Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

by **biaothanatoi** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:30 pm

> i think that pornography in general reifies and excerbates the already existing discrimination of women. Or, to be more precise it is sexualizing it. Largely agreed. Apologists tend to talk about porn as though it is viewed in a vacuum - one man and some photos. But part of the 'kick' of porn is that it plays on specific gender dynamics that gets him hot. Clearly, this is going to be different for different men, but there is a strong current in our culture around men and their sexual 'nature' and their unwritten 'rights' that I think many men find difficult to resist. To take an extreme example - bestiality porn - the man derives pleasure not from the depiction of the act, but from the degradation of the woman involved. We need to think about the relation of the observer to the image, and why the image connects with him - because sex is social, and what turns us on is social. The man watching violent porn or bestiality porn is turned on because the porn is telling him something - about women, about men, about dominance, about power, about degradation. You take that a little bit further and you find paedophilia porn, RA porn and so on. No, I'm not painting a slippery slope from Playboy to child torture porn. But it's important to remember is that sexual offenders and RA perps are not intrinsically different from the rest of us. We talk about 'paedophiles' because it makes us feel safe to quarantine men who have sex with children in a seperate category, so we can pretend that there is something about them that makes them do it. The truth is that they are reading the same cultural script as many men, but they just take it to another level.

by **proldic** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:31 pm

My. How convenient. I think the next conference Soros, Aetna, and Progressive are teaming up for is legalized prostitution in March of '06. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>My problem isn't with people who would like to protect endangered females, but with those who would do so by limiting all of our freedoms.<hr></blockquote> <blockquote>Quote:<hr>there are certain philosophical differences to our approaches.<hr></blockquote>

by **winter** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:49 pm

The objectification of people is for me the crucial point. Have found Homeless Halo's pragmatic pro-porn arguments persuasive, but ultimately think that anything that erodes the recognition of others (ALL others) as self-justifying and respect-worthy individuals is dangerous. Consumers of pornography are not interested in the past, present or future of those they stare at, only how their bodies might be projected into consumers fantasies - this is a dehumanising dynamic, where consumer inevitably learns/habituates themselves into seeing others more and more often only as flesh as it might inhabit their fantasy life. This is complete opposite of the perspective reqd for real relationship, leads away from chance of real intimacy (what we really need), and greases the skids on succumbing to manipulative and/or abusive temptations. The centrality of dehumanising in militarist & racist propaganda may illustrate my p.o.v: "kill the hun, he's a baby-eating monster".."those iraqi's are monsters, they threw babies from their incubators" (yes i know a lie) .."don't worry about the Abo's, they don't have souls". In order to make it easier for 'regular folks' to go out and kill, they have to be reassured that they're not really killing people like them/their families etc., thats why they get sent off to boot camp for a little reprogramming. Dehumanising is dangerous. Pornography, in anything other than v.small amounts(?), teaches that others may be only bodies, and nothing else matters about them. How many porn consumers are interested in the 'occupational health and safety' of those they ogle? How many prefer to get it free, with no compunction about the obvious impact this must have on those making up the content? There are good arguments that can be made for erotic pictures/content, and i don't hate the idea of erotic media, but the way we're doing porn now is more about capitalism using desperation to sedate alienation than anything else. Thanks all for posts, all interesting, and, happily, civil & respectful. Veritas, that 'victims and bait' pic made me want to puke, but thanks too, i guess.:/

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:54 pm

"Pornography, in anything other than v.small amounts(?), teaches that others may be only bodies, and nothing else matters about them" I didn't know that pornography teaches anything, although it should be noted that there are any number of people that believe we are "only bodies" that don't use pornography as evidence for their belief. ---- Proldic. Convenient? Maybe, but I'm not inclined to respond to my own comments being deliberately taken from context and used to imply other than my meaning, which should've been readily apparent from my previous posts on the subject, and indeed, the parts you didn't quote. Its easy to "win" an argument when you don't make one, and don't listen to one either. ---- I also don't view "consumer culture" as my enemy. If I did, I'd have to turn on the majority of us, who reinforce this agenda by merely watching television. As "consumers" we have little choice but to live in our own filth, especially if we'd like to have the choice to sell some ourselves. I think we sometimes get in the habit of seeing "connections" where there are none that can be demonstrated. Despite what your mother and preacher tell you, it isn't true that people become those things that they watch. People that are "pedophiles" really DO belong in their own box, and there is very little they have in common with normal sexual impulses(which they traditionally lack). Just because you'd like to put the 100 million americans who watched porn this week in the same bag as the thousands that abused their own children this week doesn't mean they're the same. No amount of juggling changes the basic neurological facts about pedophila and related practices(RA) that seperate clearly these from normal sexual practices. I appreciate the delicacy of your mindset, I'd say the world is a better place for having "nice" people in it, but good intentions of nice people are often used to the disadvantage of those same people. I find it bizarre that we shouldn't know that SOME people not only would be fine with being "dehumanized" or "degraded" sexually for money, when there are people lining up to get into clubs where they'll PAY for such an experience. I don't think the majority of these people are "damaged goods" although, undoubtly some are, as some of any group are. Just like one could say that although not all marijuana users eventually smoke crack, that most crack users do/did smoke marijuana. No casue/effect relationship can be implied by the correllary statistics, likewise not all practicioners of "dehumanizing" sexualities are "mentally unstable". In fact, the majority of them are merely lacking in inhibitory blocks, and there are a good number of people that rather enjoy being "exposed". If your goal is to protect freedom and safety of all individuals you should not punish those who have made informed and healthy choices which just happen to be different from those you might have made.

by **biaothanatoi** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:23 pm

Winter says: The centrality of dehumanising in militarist & racist propaganda may illustrate my p.o.v And I think here we have to consider the use of pornography and prostitution in the socialization of children into RA networks. RA acts are filmed primarily so the child can be forced to watch them later. Prostitution serves a similar purpose – to teach the child to relate to her body in a specific way – as a vehicle, an object for others. > How many porn consumers are interested in the 'occupational health and safety' of those they ogle? And the point of a lot of porn is that consumers are interested in seeing those bodies degraded. The attraction of a significant body of porn is the vicarious power experienced by a man when he sees another man “own”/”possess”/”dominate” a woman. These images evoke collective notions of ‘masculinity’ that the porn consumer participates in simply by getting turned on and jerking off. He experiences a certain sort of fantasy ‘maleness’ in watching, and he learns about a fantasy ‘womanness’ at the same time. This is not an experience that is somehow separate from his day-to-day – these are images that feed into and inform the way that he thinks, feels and acts. I’m not fundamentally anti-porn, but nor am I one of the self-proclaimed ‘progressives’ who ignore the form and function that porn takes in our culture. HH says: I didn't know that pornography teaches anything We have to consider that RA perps use porn and prostitution as pedagogy, because like other aspects of the RA experience – proximity to dead bodies, forced ingestion of waste, etc – they are intrinsically dehumanizing. > Its easy to "win" an argument when you don't make one, and don't listen to one either. I find much of your argument riddled with red herrings, straw men and defensive tangential points - not to mention some very odd grammatical gymnastics that appear to be poor attempts to mimic an ‘academic’ style. > Despite what your mother and preacher tell you, it isn't true that people become those things that they watch. You are the only person collapsing the debate down to simplistic causal principles. > Just because you'd like to put the 100 million americans who watched porn this week Straw man. > I find it bizarre that we shouldn't know that SOME people not only would be fine with being "dehumanized" or "degraded" sexually for money Straw man. > Just like one could say that although not all marijuana users eventually smoke crack, that most crack users do/did smoke marijuana. Red herring. If you just want to attack arguments of your own devising, why don’t you set up a thread where you debate with yourself? That’s all you are doing here.

by **Homeless Halo** » Mon Oct 24, 2005 11:50 pm

I'm not debating anyone here, no one has yet replied to anything I've said. I've been taken out of context on a number of occassions, and its been implied on several occassions that my meaning was opposite of what I'd stated. I could have a debate, if there was a debate going on here at all. But there isn't. My concern isn't how "RA perps" use porn, but how the majority of people use porn. RA is illegal, and abnormal on a base physiological level, and shouldn't be confused with normal male sexuality, because they simply aren't the same thing. I can do the "cut and paste" out of context trick as well as anyone else, but it doesn't establish the authenticity of an argument simply to call names. For example: "You are the only person collapsing the debate down to simplistic causal principles." Could be placed next to this: "These images evoke collective notions of ‘masculinity’ that the porn consumer participates in simply by getting turned on and jerking off. He experiences a certain sort of fantasy ‘maleness’ in watching, and he learns about a fantasy ‘womanness’ at the same time. This is not an experience that is somehow separate from his day-to-day – these are images that feed into and inform the way that he thinks, feels and acts." And one could see that they apparently contradict each other as statements. So, you aren't implying CAUSAL relationship in the above statement? (i.e. "porn makes men do bad things to women in their head and therefore eventually in the real world"?) If my "grammatical gymnastics" offend you, then please do not read my thoughts, as I tend to ramble. My thoughts normally do not come out in a completely linear manner, so you read them as I have them. Sorry if that bothers you or you take this as pretentiousness on my part. I also, as an unregistered member, do not have the luxury of editing my posts to account for grammatical and spelling errors. Perhaps you could focus more on what I say and less on how I phrase it? As far as your comments about Straw Men go, I should concede if that will make you feel like a "winner" that I often overuse metaphor. My intent is not to mislead, however, and I could call the attacks on my style of writing "ad hominem", not to mention "hypocrisy"(to indulge in some AH myself). Just because we have to "consider the use of pornography and prostitution in the socialization of children into RA networks" doesn't mean that the existence of pornography and prosititution are related in a CAUSAL way to RA networks. RA networks use religion, peer pressure, hypnosis, and common household items for their practices, but none of these things are "inherently bad" either. And no one would posit a link between hypnosis as therapeutic practice with its use in RA cults, because the two are not the same thing. I don't see how the videotaping of illegal acts is somehow related to the videotaping of consensual acts. You'd have to explain it to me, how it relates, aside from the presence of the videocamera. Finally, I'd attack arguments of YOUR devising, but you haven't put any forward, only implied relationships between a film industry and perverts with video cameras. When this is combined with your assumptions about "masculinity" (and what men think about sex) and/or porn practicioners/consumers, its hard to find anything that counts as an "argument". Try numbering them, maybe then I'll be able to see them through the other implications.

by **israelirealities** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 4:20 am

Legally speaking I am for the legalizing of prostitution. As far as I know porn is not illegal in most places if it doesn't have children. Again, I think we are talking here on different levels. I don't think anyone here who is AGAINST porn, suggested it should be illegal or that women should be further compromised by calling them legally unstable. You are very correct in one claim, that trying to change these issues via criminal law, and encroaching on the classic rights of the accused has been very unsuccessful if not a total failure. Many good activists like Judith Herman etc., withdrew from the campaign for "victims rights" in the criminal law and from the attempts to bring their knowledge of SRA into the courts. They are focusing on therapy and not justice. IF this is what you meant, then you should sharpen the argument and focus on the facts, that the attempts to curtail the rights of accused, in favor of larger protection to victims of THESE crimes, resulted in a failure that only helped the bad guys. I think most advocates would sadly agree with you. USually giving more power to the law, vis a vis the individual is bad for everyone, and feminists are realizing it now, slowly. But this is not so say that the behaviors they were after, are commendable or even acceptable. SInce I worked 5 years as head of project giving legal aid in these issues to so called "mentally ill", victims of violence trauma and abuse, I can attest that the combination of psychiatric overuse, with the law, is not good for the victims on the long run. Women are the first victims of being called "nuts" under the law, for their own good, so called, and then being further abused by the system. So, the tactic of protecting porn slaves by diminshing their mental capacities under law, is not good. What do you suggest ? The other option, namely, to increase the interferance in the SACRED COW called the capitalist freedom of contract, is yet unthinkable in the USA, because capitalism grew to the level of religion, didn't it ? one is considered equal and free to sign any contract (especially labor contracts), god forbid someone says they were swindled by a big corp or something because they have less money/power in the contractual relations. What is more feasible - the US giving up some of the capitalist religion OR banning porn and calling all sex workers psychos ? this is your realities, to choose from. Capitalism in the degree you have in the USA (now spreading here as well) is a recipe for slavery, and sex slavery or child trade is one of them.

by **jenz** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:55 am

i.It is disingenous to posit that ra porn, paedophile porn, and porn HH thinks is for normal guys are ring fenced. for one thing, all get marketed by the same criminal routes. ii. it is crass to use the argument that since most men are not rich it is not poverty which causes women to accept degrading 'work'. in luvvly europe, years of equal pay legislation have got women about 70 percent of male wage for same job, and most child care home responsibilities still fall on women. many many children in the G8 live below the poverty line, and in inadequate housing conditions. What d you think their parents are up to HH? Much worse conditions for women almost everywhere else in the world, and that equals for children too. It is not a male female argument I am making, it is a wake up call. what you and the pervasive media culture posit as a freedom, (to look at porn) is nothing but a soporiphic, a distraction from the reality that the freedom to have a normal family is being eroded. iii. If rich v poor is the issue please consider who is getting the profits of the porn and prostitution industry, and ask yourself why poor guys are selling their poor sisters down river every time they get out their flexible friend. 1v. if many people would copulate many times a day with complete strangers for no money at all HH isn't it rather surprising that there is this thing called prostitution? v. if we legalise prostitution, do you think the pimps and their mafia bosses will duck out and learn carpentry, so the gals can be in control of their own destiny? or will it be like what happens to the corner shop when the hypermarket comes to town? vi. If prostitution is legal, will you have the unemployed sent to the brothel to get a job, (likewise immigrants, refugees and other social security scroungers?) well that would at least gell with some of what goes on now in multi national companies. vii. the 'she enjoys it ' line is reminiscent of the delusional statements paedophiles use to justify what they do.

by **israelirealities** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 12:07 pm

Jenz I think you are totally correct, except that legallizing prostitution should be done only together with massive education and other means to prevent just what you described that is going to happen (namely, that it will increase the business). I tend to follow the west European socialist political systems and they legalized so that postitutes are not harassed by the law enforcement AND don't get AIDS and all kinds of stuff without proper medical treatment. However, the socialist regimes there are so different than the USA< that it might work differently in the USA. Problem was that in ciminalizing the entire business, the victims were the pros, not the pimps, and the police took advantage of them as well. In Israel working in Pros is de facto legal and pimping is not.

by **Homeless Halo** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 5:31 pm

IR: 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. 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). <a href="http://www.wendymcelroy.com">www.wendymcelroy.com</a> 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. (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) jenz: one at a time, I suppose: 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. (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) 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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? People buy things they could get for free all the time(like the Metro Detroit Weekly entertainment guide), so why should sex be special? 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? 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. 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. Do you think that if all ecomonic barriers were lifted that all pornography would disappear? That no "sane" person would engage in these activities for money w/o coercion? Do you really believe ALL of those people involved were coreced? That NONE of them do enjoy their work? That NONE of them made an informed choice? Really? just curious.

by **israelirealities** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:34 pm

HH Oh, I am starting to feel the shortcomings of my English skills. you write so fast... I don't know what is the difference between not being illegal and being legal. I know most states have a law against pornography, and that the supreme court, based on 1st amendement, ordered a stricter application of these laws, I don't remember the precise wording (they sounded archaic a bit), that in order for something to be caught under these laws it has to be really base (the prurient (sp ?) prong). etc. That's usualy the case in most countries, even without a constitution. Yes, the point is that we all hope that if everyone had enough money, they would not do it for a living. Surely, we don't know. I do think that a good solid welfare system (like some European countries have and we used to have) reduces the number of women doing it for a living, against their choice. Just to bring food to the table. I think we can agree that this is very undesirable, that women should have to resort to pros/porn to feed their kids. (I do think women are much poorer, I know there is a lot of data on it). 000 Rape as hate crime or a human rights violation. You are right that we are getting closer to this definition, and obviously you resent it. I don't think we can get into this debate here. I can say that at least in my country, among the secular Jews, the presence of armed conflict is very relevant to sex crimes. It has become a practice to use sexual violence as a "weapon". Certainly, I think it was a correct move on behalf of the UN to recently declare rape of women during armed conflict as "crimes against humanity" and "war crimes". And I think your government has been doing that to males as well, as the Abu Gharaib cases show. But usually, it is soldiers mass raping enemy women, not men. Also, in ISrael, the existence of domestic violence against women is connected with the state of war. This only points (not conclusively) that rape is sometimes a political crime, in a sense that the "class" of men, is oppressing the "class" of women via sexual violence. (which creates fear...is "chilling" and blah blah). I don't know that this is the general case with male sexual violence against males, I doubt it. (but i am always open for new data). ---- The feminist movement has had achievements in the fields of awareness, political participation, allocation of resources, labor laws, abortion laws, etc. I think sexual crimes is not among those achievements. (domestic violence has had some improvements, not sure how much). The legal field had been irreversibly transformed by feminist critique, not only in "feminine" areas. I think there was one major issue the feminists are yet to deal with and that has to happen through experience and not theory. Knowing the limitation of the law, politics, and all those power mechanisms women were excluded from, and even military power. I resent the ISraeli femnists who demand to be equally accepted to combat and field positions. No, women should strive to demilitarize society and abolish war. But I think this is natural for an opressed class, to make those mistakes through the process. I cannot comment on whether women would do porn if they had a real choice, namely, I don't know anyone working in that field, but since I do accept the notion of "false consciousness" (especially with slavery), I am not sure I would accept a declaration, as evidence. THis is patronizing in a way, but I think freedom is inalienable and indivisible, even if people opt for slavery. They should have real freedom and only then, after their consciousness adapted to freedom, they can make informed choices. Under these conditions, if someone chose to do it, fine.

by **Project Willow** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 6:50 pm

Would you allow any number of people on a daily basis to penetrate you for money? Just curious. I did a little research on this issue and certainly there is great polarization in the debate. I really don't appreciate your description of the feminist responce as "venom". There is plenty to be righteously angry about with the current the state of affairs. Regardless, feminism is hardly monolithic on this or any number of topics. If your critigue is of the Dworkin end of the spectrum, please say so. Even in this forum, I don't think you'd find many adherents to her views. One of your points has been that discussing contributing factors to participation in the sex trade is somehow demeaning or degrading to the participants. That simply does not make sense to me. The stats below are based on self reports. If the goal of both sides in the debate is empowerment, then we must also listen to sex workers who don't have positive things to say. Here are some stats on prostitution: # 95 % of teenage prostitutes have been sexually abused. National Committee For Prevention of Child Abuse. (1992). Donnelly, A., Executive Dir. Chicago, Il Connecticut Affiliate. * There are approximately 1 million prostituted women in North America, or 1% of women are involved in prostitution.1 * An estimated 600,000 children under 18 are involved in prostitution or pornography.2 * The average age of entry into prostitution is 14 years old.3 * 1 out of every three teens on the streets will be lured into prostitution within 48 hours of leaving home.4 * A national study shows that 75% of all prostitutes were victims of incest and/or physical abuse as children.5 * Most prostitutes run away from home at an early age to escape their abuse...then turn to prostitution as a way of survival.6 * Most prostitutes became drug or alcohol addicted on the streets and became more trapped in prostitution to earn money to support their habits.7 * Up to 90% of prostitutes are under the control of a pimp.8 * Average arrest, court, and incarceration costs amounted to nearly $2,000 per arrest in 1987. Cities spend an average of $7.5 million on prostitution control each year, ranging from $1 million (Memphis) to $23 million (New York).9 * A high percentage of prostituted women have considered suicide.10 * Every year a prostituted woman is raped 19 times, kidnapped 10 times, and beaten repeatedly. And we still consider her the criminal?11 Sources: * 1. WHISPER, National Task Force on Prostitution * 2. U.S. Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, United Nations * 3. WHISPER, Pride * 4. NRS, National Runaway Switchboard * 5. WHISPER, National Task Force * 6. Genesis House * 7. WHISPER Oral History Project, PROMISE internal statistics * 8. S.B. Satterfield. Clinical Aspects of Juvenile Prostitution. M. Silbert and A.M. Pines. Entrance info Prostitution. L. Lee "The Pimp and His Game." * 9. Hastings Law Journal * 10. A Psychological Profile of Prostitutes in California and Nevada, PhD. Thesis, United States International University, March 1986 * 11. The Council for Prostitution Alternatives, SOS Sisters Offering Support # Internationally, an estimated two million women and children enter the $20-billion-per-year sex industry per year. An estimated 10-million women and children are ensnared within the system of commercial sexual exploitation. This includes trafficking into prostitution, sex slavery, pornography and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. (UNICEF, the U.N., and the U.S. Department of Justice.) # A 2001 study funded by the U.S. Department of Justice and conducted by Richard Estes and Neil Weiner of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work found that there were "at least" 250,000 U.S. children are victims of sexual exploitation each year (in the study's Working Guide to the Empirical Literature, Estes cites a "conservative" range of between 300,000 and 500,000). Approximately 244,000-325,000 youth are at risk of becoming victims of sexual exploitation, according to the report. Many organizations believe the actual numbers to be higher. # The United Nations Children's Fund has estimated that more than one-hundred-million children are being sexually exploited for commercial purposes worldwide (e.g. prostitution, sex rings, pornography, etc.). # All sources agree that the problem and extent of commercial sexual exploitation of children and adults is increasing. # The DOJ-Estes/Weiner study also indicated that 75-percent of the children highlighted in the research are from working-class and middle-class families. “Child sexual exploitation is the most hidden form of child abuse in the U.S. and North America today. It is the nation’s least recognized epidemic,” say the study’s co-authors. # A 1999 study by the Presbyterian Church Office of the General Assembly, Advocacy Committee for Women's Concerns, found that 90-percent of the prostitutes surveyed came from "church-going" homes or church-based orphanages, 85-percent had been childhood victims of incest by a male family member, and 60-percent were adoptees or had been in long-term foster care. # Multiple studies indicate that the average age of entry into prostitution in the United States is between 13 and 14 years of age, with children being sold and trafficked at even younger ages in impoverished areas throughout the world. # A high percentage of children and adults involved in prostitution or other commercial sexual exploitation were sexually abused between the ages of 3 and 14, predominantly by a family member, an adult associated with the family, or another trusted adult. Many report that their first sexual experience was being raped prior to adolescence. # According to Advocates for Youth and other organizations, sexual abuse of children is vastly underreported, making statistical data very conservative at best. (Advocates for Youth “Child Sexual Abuse: An Overview,”) # According to advocacy organizations and law-enforcement agencies, there is limited data on the number of children – young individuals under the age of 18 – involved in prostitution and other forms of commercial sexual exploitation. (One source: STOP, Police Department of Clark County, Nevada) # In the United States, findings from the National Survey of Adolescents indicate that as of 1995, 1.8 million youths age 12 to 17 had been sexually assaulted. (National Institute of Justice 2003. Youth Victimization: Prevalence and Implications. Washington DC: US Department of Justice.) # Between March 1998 and September 2003 the CyberTipline operated by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has received a total of 118, 987 reports of child pornography, and 1,890 reported cases of child prostitution. There have been 867 cases of child sex tourism. Also, there were 8,768 reported cases of online enticement. (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Cybertipline Fact Sheet. # A recently published eight-year study indicates that when perpetrators of rape are current or former husbands or boyfriends, the crimes go unreported to the police 77 percent of the time. When the perpetrators are friends or acquaintances, the rapes go unreported 54 percent of the time. (Ibid.) # Adolescents and young adults are at a higher risk of victimization and are more likely to develop Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome after being victimized. (Kilpatrick, Dean and R. Aciemo. "Mental Health Needs of Crime Victims: Epidemiology and Outcomes." Journal of Traumatic Stress, 2003,:1612.) # Victims of rape are 13.4 times more likely to develop two or more alcohol-related problems and 26 times more likely to have two or more serious drug abuse-related problems. (Ibid.) # In general, the data that does exist indicates that prostitutes are more likely to be arrested, prosecuted and convicted than are the men who purchase the services of prostitutes, even though prostitution is a system perpetuated by demand (see next bullet). For example, in 1993, 42-percent of women and just 8-percent of men arrested in Seattle on prostitution-related charges were convicted (Sample sources: Julie Pearl, "The Highest Paying Customers: American Cities and the Cost of Prostitution Control", Hastings Law Journal, Volume 38 (1987), p. 770, and Seattle Women’s Commission, 1995). # Though statistics vary from city to city, general estimates are that prostitution-related arrests are 90-percent prostitutes and only 10-percent those who purchase the services of a prostitute. (Source: Prostitution Education Center, BaySwan) # Men from all social strata purchase prostitutes. In one sting operation by the Kansas City Police Department, a priest, a sheriff’s deputy, a high-school track coach, and a Baptist college executive were among those arrested for purchasing prostitutes. The sting was a collaborative effort that focused on escort services and internet ads. Perhaps tellingly, the priest and the deputy had not been charged at the time of the report, but the executive and the coach had been charged. (“Police tout success of prostitution ring that led to 100 arrests,” The Kansas City Star, June 19, 2003) # Significant percentages of men have purchased sex at some point during their lives. One study indicated that was the case for 95-percent of men in Thailand, and was true for 75-percent of men living in London. (PROMISED, “Facts About Prostitution, and Far Eastern Economic Review, February 13, 1992, p. 29) # Violence is used to enforce the paradigm. Studies of teens and adults involved in prostitution have shown that 79-percent had been beaten by pimps, 79-percent reported being physically assaulted by purchasers or “customers”, and 50-percent report being raped by purchasers. # So-called pimps, reinforcing dominance through violence, typically demand 50- to 100-percent of the revenues produced by prostitution. by Melissa Farley, PhD and Howard Barkan, DrPH (*) Women & Health, 27 (3): 37-49. © 1998 by The Haworth Press, Inc. (Article copies available for a fee from Haworth Document Delivery Service 1-800-342-9678.) Abstract One hundred and thirty people working as prostitutes in San Francisco were interviewed regarding the extent of violence in their lives and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Fifty-seven percent reported that they had been sexually assaulted as children and 49% reported that they had been physically assaulted as children. As adults in prostitution, 82% had been physically assaulted; 83% had been threatened with a weapon; 68% had been raped while working as prostitutes; and 84% reported current or past homelessness. We differentiated the types of lifetime violence as childhood sexual assault; childhood physical abuse; rape in prostitution; and other (non-rape) physical assault in prostitution. PTSD severity was significantly associated with the total number of types of lifetime violence (r = .21, p = .02); with childhood physical abuse (t = 2.97, p = .004); rape in adult prostitution (Student's t = 2.77, p = .01); and the total number of times raped in prostitution (Kruskal-Wallace chi square = 13.51, p = .01). Of the 130 people interviewed, 68% met DSM III-R criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Eighty-eight percent of these respondents stated that they wanted to leave prostitution, and described what they needed in order to escape.

by **Homeless Halo** » Tue Oct 25, 2005 8:59 pm

much better, this should make it easier for us to construct some sort of objective dialogue. I'll get to your comments, IR, Willow, but not now, as I have a "gatheing" to attend. (At Rosa Parks ave/MLKJ blvd there is a "vigil", expecting thousands, she lived here. So the "news" flood is probably worse for us <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/wink.gif ALT=";)"> ) After that I have to meet two cabals and a coven for coffee at the International House of Pancakes. When I get back, hopefully, I can go over some of this stuff, and we can attempt to reach a better consensus. Cheers. SHCR

by **jenz** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 8:51 am

now we've got a consensus about nature of consent in prostitution and pornography: ra abusers = satanists, paedophiles or something else? bat off with 2 quotes from a book written by someone who has worked with survivors in Scotland (Where Angels Fear, Laurie Matthew) 'sometimes abusers make use of a complex belief system to control their victim and attempt to justify the many acts of abuse they carry out. The abusers frequently claim allegiance to a secretive religion or faith that they follow, which, they claim, fully condones the abusive acts." "many survivors of ritual abuse will talk about their abusive groups being affiliated to orders such as the Thelemic ordr or the Masonic order....Similarly, survivors of some cults believe that their group was affiliated to Christian orders such as Catholic, Jehova's Witness..." a.sometimes abusers claim religious affiliations b.these claimed affiliations are not exclusively to one particular religion so ra perps draw on a wide variety of belief systems, or none at all practise those beliefs in ways which are proscribed be the openly stated credos of those religions (where religions openly state beliefs and practices) maintain secrecy about what they doi, rather than openly claim schism with the main religious group. So, can it be cklaimed that religious belief drives their actions? tempted to say obviously not, or they'd be both more organised in the belief aspects and more open; but it could be pointed out that other faiths have been covert when persecuted; and that some religions have attempted to incorporate many faiths either by making claims about the supposed antiquity of their belief system and declaring other religions as offshoots; or by swallowing bits of existing faiths and their customs and regurgitating them in new guise. so maybe ambiguity and secrecy don't per se discount 'belief as the underlying motivation. 2 considerations do lead me to concur with the Louf assessment. First - know men by their actions. ra is one tentacle of a pretty slimy octapus, it squirts a lot of blinding mist on anyone who gets too close, but sure the tentacles join up somewhere. We know ra is associated with a range of other criminal activities, some of which have been part of political and financial agendas. We know many of the techniques were developed from nazis to cia mind controllers in bed with mafia. we know porn, trafficking and prostitution raises huge amounts of money and also is a route for blackmail of persons in positions of influence. We know insurance companies have interfered with progress of investigations (incidentally one financier named in Belgium x testimony now has key position in new cross Europe insurance and financial services outfit) Doesn't this point to the money/power paradigm, rather than primarily a religious agenda? Second consideration - nature of religious belief. To be brief I think religion arose as a way of establishing behaviour in individuals which would serve the human group, because, as a species, we were and still are inter dependent for survival, and capable of working this out. and need long periods of security to gestate and raise our big brained offspring. As such religion attempts to formalise life enhancing co operative behavious. (not denying can be hi jacked for other agendas) but ra is philosophically as well as practically the negation of religious belief as I have described it. It sets out to destroy human potential and often lives of children by interfering through drugs and torture with the development of the brain when it is at a malleable stage, by distorting neural connections through programming. It elevates gratifiaction of physical desire over relationship and emotion, and sets out to punish bonding. It posits a heirarchy based on force, while parasiting on the protection skills and goodwill developed in other paradigms. It is self delusional for its hierarchy and destructive for everyone else. so I think ra uses parodies of religion in part as blind, in part as element of control system. One place survivors of trauma might go to recover would be a religious organisation. but these innocent well intentioned groups are a minefield of triggers (isolating survivor from help) they manipulate the legal status of religion to their advantage. the stories of ritual emerging sound bizarre, and quite similar to textbook delusional stuff - impeding justice. so far I've written about ra groups infiltrating other existing organisations. I know of one group which has set up an encompassing organisation of free Christian Churches as cover. They have good political and social connections. In this context the move in the UK to adopt the religious discrimination legislation taht Victoria has introduced, and the recent initiative to alter the state education system to facilitate setting up Foundation Schools gives me the creeps.

by **israelirealities** » Wed Oct 26, 2005 9:12 am

The insurance part is interesting, how do you connect this dot? why insurance ? My only two cents... Apparently, in order to get someone to "consent" to something they don't consent, enslavers of people realized they need to push the spiritual button as well. It saves them a lot energy and makes the slave much more useful and self regulating. I think that once they realize they CAN do it, they start "believing" in a way, in the black magik stuff, cause "it works". TOday's headline in Israel, the the UK is privatizing the school system. bad idea. We have the same problem here, and by the political-financial "geneology" of the scammers, it seems to be coming from the USA. (They formed a "committee" headed by a BUSINESSMAN, who proposed privatization of schools and now it is gradually being implemented. Another privatization issue, following US scams - prison system. Tomorrow, our High Court of Justice is going to hear a petition against it, claiming basically that the government cannot exempt itself from doing its basic functions by turning it over to the private sector. Another surprising headline today, in a small but intelligence-connected website - "all the world is fed up with US imperialism, and Bush is going berserk and showing signs of mental illness". I would say that Bush Jr. administration is history, if Israeli intelligence is already saying so out loud.

Are RA perps 'Satanists', 'paedophiles' or something else?

Re: of course

Re: hh

-

dokay

Re: dokay

hm

Re: hh

quagmire

Re: quagmire

playing catch up

Re: playing catch up

HH

ah

return to question

Re: return to question

Who is online