[LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action > statement from > no pretence
steve ash
steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Jul 8 03:33:32 UTC 2009
I don't agree prostitution necessarily involves money, it involves sex as a service rather than a pleasure and I think that regrettably will be a requirement long after the abolition of money, its deeply rooted in human nature. On the other hand you could argue current prostitution was free sex for a fee.
I still think ur missing the point about empowered sex workers, I'm talking about self employed sex workers not those employed or exploited by others, there are many non-repressed women who enjoy sex why should they not remove it from the constraints of relationships or affection, and if so why should they impoverish themselves? Of course I'm opposed to exploitation and wage slavery, but I oppose that in all fields of work, ultimately everyone should be self employed and no one employed, which is as you rightly say slavery.
Porn could be seen as soft prostitution I suppose, but I don't believe everyone who uses it objectifies people, I know lots of women that like to see other women in self-made porn, some of them are feminists, I know they don't objectify women, I think your over-generalising a bit. Though everyone's a sex object to someone hopefully, whatever their gender.
Its all down to human nature at the end of the day, and you can't change that. In terms of non-exploitative porn, this can be accessed several times a day, while I think demanding sex several times a day, even if polyamorous, but not be possible even in the most free sex relationships.
Your other arguement seems to be based on the horrors of utilitarianism, i.e the good of the majority outweighs the good of the minority, which at its extreme can become fascist (is in fact one of the roots of fascism).
The the greater good of the majority is absolutely no different from the good of the minority over riding that of the majority, equally bad, just depends which group you arbitrarily fall into. The good of all is all I'm for.
--- On Tue, 7/7/09, laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org> wrote:
> From: laf-request at lists.aktivix.org <laf-request at lists.aktivix.org>
> Subject: LAF Digest, Vol 53, Issue 10
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Date: Tuesday, 7 July, 2009, 8:13 PM
> Send LAF mailing list submissions to
> laf at lists.aktivix.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help'
> to
> laf-request at lists.aktivix.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> laf-owner at lists.aktivix.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
> specific
> than "Re: Contents of LAF digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: UPDATE: Post action statement from
> > no pretence (steve ash)
> 2. Re UPDATE: Post
> action statement from > no pretence
> (antines at yahoo.co.uk)
> 3. Re: Re UPDATE: Post
> action statement from > CORRECTION
> (Ed McArthur)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 17:31:24 +0000 (GMT)
> From: steve ash <steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [LAF] UPDATE: Post action statement from >
> no pretence
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Message-ID: <708909.57986.qm at web23208.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
>
>
> This is very confused in my opinion (and most of my
> opinions have been informed by feminists). The most serious
> confusion is over the word 'commercial', which seems to be
> conflated with 'financial'. In a future perfect world porn
> and prostitutes will of course be free, or at the very least
> based on some kind of personal trade, but under a capitalist
> system money is often exchanged (though by no means always),
> as any service that takes up time will be diminishing
> potential work hours and therefore income. And we are
> talking about sex workers themselves here, not their
> exploiters and not people using their leisure time for fun.
> So I have no problem with sex workers charging a reasonable
> fee for their labour like any other.
>
> The idea that this supports stereotypical sexual
> objectification is wrong, and is again based on the
> ambiguity of this word 'commercial', if profiteering is
> meant then yes I'd agree, all profiteering panders to the
> current ignorance of the masses, but this is not the case
> for all financial transactions, some of which are simply
> based on a fair wage. Beyond even this, for good or ill,
> many 'niche sites' now market 'ugly' or 'deformed' people,
> or those not considered conventionally attractive, for the
> fetish market and appear to be profitable (Capitalism is
> very sophisticated these days, at least when in boom). I
> don't like this myself when it involves exploitation as it
> then not only exploits but can reinforce 'unatttractive
> stereotypes', but again if sex workers are self empowering
> and are confident about their own 'attractiveness' to those
> who find them so I have no problems with it. Ultimately of
> course attractiveness should not be just about surface
> appearance, or fetishized images (though these will always
> be a factor in most people), but about the whole person. But
> that is an area of future psychological health we can only
> hope for in most people at the moment.
>
> The final error in this is I believe its over emphasis of
> free will and moral abstraction over economic and
> psychological realities and their limitations. While I think
> both extremes are valid factors, I would never
> privilege one over the other, to privilege material factors
> over ethics (the Marxian error) would be immoral, but
> equally to privilege abstract principles over material
> reality is oppressive and dangerous. The fact of the matter
> is people seldom have absolute free choice (even without
> coercion), and even if they did, free will itself is
> extremely limited in the psychological sense and may not
> even exist. To argue that people should behave in a certain
> way in order to be 'moral' or achieve some 'social good', is
> not only the kind of oppression normally associated with
> Christians, but is unrealistic and counter productive
> (turning the majority of people against their perceived
> oppressors), thus it does not help the feminist or anarchist
> cause one bit. A more sophisticated approach than this is
> called for. Similarly it seems to be privileging abstract
> society and the 'social good' over concrete individuals and
> so is another collectivist tyranny. Great if it
> worked and liberated us all in one social sweep, but it
> doesn't for the reasons given above, it is just another
> naive socialist fallacy that actually hinders the
> development of genuine free socialism.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:04:57 +0000 (GMT)
> From: antines at yahoo.co.uk
> Subject: [LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action
> statement from > no pretence
> To: London Anarchist Forum <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Message-ID: <760501.17156.qm at web24608.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Why in a future perfect society would there be porn and
> prostitutes ?
> Surly there is a difference between free sex and
> prostitution which by definition
> involves exchange of money, ?in a moneyless world?there ?is
> just free sex
> ?=====================================================
> Future Society
> If we have progressed to a moneyless world
> why have we not progressed beyond
> the desire for porn ?
> ?
> This itself stems from the attitude to women
> in present day society, the kind of men who buy porn do not
> respect women as equal humans, hence my point about
> perceived "beauty"
> I stand by my comments about? porn and ?sexual stereo types
>
> ?
> Sex workers empowered ?? Thats a Joke its like saying the
> slaves should have been empowered instead of slavery being
> abolished or ma be some slaves did not want to be freed?
> that was the view of many who had slaves . when they were
> freed there were? cries of? "this violates my property
> rights " (and compensation was paid to the slave owners). If
> female sex workers were empowered they would not be working
> as sex workers
> ?
> I don't condom sex workers in general, but the ones who
> claim they have made a choice and want it to continue? (The
> ECP and IUSW? want the trade to continue
> while making conditions better for a minority of those
> involved)? ?I do condom because of the effect they have on
> others. I do condom both the employers and the clients
> however on the sale basis
> as condemning those who bought and sold slaves more so
> those who bought
> as they could have put an end to it
> I don't understand your final point I never said anything
> about moral behavior
> in fact I made it clear it was not about being anti sex,
> ?
> I do think the interests of the majority of sex workers who
> want to get out should be put above the interests of the few
> who claim to be happy? nothing
> abstract about that. Sorry "rights" do not exist in a
> vacuum and if they affect other people something has to give
> thats why I am no longer a pure anarchist
> though I share the goals in the long run,
> ?
> ?I agree state intervention should be minimal but I dont
> rule it? out as long as there is some kind of State and no
> other option for protection? and the need for protection
> which of course in the ideal? wprld there would be no need
> for
> Ed
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
>
>
>
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563???????????
> ?
> ?
>
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ??
> ?
> ?
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090707/e5042bea/attachment-0001.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 19:13:25 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Ed McArthur <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action
> statement from >
> CORRECTION
> To: London Anarchist Forum <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Message-ID: <855342.69131.qm at web24604.mail.ird.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Please note below" Condon" should be condem
> eg " I dont condem sex workers in general "
> ED
>
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563???????????
> ?
> ?
>
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ??
> ?
> ?
>
> --- On Tue, 7/7/09, antines at yahoo.co.uk
> <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
> From: antines at yahoo.co.uk
> <antines at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: [LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action statement from >
> no pretence
> To: "London Anarchist Forum" <laf at lists.aktivix.org>
> Date: Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 8:04 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why in a future perfect society would there be porn and
> prostitutes ?
> Surly there is a difference between free sex and
> prostitution which by definition
> involves exchange of money, ?in a moneyless world?there ?is
> just free sex
> ?=====================================================
> Future Society
> If we have progressed to a moneyless world
> why have we not progressed beyond
> the desire for porn ?
> ?
> This itself stems from the attitude to women
> in present day society, the kind of men who buy porn do not
> respect women as equal humans, hence my point about
> perceived "beauty"
> I stand by my comments about? porn and ?sexual stereo types
>
> ?
> Sex workers empowered ?? Thats a Joke its like saying the
> slaves should have been empowered instead of slavery being
> abolished or ma be some slaves did not want to be freed?
> that was the view of many who had slaves . when they were
> freed there were? cries of? "this violates my property
> rights " (and compensation was paid to the slave owners). If
> female sex workers were empowered they would not be working
> as sex workers
> ?
> I don't condom sex workers in general, but the ones who
> claim they have made a choice and want it to continue? (The
> ECP and IUSW? want the trade to continue
> while making conditions better for a minority of those
> involved)? ?I do condom because of the effect they have on
> others. I do condom both the employers and the clients
> however on the sale basis
> as condemning those who bought and sold slaves more so
> those who bought
> as they could have put an end to it
> I don't understand your final point I never said anything
> about moral behavior
> in fact I made it clear it was not about being anti sex,
> ?
> I do think the interests of the majority of sex workers who
> want to get out should be put above the interests of the few
> who claim to be happy? nothing
> abstract about that. Sorry "rights" do not exist in a
> vacuum and if they affect other people something has to give
> thats why I am no longer a pure anarchist
> though I share the goals in the long run,
> ?
> ?I agree state intervention should be minimal but I dont
> rule it? out as long as there is some kind of State and no
> other option for protection? and the need for protection
> which of course in the ideal? wprld there would be no need
> for
> Ed
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ?
>
>
>
> Ed McArthur?? 07981? 900? 563???????????
> ?
> ?
>
> www.eventsandissues.bravehost.com
> see also
> www.freewebs.com/bookevents
> Conway Hall Sunday Concerts
> www.conwayhallsundayconcerts.org.uk
> www.freewebs.com/secularcivilrights
> ?
> ?
> ?
> ??
> ?
> ?
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090707/b2331740/attachment.htm>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
>
>
> End of LAF Digest, Vol 53, Issue 10
> ***********************************
>
More information about the LAF
mailing list