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 a ramrod against every woman who disagreed with her. (And quite a few men as well.)

FeministAnonymist, on the other hand, is a relatively new addition to the radfem crank crew; she apparently cut her teeth fighting the good fight agaiinst Islam (not just the terrorists, mind you, but the religion as a whole) before, like Ginny, turning her fire on the evil \”fun feminists\” and \\\”sex pozzies\\\” who are so polluting her precious air space and perverting a perfectly good feminist movement.

But both also share a common goal: they dislike independently sexual women with a passion.

And they especially despise women who talk back at them.

Which explains their continuing obsession with…..yeah, you got it…..bashing Renegade Evolution to shreds.

Ginny’s personal stalking of Ren Ev is more than documented (from \”She’s an college-educated SLUT who kneels at the Patriarchy’s COCK!!\” to \”Ms. Plastic Tits\”), and I’ll just refer you to Ren’s blog for the background…..but in a recent comment thread over at I Blame the Patriarchy, Ginny decided to reup the war by attacking Ren for the 456th time for \”trashing feminists\” and lying about her true condition in defense of her profession as a sex worker/porn performer. This time, it wasn’t Ren Ev’s rack that became the object of derision for Gooney Ginny, but her nose:

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 7:55 am
Oh, christ, she’s got a picture of her ass on her blog? And she’s got Ren Ev commenting? Yeah, that’s empowerfulizing. RE’s had her nose broken four times in this emperfullizing career of hers as a stripper, but it’s the feminazis that are mean and awful to her. Jeezus.

The \”picture of her ass\” reference, BTW, is to Sarah over at Season of the Bitch, who did a nice nuclear vent on Ginmar and the rest of the GenderBorg Collective’s bashing of women for their appearance…tapped off by a \”Kiss my HUSTLER panty-clad ass\” moment at the end. (I guess that if the label had been Playboy or Victoria’s Secret or Trashy Lingerie, it wouldn’t have mattered, anyway. And…how ironic for HUSTLER….granny drawers?!?!? Isn’t that a bit…well….modest for the flagship mag of Larry Flynt??)

Ahh..anyways, back on topic….Ren got word of Ginny’s smack and answered back, both through IBTP and her own blog:

RenEv Jul 21st, 2008 at 8:18 am
Ginmar-
Let’s not do this again. Yes, my nose has been broken 4 times: Once in a car accident, once in a sports accident, and yep, by an abusive partner, who happened to be female. Never as part of my job, never due to stripping, or anything like that. My ex partner wasn’t a dancer or a patron of strippers, she was just a violent person. Also, once again dragging out my personal life to prove an argument, and distorting the actual facts of what happened, well, yes, I’m sick of it. My broken noses did not occur in the course of my job, and anyone saying so is not only lying, but very, very unethical.

Now, my broken noses? Talked about in my old LJ, which was “gathered” as part as the infamous Stormy file. But you know, I know I never mentioned getting a broken nose as part of my stripping experiences, because you know what? That’s not what happened. Two of them happened before I even started dancing. Not sure who decided to destort the truth on that one, but hey, what can I expect, right? It’s not like the truth of the situation matters, right?

Now, you would think that that would end that issue, right?? Wrong.

Apparently, the word of a sex worker can’t be accepted as fact amongst certain \\\”feminists\\\”…especially those with long-standing vendettas. This is Ginmar’s reaction to Ren Ev’s revelation about her broken nose:

ginmar Jul 21st, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Drakyn, why are you here? I can easily show those here how you treat feminists.
And frankly I wouldn’t trust anything RE said at all. She appears to have a miserable time as a stripper and porn actress, but she gets really infuriated at feminists who point that out. And she just plain makes shit up about radfems.

Oh, I get it….Renegade Evolution is incapable — in spite of her college education — to speak for herself and defend her life as a sex worker, but Ginmar, merely for being a radical feminist and a opponent of Ren’s existence as a human being, gets not only to define Ren’s experiences, but also her basic emotions about her experiences. Oh…and only she lies about \”radfems\”…not like Ginny’s friends and allies who threatened to out her personal life in front of her family; who have attacked her for her looks, her implants, her skin tone, her heritage, her private sexual preferences…well, simply for being her and not being one of Ginny’s allies, and who have never even deviated one bit from the libel of Ren Ev being the mastermind of the grand plot to destroy radfems now and forever.

This is feminism the way Phyllis Schafly would love to go up against.

But, at least Ginmar has a method to her madness.

FeministAnonymist, on the other hand, is simply like a monkey flailing his own shit at anything that moves…..she just locks and loads.

FemAnon was first discovered when she attempted an ambush on Natalia Antonova (Ukranian native who definitely ROCKS, BTW) because she dared to defend the human rights of Ukranian Arab Muslims. Then, at a blog hosted by an Pakistani emegre who hated Islam as much as she did, FemAnon continued the assault on Natalia, so much so that she got banished from the blog.

On Tuesday, though, FemAnon decided to rent out blog space to defend herself….and while most of her firepower was drawn at Natalia again, she did manage to fire a foul Scud Ren’s way:

The nudity and showing off brings me to the subject of Renegade Evolution. I see that she has quoted me on her infamous blog. I am beginning to think she finds my comments amusing.

I’m not afraid to say that I hate Renegade Evolution. First she pisses people off when she waves her tits in their face but then she is surprised that others get angry with her and dehumanize her. HONEY YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF. You dehumanized YOURSELF. No one in the feminist community owes you anything after what you chose to do.

Yes I believe in older women having authority to use in teaching the younger women a thing or two. I’m not much older than Renegade Evolution but I have more experience and have obviously read more books. I was willing to educate myself a long time ago and have been educating myself for years. I’m not an anti-inellectual like Renegade Evolution. If you come to a bad end, Ren Ev, remember that the real feminists saw it coming. No it’s not a threat. It’s a simple reality check. You let men use you, so don’t be surprised if and when it goes too far.

Once again I DO NOT LIE though. People have suggested that Ren Ev made death threats. She didn’t. She’s too smart for that and her smarts are what make her dangerous to the feminist movement in its whole. But her readership is disgusting and I am afraid of them as any woman with any intuition would be afraid of a mob.

Oh…so nice of you to give Ren that benefit of the doubt, all your other smack aside, FemAnon….and why in the hell would you be so afraid of one blogger??? Because she is a stripper who happens to like sex on her terms?? Because she doesn’t run to the nearest GenderBorg Political Correctness Center to attack every single man with an erection merely because one or two happen to act like assholes??

But that’s not even the most hilarious part of FemAnon’s rant….witness this blast towards someone named \\”Apostate\\” merely for the crime of flashing a bit too much skin for FemAnon’s ideological taste:

I liked The Apostate’s blog but I became angry and upset when I clearly saw she had also posted a suggestive picture of herself. Apostatepakistani doing it is understandable as she is an unwell woman, but a woman of sound mind and with a job doing it is awful and sad.

She’s says she’s doing it because she wants to appear un-Islamic. It might seem like a good idea to those that do not dig deeper, but she is playing into the patriarchy’s hands all over again. Just from a different angle. The “i’m a perky-titted young thing and I’m rebellious” line is as antifeminist as is Islam. You’re no better than a Suicide Girl if you do it.

Put some clothes on, Apostate.

If you care about women at all.

We must have the same standard for everyone. No one is special. Either feminists are equal or they are not. Got it, Apostate?

How nice….so I guess now that opposing the sexual restrictiveness towards women that Islam supposedly represents for \\”radicalfeminists\\” by merely showing \\”a suggestive picture\\” of yourself is as much \\”antifeminist\\” (read that to mean MORE antifeminist) than even the supposed \\”antifeminism\\” of Islam. And it certainly makes \\”feminist\\” like FemAnon look really bad. So, for the good of womankind, Apostate must COVER UP!! Stop showing that nipple!! Hide that midriff!! No skirts above the knee…that would inflame men to rape and pillarage even more than \\”Islamofascist\\” rants from Osama bin Laden!!!

Talk about beating the Right…by outflanking it even further to the Right.

And how nice for FemAnon to speak about feminists being \\”equal\\”…but I guess that some \\”feminists\\” are a bit more equal than others, since those who don’t cover themselves up and spout the \\”not-so-fun\\” radicalfeminist line about not encouraging those EVOL penises aren’t quite allowed to control their destiny like those more \\”educated\\” and \\”informed\\” in the real \\”feminist\\” ideology.

And in case you don’t get the point, FemAnon makes it pretty damn explicit later on, when she decides to whack yet another supposed \\”fun feminist\\”, namely Jill at Feministe (who has a special place on FemAnon’s (s)hit list for not only allowing the dreaded \\”sex pozzies\\” room to speak freely, but even allowing Ren Ev to guest blog without the usually required derision and censure)::

Jill Fillipovic is the original Fake Pretty Feminist. It’s all based on looks it’s all vapid it has nothing to do with women’s liberation. UNTIL WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEXED UP THEY WON’T BE SEEN AS HUMAN BEINGS BY MEN. Actually these are the women who will never see THEMSELVES as human beings. They’ll be too busy buffing their nails and deodorizing their vaginas, ha!.

Because, of course, only TWUE RADICAL FEMINISTS like Feminist Anonymist are capable of telling such non-women whether or not they deserve to be fully human. Forget about equal pay or domestic violence or economic parity….it’s only about flashing panty and bare midriff and cleavage.

Yeah, right.

Being one such man who happens to LIKE women who show cleavage and thigh (and a whole lot more), and still manages to respect them when they show off the other aspects of their humanity, such as their brains, their intestinal fortitude, and their compassion for other human beings and living carbon life forms, I can attest to the fact that compared to them, the likes of Gooney Gunny Ginmar and Feminist Anonymist just don’t add up. There is more humanity in the left nipples of Caroline, Ren, Apostate, Natalia, and any other of the women FemAnon and Ginny slandered, then there is in the collective human bodies of the GenderBorg and their allies….perhaps that explains why there is such an obsession with constantly ridiculing and libeling them as sluts, whores, trollops, and \\”traitors\\”.

Or, to put it another way: The \\”scoreboard\\” always sucks worst to those on the wrong side of the ass kicking…..and right about now, the \\”sex pozzies\\”, as I see it, are intellectually wielding the boot.

Try not to hate too much, fools.

As if there wasn’t enough reason to heart Renegade Evolution for being as brainy and passionate as she is sexy:

Gail Dines, Her Porn Training Program, and Me

It’s VERY long, but every word is worth the read….a total debunking of the antiporn “feminist” nonsense from pillar to post and back again.

This almost makes up for the passing of that bad-ass motherfucker George Carlin this morning….

I’m sure that you have heard of the Showtime original show Penn and Teller: BULLSHIT!, in which the legendary comedic/magic duo of Penn Gillette and Teller (don’t know his surname) basically exposes what they see as urban myths, rumors, and other assorted fictions.

Well…for the beginning of their sixth season, they decided to train their BS meters on The War on Porn, and all the myths from both Christian Right and radicalfeminist “Left” about the innate evil thereof. And lookee here….one of the skewered antiporn “experts” just so happened to be our dear friend Dr. Gail Dines; professor at Wheelock College and promoter of the usual “porn is racist/sexist/promotes degradation of women” meme.

Now, as you plainly know, Dr. Dines is well known for her habit of intimidating and refusing to debate women who don’t march in perfect step with her ideology; she has steadfastly refused to share even the hint of a microphone with the likes of Nina Hartley (except in venues where Dines could, in the typical Bill O’Reilly fashion, ambush and entrap women like Nina and distort their responses to their “inquiries”). Plus, she is legendary for her use of porn material without the permission of the actual models or performers featured to sell her beliefs about the innate evil of said expression. And, she is quite vocal about how she believes antiporn “feminist” voices are basically “shut out” and “censored” by the evol Male Liberal Patriarchial Media who simply doesn’t want to admit their sin of masturbating to the “death and destruction” of women and children.

Problem is, though, for someone who is so disgusted with the “male media,” Professor Dines also craves the media spotlight like any other demogague….which is why she agreed to appear on the aformentioned episode of P&T: BS! concerning porn.

Now, you would have guessed that knowing how Penn and Teller can be when it comes to driving their points home and being as agggressive as pit bulls when it comes to debunking their favored topics, Dines would have probably thought better of appearing knowing that their audience would probably not be accomodating to their views. And indeed, it wasn’t: the show basically debunked and smashed all of her mythologies about the dangers of porn and its impact on women and men….to the point that Dines and the other antiporn panelists who appeared were reduced to sputtering in anger when their talking points fell on deaf ears.

Funny how it feels to be on the other side of the rout…right, Professor Dines??

But, oh, Gail Dines is nothing if not perseverent…..she decided to take her case against Penn and Teller directly to the people, using an essay posted directly to CounterPunch this morning titled “Penn, Porn, and Me”…with the suggestive subtitle of: “How Some Men React When They Think You Want To Take Away Their Porn”. (As if Penn and Teller were themselves porn addicts for not totally buying into Dines’ ideology.)

Mostly, Dines’ rant is that Penn and Teller totally misinterpreted her stance about porn…namely, the kind of porn that men supposedly truely want to see; mistaking the soft core that is Showtime’s/Vivid’s fare for the real “Shock-n-Awe” gonzo that really rings up the registers and drives the degradation complex. Mostly, though, Penn’s just an angry, bitter man who just wants to keep on wanking to porn that damages women, according to Ms. Gail:

I have seen a lot of upset men, but few get close to the level of rage Penn exhibited on the show. As he yelled and screamed into the camera, I thought he was going to have a stroke. He was especially upset with me for suggesting that mainstream porn, which is increasingly cruel and degrading, has a real effect on the men who use it.

The interesting part of this story is not Penn’s out-of-control anger, but the way the show framed the story on porn. As was expected, the producers used the topic as an excuse to show lots of porn; a quick and cheap way to pull in the audience. But the porn they showed was the soft core kind that is mainly girl-on-girl sex, the type that is not the main moneymaker for the industry.

The porn that makes most of the money for the industry is actually the gonzo, body-punishing variety that shows women’s bodies being physically stretched to the limit, humiliated and degraded. Even porn industry people commented in a recent article in Adult Video News, that gonzo porn is taking its toll on the women, and the turnover is high because they can’t stand the brutal acts on the body for very long.

OK….so the fact that it’s mostly girl/girl sex and solo masturbation scenes and mostly “vanilla” hetero scenes found in most porn sites and movies which make up nearly 80 to 90 percent of the porn being viewed in the US means absolutely nothing to Professor Dines; it’s that nasty-ass gonzo and the circus-sex acts of facials and anals and gangbangs that really count…..and of course, we all know that women are leaving in droves due to the “abuse” of such acts. Ahhhh, Gail….would it be just a little effort to actually ask some female performers who have left the industry — well, at least those not already integrated with antiporn ideology like Shelley Lubben — if they felt “degraded” or “humiliated” by the experience of doing porn?? But oh, nooooos….that would mean actually accepting the social agency of such women as actual human beings rather than just plain suckers for Teh Patriarchy, or just mindless sluts needing reeducation or redemption for their sin of liking cock or twat..or both at the same time. We “leftist” feminists can’t be having that, can’t we???

Ahh, but Professor Dines has more to bitch about….

While I doubt that Penn is any stranger to this type of porn, I know for sure that the lead producer is aware of it. In preparation for the show, he spent several hours with me as I carefully explained the different genres of porn, and he also came to one of my lectures, where he saw in clear and sharp focus just what happens to women in the industry. He himself expressed shock and anger as we talked, yet when it came down to it, he ended up just like the rest of media producers: cowardly and untruthful. The story they told about soft-core porn is only part of the story, as what really needs to be explained is why men are, according to the industry, seeking out harder and harder porn.

Oh, yeah…..”according to the industry”….not according to her biased opinions, you see.

I initially declined to do the show, as I had no faith in Penn and Teller doing anything that remotely looked like serious journalism. In the end I agreed because they promised to give me some serious time to talk about porn. They also promised not to edit me to look like a fool. They kept their first promise and reneged on the second. They introduced the three anti-porn activists as the “Three Stooges”, setting us up as idiots before we had said a word. Of course, every time one of us said anything, they cut back to some soft porn and Penn, who was at times having a hysterical fit. It was both scary and comical, his red face contorted with rage as he yelled at the camera that porn doesn’t cause men to be violent!

Now..the fact that maybe the reason why Penn was going off on Dr. Dines and the other antiporn panelists (no doubt including a more traditional Christian Rightist, I’ll bet) might have something to do with countering her own beliefs that men who jerk off to porn inevitably move on to doing all sort of nasty things like bestiality and rape and pissing on women and pedophilia and all other such depravities..but then again, I’m not a regular view of that particular show. But never mind that, it just proves Dines’ point that porn must be censored for the good of all men!

Yeah. Right. Really,

The show is scheduled to air as a repeat tonight at midnight Eastern Time (check your local listings for exact time in your area); so you can see for yourself whether Gail was indeed ambushed or whether she just got owned by superior talent. Given her history, I’m vouching for the latter.

P.S.: The Renegade Henchwoman (aka Maximus Sexeeemus AssKickumus, Grand Emperess of Modern Rome) is a HUGE P&T fan, and she had a word or five hundred to say about Gail Dines and the show today at her blog, too.

For those of you who think that you are an ally of sex workers, here’s a reality checklist from Renegade Evolution that you might want to read up on. There will be a quiz later on on this.

Some of them aren’t big names. There are writers, bloggers, so on, out there who like to say or think they are allies, but they aren’t. Being an ally has some guidelines, after all. I mean, let us look at this logically and such:

-If you support anything that might endanger the health of a sex worker, you are not an ally.
-If you support anything which might affect the legal standing, legal rights, and legal recourses of a sex worker, you are not an ally.
-If you actively seek to silence the words of sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you advocate anything that impedes progress for sex workers rights, you are not an ally.
-If you support anything that keeps sex workers engaging in business in unsafe, criminalized, unregulated conditions, you are not an ally.
-If you infringe upon or disrupt a sex worker’s ability to earn a living, you are not an ally.
-If you patronize, mock, insult, judge, presume to speak for, speak over, lie about, threaten, slander, hack, make assumptions about, or belittle sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to alter your terminology to suit terms sex workers prefer, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize sex work extends beyond street prostitution, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize the humanity of sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize many sex works are adults with a level of autonomy, you are not an ally.
-If you refuse to recognize that many people in sex work would choose other options if they were available, you are not an ally.
-If you actually do nothing to help sex workers in the here and now, you are not an ally.
-If you take on a savior, superior attitude towards sex workers, you are not an ally.
-If you use sex workers words, images, ideas, writings, or experiences without their consent or knowledge, you are not an ally.
-If you use sex workers to further your wider agenda or goal without their consent, you are not an ally.

Got it? Hey, you might pass the “you’re not a feminist if” tests, but if you fail here, you are no fucking ally to sex workers.

Excerpted from here.

I have mentioned how much she kicks serious ASS, haven’t I?? And her’s isn’t half bad, either….

Well….Nina Hartley’s website Nina.com is now officially back on line, after two weeks of being shut down after the hacking by those Islamic cyberterrorists. (Warning, Link NSFW)

As promised by Ernest, the free forums was a casualty of the upgrade; they will not be brought back. Ernest and Nina are currently working on creating an alternative means of interaction with her fans.

In the meantime, there’s been some flare up from some sources over the targeting of adult websites by these Islamic fundamentalist hackers. When Ernest posted over at BPPA his reflections on the motives of the hackings and how Nina is a target of a variety of ideologically diverse groups (from the antiporn radfems to Islamic fundies to the Christian Right) for her sex-positive feminist beliefs; a commentor from the right-wing libertarian blog Ace of Spades decided to lay into Ernest for apparantly slandering Christians while ignoring the real threat of “Islamacists”. Quoting a comment from the original BPPA thread:

“As usual, those on the left — here, the sexual left — can only spend a bit of time criticizing jihadists before rushing headlong to criticize those they really hate, “right wing Christian fundamentalists.” It really makes no goddamn sense. You’ve just been unlawfully harassed and cyber-attacked by Turkish jihadists, so of course you want to direct as much of your fire as possible towards people who didn’t do anything to you, besides criticize you, which is also their right as Americans.

“I find the left to be wearying and childish on this point. Their efforts to be even-handed against “all extremists” is not even-handed at all. They wind up classing those who haven’t done anything particular untoward with those who are actually illegally attacking them… which merely spares the culpable parties their proper measure of blame by dividing the load among the blameless.”

In other words, I guess that “the sexual left” should cease attacking Christian fundamentalists and focus their fire exclusively on wiping out “the Islamacists” who are the true source of all evil and the root of sexual bigotry. In short, they should wipe “Islamacists” — fundamentalist or not — from the face of the earth.

Never mind the slander on all who practice Islam — the same slander from whence the Iraq War and atrocities like the Fallujah massacre and the Abu Gharib prison, never mind the ethnic cleansing of Gaza and the Occupied Territories) are born; or the arroganct attitude that cultural progressives should somehow accept “second class” citizenship behind their Christian “superiors” who basically “tolerate” them….

Of course, Ernest dispatches such bullshit with his usual clarity and depth:

For your information, our site had previously been attacked, trolled, hacked and harassed by a variety of right-wing religious extremists prior to the most recent incident. You can take whatever pride you like in having been at the head of the line when it came to trying to shout us down.

It is also your side that does its level best to put us in jail on obscenity charges, pressures government and private businesses to use all possible means toward the aim of making what we do impossible, supports “regulations” that would prohibit constitutionally protected expression by circumventing the First Amendment under the guise of mitigating so-called “secondary effects,” and on and on and on. You don’t just criticize us, which wouldn’t bother me in the slightest. Your side does whatever it can to silence us just like those you claim to oppose.

For you to come here and lecture any of us on the superiority of your way of thinking and operating to that of the other enemies of freedom would be funny if it weren’t so utterly nauseating, especially under the present circumstances.

Go back and tell your friend Ace that if I associate him, you and others like you with those you detest, it is because of the similarity of your behavior, as you have demonstrated it here once again.

Just to make this perfectly clear, I am not a moral relativist. I loathe those who oppose personal liberty regardless of their reasons or their methods.

As a Jew, I suggest you go shtup yourself.

Turns out that Ace of Spades is about as down on porn as it is with “Jihadism”: a few snippets from some comments about Nina from that site (and, my policy on linking hate sites standing, just Google for yourself):

Nina Hartley? Sounds like a rejected SNL skit. — eman

Pathetic stunt. This broad would, and has, done anything to get a little attention. I know. – “Ron Jeremy” (probably not the real one)

All these stars, ruining their entertainment with their politics. Shut up and [fuck]! I don’t know how I’ll ever watch her films again. And this DVD box set has to go! – Z Ryan [Of course, if Nina shared his right-wing politics, would he be so dismissive of her??]

More pearls of wisdom from Nina: “Christian evangelicals support the militant settlers on the West Bank, and the Likudniks accept that support without a blink, even though they know full well that these wonderful, new allies of theirs embrace religious teachings that require all Jews to ultimately convert or be damned. ” Maybe the Turks will quit bugging her now that she’s throwing the Jews under the bus. — David Ross

Nina’s still making a living with Ye Olde Vagina, huh? That snatch probably looks like it made a turn through the Rawlings factory by now. When are they going to understand that we like our pron made by braindead 19 year olds, and not forty-somethings with political opinions? — Abe Leamas

I guess ol’ Ernie’s not too comfortable with the fact that some people have less-than-full respect for a dishrag. Oh, well. Guess I’ll be one of the few guys in the world who hasn’t had her. Somehow I’ll get by. Just put one foot in front of the other, I suppose. — Fa Cube Itches

Yup…such wonderful visionaries, these men are. And this from a blog recommended by RightyBlogs dot com as a top conservative site, too.

Even Renegade Evolution, who happens to be a REAL conservative libertarian, was a but turned off by these guys, as this latest post to BPPA notes:

-No major religious faith is a friend to people involved in the Sex Biz, so really, it is safe to assume from the get-go that those of us who are in it will be skeptical of you. We have reason. A lot of legislation that makes our lives not only harder, but also more dangerous, has been rallied for and passed into law mostly due to the very loud voices of various Religious Right (ahem, Christian) organizations and Radical Leaning Feminists (which hey, is the oddest alliance I can think of, but I guess it works). When it seems to us that those factions are doing everything in their power to make our business illegal, or nearly impossible to be in, well yes, it makes us grumpy. I’m sure you all would feel the same way if it were your line of work that was being targeted.

-A couple of us have dealt with hacker bullshit and other assorted crap and frankly, we’re tired of it. Nina’s site? Islamic assholes. I got some similar kind of love and threats from some Radical Feminists. We’ve have trolls of all flavors (including Christian ones), so yeah, we’re cranky. It’s a natural human reaction to patronizing, childish antics.

-Nina herself is not a poster on this blog…though she is welcome to whenever she likes.

-Politically, the posters here vary a lot, from very left leaning socialist to somewhat right leaning libertarian to…well, a contributor from the UK who I’m not sure how she identifies. So please do not generalize our politics for us.

-Oh, and if you’re going to come here to talk or debate or what have you, sure, welcome, but save the insults on looks, brains, politics, whatever for other places. And the whole sex workers are all abuse victims/dumb/brain dead/retarded/junkie/at the mercy of a pimp crap? Don’t play that here.

And not here, either.

I am currently in the process of reviving and retrieving all of my files from my former Red Garter Club website, which has been kinda in some funky limbo for the past couple of years while I was searching for a new domain host.

I do plan on reviving the site soon with new articles…but while retrieving some of the older articles, I came upon an old essay that sexologist Dr. Carol Queen had written for a sex work anthology that was quite an influence on my developing (at least, it was back then) sex radical philosophy.

In the midst of the Deborah Jeane Palfrey “suicide” and all the discussion about sex work in general, it certainly livens up the debate.

Some excerpts below, followed by a link to the full text:

As we will see, sex radical thought is both deeply feminist and also profoundly challenging to many attitudes and assumptions promoted by contemporary mainstream feminism.  While I continue to identify with feminism, I also regard it with some disappointment: though I feel that most of its core principles go without saying, I certainly do not feel their unmodified relevance to all areas of my life, particularly to sex.

[...]

Sex radicalism means to me that I am automatically on the side of the minority sexual viewpoint or behavior; because our culture carefully and narrowly circumscribes what is acceptable, much of the sexual world gets left on the wrong side of the fence.  Sex radicalism also means that when I hear the voices of those who have been left out of the discussion, I choose to believe what they tell me about their own lives, even if it contradicts some “expert’s” opinion; it also means that I maintain my own sexual integrity, if not cultural popularity, when I follow my own desires and trust where they lead.

Sex radicalism is also profoundly feminist, and with good reason.  While many men are oppressed (in reality or potentially) for their sexual desires and practices, women are encouraged to never explore or experience sexual feelings in the first place.  We are supposed to exist sexually within a (married, monogamous) relationship with a man, or else not at all. When we do step across the boundaries of compulsory heterosexuality and “good girl” propriety, we are often treated viciously.  Women need each other’s support (although we do not always get it) to navigate the rough waters of living nontraditional sexual lives.  Mainstream feminists learned this lesson from lesbians, who would not withdraw their demand for support from feminist organizations and institutions; it has not, however, extrapolated what it has learned to women elsewhere on the sexual fringe.

[....]

Upon further exploring sex radical thought, I learned the concept of “sex-negativity”, which most of us in this erotically benighted culture drink in along with our mother’s milk.  I learned that there is indeed a community of people who are sex-positive, who don’t denigrate, medicalize, or demonize any form of sexual expression that is not nonconsensual.  In our general society – where sex is sniggered at, commodified, and guiltily, surreptitiously engaged in – being outspokenly sex-positive is sex radical indeed; for even those of us who love sex are usually encouraged to find someone else’s preferred sexual expression abhorrent.

I discovered sex-positive thought in various places: through my study of sexology; through my friendships with sexually adventurous others, especially gay men; in the leather community; and, perhaps most importantly, through meeting women who were both outspokenly sexual and feminist and who refused to let one quality cancel out the other.  These “sex-positive feminists,” as many of us have taken to call ourselves, embrace the feminist analysis of gender inequality, but challenge the silence or conservative positions of Dworkin- and MacKinnon-influenced feminism on sexual issues.  Many sex positive feminists are veterans of the feminist sex ward over pornography and S/M; and many are current or former sex workers.  Coming to a radical sexual world view, especially through my contacts with women who could relate to and who could mentor me through my confusion about sex and feminism, actually proved to be excellent preparation for becoming a whore.  When I did so, I discovered a world very different from the one for which the vague warnings of mainstream feminists had prepared me.  My comments are sourced in the whores’ world I have known; I do not intend to encompass the experience of those whores who do not work voluntarily, who are underage, and who act out the negative expectations imposed on them by a sexist and sex-negative culture.

[...]

As an activist in the sex-positive community, I have met well over a hundred prostitutes, a few dozen dominatrices, and a number of models and porn actresses – far more than have most anti-sex work activists and even most sex researchers.  Just one factor stands out to distinguish those who live well, with no loss of self-esteem, from those who may find sex work a difficult or even damaging career choice.  Most of the former have sufficient sex information and are sex-positive.  Most, too, are staunchly feminist, even though some of them refuse to embrace the term, associating it with women who do not understand their circumstances and who do not support their right to work and control their own bodies.  Most of the latter have internalized negative attitudes about sex, especially divergent sexual behavior, and certainly about sex work itself.

In this respect, the latter are no different from those who have devoted their lives to agitating against sex work.  None of these crusaders, whether they emerge from the Religious Right or the feminist Left, voices respect for sexuality.  (Rubin, in fact, calls mainstream feminism a “system of sexual judgment”(2) — an accusation its adherents have not yet managed to disprove.

If these activists truly wanted to improve the lot of sex workers (which, of course, they don’t; they merely want to do away with the sex industry), they would insist upon thorough and nonjudgmental sex information for clients as well as whores.  One basic piece of information would be that women – and whores – do not exist to be sexually used by men, but that any sexual interaction, including a paid one, benefits from negotiation.  This would facilitate the climate of respect that anti-sex work demagogues claim is absent in a paid act of sexual entertainment or gratification.  The paucity of sex-positive discussion about what is possible in a commodified context often negatively affects sex workers themselves.

In fact, when we whores see a client or when a peepshow worker or stripper interacts with a customer, the presence or absence of respect has much to do with how sex-positive the client or customer is – and something to do with our own sex-positivity. It also depends upon each person’s degree of self respect and presence or absence of sexual shame.  Men who have taken (and internalized) the most damaging blows around their right to sexual pleasure are among the most unpleasant clients to deal with.  Unfortunately, the well-publicized opinions of the anti-sex work crowd are highly judgmental about the motives of those who pay for sexual pleasure and entertainment.  I have encountered many men whose self-acceptance – and social skills – have been impaired by hearing too much media credence given to the opinions of people who are in no position to make even an educated guess about what friendly relations between whores and their clients would be like.  Sex-positive feminists are only now beginning to get enough media attention that their message can trickle down to these men and to other women.

Combined with our treatment by a sex-negative law enforcement and legal system and the notorious tendency of the police to think of aggressions against us as something other than crimes, many of us are routinely victimized – by police if not by our clients and customers.  Meanwhile, most of society looks the other way, including many feminists who are quick to point out how egregiously our clients are “abusing” us simply by giving us money for sex of erotic entertainment.  Feminists should be among the first to clamor for decriminalized prostitution, yet many remain silent and even vigilant in the fight to further criminalize prostitution.  Feminists should raise their voices in protest when police abuse whores or ignore our need for police protection.  Yet too often these voices are silent, even though these socially sanctioned abuses fall disproportionally on those most lacking feminist and other support: women of color, poor women, transgendered women.

[...]

Some of us want out of the business, but many of us want to see conditions improve, with everybody else out of the way.  All of us would be served by a dose of sex-positive thought, which might allow us – many for the first time – to think of what we do as a professional service, not demeaning, on-the-fringe behavior.  An ever-increasing number of us want our sexually schizophrenic culture to look at the realities, not the lurid myths, of what we do; and to see that when sexual pleasure is seen as positive and honorable goal, much of the negative fruit of the sex industry is deprived of soil in which to grow.

[....]

One often frequently hears that whores are sought by kinky clients whose desires are unacceptable  to other people.  This, I think, is the source of part of the contention that clients want to abuse us; in spite of the fact that all over the country women are slurping on their partners’ cocks for free, experimenting with bondage, and arranging or at least fantasizing about threesomes, a large percentage of the U.S. population still considers activities like these beyond the pale, degrading, and abusive, even when consensually performed.  In fact many clients bring socially unacceptable desires to sex workers – or at least desires that are unacceptable in their own bedrooms. And until the climates in their bedrooms change, sex professionals will be among  their only outlets.  The anti-whore sentiment that grows out of the conviction that there is only one kind of appropriate sex and that all others are sinful and/or abusive (depending on the sort of morality embraced by the critic) is precisely the cultural norm in opposition to which sex radical politics grew.

Sex radicals see as a problem – and a source of oppression – in any one’s conviction that their own sexual patterns are right while someone else’s are wrong. Getting between the lines of the anti-sex-work ideologues’ reasoning, we find various concerns embedded but not often articulated: a married man is wrong to take his sexual desires to anyone but his wife; a married man is wrong to have sexual desires if his wife isn’t comfortable with them; oral sex is depraved; giving men an outlet for blowjobs will just make the man want them at home, and blowjobs are demeaning to women; sex is demeaning unless a romantic bond (or a Christian bond) exist between a couple; giving a man an outlet for any kind of sex, including sexual looking [voyeurism], will make him want more sex/kinkier sex, if a prostitute isn’t immediately available, he will harass/rape other women; getting sex from a professional is the same as infidelity; men should not have access to sexual variety; prostitutes carry HIV (to “innocent victims”).  (This says nothing of the numerous married men who actually patronize male whores; but again, this common situation is scarcely ever recognized and commented on by sex-work abolitionists, especially feminist ones.)

[....]

Viewed from a sex radical lens, whore stigma derives from whores’ sexual availability and presumes copious sexual activity.  From a sex-positive feminist perspective, most whores are available and sexually active on their own terms. It’s no wonder that whore stigma attaches itself more viciously to women than to men, for in this society a sexually emancipated woman is threatening and despised; neither “slut” or “whore” is a name most women want to wear.  Sex workers cross this line, either proudly or not, for money, adventure, or rebellion.  Would our client’s wives – or even many mainstream feminists – be willing to brave that stigma for a chance at sexual agency?  What about for the promise of greater solidarity among all women?  Early feminism tried to erase the whore stigma for just that reason; today’s feminist orthodoxy would often rather do away with whores.  Any issues that divides women – and this is one of the most potent divisions of all – is crucial for feminists to consider and resolve.

Other whores won’t necessarily agree with me, but I’d be glad to see sex work wither away because everyone became so sex-positive that a market for our services no longer existed. Perhaps then we could become the sexual healers and sex educators that many of us believe we (potentially or already) are.  Of course, we’re nowhere close to that utopia; in the meantime sex workers can help facilitate gratification for those who wouldn’t ordinarily get it, and we can all – whores, sex radicals, sex-positive feminists, and critics alike – continue to ask questions whose answers point to an increasing level of comfort and safety for sex workers (as well as, incidentally, for our clients).

[....]

The stereotype about sex workers that says we are driven to this demeaning lifestyle by a damaged history must be exposed as the sex-negative and, yes, sexist crap that it so often is. (How eerily this parallels what used to be said about lesbians?)  This image is neither universally truthful nor even helpful for analyzing the situations of those whores whom it describes, unless the question is also asked: What separates those sex workers who experience their lives negatively from those who do not?  Abolitionists won’t ask this question, because it implies that there might be a strategy for creating a positive sex industry, but we whores and all our supporters, including sex-positive feminists, must ask it continually.  Abundant and accurate sex information, as I noted above, is a key determinant.

And while I maintain that it should be everyone’s right to do sex work, I hope people will consider their motives for it whether they are thinking about entering the sex industry or are already a veteran.  It is never too late for anyone to begin to root out his or her sex-negativity, and the whores who haven’t done so – those whose damaged lives and horror stories are so eagerly pointed to by the anti-sex-work activists, and even those who disrespect their clients’ desires – may lack the most important qualifications for the job. It is the responsibility of the culture to work on its negative attitudes about sex and us and our work; but it is whores’ responsibility to work on our negative attitudes about ourselves.

Women and men who do sex and sexual entertainment for a living are targeted by laws as well as social opprobrium, and so are our clients and customers – though the latter form a shadowy, hard-to-recognize army. We are regarded more as outlaws than they are, and this can be one of our strengths: seeing, often with the support of other sex workers, that we constitute a group with different sexual norms, oppressed because of these differences, is the first step toward embracing radical politics and understanding that we are only one group out of many that have been culturally labeled and mistreated. A feminist analysis, too, helps us see ourselves as a group with shared circumstances, one for whom gender is by no means irrelevant. Certainly, we should have pride in ourselves and hopefully in what we do, and sex radical politics, along with a sex-positive belief system and a sex-positive feminist analysis, can go a long way toward ensuring that we develop that pride.

[...]

There is no sexual majority, although the whole society conspires to behave as though there were. Our clients – mostly married heterosexual men who show an illusory exterior of “normalcy” (whatever that useless concept means) – are also cross-dressers, anally erotic, bisexual, fetishistic, wrapped up in wild fantasies no traditional heterosexual marriage could ever contain. And what the “poor abused whores” lobby will never tell you is that many sex workers, too, are fetishistic, sexually curious, nonmonogamous by nature, and exhibitionistic, delighting in the secret proof our profession provides us that restrictive sexual mores are rupturing everywhere.

No one should ever, by economic constraint or any kind of interpersonal force, have to do sex work who does not like sex, who is not cut out for a life of sexual generosity (however high the fee charged for it). Wanting to make a lot of money should not be the only qualification for becoming a whore. We in this profession swim against the tide of our culture’s inability to come to terms with human sexual variety and desire, its very fear of communicating about sex in an honest and nonjudgemental way. We need special qualities, or at the very least we need a way of thinking that lets us retain our self-esteem when everyone else, especially do-gooders, would like to undermine it.

Activist whores teach, among other things, a view of our culture’s sexual profile that differs from traditional normative sexuality. Every whore embodies this difference each time s/he works. It is time for all whores to embrace this difference, to become ambassadors for sex and gratification. The politics of being a whore do not differ markedly from the politics of any other sexually despised group. We must include radical sexual politics in our agenda, becoming defenders of sex itself. Our well being and our defense depend on it.

— Carol Queen: Sex Radical Thought. Sex-Positive Thought, and Whore Stigma (from Jill Nagle’s Whores and Other Feminists, via here)

Seems like some pretty sound advise to me.

I see that Witchy-Woo over at Well..I’ll Go to the Foot of My Stairs is on her usual rad fem rage again against us “Sex Poxxies”….and especially against one particular male ‘Dog who managed to get under her cauldron.

This time, the focus of her latest rant was a comment I posted over at Ren Ev’s place regarding a post about some nasty misogynistic T-shirts being hawked by a Mr. Alex Tchekmeian. Ren was reacting to a comment by another antiporn radfem, Laurelin, who decided to make this bit of drive by smack:

Another thing: RK [meaning Roy Kay, a regular at Ren's blog] is joining in on a thread on a pro-porn blog which is basically making fun of our concerns here- with several of the more infamous cowardly pornsick liberal males.

I hope you have pleased those wankers. You should be ashamed of yourself- but as Pisaquairise has eloquently illustrated, your privilege prevents this. Prove me wrong.”

Here was my comment to that, posted to Ren’s blog:

Getting away from Alex the Un-Wanker (because he is an insult to true wankers, let alone all decent men who happen to not dislike masturbating) and going back to the root of Ren’s story, allow me to put Laurelin at ease.

Ahhh, Madame…rest assured that while I don’t speak for all of the “cowardly pornsick liberal males” (and, BTW, as far as moi is concerned, you only got the fourth word correct, since I am nowhere near a coward; I actually LOVE nondegrading, consensual adult porn, which makes me not sick at all (though, I am suffering through a bout of the flu even as I type); and I’m very much politically Left of “liberal”), I would think that my unambiguous denouncement and repudiation of those T-shirts as nothing less than an atrocious support of murdering women hardly constitutes “making fun of our concerns here”.

Consider how much you and your allies spend much of your own bandwidth in dissing our side in ways far, far more grevious than merely “making fun of our concerns”….you know, like threatening to out one of our main members by revealing her real name to her family; implying that we “pornsick liberal men” really are “pimps” who only want to sleep with the sex-pox girls or at least just get into their panties (remember, Laurelin, when some of your allies were accusing me of being Ren’s “pimp”?? Or Ginmar’s outing of IACB as having a weird fetish?? Or Carolyn Hoffman basicaly saying that the reason I defend porn is because I actually do ejaculate on women?? Actually, I never have..but you know what I mean.)

Maybe the reason why some folks MIGHT wish to make fun of your side, Laurelin, is because, well, your side’s attempt to justify their ideology does become, well, comical if not hilarious. At least, it would be were it not so damn tragic.

And incidently….saying that not allowing sex workers to speak for themselves about their experiences and assuming the worst for all of them merely to sell your “MALE SEX SUCKS!!! BECOME A RADICALLESBIAN!!!one11!! memes hardly translates into ignoring the obscenity of “Cutting Up Hookers” T-shirts…nor is saying that denying their full humanity kinda fuels the very same rejection of their humanity that both your side AND the Alex Tchekmeians of the world build your respective empires by, does not in any way make that “making fun of our efforts”. It’s simply called “saying the damn TRUTH”.

Meanwhile, real live women — sex workers, porn performers, and mere sexually active women — are being assaulted, dehumanized, and denied basic freedoms and rights right under our noses. I ask one more time: What’s your plan for them, other than to wipe them off the face of the earth?? We have ours; show us yours…if you got ‘em.

Well..apparently, Witchy must be a silent lurker waiting for the proper moment to troll other people’s sites (which is a bit surprising, considering how she feels about Ren and her defense of her profession…and we all know how much Witchy so deeply respects Ren as a woman and a feminist), because she decided to attempt to smack me down personally. First, this brief drive-by:

eh witch said…

Don’t flatter yourself Anthony, nor try to gain creds through false humility. You’re a wanker - we all know that now. We know where you’re coming from.

Tosser.

But not content with that, Witchy then went to her own blog to deliver her version of a blast at “Mr. Kennerson” (I guess that would be moi) for my perfidy in challenging her.

Sorry (not), but I have to ask; what’s your plan for them/us, these real, live women, Mr Pro-(female) sex work, Mr Pro-Porn (depicting a female sexuality that panders entirely to your ‘masculine’ power needs), Mr De-humaniser-of-women-and-girls Kennerson? What’s your plan to globally free women and girls from the needs of a penis (read ego) like yours? How do you plan to rescue us from assault - sex ‘workers’ and just those of us who are deemed merely ’sexually attractive’?

We’re supposed to have the plan?

Entitlement speaks

How about you just check your entitlement and you do something other than toss yourself off to images of women suffering? How about you think for a change? I mean *really* think - outside of where you feel comfortable.

Once again, I’ve been derailed from a feminist response by some bloke’s wierd ideas. I may get back to it…

Ah, yeah….I get it, Witchy…..rather than actually address the question I raised, just project your myopia on me through personal attack. How mightily radical feminist of you.

But, since you asked, Ms. Witchy, I will answer….for you see, I actually DO have a plan for protecting my “self-entitlement”….or to put in in a more accurate way, my defense of sex workers and other sexually active women’s right to defend themselves and exercise their autonomy.

But first off, a bit of a clarification on my “masculine power needs”: For the record, dearie, I am a single man with really no “power needs” of my own to begin with. In fact, I tend in my sexual fantasy life to favor women who have a lot greater sex drive and who have far greater “power needs” than I can ever hope to have. Not to mention the fact that my mere working class salary would probably not afford me any chance to even hook up with, heaven forbid, buy any woman of that sort.

Also…..I don’t think that anyone who has actually met me will confuse me with Lexington Steele or Mr. Marcus or even Tyler Knight any time soon…but since they actually have a reputation of treating their female professional compatriots with respect and putting in as much as they give (with their fingers and tongues as much as with their progidenous penises), I find no fault in them whatsoever for being sexual beings.

Now, then..on with the plan. It’s really quite simple:

Those who do want to engage in whatever kind of sexual activity they wish consensually and safely and with mutual pleasure, should be allowed to do so with the maximum of physical and emotional security; and those who want to pay or get paid for providing sexual pleasure to others should be allowed the full protections, privileges, and responsibilities of humanity. As long as no one is coerced or forced against their will, it should be nobody’s business what you or me or any other consenting and willing adult does in their bedroom, bathroom, living room, or wherever they wish to engage in consensual sexual activity.

It is neither my want nor my need to want to “free” any woman from the “need” for a penis, unless they specifically WANT to be free, and then they should have the absolute right to have their wishes respected. By the same token, it is neither my want or need to lecture any woman on whom their partners should be, how they should have sex with whomever they choose (or with themselves); or to what degree of intimacy they should engage in sex. Being consenting and willing and thinking adults allows THEM to make those kind of choices, and although I may not particularly personally like some choices, as long as they do not cause harm to themselves or to others, it is not my or your damn business to intervene. Yes, we can comment, we can speak our minds in blogs or in newspapers or wherever; but in the end, we respect their final decisions.

Besides, Witchy, you may have confused yourself in reading my comment; this isn’t about my penis or my ego or my supposed right to get into any woman’s panties. It’s about WOMEN who are being diminished, being dismissed, being threatened, being assaulted, and even being killed for exercising even the thought of being able to think, act, and fuck for themselves.

Oh…and nobody derailed you in any way, since, to be accurate, I don’t really think that Ren really asked for your opinion in the first place. All she did was to state Laurelin’s original rant (and acknowledge her later clarification). Considering what you have said about her in the past, I’d hardly think that Ren would be so willing to hold a debate or discussion with you in the first place…and I’m sure that you would never allow her even the benefit of going to your blog and discussing the issue.

Another thing, Witchy…..consider that it wasn’t just me in that conversation…you had Daisy, Belledame, Kim, Jill Brenneman, Andi, and countless other women besides Ren who shared my initial belief that Alex’s T’s are TEH ULTIMATE SUCK-ASS FAIL; and that he deserves a nice, swift ass-kicking from every living breathing carbon life form with a heart and a soul and a working brain cell. But , hey, I’m the only one who wields the mighty dick, so I guess that I get to be the target for your pinata party, right??

Nice try once again, Witchy-Woo….but short and wide right.

I may be a wanker in your opinion, but at least I wank to the best, the smartest, the sexiest, and the most intelligent women. And I can respect and admire them when they use their brains, too.

My arse is perfectly fine, thank you very much. Try not pulling refried male-baiting smack out of yours.

[Per my policy of not posting links to antiporn opponents and giving them free bandwidth, I've not provided any links to Witchy-Woo's original post; just use the Google and find it yourself.]