[LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action > statement from > no pretence
Joy Wood
joy_helbin at hotmail.com
Sat Jul 11 20:55:22 UTC 2009
1. "sex as a service rather than a pleasure...a requirement deeply rooted in human nature"
I do not have such a jaded view of human nature, ie that it is a man's "human nature" to require sexual servicing and that even if we were in a moneyless society the requirement would persist (presumably by coercion or deception if money were not available as an inducement). I do believe it is in universal human nature for most people to feel sexual desire, but to require servicing (rather than self- or mutual satisfaction) is something that is learned by men and boys in our society. Similarly, it is in universal human nature to feel hunger, but to require servicing (whether it is the aristocracy/rich requiring to be serviced by the servant/hired hand, or whether it is the husband/head of the household requiring his evening dinner together with his pipe and slippers to be provided by his wife) is a part of indoctrinated attitudes and learned behaviours. You learn to be a service provider/pleaser and to defer (sometimes for life) your own pleasure in order to provide others with their pleasure, or you learn entitlement, the feeling that you are entitled not only to your desires but to their fulfilment, and you learn just exactly who is expected to fulfill them.
2. "non-repressed women who enjoy sex"
As with the previous quote, quote no 1 - where the idea of what is a service, who is expected to provide the servicing and who is expected to receive these services is unremarked upon and taken not only as a given, but expressly described as "human nature" - quote no 2 makes a lot of assumptions too. In the context of the paragraph it was lifted from, it assumes that "sex" is what men do to or with other(s) to obtain orgasm or sexual satisfaction. This is obscured by using the word "sex" to describe initially what brings the woman to orgasm but then the meaning of the word elides into what she does to service a man. At first, since the woman has been given as an example precisely because she enjoys sex, she is obviously doing something that pleasures her personally but by the end of the sentence she is a self-employed worker not, I maintain, being paid by men for the chance for the men to do their best endeavours to satisfy her sexually (to find out what she wants and then supply it) but for the opposite, to expect the woman to provide the sexual servicing of themselves. In the face of what she ends up doing (not impoverishing herself is her aim - a perfectly legitimate one, I agree - but this does not equate with providing sexual pleasure for herself), the use of the term "non-repressed women who enjoy sex" to describe what in fact is women sexually servicing men is inaccurate if not mendacious. The implications are also present in this term, both that women 'ought to' obtain sexual satisfaction from servicing men and also that women who do not, or who object to women being used in this way, are repressed sexually because if they weren't they would be satisfied sexually by servicing men or realise it was "human nature" to enjoy sexually servicing men at the expense of their own satisfaction. The only alternative explanation for quote no 2 is that the fact is that the way women obtain orgasm is by whatever the man wants to do to her (or get her to do to him) to obtain his own sexual satisfaction.
3. "the good of all is all I'm for"
Since the whole tone of the email below is androcentric (providing for the sexual satisfaction of men and men only, but seeming to think that whatever turns men on will automatically provide sexual satisfaction for women unless the women are repressed), I cannot see how you will obtain the good of all by following that line. It seems that sex is a service and furthermore it is a service provided by women for men. These women are all pro-sex, but this is sex as defined by whatever provides satisfaction for the man. Women unwilling to provide this service, together with women and pro-feminists who object to this use of women are labelled as "repressed". I believe the good of all is where the power imbalance in society is removed. I believe the good of all is one where everyone is entitled to their sexual desires and to fulfill them but not at others' expense. I believe the good of all is where one group of people are not favoured at the expense of another group of people.
At the moment our society is not just androcentric (where things are viewed only from the point of view of mainstream males) but subject to an androcracy (where the satisfaction of the sexual desires of men are taken seriously, but the only legitimate sexual desires of women are stated to be wanting to satisfy those of men). Those who question this are dismissed as being sexually "repressed". This problem is compounded by the fact that the mainstream/menstream/malestream societal view is informed by both capitalism (so "desires" have been created and inflamed to promote sales) and patriarchy (so women are products that are sold to men or used to sell other products to men - eg "buy this and you'll get the girl"). Everything about the mainstream society is hierarchical and divisive and the longest-running hierarchical split is the one between men and women. The "male" is taken as the default human being and the male view is favoured over the female view. Men and women are different but, since men are as different from women as women are from men, there is no reason why society should be biased in favour of the male view and ignorant or dismissive of the female view (and for the avoidance of doubt, I am not recommending we simply invert this inequity). If anarchism wants to topple the hierarchies why cannot it even see the one in front of its face. The roots of the gender inequalities may be lost in the mists of time but we do not have to continue it now. For racism to develop, man had to leave his native land and see other "races" (although of course there is only one race, the human race) but to see the "other," someone undeniably "different," man just had to turn round and look at his wife or mother or sister or daughter etc. Patriarchy is the oldest hierarchy. For anarchists to challenge all the other hierarchies but dismiss feminism as a single-issue cause of minor or non-importance, is to ignore the fact that men are as different from women as women are from men so if feminism is a single issue cause then so is anarchism, anarchism by that definition is a single-issue cause (because it leaves out the issue of the freedom of over 50% of the world's human beings, namely it leaves out the issue of the female sex) because it is a male-only cause, and is using women - just as the mainstream society does - to cater to the requirements of men; in this case to help obtain freedom for men but not women. This attitude is in accord with the mainstream attitudes towards women, that men's issues are important. This attitude is also in accord with the mainstream attitudes towards sexual freedom - that is, sexual satisfaction for men by the use of women servicing the men - because anarchism is apparently political (so to speak) freedom for men by the use of women to help obtain it for them and then the women are expected to continue to service the men once the men have their freedom. It is not lost on feminists and pro-feminists that unless feminism is taken seriously by anarchists and anarchist theory, come the post-revolution the oldest oppression will persist. Furthermore (just to take one area of our lives as an example), as far as sexual freedom goes, women will be expected to continue to service men, continue to be reviled as "repressed" if they question this inequity and moreover they will be expected to do this without even the benefit of the meagre recompense they obtain under the current repressive system.
Joy
> Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 03:33:32 +0000
> From: steveash_2001 at yahoo.co.uk
> To: laf at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: [LAF] Re UPDATE: Post action > statement from > no pretence
>
>
> 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
> > ***********************************
> >
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LAF mailing list
> LAF at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/laf
_________________________________________________________________
With Windows Live, you can organise, edit, and share your photos.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/134665338/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090711/fe67a9fb/attachment.htm>
More information about the LAF
mailing list