[nohope]

I don’t think it’s all that different at all. Just cause your not on the street doesn’t mean your not making compromises out of fear that you are inches away form the street. The fact is, if you are like me, and I think many people at Bust are, then even when life is good and your living the “good life” still the fear of the street is still very real.

Why? Cause if your an average American, you have lots of debt, and if you don’t have that, you have no savings, and rent equals half your income, and bills and food take up the rest, and if you lost your job…. You would be up shits creak… So you do what you have to do.

You don’t even entertain falling “in love” with someone who you believe would be a financial burden, and if you can manage to fall “in love” with a doctor or someone who can give you some financial stability you do it…. and to do that, many women “sex themselves up.” And the same goes for better tips, or to further their careers or whatever…. This is something men don’t really do.

Cause…. Men are valued first for performance…. Women are valued first for their sex appeal…

And in fact when we say, “being proud of being a women,” that is just short hand for fitting the feminine paradigm… no one is thinking of a dike…

Why, cause dikes or tom boys according to the unspoken lingo of femininity aren’t “real women” they are wanabee boys…

And when I hear talk about “not being ashamed to be a women.” Or “not compromising ones femininity” or what eve other rubbish…. I think what are you talking about? There are lots of ways of being a women and a dike or a tom boy is just as feminine as a any other women…. And some of those ways look exactly like masculinity… just as a Queen is just another form of masculinity….

If feminism don’t recognize that…. Then why even bother being a feminist. Because unless women can be liberated to be feminine however they choose, feminism is just another form of oppressive doctrine.

[greenbean]

See Girlbomb, thats why this discussion is so confusing to me. Homeless kids having sex to survive is what "sex work" means to me, so its seems to belittle their situation when we say that erotic performers, models, and waitresses and housewives are all sex workers too. Its like discussing apples and oranges,...and cheetos and steak and flan.

[erinjane]

Talking about things like bangbus and girls gone wild, I would definatly agree that they do nothing for feminism. I think they're pretty deplorable. I don't have much sympathy or support for mainstream pornography. I try to seek out alternative stuff when I can but there ain't much out there. I like porn, i've liked it for a long time, and I'll probably continue to like it. I don't like mainstream porn and the way it portrays women most of the time. Which is why I'm glad when alternatives manage to make their way into my field of vision.

[girlbomb]

Gah.

You know, the sex industry that I've witnessed sucks. The sex industry that I've personally seen has teenage girls and boys coming through homeless shelters making a living FOR SOMEONE ELSE on their backs. The sex industry that I've witnessed is a gazillion dollar industry, a very small percentage of which is comprised of rockin' chicks doing it because they want to and it gets them off, and the rest of which is Thai teenagers. The friends of mine who are or have been in the sex industry regret it, even the ones who are still in it. In my experience -- and this is coming from someone who has seriously considered sex work herself -- the industry sucks, and is coming from a shitty place, and does nothing to make women as a class more financially, socially, or politically secure. And if those are "male" arenas, they shouldn't be.

I'm not denying anyone's right to take naked pictures and feel good about it. But is BangBus cockblocking feminism? You fucking bet. Is Girls Gone Wild empowering anyone but Joe Francis? Please show me how. I will be so much happier if I can believe this.

I don't know what housewives and waitresses and lipstick and everything else has to do with it.

[lucizoe]

Heh, battygurl, I got ya. I agree that the lily-white nuclear family image hails from the fifties; I mean, atomic age, televisions are in wider use - what better method of control is there? Ozzie and Harriet, right? Certainly that image was dominant, but like today, what family was ever like a sitcom?

I understand the marriage-as-sexual-and-physical servitude angle, the tyranny of husbands, domination, etc. Granted, the social norms of the time in which Goldman wrote certainly didn't frown on married women as chattel. I love Emma Goldman; much of her earlier writing and speeches are full of the tales of the worst of the worst as they were unabashedly propaganda meant to draw people into the cause, but her later autobiographical work possesses a level of honesty I have rarely encountered. I do think the level of servitude and equality in marriages depended greatly on one's social class, with the added *bonus* of oppressing every woman across the board in some way. Today, not so much, though still not equal in many, many cases.

Sorry for the rambly derailment.

[greenbean]

Ooof, there have been a lot of new posts since I was last on and I havent read all of them,..but I'll try to answer some questions that were asked of me...
First of all, I was being sensitive about the broadness of the definition of sex work some of you were using.
It made me feel like I was back in catholic school were if you arent a caste, virgin mary-type then you are a slut. As for the tearing down of sexual women it was a vibe I got, particularly from posts suggesting that sex appeal is fleeting, thus it should be dismissed. I dont agree with that.
Secondly, I am sensitive about being a waitress, and dont like feeling guilty for getting good tips. I feel like many feminists think that a 'true' feminist is a successful career gal, and unfortch, whenever a group of business women in pantsuits come in to the joint I work at I fear I'm gonna get bad tips--its just the way it usually goes. Recently a woman chewed me out for a mix up the restaurant had with her reservation, and she said, "This is a special occasion for me because I just passed the bar exam! ...and you are dumb as rocks and thats why you're just a waitress!" Anyway, I know that doesnt really fit in to the discussion about sex work but its just where I'm coming from.
And good tips for good-looking people goes both ways,..the hot guy at work gets more tips than anyone in the whole joint fer sure. Some women even get up from a table in my section to get drinks from him, even if I was just there asking for their order. Go figure. People can drink at home, but they go to bars for the social contact and yes, flirting.
Oh, and Maddy, the way you described it, "flirt or smile at the nasty guys that leer at you" is a bit offensive not only to me but to my male patrons. Most men arent "nasty", and flirting isnt a bad thing. I know youve been thru sexual trauma and you may see things that way, but I'm saying from my perspective it isnt a gross thing. Infact, a few posts gave me the vibe that guys are 'nasty', or at least guys who masturbate are 'nasty'.
Isnt that a bit puritan? We are all sexual animals, can we cut the guys some slack?

Your second question Maddy,..I am straight and I first started going to female strip clubs with my sister when we were under 21 because a. we werent allowed in bars and we needed to experience nite life somehow,...and b. It was kinda a 'fuck you' to our catholic upbringing.
Now I go to clubs once in a while when they are burlesque nights. Usually I go with a coed group. The last show I saw was real fun. One girl did a strip tease where she started out like Napolean Dynomite doing that dance,..another girl did a striptease in the way of 'Carrie', where she ended it by smearing fake blood all over her naked body.

Knorl, to me being a feminist means believing rape and abuse towards women is illegal and punishible.
It means women have a right and oppurtunity to vote, be involved in government, have equal rights to men in education and work. It means that women have rights to their own body, family planning and sexuality.
It means they have a right to recieve sex education, and a right to enjoy sex.
And it also means that they arent punished for being sexually active or experimental,..for instance I dont it should be allowed that a woman (or man) can be fired from work for something sexual they do outside of work (unless its illegal of course). Heres an example: http://sfgate.com/columnists/morford/

Sorry if this has derailed newer discussions....

[erinjane]

I do think that there are a lot of problems with the sex industry, but I don’t think the problem is porn or prostitution. I think it’s that it exists in a patriarchal, sexist world, and for so long, instead of addressing the large problems like who has the control and what the images are representing, feminists tried to eradicate porn. And that didn’t work, and it’s not going to. I think there’s major problems with the sex industry and I think they’re amplified because it’s unregulated. But I think that could be different. I give major, major props to women working in the sex industry who are working to change it: starting unions, creating women-owned businesses and establishments, giving women more control over their bodies and their images, challenging the norms of what is sexy, representing all body types, genders, and orientations. I realize that these women are likely coming from a privileged place or they wouldn't be able to make these stands, and not every women in the sex trade has these choices, but it's a start.

Took the words straight outta my head.

One thing that most feminists do seem to agree with when it comes to sex work is that the problem is patriarchy. Some would argue that decriminalization is just another way for a male-dominated society to take control of the situation of prostitutes, who are for the most part, women. To quote Audre Lorde, "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house". However, I think many of us have learned that sometimes you have to use the tools that are available to you to begin to make changes. A decriminalized situation would be safer for all involved in sex work. Another argument against patriarchy is that as it stands today prostitution is an illegal option that further perpetuates male power structures by hijacking women's rights to decide how they wish to use their sexuality.

A logical solution is for women to take control. This means taking control of sexuality, rights, production, and jobs. The alternative porn that is being created now is usually created by women seeking to allow access for other women to enjoy their sexuality. A recent film, "Made in Secret: The East Van Porn Collective", is about a group of queer women and men who wanted to make a documentary about an anarcho-feminist porn collective. Sick of seeing exploitive, unarousing porn, they create their own collective, taking charge of their little corner of a patriarchal industry; in their words, "To attack the porn hegemony!"

Rather then trying to abolish porn and sex work, i think taking power and control of the industry is going to be the first step to change. By infiltrating a patriarchal industry, maybe we would be able to tear it down, inside out. I can see this happening now with organizations like COYOTE. http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/coyote.html

[battygurl]

Eek, I shouldn't have posted when I was so tired. I think I'm mixing things up a little. I was thinking of how the "traditional" nuclear family: mom who stays at home, dad who goes to work, kids and that's it (no extended family living with you) really took off in the 1950s. Like, before that it existed but it was either an anomoly or confined to upper classes. But it's something fundies are always raving about as being under threat. Of course it is: it was never a stable formation. It doesn't make sense, it isolates and disconnects people from support networks and it places too much stock in "natural" (read freakishly unnatural) gender roles. It was under threat from the moment it was forced into existence.

Um, sorry that's a sidetrack. I still think that marriage hasn't always been about love, but was firstly about economics, but I think the shift might have been earlier than the 50s like I said last night. I'll try to dig something up on that for you lucizoe.

ETA: The best I can do right now (got to get out of bed and get going!) is this link to Emma Goldman's Anarchism and Other Essays. Skip down to the one titled "Marriage and Love" (sorry, it's near the end, but there's no direct links). She talks about the myth of love in marriage at the time she was writing (early 1900s). I know there's other sources, I'll keep thinking about it.

[lucizoe]

battygurl, I would really like to see some documentation or sources regarding the state of marriage changing in the fifties. In my own limited experience (and that of my family in the US), while the institution itself certainly tried to make the woman a second-class citizen, within individual couples it was very much about love and equal partnership (again, in my family, both between uber-English-WASPy types and first generation Polish peasant immigrants). Again, I'm not trying to be contentious, but I'd really love a source I could dig at supporting the assertion that marriage hit some turning point in the 1950s, specifically. While I agree that it was certainly practically a necessity for (mostly white, middle class) women to find someone to take care of them, since the economic and social system disenfranchised and infantilized them so successfully, I have honestly never heard of what you're proposing and am genuinely interested.

doodle, I've noticed that trend too, in fashion history. As gains were made, standards became more stringent. It's very cyclical and my deeply cynical black little heart likes to think that such happenings are not coincidence.

[battygurl]

Traditional marriage=prostitution would be a real stretch. Yes, there are the few people who marry for money or sex but I believe they are the exception to "traditional". Traditionally people marry because they love each other. –Pixiedust

Just to clear up the terms here, what you're talking about, pixie, isn't traditional marriage at all, it's marriage starting from about the 1950s. Before that, marriage was really about an exchange of goods: a women stopped being her father's property and became her husbands. Love rarely had anything to do with it (with a few exceptions, of course). In fact, feminism was one of the major reasons that marriage become about love: once middle class women began working for pay, they could afford to stay single until they found someone desirable for reasons other than finance. (That's why it's so ironic when the fundie's make such a big fuss about "traditional" marriage. They're talking about something less 100 years old.)

***

Anyway, I do think that there are a lot of problems with the sex industry, but I don’t think the problem is porn or prostitution. I think it’s that it exists in a patriarchal, sexist world, and for so long, instead of addressing the large problems like who has the control and what the images are representing, feminists tried to eradicate porn. And that didn’t work, and it’s not going to. I think there’s major problems with the sex industry and I think they’re amplified because it’s unregulated. But I think that could be different. I give major, major props to women working in the sex industry who are working to change it: starting unions, creating women-owned businesses and establishments, giving women more control over their bodies and their images, challenging the norms of what is sexy, representing all body types, genders, and orientations. I realize that these women are likely coming from a privileged place or they wouldn't be able to make these stands, and not every women in the sex trade has these choices, but it's a start.

I also don't think it's fair to say a woman could do better than using her body to make money, or that this is somehow less than using her mind. Everyone is different, has different strengths and interests, and I don't think one is necessarily better than the other. Also, creating good porn does involve using your brain: good porn can be art, and to make it aesthetically pleasing, subversive or challenging, you gotta be smart. I'm including hardcore stuff in the art category, by the way. I don't really like the distinction between erotica and porn, because it's totally subjective. There's also the business side of things: many women like falljackets are their own promoters, hire their own photographers, do their own websites.

[knorl05]

doodlebug: ahh. yes, completely. thank you for clarifying :-)

[doodlebug]

knorl, I edited my last post as you were posting! Oops!

Okay, maybe I can clear it up....what I was trying to illustrate in that particular sentence was an aspect of the cultural and societal backlash against women's achievements towards equality. Some people might feel women's equality achievements and the push towards "looksism" are coincidentally concurrent aspects of women's reality, but I don't. I think "looksism" is a prize example of the dominant culture trying to force women back into the narrower context by which we are defined and understood (backlash), and the dominant culture is succeeding (so far) by portraying appearance and sexuality as a way for women to achieve power - and one that has worked in the past. The dominant culture is a lot more comfortable with women having power on those terms than with women having power in other contexts.

Does this make any sense? I've got a lot on my mind these days, so my brain is all over the place...

[knorl05]

doodlebug: could be i misunderstood you. i think i understand that you present a pulled together very feminine image as sort of a form of irony. you embrace your womanness, and dont deny it, and you are not ashamed of it. i think the statement that threw me for a loop was the "Certainly no one can deny that at the same time women are starting to achieve more towards equality, the culture of "looksism" and bias towards increasingly narrower beauty standards for women also increases...whether it's coincidence or not, it's a fact.)" but that was not all that i gained from your post, it was very informative and well thought out. i only brought up the point that i did to try to get a more thorough understanding of your perspective.

[doodlebug]

knorl, if you are reading what I wrote as saying women SHOULD conform, I fear I must have mis-stated my point entirely somehow, because that's very much the opposite of what I'm attempting to say.

ETA: I suppose what I'm trying to say is that many women use their bodies and/or sexuality as a commodity, and it's not fair to judge or deride one group (sex workers) and ignore other groups of women who also engage in sexual/physical commodification. AND that we need to understand these similarities, and their context, in order to build a strategy for change.

[knorl05]

doodlebug: so then in that light, women should attempt to conform to society's standards of beauty if we want to be given more equality and opportunities? i've deconstructed my own image of beauty because i didnt like the interactions i've had with men and women as a result of my appearance. i would much rather redirect people's attention to my character, to my personality, to my competence, than my arse or my whatever. i feel that following a changing standard of appeal sucks the realness and originality out of each woman's unique beauty. and one could say, this is my choice, based on what results i want to see... and that like it or not, women who do follow that standard are the ones who are more successful as a whole. but what matters then is what determines our own idea of success. if i wanted to i could conform, each one of us could, but if it is not really what we want, then our success and happiness will not be genuine.

[doodlebug]

If sex toy stores are involved in the sex trade, then so is Sears and other department/catalogue stores, because they've sold vibrators for years...for over a century, actually. Not to mention lingerie! I think if we're talking about the "sex trade," it's probably necessary to differentiate between "goods" as material objects for private consumption (and really, anything could be a sex toy - a piece of rope or a cucumber!), and "services" as an exchange between two or more people (the buying and selling of a person's time and/or labour).

I brought up "traditional" marriage - and maybe I should use the term "old school marriage" instead - for the same reasons other people brought up things we don't generally see as part of the sex trade, like advertising and bartending and the like. (And I'm not trying to shit all over wives or bartenders or waitresses...I used to be a waitress, btw, and my last co-worker at the women's centre held down a 2nd job as a bartender.) I brought it up because I think it's too easy to judge one group of women for how they make a living using their bodies and sexuality (sex workers), while at the same time ignoring how a variety of women make a living using their bodies and sexuality.

My real point was not that we should judge wives and waitresses (there's enough judging of women going on out there!), but that we have to look at the overarching context of how women use - and in a lot cases are forced to use - their bodies and sexuality in exchange for financial security. I think we make assumptions about (and therefore judge) women who are prostitutes and strippers, in ways that we DON'T make assumptions (and judgements) about other women who use their bodies/sexuality to achieve financial gain. And I think that, in particular, is unfair to women who are involved in what we understand to be "the sex trade."

I'm sure it makes those of us who have used our bodies/sexuality for financial gain very uncomfortable to see ourselves in the same context as those we call sex workers. And I'm not cutting myself out of this discussion here. I certainly did use my body and my sexuality to increase my tips when I was a waitress - I even used to do very deliberate experiments using different lipstick colours! (But let's also be fair - it's still true that male servers earn higher tips than female servers, and so we do use our sexuality to bridge that gap.)

And when I think about it, I use my body and my sexuality even to this day, as a public spokesperson for a feminist organization, by doing my hair and wearing makeup and body-flattering clothes when I'm in the media or speaking in public. I do the clothes/hair/makeup on purpose, knowing that it helps me to "sell" feminist ideology to people who might normally dismiss (or at least, be less receptive to) what I am saying if I did not appear attractive...according to accepted social norms of beauty standards (i.e.: if I looked like a stereotypical feminist, sans makeup, with "butch" hair and a turtleneck, or something like that).

Just to come back to my main point about "traditional marriage" or "old school marriage"...I am not trying to lambaste anyone's choice to be a stay-at-home wife so much as I'm trying to make the point that I, personally, would feel more independent, more powerful, and more "empowered" if I were earning and in control of my own money, regardless of HOW I earned it - running a small business or taking off my clothes (or selling marijauana, for that matter) - than I would if I were financially dependent on another person for my food, shelter, and other basic necessities of life. (And to clarify, I've never been dependent on a partner, but I was dependent on public welfare in the past, so I've definitely had a taste of what financial dependency feels like.)

There is a poster in our women's centre that talks about how feminism is not about helping "some poor, downtrodden woman over there," but about helping ourselves, as women. This is an essential understanding to me. The problem IMO is that we are all, as women, in the same boat: we lack economic equality and freedom from violence, and that perpetuates our social, political, economic, and legal position as unequal citizens. And while a few privileged women have managed to achieved something close to "equality" and freedom of choice, equality for SOME should never be construed as equality for ALL...most women are on the same continuum of having fewer genuine choices than our male counterparts.

So, women achieve (or just plain survive) using our bodies/sexuality as commodities - whether we make a "good" marriage based on our beauty, or we accept a promotion that is given to us because we are attractive, or we wear revealing clothing to make better tips, or we take our clothes off in a bar - because that's the main source of power the dominant culture has allowed us to have. (Certainly no one can deny that at the same time women are starting to achieve more towards equality, the culture of "looksism" and bias towards increasingly narrower beauty standards for women also increases...whether it's coincidence or not, it's a fact.)

And I believe, as a feminist, that we all need to recognize that we are sisters on that same contiuum, in order to develop and implement the steps we need to take to achieve genuine equality - and genuine freedom of choice - for women.

[knorl05]

pixie, yes i agree, most traditional marriages hold these values and prostitution does not.

luci: "That is to say, I think because sexuality is such a key aspect of human personality that one's views of sex and consumption of porn and/or erotica and all the variety therein can vary with the normal ebbs and flows of personality and life.." i really really like that statement. such a great point... that sexuality is merely another aspect of our lives, which will also naturally change with new relationships and circumstances. i suppose what i meant by healthy, would be a person who considers sex normal and doesnt deny its importance in their lives. but then again, highly spiritual people are usually celibate, so not engaging in sex doesnt make them "unhealthy". so i guess it really can be broken most simply down to personal morality, this is true. but in the same respect, i wouldnt consider a person who is open-minded about their sexuality to lack strong morals. i think morals really are relative, based on so many different factors, including the time in which we live. like you said, what's sexy now may not be in ten years. an example being the trend of the barbie icon for the past thirty years; before she was created, that image was pretty much non existent among real women. husbands and wives sleeping in the same bed used to be considered immoral, and now that's ludicrous to even consider. so then what it really comes down to is following our own idea of what we consider moral and standing strong in those beliefs.. regardless of whether or not they are congruent to the social norm. one person engaging in sex acts is what they choose to do, and whether or not we agree with it, they are still going to do it. so where do we go from there? i mean really? it's such a tough call because there is a higher rate of crime within that lifestyle. do we just throw our hands up and say, "well, that's just their personal morals", when they are inflicting harm on others? and if the answer lies in social reform, how do we integrate that into the lives of those who segregate themselves from mainstream society?

[lucizoe]

knorl, thanks for the definitions - most helpful.

As to views of sex correlating to use of pornography, I dunno. I do think sexuality is pretty fluid, and what one finds sexy now is not necessarily what they'll find sexy in ten years time; nor is healthy vs. unhealthy easily definable (for purposes of study) in some cases. That is to say, I think because sexuality is such a key aspect of human personality that one's views of sex and consumption of porn and/or erotica and all the variety therein can vary with the normal ebbs and flows of personality and life (with obvious, glaring exceptions to incest, pedophilia, rape and any other abhorrent behavior). And once you eliminate those exceptions it's all a question of personal morality, isn't it? *puzzled by my getting hung-up on how to conduct this nonexistent study*

[pixiedust]

Traditional marriage=prostitution would be a real stretch. Yes, there are the few people who marry for money or sex but I believe they are the exception to "traditional". Traditionally people marry because they love each other. They want to be with each other, support each other and share a life with each other including kids(if wanted) and career goals. Most families today, both the man and woman work, so I don't see wives as totally financially dependant on thier husbands. Plus, prostitutes don't have much of a "choice" in what they do. The Johns pick them, tell them what they want and pay for services. Johns are not performing sexual favors for them. Wives in a traditional marriage would have a husband who would want to please her sexually. She would have a choice in saying no, I don't feel like it tonight, or no, I do not perform that sexual act. Sex between married people should involve intamacy and sharing, affection, and closeness that would is not present between a protitue and a John. If marriage equals legalized prostitution, why have so many gays fought for the right to do it?

And I wanted to clarify, when I said earlier that the ladies at the home parties, or shops for that matter sell sex...I don't mean intercourse, but they do sell self sex, masterbation tools ect so they are just selling sex with an inannimate object rather than sex with themselves, so I would clasify that as working in the sex industry, however I view them in the same light I would someone who sells tupperware.

[knorl05]

greenbean: i would say if you support the feminist movement, you are a feminist, regardless of what others think about who you are. no one person is perfect, free from inconsistency, or adheres strictly to the party of which they choose to affiliate. so you're not a ceo, but that doesnt mean you will never be. being a passionate person does not invalidate you as a feminist. it sounds like you are a very feminine woman, and that's just how you are. there is no set standard or characteristic guidelines that make you a feminist or not. in my opinion at least.

wives and prostitution.. tough call. i believe in love. i do not believe prostitutes love their johns, but i do believe, or i'd like to believe that most wives love their husbands. i can see it as an equal exchange within the marriage dynamic.. they're living a life they believe in (whether or not it's simply due to their conditioning) and exchanging different forms of affection and appreciation. i think it is unfortunate when people marry for status, looks or money, but that is just the type of persons those people are.. they're shallow.

sex is all around us. i see sex parties and sex stores as advocating sexual activity. i agree that the exploitation of sex is a result of a repressed approach to sex within our society (america anyway). i've never been to europe, but i've heard europeans are more lax when it comes to their sexuality. i havent done any studies, but i wonder the comparison between sex crimes over there vs. america. i wonder the major differences between people with healthy ideas of sex, vs. those who view sex as dirty or shameful. would the people with healthy ideas of sex even need pornography? is pornography so popular because it is considered a dirty little secret, and that contributes to the intrigue and the excitement of it? or is it just the exhibitionist/voyeur in us all wanting to come out?