'Anarchism and sex' article

I think when revol said "deal with" he meant "eliminate altogether".

leaving everything else in your post aside for now, have you done any research into areas where legalisation is being trialled?

here's one report
What Happens When Prostitution Becomes Work?
An Update on Legalisation of Prostitution in Australia

Well, it kind of is.

For example, the fact that it's illegal to make me use industrial cleaning fluids without gloves doesn't mean much if there's no way for me to make an issue of it without getting sacked.

but theres some pretty big differences there, no? for example, the average age for prostitutes to start working, is 12. and a large proportion of these women have been sexually abused as children. don't those things make prostitution sort of different to other types of work?

Fair point, meaningless is an exageration, but outside of the more extreme examples or specific circumstances (such as the use of chemicals they'd have to account for), without some kind of resistance from the workers, most H+S laws don't mean all that much.

Unless I missed it, no one has yet challenged this. So do radical feminists see no qualitative difference between consensual BDSM and sexual violence?

Well they see the difference between the two, of course, but i don't understand what you mean by "qualitative difference" so I don't know how to answer.

What does it mean?

A fundamental difference of kind rather than one of degree.

Okay I'm not seeing why the essay I posted a link to has just been completely dismissed as shit or irrelevant (other than the most obvious reason..). as it says, the essay

I have no idea whether Dr Sullivan is a radical feminist or not, and I don't understand why, if she was, that would mean that her study and her work were therefore useless?

Australia legalised prostitution more than two decades ago with a bunch of claims about how it was going to be better for Australia and better for prostitutes. The point of the study was not to offer suggestions for improvements, although I have no idea whether the full book does do that. the point of the study was to see how the legalisation had progressed, and whether the original claims had in fact been fulfilled.

As for the 64% wanting to leave - I wouldve thought that was relevant. Because, if these workers don't want unions, or safer places to work, or for prostitution to even be legal in the first place, if what the majority of these workers want is to be able to leave prostitution, i would've thought that was an extremely important detail.

yeah but majorities in most places i've worked probably want to leave ...

i'm still not quite sure how to respond. radical feminists do critique consensual bdsm, just as we critique pretty much everything else. but we don't think it should be banned, or that people who engage in it should be cast out, or arrested, and we definitely dont believe that consensual sex, however you're doing it, is the same thing as unconsensual sex.

does that answer the question at all?

Well no, not really. What I'm asking is whether you think that BDSM and rape are both part of one continuum of 'patriarchical sexual behaviour' or you think that the two are different by their very nature? Which isn't asking if you thing they're the same thing at all.

And in any case, how can you have a 'critique' of certain sexual orientations without condemning the people involved? Can you imagine the reaction if somebody came on here and said that they have a 'critique of homosexuality' because it's a result of bourgeios decadance? Would that be acceptable?

Isn't there a difference between sexual orientation and specific sexual practices though? Gay or straight seems to be something you are, while BDSM seems to be something you do.

I'm not sure exactly what the radfem critique of BDSM is, but I'd have thought it was possible to argue that sexual behaviour is influenced by patriarchy without necessarily condemning those involved.

Not sure I agree with that. Having sex with somebody of one or another gender or with or without a ball gag and a lot of duct tape is something you do, sexuality is more about what you tend to prefer, surely?

I don't know. Does having sex with someone of the same gender as you necessarily make you gay? Lots of straight men seem have issues with having anything stuck in their arse in case it means they're gay, and many gay men don't have anal sex. So I'm not sure where that leaves us.

Also, can you be hetero/homo/bi without actually doing anything - having sex?

We could ask Dr. Buttplug?

What happened to Dr Buttplug? Did you scare her away Refused?

Yes, sexually, we can be anything, doesn't mean to say we always need to act on this. I'm not so sure about defining someone's sexuality as either something you are or something you do. I think it can be either... or a combination of the two and is often a blurring of orientation and preference, and this needn't be a constant state of affairs as some of us can be changeable.

If anyone was scared in that exchange it was me.

arf:

*cough*

sorry, i just checked in and havent thought about how to answer. its my birthday this weekend

they are both on the continuum of patriarchal sexual behaviour, as is all sexual behaviour, because, um, we all grew up in a patriarchy.

but

they are different by their very nature, in that one is consensual, and one is not.

what do you think? do you think it's possible to engage in any sexual behaviour that is not influenced by our indoctrination into the patrarchal system? is sexual practice "out of bounds" for political analysis? is analysis or critique the same as condemnation?

interested in how this discussion develops but im off to enjoy turning thirty, so forgive me if i dont respond to any further questions immediately.

well that is why it is important that we discuss consent with each other and with our sexual partners. thats what makes it meaningful, that we discuss it honestly with each other. bdsm practitioners understand this, hence safe words.

as usual, you havent got a clue what you're talking about.

i have a feeling that you're referring to a very specific instance, where marital rape was legally impossible, therefore consent was a (legally) meaningless term within marriage.

from here

for future reference, it's "consensual".

why dont you have a look around yourself revol? bear in mind that there is just as much (if not more) written about radical feminism that is false than is true, as is also true about anarchism or communism. if you are genuinely interested in radical feminism, why don't you do your own homework? why dont you spend some time reading radical feminists?

until you've done that, how about you stop pretending that you have the vaguest clue about it? there are subjects on which you are apparently educated that i wouldn't have a clue about, and i would never assume to join in those discussions chanting "its shit, prove it, its shit, i dont accept that" in the way you keep doing. why do you need to be seen to be right about everything? why cant you accept that you are not intellectually superior to everyone else on every subject? why do you think you have nothing left to learn, or to question?

Arf, without getting into a 'who said what?' discussion, revol68 is right in that in the past, radical feminists have been incredibly hostile to anything that smacked (ouch) of bdsm, as well as this big tendency to place all sexual relations on some kind of patriarchal/rape continuum. Now you might not be aware of all this because, as you say, you're not yet 30. But some of us were around in the early 80s when this kind of dogma was at its peak. And it was friggin awful. I'm happy to see you have not rejected notions of consensuality however, unlike many of your radical feminist predecessors.

it's Dworkin and no they didnt. read more here

radical feminism is not a single issue political position