The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Natapoc]

I looked at the wiki article. It does not seem to accurately represent what I've read on the topic.

Have you even read any prominent sex positivists?

I haven't, but that's because I'm not one.

Yes. It's also difficult because this issue is highly political and often framed in very misleading ways.

For example some will claim that sex positive feminists are feminists who believe that women should have sexual freedom.

In this case I'm also a sex positive feminist. I don't believe prostitution or porn is freedom. Honestly the situation is like anti abortion activists claiming to be "pro life" when by pro life they really mean anti abortion and likewise the people who believe that abortion should be legal calling themselves "pro choice" when in reality that does not actually describe the philosophy.

What I'm saying is that people are getting drawn into the marketing: The PR. The label. But they don't actually understand the philosophy.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

In this case I'm also a sex positive feminist. I don't believe prostitution or porn is freedom.

Why? Because money is involved? If a woman who was an exhibitionist produced her own independent pornography and released it for free, because she enjoyed the idea of thousands of people desiring her, would it still be porn?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Have you even read any prominent sex positivists?

I haven't, but that's because I'm not one.

Yes. It's also difficult because this issue is highly political and often framed in very misleading ways.

For example some will claim that sex positive feminists are feminists who believe that women should have sexual freedom.

In this case I'm also a sex positive feminist. I don't believe prostitution or porn is freedom. Honestly the situation is like anti abortion activists claiming to be "pro life" when by pro life they really mean anti abortion and likewise the people who believe that abortion should be legal calling themselves "pro choice" when in reality that does not actually describe the philosophy.

What I'm saying is that people are getting drawn into the marketing: The PR. The label. But they don't actually understand the philosophy.

I don't personally believe prostitution or pornography are inherently evil or promoters of the patriarchy, myself.

And it's not because I am a man, it is because I haven't found a convincing argument against it from feminism and I keep hearing religious or right-wing ones that actually seek to imply that they are for women, but in reality they are against women and, in turn, create a macabre argument for sexual repression because the Bible tells us so and so and, therefore, watching porn and prostitution are evil.

Anti-pornography Feminists sounds the same way, except instead of God, they use anti-patriarchy messages. The deconstruction of the patriarchy simply has replaced God, in my opinion, for the arguments proposed to ban pornography and prostitution, and any reactionary arguments against reform if the problems in the industries are the problem and not the industries themselves.

Mind, this is not a criticism for your arguments, I am simply stating an opinion of how these things are constructed and the sorts of arguments I've heard. I am Latino, so I've heard harsher arguments against women who sell their bodies for prostitution or pornography to the point of shaming them out of society and public discourse. So convincing me shouldn't be that hard, provided it's not framed as some moral crusade and instead framed as a discussion whereupon the people who are against it have really, truly talked about women in pornography and prostitutes and they have their interests at heart.

[Natapoc]

In this case I'm also a sex positive feminist. I don't believe prostitution or porn is freedom.

Why? Because money is involved? If a woman who was an exhibitionist produced her own independent pornography and released it for free, because she enjoyed the idea of thousands of people desiring her, would it still be porn?

Because this is not an abstract hypothetical discussion. We actually know what the pornography industry is like for women. We know that it's not just some woman filming herself having consensual sex. If someone wants to share videos of herself having sex that's fine. But that's not what porn is.

We've taken the time to analyze and understand the cultural forces involved in pornography and how they harm women and actually limit the freedom of women.

The women in porn films are not usually acting out their own fantasies. They are actresses playing a role for the consumer and they usually have very little choice (outside quitting their job).

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Why? Because money is involved? If a woman who was an exhibitionist produced her own independent pornography and released it for free, because she enjoyed the idea of thousands of people desiring her, would it still be porn?

Because this is not an abstract hypothetical discussion. We actually know what the pornography industry is like for women. We know that it's not just some woman filming herself having consensual sex. If someone wants to share videos of herself having sex that's fine. But that's not what porn is.

We've taken the time to analyze and understand the cultural forces involved in pornography and how they harm women and actually limit the freedom of women.

The women in porn films are not usually acting out their own fantasies. They are actresses playing a role for the consumer and they usually have very little choice (outside quitting their job).

Who is this "we", and have there been studies done on these effects?

[Galloism]

If you're all really "sex positive" feminists... Do you follow through and pay for all your sex? How much do you think your dad owes your mom for years of, presumably, unpaid sexual services?

If you don't understand this question... Or you think it contains invalid assumptions...

You're not a sex positive feminist. You're just someone who thinks porn and prostitution should be legal. There is a difference.

Many men think that sex positive feminism means that prostitutes and porn should be legal. What it really means is that it's time to pay up on your unpaid debt... and you think it's about time men stop getting free sex.

I've just got to say, in a thread where Chessmistress has been active, this could possibly be the most absurd broad sweeping conclusion in the thread.

And ladies and gentlemen, that's really saying something.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

If you're all really "sex positive" feminists... Do you follow through and pay for all your sex? How much do you think your dad owes your mom for years of, presumably, unpaid sexual services?

If you don't understand this question... Or you think it contains invalid assumptions...

You're not a sex positive feminist. You're just someone who thinks porn and prostitution should be legal. There is a difference.

Many men think that sex positive feminism means that prostitutes and porn should be legal. What it really means is that it's time to pay up on your unpaid debt... and you think it's about time men stop getting free sex.

People paying for a thing does not create a debt between people who do things for each other without cost. I frequently fix my friends computers and other electronics because I enjoy doing so, but that doesn't lead to me wanting to ban people doing so for money.

[Fartsniffage]

If you're all really "sex positive" feminists... Do you follow through and pay for all your sex? How much do you think your dad owes your mom for years of, presumably, unpaid sexual services?

If you don't understand this question... Or you think it contains invalid assumptions...

You're not a sex positive feminist. You're just someone who thinks porn and prostitution should be legal. There is a difference.

Many men think that sex positive feminism means that prostitutes and porn should be legal. What it really means is that it's time to pay up on your unpaid debt... and you think it's about time men stop getting free sex.

People paying for a thing does not create a debt between people who do things for each other without cost. I frequently fix my friends computers and other electronics because I enjoy doing so, but that doesn't lead to me wanting to ban people doing so for money.

That isn't the best argument against this idiocy. The best argument is when should the women start paying the men for consensual sex?

You're allowing this to be framed as though sex is a service provided to men by women. And I sound like Ostero saying that and I feel dirty. Seriously, fuck you Natapoc for making me have to say that....

[Natapoc]

People paying for a thing does not create a debt between people who do things for each other without cost. I frequently fix my friends computers and other electronics because I enjoy doing so, but that doesn't lead to me wanting to ban people doing so for money.

That isn't the best argument against this idiocy. The best argument is when should the women start paying the men for consensual sex?

You're allowing this to be framed as though sex is a service provided to men by women. And I sound like Ostero saying that and I feel dirty. Seriously, fuck you Natapoc for making me have to say that....

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

[Fartsniffage]

That isn't the best argument against this idiocy. The best argument is when should the women start paying the men for consensual sex?

You're allowing this to be framed as though sex is a service provided to men by women. And I sound like Ostero saying that and I feel dirty. Seriously, fuck you Natapoc for making me have to say that....

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand how some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money. Perhaps you could try to explain it in a different way?

[Natapoc]

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand how some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money. Perhaps you could try to explain it in a different way?

Who said that "some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money."?

Certainly not me.

[Fartsniffage]

Sorry, but I'm struggling to understand how some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money. Perhaps you could try to explain it in a different way?

Who said that "some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money."?

Certainly not me.

If you're all really "sex positive" feminists... Do you follow through and pay for all your sex? How much do you think your dad owes your mom for years of, presumably, unpaid sexual services?

Can you point out what I've misunderstood?

[Natapoc]

Who said that "some people choosing to engage with sex for money suddenly becomes all sex is for money."?

Certainly not me.

If you're all really "sex positive" feminists... Do ou follow through and pay for all your sex? How much do you think your dad owes your mom for years of, presumably, unpaid sexual services?

Can you point out what I've misunderstood?

Yes. The sex positive position I'm speaking of does not make that implication.

[Redsection]

My idea about MRA is:
MRAs are anti-feminists, just only another reactionary group and no more, like how the reactionary white supremacists in USA weren't really interested about equality.
Theses males are just reacting to the changing status quo: males are losing their privileges, women are more and more gaining power, and males' reactionaries forces are reacting. No more, no less.
MRAs = / = activists: MRAs do not do anything, NEVER, to actually help males.
MRAs just only post anti-feminist rants on the net, and MRAs are almost all heterosexual white males aged 18-25: they're bitter because they know they'll never be the dominant class as they fathers were.
MRAs seems to me, very often, racists, even though they deny that in exactly the same way they deny being misogynists.
Feminism is the only, real, movement for equality and it always has been because it recognizes that the fundamental problem within our society is the association of certain behaviors and features with the totally socially constructed concepts of "masculinity" and "femininity", and, above all, the subjugation of the woman to the male.
To lower the status of males to achieve equality is fundamental to the final goal of Feminism: it's not hatred against males, just only a temporary necessity.
But males shouldn't be afraid by Feminism: at the end they will feel better, too, because every issue pertaining males will disappear when patriarchy will end: males will be able to act outside of traditional forms of masculinity without being accused of homosexuality or being female (as though these things are somehow lesser than being a "straight guy"). Why is it that women can wear their boyfriend's clothes but not the other way around? Because dressing like a man - doing manly things - is moving up.
I'll never forget that, since I'm a woman, I will always inferior - in their minds.
That's the attitude that MRAs have, I think.

You think?

So you have no idea, then.

Also, is the goal to end patriarchy or to end the necessity of males in society? You seem to be a gender separatist, even if not radical, so I am not entirely sure how you would end "patriarchy" with the separatist methods you espouse.

[Fartsniffage]

Can you point out what I've misunderstood?

Yes. The sex positive position I'm speaking of does not make that implication.

And yet the sex positivism that is okay with porn does make that implication? How?

[Natapoc]

Yes. The sex positive position I'm speaking of does not make that implication.

And yet the sex positivism that is okay with porn does make that implication? How?

No I don't believe the causal implication is present in any feminist work I've read, including sex positive works. The misunderstanding is that you assume a casual relationship between "no porn" and "all sex should be paid" from that statement when there is no reason to do so. Especially if you read past the first sentences of what I wrote...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

And yet the sex positivism that is okay with porn does make that implication? How?

No I don't believe the causal implication is present in any feminist work I've read, including sex positive works. The misunderstanding is that you assume a casual relationship between "no porn" and "all sex should be paid" from that statement when there is no reason to do so. Especially if you read past the first sentences of what I wrote...

Then can you try to explain what exactly did you mean by that question?

Because you asked whether or not we believed sex should be a monetary/goods transaction between individuals. You say that is not it, so then what would you define it as if you are not saying it is a monetary/goods transaction?

[Fartsniffage]

And yet the sex positivism that is okay with porn does make that implication? How?

No I don't believe the causal implication is present in any feminist work I've read, including sex positive works. The misunderstanding is that you assume a casual relationship between "no porn" and "all sex should be paid" from that statement when there is no reason to do so. Especially if you read past the first sentences of what I wrote...

Yes, I read your whole post. You need to rephrase what you said because I've interpreted it exactly as written....

[Galloism]

No I don't believe the causal implication is present in any feminist work I've read, including sex positive works. The misunderstanding is that you assume a casual relationship between "no porn" and "all sex should be paid" from that statement when there is no reason to do so. Especially if you read past the first sentences of what I wrote...

Yes, I read your whole post. You need to rephrase what you said because I've interpreted it exactly as written....

What, that sex-positive feminists think that all sex should be a monetary transaction with payments to women, because that's what she implied with "men should pay their wives for all the sex they've had over the years"?

Yeah. I got that too.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

That isn't the best argument against this idiocy. The best argument is when should the women start paying the men for consensual sex?

You're allowing this to be framed as though sex is a service provided to men by women. And I sound like Ostero saying that and I feel dirty. Seriously, fuck you Natapoc for making me have to say that....

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

I have read it 6 times now and still don't understand how "sex positive" to you means "sex is always a service that should be paid."
Really confused.

[Galloism]

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

I have read it 6 times now and still don't understand how "sex positive" to you means "sex is always a service that should be paid."
Really confused.

I sort of think professional plumbers should be paid. Ergo, the spouse who fixes the sink needs to be paid by the other spouse.

Seems logical.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

I have read it 6 times now and still don't understand how "sex positive" to you means "sex is always a service that should be paid."
Really confused.

I sort of think professional plumbers should be paid. Ergo, the spouse who fixes the sink needs to be paid by the other spouse.

Seems logical.

My family owes me a lot of money.
Wait no
Not for sex, for plumbing

[Galloism]

I sort of think professional plumbers should be paid. Ergo, the spouse who fixes the sink needs to be paid by the other spouse.

Seems logical.

My family owes me a lot of money.
Wait no
Not for sex, for plumbing

Too late. You can't take it back.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

My family owes me a lot of money.
Wait no
Not for sex, for plumbing

Too late. You can't take it back.

They don't owe me any money for sex because I don't fuck family.

[Des-Bal]

I don't have time to reply right now but I really suggest you two try to reread what I wrote. Neither of you get it.

I'm not really sure how to explain it better but I guarantee that post went right over both your heads. I hope the problem is that you just skimmed it or something?

You said that being sex positive means " it's time to pay up on your unpaid debt... and you think it's about time men stop getting free sex."

You also implied that every sexual interaction would involve one party paying another.

The problem isn't that you're going over people's heads it's that nobody ,including you, has any idea what the fuck you're aiming at.

I just thought of the sickest burn but I think using it would constitute a breach of ettiquette.