Today's Worst Persons In The World (SmackChron Edition)

Since I quote freely from KO and use his words freely in this space, I figure that why not go all the way and borrow one of his classic scthicks??

Thusly, I give you my own version of today’s Worst Persons In The World.

This won’t be a daily feature like Olbermann’s, but it may become an ongoing series based on the degree and intensity of nuttiness I find.

The BRONZE: Anti-Porn Feminists for What Are We Reclaiming For

Once again, we have the instance of antiporn “feminists” attempting to speak for every woman, even those who don’t manage to agree with them; and imposing their own personal myopias about sex and men on everyone else.

And lookee here…they even must have the power of ESP…as in knowing what really happens inside strip club VIP rooms, even when they never have stepped foot in them: (quoting from Caroline’s excellent fisking of their myopic screed):

The women standing outside Spearmint Rhino identified themselves as socialist and anarchist feminists; there is something truly bizarre in the idea of anarchist women defending one of the biggest, most exploitative global industries there is.

If those women were so concerned about the welfare of the women working there, why weren’t they inside making sure they weren’t being raped in Spearmint Rhino’s ‘VIP Booths’?

Oh, I don’t know..because the bouncers already there to protect the performers from harm would protest??? Or maybe it’s because in most titty bars, little or no touching is allowed other than lap dancing?? But, you do know that lap dancing in and of itself is prima facie rape, since it involves contact with an erect penis, even cloaked by clothing…and you know how men get when their dicks get hard, right???

And a bonus for this incredulous blast:

Once upon a time, socialist feminists campaigned for universal, free, twenty-four-hour childcare, now, it seems, they campaign for the ‘right’ to prostitute because, it is claimed, it’s the only well paying job a woman can fit around her childcare responsibilities.

Oh, really??? I mean, the fact that some “socialist feminists” might defend the right of sex workers to fight for their rights to improve their profession certainly doesn’t mean that they have abandoned the fight for universal child care, doesn’t it?? Or perhaps, the writer really meant to say that only approved antiporn/anti-sex work radicalfeminists have the right to label themselves as “socialists” or “feminists”, and that all those who don’t agree with them are simply pretenders or liars…or worse??


The SILVER: Jabba the Fat-Ass Oxycontin Addict (aka “Comedian” Rush Limbaugh)

It’s so delightful seeing Fat-Ass making himself the defacto head of the Republican Party and leading the Conservative Resistance Underground against President Obama’s policies. Especially considering how much the GOP politicos are simply genflucting to his nobile leadership of his….right off the damn cliff. Apparently, that fat $280 million contract re-up that Premiere Radio Networks gave him last year (please…Jim Rome deserves more of that cache a hell of a lot more) must be getting to his head faster than the Oxycontin is kicking in. Note this justification he made yesterday for his latest riff hoping that BHO should “fail”, in an on-air interview he did with CNBC commentator Chris Haines, who isn’t exactly much of a liberal, either (transcript courtesy of Crooks and Liars, emphasis included within):

Haines: I’m sorry a week after the inauguration you said you hope he fails. Are you now admitting that it was a stupid and mean-spirited thing to say?

Rush: No, it was an accurate thing to say, it was an honest thing to say and it came…

Haines: Well then how is that bipartisan?

Rush: Well, if you’ll let me explain.

Haines: Well so far you haven’t.

Rush: You’ve been contentious for no reason. It came after a thorough explanation and my belief that liberalism is what Obama represents destroys the free market, destroys capitalism and this stimulus plan is all about re-FDRing America, the New Deal and as a conservative I want liberalism to fail. I want the country to succeed. And that’s what I meant and that’s what I over and over again., You’ve got to stop reading these left wing media sites…

Haines: I just listen to you Rush, I don’t read anybody, I listen to you. And I what I hear is hypocrisy.

Rush: You hear hypocrisy?

Haines: You’re saying in this piece, you say “in our economy the difference, this is about jobs now, leave politics aside,” and the first thing out of your mouth is politics. Not liberal or conservative or democrat.

Hey, Fat-Ass…I don’t know how to break this to you, but, as Obama said so clearly: “I WON.” Your side got toasted in the last election; you are down, like 70 seats in the House, and you are one Judd Gregg appointment to Commerce Secretary away from losing your filibuster powers in the Senate. Besides, didn’t Obama actually try to meet you half the way on your treasured tax cuts, even to the expense of triangulating away his progressive wing…and still you managed to get your GOP sycophants in the House to vote in unanimity against the proposal. Because…you don’t want the nig….errrrrr, the “Magic Negro”….to actually reverse all the mess and clean out all the shit that your and your side made for the past 30 years (never mind the last 8 of Dubya’s reign)??

But, please, by all means, go right ahead and be the last defender of Hooverism and the Old South..or better yet, why not recruit yourself as Sarah Palin’s VP candidate for 2012. I’m sure that you two will make a great team to win those 3 Rocky Mountain states plus Alaska in the final meltdown of your party.


But for the win (at least today): Buggle76

Just another sista souljah for the GenderBorg reaching out with more truth and vision on “sex workers” (her air quotes, not mine) and how they must be faking it about not being abused and raped…and how they simply ignore the “majority” who are (emphasis added by me):

[…]

Now, I have a really hard time believing these women when they claim to never have been hurt, because I think they are so out of touch with what being hurt even means. But let me just suspend my disbelief for a minute here. Ok, you’ve never been hurt, raped, abused, or anything. So that’s great for you. I mean, really, that’s extremely lucky. But you know what that means? That means that you are in a teensy tiny little minority of “sex workers.” Hear that? A minority. An extremely LUCKY minority. A very exclusive minority.

So that makes me think, what business do you have trying to “speak” for other prostituted women? You are in the minority, the tiny minority of women who somehow aren’t abused in the “sex” industry. So what gives you the right to speak for other women? You should be listening to the 99.9% of women who ARE hurt. Who ARE raped.

One lucky sex workers’ experiences do NOT speak for the rest of women. One lucky women does not prove millions of other women wrong. Your “right to choose” to prostitute yoruself is not more important than millions of women and children being raped, day in and day out. If you think that your sex life is more important than people being raped, and sold, and beaten, then you have SERIOUS problems. And you sicken me.

Oh, I get it now….it is all about the personal sex lives of those who don’t fall in perfect synchronous rhythm with the GenderBorg thought police, isn’t it?? So, women who manage to survive in the sex industry without being abused or raped (never mind the scores of women who don’t do sex work but manage to become abused and raped nevertheless; or even the majority of women who manage to survive overall without suffering abuse or being sexually assaulted) don’t even exist in your vision…am I correct, Buggle?? And that means that radicalfeminists should be more than able to pass judgment and decry a woman’s personal sex habits because she doesn’t share the same collective hatred of men and sex as you apparently do??

Oh….and it’s now 99.9% of all “prostituted women” being raped and abused??? Gee, what happened to the 95% quote you put forth by Fairley?? Updated research taken right out of her ass??

As Ren Ev put it so well in her rejoinder: Do Dick Cheney. Seriously.


Buggle76 — representing Radical Right Feminism with pride and a sharp knife — Today’s SmackChron Worst….Personnnnn..in the WORLLLLDDDDDDD!!!!!!DUH!!!!!!!!


Share

How Private Is "Private" Sex, Anyway?? MAL "Maneuvers", Wingnut Sex Obsessions, and Public Image

This story I just recently discovered really says a lot about our obsessions with policing sex in this culture…both policing others and ourselves.

This is creating waves and arguments all over the GLBT communities, about how far and how public sexual expression should be.

From Dr. Gloria Brame’s blog (the original story from Pam Spaulding and Joe, My God):

Doubletree caves to Conservative Christians

With all the hype and excitement over the inauguration, you may have missed this depressing bit of news about an SM event that was cancelled because of pressure from ring-wing Christian groups. Spear-headed by the always profoundly disgusting Peter [La]Barbera — a right-winger so obsessed with SM that he constantly infiltrates events so he may report back the most scandalous details to his followers — a Doubletree hotel in the DC area issued a last-minute cancellation of the event.

For those of you who may not know of Peter LaBarbera, he is a particularly wingnutty fundie Christian antigay activist who has a particular obsession with gay sex acts…especially the more…ahhhhh, kinky type of gay sex acts.

The event that sent LaBarbera unto orbit was a supposed “pig sex orgy” what was to take place in Washington D.C. the weekend of the Obama Inauguration by a gay leather group called the Mid-Atlantic Leathermen as part of their annual party gettogether called “Maneuvers”. The hotel venue that the party was proposed to be held at, the DoubleTree Hotel, was swarmed with protests from LaBarbera and his cohorts; and at the last minute bucked under and canceled the event.

Just in case you would ask why someone would be so obsessed with canceling a private function that was by invitation only, here’s how LaBarbera described the “horrorific” events that would have apparently taken place at the “Maneuvers” party, as described to WingNutDai…errrrrrr, WorldNetDaily:

A homosexual “pig sex” orgy has been planned at a Washington hotel just as the traditional inaugural party season – this year honoring President-elect Barack Obama – is beginning, according to a Christian group that ministers to homosexuals.

The report comes from Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, who obtained the information via e-mail from a source within the homosexual community.

[…]

The requirements, AFTAH said, included, “Masculine, friendly, and ready to play. Spectators who wanna run their mouths and socialize are not welcome at this event. We are here to enjoy the company of MEN.”

The online Urban Dictionary defines “pig sex” as “outrageously dirty such as water spots, defecation, male on male bondage, group-sex and bestiality,” although there was no indication that this event would involve animals.

LaBarbera said the hotel confirmed MAL Maneuvers has booked three second-floor conference rooms for three days, which starting with Saturday night’s events would culminate on inauguration day, Tuesday. The hotel offered a discount for rooms for people attending the events.

“These repulsive behaviors should not occur in private, much less in conference rooms at a hotel used by the public,” AFTAH’s warning said.

LaBarbera has included graphic descriptions of the proposed activities on his website, but readers are warned of the offensive nature of the descriptions.

He also included a telephone number for the Doubletree Hotel, encouraging people to urge the Hilton chain, which owns the site, “to get out of the perversion business altogether.” The events reportedly are being held in concert with the annual “Mid-Atlantic Leather Weekend,” three days of sadomasochistic celebration in Washington.

LaBarbera previously has reported on “Leather” events held annually at the Palmer House Hilton in Chicago and has criticized the company for its “long history of enabling and profiting off of the hyper-promiscuous ‘leather’ movement by hosting the annual sadomasochistic ‘International Mr. Leather’ conference.”

LaBarbera said he contacted the Washington hotel’s sales director, who confirmed the lease to the “Fort Troff” group. But the spokesman said he knew nothing of any sex events planned there. He said such events could not be held in the hotel’s conference rooms, because they are “public space,” LaBarbera said.

The spokesman, Felix Barreras, told LaBarbera the contract for the rooms was handled “like any other piece of business.” The hotel did not respond to a separate WND request for comment.

Interesing that a “wholesome” mag like WingNutDaily would link such “offensive” and “extreme” sex acts, isn’t it??

[And yes, I’m keeping the links, just to show what is so upsetting to these folks. Click at your own risk…or choice.]

Apparently, the Doubletree first tried to defend the event as a legally sought after and paid for private event…but ultimately, after the pressure mounted, they gave in and canceled it.

Now, I’m not a gay man, and I probably would not be inclined to go to a “pig sex” party, even if it only included real live pigs having sex….but this story strikes me in so many ways.

First off, there is the continuing obsession of the Christian Right of regulating and suppressing the sexuality of others…even if it takes place in the privacy of a closed and locked bedroom. For all their notions of “freedom” and privacy” I guess that some folks are less free than others and should have no right of privacy from government intervention.

Secondly…why the hell is Pete LaBarbera so hiked up on gay sex as if they are like demon rituals?? Maybe, he secretly wants some of that for himself?? Maybe he has had some of that for himself in an earlier time, before he converted to right-wing Christianity?? Or, maybe it’s his own personal self-flagellation for having such a “girlish” last name??

But what really flagged my interest is the firestorm of debate that this story has created amongst gay men. Some in the comment sections of Joe’s and Pam’s blogs have riffed that while they are not so glad that LaBarbera was able to accomplish his act of censorship, they are nevertheless not too thrilled with the antics of MAR in promoting so loudly this “pig sex party” on the eve of Obama’s coming-in party. A few have even gone so far to say that having such an outwardly kinky sexual event sets the cause of gay rights backwards by exposing a side of homosexuality that should rather be hidden in the name of “normalcy” or “legitimacy”; and that perhaps a more conservative and prim event would have been much better received and not gotten the bad press as the MAL Maneuvers event would have. (Some have also noted that the “elitist” way that invitee to the party were selected may have prompted one of the rejected to blow the whistle on the party to LaBarbera’s organization.)

In short, the debate has reignited the all-so-common “you’re bringing us down with your openly sexual behavior” meme that has been used to cut down sexual dissidents for time immortal.

Which, in my not so humble opinion, is pure bullshit.

For starters…even if the MAL Maneuvers folk were planning on all sort of sexual freakery and mayhem, how does that make it any different from, say, the AVN/AEE week in Vegas or Freaknik in Atlanta or Spring Break in Florida (and let’s not forget Folsom Street Fair or Mardi Gras), events which have been known to attract people of diverse kind to all sorts of bacchanal excess?? Are the rules really that different for gay men than they are for straights using hotel rooms at conventions of all kinds for hookups?? You can’t tell me that there isn’t or wasn’t lots of sex going on at the Republican and Democratic conventions, or even during the week of Obamamania in DC; it just may not have been as formally announced as MAL was. And, it should be noted that MAL is an annual event, they just happened to time this year’s high-jinks with the Obama Inaugural. It may be that LaBarbera just happens to have his own unique and special “gay-dar” working in this case; but I’m sure that he has allies in the sexual morality Right who would just as soon fire the same bombs towards BDSM groups, prostitutes/porn performers/sex workers, strip clubs, and all other areas where sex unredeemed by “values” would break out.

Which brings me to Peeve Number Two: In this case, “leathermen” simply become the male equivalent of “sluts”; representing the “bad” sexuality that has to be purged so that more proper and prim gay folk can gain broader acceptance within the more conservative “straight” community. Just as some say that we must repudiate Max Hardcore and Lizzie Borden because his movies bring porn down (and the authorities down on porn, too), and that “pro-porny” feminists must be isolated and shunted aside so that radicalfeminists can more effectively fight “the patriarchy” for all women, the argument that promoting “pig sex”, barebacking, and the more esoteric forms of sexuality ultimately, according to some detractors, feeds directly into the overall reactionary anti-homosexual climate, and thusly should be shunted by anyone decent and liberal.

Now, like I said before, I’m not gay or a leatherman, and I probably would be as turned off as the next average guy or girl at the freakery that I would assume goes on inside a Leathermen sex show (and so sorry, but poop and piss are definitely NOT turn-ons for me, either). On the other hand, though, that was still a PRIVATE event that was limited to specifically invited consenting adults (whatever LaBarbera says about the Doubletree being a “public venue”), and it would NOT have been accessible to anyone else; therefore, other than simple antisex prejudice and the usual wingnut hyperbole about “AIDS-spreading queers”, I see no justification for why this particular event shouldn’t be allowed to happen. Since when should people who would never accept the humanity of gay folk in general (or any other sexual dissident group, for that matter) be allowed to dictate which groups are “acceptable” for private gettogethers??

And…as for those who protest so much about how much “leathermen” are so threatening to their more refined notion of acceptable homosexuality, I say: “So what???” I really hate to break it to y’all, but the Moral Right just isn’t going to stop with leathermen and the most openly sexual queers once you throw them under the bus; it’s homosexuality as a whole — especially the more conservative, acceptable kind — that they want to demonize and destroy. Oh…and I thought that after Proposition (H)8 and Rick Warren, Obama was the Devil Incarnate and The Enemy of all things Teh Ghey; since when did he become a symbol of liberal moral rectitude??

To be frank about it all, I feel far, far more threatened by the likes of Pete LaBarbera and those conservative gays who say that we must neuter consensual sexuality to gain acceptance into a neoliberal society, than I ever would be by a Leathermen sex party. I don’t have to sign up if I don”t want to go to MAL Manuevers, and I do have the option of walking out even if I do go if things get too squicky for my personal taste. The attitudes that Porno Pete LaBarbera espouses and represent, and the political juice that fuels his campaign, however, I simply cannot avoid, since they are the same attitudes used to put down not just GLBT and BDSM folk, but even straight and not-so-narrow men and women whose only crime is to like sex more than some people would allow.

Besides…Leathermen do clean up after themselves after a party pretty well…which is more than I can say about the fundies. Or so, I’ve heard.



Share

From Wasps And Bees To Holes: A Storm(y) Cloud Dumps Again

I was wondering when Stormy (she of the original “bees and wasps” smack) would engage us with more of her wisdom.

The context was a post at Heart(less)’s place about how a Japanese man has developed a lifelike female robot named Aiko which will be programmed to do basic household duties.

Of course, in the twisted grouphive that is Heart and the GenderBorg, this inevitably goes into how she will be sexually used by the man…since all male thought always ultimately, according to their theories, goes to raping and abusing women. If they can’t rape actual women, then they will apparently simply create their victims out of silicone and alloy and carbon fiber, I guess.

Problem is, according to Stormy, that probably will not be enough to satisfy the rape mentality.

Now, others (namely Natalia and Ren Ev) have focused on the latter portion of Stormy’s blast about “sex-positive women” not preventing rape…but in the interest of being fair to Stormy, I will include the entire comment just for the proper context.

[posted by Stormy on 1/17/2009 @ 3:47 pm]

Isn’t it strange how when a male inventor designs a housework robot, it unsurprisingly gets designed in a female likeness? If we wanted an insight into how the male mind thinks of females, Aiko is it.

It won’t take off though. The males that dream of a super obedient fuck toy that does housework, won’t be satisfied with Aiko. There is no challenge in mastering and enslaving “her”. The real challenge is in breaking in a real live woman, the bigger the challenge, the more gawd-like HE becomes. Hence in domestic violence, it is NOT the weak acquiescent woman that is the victim — it is the woman who refuses to submit to the status of 2nd Class Citizen. Rape too is about power and conquest, Aiko will submit too willingly — where is the challenge in that? Blow-up dolls have not stopped rape. Lots of freely available “sex-positive” women have not stopped rape, so it’s not just about jerking off into a hole and freely available sex.

OK…so let’s break this down, shall we??

Isn’t it strange how when a male inventor designs a housework robot, it unsurprisingly gets designed in a female likeness? If we wanted an insight into how the male mind thinks of females, Aiko is it.

First off….the fact that domestic labor is traditionally female to begin with has absolutely NOTHING to do with a domestic robot being in the female gender, right, Stormy?? Does it always have to be about his dick…or is that your usual projection of your obsessions??

It won’t take off though. The males that dream of a super obedient fuck toy that does housework, won’t be satisfied with Aiko. There is no challenge in mastering and enslaving “her”. The real challenge is in breaking in a real live woman, the bigger the challenge, the more gawd-like HE becomes.

Iit is this “men won’t be satisfied with Aiko because they want a REAL woman to rape and abuse” smack that makes me want to holla….in righteous laughter. Really, Stormy….do you seriously think that the majority of men in this world will actually be able to AFFORD a robot like Aiko?? When they can barely afford the cheap, non-mobile forms using blow-up dolls or Fleshlights to get themselves off?? Unless you believe that wealthy Japanese men should be the complete stand-in for all men everywhere…which I probably would not think to be true.

Hence in domestic violence, it is NOT the weak acquiescent woman that is the victim — it is the woman who refuses to submit to the status of 2nd Class Citizen.

Oh, I get it…so rape is now no longer a crime of violence using sex…it becomes a tool of putting down uppity women who resist.  And what about those women who are trained to not resist…do their rapes and abuse count as much in your mind? And what in the hell does “domestic violence” have to do with all this, anyway…last time I remembered, Aiko was a ROBOT, and thusly, exempted from rape and domestic violence laws…unless you want to extend such laws to cover non-humans, too.

Blow-up dolls have not stopped rape. Lots of freely available “sex-positive” women have not stopped rape, so it’s not just about jerking off into a hole and freely available sex.

Now we come to the heart of Stormy’s madness. So, let me here this right: so “sex-positive women” and “blow-up dolls” are supposed to prevent men from committing rape…and the fact that they don’t makes them responsible for all the rape in the world?? And what is this shit about “freely available ‘sex positive’ women”, Stormy: as if such women don’t make choices of their own about whom they have sex with, or that men who are inclined to sexually violate women would really give a hoot about such women existing??

Ahghhh…and this “jerking off into a hole” thing. Funny, but I’d guess that a willing and sane man who consents to having sex with an equally sane and consenting woman would probably consider her to be a hell of a lot more than just a “hole”; after all, if he really wanted just to get himself off using just a hole, he could use several props for that purpose. (You know…like that Fleshlight or those plastic replicas of female genatalia that are so popular in the back pages of porn mags??)

But that’s beyond the point, really, since the main point of all these male sex toys is NOT to promote rape or violence against women, but to share the FANTASY of having sex with a seasoned, veteran woman who actualy knows a thing or two about pleasure and is willing to share it with them.  In other words, it’s an acceptance of the fact that they will probably never engage in real sex with the subject of their desires, and that a proxy will have to make do in the process. You do know that women do it all the time with dildoes and vibrators and masturbation, do you, Stormy??

Oh, wait, I forgot…Stormy and her symbotic pals of the GenderBorg don’t believe in women’s physical sexual pleasure being their own; that’s just an evil Patriarchial plot to control and dominate and ultimately kill them!!!

Me thinks that Stormy should go back to her work on bees and wasps….when it comes to female sexuality, she’s really out of her league.


Share

The Stupid Merely Burns….But Jennifer Drew Flames Like White Phosphorus

Yes, this would be yet another post on the sheer assholery and crankery of right-wing radical “feminist” thought. As much as I would like to cease discussing them, they always seem to top themselves in total asshattery.

Latest case in point: this latest bomb thrown by Jennifer Drew as a comment to another post favoring Jacqui Smith’s anti-sex work legislation in Great Britain and Scotland.

JENNIFER DREW said…

Strange how the pro-prostitution lobby always ‘appear’ whenever an article is written daring to challenge men’s supposed inalienable and innate right of sexual access to women’s and girls’ bodies.

Even stranger is the fact other posts concerning men’s violence against women are consistently ignored by the pro-porn lobbyists. Could it because the belief it is a man’s right to buy women and girls for the purpose of raping and masturbating into their bodies supercedes any other form of male violence against women and girls.

Or could it be these pro-prostitution and pro-porners have nothing better to do than constantly attack anyone who dares to challenge the myth of male sex right to women and children.

15 January 2009 10:11

Let’s forget for a moment about the fact that this comment was done in reaction to remarks from actual WOMEN (including, of course, Caroline Shepard), that no men actually managed to post a comment there in the first place.

And, I’m not going to (at least not this time) attempt a full response from the sex worker POV, since I’m not coming from that perspective.  (Besides, Ren Ev, as usual, has done the job with her usual dispatch, anyway. And also here, too.)

Instead, I will take the perspective that I know most about….that of a man whom has never entered a titty bar or a brothel, but who has seen and bought plenty of porn, and who has been accused greatly of being a part of the “pro-prostitution/pro-porn lobby”.

Being that as it may, allow me to take on Ms. Drew point for point, shall we???

Strange how the pro-prostitution lobby always ‘appear’ whenever an article is written daring to challenge men’s supposed inalienable and innate right of sexual access to women’s and girls’ bodies.

From the jump….yeah, the “pro-prostitution lobby”…..since anyone who doesn’t wish to demonize every man who visits a brothel or joins a porn site or otherwise thinks of a woman as a subject for his sexual fantasies is obviously a paid tool of the “prostitution lobby.  Gee, I didn’t know that Caroline Shepherd was a man, or that she was even paid anything to oppose Jacqui Smith’s legislation.  For that matter, if I’m that much of a freakin’ lobbyist, where’s my check from Dennis Hof or Douglas Fox?? If I’m going to be such a lobbyist, shouldn’t I be compensated for my work??

And then there is this “men’s supposed and inalienable right of sexual access to women’s and girl’s bodies” thing. Funny, but I’ve never heard of even the most radical “pro-prostitution lobbyist” ever say that ALL women should be coerced to give up their bodies to ANY man at the drop of a hat….I have heard a prominent right-wingnut, though, suggest that wives should make themselves totally sexually available to their husbands even when they are not in the mood for it. Oh..but Dennis Prager isn’t a “pro-prostitution lobbyist”, but in fact an opponent of sex workers who would support anti-prostitution legislation like Ms. Smith’s???

I guess that Jennifer must mean that since women don’t (or shouldn’t) EVER initiate sexual conduct with men (or girls initiate the same with boys), it is always the man’s fault when sex happens, and it’s always the man who wants access to a woman’s body for sexual reasons.  Never mind that women are quite capable of wanting sex for themselves and might even want the same level of sexual access to the man’s body for her own purposes.  Oh, noooos……women are too pure, too intimate to think of sex that way!!! Only those evol MEN would ever reduce sex to such a vile, degrading act of physical pleasure, done just to get themselves off at women’s expense!! It must be the patriarchy sending all those evil senses of pleasure onto these women to keep them jailed into submission and silence!!!

So..what does that say about all those women who actually have orgasms and own them as their own?? I guess to Ms. Drew, they must be either stupid “cumdumpsters” or merely tools of men….either way, they aren’t real women as she and her true feminists are with their superior intimacy. Or, so they think.

Even stranger is the fact other posts concerning men’s violence against women are consistently ignored by the pro-porn lobbyists. Could it because the belief it is a man’s right to buy women and girls for the purpose of raping and masturbating into their bodies supercedes any other form of male violence against women and girls.

So…according to Ms. Jennifer, we “pro-porn” pozzies are actually ignorant of, if not fully supportive of, violence against women (of course, porn in her mind being “violence against women” in that the mere illustration of  the introduction of an erect penis into a woman’s vagina or mouth or anal cavity amounts to prima facie rape
of ALL women) because we are so obsessed with getting into the panties of every women we see.

Yeah.  Right. Really. So, if such “pro-porn” men actually protest actual rape and actual violence by supporting tougher criminal penalties against actual rapists and other abusers of women and girls (and men and boys, too), would that matter much to her?? Or…if “pro-prostitution lobbyist” men actually worked to help women who were abused within the sex industry to get out and get financial and social resources to rebuild their lives in some level of safety and sanity….would that assuage her objections to us??

Of course not….because when you cut through all the bullshit, it becomes perfectly clear that folk like Ms. Drew could care less about actual women being hurt by the policies she is espousing or the laws she is supporting…it’s all about, for her, getting back at men for “masturbating into women’s bodies”.

I guess that for her, a woman should be nothing more than a useless dildo, cold and unreacting and never seeking any bit of personal pleasure for herself from having a erect penis inside her. I mean…if that says a lot about her open disgust at men, then what does it say even more about her even stronger (if thinly veiled) disgust and loathing for the WOMEN whom actually LIKE having a willing and erect penis inside them, and who actually react with pleasure to a man who is willing to serve them sexually and play to their desires??

In other words, it’s  not about the violence or the rape with Madame Jennifer and her allies; it’s about the SEX. Especially, the kind of sex that most women willingly want and consensually have with men.

Or could it be these pro-prostitution and pro-porners have nothing better to do than constantly attack anyone who dares to challenge the myth of male sex right to women and children.

Or…it actually may be that we “pro-porners” and “pro-prostitution” folk are simply sick and tired of being smeared as rapists and pedophiles for accepting women’s sexual autonomy and for defending her choices and her rights and responsibilities to think and act for herself. And,  just maybe, it could be that the “myth” of “male sex right to women and children” (Hmmm….now it’s “children”?? What, is Jennifer slipping?? I thought that only girls were deserving of protection; are boys now as much a victim as girls?? Or is that chalked up to the evil of male homosexuality???) is merely a figment of her imagination, used as a club to beat down women who might think that THEY, not the GenderBorg (or the patriarchy), should decide for themselves whom they should engage in sex with.

How interesting that most men who view porn or who actually frequent brothels actually have a more human, more respectful, and fuller respect for women they fantasize about having sex with, than the supposed “feminists” who want to “protect” them from all the “evil rapists” and “misogynists”? And guess who are the ones throwing out the “feminst creds” cards???

Yep, I’m with Ren here….same song, 1,456th verse.  And deserving of the same refrain in response.

Memo to Jennifer Drew: The tall STFU glass and the SYAD bowl are waiting for you at the SmackDog Smackdown Hotel. Like it or don’t…I don’t particularly care anymore.


Share

Flinging Words Right Back At 'Ya, Laurelin…

You may have words, my dear…but I have a few of my own.

Moral outrage, you say??  Is that what you call your seamless position about supporting sexual censorship and sexual fascism??

Really??

Maybe you need a bit of a brief course on what really constitutes “moral outrage”, Laurelin.

Seeing your cousins get washed away when the levee busts wide open after the worst hurricane to hit your area since….well, EVER….passes through, then seeing your other cousins get trapped in a virtual hellhole of a “evacuation” shelter (the Louisiana Superdome) without food, water, or usable sanitation, waiting for three days for the federal authorities to bring even the basic necessities for essential survival; while watching people with guns in their hands blocking all your exit routes because they don’t want “niggers”….ahhh, I mean, “looters”…. to pollute their area when they are merely trying to get out of harm’s way….THAT, dearie, truly justifies moral outrage.

Seeing your brother, his family, his brother-in-law’s family, and their cousins’ families crying in horror and sadness because their village just got bombed to the ground by bunker-busters sent out by the next door neighbor country whom simply wants to teach them a “lesson” because they backed the wrong party in an election…..THAT would be another example of justified moral outrage.

Just learning that your significant lover has been pronounced dead due to being abducted, kidnapped, sent over to a foreign country, tortured, waterboarded, and otherwise abused nearly to death, all merely because his last name happened to match that of a supposed “terrorist”…..yeah, that too would justify plenty of real, authentic moral outrage.

And yes, a woman who is forced to live in the same roof as a man who continuously abuses and rapes her, yet always gets himself off due to his status as law abiding husband, and who gets off the hook by claiming that said woman got what she deserved because she dressed just a bit too “sluttily” that night or she “allowed” herself to get her drink spiked with XTC…..a definite winner for the Moral Outrage Sweepstakes.

But that’s not the only thing, dear Laurelin, that justifies outrage.

Smacking down innocent men who do no harm to women, whom NEVER have and NEVER will disrespect or, heaven forbid, even touch a woman the wrong way, merely because some self-identified “radical feminist” dislikes his personal fantasies about wanting to engage in sex with women….well, that for me justifies moral outrage.

Silencing actual WOMEN who don’t happen to share a particular “radical feminist” view about how all men are reduced to their penises and their actions and fantasies about women reduced to rape and snuff fantasies; and who might even think that men are….<gasp> ….HUMAN enough to be reasoned and reasonable and negotiable with….well that will always fuel my own moral outrage.

Sidetracking discussions about how real laws might just hurt real live women with diversionary ad hominem attacks on particular persons based solely on guilt by association…..that, too gets my moral outrage meter running on overload.

You see, L, there’s real moral outrage at genuine abuses of the world…and then there is the phony kind used by cranks and fools to incite abuse against targeted scapegoats who have done nothing to deserve their “punishment”.

There is the “Stop calling me a prude!!” kind of faked moral outrage; the invention of those who have no problem calling out their opponents as “cumdumptsters” or “bi-sexee sparkleponies” or simply “dumb sluts” merely because they don’t share the supposed hatred of “funk-filled bratwursts”.  (Kinda like the ex-gay bigots screaming about how the “homosexual lobby” calls them “bigots”, or the neocons bitching about how “the Left” undercuts them as “warmongers”.)

Oh, but what’s that you say, Laurelin?? We are not allowing you to pass your “judgment”??? That we “sex pozzie men” are so caught up in our pleasure that we are totally avoiding the pain and hurt that we cause women??

Maybe, dearie, the reason why we don’t quite buy into your “judgment” is because we don’t tend to connect the dots as readily as you do, that perhaps, just maybe, the connection between consensual adult pleasure and real and absolute violence against women might not be so tied together as you wish it to be.

But, hey…it’s your ideology, it’s your movement, and it’s your “morality”.  Whatever gets you through the night.

Go ahead.  Call him a “pimp”…even though he’s not. Demonize him for his thoughts and fantasies….even if he manages to treat women in real life with respect and dignity. Speak for all women…. even though some are perfectly capable for speaking for themselves and don’t necessarily need your voice.

Call it the Maxwell Taylor school of sexual autonomy: “We are all for self-determination…as long as they determine in OUR WAY.

Consensual sexual pleasure does not lead to destruction and violence. Right-wing radical “feminism” that denies basic humanity and reduces people to their worst instincts for political advantage most certainly does.

Women who fight against rape and abuse of power by men over women (and all other abuse of power and violence) are genuine heroines. (And the men who support them and fight just as hard against the same thing are heroes.)

Women who exploit rape and abuse of women to sell a reactionary, restrictive, and repressive agenda and use the very powers of the “patriarchy” to set up hierarchies of “protected” women to be placed in neo-Victorian pedestals, all the while scapegoating men who do no harm as “The Enemy” merely due to their ability to have erections….those are not so much heroines as they are fascist authoritarians. That they call themselves “feminists” or even “radical feminists” makes their fascism that much more insiduous.

In other words, Laurelin: be as “morally outraged” as you like at guys like me  and Ernest and D Fox and IACB (and women like Ren Ev, and Caroline, and Aspasia, and Nina), and all others like us who live to defy your “morality.” It just won’t change what we feel….or how the real world runs.

You might as well clutch those pearls a bit tighter, madame….cause other than your blinding rage at the light, it’s all you and the rest of the GenderBorg’s got to fling.

Well, that…and the usual bullshit.


Share

Ahhhh, Lookee Here……"Yvette Doll" Exposed & Outed

Turns out that our “all sex pozzies are pedophiliacs” troll isn’t quite what “she” says she is.

Actually, “she’s” more like a “he”.

An anonymous poster to Renegade Evolution’s blog commented that she had done some research on the style of “Yvette Doll’s” mass posts, and found it to be particularly similar to a male antiprostitiution activist out of Ireland named Gregory Carlin.

Well…I decided to do some Googling of my own; and oh, look what I found.

This is from a thread from a UK legal message board called Legal Banter, from October of last year. The subject line was “CEOP make a claim”.

On 2 Oct, 01:59, Robbie wrote:
Blah wrote:
wrote:


CEOP claimed to me on the telephone that they campaigned against the
use of the term ‘child pornography’ on legal advice ( they actually
said that) and that it was not a legislatively defined or enacted or
ratified (UN) term.


http://www.opsi.gov.uk/


That has a search engine.


Ishtar 4?

He certainly sounds like as fruit loop…


Robbie

I’m a reformed cult musician. I’m the fruit loop formerly known as
Yvette Doll.

http://www.abalis.co.uk/sudetencreche/archive2_5.htm

Who is Ishtar 4?

Gregory

Hmmm….formerly known???

Now, following the link above goes to an article about an 80’s British pop group that “Yvette Doll” was cited as a former member of (which also included two other members who broke off later and became part of the successful US pop group The Thompson Twins. Whether Mr. Carlin really was “Yvette Doll” back then and simply reverted to his original name for his latest activism, or whether he just borrowed that pseudonym for jerking people off, is not mentioned anywhere.

Nevertheless, the style that Carlin uses in his own rants posted in his own name match perfectly with those done of late by “Yvette Doll” in his recent troll farts. Meaning: We have a WINNER!!!

Gee, Mr. Carlin….why not use your real name??? Afraid that the radfem womyn will see through your nonsense?? (Certainly Cath Elliot has; she has now publically repudiated and exposed him, and basically told him to fuck off.)

On the other hand, some of the more wingnuttier abolitionists aren’t so willing to repudiate him.

Take, for instance, this woman named GreenConsciousness, who is your typical GenderBorg radfem activist; she recently re-posted some of the F-Word thread over at her place…and added one particular comment that might give you some notice:


“Where on our website does it say anything about having sex?” asked
Douglas, one half of Newcastle’s premier executive escort agency”

So no sex, and therefore no sex worker credentials!

I targeted Jerome Brennn for years, and eventually he went to prison
for trying to procure children for a le chic enterprise in Spain.

I target all the pedophiles and pimps using Jobcentre.

“Douglas’s attitude to the cover story seemed to be one of weary
exasperation. Of course they’re going to have sex, his expression
said, but if we talked honestly about it I might be busted for
immoral earnings and the police would have to waste time pushing
working girls back on to the street. John’s denial, though, was much
more interesting: an odd hybrid of legalistic game-playing and
genuine psychological resistance to the notion that he was selling
sex. It wasn’t that he didn’t know perfectly well what was going on
(otherwise why squirm so uncomfortably about the headmaster who rang
up requesting the youngest escort on the books to dress up as a schoolgirl?”

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n16657627

I congratulate the radical feminists on this blog who are following
in the footsteps of Andrea Dworkin

A pimp has to be lucky always, we only have to be lucky once.

In solidarity

Gregory Carlin
Irish Anti-Traficking Coalition

Notice…no “Yvette Doll” histrionics here, just his own real identity.

Gee….projecting much, Mr. Carlin??

And what does that say about the GenderBorg and their attitudes about men…I guess that some men are less evil than others….especially when they march in perfect goosestep with their ideology???

Typical. So damn typical.

—————————————————–

UPDATE:

Here’s another example of how so far off the batshit Gregory Carlin is regarding his obsession with pedophilia.

This is from an education listserv in Great Britain called SafteyNet. The respondent, a John Hackett, is attempting to debunk some of the more classic claims of Carlin regarding pedophilia and the Internet.

I have read Mr Carlin's last five messages with interest and a growing sense that
he has a very anti-European stance where everything in the US is good and we are
obstructive and perhaps a little simpleminded. This may be from the best of motives
but it does little to advance his case. I will not go though all the messages in
detail but there are some points that i think worth putting forward for debate.

All forms of child pornography and exploitation are to be deplored. That said,
Mr Carlin's seeming anti-British and anti-European rhetoric will do little to
protect the children he clearly feels passionately about.

Of course most abuse is by adults on children and no one would say otherwise - but
the original post could have been read as saying that most abuse was taking place
in schools. If that is not what was meant (as you have clarified) then just say so.

 Serious offending via the internet as it relates to British educational
 establishments is almost exclusively connected to adult employees.

Just so. And clearly (potential) offenders will gravitate to the type of activity
(employment, hobby, etc) where they are in contact with children - this is
obvious and needs no explanation. But the next sentence -

 The British have problems, and they are apparently not
 getting any better.

- is to both to state the obvious (we ALL have problems) and to imply that this is
something particularly British. What evidence is there for this? I do not have any
evidence for or against but I would be very surprised if it were so. And I would
also be surprised if many - if not - most pornographic sites are just as "popular"
in the US as they are elsewhere. What proportion, for example, of sites are hosted
and/or mainly funded from US sources and customers?

 It was obvious to some of us that the pornography industry ( US & Europe)
 and pro-pedophiles ( Europe) were trying to damage Senator Shelby's career,
 it was a trick.

So the US does not have any pro-pedophiles?

 So, don't discuss it. To return to the point, to complain of children doing
 X, Y or Z, on the internet, and to apply funding, public relations, and a
 raft of measures to address that particular problem is one thing.

To what "raft of measures" are you referring? The ones that try to educate them about
the dangers of the internet? Or cyber-bullying? Would you NOT fund such project to
help PREVENT child on child bullying?

 In relation to the criminal use of the internet as it relates to the
 educational establishment, then for every schoolchild arrested for child
 pornography etc, there will be quite a few teachers. To put it as mildly as
 possible.

 'Luton Crown Court heard Graham Conridge, 59, admitted posing as a teenage
 boy to contact 261 girls aged 11 to 15 through MSN and
 chatrooms.'<http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/6552437.stm>

Mr Carlin implies here that Conridge was doing this in an educational institution.
However, as the article cites makes clear, he was actually banned from teaching
five years previously by Beds CC "following serious allegations of misconduct." and
is described in the first paragraph as a "former music teacher". So to imply that
this shocking case is related to the eduction system is simply wrong. While I do not
know the full facts of the case it may be that although there was not enough evidence
for a criminal prosecution five years ago he was prevented from teaching. And he was 
finally brought to justice by CEOP who Mr Carlin seems to deride.

 'Fred Brown, incoming president of the NASUWT teachers' union, claimed it
 would not be long before a teacher was "raped, filmed and on the internet",
 and he called for all mobile phones to be banned from schools across
 Northern Ireland.
 '<http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article2356788.ece>

As the president of the NASUWT one of his concerns is rightly the protection of his
members from physical abuse whether it is filmed or not. Whatever you feel about the
internet and/or banning of mobiles this is a legitimate stand for him to take. This
does not mean he does not care about child abuse any more than your concern with it
implies (I hope) that you are unconcerned about teachers being attacked by pupils.

This type or argument is both fallacious and damaging to your case.

 Japan is awash with images from British schools.  I can leave you with that
 thought.

What is you evidence for this? And what, exactly, do you mean by "from British
Schools"? Saved on their servers? Photographed there? British students or teachers
taking part? And what about the demand for "asian" pornography? As someone involved
in web-filtering I know that there are lot of sites featuring Japanese models.

Lets just face up to the problem - it is international. International co-operation
is required. The problem will never be "solved" - all forms of abuse have been going
on for hundreds of years as a superficial study of history and literature will
confirm. Child abuse was not invented by the internet - it is just one more
communication channel.

I do not know Bill Henson's work but I did go to the link - perhaps Mr Carlin would
like to read this posting on the thread:

      i think bill henson's work is fabulous. my school went to the national art 
      gallery in sydney along with other schools and he answered all our questions 
      and he is really nice and had interesting answers. his main answer was that 
      his artworks were how the individual saw it. so therefore, the indiviadual 
      could decide whether the art is porn or art. i love his works because they 
      are so raw and naturl.[sic] his other works captivate me as well because 
      they leave me wondering about the story behind them.

This is just one of the positive comments - in fact reading all the comments the
one Mr Carlin quoted was BY FAR the most negative. Most of the comments (many from
yr11/yr12 students) were thoughtful and positive about his work. Perhaps more
thoughtful tha Mr Carlin's knee jerk reaction. I wonder if he has seen them? As I
haven't I am not in a position to say much about them as works of art/porn but the
reactions certainly lead me toward the latter view.

--
Regards,

John Hackett

Consider yourself outed, Mr. Carlin.

Share

The "NAMBLA'izing of Douglas Fox of IUSW (Or, Yvette Doll Wins The Golden A*Hole Wingnut Award Hands Down)

[Originally crossposted to the Blogger SmackChron due to issues this morning with this blog…but issues resolved, so posted here as well.]

It’s a tactic that most reactionary propagandists simply can’t help themselves to avoid.

When you are losing the argument intellectually, paint your opponent as beyond the pale.

Such is exactly what is happening with the most recent debate on sex work coming out of Great Britain.

It all started with the brave and yeoman work of Caroline Shepherd, who has dedicated plenty of sweat, time, and bandwidth to her belief that proposed changes in sex work legislation proposed by the likes of Jacqui Smith are simply wrongheaded, counterproductive, and even dangerous to the women whom this legislation pretends to want to protect.

Well, that didn’t sit very well with certain radical anti-sex work abolitionists, who have been all over the Internet countering Caroline’s obvious facts with nothing more than the usual claptrap about “pimp enabling”.

But baiting Caroline as an “enabler of pimps” is a softball as compared to the radioactivity that is thrown at any MAN who dares to challenge abolitionist ideology….and woe to him if he happens to be a sex worker himself.

Such is what is happening to Douglas Fox, who happens to be the spoken representative of a group known as the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW), a group dedicated to protecting the rights and safety of existing sex workers, and who have been active in opposing Ms. Smith’s legislation from the start.

He also happens to a gay man whose partner happens to run an English escort agency.

A fact, of course, that is now being exploited by a few abolitionist radicals to smear and demonize him as a “pimp”…and that’s just the beginning.

One such article comes from Cath Elliott, who used the pages of the Liberal Conspiracy blog to all but call out D Fox as a pimp profiting off the suffering of sex workers and claim that he cannot represent all sex workers due to his position (or simply because he happens to be a man, I figure).

According to Elliot, the very existence of D Fox’s escort agency using clients to protest the laws (funny, isn’t that just like consumers defending legal agencies who do them no harm to resist legislation that would wipe them out for no reason??) should disqualify him and justifies the legislation sought after:

And it gets worse. In another recent discussion forum, this time over at Punterlink International, a contributor named Elrond posted this suggestion when discussing threats to the sex industry:

I would again suggest all write and complain to your MP. You all should either donate and join the IUSW as an escort or a friend if you are a punter.

And it’s as simple as that.

“Punters”, BTW, are the English slang for clients and others who patronize sex workers.

Indeed, according to Elliot, the mere inclusion of agency owners, “punters”, and “pimps” in advocating against her favored legislation should disqualify their attempts, since apparently only sex workers themselves (at least, only those who favor Elliot’s ideology” should be allowed to represent “sex workers” overall:

If you look at the GMB IUSW membership application form it’s easy to see how anyone claiming to be an escort or claiming to work in any area of the sex industry can take up membership. Confidentiality is obviously at a premium when signing workers up from such a sensitive industry, but as the comment on Punterlink shows, this also means that membership of IUSW branch is open to abuse: anyone can join.

If the the IUSW is populated with pimps, agency owners, and punters, then it shouldn’t have any credibility in the prostitution debate.

Yeah. Right. So, the people most affected by this legislation should have no right, according to Ms. Elliot, to even have a voice or to protest in this debate. But, this isn’t really about censorship, isn’t it??

But even Cath Elliot is dwarfed in the myopia department by one Yvette Doll, whom has made it her personal trolling campaign to taint anyone who dares to challenge the Smith legislation with charges of “pedophilia”. Basically, she has used the pages of almost every blog debating this topic to go off on tangents that would make even the “9/11/01 Truthers” take notice. Some examples of her Tin-Foil Hattery:

[from the thread at Shriaz Socialist]

January 12, 2009 at 9:19 am

“From reading this and other threads, it seems clear to me that if sex workers are going to make any gains in terms of rights and safety, it’ll be done without the help of radical feminists.”

With all those creepy and pervy web-sites and people pretending to be schoolgirls,

or other doing child age role playing, I think the IPCE, PNVD or NAMBLA may be more reliable allies.

I’ve never met a pimp who wasn’t a pedophile, if we are talking personal experience.

“I really like the plain grey skirt,white blose, small chest in a training bra, black tights and M&S white knickers look. Anyone any suggestions?”

I think that is far too sick for feminist acceptance.

Yvette Doll

———————————

Yup…that was a NAMBLA reference she brought in….and in case you don’t get the point:

January 12, 2009 at 11:41 am

In the USA, pro-sex feminism is in (open) alliance with pedophiles, it is the same in Britain and it was certainly the same in Holland. The most vile & violent pornographers are supported by Douglas Fox’s union.

——————————————————

And then, she breaks out the Max Hardcore case in the US as proof of complicity of porn with pedophilia. Never mind that Hardcore was convicted not of pedophilia but of classic obscenity on the basis of scenes performed by consenting adults (not one of them underage or illegal), and that some of the members of the jury openly stated that their guilty verdict was forced on them by the prosecution (and that the case is currently under appeal).

January 12, 2009 at 11:49 am

“Although the actresses in Little’s movies sometimes appear to be under the age of consent and even as young adolescents, it has never been proven that any of them actually were. In his film Max Extreme 4, an actress stated during one verbal exchange that she was 12 years-old, according to Adult Video News magazine.”

School uniform territory – that is were the money is. He lost his web-site to our friends.

Ahhhhh…..yeah. Right. And Brooke Shields played a 17 year old prostitute in the movie Pretty Baby. Which means….nothing to you and me. Acting out a scene is probably not the same as actually having sex with an underage performer, which is already a crime….but why let truth and honesty get in the way of a good rant??

And…”our friends”??? I thought that radicalfeminists didn’t want anything to do with the Bush Justice Department and the Religious Right??? Except, of course, when it suits their agenda.

Oh. but there’s more…when Renegade Evolution decided to chime in that not all (or even most, or damn few if any) “sex-positive” writers think of Max Hardcore as anything more than an asshole with a cracked view of women and sex who nevertheless was wronged as a means of sexual censorship, Yvette responded with this crap:

January 12, 2009 at 12:57 pm

His endorsement is via a lobby, iincluding pro-sex feminism

As it happens, in the USA, UK and Holland, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pro-pedophiles. They go out together.

But the pornography industry ( in the USA) was using children for years and 2257 is after 1990 if I recall.

In Europe using kids was completely normal.

Even Larry Flynt and Hustler is brought into Yvette’s conspiracy theory (what?? No “Chester the Molestor” toons??)

January 12, 2009 at 1:03 pm

Do you think that happened?

Recurrent cartoon and composite photo themes picturing blood-soaked castration are seen in the reality of child rape and mutilation. In October 26, 1990 a nine-year-old boy in Norman, Oklahoma was raped, his penis cut off and eye gouged out causing Hustler to be removed from local stores — where a current Hustler depicted a young boy similarly tortured.

And, in response again to Ren, she makes the point as explicit as you can get:

January 12, 2009 at 12:24 pm

“Oh look, the nazi comparision again. You know, as a Jew and a Sex Worker, I find that damn odious” [Response by Ren Ev]

I meant it, pro-sex feminism is in cahoots with pedophila, there are tens of millions of child porngraphy transactions in Britain and that scale of abuse is an unfixable atrocity against the children of the world.

So they’re as bad as Nazis, pedophiles and their supporters. And ( anyways) sex workers are always calling the Pope a Nazi

A pro sex feminist is a Jew the Nazis allow to live to trap other Jews. I mean look at the sex worker web-sites, they’re degrading, a crime against women.

So I really meant that, absolutely and for sure.

So special that it justifies bolded emphasis.

That just about says it all, doesn’t it??

Well….not quite.

There is this bit about US child porn prosecutorial history, regarding the infamous Traci Lords case (again, in response to Ren Ev):

January 12, 2009 at 1:24 pm

Traci Lords.

That’s a dime a dozen in Europe, the Brits just leave it on the shelves. If you ask the Brits to take U18 child porn out of retail, they just can’t see the point.

The customs work OK, the age-checking is three years behind. The other thing is, Brits, well nobody wants to do it.

You have a heap of agencies, none o them will do it, it stays in retail or whatever.

It is not the USA, the Brits also have areas of immunity. It can take a decde to get one child pornographer and the FBI will probably have to do that for them.

A teacher for example, will have a long run. So 261 schoolgirls proxy child porn or whatever, is not going to zilch too many myspce accounts.

The USA does more teachers in a day, than the UK wants to do in a year.

The feminists (of all shades) allow the teeachers [sic] to get on with it. It is their culture & history.

And she quotes in that same comment a case of a 61-year old man using MySpace to generate a fake ID/profile to befriend 15- and 16-year olds….as if that proves that “child porn” is so pervasive in “their culture”.

And so on, ad nauseum. And pretty damn nauseating, too.

I’ll just let Yvette close it out, since she does more damage to herself and her cause than any reasoned arguments to the contrary could ever do.

January 12, 2009 at 12:46 pm

So pro-sex feminists, who like Max Hardcore, and that is seemingly most of them, are not really feminists. They use the tag ‘feminism’ but really they’re just in the pimping junior league.

January 12, 2009 at 12:49 pm

 

I’m giving you a lesson anyway, I think you need it.

Lesson duly noted…..asshole.

[Bonus for WordPress readers]

Oh, damn…I forgot one of the more classic blasts of all from Yvette…this one from the thread at Shriaz Socialist Too Much To Say For Myself):

I am also guessing that Douglas Fox has as much chance of clearing US immigration as Robert Mugabe becoming the next Senator for Illinois.

Not the “DFox clearing immigration” smack (so would Xaviara Hollander or the late Isadora Allende, but who’s counting??), but the “Mugabe making Illinois Senator” blast. Gee, Yvette…is it really that hard to tell US apart???

Not just an asshole, or even a Puritan asshole….a RACIST Puritan asshole.

(Update (1/13/09): And guess what…she’s not even a she, but a he.)

Congratulations, Ms. Doll…errrr, Mr. Carlin….you win. By a boat race.

Yvette Doll Gregory Carlin….today’s (and tomorrow’s) WORST……PERSON…..IN THE WORRRRRRRLLLLLLLDDDDDD!!!!!!DUHDUHDUHDUH!!!!1111ONE11!!!

(Sorry, KO…always wanted to do that.)


Share

Male Sexual "Entitlement"?? Or Just Simple Desire??

Update (1/0/09): Aspasia lays the ultimate smackdown on Cara…but Ren Ev, as usual, gets the win.

————————————————————————————

OK….I still owe y’all a 2008 Blogging Year in Review post, and that will be forthcoming…but there’s something that I just have to get off my chest that is nagging my ass pretty good.

Caroline Shepherd over at Better Burn That Dress, Sister (and formerly of Uncool) has been fighting the good fight pretty hard lately on debunking all the crap that she has been taking on the British side of the Great Big Pond over the recent attempts to change for the worse laws concerning sex work in Great Britain. She is currently running a petition to get the British Parliament to delay discussion and enaction of various proposed anti-sex work legislation until a new government can be elected; if you are British, you are strongly encouraged by me to go there and sign it.

Caroline has also been all over the Internet lately — guest posting in places like Sex In The Public Square, Shiraz Socialist, Feministe, and The F-Word — on the negative effects of what is known as the “Swedish Model” form of legislation that seeks to eliminate prostitution and other forms of sex work through criminalizing and shaming exclusively the men who patronize such services while leaving the women basically untouched. Problem is, wiping out their professions by eliminating and criminalizing the “demand”, as Caroline so aptly notes and backs up by testimony from active sex workers themselves, not only does NOT significantly reduce the harm to those sex workers who remain in the business, but it actively supports the broader system of sexual shame and sexual reaction which fuels the most violent and abusive practices to begin with.

Needless to say, the radicalfeminist defenders of the Swedish Model were out in force to defend their favored legislation, and as usual, they brought out all the usual and all too typical memes about how they aren’t really against sex workers, but against the evil MEN who “sell women’s bodies” and otherwise abuse and degrade women merely for “male sexual entitlement”. A seminal example that touches all the bases of the usual boilerplate follows (this from the thread from The F-Word courtesy of “Cara”, who responds en blanc to Caroline, Renegade Evolution, and SnowdropExplodes, who all commented earlier in the thread defending Caroline’s work):

[posted by Cara to The F-Word on 1/6/06 @ 8:53 PM London time]

Renegade Evolution – I’ve never been a cleaner either, so I can’t possibly comment on whether a cleaner is exploited or not…? [responding to Ren Ev’s comment here; See also Ren’s post to her own blog here]

Caroline – oooh, yes, a union for the protection of pimps and other abusers, how convincing.
And – because it *is* unthinking. [responding to Caroline’s remarks here]

What part of: prostitution. will. not. be. a crime. do you all not understand?

‘As for, “all she has to do is is show she is willingly doing sex work”, this is no protection at all for the client – after all, whatever proof is shown might be faked by an abusive pimp, and Jacqui Smith’s proposed new law means that however convincing the evidence shown to persuade the client that the sex worker is willing, he is still liable – there is NO room for “reasonable belief” or any other such caveat. He is taking the same risk whether she “shows willing” or not.’

This is rubbish. The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sex worker *was* coerced.

I have not seen any convincing argument for, or evidence that this new law would in fact harm sex workers. As I said in my post, they have *more* redress to the law, and less fear of being prosecuted themselves.

And there *are* no ‘decent’ men who visit prostitutes, because decent men don’t. There are merely greater and lesser degrees of abusiveness and misogyny. Don’t try to tell me that there would suddenly be an explosion in abuse of prostitutes by nasty customers. There isn’t a binary division between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ johns.

As for demand falling, *I don’t care*. In fact if it leads to some sex workers exiting the trade, great, I’m ecstatic.
Those women who willingly work in the sex trade, by definition, have a choice and skills, and can find some other kind of work. I don’t have a problem if they eventually decide to do so. *I* don’t have a right to a job if demand for my skills falls, due to economic or other reasons, nor does anyone; you find something else, that’s life.

If you are going to argue that many sex workers love it and are making a free choice and all, and are not abused, these are the ‘high end’ girls who can pick and choose customers, work out of their own home or somewhere else safe anyway. I do not see that their clients would suddenly all run away in fear – by definition, most johns aren’t the type of people who care about what the law says overly anyway. They won’t be forced to go from servicing nice polite clean johns in a warm flat for large sums of money, to selling blow jobs for a tenner on the street!
As for the police investigating, don’t make me laugh – in the UK they often don’t come if your home has been burgled.

It’s the addicts, the desperate, those who have probably been abused in childhood or by partners, those with few qualifications and so on, as MB says. who I care about.

Legalisation would only condemn them to continue in the trade. However sanitised you make brothels, you’ve still got to admit it is mostly the desperate and vulnerable women who would be attracted to this line of work. Prostitution is inextricably linked to drug trade and other organised crime.

Making sex work acceptable would only reduce their chances of getting out, hey, nothing wrong with sex work, so it’s easy to say there’s nothing wrong with drug addicted, vulnerable women being trafficked, or exploited. Seeing sex work as acceptable makes it easier to be blind to women who are not willingly doing this work. Because sex workers don’t divide neatly into the ‘trafficked’ and the ‘totally love my career, yays’.

Exit programmes would be reduced or die out altogether; unemployed women could even be required to go into sex work or lose jobseekers’ allowance.

The ‘right’ of a tiny minority of sex workers who claim to enjoy the work is way down my list of priorities below women who do *not* want to be sex workers and are abused daily. This law would actually *help* them to get out of prostitution.

I am with MB and Jennifer.

‘It is all about male beliefs in sexual entitlement and sexual access to women and girls.’ Exactly.

Now, at least Cara doesn’t attempt like Mark P over at Shiraz Socialist to play the Marxist “I know more about who a worker is, and a prostitute isn’t a worker” card; she is actually honest enough to say outright that prostitution must be abolished through the Swedish Model-style legislation and men jailed and shamed into submission for their evil ways and their wayward erections.

When you get right down to it, ultimately, there really isn’t that much difference between the Swedish Model method of repression and the more traditional “smack and stone the whores” style of persecution (which, BTW, also tends to go after the clients pretty hard, too, but at least allows the workers some form of minimal agency). Especially since both models of oppression are heavily spiced with lots of slippery slope arguments, gross assumptions about the ultimate basar instincts of sex regarding its targeted scapegoat. and the refusal to even grant active sex workers even the smallest bit of self agency and self-representation.

But why take my word for it? Let’s do a full breakdown of Cara’s comments and dissect the gist of her methods, shall we?? (Italicized phrases are Cara’s, of course.)

Renegade Evolution – I’ve never been a cleaner either, so I can’t possibly comment on whether a cleaner is exploited or not…?

Now the argument of “if you’ve never been there, you have no right to comment” card is not my choice for a counterargument in this case, mostly because the other side will ultimately bring out someone like Rebecca Mott or Shelley Lubben or some other “ex-slut” or “ex-hooker” turned antiporn/antiprostitution activist to buttres her case. Nevertheless, people who pretend to speak for those they are “protecting” while dismissing the experiences of actual sex workers that don’t match their particular ideology don’t necessarily get to dictate the terms of the argument….and I’d say that Ren Ev’s been far more open to the opposition’s arguments than Cara ever will. Besides, I’d say that the cleaner herself (I’m assuming a female gender because I’d assume that Cara wouldn’t care one bit about a MALE cleaner being exploited because men don’t quite count in her universe) would be a far better judge of whether she’s being exploited than some outside party.

‘As for, “all she has to do is is show she is willingly doing sex work”, this is no protection at all for the client – after all, whatever proof is shown might be faked by an abusive pimp, and Jacqui Smith’s proposed new law means that however convincing the evidence shown to persuade the client that the sex worker is willing, he is still liable – there is NO room for “reasonable belief” or any other such caveat. He is taking the same risk whether she “shows willing” or not.’

This is rubbish. The burden of proof in law is on the prosecution. It would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sex worker *was* coerced.

Of course…just as here in the United States with rape law, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove that the woman was indeed raped; if the burden of proof wasn’t proved without reasonable doubt, then the accuser would have to be assumed to be not-guilty. Hey, wait-a-minute, hold up…I thought that radicalfeminists believed that the existing judicial system principle of presumed innocence was merely a taint of “the patriarchy” and allowed far too many rapes to occur without penalty of the accused?? Would Cata be willing to accept the same burden of proof be applied to cases regarding coercion in sex work??? HELL NO…why do you think that she and her allies are attempting to change the freakin’ laws to put the burden of proof onto the MAN to prove he is NOT GUILTY???

In fact, the fundamental assumption of the laws that Jacqui Smith is proposing (and the entire point of Cara’s rant) is that men who visit prostitutes should be assumed to BE nothing less than rapists and misogynists, and should NOT be given the assumption of innocence until proven guilty, but assumed to be guilty as the day is long and subjected to all kinds of humiliation, arrest, and even jail time…even if they never hurt one woman at all.

And what would happen if the Smith laws were enacted and am activist sex worker testified to being abused…..and the defense decided to simply whip out the old “the slut/bitch/trollop made me do it” defense??? Would Cara be so willing to defend the worker uncategroically?? OR…would she simply stand aside in silence until such worker admitted her hurt and harm in being an accomplice to a patriarchial society and accepted Jesus Christ Saint Andrea as her personal Savior??? Given what I’ve seen of the biases and prejudices of radicalfeminist antiprostitution abolitionists, I wouldn’t be so willing to vote for Option #1.

And there *are* no ‘decent’ men who visit prostitutes, because decent men don’t. There are merely greater and lesser degrees of abusiveness and misogyny. Don’t try to tell me that there would suddenly be an explosion in abuse of prostitutes by nasty customers. There isn’t a binary division between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ johns.

Note the bolded emphasis that I added to the obvious moral assumptions of Cara. Decent men don’t have to use sex workers, because either their wives/girlfriends/significant others are good enough for them, or…..men should just keep their pants zipped and think of other things rather than nasty, dirty, patriarchial sex. Just like “nice girls keep their legs closed until they find the right man (or woman) and get married.” Or…”nice girls don’t use birth control, or bare their midriffs, or wear those nasty low-rider jeans and braless halter tops or -gasp- thong panties; that’s only for evil sluts who bring women down and fuel men’s dirty lusts.” I suppose that “decent men” would also not use porn or even think about other women as “sex objects”, right??? Only the majority of “indecent” men do that, you see.

As for demand falling, *I don’t care*. In fact if it leads to some sex workers exiting the trade, great, I’m ecstatic.

Those women who willingly work in the sex trade, by definition, have a choice and skills, and can find some other kind of work. I don’t have a problem if they eventually decide to do so. *I* don’t have a right to a job if demand for my skills falls, due to economic or other reasons, nor does anyone; you find something else, that’s life.

Yup….far, far better for women to remain poor, economically exploited, and tied to abusive relationships or trapped in traditionally crappy, exploitive jobs that don’t even guarantee any means of protection from sexual harassment or even rape, than to ever allow them the right to change and reform sex work to make it safer and saner. And all this from a woman who has the gall to call herself a “feminist”. Sarah Palin would be so proud of this brand of “progressive feminism”, indeed.

If you are going to argue that many sex workers love it and are making a free choice and all, and are not abused, these are the ‘high end’ girls who can pick and choose customers, work out of their own home or somewhere else safe anyway. I do not see that their clients would suddenly all run away in fear – by definition, most johns aren’t the type of people who care about what the law says overly anyway. They won’t be forced to go from servicing nice polite clean johns in a warm flat for large sums of money, to selling blow jobs for a tenner on the street!
As for the police investigating, don’t make me laugh – in the UK they often don’t come if your home has been burgled.

It’s the addicts, the desperate, those who have probably been abused in childhood or by partners, those with few qualifications and so on, as MB says. who I care about.

The point, madame Cara, is that those “high end” girls should not be forced out of business and their clients who do treat them with actual respect for their humanity and do not abuse them should not be targeted for shaming and abuse by the state merely to resolve your personal fee-fees about men and their erections. Nobody is arguing that abuse is OK or that those who use the sex industry to abuse sex workers should go unpunished; but that those who are proven not to do any harm should not be done harm by the State. End. Of. Statement.

And yes, some sex workers have suffered prior abuse…so let’s do like we do other women and attack the source of the abuse….mainly, the family, the state, and how about going after the abusers themselves??? That would be a bit more effective than chasing after The Cock, ‘ya think???

Legalisation would only condemn them to continue in the trade. However sanitised you make brothels, you’ve still got to admit it is mostly the desperate and vulnerable women who would be attracted to this line of work. Prostitution is inextricably linked to drug trade and other organised crime.

Making sex work acceptable would only reduce their chances of getting out, hey, nothing wrong with sex work, so it’s easy to say there’s nothing wrong with drug addicted, vulnerable women being trafficked, or exploited. Seeing sex work as acceptable makes it easier to be blind to women who are not willingly doing this work. Because sex workers don’t divide neatly into the ‘trafficked’ and the ‘totally love my career, yays’.

Exit programmes would be reduced or die out altogether; unemployed women could even be required to go into sex work or lose jobseekers’ allowance.

This is what Caroline would call BULL-FUCKIN’-LOCKS. Here in the US, I’d prefer a equally colorful term: BULL. SHIT.

Yeah, right….decriminalization would reduce the chances of those abused within sex work getting out??? When there is NOT A SINGLE GODDESS DAMN SEX WORKER ORGANIZATION calling for anything less than full support for those wanting out?? Not SWOP, not COYOTE, not NSWP, not the folks at Bound, Not Gagged…..NOWHERE. Well…maybe except in the heated imagination of abolitionists like Cara, perhaps.

(And notice I use the term “decriminalizatoin” rather than Cara’s loaded term of “legalization”; since most sex worker activists are just as opposed to some legaliation schemes that would regulate the sex worker’s whereabouts as strongly as any abolitionist’s scheme. I do favor some form of regulation that goes to protect sex workers from abuse and allows for proper health and safety and adequate compensation for their profession.)

And I’ve seen NO evidence of any law forcing any worker to go into prostitution in order to retain their allowances…but then again, I’ve never heard Cara actually defend the right of poor people TO have such decent allowances to get them through the hard times. Again, better for poor and working-class women to suffer than to ever become a sex worker and willingly serve clients???

The ‘right’ of a tiny minority of sex workers who claim to enjoy the work is way down my list of priorities below women who do *not* want to be sex workers and are abused daily. This law would actually *help* them to get out of prostitution.

I am with MB and Jennifer.

‘It is all about male beliefs in sexual entitlement and sexual access to women and girls.’ Exactly.

Like I said..at least Cara is honest about supporting the efforts of Jacqui Smith (and in fact, Jennifer (the other commentor Cara referenced) actually thinks that Ms. Smith’s proposed legislation doesn’t go far enough; she wants the full Swedish Model treatment to be imposed on Irish and British citizens without delay).

But it is this “male belief(s) in sexual entitlement and sexual access to women and girls” meme that really got to me, and caused me to write this post.

Apparently, the motivation of every single man in the universe to engage in sex with women is not, at least in Cara’s mind, let alone the minds of radicalfeminist antiprostitution/antipornography activists, is not considered to be merely the innate drive to maintain and extend the species, or simply the natural desire to achieve pleasure with a willing and mutual and equal partner. It is considered, essentially, an act of rape….if not real, then at least virtual. Even merely thinking of a woman as a subject of sexual desire for a man (let alone acting on those desires through negotiation and persuasion) is seen in the eyes of such “feminists” as nothing less than a violation of a collective space, and reducible to the lowest common denominator and the worst, baser instincts. And of course, women who are tainted with such a desire to engage in sex with such low life forms that men apparently are should themselves be tainted with the same brush of “gender traitor” and reduced to the level of “cumdumpster” and “sparklepony” and any other insult that can be thrown at any woman who dares to go against The Sisterhood.

It’s not dissimilar to the profound hatred and disgust that White supremacists have toward those fellow White folk that they consider to be too close to the profane Blacks (or whomever group of color are the scapegoat of the moment). It’s almost as if sex itself is considered to be a vector of disease and oppression that can only be redemmed by the most reactionary, repressive rituals or by the most confining, restrictive boundaries (such as “radical intimacy” or monogamy enforced by marriage or simply reproduction within an approved “nuclear family”).

That there is certainly very real abuses and very real harm and real misogyny in sex work is not in conflict here; what is is that one particular group has decided to exploit such abuses as a means to impose an agenda and an ideology that is every bit as repressive and closed as the “patriarchy” they so duly oppose. The only difference between the “Swedish Model” form and the more traditional form of anti-sex work reform that merely cleans the streets of sex worker and client alike and arrests them in mass, is simply the gender of the scapegoat used to justify the policy. Of course, advocates of the Swedish Model insist that they would NEVER attack the sex worker herself, only the evil “john” and “pimp” who would “abuse” her….but their ideology of “all men are potential rapists because of their erect dicks” fails to seperate the truly abusive from the merely horny; the overly aggressive from the actual rapist from the mere risque comment.

But mostly, the “SW” abolitionist view fails because it refuses to deal with the reality that women are NOT merely tools or extensions of their vaginas or nipples; they do have brains and voices and hearts, and are more than able to speak to their experiences and fight for their own rights without the need for spokespeople running in as “crusaders” on their behalf. Merely because some men might not be so willing to take a woman’s “No” seriously is not cause to completely deny her that right or the right to say “Yes” and mean it; it simply means that a woman’s declaration of “Yes” or “No” should be upheld and counted. If a man ignores a woman’s stated ‘NO”, then he becomes an aggressor and should be treated in that manner; if he attacks and assaults a woman anyway, then he becomes a rapist and should be treated as such. It doesn’t matter whether money was exchanged or not.

But..if a man and a woman (or any other combination of consenting adults) decide to negotiate as equals a price for a consensual sexual encounter where both sides mutually satisfy each other, both sides respect each other, and both sides get mutual pleasure out of the encounter, and no injury or force results, then it is NOT the business of the State, the Church, the Law, the GenderBorg Collective, or anyone else to pass judgment on their tryst. You may not like what they personally offer, but as long as there are no children present and no other laws are violated, ultimately it is their business and none of ours….unless the participants want to share the details with us.

Yes, consent is constrained a great deal by our culture through economic privilege and gender privilege and racial privilege…..and those who don’t have the resources or the control of production may not have as great a leeway to avoid abuse and/or exploitation as those who are more privileged. Where sex radicals of the Left and sex worker activists differ from the Caras and Jacqui Smiths of the world, however, is that we have a much more positive and humane view of human sexuality, as well as a more open and positive view about transforming prevalent male attitudes and behaviors concerning sex.

Some men are certainly boorish and not too nice when it comes to soliciting women (or men) for sex, and they should be called out and chastized and corrected on the spot a lot more than they are now. That is not the same, though, as constantly shaming and guilt-tripping and collectively convicting and punishing every single man for having sexual thoughts about some women. A more profitable and more effective strategy would be to accept sexual desire for the universal that it is, and offer more positive, safer, saner, and egalitarian venues for the expression of such desires. It would also help a great deal if women were allowed the same rights and privileges and responsibilities for their own desires (yes, women do in fact think about sex nearly as much as the men do; they’ve not had nearly as much space or leeway to engage in their desires as much), and if women were given more power within the sex industry and in the broader culture to express themselves more fully.

Men should have as much access sexually to women (and boys to girls) as women should have to men and girls to boys. That is: as much as women and girls should allow….and vice versa. In short, to quote Marcia Pally: Ban Sexism, NOT Sex.

[Damn….that’s a whopper to kick off ’09, but I had to get it off my chest.]


Share