[LAF] [allgendergroup] Demonising Desire: Men Who Buy Sex and

Sun Jul 12 00:03:43 UTC 2009

My point was that the article is mis-titled because it implies that those who oppose the abuse of women are "demonising desire," (specifically, demonising the sexual desire and sexual life of men) rather than whistleblowing on the abuse of women.  I repeat that it is not the *desire* which human rights activists are opposing but rather the physical use of another human being as if the sexual desires and sexual life of that human being were of no account except insofar as that other body could be used solely for the sexual pleasure of the person with the money.  If it is not a technical point that the title of the article is a gross misnomer (ie it is charging human rights activists with demonising the sexual desires of men when they are instead seeking to bring the law against abuse of women towards parity with the law against abuse of men (take it as seriously as any other assault)), then it is a deliberate misleading of the public to use such a phrase, and an attempt to dismiss legitimate viewpoints.  In fact if it was not a technical error to use the phrase "demonising desire," but instead a deliberate put-down then it is an example of Master Suppression Technique number 5 "Heaping Blame and Putting to Shame":

http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/c16881/artikkel/vis.html?tid=55475

In the text, this misrepresentation occurs again, in particular "Government discussions of men who buy sex call them users,

abusers and rapists but also describes them as “around 30 years of
age, married, in full-time employment, and with no criminal
convictions” (Home Office 2004), confirming two researchers’
suggestion that men who buy sex from women are often
constructed as “either the everyman or the peculiar man” (Monto
and McRee 2005). The New Labour government’s pessimism
about men is evident. Masculinity and male desire are social
problems, and men who buy sex epitomise all that is bad
about male desire"

I repeat that the criticism is not of sexual desire, either of the sellers or the buyers, but giving less respect to women in our society.  With regard to the Master Suppression Techniques, 

Making Invisible 
Ridiculing 
Withholding Information 
Damned If You Do And Damned If You Don’t 
Heaping Blame and Putting to Shame

The first is evidenced in the way women's sexuality, sexual desire and sexual satisfaction is made invisible in a culture of prostitution.  The second is evidenced in attitudes to women and pro-feminist men who point out this disrespect of women.  The third is evidenced in that information on women's sexuality is suppressed or ignored and the opinions of porn magnates are widely available and taken as correct.  The fourth is self evident.  The fifth I have already discussed.

For ease of reference I enclose your link again to the article entitled Demonising Desire.

Joy

> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 12:59:25 +0100
> From: Volodya at WhenGendarmeSleeps.org
> To: allgendergroup at lists.riseup.net
> Subject: Re: [allgendergroup] Demonising Desire: Men Who Buy Sex and
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Joy Wood wrote:
> > Volodya
> > Just a technical point: the title "Demonising Desire: Men Who Buy Sex
> > and Prostitution Policy in the United Kingdom" is a gross misnomer. How
> > can it be possible to demonise desire when a law has not been made
> > against sexual desire but against using human beings as living
> > spittoons. Furthermore, even if the law *were* against sexual desire,
> > which it isn't, the whole existence of the sexual desire of the (mostly)
> > women who are prostituted has been completely negated. No-one appears
> > to give a toss (pun intended, even though I believe it to be no laughing
> > matter) about the sexual desires of the women who are prostituted. In
> > the title of this article it does not exist, is not worthy of any
> > consideration, nor is it of any importance. The only sexual desire
> > which is acknowledged is that of the person who pays to relieve
> > themselves at another person's expense. Oh, and their 'right' to do
> > so. In an echo of what I said in an earlier post today, you might as
> > well cry over the rights of a slave owner to own their very own slave
> > and say that anyone who is anti-slavery seeks to demonise the desire of
> > the slave owner to lord it over another human being and make use of them.
> > Joy 
> 
> Although the law is talking only about clients of prostitutes, it is pretty
> clear that the law is about sexual contact. For example when during the
> scientific study Migrant Workers in the UK Sex Industry the researchers have
> paid all the participants (including sex workers), because they are experts in
> the field of knowing about sex industry, they were not breaking the law. The law
> was clearly against *sex* with prostitutes.
> 
> You are correct that the title of the article is about the content of the
> article. It would make no sense to call the article "Feminists who are happy
> about putting people in prison" and then talk about the opposition to demonising
> desire, they the author has title the article "Demonising Desire". I see no
> technicality here at all.
> 
> - Volodya
> 
> 
> 
> - --
> http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast
> http://eng.anarchopedia.org/ Anarchopedia, A Free Knowledge Portal
> http://www.freedomporn.org/ Freedom Porn, anarchist and activist smut
> 
> "None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAkpYfp0ACgkQuWy2EFICg+0X8wCgwiZ6lN32uxIwpu21KPezQ2qq
> zRkAoJqHWfnn2rmAo0FdPDS852mzemcm
> =yXnw
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_________________________________________________________________
Get the best of MSN on your mobile
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/147991039/direct/01/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/laf/attachments/20090712/485baf6c/attachment.htm>