Quote:
Originally Posted by MRM
There is a technical legal reason for the distinction between porn and prostitution. Porn is technically expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment, just like any other theatrical performance, and because it is produced for the gratification of a third-party viewer, not the participants.
Prostitution is illegal because it is not expressive activity (it does not convey a thought or idea to a third party) protected by the First Amendment and is conducted solely for the gratification of the participant.
Stripping is protected by the First Amendment as expressive activity as well. It can be regulated, and public nudity can be outlawed under the state's police powers. But some level of stripping/dancing is constitutionally protected.
Ms. Paws is sincere but incorrect in her assessment that supporting legalized prostitution is a pro-feminist position and opposing prostitution is demeaning to women. The original patriarchal reaction to prostitution was patronizing to women. The patriarchal society formally outlawed prostitution, socially ostracized prostitutes, but celebrated men who patronized prostitutes and romanticized madams and bordellos.
The feminist response was to point out the hypocrisy of this patriarchal system and to insist that women be placed on the same footing as men. The assumption became that if men were allowed to engage in reckless sex and purchase prostitutes without moral or legal consequence, equality required women being allowed to engage in prostitution on their own.
And so the 1960s rolled on unabated until the post-feminists realized something. Women weren't being empowered by acting like men in engaging in an industry calling for the exchange of sex for money. The duality of thinking that she was in charge of her own body by placing it at the pleasure of men resulted in a very un-feminist objectification by engaging in the very activity they thought was placing them on equal footing as men. And the patriarchal society was getting to like this feminist duality because the patriarch got exactly what he wanted. It was even better than stage one - now men had authorization from women to treat them as objects.
The post-feminists realized this and began agitating for real equality between the sexes. Anti-prostitution laws are no longer meant to be the imposition of a patriarchal order on powerless women. They are a human rights protection that prevent a form of violence against women. Ms. Paws is simply a generation behind in her analysis of what makes humans - women - truly free and equal. The emerging new feminism that has been gathering steam since at least the 1990s agrees with my analysis.
I can go on like this for days.  For every insult that I am not female and my opinions are demeaning to women, I can pull out an argument taught to me by a militant feminist lesbian advocate and sex industry survivor. I can even couch it in Marxist or proto-Marxist terms. But I promise I will spare everyone from my further lectures. It's been fun, and you can tell I'm passionate about the subject and human freedom and liberty in general but I've probably taken up too much bandwidth the way it is. |
I do always love how porn and stripper attorneys call themselves '1st Amendment' jurists... are you one MRM?
Just to make sure I am getting the 'gist' of your statements - Those 1990 emerging 'new feminists' agree that pay for sex on camera needs to be highly protected because it is produced for the 'gratification' of others (even though it is pretty obvious at least one of the parties is getting some 'gratification'), while pay for sex off camera needs to be kept illegal, because it is produced for the gratification of one (or maybe both), and therefore needs to remain relegated to the realm of pimps and criminals?
I.E. these 90s feminists, which you seem to think are so superior to those of the 60s, want to protect porn while denying women a choice when it comes to their ability to earn money with sex off camera?
How are women empowered by allowing themselves to be used as sexual objects on film, which results in the exchange of sex for money? Why would thinking that she was in charge of her own body by placing it at the pleasure of viewers be different than thinking she was in charge of her body by placing it at the pleasure of an individual? Control is the issue here. Are porn actresses objectified less by their 'sex for money' being filmed than prostitutes who exchange the exact same sex for money, but on a one to one transaction?
I would really like to read more about these 'feminists' who are OK with regards to objectifying women in porn, yet balk when it comes to legalizing prostitution.
Sex and money equal power - isn't that the underlying thread to all of this? Sex for money kept illegal equates to power for men, sex for money in a legal context means power for women. Even in the porn industry the largest amount of money goes to men, there are few women producers, and even fewer investors that are women. But, that is merely an aside here.
Just as McLovin pointed out - those little wimmen, they can't be trusted to make those great big decisions, well, unless it is of course doing exactly the same thing on film - then they can make those decisions just fine.... I guess sex for money is violence against women only when the cameras are off.
Women can easily make the decision on whether or not they want to provide sex for money on or off camera, and to pretend that protecting one while persecuting the other equates to 'free and equal' is ludicrous - talk about 'duality'. If women want to objectify their sexuality or not - that decision should be left to them. They are smart, independent and strong. Your 'so-called feminists' who fear sexuality and the freedom that allows women the power to sell or not, are a step backwards in equality - hardly the step forward you profess.