[LAF] Final thoughts on Sex Work debate

Sat Aug 1 02:18:14 UTC 2009

Steve
You have put your "simplified statements" in six paragraphs, numbered 1) to 6).  I have inserted below my simplified responses, one response under each of your numbered paragraphs.
Joy

> Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:58:11 +0000
> From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: [LAF] Final thoughts on Sex Work debate
> 
> 
> 
> We seem to be on totally different planets on this and I cant see us ever agreeing.
> 
> But here are my simplified statements on the matter:
> 
> 1) My main concern is to remove harm from sex work and to defend non harmful sex work from groups who would impose their views on them and interfere with their lifestyles, regardless of whether those views are moral, political, social or to do with 'rights'. If someone is being harmful they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned.

My main concern is freedom, including sexual freedom, for all and not, as it is at present, with the sexual freedom of men being at the expense of women's sexual and other freedoms.  To state that your main concern is to remove harm from sex work implies sex work is a given, in other words that men's demands must be satisfied.  You do not say by who but in prostitution women are required to perform that work at the expense of their own sexual freedom.

> 2) I do not accept that all sex work is harmful, so is, some isnt, no evidence has been presented for it being entirely harmful. Any harm within an industry can be removed without removing the industry. Mining in its present form is harmful to many practitioners and most have performed it from economic necessity, but this is not a realistic arguement against mining its an arguement against exploited miners. Sex work is no different.
> Similarly you do not abolish slavery by attacking slaves.

When slavery was abolished it was not by attacking slaves but it was by ignoring the demands of some slaves to remain in slavery.  You yet again wrongly try to make this into an attack on sex workers by anti-prostitution activists when you know that I oppose prostitute-users not prostitutes.

> 3) I do not accept that most pornography degrades women, some does, some doesn't, also BDSM sexuality is based on voluntary degradation which completely different. The opposition has given no examples of how to prevent the degradation of the minority. The answer is to allow women to control the porn they appear in then they wont be degraded, I'm amazed I have to spell it out for you. Actually I'm not even sure what 'degrades' means in this context, you mean 'rape' or something. I can't imagine how nude pictures are in anyway degrading apart from some sick Christian perspective or something.

Who mentioned BDSM?  BDSM aims for sexual satisfaction of anyone participating it does not, except within prostitution or porn, aim that only those who pay should be entitled to sexual satisfaction.

> 4) I do not accept that all pornography is patriarchal, some is, some isn't. The only way to get rid of patriarchal porn is to replace it with feminist or non-patriarchal porn. For me I think the problem is you are applying right wing Feminist theories that are outdated, wrong and not supported by the majority of feminists today.

Porn is literally pictures of prostitutes and when you have photographs of live prostituted people performing, then real human beings were performing.  If, instead, you have photographs of genuine sexual encounters then these are photos of genuine sexual encounters, not porn.  The difference is that in porn people are having sex for money rather than pleasure (ie the sexual partners and sexual acts to be performed are chosen for them by the porn director, or the timing is chosen by the filmmaker, etc, etc within porn; whereas outside of porn people respond to their own desires or timing and choose their own partner(s) etc etc.)

> 5) I object to having my statements misrepresented. For instance Joy stated I said 'instrumental use of women was okay' when I said 'instrumental use of women is unacceptable'. I don't remember anyone ever supporting commercial porn either, certainly both myself and Vol oppose commercial porn, we just oppose it in a realistic way. Neither is the issue about peoples rights to consume porn, its about peoples rights to produce non-commercial porn that harms, degrades or makes a patriarchal of no one.

I did not say that of you, Steve, this is what I said:

---------------------

 From: joy_helbin at hotmail.com
To: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
Subject: RE: [LAF] The rational Anarchist Position on Sex Work / Prostitution / Porn
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:45:23 +0000

Steve

"The exploitation exists at three levels: ...criminal...workplace...commercial."

This completely leaves out women's sexuality.  There's no getting away from the fact that "sex" within the essay below assumes that the legitimate acts are those which begin with men's and boy's desire (which you accept arise in the current ethos) and end in their satisfaction.  The way this is achieved is by means of women girls and young men being "used instrumentally by another person".  In prostitution there is no reciprocity no mutuality the aim is the satisfaction of whoever has the money.  The ends are laudable, sexual satisfaction for men and boys - I'm all for that and have never felt otherwise - but at the expense of others?  No, the means do not justify the ends.  In a society where the 'Alpha male' point of view is the mainstream one, to only see it from that Alpha male point of view [note this is not of course all men by any means as we all know which is, I believe, why anarchists exist, to counteract the idea that the ideas of the few should dominate the lives of everybody else] is to be blind to the Christian indoctrination we have all grown up with for who else is the monotheistic god but the Ultimate Alpha Male.

Joy

> Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 01:53:08 +0000
> From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: [LAF] The rational Anarchist Position on Sex Work / Prostitution / Porn
> 
> Prostitution is one of the most exploited industries in existence (though perhaps not the most exploited).
> 
> The exploitation exists at three levels:.......................

---------------------

> 6) Non-commercial porn and all forms of sex work empowers the women that produce it, when they control and enjoy it. There is no arguement against that, and any attempt to oppose it is unjustified oppression, as it is entirely unrelated to commercial or harmful sex work. Arguements regarding the rights of the harmed vs the rights of the unharmed is spurious as there is no polarisation the two are entwined, theres no conflict of rights here.

You say of "sex work" that it "empowers the women...when they...enjoy it."  I address this point in an earlier e-mail which you will not have seen before you sent your "Final Thoughts", so I will repeat my point here for ease of reference:  Ana Lopez in the link Ian sent recently, viz:  http://www.wsm.ie/story/2390 stated, "the reason all of us are in this industry is that we need to pay our bills at the end of each month."  Ana makes no mention in the article of enjoyment for the women.

Joy

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Messenger: Celebrate 10 amazing years with free winks and emoticons.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/157562755/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090801/0cbffe60/attachment.htm>