saying, that they are only able to do what yhey do because of this thin tissue of lies they weave, and that sort of willful self deception shouldn’t be allowed ot go unchallenged, there’s a real reason they sell their bodies, KH sort of brushed past in the Walmart worker comparison – you won’t get a someone who wrks in walmart telling you how wonderful and empowering and how rainbows fly out of their asses now thath they work in walmart, wokrign in walmart isn’t even a particularly good palce work in ethically – very few places are – but here’s the thing, if someone who works in walmart told me they were content/happy/able to stand working there, that they could in fact get work elsewhere but chose ot work there becuase they like it for actual reason X; which isn’t “empowerment” or any similar term, because the work ain’t. And if they looked me in the eye and said the actual reason, whether it was the money or just because htey enjoy something about the work itself or the fact that they’ve done worse jobs and are content with what htey have – what could I say really? They haven’t tarted it up, covered it in a pile of bullshit five miles high so that I’ll accepet it, it’s not my place ot accept them, and if they simply put forth that they are themselves, and they do this act because that is what works for them for these reasons, well waht can I say? I can point out my reason for not fighting for legalisation, I can point out that it’s not feminist (but it’s not like the entire movement will be collapsed by one woman selling her body). And when they stnad there and shrug, because they are they, whether I like it or not, well then I can hug them cuz they’re empowered, not because they sell their body ot sleazy guys who cna’t be bothered to use their hands, but because they are honest with themselves and don’t lie to other people and make them complicit in their self deception.

That was the straw that finally broke a certain ‘Dog’s back….and elicited this response from moi:

• 151 Anthony Kennerson Aug 18th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
  Oh, please…cut the bullshit, RM.  Let’s just break through the crap and get radical (as in, to the root of the issue). If someone disagrees with your belief that “pornstitution” is innately “patriarchial” and wrong because it constitutes “male use of women as masturbatory objects” and “women selling their bodies to men”, then they are immediately deemed to be either fools or liars or “self’deceivers” who are so caught up in their orgasms or the money that they can’t see how they are being decieved by “the patriarchy” to believe that they aren’t being used. On the other hand, if someone agrees with you, then they are immediately praised as a feminist revolutionary in full resistance to “the patriarchy”….even when they restate the same old tired conservative reactionary sexual mores about women needing to “save themselves” from the evil male gaze and the threat of their own sexual urges and feelings. And as for comparing sex workers to Wal-Mart associates/employees: I’ll have you know that I know several dear friends who work for that company; they will say that while Wally World does have its issues (not that different from most other large world-wide retailers, other than the economies of scale), they will say that for the most part, it is a tolerable place to work; and that most people will shop there because of their cheap prices. But of course, comparing the world’s largest retailer who has the global marketing power to impose their conditions on whole nations to a sex worker who only gets to pick and choose her clients, is the height of lunacy to most thinking people. BTW….your description of criticism of radfem ideology as favoring “men’s unalienable right to masturbate inside another human being” not only does exactly what you accuse “pro-pornstitution” advocates of doing (that is, reducing the woman to an unthinking, unfeeling object), but it is also just plain loony. You see, RM, a real woman is not quite the reduction to a blow-up doll that you take her to be; she has nerve endings, feelings, and emotions. There is a reason why a woman just might allow a man’s penis (or a dildo, or a vibrator, or her fingers, or whatever object may subsitute) inside her vagina: IT FUCKING FEELS GOOD. To tell women that seeking consensual pleasure is to be condemned merely because it violates certain “feminist” principles is not only unconsciously dense and unfeeling; it is fundamentally fascist and…dare I say it…antifeminist. Oh…and what would you say about a man going down on a woman with his toungue and fingers; would that be considered by you to be “using the woman as a sex object”??? I mean, we are talking about a real living woman’s vagina, not a Fleshlight. Last time I checked, most men who have consensual sex with women — whether they pay for it or not — do happen to have at least a fleeting concern with the woman’s feelings….as in, whether the woman actually gets as much pleasure from the encounter as they (the guys) get. In the real world, that would be applauded as sensitivity and empathy for women; only in the alternaverse of radfem ideology would that be condemned as “patriarchial” control of women by men. Finally…I don’t remember KM or anybody on the “pro-pornstitution” side ever saying that prostitution was in any way innately “liberating” or “empowering” to everyone. Well, guess what, RM…I will come out right here right now and say it outright. (And I speak only for myself here, not for anyone else; so let’s get that disclaimer out of the way.) I happen to think that for some people and in some situations, prostitiution and porn CAN INDEED be liberating AND empowering; both in the sense of economic freedom and sexual liberation. Anything that challenges the prevailing right-wing sexual restrictive and repressive social code, and which allows even a tiny bit of freedom from economic ruin, can’t be really that half bad…and if if that makes me in your eyes a tool of the “patriarchy”, well, tough cookies to ‘ya. Not all porn and sex work is so positive, of course; that’s why I as a socialist and a sex radical work to change the means and ends of production to allow ALL workers (sex workers included) more control over their professions and the fruits of their labors and services. I can’t change how you feel about us, RM, and won’t even attempt to do so; you have your right to your opinion. But please, don’t patronize me with your horseshit about how I and others who want to make sex work and the erotic/pornographic media more humane, legitimate, and user and worker friendly are merely “lying” and “self-deceiving” ourselves because our stories don’t mesh perfectly with your saw stories and morality plays. All that does is to make you look more and more like a crank antisex bigot in feminist drag who uses words like “patriarchy” and “feminism” as cluster bombs against people whose personal sexual decisions and personas you just can’t accept or respect. If we’re the ones covered in bullshit, RM, it’s because you’re the one throwing most of it at us. That’s my opinion….take it, leave it, or just kiss it.  

   

Double Your Wingnut Pleasure: Part Deux (MinuteKKKlan “Freedom Ketchup”?!?!)

And if you thought that Vox Day’s anti-Latino bigotry was…..interesting, get a load of this:

Apparantly, the Minutemen Militia MiNUTEKKKlan Bigots are attempting to sell themselves to the public again….and as is usual from the Far, Far Right, they have ingeniously decided to steal from the very people they want to wipe off the face of the earth.

From Xicano Power at Para Justicia y Libertad!; via James Benjamin at Left End of the Dial:

It seems that now the MinuteKlan have decided to go into the food industry to peddle their racist views.

Minuteman Salsa is proud to be America’s 100% US-born and bred Southwestern salsa.You don’t support illegal immigration. Buy Minuteman Salsa and keep foreign-made salsa from slipping across the border into your pantry.

A portion of the proceeds of every sale of Minuteman Salsa will benefit the courageous men and women of the Minuteman Project, guarding America’s borders.

 

Oh, yeah…that’ll work. 

Uhhh…..NOT. 

These fuckers do know that salsa is specifically a MEXICAN product, ehhh???

I mean, don’t they know that even Taco Bell prefers the real stuff over this cheap-ass imitation??

And…how in hell are we to know that this shit is really “100% American made”??  (Yeah, like Mexicanos can’t be Americans!!!) How do we know that this is really traditional salsa made by Mexicans that they just stole and marketed as their own??  (Kinda like those American flags that are made in China, perhaps??)

I have an idea, Mi-NUTEs…why not go the full distance and market this crap the way the Republicans dissed French fries as “freedom fries”??  (Remember during WWII when sauerkraut was redefined as “freedom cabbage” and bratwurst as “freedom sausage”??) Let’s call this “new” product “freedom ketchup”, and throw it to the public to see what happens.

Ahhhh…no thank you….I prefer traditional salsa quite nicely, thank you very much.  I’d rather not have my hard earned money go to homocidal xenophobic racists. Hell, I’d rather buy Taco Bell’s salsa than this crap.

Besides, there already is “100% American made” salsa around….made by 100% Americans.  The majority of them happen to be Latino/Mexican.  And as I’ve heard, it’s quite damn tasty, too.

Memo to the world: Do society a huge favor and boycott these fuckheads; and hold out for the real thing.

Double Your Wingnut Pleasure (The Vox Day Files)

There’s no drivel quite like right-wing drivel, ehhhh???

This pulled from a especially whack site called Men’s News Daily (with a tip of the hat to the Mike Malloy Truthseekers Forum):

 

The Reasons Liberal Democrats Have A Love Affair With Islam

August 16, 2006

Vox Populi, The Rogue Jew

 Todays post is short but sweet. I think I figured out why Liberal Democrats have such a love affair with Islam.  The two groups have many similarities and much in common.

The followers of the cartoon like prophet, Mohammad hate George Bush, Jews, and America more then they love their own children.

Liberal Democrats hate George Bush, Israel, and America more then they love their own children.

The followers of Islam use innocent women and children as “Human Shields” to hide behind while shooting at American Soldiers and Israeli soldiers.

Liberal Democrats use widows and veterans to hide behind so as to not have to debate the issues in an open forum.

The Liberal Democrats will defend to the death a womans right to kill her unborn child, but denounce any American who gives his/her life for their country.

Followers of the Blown to Peices Religion despise religious freedom and liberty. 

Liberal Democrats despise freedom of religion, but support freedom FROM religion.

Followers of Islam riot and kill when a Liberal journalist reported that American Soldiers urinated on a Koran.

Liberals Democrats will defend urinating on a Christian Bible as art and “Freedom of Expression”, but condemned American soldiers for flushing a Koran down a toilet, which turned out to be yet another lie fabricated by a Liberal Journalist.

In my book, Liberal Democrats are no different then Islamic Terrorists.  Liberal Democrats are equally as guilty for enabling Terrorism.  It’s no different then actually pulling the trigger or lauching a missle at Israel.

Just thought I would point these similarities out to my Jewish Friends who blindly support the Party of Death, the Liberal Democrats.

Now…let’s put aside the forgetable fact that most liberal Democrats (at least the establishment types) are actually huge supporters of (and some of them outright apologists for) Israel’s current scorched earth policy/invasion in Lebanon; or that I’ve seen no act of terrorism ever perpetrated by an “liberal Democrat” (but plenty done by activists for the Right).

And for the record, Mr. Day…it wasn’t a Bible that was urinated on, it was a plastic crucifix dipped in a vial of what was described as urine…..quite a bit of different from threatening to throw the Q’uran into a commode….or attaching a detainee to explosives….or forcing him to masturbate under the barrel of a gun….or siccing dogs after a detainee….or forming naked human pyramids..or…need I go on???

Oh, I forgot…this is the same Vox Day who believes that Adolf Hitler had a great idea for dealing with “illegal aliens” (read, Latino citizens) that our president “Jorge” just isn’t man enough to copy: just deport all the “wetbacks” across the border right after we build “The Wall” on the border.

Yeah.  Right.  Nice “friend of the Jews” he is.  

But..I’ll bet he’ll be supporting Joe Lieberman as a “moderate Democrat”, will he???

 

Busting Out Of The RadFem Plantation (Bitch|Lab and Greta Christina Call BS)

There are times, you know, when I just want to just throw up…..and throw up my hands in disgust at what is passing for “radicalfeminist” activism these days. 

I mean, what can you do when you attempt a passionate yet measured critique of “radicalfeminist” policy towards sex work and pornography based on genuine institutional cultural theory…..and promptly get accused of “hurting feminists and feminism“????  Let alone, having your past history snooped, your intellect directly challenged as a “liar” who pretends to be a scholar; and your private name threatened to be exposed in public??

If you happen to be Bitch|Lab…..well, I’ll just let her spell out the ramifications of Ann Bartow’s treachery of threatening to out her (as she described in comments at her blog):

I vascillate back and forth between staying and shutting down the blog.

I have nothing to hide, but I do have a small and struggling business. We’ll be lucky to make $15k this year. This is the only place I have to let off steam regarding clients. While we’re doing the freelance thing, I’m also in the market for a normal job.

I simply cannot blog as me. I was in the information security business for five years — still am. I KNOW exactly what companies do these days in the hiring process: Google.

So, if she wants to out me — for what I have no clue — all that happens is that I start a new blog and take extra pains to conceal who I am.

And the saddest part is, I’ve been to this rodeo before. She won’t be condemned for doing it. And if she is, the condemnation will be a vocal minority.

Knowing the cult of MacDworkinism as I do, Miz B’s probably understating it a bit….but not much.

I’m beginning to think that Alice Walker had it right when she broke out the “womanist” thing to seperate herself and other WOC feminists from the White bougeiousie that is running it to the ground these days…any movement that tolerates this kind of bullshit deserves to be undermined.

Either way, Miz B has reacted in kind with a few….errrrr, changes in concept to her blog. Having been outed out of feminism for good, she seems to finally be discovering her sex-poz freak side….check out her latest here. 

On the other hand, Greta Christina is one sex-positive radical who hasn’t (yet) abandoned the feminist label; yet, unlike the radfems, she actually does attempt to treat women who like sex or do sex work as something a bit more than just brain-dead sexbots.  Over at her excellent blog, she has a piece up which attempts to seperate the asshattery and assholeery of Girls Gone Wild founder/serial rapist/misogynist fuckwad Joe Francis from the young women featured in his profit-making boob-flash-and-lip-lock picture shows.   The whole article is worth a gander; but these are the money paragraphs that I especially appluded:

The writing I’ve seen about Girls Gone Wild is largely taking two directions. One is pity/concern for the poor exploited girls who are being taken advantage of when they’re too excited/too young/too drunk to know what they’re doing. The other is pity/contempt for the vulgar idiot girls who are squandering their feminist heritage by pulling their shirts up on camera… and are ruining things for the rest of us.

And I have much the same problem with both. I think there’s more than a whiff of patronization, and elitism even, in both attitudes.

Let me talk about the first one first. In the strict Marxist sense, of course the women in GGW are being exploited. They’re being paid a disproportionately low amount for their labor — they’re getting paid in T-shirts and Mardi Gras beads, so duh — and someone else is getting rich off that labor. But I’ve seen a few of these videos, and it sure looks to me like most of these girls know what they’re doing and very much want to be doing it. They like the attention; they get off on exhibitionism; they enjoy feeling sexy and wild; they like having an excuse to do dirty things they wouldn’t ordinarily do.Will they regret it later? Maybe. Some of them almost certainly will. But you know, a lot of us have done things in our youths that we now regret and can’t take back. (My entire first relationship leaps to mind.) Making dumb choices that you regret is part of being young. It’s the flip side of risk-taking and adventure.

As to the women being too drunk to consent goes, I’m not seeing it. I’ve seen tipsiness in the GGW videos, high spirits, probably even some impaired judgement — but not blackout drunkenness, not drunkenness that would obliterate consent. I could be wrong, I’m not there on the streets of Spring Break with a Breathalyzer and a lie detector test (those don’t work, anyway)… but it sure looks to me like, hammered though many of them are, most of these girls know what they’re doing and know what they want.                        

Which brings me to my second point: the “they’re squandering their feminist heritage” argument.

This is the one that really bugs me. It’s as if sexual liberation is only for those of us with the right sex-positive feminist credentials — not for yahoo sorority girls who want to pull their shirts up on camera. Like they don’t deserve to have sexual choices, because they’ll make the wrong ones.

But we all deserve sexual liberation. We all deserve the freedom to make sexual choices — even dumb ones or crass ones. As someone whose name I can’t remember once said, not all censorship battles can be about Ulysses. (Does anyone know the source for that quote, btw? I couldn’t find it.) And the battle for sexual liberation and the right to sexual expression can’t always be about brilliant sex-themed performance art, or beautiful ecstatic lovemaking in loving long-term relationships. Sometimes it’s about college girls at big drunken parties pulling their shirts off for the video cameras. That’s the whole point of feminist sexual liberation — we don’t get to go around scolding other women for their consenting sexual choices. (Not on moral or political grounds, anyway. On aesthetic grounds… that’s another story.)

I’ve seen arguments that the problem with GGW isn’t the girls whipping their tops off for the camera — it’s the people behind the camera, the crassness of the videos and the company and the grotesqueness of the main man behind them. It’s not liberated or empowering if you’re whipping your top off for exploitative assholes, or so goes the argument. But while I’m certainly not going to defend the motives of the GGW empire (especially not now), I still think we should support the sexual agency of the wild girls themselves. Do you think every single porn movie that Annie Sprinkle or Nina Hartley ever made was a delicate work of artistic beauty and profound insight, made by sensitive feminists, with the profits going to rape crisis centers and saving the rainforest? I sure don’t. I’m sure that at least some of their movies were silly and dumb, and that the profits from at least some of them went to pay for the sports cars and coke habits of nitwit Silicone Valley porn producers. That doesn’t negate Nina and Annie’s sexual agency and power.

And I think a lot of the “won’t somebody please think of the children?” hysteria about the women in the GGW videos is just flat-out sexist. The same company that makes the “Girls Gone Wild” videos also makes “Guys Gone Wild” videos as well… and I think it’s extremely interesting that nobody, not one person that I’ve heard or read on this subject, has gotten upset about the poor stupid young college boys with low self-esteem who got drunk and let themselves be manipulated into flashing their asses and dicks on camera, and who are going to feel violated and ashamed the next morning and will regret it for the rest of their lives. It’s apparently just young women who are incapable of making their own sexual decisions and living with the consequences. 

Now that’s what you call a genuine sex-positive feminist who gets it.

Needless to say, Greta’s going into the SmackChron Blogroll and the Sexy Intellectual listings as soon as I finish and publish this post. 

A few more of Greta and B|L and a lot less RMildred and AB would do the world and sexual relations a lot better, I’d think.

 

Sexual McCarthyism, Radfem Style: Ann Bartow Ambushes Bitch|Lab

If this post contains more than the usual rage, it is not your imagination.

And BTW..the views expressed in this post are mine and mine alone, and have no endorsement from Bitch|Lab or anyone else.)

The following is an open memo addressed to Ann Bartow of the Feminist Law Professors blog:

Ms. Bartow:

Even if I did and do fundamentally disagree with your views on pornography, sex work, and feminist reaction to such, I always had the utmost respect for you as an academic and a advocate for your position. 

I did, that is, until I saw your gratituous, unannounced, totally uncalled for, and absolutely disgusting personal assault on Bitch | Lab in the discussion thread at Alas, a Blog on “raunch culture and modesty”.

It may be one thing to disagree with her opinions or to express your opposition to her beliefs…but to exploit her past posts on her own blog to attempt to smear and distort her record as an activist and to denigrate her right to speak out, with thinly veiled hints of revealing her real identity in direct violation of Internet ethics and common decency…that simply goes beyond and beneath even the depths of contempt.

And for what??  Because she simply disagrees with your beliefs about “raunch culture” and the idea that it is the centerpiece of patriarchy??  Or her dissent from the cabal of “radical feminism” and the anti-”pornstitution” activism that you so openly support through your own blog???

The irony of it all, Ms. Bartow, is that Bitch|Lab really did respect you very much….even to the point of defending you from my own personal analysis of your words as an antiporn activist.  She is NOT attempting to “destroy feminism and feminists” as you so roundly attacked her for; indeed, by identifying the many variances of theoretical thought which tends to make up feminism, she is actually strengthing it. 

Yet, because she doesn’t march in perfect step to the hymnals of Catherine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin and the rest of the antiporn “radicals”, you decide to offer this ambush and forced “outing” of her personal and private life.

I cannot and will not claim to speak for Bitch|Lab, since she can speak for herself….but as an ally and a colleague whom has  had numerous discussions (some passionate, some a bit heated, most congenial), I can attest to her qualifications as a feminist, a woman, and a human being…as well as to her intellectual qualities to all her writings. 

What you have done, Ms. Bartow, is simply unacceptable and unconsciable; and I believe that an apology to Bitch|Lab and a retraction is the least you can do to undo the hurt that you have caused.

Unfortunately, it seems that this is simply the usual intimidation and humiliation tactics that antiporn radical “feminists” throw at their critics when they are called out on the carpet for their policies and beliefs.   

This may fall on deaf ears…but it just had to be said.

Note: The offending comment is at message #26 at the Alas, a Blog thread linked above.  Miz B’s response is the message immediately afterwards; she also makes reference at her own blog here.

 

Oh, Good….RMildred’s At It Again!!!

First off…it wasn’t enough that she decided to get off a drive-by shot at Ms. B at Bitch|Lab in the Pandagon sex worker debate…but now she’s launched a full on Scud missile attack from her own PunkAss blog.  The post title says it all:

In which Bitch|Lab comes out in favor of genital mutiliation, because patriarchs find it “hawt” 

Actually, it’s a brief response to this post where Miz B channels Randall Collins to challenge the notion that romantic love is really about only sex or whether it is much more complex.  But, considering RM’s obsession with knocking B’s block off, it surprises me not at all that RM would stoop to that level.

But…heheh…even that stales as compared to the freshly packed pile of horsedung that constitutes this post (also at PunkAss Blog) where RMildred attempts to rebute KH’s main points in favor of decriminalizing and destigmatizing sex work, using all the old anti-"pornstitution" memes and standbys about innate "degradation" and "coercion" as rape, among other things.

Unfortunately, I have to leave for work in about an hour, so I won’t be able to give RMildred the full can of SmackDog Whupass ™ on her latest lunacy until later this weekend…..but I’ll bet that there will be others ready to lock and load. (Miriam??  Belledame??) Until then, I’ll just watch the fireworks and link any rebuttals that may get written.

Good Lord, what an asshat.  It is now official: radicalfeminism has become the new "ex-gay".  

Another Day, Another Sex-Pos “Headbussa” Joins The Fray (Hello, IAmCuriousBlue!!)

You can now add another name to the growing list of sex-positive freedom fighters (or, as I figuratively refer to them, “headbussas”).

Go over to IAmCuriousBlue’s new blog (http://iacb.blogspot.com/) and show him some genuine love.

Already, he’s scored major points with a post detailing the diversity of sex work and porn production, in direct contrast to the theory of the “monolith” but forth as a straw pinata by the antiporn feminists and their minions.

Great to have ‘ya, IACB….welcome aboard.