by Homeless Halo » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:31 pm
IR:<br><br>Porn isn't "illegal" here, but it isn't "legal" either. It exists because of a loophole in art/1st Amend. Laws that collectively make it "semi-legal" or at least non-prosecutable. However, because of the non-serious nature it which it is legally addressed, the contracts aren't historically taken seriously, leaving much ROOM for abuse and/or coercion to be tolerated and/or ignored.<br><br>Western European socialization normall either decriminalizes porn, which creates the problems we have in USA, or "legalizes" it but keeps tabs on pornographers and/or prostitutes making it nearly impossible for them to travel abroad, some of the history of the various approaches and their successes and/or failures are given in the website I linked above(and below).<br><br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.wendymcelroy.com">www.wendymcelroy.com</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>Part of the problem between modern feminist polemic and historical pornography/prostitution is that the semi-legal nature of porn is a direct by-product of the sexual liberation movement in 60s/70s America, which created both more freedom and more opportunity for abuse. The modern "feminist" diatribe against porn seems funny, given how it was 70s feminists who were responsible for dragging it from underground (where it was in the 50s). I think a large portion of the women's movements current venom about porn is a reaction to its own failures and/or oversuccesses. That is, they don't know where to take the movement next, and, like most stalled movements, have retreated backwards when they began to lose steam in some areas. <br>I think a major enemy of feminism has been its own fault, that is, the undersuccess of prosecuting criminal sexual misconduct towards women is considered to be a result of the "politicizing of rape" and other crimes. That is, rape ceased to be crimes perpetrated by an individual against other individuals in feminist rhetoric, and instead became a political crime of all males against all females. (I can quote several founding radical feminists in more exact terminology if you doubt this) This way of thinking has led to several problems in the area of prosecuting rapists. Not the least of which is the wrongful assumption that male sexuality is inherently based on "submission and/or degradation" of a female, which has even been said by people in this thread, but lacks any evidence whatsoever, aside from radical rhetoric. It makes it difficult to prosecute individuals for a crime, when the definition of the crime has been broadened to include those innocent of it. There is no fast solution for this problem, as backtracking would clearly not be the best idea, but neither would continuing the degradation of males as a subculture.<br>This is tangental, however, so we can remove ourselves from this discussion unless there are issues one would like to take with my above remarks. If so, I'll do my best to present them with backing evidence in APA format, so as to avoid complaints about my style of writing.<br><br>The problem with porn/capitalism, is that Porn does NOT have the same contractual obligations as say, food work, in America. I could not easily sue someone for "slipping in something extra" that wasn't in my contract, because MY contract, as a porn practicioner, isn't completely VALID in America. <br>At present, ONLY the capitalist demogogue can benefit largely from pornography because it is NOT legal (only decriminalized) as you mistakenly assume. Not Illegal and Legal are NOT the same thing. Distinctions should be made. A furthering of legality of pornography could only lead to its better regulation and ridigidifying(pun?) of contract laws/obligations in reference to this business. No one is going to make pornography go away, no matter how distasteful it might be found, as it is simply too large of a business to remove at this point. Our best bet in making it safer would be to remove the ability to abuse the non-legitimacy of porn contracts by making it completely legal business. This would also make it so that coercion would count as what it is (kidnapping, aggravated assault and/or rape), as would pedophila (child sex crimes and/or child labor abuses).<br>At present both practices are difficult to extract from pornography because the larger, most visible/legitimate parts of it form good cover for those who engage in such practices underneath. People AREN'T free to engage in labor contracts in America as they please, because what america has is NOT open capitalism, but selective capitalism. Just as what the "reds" have is not socialism(which only exists in the book of ACTS of the apostles of Christ), but a selective socialism. The problems aren't the "theories" but in allowing human being ultimate power in applying them as they see fit.<br><br>Proper capitalism is not a recipe for abuse, but enforced open capitalism would, by its nature, remove such entities, as being bad and/or costly for legitimate business. It is the lack of capitalism in some places coupled with extreme capitalism elsewhere that creates the problem. Not capitalism in and of itself, per se.<br><br>I would suggest alternatives to the economic woes, as opposed to picking a random scapegoat, such as pornography, as the prime cause of this dysfunction and its related abuses, such as RA.<br><br>(Let me put it this way: if the PTB thought legalized pornography and prostitution would benefit their RA networks, which are largest in the US, why aren't these things fully legal as opposed to merely being tolerated/ignored? hint--There is an obvious answer)<br><br>jenz:<br><br>one at a time, I suppose:<br><br>1. Never said they were "ring fenced" as in, entirely inserperable, but RA isn't ring fenced from government institutions, intelligence beauracracies, religious institutions, the drug trade, the arms trade, or political coercion either, but no one has posited that God, Guns, and Government should be abolished to remove child abuse. I was merely stating that it is considered physiologically abnormal for anyone to engage in RA and/or sexual abuse of a different form, and that to confuse normal sexuality with that of criminal elements is to confuse the issue significantly. I admit freely, that the porn industry must make wonderful cover for the kiddie peddlers, but that the solution for this is not to harass and imprison those with normal, healthy (albeit politically incorrect) sexual appetites and practices, but to remove such elements from their hiding place, by removing the hiding place aspect of the industry.<br><br>(and porn and RA aren't both "marketted by the same criminal routes" per se, They sell porn in B&N, but not child porn)<br><br>2. The statements as regards finances are meant to point out that when the very top is cut off (the 10000 or so super rich) that the "difference" between male and female pay scales disappears significantly, making poverty nearly indistinguishible between the two. Meaning there are as many poor males as there are poor females, almost exactly. The "wages difference" is an objective measurement, not a subjective measurement. If myself and a female both start working at McD's next week, they'll pay us the same flat rate. I was merely mentioning the FACT that males in general, deal with the same financial difficulties as females, and that the dialectic that blames "men" in general for low female wages has the wrong enemy in its crosshairs. I was responding to someone's post who said "95% of the money belongs to men", which is true, but when statistics are adjusted to remove the super rich, one finds that 99.999%+ of men are in the same boat as almost ALL women. I wasn't denying the existence of poverty, just subjectifying the statistics.<br> I don't doubt that a number of people, males and females alike, engage in tasks they wouldn't normally engage in, in exchange for financing, just that females aren't any worse off, on average, at the bottom, than males, so aren't any more "coerced" into porn, than the nine men who are penetrating and/or whatevering them(and being "devalued", "dehuamnized" and made into "sexual objects"--an oxymoronical term).<br><br>We should also note that it isn't ONLY males that buy pornography. Or who create and sell it. If you'd like I could give you a list of female pornography producers. Or a list of the females I know who own more porn than me(all the ones that own porn).<br><br>Of course, a lot of the "consumption" issue is smoke and mirrors. If females were worried about human beings being shown/depicted as single dimensional sex objects, they could protest that "romance novel" section at B&N(almost all sold to females, almost all depicting single dimensional male sex objects in them) which is essentially softcore porn in word form, which is as objectifyingly misleading as the "men's" dirty pictures are. If we're splitting hairs.<br><br>in re: #2, we could also note that, historically, the "normal family" you seem so fond of, has had a much greater effect at limiting female freedoms and enforcing their "subjugation" than any amount of pornography has.<br><br>3. Actually, perhaps the BEST thing about pornography, reflecting the decentralization and sheer SIZE of the industry is how many people make money from it. A good portion of the owners/producers are female, and a significant portion of "actors" who are too old, go into production with the money they made during their years under the hot lamps. Unlike, say, the auto, or food industries, most of the profits aren't shared by a handful of people. This is not to say that some people do not abuse other people, just that a distinction should be made between those who DID make a real free choice, as most of them would attest to, and those who DID NOT make a real free choice, and to prosecute offenders, not punish the innocent.<br><br>4. NOPE. Why, does it suprise you? I know places where people PAY to have people abuse them, if you're unaware of such places, I could show them to you. People wear strange rubber suits and the like, line up for hours just to get in. If you'd like to meet someone who copulates with strangers for free, I could introduce you to that as well. Maybe you're just more sheltered than I am. I'd suppose that even with "swingers" everywhere and ten pages of ads seeking partners for FREE dehumanizing group sex in the back of Metro Detroit Weekly(only free Entertainment newspaper in Detroit, given away absolutely everywhere), that some people would like to purchase sex(met a lawyer like this), some people would like to be paid for sex. So, no, it doesn't seem strange to me. Why does it seem strange to you?<br><br>People buy things they could get for free all the time(like the Metro Detroit Weekly entertainment guide), so why should sex be special?<br><br>5. I'd imagine the "pimps" (not so common today, but also normally LESS of a problem for prostitutes than COPS are, according to their own testimony, did you not read my link?), along with their "mafia" counterparts would continue to do what they've always done, move farther into legitimate business and focus their criminal activities in areas where prohibition can be exploited. DO YOU think that the mafia still bootlegs alcohol now that it is legal, or did they move on to greener pastures?<br><br>6. Sure. Of course, no one has to take any of the jobs that an unemployment agency offers. Personally, I'd like to be offered whatever is available, in the times I've gone to the unemployment office. Especially if I was a former sex worker, I might consider it.<br><br>7. That's being disingeuous of YOU. You compare consent and non-consent as if apples WERE oranges. Child abuse and consenting sex between adults, even for money, are certainly NOT the same thing. And there are many ADULT prostitutes and/or pornographers that would testify to their "liking" their "jobs", whereas a child has no legal ability to engage in such activities, which is why child sex crimes are illegal. <br><br>Do you think that if all ecomonic barriers were lifted that all pornography would disappear?<br><br>That no "sane" person would engage in these activities for money w/o coercion?<br> <br>Do you really believe ALL of those people involved were coreced? <br>That NONE of them do enjoy their work?<br>That NONE of them made an informed choice?<br>Really?<br><br>just curious.<br> <p></p><i></i>