welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Feminism because why not make a thread for it?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 275, 276, 277 ... 301, 302, 303  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2014 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On a lighter note, from that other thread..i feel like this belongs here.



_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Samsally wrote:
So I know there's a lot of differing opinions on the forums about porn and the like, but Smut Peddler is about the most lady-friendly porn I've ever seen. The kickstarter is doing quite well, but is almost over.

I mean considering they made 7 times what they were asking for, I can't help but think that anybody who says ladies do not like porn is very clearly mistaken. Ladies do not like gross sexist porn that turns them into objects, yes. But porn that portrays people as actual people is hard to find and it seems a lot of folks are willing to put money towards it when it is being offered.


Funny you should mention this porn. I've arrived at the conclusion that most modern porn in the U.S. was heavily influenced by the late 60's and 70's cruiser sub-culture


this is what has always lead me to lean (note: lean) toward the sex-negative camp. it has nothing to do with opposing the sex-positive views that sex can be causal, fun,pleasurable,rewarding, and empowering; as it can be for women who choose to work in the sex industry. The issue that I, and most sex-negative feminist have is that it is just going to take a lot to convince us the the porn industry isn't covertly sexist, misogynistic, and exploitative at it's core- even when some feminists say a woman's decision to do porn is sexually empowering.

I've never heard of Smut Peddler, but I trust your judgement and from the sound of it, it seems like the direction things should toward.
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Samsally



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 6441

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've definitely got a lot of mixed feelings about sex positive vs sex negative, for sure. There is some toxic shit happening on both sides if you dig deep enough, but it seems like that's true of literally anything. *shrugs* I've seen some really compelling arguments all around.

Smut Peddler is cool because it's like a bunch of comic makers said "lets make porn that doesn't make people feel shitty" and then it happened. Not everything is gunna be to everybody's tastes, but there is so much variety and none of it is actively degrading, so even if you don't like it you don't walk away feeling horrible.
_________________
Samsally the GrayAce
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2702
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's definitely a very difficult gray area. I'm not against banning the sex industrie as a whole but how to discern women who enter their profession 100% voluntarily or did they HAVE to?

I do think Smut Peddler is one of the most friendliest out there simply because it gives a positive image of sexually active women. I think if the taboo of sex is lifted, it'll be easier to keep track of those forced into the industry.
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Echo



Joined: 18 Jul 2013
Posts: 599

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It's definitely a very difficult gray area. I'm not against banning the sex industrie as a whole but how to discern women who enter their profession 100% voluntarily or did they HAVE to?


My smart idea to get round this is to give everyone a better option, and protection so they can make their own choices, so no-one is forced into the sex industry, or has no better option in life.

Of course, this means more equality by the bucketload on a truly global scale, but meh, Fixing The Entire Goddamn World is probably easier than dancing round all the hypotheticals of this. ;-D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10388
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yinello wrote:
It's definitely a very difficult gray area. I'm not against banning the sex industrie as a whole but how to discern women who enter their profession 100% voluntarily or did they HAVE to?

I do think Smut Peddler is one of the most friendliest out there simply because it gives a positive image of sexually active women. I think if the taboo of sex is lifted, it'll be easier to keep track of those forced into the industry.

The REALLy tricky thing is that you very quickly can start seeing parallels in other occupations that are risky, dangerous, and possibly illegal or semi-legal yet all offer instant rewards (fast cash) or lots of money. How different is it than being a lumberjack, where the mortality rate can be as high as 1 in 9.
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Yinello



Joined: 10 May 2012
Posts: 2702
Location: Behind you

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2014 8:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Yinello wrote:
It's definitely a very difficult gray area. I'm not against banning the sex industrie as a whole but how to discern women who enter their profession 100% voluntarily or did they HAVE to?

I do think Smut Peddler is one of the most friendliest out there simply because it gives a positive image of sexually active women. I think if the taboo of sex is lifted, it'll be easier to keep track of those forced into the industry.

The REALLy tricky thing is that you very quickly can start seeing parallels in other occupations that are risky, dangerous, and possibly illegal or semi-legal yet all offer instant rewards (fast cash) or lots of money. How different is it than being a lumberjack, where the mortality rate can be as high as 1 in 9.


True but keep in mind that the lumberjack faces physical problems that are a very centered part of his job (felling trees and all) but a prostitute's dangers circle around that taboo - having to do things behind closed doors because people don't want to see it out in the open, dealing with shady people because they can't do things legally etc.

Shit, if it were up to me I'd have sex workers that work in governmental spaces where they are protected and completely legal after they go through a bit of paperwork and get checked by a safety officer.

@Echo: Agreed. It's a slow progress.
_________________
Help. Help, my eyes are stuck from rolling so hard. Help.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9511

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2014 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan wrote:
The issue that I, and most sex-negative feminist have is that it is just going to take a lot to convince us the the porn industry isn't covertly sexist, misogynistic, and exploitative at it's core- even when some feminists say a woman's decision to do porn is sexually empowering.


sex positive feminism largely (or, I think, completely) acknowledges the present state of the porn industry. it just doesn't think that the solution lies in the further disempowerment of women from the potential to participate in or partake of porn, nor does it think that there is any positive repercussions or potential to arguments which are predicated on, essentially, shaming either the performers in or the consumers of most porn, or trying (impossibly) to curtail porn by prohibiting it legally.

Belle Knox's comments on this, and our growing pains enforced by patriarchy and the great Double Standards of our age, speak a lot to that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

that's the big misconception: sex-negative feminism is not the opposite of sex-positive feminism; nor does it oppose or seek to judge sex and women in the sex industry as doing anything wrong, or nasty, or shameful, or dirty. It is not sex moralism and it doesn't target women, it targets the industry and the culture and mindset that have become part of that industry. The fear sex-negative feminists have, and that I share (as I said don't come down firmly in either camp, is that the sex-positive idea of a sexually liberated and empowered woman working in the porn industry is being co-opted by the patriarchy as a way of further exploiting women (both within the industry and as a recruitment tool).

I'm really not an authority on the subject nor even entirely clear on the differences in the tenets and stands between the sex- positive and negative camps. I just know that a lot of people conflate sex-negativism with christian right-wing anti-sex moralism and so it is seen as being in opposition to sex-positive sexual liberation, and that just isn't the case.

I'm looking for a great article that really did a great job explaining the various distinctions to me back when I was having trouble even finding a satisfying description of what sex-negative feminism even was. I'll post the link if I can find it.
(most everything I said was me ripping off what I can remember of that article anyway)
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3557
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
My point stands that there are far more efficient ways of saving lives than actively making incremental improvements to the current automotive paradigm (which totally sucks and should be done away with entirely if we could just get the general population to abandon their pointless status symbols, but I digress), especially if you were to assume that the manufacturers were effective altruists, but even if they aren't -- the disparity is so great.


It would stand even if "Pinto Madness" wasn't total bullshit --the fact-checking on the article Thy linked to was spotty at best, but of course they had to sensationalize it-- and even if it wasn't an ancient (by technological standards) relic of the past to boot. The small-scale failure of a singular product line (one completely driven by market demand) wouldn't change anything. Subsequent or wide-scale failure of this nature would become at best an argument against laissez faire capitalism if it didn't at that point mean the death or overhaul of the companies involved, which would of course be entirely dependent on how much an informed customer is willing and able to pay for improved safety features on their pointless status symbols.



Thy has at this point repeatedly failed to bring anything relevant to the table -- even things relevant to his own digressions. I've had my fun; he's stopped being interesting.

Bye~



Lelelel, another victory for thy.


Take a class on ethics anytime kid.

Maybe you won't find it as boring as getting outmaneuvered repeatedly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9511

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2014 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Finnegan wrote:
that's the big misconception: sex-negative feminism is not the opposite of sex-positive feminism; nor does it oppose or seek to judge sex and women in the sex industry as doing anything wrong, or nasty, or shameful, or dirty. It is not sex moralism and it doesn't target women, it targets the industry and the culture and mindset that have become part of that industry. The fear sex-negative feminists have, and that I share (as I said don't come down firmly in either camp, is that the sex-positive idea of a sexually liberated and empowered woman working in the porn industry is being co-opted by the patriarchy as a way of further exploiting women (both within the industry and as a recruitment tool).

I'm really not an authority on the subject nor even entirely clear on the differences in the tenets and stands between the sex- positive and negative camps. I just know that a lot of people conflate sex-negativism with christian right-wing anti-sex moralism and so it is seen as being in opposition to sex-positive sexual liberation, and that just isn't the case.

I'm looking for a great article that really did a great job explaining the various distinctions to me back when I was having trouble even finding a satisfying description of what sex-negative feminism even was. I'll post the link if I can find it.
(most everything I said was me ripping off what I can remember of that article anyway)


Well, I'll take interest: what do you generally understand sex-negative feminism to be, and what critiques does it make of sex-positive feminism?

(to make this not a 'gotcha' thing, the big reveal at the end is usually that people who consider themselves 'sex negative' feminists turn out to be doing so in protest against what they consider sex positive feminism, but they're really protesting against something that has never been sex positive feminism to begin with)

the original concept of 'sex negative feminism' was originally a redressing of second wave APF by, i believe, an xojane article writer named Jillian Horowitz. it is interesting to read the dichotomy that followed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2014 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

valid reasons to take a class:

* it's required for a degree that you want
* you want to interact with the professor(s)
* you want to interact with the students, and can't get similar interaction elsewhere
* you want an authority structure driving you to accomplish something encompassed in the class within the class's timeframe

welp, that's a no, nah, nope, and a no

invalid reasons to take a class:

* learning, especially if there are as many better options available for obtaining the information as there are in any modern society
* Thy tells you to, goading you with his own conceit on an issue on which he's outright admitted that he won't listen to any possible counterargument, while providing no actual arguments to speak of
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3557
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Heretical Rants wrote:
valid reasons to take a class:

* it's required for a degree that you want
* you want to interact with the professor(s)
* you want to interact with the students, and can't get similar interaction elsewhere
* you want an authority structure driving you to accomplish something encompassed in the class within the class's timeframe

welp, that's a no, nah, nope, and a no

invalid reasons to take a class:

* learning, especially if there are as many better options available for obtaining the information as there are in any modern society
* Thy tells you to, goading you with his own conceit on an issue on which he's outright admitted that he won't listen to any possible counterargument, while providing no actual arguments to speak of




Not only are you painfully unaware that the article I linked to is a Pulitzer prize winning article from a famous institute of investigative journalism, but you are also unaware that the incident is so famous that it is used AS A CASE STUDY in just about any ethics class you could possibly take.


It is beyond obvious that you've never even touched the subject before.


Like I said, take an ethics class anytime, you're only embarrassing yourself at this point.

Should be a valid enough reason for ya.

PS: "An encyclopedic level of knowledge is worthless." Try to figure out what this statement means, and why it is true.

PPS: Read the pdf you linked again. Read it harder.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Heretical Rants



Joined: 21 Jul 2009
Posts: 5344
Location: No.

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wooooowwwww

okay


All other things equal, whose knowledge of a language is more encyclopedic, and whose is more practical:
1) Someone who went to a class on the language for a few years, memorizing verb conjugations and such
2) Someone who has been actively reading things in the language, consuming multimedia, and chatting with people, using the language
_________________
butts
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Finnegan



Joined: 01 May 2007
Posts: 1080
Location: in that cool mountain air, on an appalachian trail

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2014 5:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
Finnegan wrote:
that's the big misconception: sex-negative feminism is not the opposite of sex-positive feminism; nor does it oppose or seek to judge sex and women in the sex industry as doing anything wrong, or nasty, or shameful, or dirty. It is not sex moralism and it doesn't target women, it targets the industry and the culture and mindset that have become part of that industry. The fear sex-negative feminists have, and that I share (as I said don't come down firmly in either camp, is that the sex-positive idea of a sexually liberated and empowered woman working in the porn industry is being co-opted by the patriarchy as a way of further exploiting women (both within the industry and as a recruitment tool).

I'm really not an authority on the subject nor even entirely clear on the differences in the tenets and stands between the sex- positive and negative camps. I just know that a lot of people conflate sex-negativism with christian right-wing anti-sex moralism and so it is seen as being in opposition to sex-positive sexual liberation, and that just isn't the case.

I'm looking for a great article that really did a great job explaining the various distinctions to me back when I was having trouble even finding a satisfying description of what sex-negative feminism even was. I'll post the link if I can find it.
(most everything I said was me ripping off what I can remember of that article anyway)


Well, I'll take interest: what do you generally understand sex-negative feminism to be, and what critiques does it make of sex-positive feminism?

(to make this not a 'gotcha' thing, the big reveal at the end is usually that people who consider themselves 'sex negative' feminists turn out to be doing so in protest against what they consider sex positive feminism, but they're really protesting against something that has never been sex positive feminism to begin with)

the original concept of 'sex negative feminism' was originally a redressing of second wave APF by, i believe, an xojane article writer named Jillian Horowitz. it is interesting to read the dichotomy that followed.


from my limited understanding, the only critique sex negative feminism has of sex positive feminism is the sex negs is only that there is a value in debating the political and social role of sex in a male dominated society that equates sex with power and whether the patriarchy is co-opting the "sex is good" ideal into a new form of oppression. It's the desire to analyze this and other questions about the role role of sex that is often misconstrued as opposition. I haven't come across any real protest of sex positive feminism by sex negative feminists because they do not see themselves has being in opposition with them. If anything, I've only seen the opposite, sex positive protest of sex negative (and like you said) it's really protesting against something that has never been sex negative feminism to begin with. Sexual moralism, slut shaming, opposition to pornography and the sex industry, etc. are what many sex positive feminists believe sex negative feminism to be about and why they oppose it, but none of these ideas have anything to do with sex negative feminism.

Here is what I understand sex positive and sex negative feminism to be:
Quote:
Sex-Positive Feminism, as I frame it, is a marginalised, progressive force which is present-day. It is a feminist tendency which aims to fight the shaming of women and a woman’s right to independence as a sexual actor. As such, its obvious enemy is sex-moralism, which it directly opposes. And its subtle enemy is compulsory sexuality, which may easily coopt it. The job of fighting sex-moralism is straightforward if not easy. The job of resisting cooption by compulsory sexuality is extremely challenging and requires sisterhood and cooperation with sex-negative feminists. Unfortunately, many sex-positive feminists conflate sex moralism with sex-negative feminism and fight them both, leaving them wide open to being coopted into the service of compulsory sexuality.

Sex-Negative Feminism is a marginalised, progressive force which dates from the Women’s Liberation Movement of the 60s and continues to the present day. It is a feminist tendency which speaks honestly about the hard knot of sex, power and violence formed by male supremacy and which aims to liberate women from sexual violence and compulsory sex. As such, its obvious enemy is compulsory sexuality, which it opposes openly. Sex moralism appropriates some sex-negative feminist language in its abstinence and anti-sexualisation advocacy but sex-negative feminists do not support the way it uses the language to make antifeminist arguments. Sex-negative feminism’s most complex struggle is with sex-positive feminism, which does not need to be an enemy. As sex-negative feminism does not advocate shaming or controlling women, sex-positive feminism does not need to oppose it on these grounds. But when sex-positive feminism is coopted by and advocates for compulsory sexuality, sex-negative feminism must resist, as compulsory sexuality under male supremacy is compulsory violence against women.

source


edit: just to make things clearer, I'm adding the definitions of sex moralism and compulsory sexuality.
Quote:
Sex Moralism is hegemonic, historical and contemporaneous, misogynist and anti-sexual-”liberation”. It is the controlled right of male sexual (and otherwise) access to women, in which people acting sexually outside of that controlled system are considered shameful and dirty. It is the sexualisation of feminine vulnerability but it is also coercion of women into motherhood, observance of codes of female ‘decency’ and heterosexual marriage. In the ideal state of sex moralism, all visible, primarily-white women are virgins or mothers to most men and sluts and mothers to the one man who selected them, and the prostituted class is invisible.

Compulsory Sexuality is hegemonic, modern, capitalist, misogynist and post-sexual-”liberation”. It is the universal right of male sexual (and otherwise) access to so-called “liberated” women. Pornographic, it is full-spectrum sexualisation of all women, and of all objects and products as substitute women. It is pinkwashing and cooptive of lesbian and gay movements (and to a lesser extent, bisexual and trans* movements), as long as those movements will agree that women and female proxies must be fucked. In the ideal state of compulsory sexuality, all women are simply sluts.




sam wrote:
people who consider themselves 'sex negative' feminists turn out to be doing so in protest against what they consider sex positive feminism, but they're really protesting against something that has never been sex positive feminism to begin with


I'm curious, what aspect(s) of sex positive feminism is it that they are protesting against and what does it end up that they are actually protesting against. (just any example, I'm genuinely just curious since I've seen it the other way around (pos vs neg: but not actually neg) but haven't encountered it the other way around (neg vs pos: but not actually pos).
_________________
Formerly Green_Finn

hey! rock bottom's not that bad
we've got glow-in-the-dark fish down here that's rad


Last edited by Finnegan on Sat May 10, 2014 6:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 275, 276, 277 ... 301, 302, 303  Next
Page 276 of 303

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group