When feminists and liberal men disagree

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

     Honestly, the second and third waves are a lot more similar than people give them credit for. It irks me just a little when people identify as "second wave feminists", to distinguish themselves from the icky "third wave feminists", because it romanticizes an ahistorical version of the second wave that ignores things like political lesbianism and the SCUM Manifesto while playing up modern problems.

The raps on the second and third waves are in many respects quite different. They don't need to be the same for both to have their flaws (for example, reductionist and often quasi-deterministic hyper-politicization of sexual decisions in the case of the second wave, politically-motivated decontextualization and often trivialization of sexual choices for the third). Conversely, one doesn't need to be either exactly like or utterly unlike the other for either or both to have good points (for example, embodied nature of some types of sexist oppression in the case of the second wave, essentially arbitrary nature of other types for the third).

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Honestly, the second and third waves are a lot more similar than people give them credit for. It irks me just a little when people identify as "second wave feminists", to distinguish themselves from the icky "third wave feminists", because it romanticizes an ahistorical version of the second wave that ignores things like political lesbianism and the SCUM Manifesto while playing up modern problems.

The raps on the second and third waves are in many respects quite different. They don't need to be the same for both to have their flaws (for example, reductionist and often quasi-deterministic hyper-politicization of sexual decisions in the case of the second wave, politically-motivated decontextualization and often trivialization of sexual choices for the third). Conversely, one doesn't need to be either exactly like or utterly unlike the other for either or both to have good points (for example, embodied nature of some types of sexist oppression in the case of the second wave, essentially arbitrary nature of other types for the third).

     Thanks, things make a little more sense to me after reading that. I might tend to characterize the second wave as being more individualist, and my experiences with particular second wave feminists would tend to confirm that. With that said, I suspect that wasn't the thrust of their politicization of sexuality and it would probably be a mistake to conceive of the differences in those terms.

     In terms of the kinds of political thought I follow there is a mistake of conflating second wave feminism as a historical movement with the reactions of certain second wave feminists to third wave feminism and judging its merits based on the latter. People then speak in favor of second wave feminism based on stuff written in the 1990s, without thinking about what was was being said in the 1960s.

[HisGrace]

When feminists and liberal men disagree, this means liberal men are thinking with their dicks.

What about feminists that take more liberal views on things like porn and prostitution? Are they also thinking with their dicks?

They're thinking with their imaginary dicks that they made up due to their penis envy.

[HisGrace]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Prostitution is one of those issues where people are stuck in an irrational mindset due to tradition and other things. Prostitution being illegal hurts prostitutes more than anyone else. The only reason prostitutes are dependent on abusive pimps is because prostitution is illegal. The oft suggested idea of only arresting pimps and johns (aside from making no legal or moral sense) doesn't fix this since prostitution would still be an illicit business in that scenario and they would still need pimps to "push" for them and get their clients in a lot of cases. If it were legal they could work independently and easily advertise like any other business (especially in the age of the internet) or work at a heavily regulated legal brothel. If you're actually interested in what's best for sex workers this is the best scenario.

The reasons people oppose legal prostitution are-

A.- Traditional Western/Christian morality (why conservatives oppose it) backed up by a bunch of pseudo-intellectual gibberish about "culture rot"

B.- Women with cuckold (or I guess cuckqueen) anxieties who subconsciously think their husbands/boyfriends will got out and screw a bunch of prostitutes if it's legal. Men's sexual anxieties/insecurities/frustration have been oft discussed as having an effect on their political beliefs (see Dr. Strangelove, or posts in this thread) so this is a perfectly valid hypothesis.

makes u think

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

While I don't agree with it, there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for just blanket decriminalizing prostitution (including pimping, buying the services of a prostitute, et cetera) until such time as the economic conditions that lead most of the women involved into it can be addressed. I don't agree with it both because it's consequentialist and because 'such time' could be anywhere from five years from now to never depending on the country and on what counts as addressing the conditions, but I have heard actual ex-prostitutes, who have no love lost for the practice or for the various types of seedy men involved, advocate this.

What I don't like at all is the 'muh legalize, regulate, and tax' model, which both drives prostitutes to turn more tricks than they otherwise would because their income is being taxed and gives the government a perverse incentive to keep prostitution around.

It's also worth recognizing that laws against prostitution aren't really all that traditional in either etiology or intent. They were for the most part enacted after proto-feminist, or very very early first-wave, campaigns in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Which, yes, had a lot to do with common female sexual anxieties, but considering the vectors for how things like STDs are spread I don't think we should write that off as intrinsically unreasonable or compare it to men's anxieties about 'cucking'.

[afleitch]

While I don't agree with it, there's a strong consequentialist argument to be made for just blanket decriminalizing prostitution (including pimping, buying the services of a prostitute, et cetera) until such time as the economic conditions that lead most of the women involved into it can be addressed. I don't agree with it both because it's consequentialist and because 'such time' could be anywhere from five years from now to never depending on the country and on what counts as addressing the conditions, but I have heard actual ex-prostitutes, who have no love lost for the practice or for the various types of seedy men involved, advocate this.

What I don't like at all is the 'muh legalize, regulate, and tax' model, which both drives prostitutes to turn more tricks than they otherwise would because their income is being taxed and gives the government a perverse incentive to keep prostitution around.

It's also worth recognizing that laws against prostitution aren't really all that traditional in either etiology or intent. They were for the most part enacted after proto-feminist, or very very early first-wave, campaigns in the mid-to-late nineteenth century. Which, yes, had a lot to do with common female sexual anxieties, but considering the vectors for how things like STDs are spread I don't think we should write that off as intrinsically unreasonable or compare it to men's anxieties about 'cucking'.

There are no distinct economic conditions that result in male or female prostitution, call girls, gigolos etc. It's naive to think it's just sexual entrapment foistred on the poor and vulnerable. Professional women will do it to pay for college. Men to boost income. Indeed 'high class' prostitution is in many ways self regulated and 'safer' for those who pursue it. Where regulation is non existent, those with money and position are often protected. Those at the bottom however have to obtain that protection from others, leading to sexual exploitation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Prostitutes are, definitionally, prostitutes either because they need the money or for some other reason. I'm going based on what I've heard from women (and men, but mostly women) who were in the industry because they needed the money. These are the people I believe we should be primarily concerned with helping. If I hadn't heard a constant chorus from these people that 'muh legalize, regulate, and tax' doesn't really solve their problems, my opinion would probably be different.

I recognize that you've very likely heard from people in similar situations that it does help and I respect that. I've also heard of prostitutes and ex-prostitutes arguing for the Nordic model (which is the group I personally tend to agree with most) or even in some cases that full criminalization is somehow helpful (which strikes me as absurd but whatever). The lack of any meaningful consensus on this among the people actually affected should be taken as a sign that all of our own positions have to be contingent and tentative. It's not an easy issue, even for people who agree on first principles more than you and I do. That's why I was using phrases like 'while I don't agree with it, there's a[n]....argument to be made' and 'I don't like'.

I'll admit that the last few sentences of your post make good points but the first, at least when you get outside (relatively) cossetted First-World-problems territory into the parts of the world where most people and thus most prostitutes actually live and work, strikes me as simply ludicrous.

I don't want to have language about this further right now.

[afleitch]

I'll admit that the last few sentences of your post make good points but the first, at least when you get outside (relatively) cossetted First-World-problems territory into the parts of the world where most people and thus most prostitutes actually live and work, strikes me as simply ludicrous.

I don't want to have language about this further right now.

My job from 2007 to this July, which I suppose I can now talk about, was dealing at a government level with victims of crime including reading full statements, police reports and social service reports from victims of childhood sexual abuse and adult victims of sexual abuse. I have probably looked at a tens of thousands of cases in that time.

Sexual abuse of prostitutes is under reported for two significant reasons, with the prime reason being that fact that it is usually a statutory offence. Secondly, there is a strong link between people who have been victims of abuse prior to or outside of solicited sex, of which 'payment' numbs that particular pain to the point it ceases to 'feel' like abuse. That's what I mean by there not being a distinct set of economic conditions (i.e 'being poor') to prostitution. Furthermore those who solicit, their clients and even wider society and law have created an artificial differentiation between 'low class' prostitution and 'high class' soliciting. From experience, those who suffer abuse within that model (as there is 'choice' and 'self regulation') tend to be more willing to reporting the abuse and having a proper response by the authorities.

Continued criminalisation of prostitution perpetuates this division. Indeed, why would a high class call girl want to be equal in law with decriminalisation in place rather than remain 'classier' with continued criminalisation that is less intrusive for them than those on the street? And that's where, with everything, power and protection is an issue much more than money.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I'll admit that the last few sentences of your post make good points but the first, at least when you get outside (relatively) cossetted First-World-problems territory into the parts of the world where most people and thus most prostitutes actually live and work, strikes me as simply ludicrous.

I don't want to have language about this further right now.

My job from 2007 to this July, which I suppose I can now talk about, was dealing at a government level with victims of crime including reading full statements, police reports and social service reports from victims of childhood sexual abuse and adult victims of sexual abuse. I have probably looked at a tens of thousands of cases in that time.

Sexual abuse of prostitutes is under reported for two significant reasons, with the prime reason being that fact that it is usually a statutory offence. Secondly, there is a strong link between people who have been victims of abuse prior to or outside of solicited sex, of which 'payment' numbs that particular pain to the point it ceases to 'feel' like abuse. That's what I mean by there not being a distinct set of economic conditions (i.e 'being poor') to prostitution. Furthermore those who solicit, their clients and even wider society and law have created an artificial differentiation between 'low class' prostitution and 'high class' soliciting. From experience, those who suffer abuse within that model (as there is 'choice' and 'self regulation') tend to be more willing to reporting the abuse and having a proper response by the authorities.

Continued criminalisation of prostitution perpetuates this division. Indeed, why would a high class call girl want to be equal in law with decriminalisation in place rather than remain 'classier' with continued criminalisation that is less intrusive for them than those on the street? And that's where, with everything, power and protection is an issue much more than money.

I didn't and still don't really want to continue this conversation but sincerely thank you for offering this information--I didn't know all this and may reconsider some of my views in light of this. (I'd note that I'm certainly not advocating continued criminalization of prostitution the way I understand criminalization, although you and I may be defining it differently.)

[Amanda]

hmm ~~

[RINO Tom]

When feminists and liberal men disagree, this means liberal men are thinking with their dicks.

So people who think prostitution and porn are perfectly fine as long  as you're not engaging in abuse behavior are thinking with their dicks? How about liberal men who find it a little distasteful that these feminists are upset over little things like women's bodies in video games? Thinking with their dick?

Third wave feminism is all about talking about how everything in society is holding the woman down, blaming patriarchy and sexism for it, while ignoring issues that men suffer from more than women (education for example). Isn't feminism about equality between men and women, but when people bring up things like custody and how it actually hurts men more than women it either isn't talked about or dismissed as sexism.

If you disagree with Antonio, and the world woman/women/female/females is involved, you are thinking with your dick.  It's a matter of fact.

[Associate Justice PiT]

When feminists and liberal men disagree, this means liberal men are thinking with their dicks.

So people who think prostitution and porn are perfectly fine as long  as you're not engaging in abuse behavior are thinking with their dicks? How about liberal men who find it a little distasteful that these feminists are upset over little things like women's bodies in video games? Thinking with their dick?

Third wave feminism is all about talking about how everything in society is holding the woman down, blaming patriarchy and sexism for it, while ignoring issues that men suffer from more than women (education for example). Isn't feminism about equality between men and women, but when people bring up things like custody and how it actually hurts men more than women it either isn't talked about or dismissed as sexism.

If you disagree with Antonio, and the world woman/women/female/females is involved, you are thinking with your dick.  It's a matter of fact.

     And anyone who does not use Antonio's preferred term to identify their own views is THE WORST. Also a matter of fact.

[Sopranos Republican]

I generally believe women are adult enough to make their own decisions regarding their own involvement in porn, prostitution, and whom they freely choose to have sex with. (Liberal man who thinks with his dick.)

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

I generally believe women are adult enough to make their own decisions regarding their own involvement in porn, prostitution, and whom they freely choose to have sex with. (Liberal man who thinks with his dick, and who identifies as a feminist)

[IceAgeComing]

most feminists I know support the legalisation of prostitution and often are the most vocal about protecting sex workers - like they are trying to change the law here in a way that might lead to increased violence against women (basically decriminalising the selling of sex while banning the buying of sex; its usually called the "Nordic model") without actually consulting people working in the industry and the only people really vocally against it are feminists.  Outright legalising it would be better for everyone: it'd allow you to actually regulate the industry to protect women better and force sensible safety measures (condom use; mandatory STI tests every month, things like that) plus allow the law to actual target people who are being genuinely harmed - sex trafficking especially.  I mean even from an evidence-based perspective its a sensible policy: the places that have done it (some accidentally, Rhode Island had a loophole for a while which decriminalised the selling and buying of sex inside a building) have shown no increase of people working as sex workers, a reduction of the rate of STIs and in a few cases a reduction in rape rates, although how much I'd attribute the latter to legalising prostitution...