Politics and Porn

Bramblethorn said:

Yup. Mistreatment of porn actors and other sex workers is a real thing, but it's telling that so many of the folk who argue that we need to ban sex work on those grounds are utterly silent about all the other industries that treat workers badly.

Click to expand...

^^^^ That.

Gianbattista said:

Are they or is it that with an interest in this area it's more noticeable?

For example, as someone with self confessed lack of knowledge in this area it's not the only such I hear examples of. Others include fashion industry exploiting child labour/ poor labour conditions where it's allowed/ less easily monitored; slavery has had a reasonably large attention given to it, and the HUGE one in UK is the impact across industries on zero hours contracts. I could list others.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there are plenty of exploitative industries. Nail salons, farming, domestic service, cockle picking, ...

But I never hear people calling for a ban on nail salons. At the most it's "regulate it and deal with the bad apples", or stuff like fair trade labelling so people can make informed choices about what they buy. That's why I'm cynical about sex-work prohibitionists; I tend to assume that they're using concern for the workers as a cover for a morals crusade.

Bramblethorn said:

Yeah, there are plenty of exploitative industries. Nail salons, farming, domestic service, cockle picking, ...

But I never hear people calling for a ban on nail salons. At the most it's "regulate it and deal with the bad apples", or stuff like fair trade labelling so people can make informed choices about what they buy. That's why I'm cynical about sex-work prohibitionists; I tend to assume that they're using concern for the workers as a cover for a morals crusade.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's a moral crusade being lead by "save the women and children!" I noticed no one ever says we need to save the men getting their balls stepped on.

MeekMe said:

Yes, it's a moral crusade being lead by "save the women and children!" I noticed no one ever says we need to save the men getting their balls stepped on.

Click to expand...

Everybody knows men are never sex workers!

(I was watching a BDSM-heavy music video a few weeks back and was astonished to see they actually had a guy being trampled, not just the standard f-sub material.)

I think this thread is relevant to the Digital Economies Bill currently in the process of going through parliament over here.

I'll be focusing on page 26, Part 3.

I already made a little rant about this on the WPYO thread in the cafe a few months ago.

Essentially it seeks to extend an (ironically) 1984 piece of legislation, 30 years out of date, titled the Video Recordings Act which bans the retail of "Unconventional" pornography videos, to apply to modern internet service providers by passing responsibility of ISP regulation over to another regulatory body called the BBFC, which itself has draconian pre-existing media guidelines. In the act it defines unconventional as everything that could be considered to cause more 'harm' than, and including, spanking. Literally going so far as to state that if bruising or physical markings result then the content should be banned. So it seeks to block nationwide access to any and all even-maybe-slightly-possibly BDSM content. Meaning that if it passes with those provisions then me, Elle, Lucy and other UK dwellers could lose access to certain pages on lit or perhaps even the whole site since it would contain contraband media.

It's also worth noting that the majority of the bill focuses on establishing an online 'age regulator' body to make sure there's no teenagers accessing porn sites irrespective of whether they're BDSM-orientated or not, because obviously if such an event were to happen, it would signal the death knell of modern civilization. It will have the power to presumably establish databases of all UK residents and their detailed online activity. (the way they intend on verifying internet user's ages is especially nebulous, this is the only system I can imagine that will let them effectively do that which is why I say "presumably") The body will be capable of fining the non-compliant to a max of £250,000 ($309,500) and/or seizing 5% of a person's financial turnover.

That combined with the government retroactively legalizing their practice of dipping into people's data without a search warrant or independent oversight paints the future of privacy in a way that I'm sure would make George Orwell's skin crawl.

I am doing my best to keep calm about it, but there are definitely fears here in the UK as to what we might continue to have access to.

Con - any suggestions on supporting groups here against the worst proposed changes? I saw there is an organisation called Backlash dedicated to protecting the freedom of sexual expression.

And there are various petitions afoot, although not sure if they have much impact -

Reject measures in the Digital Economy Bill to censor legal content online https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/174167

And an Open Rights Group one-
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/cam...-bill-hub/stop-uk-censorship-of-legal-content

LucyBee01 said:

I am doing my best to keep calm about it, but there are definitely fears here in the UK as to what we might continue to have access to.

Con - any suggestions on supporting groups here against the worst proposed changes? I saw there is an organisation called Backlash dedicated to protecting the freedom of sexual expression.

And there are various petitions afoot, although not sure if they have much impact -

Reject measures in the Digital Economy Bill to censor legal content online https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/174167

And an Open Rights Group one-
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/cam...-bill-hub/stop-uk-censorship-of-legal-content

Click to expand...

Perhaps we could go full V for Vendetta and obliterate the House of Parliament while reciting a marvelously alliterative monologue?

Hehehe, I like it.
Or maybe we need a Humphrey Appleby or Malcolm Tucker type character who can ensure that stupid changes aren't made

Thanks for that, Con.

We have one or two states wanting anti-porn devices installed on all computers and phones sold with a fee for adults to have the device removed. The fee would go towards anti trafficking efforts. ;; It's a bad idea that will probably never happen or work, but I guess politicians have to appear to be doing something while they're in office.

Thanks for the links LucyBee01. It's a great idea to have some helpful resources.

but I guess politicians have to appear to be doing something while they're in office.

Click to expand...

That's the main problem of all governments, really. Every department has to show that they are doing very important work, so as to not get their funding cut next year.

That's why even when everything is totally fine in some department's area, they will do their best to invent at least a few initiatives, no matter how stretched and ridiculous they may seem.

Gianbattista said:

I would protest for free expression but the problem is you cannot guarantee people will not behave poorly. I would feel very poorly represented by window breakers and people who protested aggressively.

I have protested peacefully before and would again but have regretfully learned to be circumspect.

Click to expand...

Protesting for free expression could take people who normally would be on the same side and put them in conflict with each other. Especially if you use the porn industry as a rallying point. On the one hand, you're demanding free expression. On the other hand, by doing so, couldn't you be interpreted as perpetuating the "war on women", since women are so often the ones exploited (or at least the ones perceived as exploited) by the porn industry? So you have to somehow meld free expression with women's rights. And when it comes to porn, especially the BDSM segment of porn, free expression and women's rights often seem like mutually exclusive terms.

dale124 said:

And when it comes to porn, especially the BDSM segment of porn, free expression and women's rights often seem like mutually exclusive terms.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

Bramblethorn said:

I don't understand what you're saying here. Can you elaborate?

Click to expand...

You mean you've never seen some of the kinkier stuff on certain BDSM websites I'm not even sure I'm allowed to cite here? Sites where the women are tied in extreme posses and whipped or worse?

Granted, they always have an interview before or after the video where the female actress is smiling and makes it clear that what happened in the video was consensual. But the acts in the video itself are the kind that feminists cringe at and would call exploitive at the bare minimum and abusive at the maximum. Those are probably the sites that spur this move towards censorship. But there are those who would say, to censor or ban those sites is a violation of free expression.

And so we end up with a conflict between free expression and women's rights. Two causes that are usually championed by the left and the ACLU. Was that any clearer?



Speaking of the ACLU, I wonder where they are on this crack-down on free expression? It sounds like right up their alley.

ACLU tweeted about it. https://mobile.twitter.com/ACLU/status/818851891505414144

In the past the ACLU has been on the side of the BDSM community.

dale124 said:

You mean you've never seen some of the kinkier stuff on certain BDSM websites I'm not even sure I'm allowed to cite here? Sites where the women are tied in extreme posses and whipped or worse?

Click to expand...

Nope, I don't mean that at all. I've seen more than a little of that material.

Granted, they always have an interview before or after the video where the female actress is smiling and makes it clear that what happened in the video was consensual. But the acts in the video itself are the kind that feminists cringe at and would call exploitive at the bare minimum and abusive at the maximum.

Click to expand...

That's a BIG generalisation there.

Yes, some feminists do view any BDSM acts (and indeed any kind of porn) as exploitative and oppressive of women.

Many others believe that feminism means a woman has the right to make her own choices about her own body, including the right to let somebody else tie her up and whip her. I've known plenty of thoroughly feminist women who enjoyed submitting in the bedroom, and there are quite a few in the industry who are outspoken about how they integrate feminism and BDSM. I think you'll find several feminist submissives in this forum, even.

And so we end up with a conflict between free expression and women's rights. Two causes that are usually championed by the left and the ACLU. Was that any clearer?

Click to expand...

There's no conflict between those two things. A woman who chooses to be tied up and whipped is exercising rights, not losing them. If a woman is coerced into doing so unwillingly, that's hardly "free expression".

To clarify my post earlier, I didn't mean that the ACLU sided with BDSM as opposed to women's rights. I was just meaning that the situation is acknowledged and in the past they have worked on cases involving BDSM and anti-porn.

Feminist s-type, here. ( ´ ▽ ` )ﾉ

dale124 said:

You mean you've never seen some of the kinkier stuff on certain BDSM websites I'm not even sure I'm allowed to cite here? Sites where the women are tied in extreme posses and whipped or worse?

But the acts in the video itself are the kind that feminists cringe at and would call exploitive at the bare minimum and abusive at the maximum.

Click to expand...

Have you seen some of the femdom stuff? Men often get it even worse, but hey! it's not important, right?

Bramblethorn said:

I've known plenty of thoroughly feminist women who enjoyed submitting in the bedroom, and there are quite a few in the industry who are outspoken about how they integrate feminism and BDSM. I think you'll find several feminist submissives in this forum, even.

Click to expand...

*Raises Hand* Yes. Indeed. Definitely.

Bramblethorn said:

There's no conflict between those two things. A woman who chooses to be tied up and whipped is exercising rights, not losing them. If a woman is coerced into doing so unwillingly, that's hardly "free expression".

Click to expand...

Exactly. I can freely choose to participate in a non-con role play and that is not rape - however if I am raped on my way home this is still a crime.

I would (though this is off topic of the thread but it comes to mind anyway) also contend that there is also no inherent contradiction between FAITH and SCIENCE.

Nezhul said:

Have you seen some of the femdom stuff? Men often get it even worse, but hey! it's not important, right?

Click to expand...

Nezhul - I have not seen anyone say that abuse of men is okay. In fact, I think that people are getting more and more acutely aware that we must be careful of not generalizing about such things.
AND not speaking for other people.

cascadiabound said:

Nezhul - I have not seen anyone say that abuse of men is okay. In fact, I think that people are getting more and more acutely aware that we must be careful of not generalizing about such things.
AND not speaking for other people.

Click to expand...

I think he was making a point that feminists are known for standing up for women's rights, but there doesn't seem to be any support for masculinists to do the same for men's rights.

Think about how the two genders are treated differently based on the same actions.

When a woman stands up for her rights, she's an activist.

When a man stands up for his rights, he's an oppressive bastard.

(I'm not sure that was what Nezhul was saying there, but I wanted to respond to this comment...)

HisArpy said:

I think he was making a point that feminists are known for standing up for women's rights, but there doesn't seem to be any support for masculinists to do the same for men's rights.

Click to expand...

These are not equal and opposite things. Men - in general - are not disadvantaged in the same ways or to the same degree that women are, and dudes who bill themselves as "men's rights" advocates generally aren't.

Here is a committee of thirteen men and zero women getting together to restrict women's access to reproductive health care.

Here is a photo of the 45th male President of the USA signing an executive order targeted at NGOs that provide abortion services to women overseas, with six other men and zero women looking on.

Plenty more like those - but you will never ever see a photo of an all female-committee posing for a photo-op to celebrate restricting men's access to reproductive health care. By and large, men make the laws, so "men's rights" as a general category are not in any danger.

("Why isn’t there a STRAIGHT pride parade?? why isn’t there WHITE history month? why isn’t there an international MEN’S day!? why isn’t there a hospital for WELL people?? why isn’t there a soup kitchen for RICH people??!?")

That said, there are some specific groups of men whose rights really do need defending. Gay and bi men, transgender men, Native American men, Black men, physically or mentally disabled men, imprisoned men, and so on.

But for some reason, the self-proclaimed "men's rights advocates" don't show up for those issues much. If anything, it's more often the feminists who are sticking up for those men. Not consistently, not perfectly, but still significantly better than the MRAs.

Feminists also support men's rights to be paid equally to women for similar-level work!

Bramblethorn said:

(I'm not sure that was what Nezhul was saying there, but I wanted to respond to this comment...)

These are not equal and opposite things. Men - in general - are not disadvantaged in the same ways or to the same degree that women are, and dudes who bill themselves as "men's rights" advocates generally aren't.

Here is a committee of thirteen men and zero women getting together to restrict women's access to reproductive health care.

Here is a photo of the 45th male President of the USA signing an executive order targeted at NGOs that provide abortion services to women overseas, with six other men and zero women looking on.

Plenty more like those - but you will never ever see a photo of an all female-committee posing for a photo-op to celebrate restricting men's access to reproductive health care. By and large, men make the laws, so "men's rights" as a general category are not in any danger.

("Why isn’t there a STRAIGHT pride parade?? why isn’t there WHITE history month? why isn’t there an international MEN’S day!? why isn’t there a hospital for WELL people?? why isn’t there a soup kitchen for RICH people??!?")

That said, there are some specific groups of men whose rights really do need defending. Gay and bi men, transgender men, Native American men, Black men, physically or mentally disabled men, imprisoned men, and so on.

But for some reason, the self-proclaimed "men's rights advocates" don't show up for those issues much. If anything, it's more often the feminists who are sticking up for those men. Not consistently, not perfectly, but still significantly better than the MRAs.

Feminists also support men's rights to be paid equally to women for similar-level work!

Click to expand...

I really could not have put the above better. I have my own blind spots, undoubtedly... I recognize that I personally am more privileged than many. The ways I am/ have been systematically oppressed, I like to believe makes me care about and be an advocate for those who are oppressed in even more profound ways. But certainly, as Bramblethorne says...Not perfectly.

Bramblethorn said:

(I'm not sure that was what Nezhul was saying there, but I wanted to respond to this comment...)



These are not equal and opposite things. Men - in general - are not disadvantaged in the same ways or to the same degree that women are, and dudes who bill themselves as "men's rights" advocates generally aren't.

Here is a committee of thirteen men and zero women getting together to restrict women's access to reproductive health care.

Here is a photo of the 45th male President of the USA signing an executive order targeted at NGOs that provide abortion services to women overseas, with six other men and zero women looking on.

Plenty more like those - but you will never ever see a photo of an all female-committee posing for a photo-op to celebrate restricting men's access to reproductive health care. By and large, men make the laws, so "men's rights" as a general category are not in any danger.

("Why isn’t there a STRAIGHT pride parade?? why isn’t there WHITE history month? why isn’t there an international MEN’S day!? why isn’t there a hospital for WELL people?? why isn’t there a soup kitchen for RICH people??!?")

That said, there are some specific groups of men whose rights really do need defending. Gay and bi men, transgender men, Native American men, Black men, physically or mentally disabled men, imprisoned men, and so on.

But for some reason, the self-proclaimed "men's rights advocates" don't show up for those issues much. If anything, it's more often the feminists who are sticking up for those men. Not consistently, not perfectly, but still significantly better than the MRAs.

Feminists also support men's rights to be paid equally to women for similar-level work!

Click to expand...

Its the odd double standard. White Pride is considered racist by those who push for their own 'other than White' ethnic pride.

Though I've also read, and I'm not going cite this, that other than White ethnic groups state that Whites don't need it as the history books are all of White history anyway.

At my office, we have European Heritage Month. It barely gets notice but the company puts it out there along Black History Month, Asian American, Native American, LGBT (like its a race lol), and several others.

So much racial hurt. On all sides of the fence.

I went to an mostly black school as a freshman in high school. I am white. I was not well received and found myself in many fights. It was a terrible experience in racism. No reverse racism or whatever about it. Racism is racism. Its everywhere.

We need to do better.

The press feeds on racism. At times making it worse, I think. Creating racial division where we, the people of the United States of America, need to be a lot more united. It is our country, all of us, our home.

Just some thoughts.

As an aside, maybe my company needs to also include Vanilla Straight Sex Month, and Kinky Sex Month.

Bramblethorn said:

These are not equal and opposite things. Men - in general - are not disadvantaged in the same ways or to the same degree that women are, and dudes who bill themselves as "men's rights" advocates generally aren't.

Click to expand...

This is so not true.

Male nurses have a more difficult time finding/keeping work. Male secretaries are often looked down upon by their male counterparts as inferior.

These are just two generic examples of how men are treated differently in the workplace based on their gender. To the same degree, if not worse, than women because the ostracism extends beyond the workplace - unlike for women. We could argue all day back and forth with different examples but the principle would not change. Gender inequality goes both ways.

The argument that there are more women who get disparate treatment doesn't fly either. Unequal treatment is still unequal whether is is by volume or selectivity. Neither does the "Historically men..." argument. This ain't a century ago. Women can be anything they can reach out and grab on to. Doctors, lawyers, priests, politicians whatever. No one is going to GIVE it to you, you have to chase it and grab and hold on. There is no other secret to success. For anyone.

Women's suffrage is a good example of how equality by either gender has to be fought for. Women had to march and force Congress to recognize they had rights. Yet, no one seems to remember that FREE MEN had to do the same the world over. No king (or national leader) recognized that their subjects had a right to be free until they were forced to do so. Class warfare died in most parts of the world because men stood up and told their leaders differently.

This means the glass ceiling theory is a fallacy. People of either gender settle for less because they don't have the drive to get more. That's not an x/y chromosome issue. If there is to be a female US president, then supporters should find one who is electable BEYOND gender issues. That means promoting a candidate who is generally acceptable to the populace and who is not a two-faced lying bitch with a heart of stone enhancing herself at the expense of everyone else.

Obama won because he was charismatic and had ideals which people agreed with, not because of his skin tone or gender. Romney/McCain/Hillary/et al didn't because they didn't have enough "It". ("It" is a term of art used in the entertainment industry to denote if someone has what it takes to succeed and be a star. "It" is more than talent or skill or money or privilege or gender or race.) If the people want a female president, they need to find "her" and she will get elected. Find a female who only wants to enact her one-sided vision of equality and failure will continue.

Next, the all male congressmen/reproductive rights issues Duh. Does anyone not think these guys are assholes? Yes, they have power, but I distinctly remember saying that if anyone's representatives want to enact laws that HARM people, vote their asses out of office. Failure to do that means that you support their agenda either overtly or covertly. You're all adults, you know what's best for you. Failure to follow through should have consequences. It's not a men vs women issue. It's a right vs wrong issue.

Equal pay? Give me a break. Pay is based on ability. Women have better color/sensory differentiation and do better in industries where that predisposition is necessary. Women have better ability to manipulate delicate things. Again, much preferred in those industries which need that ability. Math seems to be better understood by women and tends to pay equally or better than for men where math skills are required. Show the exceptional ability and you will get the pay.

On the other hand, whining about how you don't get paid as much as Brutus over there is pointless unless you can dig ditches faster than good ol' Brutus. (Or stand up to an enraged maniac, or have greater strength, or run faster, hit the ball harder, have better ideas, are a more efficient leader, etc...) And the argument that women get paid less in professional positions doesn't work either. I know quite a few doctors, lawyers and other professionals who get paid MORE than their male counterparts. Because they didn't settle for the lower wage.

People make choices. If what's offered isn't satisfactory, then don't accept and move on. Eventually you will either change the world by refusing to be what you don't want to be, or you will recognize that you aren't what you think you are.

Is that harsh? Yes. Is it reality? Yes again. But, cowering from the night sky and blaming your neighbors for stealing the sunlight changes nothing.