^^^ I think a sex-positive feminist would argue that we should beyond viewing prostitution as an inherently anti-feminist choice. Starting to get it yet?
Printable View
^^^ I think a sex-positive feminist would argue that we should beyond viewing prostitution as an inherently anti-feminist choice. Starting to get it yet?
No, the idea of female SEPERATISTS is that women should be independent from men. The idea of FEMINISTS is that women are equal to men.Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
Your idea that there is a power relationship/dichotomy involved in every sexual interaction is one that most sex-positive feminists reject.
Jenny, I agree about SB and AD.
Lena
I do not beg, ever. I provide entertainment, which is available for purchase by those who are interested. If a customer is not interested, I move on. This is not "begging" any more than a car salesman supports himself by "begging" someone to buy his cars. And where exactly is the "problem" in my "exposing... female wares"? Personally, I find it pretty damn empowering.Quote:
Originally Posted by trainfinder22
^^Amen sista ;D
I never begged for a dance in nearly 11 years. Not once.
Like azcustomer said, the reason much of feminism is confined to the ivory towers in this country is because much of the nation--male and female--finds most of it irrelevant and counterintuitive.Quote:
Sometimes though I feel as if we live in a post-feminist society where most issues are fait accompli. I think it's gone from being grass-roots organizing to being largely theory based and confined to academia.
In full disclosure, I find most tenets of feminism to be a complete and utter fraud with its most common and severe ramifications affecting not male but female adherents, but that said:
Too close to prostitution? Dependency factor? Exploitation? Women "forcing" themselves to perform sexually? Dude, what the fuck are you talking about? We're not talking about sub-Saharan Africa where the only value women bring to communities is their ability to bear and rear children, we're talking about a relatively advanced society that places considerably higher value on all its citizens, male and female alike. We're talking about women that make a conscious choice to work in the sex industry, even when other employment options are abundant in availability. Are there women that are dependent on men for economic existence within the sex industry through poor decision-making skills and/or lifestyle choices? Naturally, but that has not a damn thing to do with the fact that women embracing their sexuality and marketing that commodity (to use a cold economic term) is a completely viable means of self-provision for those that choose to do so. Exploitation happens not when they're engaged in the business of sex, but when women's ability to determine their own economic destiny is impinged and restricted either more broadly--by means of legal strictures and social dogma, or more specifically--by means of slave trafficking and physical coercion.Quote:
No I belive that that seems a step backwards in that it is too close to prostition.. I know "sex worker" is the new buzz word but women by there very nature are put in comprising positions when a man pays her for sex or even dry sex. It creats a dependency factor. The idea is that women forcing themselves to have sex with men or even pretend sex that they dont like in order to pull themselves along the econmic chain sounds more like explotation to me.
Here's a news flash, dude; men always pay for sex. Always. The means and manner of remuneration may vary, but irrespective of the circumstances men always pay. And there's not a damn thing wrong with that. It's just basic.
...which of course puts a whole different spin on the "exploitation" factor. Like, who's really exploiting whom? ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
Thanks for the vote of confidence, I'm still waiting to hear what relevant issues feminists can focus on today. I'm a bit in the dark.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
The only relevant issue I can see feminism needing to face would be to continue to educate women on how to keep their options for economic viability open by getting an education and learning to build a career before considering devoting a lifetime to being a housewife. The real challenge I see housewives face today is maintaining social relevance after the chicks have left the nest. Adolescents today are much more independant than ever before, creating problems as mothers try to become relevant in their kids' worlds.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
While this is still mostly true, it is changing. Especially amongst the 25 and under crowd. Young ladies today are taking real control over their sexuality by ignoring traditional social dogmas and embracing their right to enjoy sex when and with whom they chose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
And it's affecting the older generations as well. I can't tell you how many 30 and 40 something year old women I find craving sex because they just can't find any men willing to put up with any of their quid pro quo expecations. This includes many of my married couple friends. We're becoming more and more European about our expectations about sex and marriage. Both sexes are no longer willing to remain faithful within their marriage if it means giving up control over their sex lives to the other side.
For single men? Seriously, as a late 30 something male faced with the choice between taking a 32 year divorcee old with two kids to California for a weekend of mindless relationship gamesmanship and lame traditional sex or the 24 year old hottie from the gym who just likes mature, experienced guys with no expectations for a relationship, which would you chose?
And yet, there is an entire faction of feminism in denial of this basic reality, even though as a species, we've managed to get along just fine via this method of interaction. It's not precluding the idea of romantic or emotional involvement obviously, but let's stop pretending it's otherwise. Like B said, I don't mind being exploited if my needs--be it in a relationship, SC visit, escort call, et al--are being met because it's not really exploitation at that point. Even in the most cynical and calculating arrangement devoid of emotion or personal connection, when it's mutually beneficial, there's nothing for either party to complain about really. Now PLs/RILs in the club that can't make that separation, they feel like they've been exploited because their expectations didn't line up with the reality of the SC. That's on them, not the dancers.Quote:
...which of course puts a whole different spin on the "exploitation" factor. Like, who's really exploiting whom?
I agree, and I'm very grateful to be young enough to enjoy that reality. Ahem. I mean, my friends enjoy it, er, I mean. ahem. Um...Quote:
Especially amongst the 25 and under crowd. Young ladies today are taking real control over their sexuality by ignoring traditional social dogmas and embracing their right to enjoy sex when and with whom they chose.
I love rhetorical questions like these. :)Quote:
Seriously, as a late 30 something male faced with the choice between taking a 32 year divorcee old with two kids to California for a weekend of mindless relationship gamesmanship and lame traditional sex or the 24 year old hottie from the gym who just likes mature, experienced guys with no expectations for a relationship, which would you chose?
It is not just in the Sex Worker buisness that women and men put themselves in comprimising positions.-
Remember those soccer moms? Yes the ones who attend the PTA meetings and shop at the mall and attend the megachurches.
It seems that there sex life is suffering too because they have got themsleves so into the matereal life style. The Pscycological buiseness is booming aling with the pharmsutical buisness. The Truth is that even men lose intrest in sex after a while.
It is there wives that are forcing them to perform or get out. Given that choice men opt for viagara. Having expermited with Viagara I can tell you......Yeah its sex but its not fun sex or even good sex. It takes all the blood from your head and ships it down to your penis so that you are very light headed. So what happens here is that the soccar moms husbands cant perform and given the choice of take it or leave it men take the viagara at least to give the illiosion of a sexual relatioship.
It aslo goes the other way where women are so addicted to the lifestyle that they fake orgasims or lie in silence so that they can contunue to live in suburbia in a nice ranch house and the Ford Minivan.......
Does not anyone ever fuck for fun anymore?
The question here is----Is Sex something that is so Sacred that is created by a higher power (you define what that is) that it should never be sold or traded lest it be cheapened? What long term Pscologocal damage is a women doing to her self when she lets a man that she does not know or have a realationship with to allow him to get intimitaly close to her? (Sometimes inside of her?) in Porn or Prostituion? Does a women sepertate herself from her vagina that is treated as a seperate entity with a mind of its own with its own needs taking prority over that of the best intrestes of its owner? (FEED ME!! as in the Broadway Play "Little Shop of Horrors") simeralar that of man? What does a women think when she is the middle of the act with someone that she has no emtional attachment? I would assume that there must be some trauma?
Well, that just goes to show why you shouldn't ASSume.
Radical femmism, which is often incorrectly labelled 'true' femminism came about as a reaction the times in which femminst theorists such as Andrea Dworkin and Adrianne Rich wrote in. I remember the first time I encountered Rich's work i was infuriated because she seemed to labell sex as something that was implicitly dictated by men, not to mention her crazy rantings about the 'lesbian continum' (don't get me started...). But, looking at their work critically I guess I started to understnd that it evolved out of a period where women had no control over their own sexuality... However this group of theorsits decided that the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's was just a extentension of male privledge-instead of awakening women to their sexuality it was as such merely extending men's availability of sex. There is a undercurrent in radical feminism, that sexual pleasure cannot be derived from heterosexual encounters, that men must be dominating and focused only on their own climax to the exclusion of their partner. Hence many of these earlier writers implied that womens sexual pleasure could ONLY be derived from other women. This theory therefore placed all porn and sexual entertainment as derogatory to women. Rich (I think) talks about how the very existance of the stilletto is menat to confine and contain women and prevent them from running away (no kidding!!!). If you read Andrea Dworkin she'll pretty much convince you that all porn is underage dead asian girls being done on camera. i actually found alot of this stuff really challenging to read because it failed to take into account the sex industry I knew as a reality-one that wasn't exploitative and demeaning. It's worth noting here too, that Rich at least, lists secrateries and nurses as demeaning 'sexualised' proffessions as well.
Understandbly this view point evetually came under fire from liberal femminists ('sex positive' femininsts) who still identified as feminists but felt that the labelling of sex as purely a powertool of the male was unfair and untrue. 'Sex positive feminists' generally only oppose the exploitation of women in the sex industry-generally these feminists have been major players in bringing about legalsative reform which de-criminalises and legitimates the sex industry and sex workers. There is a huge difference for instance between what most people posting on this site do, and girls who are trafficked internationally to work in brothels. Legitimating stripping has to a large degree begun to eliminate large-level exploitation (remembering that their is exploitation in every single industry). I'm not saying that the sex industry perfect here, i'm just pointing out i deisagree with the radical feminists portrayal of it...
Possibly, or they could have been well educated and misguided lesbians who couldn't get any so they tried to create a 'religion' with a mixture of some truly noble causes (equality in the workplace and at home) with some purely selfish causes (demonizing men to attract confused women to try lesbian encounters).Quote:
Originally Posted by xtina20
Another big fan of radical feminism are unhappy housewives who find themselves stuck in a relationship where they feel the need to use sex to get what they want. "Sex positive" feminists consider this ridiculous and that all women should be allowed to enjoy sex instead of considering it 'their dirty task' to get whatever else they want from men who they are not willing to compete with on an equal basis in the working world.Quote:
Originally Posted by xtina20
See note above about them trying to create a religion to recruit more lesbian encounters.Quote:
Originally Posted by xtina20
Amen - come on ladies, what if I told you I run a very exclusive high class brothel full of a range of male types who were trained only to please women - and that the cost was minimal and the service was exceptionally discreet (no one would ever know, and even if you told a friend, they'd never be able to confirm anything). Would you consider tapping into this?Quote:
Originally Posted by xtina20
Would this be exploitive? Or would the men just be finding something they were good at that they could make money doing?
I always said, anyone who thinks men are the rulers of the world are sadly mistaken. What do people think they really do all that power-mongering for?? Just like any other animals, it's so they can get more pussy ;D Which means that, at the end of the day, it's women with the real power. Hence, any woman who fails to realize this and learn to use it to her advantage is severely missing out. IMO ;D ;DQuote:
Originally Posted by Casual Observer
lol. this was my reaction when I first came across this body of work too.Quote:
Originally Posted by azcustomer
this is an awesome point! no-one ever bothers to bring up men being expolited- honestly girls think of male strippers!Quote:
come on ladies, what if I told you I run a very exclusive high class brothel full of a range of male types who were trained only to please women - and that the cost was minimal and the service was exceptionally discreet (no one would ever know, and even if you told a friend, they'd never be able to confirm anything). Would you consider tapping into this?
Would this be exploitive? Or would the men just be finding something they were good at that they could make money doing?
if we were treated the way they were (I have friends who have BITE MARKS on their bums from hens nights) there would be an uproar. But there's a social construct which tells us that men must find all female attention good. Is male stripping exploitative? In general they certainly don't earn what we do and the conditions are worse....
just throwing it out there....
The Book was the Feminist Manifesto
I beleive Andrea Dworkin was the author.
Having seen Dworkin I dont belive that she would be actractive to very many people male or female
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emily
Whee-hah - I went to Smith too! I graduated in 2000 - were we there at the same time? And, 'What house did you live in? What was your major?'.
Sorry for the delay. You make an excellent point. You're right that if it wasn't splintered some people would end up feeling misrepresented. The only problem I have with sex-positive feminism is that it dovetails with patriarchal beauty standards, where women feel they have to look like Pamela Anderson in order to feel sexy. Is it realistic to tell a 500 pound woman that she's a sexy slut? Would she be anti-establishment or laboring under a delusion?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
I don't think sex-positives are afraid to challenge certain aspecs of female sexual construction, because Susie Bright has criticized Cosmopolitan magazine because the articles focus on the man's pleasure 100% of the time, rather than the woman's also.
Fait accompli as in what others are saying, that there aren't really that many problems for women in Western society at least, save lack of prosecution for sexual assault.
Well... considering that around here fat = immoral, I think it would go beyond delusion. But, I don't know, in some ways it is a semantic issue - the claiming of the word "sex positive" and the necessary corollary for everyone who is not jumping on board with lipstick feminism. Sort of life "pro-life" casts everyone who is not on board with full rights for fetuses into an "anti-life" camp.Quote:
Originally Posted by LilSweetVixen
You're right; and I may tend to fall into the same problem of vastly and inaccurately generalizing that I hate when people do to "traditional" (read, contemporary second wave) feminism.Quote:
I don't think sex-positives are afraid to challenge certain aspecs of female sexual construction, because Susie Bright has criticized Cosmopolitan magazine because the articles focus on the man's pleasure 100% of the time, rather than the woman's also.
Yeah... I don't know that is strictly true. (and I did say this in another thread, but if you really think that Dworkin and MacKinnon have had their day go and read the "not rape" thread in The Lounge; forget the issue of consent (to the degree to which that is possible) and think about what it means to a basic definition of sex. There are still issues of equality in the workforce, still issues of equality in schools, still HUGE issues of equality in sports programs in schools, still issues of equality in GRAMMAR for chrissakes. I mean, we're no longer stoned for walking around in mini skirts. We're just told that we deserve to be raped. We're told that we can have careers, while the curent socio-cultural-economic set up demands that we choose between a career and procreating (and don't get me started on female subsidy on male procreation. Like, are you aware that men apparently don't have children, according to many US Health plans? Go figure.)Quote:
Fait accompli as in what others are saying, that there aren't really that many problems for women in Western society at least, save lack of prosecution for sexual assault.
I should, I suppose, specify, that I'm not implying that Susie Bright would be all "well that's clearly not rape" re: the "Not Rape" thread. But I do find it surprising how many apparently otherwise normal people get so regressive over the issue of acquaintance rape, and I do think it says something that analyses of "sex as rape" maybe not being as "done" as we thought.
Is stripping feminist?
Are you asking me?
Oh what the hell - I never have a shortage of opinions, and I haven't slept for two days so I can't think about my class anyway. Seriously. Insomnia does not, contrary to movies, make you productive. It makes you borderline retarded.
I don't think there is an answer to that except - in some ways, yes, in some ways, no.
I don't know where or how this catchphrase "feminism is all about choices" comes from. People make antifeminist choices all the time; from taking a man's last name upon marriage (not judging you people, but it is antifeminist) to remaining in abusive relationships. So the simple fact that it is a woman making choice does not, it seems to me, make the choice a feminist or even an empowering choice.
I just wanted to get that one out of the way.
I think there is some degree of empowerment in taking off your clothes in public. As weird as that may sound. I think there is some degree of sexual liberation in being dirty, and proud of and being advantaged because of it. I think there is a degree of liberation in a job that is accessible to women who don’t have a lot of other opportunities to make over minimum wage. I was also very interested in the commentary of someone else here (maybe it was you?) who said that the devaluation of stripping and sex work was related to a devaluing of “women’s work” in general.
I also think there is something to the theory that we are in control.
However I think there is also something to the theory that we are not in control, and I think anyone who denies real stresses on our “control” is either incredibly naďve or full out editing their experience. I mean look at the degree of control that we don’t have (and let’s exclude customers for the moment). We all know that demanding any sort of fair work environment is a loser’s game. It’s not going to happen, and our advice whenever a girl says that her manager threatened her, her club takes 80% of her money etc., is what? Find a new club or suck it up (with sympathy and stuff, but that is the result). We are afraid to walk out to the parking lot at night by ourselves, let alone walk around. Why? It’s not because of any statistically elevated risk, because there isn’t any, or nothing siginficant. It’s because we feel vulnerable. The reason we feel vulnerable (I would posit) is because we suspect (or if we want to be cynical) we KNOW that if someone hurts us, nobody will care. We are isolated from that realm of society that generally DESERVES protection.
Now let’s go to customers. Yes, we can choose who we dance for, and how we dance. But really – anyone who says that she has never compromised herself, her standards, her morals because of money, liquor or sheer pressure… well, let’s just say that I’m suspicious.
How many times has a customer made you cry? More than zero? Why? These are, not inevitably, but frequently people from whom we would not accept a recommendation on a restaurant. Why do we, then, let them define our self-worth and determine how pretty we are? I should maybe specify that the kind of customers that tell us that we are fat and ugly are generally the kind of customers that we despise.
Finally, look at ourselves. It is truly empowering to turn around and blame our problems on other women who might simply be defined as “more liberated” than we are? I mean, a lot of people pay lip service to “There is nothing wrong with prostitution” but the worse thing we can call another dancer is a whore.
Look at the way we react to certain kinds of women. Look at various threads on fatness; for all the blue guys say that we are just a big group hug over here, there are just as many voices/fingers telling “fat cows” to “get off the stage” here as there. Weight loss threads are applauded and supported; but there is no shortage of horror at the immorality of fat.
I don’t think that these things “average out”. I think you have polarizations of feminist/anti-feminist that really, in many ways, DEFINE our industry. These are examples – I’m sure there are more on both sides. I think another question would be whether these elements are integral – that is whether it is possible to extract any of the elements/either side from this kind of industry.
yes, but don't you think there is something more to this (look at it closely)
"it is one of the only jobs a poor uneducated woman can get..."
whatever you said. Yes a poor uneducated woman always has the option of sex work. In every society this has been the case and it blows.
It is hardly a choice when the same options for the same amount of money aren't equal up and down the socioeconomic ladder.
Bridgette,
how exactly do men always pay for sex? I think women always pay for sex is a more likely statement.
AZcustomer you wrote;
"The only relevant issue I can see feminism needing to face would be to continue to educate women on how to keep their options for economic viability open by getting an education and learning to build a career before considering devoting a lifetime to being a housewife. The real challenge I see housewives face today is maintaining social relevance after the chicks have left the nest. Adolescents today are much more independant than ever before, creating problems as mothers try to become relevant in their kids' worlds."
yes, what a lovely unproblematic world for women you have created here in this scenario. I guess insanely high rape statistics, the interplay between racism and sexism, women having to prostitute themselves, discrimination in every area of life these issues don't have to be faced.
I would agree with you, they need to be faced by men, because it is your problem and your crimes.
While this is still mostly true, it is changing. Especially amongst the 25 and under crowd. Young ladies today are taking real control over their sexuality by ignoring traditional social dogmas and embracing their right to enjoy sex when and with whom they chose.
And it's affecting the older generations as well. I can't tell you how many 30 and 40 something year old women I find craving sex because they just can't find any men willing to put up with any of their quid pro quo expecations. This includes many of my married couple friends. We're becoming more and more European about our expectations about sex and marriage. Both sexes are no longer willing to remain faithful within their marriage if it means giving up control over their sex lives to the other side.
For single men? Seriously, as a late 30 something male faced with the choice between taking a 32 year divorcee old with two kids to California for a weekend of mindless relationship gamesmanship and lame traditional sex or the 24 year old hottie from the gym who just likes mature, experienced guys with no expectations for a relationship, which would you chose?[/quote]
Casual Observor your wrote
"And yet, there is an entire faction of feminism in denial of this basic reality, even though as a species, we've managed to get along just fine via this method of interaction. It's not precluding the idea of romantic or emotional involvement obviously, but let's stop pretending it's otherwise. Like B said, I don't mind being exploited if my needs--be it in a relationship, SC visit, escort call, et al--are being met because it's not really exploitation at that point. Even in the most cynical and calculating arrangement devoid of emotion or personal connection, when it's mutually beneficial, there's nothing for either party to complain about really. Now PLs/RILs in the club that can't make that separation, they feel like they've been exploited because their expectations didn't line up with the reality of the SC. That's on them, not the dancers."
As a species we've managed to get along fine with what method of interaction??? monetary exchange, men paying for sex. I don't think either of these has done our species much good.
"I don't mind being exploited if my needs are being met..... it's not really exploitation at that point."
How so? Can you justify this. If someone is given limited options to meet their needs then it is exploitation and it is fucked up no matter what. Rich women do not have to go strip to make ends meet, but poor women often do and this should anger us.
azcustomer you wrote: (concerning Adrienne Rich and Dworkin)
"Possibly, or they could have been well educated and misguided lesbians who couldn't get any so they tried to create a 'religion' with a mixture of some truly noble causes (equality in the workplace and at home) with some purely selfish causes (demonizing men to attract confused women to try lesbian encounters)."
yes, that is it!!! it is a tactic to say that feminists degrade men. Feminism does not degrade men. How can any feminsist "LOL" at this completely fucked up comment.
Both Adrienne Rich and Dworkin were tireless in their work for women. To imply that either woman was manipulative or trying to get sex is completely inappropriate and plain stupid.