Oh, but it would figure that the Feminist Sex Wars would blow up again in my absense…but I never thought that it would get this crazy.  But then again, you should never underestimate the ability of the GenderBorg Hive Collective to ramp up the slut-shaming and McCarthyite bashing to new heights of pig crap.

And leave it to the reigning Free Soil Party candidate for President of the United States, Cheryl Lynn Seelhoff (aka Heart) of the blogs Women’s Spaces: The Margins and Fight The Lies to lead the lynch mob…..errrrrrrrrr, the charge of passionate antiporn/antiprostitution radical feminists to and now beyond the frontier of lunacy.

(And no, Clones, I am not linking their sites, since I have no need for any future drama. Do the Google thing.)

The latest episode took place in a elongated thread at Heart’s place Women’s Spaces, in which the original subject happened to be on respecting the voices of women in the sex industry.  Only thing was, the only voices that Heart wanted to be respected were those that perfectly matched her basic fundamentalist ideology of “Prostituted women are mere victims of men, and thusly, all prostitution is forced sex by men over women”. It seemed that women who happen to BE sex workers who did not agree in perfect lockstep with Heart’s abolitionist philosophy were basically rendered invisible, if not baited as the enemy….and much, much worse.

All the usual parrots took part in this “debate”: Sam Berg, Maggie Hays, and “Rebecca” (Mott??) all took part in cheerleading for the greatness of “radical feminism”.

But the real excitement came in the thread comments, when some infidel apostates decided to attempt to bring their own views into the mix which didn’t quite march in perfect goosestep with the GenderBorg hive mind.  The result was some convenient and quite masterful engineering by Heart (in her capacity as admin for the blog) in not only suppressing their attempts at opposition, but flat out altering their views to support her strawarguments to be knocked down.  Naturally, those who got altered did not get their actual views aired uncensored (that is normal policy at Heart’s place)….but apparantly outright censorship wasn’t good enough; Heart also felt free to post commentary on the posts that she refused to unmoderate and allow to be shown.

A few example of Heart’s mad moderation skills follow anon.

First, this example applied to Renegade Evolution, who had the audacity to attempt to answer a direct smear by Maggie Hays. Ren has posted an extended archive of the thread, complete with redacted and modded comment, over at her blog.

on 26 Aug 2008 at 10:13 am16 Renegade Evolution
Right then Heart, let’s speak on context…and I’ll try this again and amend a few things to be accurate and less openly hostile…yes, I do realize you support the Swedish Model, oversight on my part. Noted. I lived out west, where gal is far less demeaning than girl, or ma;am or lady, or Miss. Just as men are called guys or dudes, women, often, are refered to as “gals” and in my experiece it is not meant to be demeaning. It’s a term other than woman or girl. The stories I posted, well, gee, Mariko and Amanda’s Nevada Brothel tales would be right up your alley. They are horrible in their own right, in every way. Tricked by a female brothel owner and subjected to very shady conditions in a place they felt unsafe and could not wait to get out of, Mariko went there because she literally needed the money. Not exactly shiny, happy stories. And Robyn Few, as much as she is hated by many, mentions flat out entering the sex industry at the age of 13 to survive. I’ve not in my posts ignored the unpleasant aspects of the business, and to assume (when I still have five or so days left of blogging there) that I would not post MORE on the less pleasant aspects and horrible parts of sex work/prostitution for various people involved in it is somewhat putting the cart before the horse. I mention both sex workers AND prostituted women, but that has been omitted by various folks throughout this conversation. Why? There are both: sex workers and prostituted people. Denying one group or the other does no good, because both kinds are out there and have different needs/wants. I don’t see the horror in recognizing that. Even I have had shit times in my business, which you said you were oh so sorry for…yet…when I make an effort to discuss sex work/ prostitution in a place where people might learn something they don’t already know, I get slammed for it. Why hasn’t Feministe invited others to blog there? I don’t know. That question has to be asked of them, not me. I have no say in who they invite to guest blog. I’d be happy to suggest a woman like R.Mott or V be invited to guest blog there, hell, I will. Would they do it? I don’t know. Would those women accept the invite? I don’t know that either. And V- listen, yes, I am a libertarian, people do not have to like it- and sure enough- they don’t. Not even many of my allies. No, I am not anti-capitalist, but is more in depth than that. I’ve never said capitalism is fantastic and great and we should never look at other systems or modify the ones currently in place. For instance, would I support a more socialist form of medical care? Yes, I would….because all people should be able to see doctors and not go around injured or sick because they can’t afford medical care. And why yes, I’ve said such things before.
As for the feminist critics blog, no, I was not a founding member. I became disillusioned with a lot of feminism and feminists and was then, after the blog have been around for awhile, invited to blog there. Some months ago, I quit that blog and have not posted there in quite some time. A self-identified radical feminist has also blogged there once or twice as well. I found conversations there to be useless and frusterating, so I quit.

Heart’s initial response seems actually human:

on 26 Aug 2008 at 10:48 am17 admin
Ren, I’m going to approve your comment in a minute, but without the last sentence. My post here wasn’t addressed to you specifically. Your and others’ recent writings about the language around sex work are among a couple of things that got me blogging about this. Another was the arrest of Frank Colacurcio and another was having spent some time on the Sex Trade Survivors site after reading about it on the DIGNITY listserv. Another is e-mail conversations I’ve been having with survivors of the sex trade. And another is, I have a difficult piece of writing I’ve been working on about the arrest of Radovan Karadzic that is kicking my butt so I’m writing something different because I’m procrastinating. :-p
Another thing that factors in for me: how can I stand for sustainability, for life, the earth, forests, skies, oceans, how can I embrace Deep Green iow, which is where my life and my feminism have taken me, without being as concerned about sustainability and life so far as women’s lives and bodies are concerned? I have to stand politically with the indigenous tribes all over the world for many reasons, one of which is, once the megacorporations have used up all of the trees in the rainforest and all of the oil in the Arctic, once the profits have been realized and spent, all of us will suffer for it, most of all everything and everyone who is gone and dead and devastated because of what the corporations have taken and sold. How much more is this true with respect to the bodies of women?

Never mind that numerous commentators before then openly referenced Ren’s guest appearance at the Feministe blog for their criticisms of her beliefs…it’s still not all about Ren. Or so we think.

The thread then dissolves into a virtual jill-off…oh, so sorry, bad analogy since masturbation is so against the GenderBorg edict as a selfish male-imposed, compulsive woman-hating act….discussion go-round between Heart, Maggie, Satsuma, and a few others agreeing on the basic harms of prostitution and how only those who want out and want it banned should matter.

And then, all of a sudden, Heart strikes with her first moderation moratorium, against Ren:

(Ren, I’m not going to approve all of the grandstanding you want me to approve here wrt Satsuma or anyone else. You and those you hang out with online appear to lie awake nights strategizing attempts to publicly shame, attack, and demonize any woman who stands up to ya’all. A quick perusal of your blog will reveal many straight up attacks on women– entire posts dedicated to that project. Own and deal with your own crap and then maybe I’ll reconsider. I also won’t be participating in anything remotely likely to even smell like blogwar stuff. You’ll have to do that elsewhere and on your own. – Heart)

This was the “grandstanding” from Ren that prompted that banishment:

Satsuma:
“Everytime I hear some woman justify this sexualizing pornified world, I think to myself “There stands an unaided incest survivor, an abuse victim, a child rape survivor.” Everytime I hear women supporting this stuff, I know that underneath this is a survivor of some attrocity that might be a suppressed memory. I see very mentally ill lesbians out there into S & M because no one gives a damn about them, or cares to foot the therapy and hospital bills. I’ve seen this first hand, I’ve heard the S &M crowd with my own ears, and I know what these women have been through.”

Well, thank you for assuming to know the lives and history of every single woman involved in any aspect of the sex industry or who does not constantly cry out against the modern world or who happens to like BDSM, and writing them all off as damaged and incapable of rendering decisions due to the vast damage you assume they all have suffered, slapping on a heaping does of ablism and superiority, and making yourself an authority on the lives and experiences of other women. Well done. Your arrogance astounds me.

“All I can say is pro-porn people, show us your financial interest in all of this, because we know your are profiting and selling women too. You don’t want to lose out on your womanhating selling gravey train, you don’t want to admit that you are aiding and abetting child rape and seasoning either, no you support free speech only for the abusers and profiteers and you know it. Shame on you!! Shame and more shame!”

Woo, look, shaming and demonization ALL at once! You know, between the hate and arrogance I’ve seen you throw at people like sex workers, heterosexual women, mothers, and well, a bunch of other people who do not follow the Satsuma path, I have to wonder about your agenda. You speak often about money and for strong, smart, warrior women jobs, Satsuma. What do you do? Nice profit margin in that? What makes you think you are so much better than so many other people? What’s the trauma that led to this sort of absolutism and megalomania?

Goddess I hate these sleaze bag and their internet lies! This is the very heart of darkness.”

Nice….just lovely, really.

Rebecca- I want to do a post at Feministe which links to the blogs of sex workers/prostituted people, current and past, and I’d like to link yours, because I do think what you say is important, but I want to ASK first if that’s okay with you. If it isn’t, I totally understand. Context would merely be “here are some blogs by people who are now or were formerly involved in the sex industry”.

Maggie: No “E”, noted. No, actually, most sex work advocates are for decriminalization, not outright full on legalization. And I’m sorry, yes, I am sure that Heart wasn’t merely thinking of me when she wrote this, however, the timing was just too perfect, the criticism of a word I use often “gal”, the discussion on language? Well, a lot of people all around found the timing just a little too convenient for this to merely be random and, oh gee, not at all about what I happened to be posting on at Feministe. I hadn’t even noted the post here until a transblogger dropped me a note saying “How can people be upset with you for writing about Harm Reduction?” Which, you know, is a good question? And once again, the piling on and attacks are a two way street. You get angry at sex worker advocates and the term sex work? Well, I get angry and people who mischaracterize sex worker advocates and refuse to realize, why yes, there is such thing as a sex worker. Oh, and the constant refrain (like in your response to V there) that we’re full of fallacies and deluded? Do you have ANY idea how damaging that is? People will take that kind of attitude and use it to say, “all those people are liars and stupid”. Not helpful, at all.

In the very next post, Heart decides to latch her jaws on Nina Hartley (WARNING: link to possibly NFSW material) — porn actress, sexual rights activist, and pro-sex feminist — for being such a threat to Heart’s brand of “radical feminism”…and she she adds a nice McCarthyite-like smear of Nina’s husband Ernest Greene using his advocacy for safe and consensual BDSM play, his editorship of the sex zine TABOO, his employ at the empire of HUSTLER magazine,   and his and Nina’s stances on condom usage in porn as a hammer against them both:

on 27 Aug 2008 at 10:47 am40 admin
You know, Ren, re working to lessen harm to women in the sex trade, I can completely get behind that project. But there’s something else that got me writing this post, in addition to all the other stuff I’ve already mentioned. Someone I like and go back a ways with recently interviewed Nina Hartley, who with her husband, Ernest Green, is part of your circle of people apparently concerned about harm and sex worker rights and so on. (For those who do not know, Ernest Green [sic] publishes the SM/Fetish mag “Taboo” which is owned by Hustler. )
I was fairly discouraged about this interview and was then told Hartley doesn’t advocate for condom use in porn anymore which I found hard to believe. I went poking around and found this to be true. NOTE, MAY TRIGGER.
So much for harm reduction. Even if it’s true that condoms might increase the chances for transmission of STDs in some instances and acts in pornography, not using condoms while performing in pornography, on film, films distributed widely, models an incredibly destructive message to those who watch porn, including young people, including young women who get into the sex trade. The fact that porn performers are tested monthly does nothing to mitigate or lessen that particular harm or the ongoing, cascading harm that inevitably will result from young women having sex with random men without condoms.
This stuff somehow doesn’t get talked about much on the pro-porn/pro-prostitution blogs.

SNA-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-PPPPPPPPPP!!!!

That is the sound of a ‘Dog blowing up in rage after reading that particular post. (Warning: The following rant may be triggering .)

Hey, Heart(less), you un-fucking, no-account, lying, slandering bit….ahhh, woman: If you ever managed to get your head out of your ass and actually read up on Nina Hartley and her particular stands on condom usage, you’d see that she doesn’t even come close to advocating what you say she does.  She and Ernest are NOT opposed to condom usage in porn; she only opposes government attempts to IMPOSE MANDATORY condom use on the industry, mainly due to the fact that such regulations are, in their view, totally ineffective, mostly unenforcable, and basically counterproductive in that they will more than likely succeed in driving performers away from mandatory STD/HIV testing….not to mention the fact that there is no mandate against popular condom usage in porn to begin with, since most porn studios already have a standard “condom-optional” policy. (And some studios, like Vivid, actually have a mandatory condom policy in place already. Or, at least, they did last time I checked.)

And as for the “having sex with random men without condoms” smear: Gee, Heart, why not just come out and say outright that all women in porn are nothing more than voracious sluts who can’t stop bending over or kneeling down to every man they see?? Last time I checked, it was mostly the responsibility of health professionals and sex educators, not the porn industry, to educate the populace about safer sex techniques….and while it would be a very good thing for people who work in the sex media to promote voluntary safer sex techniques whenever possible, simply mandating that any performer who doesn’t use condoms or who doesn’t insist in using condoms is inevitably a disease carrying menace preying on impressionable young women is simply beneath contempt. for anyone calling herself a feminist. Also…I guess that she doesn’t see men who get infected with STDs to be as much victims needing protection as women apparently do?? So, Lara Roxx is a victim because she contracted HIV from a tainted double-anal scene, but Darren James is a sex predator and murderer because he contracted the virus as well???

Oh…and young women don’t have to be in porn to be having sex with random men without condoms; and the overwhelming majority of them actually survive intact without contracting any disease altogether.  How about giving them some credit for protecting themselves from STDs, Heart??  Oh, I forgot….that would really fuck with the “women don’t choose to have sex with men; that’s the PATRIARCHY’S brainwashing kicking in!!” meme. When truth meets GenderBorg ideology, the latter will always win in Heart’s mind.

Oh, but there’s more of Heart trashing Nina and Ernest later on in the thread…but let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves.

After some more exchanges where Ren attempts to defend herself against Maggie and the rest of the hive, Heart lays down the law concerning future posts in moderation:

on 29 Aug 2008 at 12:10 pm75 admin
So, yes, I have comments in my moderation queue.
My problems are several and among them are these:
* If I approve some of the comments, I will be approving mean-spirited, undeserved, unproductive attacks on fine women;
* If I edit the comments, deleting the mean-spirited, undeserved, unproductive attacks and snarks, then the commenters appear to have been reasonable, polite and respectful when they were not. But only I know this because I’m the only one who saw the comments before they were edited;
* If I do not approve the comments, the suggestion is that I cannot or will not respond to the issues the comments raise.
* If I do approve the comments, many who read here, survivors of the sex trade, in particular, but others of us who are survivors as well, will be triggered in ways which are very hard to deal with. The comments I’ve already approved have been severely triggering to some of my regular commenters.
I will be approving comments soon, but I wanted to preface my approvals with the above. I don’t like approving ugliness, self-congratulatory bullshit, disingenous grandstanding, and comments mostly intended to inflict distress, or comments which — intentionally or unintentionally — trigger good women. In the end, I think the interests of women will be better served if I do approve the comments in their entirety than if I don’t.
I might change my mind about that at any moment after approving and responding to the comments in my moderation queue. I will be watching the responses carefully. If you want your comment to be approved, don’t attack anyone, don’t be dismissive, don’t be a jerk, participate honestly and decently in the discussion.
Heart

Translation for those of you not learned in GenderBorg speak: “Any attempt by ‘pro-porn’ sellouts or infidels to rain on our parade of bashing pornstitution as the Devil will be dealt with severely through alteration or outright censorship. Only good, strong, antiporn radical feminist thought will be allowed through uncensored…in fact, we encourage true ‘feminists’ to rise up and drown these dirty attempts by traitors and porn addicts to infiltrate our beloved space.”

It gets so bad that Maggie actually resorts to responding to comments that were still in moderation, as in this case:

Ion 29 Aug 2008 at 12:41 am74Maggie Hays
I don’t speak for Ren, and I wouldn’t bloody dare try to!
Hexy, as I’ve already said *twice* (look) above:
1/”I mean of course I know you’re NOT trying to speak for her. Sorry (my bad).”
2/”NO ONE speaks for me, but me.
Yes, I know that. (I said Sorry to Hexy above…”
Ren had (sort of) replied to my comment but I could not see it (as it had been somehow stuck in moderation). I could only see you replying to my comment, which had given me a mistaken impression for a number of minutes, sorry. Then I did notice, Hexy, which is why I then wrote “I mean of course I know you’re NOT trying to speak for her. Sorry (my bad)” 40 minutes later. Sorry for the *misunderstanding*.

And this was Hexy’s response….unfortunately, it didn’t make it past Heart’s censors for some particular reason (reposted at Hexy’s blog Hexpletive):

76hexy
Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Maggie, in regards to this:
Hexy, as I’ve already said *twice* (look) above:
My comment has been stuck in mod for a while, and from what i can see still is (which confuses me, as you’ve replied to it).
When I made that comment, those comments from you weren’t visible.

Interesting that Maggie’s response to Hexy’s original comment gets posted, but Hexy’s response doesn’t.

Fast forward a bit to another section, where Heart decides to mine an unnamed “contact” — apparently, a sex worker — to support her viewpoint:

on 01 Sep 2008 at 9:25 pm79 admin
[...]

As one formerly prostituted woman wrote to me (about this thread) via e-mail, calling prostituted women “sex workers” and using terms like “harm reduction” and “non-forced prostitution” is deeply insulting to her because it makes johns invisible, it makes the reality of a lifetime of having been groomed for prostitution invisible, and it places the responsibility to “reduce harm” or work for “harm reduction” on the prostituted women, as though it is up to them to make sure they are not raped or beaten. It also, again, erases the salient, central fact that it is MEN who are buying and WOMEN who are working. Sort of like the way the media says that a woman “was raped” or “was murdered,” but often avoids saying that a man raped a woman or a man murdered a woman. The misogyny that is central to prostitution, to rape, to battering, to violence against women gets erased and prostituted women are left without language to describe their reality.

This warrants this response from Hexy, which, suprisingly enough, immediately gets through the filters:

on 01 Sep 2008 at 11:08 pm80hexy
Heart:
I’ve never seen the term “harm reduction” used to imply that the onus to reduce harm is on the prostituted woman or sex worker, and I’ve been involved in several harm reduction movements covering everything from sex work to drug use/abuse. The sex industry harm reduction model covers things like decriminalisation and legal protection, free provision of barrier contraception and access to medical treatment and support services as determined by the needs and wants of the people in the industry.
While I certainly empathise with your contact-via-email’s concerns about being labelled with language that isn’t hers (see, oh, everything I’ve posted) her objection to harm reduction as phrased here is based on a miscomprehension.

Which become the fuel for Heart to slander Nina one more time, and grant a passing shot at another convert to “harm reductiion, Jill Brenneman of SWOP-East (uncited here, but assumed; emphasis on special smears added by me):

on 01 Sep 2008 at 11:56 pm81 admin
Hexy, I don’t think my contact suffers form a “miscomprehension.” I think she is talking about her lived reality in which there is all of this lofty speech from sex workers about all kinds of harm reduction– everything, of course, but the kind of “harm reduction” that would have actually benefitted her and 90 percent of the women and girls in the world who are prostituted, i.e., NOT HAVING TO BE PROSTITUTED AT ALL, not having to be raped, not having to be battered, not having to disocciate, not having to self-medicate, not living in fear, not being treated like so much trash. When the focus is on the rights of those who identify as sex workers and when theirs is the public agenda, the 90 percent of those who are prostituted and do not identify as “sex workers”, who want out, become invisible– to everybody. Because patriarchy wants very badly to focus ON the sex workers, and on all of this great harm reduction, and on the fact that sex work can be made “safe” or “safer”, *that way the 90 percent of women and girls who are involuntarily prostituted and can never be made safe can be ignored*. Prostituted women do not think of themselves as “people in an ‘industry’” working for their “wants and needs.” They are prostituted, used and abused like kleenex, and they want OUT before someone kills them or they kill themselves. God, hexy, you SO talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you make this huge distinction between SEX WORKERS and PROSTITUTES and insist the two categories not be confused. On the other hand you talk about harm reduction, decriminalization, etc., as though ALL prostituted women are in fact “sex workers,” referring to them as people in the “industry” who are organizing around “needs and wants”. It’s exhibit A of what my contact is talking about. She didn’t care about harm reduction, she didn’t want to be called a sex worker, she wasn’t organizing around needs and wants, she just wanted to get OUT, as by far most prostituted women DO. You speak for a tiny minority internationally of women who say they have chosen. When you do that you *erase the realities of those who do not choose* and especially *in the eyes of the men who create and perpetuate the demand in whose best interests it is to view all prostitutes as “sex workers” and to pat themselves on the back for supporting “harm reduction.”
Right here in this thread we’ve got Ren defending a pornmaker/star/prostituted woman, Nina Hartley, who is an icon, who publicly rejects the use of condoms in het porn because it’s “boring” and inefficient. (Hartley is also a nurse!) When I challenge what that models to basically the entire porn-watching population (who begin at a young age these days), Ren’s answer is that she wrote a blog post once about what bad sex ed porn is, like that’s some answer. I don’t care how many condoms get handed out in the Third World somewhere (as someone commented proudly in a post I haven’t approved yet), what about fracking highly privileged sex workers married to publishers of Hustler’s fetish porn modeling random, highly dangerous, het sex practices with many partners, without condoms? How is handing out condoms in Chile addressing the tremendous harm that particular modeling does, in terms not only of what is imitated by young people, but what is demanded (and taken) from prostituted women by johns? Hell, Nina Hartley does it without condoms, everybody in porn does it without condoms, why shouldn’t he be able to go without condoms?
Maybe the onus is not on prostituted women to prevent harm yet, but if the prostituting of women is framed as an “industry” where those in the “industry” are working towards getting their “needs and wants” met, then ultimately, the onus WILL be on prostituted women, because if all of these “sex workers” are doing all of this great stuff for themselves, what’s prostituted women’s problem? Shouldn’t they get off the dime and organize for harm reduction between getting raped and beaten by johns, pimps and who knows who all? These women’s struggle to just live through another day is being ERASED by a few very privileged people who on the one hand other them relentlessly and on the other hand presume to speak for them.

Yup…so many delusions wrapped in one comment.  So, if we are to believe Ms. Seelhoff, Nina Hartley (your friendly neighborhood “prostituted woman”…never mind the fact that she has never even been a prostitute) and Ernest Greene (male sadist and the official flack for HUSTLER magazine and that daughter-raping, child-molester enabling, ripping-women-through-a-meat-grinder supporting Larry Flynt), are solely responsible through their lack of support of mandatory condom usage for the abuse of every freakin’ woman involved in the making of porn.
Yet, in the end, condom usage won’t even matter, because it simply creates a ruse for defending and maintaining the sexual slavery that prostitution and pornography inevitably come to. Sweet, Heart(less)….real sweet.  And a nice racist touch with the “third world countries like Chile” smack, too.

And she even manages to get Nina’s history wrong AGAIN.  Nina did earn a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing from San Francisco State University in 1985 (Magna cum Laude, to be exact), but she never actually became an active nurse. Porn and teaching the world about sex became her true calling.

Naturally, Hexy had a response to all this cracked bullshit….and naturally, it was never posted (at least, not at Heart’s place; it was posted at Hexy’s though):

Heart:
God, hexy, you SO talk out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand you make this huge distinction between SEX WORKERS and PROSTITUTES and insist the two categories not be confused. On the other hand you talk about harm reduction, decriminalization, etc., as though ALL prostituted women are in fact “sex workers,” referring to them as people in the “industry” who are organizing around “needs and wants”.

I’m afraid I don’t see the contradiction. I do think the needs of sex workers and prostituted people are wildly different, and I think you just affirmed that by stating that the things I mentioned (all of which are clamoured for by sex workers around the world) do no good for prostituted people. I’m agreeing with you! Sex worker’s rights are rubbish for people who don’t want to be sex workers in the first place, and I’ve never said otherwise.

But I’m not going to say that women like me, sex workers, women in the sex industry who don’t consider themselves to be prostituted people, should therefore NOT have human and industrial rights. We want to be able to do our work safely and legally. That’s important. Prostituted women want out of the industry, they want support to be safe from those victimising them, and they want other options. That’s important too. Since when does feminism require that we choose some women to have rights and options and others to not matter enough?

It’s exhibit A of what my contact is talking about. She didn’t care about harm reduction, she didn’t want to be called a sex worker, she wasn’t organizing around needs and wants, she just wanted to get OUT, as by far most prostituted women DO.

And she is equally as important as women who say we DO want to be called sex workers and given safe working conditions, no more and no less! Her “needs and wants”, be they exit strategies or anything else, are important. Why is this so hard to grasp? If sex workers can pour so much of our incredibly limited resources and activism into helping women who don’t want to be sex workers, why can we not even get a nod and the right to name ourselves from those who devote their entire activism to these ends?

You speak for a tiny minority internationally of women who say they have chosen.

No, I don’t. I speak for myself. I happen to agree with a hell of a lot of women who stand behind sex worker’s rights, across the world, in a huge variety of privilege and economic conditions.

I don’t care how many condoms get handed out in the Third World somewhere (as someone commented proudly in a post I haven’t approved yet), what about fracking highly privileged sex workers married to publishers of Hustler’s fetish porn modeling random, highly dangerous, het sex practices with many partners, without condoms?

Heart, I’m completely stunned that you just posted that. Are you honestly saying that you think Nina Hartley not using condoms in a commercial pornography context is more important than the fact that women are DYING because they can’t get their hands on a life saving piece of latex? You honestly feel that the message sent to Western porn consumers by Nina Hartley’s work is more deserving of attention than impoverished third world sex workers not being able to access the condoms they have demanded from international health support services?

How is handing out condoms in Chile addressing the tremendous harm that particular modeling does, in terms not only of what is imitated by young people, but what is demanded (and taken) from prostituted women by johns?

It’s not. Women in third world countries aren’t getting HIV because “johns” have seen condom free sex in porn, they’re getting HIV because they don’t have access to the condoms they want and need. It’s not all one issue.

Maybe the onus is not on prostituted women to prevent harm yet, but if the prostituting of women is framed as an “industry” where those in the “industry” are working towards getting their “needs and wants”

Exit strategies ARE a want and need that has been addressed by sex worker’s rights groups, amongst other groups. This has been pointed out repeatedly. You continue to ignore it.

These women’s struggle to just live through another day is being ERASED by a few very privileged people who on the one hand other them relentlessly and on the other hand presume to speak for them.

You know, I’m pretty sure that this comment already won’t be published, as not only have my previous comments been moderated out, but I’ve well and truly lost my temper a few paragraphs ago. So to hell with being polite for this bit: Heart, you do NOT get to talk to me about privilege. There are a hell of a lot of women in worse circumstances than me, and I try to do the best with what limited privilege I have, but I am DONE with having heterosexual, able-mind-and-bodied, white American non-whores try to tell me that I’M the one with unchecked privilege in a conversation because I have the audacity to insist that disability, race, and past trauma doesn’t completely negate my agency, and to have the crazy idea that ALL women involved in any way in commercial sex and prostitution have the right to decide for themselves (OURselves) what will make our individual and group situations better.

I’ve always thought you’re an important feminist voice, Heart, even when I’ve personally disagreed with particular politics of yours. This isn’t a political disagreement. This is you, personally, telling women in the sex industry to STFU and insisting that women with far fewer options than yourself are too privileged to be part of a discussion.

Oh, but wait…it gets even better.

Unfortunately, it is getting late, and my eyes are rolling backwards.  We will continue this on the morrow.

NOTE: Ren resets the whole episode here; and check out the awesome two part video blog she made concerning the whole issue here. (Warning: definitely NSFW!!!!) Hexy gives her perspective on the matter here, and Caroline (who’s fast becoming my all time favorite headbussin’ Brit (just call her the anti-Witchy-Woo) gets her whacks in at Uncool here.

All right, let us continue with our detailed fisking of Maggie Hays’ latest jousting of windmills. First part was here.

Porn Apologist: Advocating censorship is not a good thing. Pornography is free speech.

Rad Fem: Who’s talking about censorship here? You, not me. I’m talking of harms. Pro-porners often use the inaccurate word “censorship” to stigmatize any feminist work against pornography and to try to shut us up. Censorship or banning would never address the demand for pornography. Educating people on the harms and asking for an end to men’s demand for an industry that is predicated upon and produces sex-based exploitation and widespread aggression has nothing in common with censorship. Pornography is not free speech, it is hatred of women. The only freedom in pornography is the one for men to abuse women. In a male-supremacist, capitalist society, the First Amendment protects only those who can exercise the rights it protects. Where is women’s freedom of speech in all of this? Pornography keeps women and other people who have been harmed from exercising their rights to free speech.

Ahhhh…nice try there, Maggie…but I’d say that openly pushing for legislation that would effectively regulate sexual material and sexual media out of business by forcing them to endure impossible bookkeeping requirements (see the 2257 regulations), or force clients of sex work or consumers of porn to endure the threat of jail or “john schools” to humiliate or shame them for even having normal sexual thoughts, or even allow any woman under the guise of “civil rights” to sue anyone selling an adult video for triple damages for the thought crime of “degrading and harming women” for treble damages….that pretty much counts to most thinking people as censorship.

And I’d say that the First Amendment seems to be a bit different from your interpretation of it….since when did women become exempt from its protections?? Especially women who happen to disagree with your interpretation of what porn is and if it really does as much harm as you say??

Oh….and enough already with the “We are being CENSORED!!!!!!11ONE11!!” nonsense, Mags….when the government (or Blogger or WordPress) comes in and totally shuts down your blog, then you can make a case about being “censored”. Challenging the nonsense that you put out as untrue, biased, and slanderous is not censoring you; nor is saying that you should be held to the same standards of accuracy and decency as everyone else.

One more time: simply substitute “the homosexual lobby” ; the “homosexual agenda”, and “radical gays” in the proper places, and think about how this apes the Radical Right to a perfectly crossed T.

Porn Apologist: Feminists are often man-haters. That’s why they criticize porn.

Rad Fem: In a patriarchal society where misogyny is the norm, whenever you point out to the fact of male violence against women you’re accused of being a “man-hater”, while whenever a man says a misogynist comment or laughs at misogynist jokes he’s never accused of being a “woman-hater”. Feminists aren’t man-haters and they criticize porn because it is harmful and it is strongly linked to violence against women.

Now, let me see, Maggie…why on earth would we even think that you or some of your allies would be considered “man-haters”?? Gee, I don’t know…would it be because of rants like this???

I do not consider the “consent” I gave while under patriarchal delusions to have been legitimate. I believe that the males who took advantage of my training have as much responsibility to ensure that a woman is not submitting out of culturally instilled obligation as they do to ensure that she isn’t drunk or otherwise unable to give meaningful consent. But I understand that males will never behave in a manner that reduces the pool of “willing” women.

This is what makes men rapists. They will use any pretense as sufficient proof of consent, when the truth is that consent is impossible under patriarchy. That men and male-identified women continue to harp on the unverified existence of a few women on the planet who would seek out penile intercourse (which puts them at higher risk of STD’s than men, while simultaneously putting them at risk for pregnancy) in the absence of any training toward an obligation to engage in heterosexual PIV intercourse, is ridiculous to me. It’s not as if the men fucking those famed and fabled born-to-let-men-masturbate-into-them women aren’t also fucking a lot of women who’d reject them out of hand if not for the brainwashing.

A man’s not being a rapist in one highly unlikely circumstance (fucking a woman whose consent is not mitigated by social/individual coercion) doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not he’s a rapist in other more likely circumstances (that the woman he’s fucking is “consenting” to it out of obligation - to social norms or to economic interests). Because I believe the number of women not affected by socialization when making the decision to fuck men is very low, and because I believe that the men who are fucking those rare women are also likely to be fucking or to have fucked women who undeniably *are* affected by social training, I feel quite safe in saying that all men are rapists.

All men are rapists.

Now granted, not all radicalfeminists are quite as extreme as Justicewalks was there (well, there is Luckynkl)…but maybe a person reading this might have the slightest impression that there was at least a little bit of male bashing involved in indicting men for having erections and sexual thoughts?? As opposed to, like, violently assaulting women against their will?? But, I guess that even the latter is given a benefit of a doubt if the perpetrator confesses his sin and accepts St. Andrea and the Right Reverend Maggie and Bishop Bob as their personal savior and promptly reports to the proper authorities for castration and reeducation??? Even if he goes on to continue to violate women under the guise of “defending” them??

(Oh, Memo to Kyle Payne: to quote Bill Goldberg, your ass is next…right after I finish this fisk; you just don’t get to get away from your acts, fool.)

There is still a decisive difference between hating men who do abuse and violate women (and anyone else who violates and abuses anyone else, for that matter); and tainting ALL men with the lash of “rapist” merely because they have working dicks and fantasies in their brains. Just as there is a decisive difference between authentic radical feminists who actually believe in their theories and are willing to promote them with all respect for civility and debate; and unctuous, obnoxious, arrogant, vicious, and self-important cranks stealing the “radical feminist” label and using it as a crutch for their own personal myopias. You can guess which side I believe Maggie Hays to be on.

Porn Apologist: Isn’t it natural for men to watch porn? Pornography expresses sexual freedom and all men use porn.

Rad Fem: If it is natural for men to use porn, then how come some men have given up on their porn consumption and haven’t died? Not all men use porn. And pornography is not freedom; it is a mechanical, mindless, plasticized, inhuman, cruel and disconnected form of sexual imagery made by big corporations who only want to make big bucks. Besides, if pornography was so “natural” for men, why would it be so relentlessly misogynistic? Men have usually been socialized so differently from women that we can hardly claim anything about their nature. From an early age, males are typically trained to repress their feelings of sensitivity, care and empathy. It doesn’t have to be that way but gender roles both uphold and are maintained by male supremacist social order. And pornography typically reinforces gender, i.e. what it means to be “masculine” and what it means to be “feminine”.

Ahhh, Maggie, haven’t you said that nonsense about “Porn isn’t free speech; it’s violence against women” like about 50 times before?? Trust me, we get your point.

And…let’s look at the divergence here: “male supremacist social order” is so pervasive that it literally forces all men to be induced to wank to THE EVOL PORN that socializes them to commit such horrors on women….but it’s not so pervasive that men can kick their porn habits and convert to the good side?? Ahhh, it can’t be both at the same time, Maggie: either it’s insurmountable, or it’s beatable.

Oh..and people have been making sexually explicit media long before porn became a billion (or even a multi-million) dollar industry; and people have even been making such content for free. How exactly does that jive with porn as an evil capitalist corporate plot, Mags??

Porn Apologist: But, I don’t look at the bad and extreme stuff. Misogyny is not really inherent in pornography. And pornography is neither violent nor racist.

Rad Fem: Violence is pervasive in pornography; it is normalized because it is made to look like “just sex”. Any proper and clear-headed study of the content of the best-selling porn titles will reveal that violence and contempt for women are pervasive in mainstream pornography, as a comprehensive 2007 media research based on top-selling porn titles listed in Adult Video news (results of the research are revealed in this video here) has proven. As for the racism, pornography typically portrays black women as subhuman, dirty, primitive “ebony hoes”, black men as savage, animalistic beasts, Asian women as slavishly obedient, and Hispanic women as “hot-blooded Latinas”. If you don’t recognize these stereotypes as horrifyingly racist, then I’m afraid I can’t help you. .

Now…not even the most diehard proponent of sexual expression or sexual speech has denied that there is an subsegment of porn that does play into a darker side of racism and violence and even outright contempt of women. Contrary to the rants of Gail Dines; most of us “pro-porners” — especially the more progressive wing — are well aware of how porn can be used to promote reactionary ideas and beliefs. That, however, is a cosmic leap from Maggie’s notion that violence and racism and degradation is not only inherent in porn, but that the sole purpose of porn is to promote violence and rape and degradation in the guise of sexual pleasure. To put is simply, that is sheer bullshit….and no quoting of the Top 50 list of titles from AVN will justify this bogus claim any more.

And here’s a question for you, Maggie: ever bothered to actually ask the porn actors and actresses of color whether they believe that the porn they produce ever promotes the stereotypes you claim that they promote?? I mean, is Angel Kelly or Ebony Ayes or Heather Hunter or Midori or Vanessa del Rio lying through their collective teeth when they say that they are into porn to dispell and break through such stereotypes?? And as for the myth of “Asian submissiveness”, two words in response: Ava. Devine. Enough said.

Porn Apologist: Look, women are objectified everywhere, even in the media. How is pornography different? I simply cannot imagine a world without the objectification of the female body.

Rad Fem: While mainstream media has clearly been invaded by soft-core objectifying pornography and that’s certainly not a good thing, hard-core mainstream pornography is worse. Women are not human beings in pornography, just things. . . Dare imagine a world that would not rely on the objectification of women, dare ask for justice and real sexual freedom within a new world where women would have the right to their own bodies without having to force themselves to have sex with men, where we would have true intimacy and mutuality, and where our lives wouldn’t be invaded and controlled by pornography.

First off, Maggie; you get the theory all ass backwards: the idea is not that ALL objectification is OK; just that sexual “objectification” is legitimate and natural in some aspect….as long as the person being subjected is still treated as a full human being. I know that that is an alien concept to you, Mags, but for most normal people not quite as trapped in anti-sex microcode as you are, it does make some sense.

And secondly….I thought that softcore porn was in fact just as obscene and degrading as hardcore; there’s not supposed to be any difference at all between the two (other than the degree of naughty bits being shown explicitly, that is).

And how nice of you to show us your favored vision of sex after the Revolution….so freed of “objectification” and violence and racism and all those bad things….and also freed of individual choice, of mutual pleasure, of full autonomy, and of any vestiges of real life. In short, even more objectifying and inhuman than even the “porno-iarchy” you claim to oppose.

Porn Apologist: Women look at porn too.

Rad Fem: While women’s use of porn has somehow increased since the Internet, the VAST majority of pornography users are men and the industry knows it (but they’re not gonna tell you). Porn producers, when interviewed at the Las Vegas porn convention, said most of the consumers of their materials are men. That is why porn is so endlessly misogynistic and degrading.

Oh, I get it….because the majority of consumers of porn happen to be men, and we all know that men are innately violent and evil and only want to rape and abuse women with impunity (because Dr. Hays SAID SO), then it would be right to assume that porn for men is inherently “misogynoustic” and “degrading”. (Not to mention, violent.)

Once again, note the biased linkage to one of Bob Jensen’s rant columns, where he does his usual out-of-context quotes from porn producers and columnists. I’m surprised that Maggie didn’t go directly to Gail Dines’s ambush of Nina Hartley and the AbbyWinters girls at this year’s AVN convention…but then again, she probably didn’t want the threat of a slander suit.

Porn Apologist: Hey, do you know that there’s also feminist porn available out there, that is to say porn for women?

Rad Fem: Women-made porn is a smokescreen to protect the largely (mostly) male-run, male-led pornography industry. It is only a small portion of the industry. The solution to ending the harms of pornography is not to create “feminist porn”. As I said before, “[m]isogynistic porn (which is the type of sexual material that most men want to see and masturbate to) isn’t going to go away so easily, and women and children will continue to be harmed. There are so many more urgent things and so many more struggles to overcome before we are able to live in a non-patriarchal society and maybe think about such things as any “egalitarian forms of erotic arts”!!! Indeed, thinking about such things before the overthrow of the whole patriarchy itself happens, is nothing other than capitulation! And it is insane! Considering and confronting the harms of pornography and prostitution to women and children, and working toward the building of a new non-patriarchal world, are paramount causes!!! As Gail Dines pointed out at the 2007 feminist anti-porn conference, we live in an “image based culture” (i.e. any thing, to be valuable, has to be made into an image) and the answer to stopping porn culture is not more images. Personally, I feel A LOT MORE FREE without having images or so-called “art” control my life and/or sexuality!”

Translation here for you non-zealots: “We gotta break some eggs in order to make a perfect omlett, and before we can even consider making “erotic material” that isn’t merely an apeing or the evil male-centered porn industry, we must eliminate porn FIRST…and that includes this phony “feminist porn” for women that is nothing more than a Trojan horse for men to justify raping and degrading women. Sex will just have to wait until after the revolution happens….so sorry.”

But don’t worry…after the Revolution comes and goes and women are freed of their patreiarchial and porno-iarchial chains (and their autonomy) and are allowed to have sex the way the Goddess intended them to, then mutual pleasure will abound and freedom will ring and we will be welcomed with parades and flowers!!! And of course, men will benefit as well from their freedom, too. (Mostly because those who don’t comply will be either “re-educated” or jailed or…what?? Dead??) I believe that your Maoist slip is showing here, Maggie.

Porn Apologist: If you don’t like porn, just don’t watch it.

Rad Fem: If this could only be that easy! Women have to interact with men who use pornography every day without knowing about the harms. I walk in the street and see soft-core porn on billboards. I cannot watch T.V. without stumbling upon a show or a film within which a joke on pornography is being laughed about. I cannot go to a party without seeing a bunch of guys laughing at the porn pics on their phones they’re showing to each others. The list goes on. . . Pornography is everywhere. What you’re saying sounds so much like saying “If you don’t like the president, then forget he is the president!” or “If you don’t like pollution, then forget it also comes from cars”.

Never mind the conflation (again) confusing soft-core billboards and mainstream TV shows talking about men and porn with viewing hardcore; or how any man downloading porn on their iPhones would even allow someone like Maggie Hays to become the House Voyeur and sneak in on their viewing habits (and BTW, Maggie, you do know that certain jurisdictions do actually make it a crime to show adult material in public venues using iPhones). Also, most opponents of pollution from cars don’t call for banning autos; just making them more pollution free; why can’t porn be made less violent and degrading?? Oh, I forgot…that wouldn’t jibe too kindly with Maggie’s vision of porn being wiped off the earth.

And I now post the final argument in Maggie’s arsenal of idiocy:

Porn Apologist: Porn was the only sex education I had. I can’t give it up.

Rad Fem: Then you have been sexually “educated” by what is the mainstream sex miseducation for men, a form of media within which women are stripped of their own humanity and portrayed as sexual objects, as things to be penetrated. How original! Wouldn’t you be more free without having the corporate pimps mapping out your sex life? Besides, even if you’re not causing harm to women you know, by not giving up on pornography, you believe that there are acceptable losses, “necessary victims” in order to satisfy your self-centered orgasm to the sexuality of cruelty, the sexuality of disconnection from truly meaningful feelings toward another human being. By creating the demand for pornography, you generate, maintain or condone the harms it causes as well as submit to the self-objectification it creates when it controls you, shapes your sexual thoughts into a twisted manner and when you become addicted to it. So, why not giving up and have your own dreams for yourself? Why not accepting that your sex (mis)education did not involve sexual justice and equality between sexes?. . .

Yeah…why the hell not??? Why not admit that your personal, private orgasms are not really your own, that rather than reflecting your own fantasies and personal autonomy, they are just inventions of the “porno-iarchy” developed to imprison you to the evil of male oppression and rape?? Why not just give up those selfish and “self-centered” physical pleasures and join the real movement for group “intimacy” and fulfillment that only “radicalfeminism” (radicallesbianism???) can provide?? Why not just give up all that baggage of “male power” and “submission” to cruelty and disconnection from “meaningful feelings” (True LOVE?!?!?!) that authentic intimacy stripped of all that bad lust and power can bring???

Oh, now I finally get it. Maggie Hays is simply a combination of John “Men from Mars; Women from Venus” Gray and Pat Robertson wearing a “radicalfeminst” cloak.

Thanks, but no thanks, Ms. Hays…I and most sane and less whacked out men and women would rather remain on good old Earth, with all its diversity and color and freedom. Ban sexism…not sex.

Oh, WOW….Maggie Hays is getting her zealot freak on again.

First off, Mags…did you get permission from Twisty to steal from her tagline??

Secondly…..“porno-iarchy”?!?!?!?! Don’t you know that “porno” as a suffix and a noun went out with the 70’s?? Wouldn’t “porn-iarchy” be a better term???

Now, I’m not going to fisk through the entire thing, since Ren Ev has already done so magnificently. But, let’s just go through some highlights:

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the misogyny, degradation, abuse, and racism that are inherent and blatant in the content of mainstream pornography.

Which means the all the misogyny, degradation, abuse and racism that take place outside of “mainstream pornography” — that is, in the wider world — are perfectly OK with you, Maggie?? As long as they all can be blamed on “the porno-iarchy”??

I blame the porno-iarchy for all the harms caused by pornography to women and children (and sometimes to men) in this unjust male-supremacist society.

Oh…so she actually admits that some men might be harmed by porn?? I thought that all men who used porn were simply innate rapists??

And change “male-supremacist” with “secular” or “Godless” society…and then tell me there’s much difference between this and the Religious Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for so many women and girls having to make themselves look “sexy” or “fuckable” to men in the goal to achieve a false sense of “empowerment” (been there myself when I used to go clubbing).

As if women weren’t doing such before porn became popular?? And what about the idea that the reason some women might dress to make themselves “fuckable” or “sexy” to men (or, perhaps, to other women) might be because she’s actually looking for sex for her own pleasure??

Oh, but of course not….everybody knows that sexual pleasure not redeemed by “deep intimacy” or “radicalfeminist” politics is simply male-defined and invented by the “porno-iarchy” to enslave women in their own selfish orgasms!!! It must be true because Maggie said so!!

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls have to force themselves to have sex when they don’t necessarily want to in order to please their boyfriends and husbands.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the fact that so many women and girls are sexually coerced into sexual acts (coming from the ‘domination/subordination’ pornographic mind) they do not really want to practice.

Oh..and who are you to determine whether women want to or not want to engage in such “domination/subordination” practices?? Even when the woman is in the dominant position?? Of course, even if a woman says outright that she chooses for herself what position she favors, we all know that in a “porno-iarchy”, there is no such thing as mutual consent or even pleasure; it is all nothing short of rape…even if the individual participant insists she was never coerced and that she was never raped; and that she actually wanted to do it.

And….why, Mags, is it only women who are forced to have sex against their will?? Do you assume that men don’t have the same right of refusal when women insist on getting it on??

Oh, I forgot…men are simply coarse animals who can’t control their sexual instincts (unless given the proper radfem treatments of “john schools” and Bob Jensen/Kyle Payne/John Stoltenberg/Richard Leader seminars where they are taught that their penises are nothing short of dangerous weapons to be castrated for the good of society). Therefore, they aren’t capable of self-control….right??

Again…substitute “homosexual” for men and “ex-gay treatment centers” for “john schools…” and you are precisely into crackpot Paul Cameron/NARTH territory. How fitting for a “progressive feminist”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for blaming the victims of rape (saying that’s “her fault, she’s responsible for what happened because blah, blah, blah. . .”) and not the rapists.

Oh, nice one, Maggie…too bad that you can’t find one single example of a leading “pro-porn feminist” ever blaming a woman for being raped. On the other hand, I could find countless examples of antiporn “feminists” going so far as to say that women who dress “sexy” not only deserve to be raped or beaten; but that their very existence triggers men to rape innocent women in response. But…it’s all about the ‘porno-iarchy”, not the scapegoating, slut-shaming, hateful slanders of your side.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the (usual) censoring and demonizing of radical feminists in the malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for accusing us of “siding with religious zealots”.

I blame the porno-iarchy for not letting us rad fems educate enough people on the harms of pornography ’cause of the malestream media being tied to the pornography industry, ’cause pro-porners are endlessly trying to silence us and ’cause of ‘leftist’ liberal stubborn pornography-protecting mind (as Gail Dines & Robert Jensen say ‘Pornography is a Left Issue‘, not a right-wing one)

Too easy, Mags….I don’t see anyone shutting down Gail Dines’ workshops or attempting to censor Bob Jensen’s slideshows or beating down antiporn activists. (Unless you consider Maxine Doogan an antiporn activist, that is. Errrr…OOPS.) And last time I checked, wasn’t Wheelock College a “malestream” institution?? What about the Justice Department, which has funded plenty of Melissa Fairley’s studies that you use to buttress your arguments?? Or the significant support from the Bush Administration that your side has received??

And please….you just don’t get to define what the Left is or should raise as issues, given your close ties to the Farthest of the Right.

I blame the porno-iarchy for some women defending pornography and prostitution in the name of ‘feminism’.

I blame the porno-iarchy for the pro-pornstitution ‘feminists’ being unfairly magnified by malestream media.

I blame the porno-iarchy for slandering us, radical feminists, and totally misrepresenting our views or simply not understanding why we’re so angry at the pornstitution industry (because of the HARMS!!!).

Because only tried and true, pure, antiporn “feminists” like Maggie Hays are assumed to be telling the truth; everyone else is merely apeing the “porno-iarchy” in deep denial of the real “HARMS!!!!”) And of course, the “malestream” media simply eats the “pro-porn” lies up….note the big fat $400 MILLION contract that Nina Hartley just received to promote her book on talk radio…..ahhhhh, wait, hold up…..that wasn’t Nina??? That was really that anti-porn feminist activist Rush Limbaugh?? Oh…never mind, so sorry.

The rest of it I will defer to Ren Ev, since she debunks so well.

Actually, this was only the second most whackoid rant that Maggie has produced…the winner I will tackle with a full fisk anon. Hint: Think of broken records and building sock sand castles to knock down.

Having stated my fundamental disagreement with Nine Deuce over her basic philosophy and her use of that racist cartoon (and it should be noted that she has now gone ahead and taken it down, though the rest of the GenderBorg Posse, especially Heart(less) and Witchy,  still defend it with pride); I will now proceed to do the fundamentally contrarian thing and actually agree with her on something she posted today at her place

Funny, that…there is actually an issue or two where I as a sex rad progressive can actually agree with a antiporn radicalfeminist. So sue me.

Today, ND posted about her grave issues with the clothing conglomerate American Apparel, which is well known for not only its guarantee of sweatshop-free clothing designed for the young, hip, middle-class market, but even more for the…ummmm…innovative ads they run to sell their gear.  That would be innovative as in “Throw lots and lots and LOTS of SEX, SEX, and more SEX at ‘em; as close to porn as we can get without actual sex happening!!!”

It has gotten them and their CEO, Dov Charney, very rich and very successful…but it has also gotten them in a heap of controversy over the overtly sexual use of youngsters in their ads. Now, it is granted that none of the models in the AA ads actually have sex, so Charney and AA aren’t liable to the kiddie porn laws or even 2257…but still, they do kinda stick out there as going pretty damn far in the T & A department.

And it doesn’t help matters either that Charney has had the reputation of being either  — depending on which side of the fence you stand — a Reniassance Man with a unique and open-minded attitude towards sex in the workplace…or a creepy, skeezy pervert and near pedophile who forces his dick on every woman he sees and employees.  He was well known for the notorious act of openly masturbating in front of a female reporter who once interviewed him for a trade journal (the woman interviewer wasn’t offended and took it all in stride); and he openly boasts of sleeping with his ad models.

And even his company, despite its anti-sweatshop commitment, has come under fire from traditional unions for underpaying his workers; along with the accusations of sexual harassment. A bitter lawsuit was filed at one time by some female employees there, but it was soon thrown out.

Obviously, ND sees him in the latter light as a total pervert and asshole, and the perfect model of the corporate pimp who uses womwn’s bodies for his own pleasure, not to mention his theft of gritty urban fashion for petty gain.

I almost want to blame Dov Charney for hipsterism. His store is a mecca for people who think they’re making the world a better, hipper place by overvaluing ugly cotton clothing, and it’s the place people go when they’re ready to make the belated move from dance music to lame corporate “indie” rock. I definitely blame Dov Charney for the dorkification of some of the more interesting urban areas in this country. I mean, once you see an American Apparel store go up in a neighborhood, you can pretty much assume that any real counter-cultural activity going on in the area is over and that any interesting residents will be moving elsewhere, afterward to be replaced by Radiohead fans with Apple computers and sparrow tattoos who don’t mind paying triple the current rents.

Whether he made hispterism the asshole trend of the decade or not, he’s making sure it spreads and doesn’t go away, so fuck him to the floor for that alone.

[....]

But did I mention that he likes to sexually harass his employees, the women he does business with, and everyone else he comes across who owns a vagina (he’s been sued at least 5 times for it)? Did I mention that his company’s advertisements (which are done in-house and can’t be blamed on anyone else) are basically kitschy 70s porn? Did I forget to say that he coerces the “models” he hires to create that 70s porn into letting him pork them, often by warning them that their jobs depend on it? Oh yeah, he also jacked off on someone and he likes to walk around the office naked, firing anyone who doesn’t like it. He’s a bad guy.

I suppose it isn’t much of a surprising story. Total geek in high school (I mean, fuck, his name is Dov Charney… and did you see him?), hated by everyone, can’t get anyone to touch his wiener, gets rich and powerful, then takes it out on the women he has some authority over and pretends it’s just one big fun sex party.

For the sake of clarity, it should be known that Charney does have his defenders, including some present employees at AA who insist that no sexual harassment occured at all, that everything going on there is totally consensual, and that it is mostly disgruntled former workers with axes to grind who are responsible for his and the company’s bad rep.

Now….there was a part of me back in the day who would actually, in my more utopian moments, actually see the glass-half-full side of this issue; where the antics of American Apparel’s workplace could be actually seen as a model for a more open and progressive viewpoint of handling sexuality in the workplace. I mean, can you imagine a job where there would be no hangups about who’s sleeping with who; and where open sexuality would be treated with respect rather than ridicule??  It may make for wonderful wanking fantasy for erotic fiction and the “Sex at Work” section of the adult movie store; but could it quite work out for real in the workplace of today??

Ahhhhh…errrrrrrr..uhhhh….no.  Not even close.  Not in this lifetime. And not with the prevailing attitudes.

Don’t get me wrong, though…I would wonder whether a woman with the power (both corporate and sexual) of Dov Charney would be able to pull off such a feat; and it would make for an interesting experiment for the future should an openly sexual and intelligent woman ever achieve such power in the corporate world. Within the porn industry, indeed, there are women who are slowly getting that kind of corporate power, such as Lisa Ann, a porn performer who now runs her own talent agency for porn performers (Lisa Ann Talent Management, which manages some of the heaviest hitters in porn like Nina Hartley and up and cummers like Bridgett Lee), and who still does the occasional video and strip club tour.  And there are women like Vicky Vette, who have parlayed their years of experience in the corporate world in middle management into their subsequent careers in the industry (and in Vicky’s case, her highly successful website.

Problem is, though, the prevailing attitudes about sexuality being both private and not fit for public consumption, and the potential for abuse by  leering men (and women) who may take advantage of such an open attitude; not to mention the wandering eye of the vice cops; would probably squash  that experiment flatter than the Catrock in West Texas.

But while Charney’s personal perversions may be an issue only to those who feel offended by his act, his use of young girls for AA’s “sexy” ads is the main issue for me…and why ultimately I’m more than tempted to agree with Nine Deuce for a change. While I am all for much more adult sexual expression, I draw the line explicitly at using young underage girls and boys as hooks for selling sex to pimp clothing….and I’d much rather that I not see 15- and 16-year-old girls  and boys be put out in the ‘ho and slut fashion merely to make more money for Dov’s private sex parties. That’s why we have legal age of consent, fool, and why porn should be made by ADULTS.

Besides, if AA really wants to push the sex angle so much to pimp their gear, why not simply hire out actual and LEGAL women from porn for their ads??  I mean, they would be actually doing a service by giving these girls an alternative source of income, and providing actual benefits like insurance wouldn’t hurt their cause.  They could even team up with HUSTLER and their “Barely Legal” line of videos; it’s not as if they don’t share the same demographic. There is no need to go to the “Buy our clothes so that you can get seriously laid by fresh, hot, young ass” card…unless thinly-veiled pedophilia was part of the hook to begin with.

Sorry, Dov, but you represent open-minded sexuality the way Jim Jones represents Christianity. Very, very, badly.  And you’re still a skezy, slimy perv, too. (I don’t mean that in the sex-positive way, either.) Youz gets no love or support from me…only a grand “FAIL”. I’d shop at Wal-Mart before I ever touch one of your clothing.

Besides…Danni Ashe did it so much more better, and would kick your ass both professionally and sexually. And, she’s one hell of a lot sexier looking when she jills off, too.

(Note: Even Renegade Evolution, who knows a thing or ten about sex and taking charge, gives Dov Charney the big FAIL.)

(Note #2: Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon (nice upgrade!!) gets her forearm shivers into Charney and AA’s backsides, too.)

[Updated: scroll down to the bottom.]

Oh, how nice….I was so busy answering Nine Deuce’s inquiry that I glossed over the rest of her essay….and it’s even more loaded and leading of the question than the questions:

Where are the men who want to argue vociferously for women’s “right” to participate in their own exploitation? Where are the men clambering to convince me that (women) getting naked for money is empowering? Where are all the dudes who want to tell me that feminism is about “choice” and that women who are making the “choice” to suck a bunch of dicks for money are leading the charge toward some future utopia in which women will be safe, free, and human? Not many of these men exist, because most men know that they’d have a hard time keeping a straight face while making such claims. So why are women making the claim for them?

Of course, all this is just a figment of ND’s vivid imagination, since no prominent sex-pozzie male has ever, at least as far as i have seen, ever claimed the universal that sex work is innately “empowering” to all women (other than those women who have testified personally that it was empowering for them….but you know that their voices don’t count in the minds of radicalfemiinists like ND); or that there is anything “utopian” about “making the ‘choice’ to suck a bunch of dicks for money”. And of course, the idea that women can’t speak for themselves (at least, not the women who don’t think like Nine Deuce and Heart(less) and Maggie Hays and Witchy-Woo) but need men to carry their water, tends not to get through the microcode implants in their brains.

But even that does not compare to the greatest weapon that ND brandishes in her assault on pro-pornie men…..namely, this cartoon:

Uh-huh. Nothing says “exploitation” quite like gawking, leering men staring down a scantily-clad woman.

Except, ND…that it isn’t quite exploitation if the woman actually likes it. Or the guys actually respect her. And they are willing to tip her graciously. (Yes, ND, she’s the one getting paid, and they’re doing the paying. So, who’s exploiting who here???)

But, it’s the racial mixture of the gawking men that should really squick everyone here: does Nine Deuce really understand how depicting men of color as mouth-dripping, sex-obsessed adolescents just might feed into charges of racism???

Errrrr…..just sayin’.

Update: Get a load of how Nine Deuce attempts to dismiss criticism of using this cartoon:

“I think the picture is of a bunch of old white dudes that are outside the reach of the spotlight. If the artist intended them to look like men of color, I’m not backing that, but I doubt it. In any case, with regard to the post it’s a tertiary issue at best. Back to the point.”

Oh, really??? Well, bless her heart…..or, to be more accurate, BULLSHIT.

Notice, for example, the guy at the forefront who’s staring directly at the stripper’s ass. Looks Black to me….or else that must be one powerless spotlight.

Or…the two men standing next to the man who’s talking about “Enough exploitiation, let’s have the empowerment!!!” Most definitely Black…especially the bald-headed one.

But, of course, all of that is merely tertiary to the main point of…what?? That sex-positive men only want to get into women’s panties?? That their respect for women who perform sex acts on stage or screen (or even those who simply strip in night clubs) are simply “Freedom to Rape With Impunity” cards to assault women with?? That we all are simply Ted Bundys in training??

How very antiracist of you, Nine Deuce….I see that Jon Justice isn’t the only one needing a trip on the Klew Train.

Update #2: Leave it to Amber Rhea to bring down the bolt of truth onto such haters:

Yes, no surprise, shit like this and this (check the comment from “L”) downright enrages me. And even that word, I think, does not do justice to the pure RAGE I feel when I see people DENYING MY AGENCY AS A HUMAN BEING, denying my very existence, denying that I am an intelligent, capable, self-aware woman who is CONSTANTLY examining and reflecting on my own life and the choices I make. It hurts the most when it comes from other women, in particular other feminists.

[...]

It enrages me, and it makes me feel sick, and sad, and just awful about humanity, actually. Because why is it such a difficult concept to convey, that my life is mine, my choices are mine, and just because they differ from yours that does not mean I’m damaged or stupid? Why is it so hard to see that accepting the same old stereotypes of women who are openly sexual (not to mention women who work in the sex industry!) as stupid or damaged or victims or villains is nothing more than some seriously OLD-SCHOOL PATRIARCHAL BULLSHIT? It HURTS to have that same old double standard inflicted on me by other women, by other FEMINISTS.

This post gets the “hypocrisy” tag because, as I said to Elisa the other night, that’s what it is, plain and simple.

Pole dancing, for example? The smug characterizations of it as “empowerful” or “degrading” and whatever other bullshit so-called feminist bloggers (not to even mention non-feminists, especially anti-feminist men; holy shit, I can’t even go there, I would get damn near suicidal) say about it, talking OUT OF THEIR ASSES, assuming I must be doing it for my boyfriend (!!!!!!) or whatever else… holy fucking shit I cannot take it anymore. But guess what I DO know, assholes? That when I’m pole dancing, I feel joyful and whole, I feel a happiness that I rarely feel at any other time that permeates my entire being, I feel ALIVE - and the last thing on my mind is what “Teh Menz” might be thinking (especially because nine times out of ten, there AREN’T ANY MEN PRESENT anyway).

And Amber’s not even a paid sex worker….just a civilian who does pole dancing for the sheer fun. Is she one of the “exploited”, too, ND???

This is getting dangerously close to a “Kiss my ass” moment, so I will stop here.

Update 8-4-08:

Well, now….seems that Nine Deuce has decided to take down the pic from her blog, claiming that she doesn’t want the allegations of racism to distract from the point about the “subjugation” of stripping that she was attempting to make. There’s an extended exchange in the thread between ND and Bint Alshamsa (of My Private Casbah), with the usual drive-by smack from the GenderBorg Peanut Gallery (mostly Gayle), where they hash out the debate on racism.

But never fear…seems like Heart(less) and Witchy-Woo have now taken up ND’s slack in full defense of the pic….and especially get a load of what Witchy did to attempt to counter the racism charge: (this captured and smacked down so well by Caroline over at Uncool):

Yup…..that clears it up real good. No racism at all. Nothing to see here, just move along, losers.

Hey, Witchy…..I really do hate to break this to you, my lady (actually, I don’t), but you do know that brightening up a pic via Photoshop or The Gimp does not eliminate differences in flesh tones, right??? Problem is, even with “the spotlight” turned on as you attempt to do, you can still see the Black faces staring at the dancer…thusly, the pic can still be perceived as promoting the usual racist stereotypes of oversexed, drooling, raging hormonal Black men targeting dimwitted, bubbleheaded slutty White women for abuse and rape.

Oh…and the insulting way you put quotes on the dancer isn’t too bright and progressive, either….just ask some actual dancers on that one.

Never say that I’m not hip to answering a challenge.

Since Nine Deuce asked so politely, and Witchy-Woo laid down the gauntlet so forcefully (now, I can’t speak for Jack Goff or IACB, only for myself), I will do my best to answer all of ND’s questions about how we sex-pozzie men aren’t the ogre rapists and demonizers that she and W-W think we are.

Let’s go by the numbers, shall we??

1)  Do you believe that women would participate in sex work if we did not live in an oppressive, misogynistic culture? If so, what would the sex industry look like in a world in which women were seen as possessing the same humanity men do?

Probably, yes…because I believe that misogyny is not just an element of porn but endemic in the entire culture; thusly, a more democratic and egalitarian culture that distributed wealth and resources more equally would allow women more freedom of choice and thought…and more access to safer and more sane sex work and media. And with better rules and regulations to ensure the safety and consensuality of client and worker alike, and the more corrosive puritan attitudes transformed and vetted, sex work would become itself more sane and safe. It won’t be perfect, since there will always be assholes who will attempt to push themselves and their myopias onto both workers and clients, but at least it will be so much easier to isolate and contain them from the general population.

2)  Do you believe that pornography and prostitution negatively affect some women’s lives (obviously some sex workers suffer abuse, but I am referring to women outside the sex industry here)? If not, why not? If so, does any of the responsibility for that lie with sex workers, or does it lie solely with the producers and pimps? Or somewhere else?

When it is enfused with sex negative and antiegalitarian values?? Sure, porn and prostitution can indeed negatively affect the lives of outsiders.  BUT…so can so many other factors, such as income levels, socioeconomics, race, access to basic human resources.  The difference between we sex-poz radicals (both men and women) and the antiporn “feminists” is in how we would resolve such inequities.  They favor censorship and imposition of a narrowly based sexually conservative vision on everyone; we favor greater access to more choices and developing safer environments for such choices.

3)  Why aren’t there more men out there arguing for women’s “right” to participate in sex work? What do you make of the fact that very few men call sex work a feminist choice? I’d also be happy to discuss the arguments of men who do make such a claim.

Gee, ND, I thought that men were universally FOR women’s “right” to participate in their own subjugation?? Doesn’t that kinda make your argument kinda moot???

And I thought that feminism was a women’s movement that didn’t concern itself with what men thought about them???

But to answer your question more directly: Because a great deal of men have inoculated themselves with the dominant cultural beliefs about sexuality being redeemed only through “intimacy” and procreation through marriage?? Even though they tend to violate these vows with regularity??

4)  Can women like Jenna Jameson can be considered feminists for taking leadership roles in the production of pornography? Why or why not? If the answer is yes, how can we reconcile the negative effects pornography has on women’s lives with referring to a producer of mainstream pornography as a feminist?

Well….I don’t see Jenna calling herself a feminist, any more than Carly Fiona or Whitney Houston or Cindy McCain calling themselves “feminists”. But considering how successful she has been in her profession, whether she calls herself a feminist or not, she is still a woman deserving of respect and admiration for her success and her leadership.

Now…I would consider someone like…say, Nina Hartley, definitely a feminist, and definitely a leader in revolutionizing the production of porn and sexuality. Her legacy of bringing progressive values (not only feminist, but also anti-racist and anti-ageist and pro-pleasure) simply can’t be dismissed as readily….and as to “negative effects on women’s lives”: well, we’ll have to just agree to disagree on that.

5) How can sex work empower individual women when it requires that women submit to being objectified and performing acts for money rather than out of genuine desire to do them?

Well….people are “objectified” every day to do things that they normally wouldn’t do for the paycheck…and they do learn much from the experience that they can use later on in their lives. And who says that the women don’t already enjoy those acts they get paid to do in their private lives for free?? And as Nina has said consistently, sexual objectification isn’t always that bad in itself.

6)  Alternatively, if one genuinely enjoys something and gets paid for it, does it become a feminist act?In other words, does feminism exist to advance the cause of women as a whole or for individual women to use as a justification for their personal choices?

It depends on how you describe “feminism” to be, ND. If feminism is defined as to maximize the humanity of women to equal that assumed of men and enlarge the choices and resources that women should have, then I guess that doing something that you love and getting paid well for it would count as being the ultimate goal of “feminism”. But then again, I’m a man, and I don’t feel myself suited to define what a movement of women should be like; that should be up to women themselves. I tend to judge political movements by their actions, not by their labels or gender…or their private sexual practices.

7) If sex work is a valid, feminist choice, what are we to make of women who say that their participation in sex work resulted from dire poverty, drug addiction, etc.?

I have a novel idea: ATTACK THE POVERTY AND THE DRUG ADDICTION AND THE CONDITIONS THAT CAUSED SUCH, NOT THE OCCUPATION. Why should sex work have to be the scapegoat for problems that are so much more universal??

8)  I see sex work as a reductionist commodification of human sexuality. Do you think that the reduction of sex to a commodity has a negative effect on our ability to explore and express the potential of human sexuality? If not, why not?

Well….since I don’t quite see sexuality as you do, ND, I’ll just have to pass on that loaded question.  And EVERYTHING in capitalism is commodified; that’s capitalism’s nature. Of course, if you believe that “the potential of human sexuality” can be best realized by neutering, slut-shaming, and badgering women into submitting into your particular narrow view of sexuality, then be my guest.

9)  If you’re a sex-positive dude, tell me why. Why are you in such a huff to help women out? And why does it manifest as sex positivism? Why is your desire to help women out limited to arguing for their “right” to serve you sexually?

Ahh, yes…the most loaded question of all for last: the old “You evol ’sex pozzie men’ just wanna get into our freakin’ panties!!!” meme.

Now, ND….if I was in fact capable of meeting Renegade Evolution or Nina Hartley or Vicky Vette or Bridgett Lee or whomever sexy and intelligent woman I currently admire and respect, do you really think that I wouldn’t be in the least interested in jumping their bones??  But there is a distinct reason why I wouldn’t do such: BECAUSE I RESPECT THEM AS FULL HUMAN BEINGS.  First off, they are already taken. Secondly, they have the right of first refusal…remember that old meme “NO means NO!!!”  (Now, if they came to me and specifically wanted me to get it on with them, then that’s a different question altogether…but my stated principle is that unless they say yes, just assume NO. Not “Not now,” not “Maybe later”…but “NO.”

Trust me on this, ND…..sex isn’t much fun or pleasurable to me if the person on the other end isn’t enjoying herself as much.  That’s the fundamental difference between a genuinely sex-positive male and a boorish, MRA-ish lout who really doesn’t give a Hoover Damn how the woman feels. It’s not about a woman’s “‘right’ to serve me sexually”; it’s about her right to serve HERSELF sexually…and if she prefers to serve herself with one man or the entire roster of the New York Giants team; or one woman, or the entire Los Angeles Sparks women’s pro basketball team, or just by herself with her favorite toy…then that’s all right by me.

The only means in which such a woman “serves” me is that she is an active participant in her own pursuit of safe and consensual pleasure…and that she is open and honest and willing to share that pleasure with others.  That, in the end, is what turns me on, gets me off, and earns my respect.

And no, ND…I don’t have to want to have sex with a woman to respect her for her humanity.  I was brought to this earth by a woman; was raised by a woman, have bosses and supervisors who happen to be women, and look up to and admire several women whom I have no intentions of ever having sex with. There are more than enough willing sexual subjects who celebrate my sexual desire for them willingly to satisfy me. (Even if only in fantasy.)

Hopefully, that fulfills my end of the challenge…probably not enough to change ND’s opinion of us sex-poz men (and definitely not enough for Witchy to lay off the claws….but then again, I don’t blog to please them in the first place.

here are people who just don’t know when to let go of their myopias.

And then….there are FeministAnonymist and Ginmar, who don’t even know how to begin to admit their myopias to begin with.

Both of them call themselves \”radical feminists\”….even though their core vision of sexuality is probably closer to the radical RIGHT than to any feminist I know.

Both of them are obsessed with the appearance and personal, private sexual habits of other women…..in the name of \\\”protecting\\\” women from the threat of \”the patriarchy\”. Even if that means denying the agency and humanity of those other women who don’t agree 110% with their beliefs.

And both of them, in not only my opinion, but proven by events and facts, are purified assholes.

Ginmar, of course, you already probably know about….the former Army soldier who served in Iraq, then formed her own LiveJournal blog to rant about her experiences, then converted to the school of \”radicalfeminist\” thought as expressed by the prophecy of Catherine McKinnon, Gail Dines, and Sam Berg, then proceded to use her soapbox as