Maybe, but again, this is not a sex positive stance. I am not trying to discuss it outside of BB being here, but the stance, regardless of it being her or you or the article, it is NOT sex positive. It's just not. I am not a submissive wife (not sure why I need to say that, but feel I do to answer this) and just right of sex positive and no, it's not.
i dont think all sex positive people would agree with legalized hooking. i dont and i am sex positive. i can see how the idealized version of hooking is something sex positive people can support. the idea of making it legal is not some freakishly abnormal thought that only BB holds. others do too. the OP maybe but i confess that i didn't read it.
but when you have people that are more open minded to different sex topics talking among people who are more mainstream and conservative you are bound to bump some heads.
I get what you are saying, but making it legal is ignorant, honestly(per the article, and many subsequent articles posted). I think that is why all were strong in trying to discuss with BB or just in response to the OP post.
Maybe, but again, this is not a sex positive stance. I am not trying to discuss it outside of BB being here, but the stance, regardless of it being her or you or the article, it is NOT sex positive. It's just not. I am not a submissive wife (not sure why I need to say that, but feel I do to answer this) and just right of sex positive and no, it's not.
i dont think all sex positive people would agree with legalized hooking. i dont and i am sex positive. i can see how the idealized version of hooking is something sex positive people can support. the idea of making it legal is not some freakishly abnormal thought that only BB holds. others do too. the OP maybe but i confess that i didn't read it.
but when you have people that are more open minded to different sex topics talking among people who are more mainstream and conservative you are bound to bump some heads.
1) Bunny doesn't have to be the only person to hold an opinion for others to find it an odd and uncomfortable one.
2) There are a variety of women in this post who span all sorts of positions on a variety of topics and you seem to be the only one now that Arbor is gone to support her endlessly.
3) You are conflating personal and/or current mainstream/conservative with a mainstream and/or conservative viewpoint for the whole world. I'm really not sure there in anyone with an active dog in this thread's fight who advocates the conservative sexual position as the baseline for everyone or anyone.
4) The submissive wife viewpoint actually has not a single thing to do with sexual behavior in any form.
Maybe, but again, this is not a sex positive stance. I am not trying to discuss it outside of BB being here, but the stance, regardless of it being her or you or the article, it is NOT sex positive. It's just not. I am not a submissive wife (not sure why I need to say that, but feel I do to answer this) and just right of sex positive and no, it's not.
i dont think all sex positive people would agree with legalized hooking. i dont and i am sex positive. i can see how the idealized version of hooking is something sex positive people can support. the idea of making it legal is not some freakishly abnormal thought that only BB holds. others do too. the OP maybe but i confess that i didn't read it.
but when you have people that are more open minded to different sex topics talking among people who are more mainstream and conservative you are bound to bump some heads.
This is where Arbor got me to comment. It's not about being closed minded to a slim minority of people deciding sexing it up for money is great work if you can get it. I mentioned this before, but my aunt was an exotic dancer/stripper/pole dancer. And in one state the laws that limited touch were super fantastic and everything was regulated well that she never felt that she was being pimped out UNTIL she moved to Memphis and found herself in a place where the dancers were being pimped out.
She left because she wanted no part of it. And that's really the gist of why people have issues with this. Because the women are getting the short end of the stick and as ESF pointed out, you can't really fix it no matter how many laws and regulations you place on it.
Everyone wants these women safe. That's not the issue. The issue becomes one that is rooted in a very stark reality that this pie in the sky ideal won't work. Because it's much akin to slavery (considering women are stolen/sold) - for every 1 good master, there are hundreds of others whose circumstances will never be ideal.
I always hate when this open/closed minded stuff pops up, because I don't care who you fuck or how often you do it, but there are no real winners of open mindedness in this area. Not when so many atrocities happen to so many women.
im meh about everything else in your response but i am not the only one in this thread that was ok with the idea of legalized hooking. myself and others recognize that IRL it can't work. maybe one day BB will think that too.
To make it abundantly clear, this is exactly the part that those of us who are judging have a problem with. We are presenting reaaaaaaaaams of evidence here that it can't work. She keeps alternating between insisting that it does and an odd shruggy, "so?"
I know I copped to once supporting legalized prostitution and so have at least a few others here and probably a few more than that in the other threads we've had on the subject.
1) Bunny doesn't have to be the only person to hold an opinion for others to find it an odd and uncomfortable one.
2) There are a variety of women in this post who span all sorts of positions on a variety of topics and you seem to be the only one now that Arbor is gone to support her endlessly.
3) You are conflating personal and/or current mainstream/conservative with a mainstream and/or conservative viewpoint for the whole world. I'm really not sure there in anyone with an active dog in this thread's fight who advocates the conservative sexual position as the baseline for everyone or anyone.
4) The submissive wife viewpoint actually has not a single thing to do with sexual behavior in any form.
im meh about everything else in your response but i am not the only one in this thread that was ok with the idea of legalized hooking. myself and others recognize that IRL it can't work. maybe one day BB will think that too.
I would hope the submissive spouse has nothing to do with sex in any form would be not a meh reaction. It is not about submitting to the whim of your spouse if they are horny and want it. I hope I am misreading.
I always hate when this open/closed minded stuff pops up, because I don't care who you fuck or how often you do it, but there are no real winners of open mindedness in this area. Not when so many atrocities happen to so many women.
I'm really resenting the implication that because I am conservative in one aspect of my life, that I must be closed minded about sex. It actually makes me hateful. My position on prostitution is not one of morality at all. Unless we're talking about the immorality of sexual coercion.
i dont think all sex positive people would agree with legalized hooking. i dont and i am sex positive. i can see how the idealized version of hooking is something sex positive people can support. the idea of making it legal is not some freakishly abnormal thought that only BB holds. others do too. the OP maybe but i confess that i didn't read it.
but when you have people that are more open minded to different sex topics talking among people who are more mainstream and conservative you are bound to bump some heads.
This is where Arbor got me to comment. It's not about being closed minded to a slim minority of people deciding sexing it up for money is great work if you can get it. I mentioned this before, but my aunt was an exotic dancer/stripper/pole dancer. And in one state the laws that limited touch were super fantastic and everything was regulated well that she never felt that she was being pimped out UNTIL she moved to Memphis and found herself in a place where the dancers were being pimped out.
She left because she wanted no part of it. And that's really the gist of why people have issues with this. Because the women are getting the short end of the stick and as ESF pointed out, you can't really fix it no matter how many laws and regulations you place on it.
Everyone wants these women safe. That's not the issue. The issue becomes one that is rooted in a very stark reality that this pie in the sky ideal won't work. Because it's much akin to slavery (considering women are stolen/sold) - for every 1 good master, there are hundreds of others whose circumstances will never be ideal.
I always hate when this open/closed minded stuff pops up, because I don't care who you fuck or how often you do it, but there are no real winners of open mindedness in this area. Not when so many atrocities happen to so many women.
I would hope the submissive spouse has nothing to do with sex in any form would be not a meh reaction. It is not about submitting to the whim of your spouse if they are horny and want it. I hope I am misreading.
misreading me?
You said you were meh about the rest of HBC's responses. I took it to mean you didn't agree with her 3 of other statements, one of which was about submissive wives/spouses and sex. This is usually how I see meh 'defined'.
I would hope the submissive spouse has nothing to do with sex in any form would be not a meh reaction. It is not about submitting to the whim of your spouse if they are horny and want it. I hope I am misreading.
If I remember correctly, AW is the only one who took up a sexually submissive role in her marriage.
Now that you've brought that up, I'm going to give majorwife the benefit of the doubt and assume she's taking submissive wife and conflating it with the sexually submissive part of BDSM. Because those are different worlds. I highly doubt most self proclaimed submissive wives have a safe word. lol
I would hope the submissive spouse has nothing to do with sex in any form would be not a meh reaction. It is not about submitting to the whim of your spouse if they are horny and want it. I hope I am misreading.
If I remember correctly, AW is the only one who took up a sexually submissive role in her marriage.
Now that you've brought that up, I'm going to give majorwife the benefit of the doubt and assume she's taking submissive wife and conflating it with the sexually submissive part of BDSM. Because those are different worlds. I highly doubt most self proclaimed submissive wives have a safe word. lol
That is why I said I hoped I was misreading. I think that is probably right.
I always hate when this open/closed minded stuff pops up, because I don't care who you fuck or how often you do it, but there are no real winners of open mindedness in this area. Not when so many atrocities happen to so many women.
I'm really resenting the implication that because I am conservative in one aspect of my life, that I must be closed minded about sex. It actually makes me hateful. My position on prostitution is not one of morality at all. Unless we're talking about the immorality of sexual coercion.
This is also why it bugs me and prompted a response. The default can't be "well you are sexually repressed and so you can't see how great this is." No, there is nothing about being sexually repressed that wants to me keep women from being sold as Sex Slaves. If the research shows that making it legal makes it even more dangerous then we have a problem. The law can't be designed to give safe harbor to people trafficking women.
Good policy should curb an issue, not create safe harbors in it. Now that's not to say that people don't find loopholes, but if you find out a law is having an opposite effect then you have to suspend it and address the issue.
You said you were meh about the rest of HBC's responses. I took it to mean you didn't agree with her 3 of other statements, one of which was about submissive wives/spouses and sex. This is usually how I see meh 'defined'.
meh as in i didnt have the energy to address the other points.
This is also why it bugs me and prompted a response. The default can't be "well you are sexually repressed and so you can't see how great this is." No, there is nothing about being sexually repressed that wants to me keep women from being sold as Sex Slaves. If the research shows that making it legal makes it even more dangerous then we have a problem. The law can't be designed to give safe harbor to people trafficking women.
Good policy should curb an issue, not create safe harbors in it. Now that's not to say that people don't find loopholes, but if you find out a law is having an opposite effect then you have to suspend it and address the issue.
well i dont think anyone is sexually repressed, lol.
the james franco post is a good highlight here. the majority of people were all "creeper" about it and skeeved out BUT not calling for his actions to be illegal. me and one other poster were all "meh/she is a consenting adult" about it.
i once thought i could look at the macro and think that anything between two consenting adults should be legal. but you can't do that IRT the issue of sex work.
I'm just hearkening back to Arbor here. You don't feel that way, but it would often come up with "be open minded."
And I agree, sure, I can let consenting adults consent, but you can't really consent when your options are limited to survive or die.
Yes, I think that's the heart of it. I think most of us would agree that consenting adults ought to do what they like provided they aren't deeply hurting others.
The primary issues in that ideology are that 1, consent is not the cut and dry concept I used to think it was and 2, there is a wide range of hurt. Condoning the notion of divorcing one side's sexual desire from the 'transaction' as it were breeds a lack of empathy that empowers and broadens the ability of sex work to harm us all.
I hate that term "sex positive." Who is really "sex negative"? In its attempt to portray openness it's actually so dismissive and judgmental in one ironic swoop. Just wanted to say that.
The problem with Arbor's position was that she was trying to make the case that being pro prostitution is actually pro woman/ pro feminist. No matter what I think of legalized prostituion (which I don't agree with) I could never ever get on board with legalized prostitution being the feminist position.
Prostitution is destructive to women. And not just to the prostituted women themselves but it's destructive to ancillary women, like wives of the johns, children of the johns or prostitutes, moms of the prostitute, etc. There is nothing pro woman about this situation. I don't give a shit if 2 percent are happy prostitutes. There are happy gang members too. Since when is happiness a standard for whether something should be legal? FFS.
I hate that term "sex positive." Who is really "sex negative"? In its attempt to portray openness it's actually so dismissive and judgmental in one ironic swoop. Just wanted to say that.
The problem with Arbor's position was that she was trying to make the case that being pro prostitution is actually pro woman/ pro feminist. No matter what I think of legalized prostituion (which I don't agree with) I could never ever get on board with legalized prostitution being the feminist position.
Prostitution is destructive to women. And not just to the prostituted women themselves but it's destructive to ancillary women, like wives of the johns, children of the johns or prostitutes, moms of the prostitute, etc. There is nothing pro woman about this situation. I don't give a shit if 2 percent are happy prostitutes. There are happy gang members too. Since when is happiness a standard for whether something should be legal? FFS.
This part in particular seems to undermine the whole "it will bring prostitutes out from underground and into the social system":
HOW modern and liberated Germany’s Social Democrats and Greens sounded in 2001. They were in government and wanted to raise the legal and social status of prostitutes. So they enacted a law to remove the stigma from sex work by, for example, giving prostitutes full rights to health insurance, pensions and other benefits. “Exploiting” sex workers remained criminal, but merely employing them or providing them with a venue became legal. The idea was that responsible employers running safe and clean brothels would drive pimps out of the market.
...
The best guess is that Germany has about 400,000 prostitutes catering to 1m men a day. Mocking the spirit of the 2001 law, exactly 44 of them, including four men, have registered for welfare benefits.
this right here is where Arbor lost it and took to social media. I don't really know why this enraged her so much.
What the hell is it about this topic? Every time. Every goddamned time.
I think it is the horrific life so many are forced to live as they are not consenting, often, and there is no informed consent (to take in the sex positive definitions) if you are no allowed to say no or live behind a barbed wire fence.
Post by Velar Fricative on Apr 7, 2014 8:40:04 GMT -5
I'll just chime in to say that I was totally pro-legalization until I dug deeper a while back. Just in case anyone googles old threads and calls me out on it lol.
this right here is where Arbor lost it and took to social media. I don't really know why this enraged her so much.
What the hell is it about this topic? Every time. Every goddamned time.
Well, I don't know why she got stuck on that point because it's a pretty minimal point of those that have been raised, at least this time around. However, I can understand why it might enrage her, or why it annoys me at least: If your husband is a lying cheat, that's on him, not the prostitute or whomever the O/W is. Actually, there's probably more culpability on the O/W if it's NOT a sex worker but rather a friend or coworker who actively sought him out. Along these lines--and I don't have stats/studies in front of me but am quoting Catharine MacKinnon's speech--where porn is supply based (people consume it because it's there and abundant), prostitution / sex-trafficking is demand based (gangs supply it because johns are willing to pay for it). So, johns are johns. If your husband is a john, he's the one creating the industry, not the sex worker.
However, I imagine she was mistaken on two points. First, it's not just the cheating but the power allotted to johns that shifts the dynamic in his own marriage that make sleeping with a prostitute different from sleeping with an unpaid consulting adult. That seems to be the point being made above. Second, she may have felt that a concern for the wives meant that your (collective) position was driven by a fear of being cheated on by your husbands. She should know better with this group, but I imagine that's where a lot of women out in the world come from, triggering a knee-jerk reaction.
I'll just chime in to say that I was totally pro-legalization until I dug deeper a while back. Just in case anyone googles old threads and calls me out on it lol.
I'll just chime in to say that I was totally pro-legalization until I dug deeper a while back. Just in case anyone googles old threads and calls me out on it lol.
Me too!!
And I. I didn't get all the big picture aspects.
Half the Sky: Turning Oppression Into Opportunity Worldwide is a great read. It's not just about prostitution but does include some horrific stories and statistics.
Well, I don't know why she got stuck on that point because it's a pretty minimal point of those that have been raised, at least this time around. However, I can understand why it might enrage her, or why it annoys me at least: If your husband is a lying cheat, that's on him, not the prostitute or whomever the O/W is. Actually, there's probably more culpability on the O/W if it's NOT a sex worker but rather a friend or coworker who actively sought him out. Along these lines--and I don't have stats/studies in front of me but am quoting Catharine MacKinnon's speech--where porn is supply based (people consume it because it's there and abundant), prostitution / sex-trafficking is demand based (gangs supply it because johns are willing to pay for it). So, johns are johns. If your husband is a john, he's the one creating the industry, not the sex worker.
However, I imagine she was mistaken on two points. First, it's not just the cheating but the power allotted to johns that shifts the dynamic in his own marriage that make sleeping with a prostitute different from sleeping with an unpaid consulting adult. That seems to be the point being made above. Second, she may have felt that a concern for the wives meant that your (collective) position was driven by a fear of being cheated on by your husbands. She should know better with this group, but I imagine that's where a lot of women out in the world come from, triggering a knee-jerk reaction.
I believe my thoughts here are paraphrasing an article I recently read so if it sounds familiar, that's why. I don't blame prostitutes for what johns do to their wives when they cheat. However, I believe legalizing prostitution condones several bad attitudes towards women. The attitude that addresses wives in a harmful way is a version of the madonna whore complex. Wives are for respecting and having tame sexual relations with and prostitutes are for banging every which way but Thursday with zero regard for the sexual gratification of your paid partner.
I think it creates a greater emotional divide between husband and wife and damages the wife far beyond the actual cheating itself. Intimacy is very important to a marriage. And having a society where men are getting their intimate needs met elsewhere and it's all good is damaging to the ability of wives to have a strong relationship with their husbands. That's damaging to women as a whole. It's damaging to them as individuals with individual needs and desires because it presumes a non-prostitute woman can only be interested in one type of sex. And it presumes that a man knows better than a woman what kind of sex she'd be interested in. And it makes judgement calls on women who might be interested in a more exciting sex life than some missionary, procreation focused sex once a week.
And to expound on that, it also gives the men who use prostitutes a pass on the kind of intimacy exchange it might take for a woman to try something sexually. I've read stories of men who said they felt entitled to seek out prostitutes because their wife won't blow them. Now does she not want to blow them or is she not trying to give her husband that kind of sexual gratification when she isn't getting her own sexual needs met?
At the end of the day, leaving the prostitutes themselves out of it, the prostitution industry drives a wedge in a marriage by undermining the wife's sexuality and her right to sexual intimacy with her husband.
Well, I don't know why she got stuck on that point because it's a pretty minimal point of those that have been raised, at least this time around. However, I can understand why it might enrage her, or why it annoys me at least: If your husband is a lying cheat, that's on him, not the prostitute or whomever the O/W is. Actually, there's probably more culpability on the O/W if it's NOT a sex worker but rather a friend or coworker who actively sought him out. Along these lines--and I don't have stats/studies in front of me but am quoting Catharine MacKinnon's speech--where porn is supply based (people consume it because it's there and abundant), prostitution / sex-trafficking is demand based (gangs supply it because johns are willing to pay for it). So, johns are johns. If your husband is a john, he's the one creating the industry, not the sex worker.
However, I imagine she was mistaken on two points. First, it's not just the cheating but the power allotted to johns that shifts the dynamic in his own marriage that make sleeping with a prostitute different from sleeping with an unpaid consulting adult. That seems to be the point being made above. Second, she may have felt that a concern for the wives meant that your (collective) position was driven by a fear of being cheated on by your husbands. She should know better with this group, but I imagine that's where a lot of women out in the world come from, triggering a knee-jerk reaction.
However, I believe legalizing prostitution condones several bad attitudes towards women.
And to expound on that, it also gives the men who use prostitutes a pass on the kind of intimacy
I always took HeyJude's comment to mean this. She's the one who said it last time, too. lol.