The Democratic Party should take a stand against objectification

of women--an uncompromising position opposing sexual assault, sexual battery, rape, molestation, and the sex industry.

We are severely burdened by the Monica Lewinsky scandal and even though what Bill Clinton did is minor compared to what Arnold Schwarzenegger has done, that burden was a major reason we could not defeat an admitted sexual predator in the recall. We are doomed as a party unless we repudiate all forms of objectification because the GOP will never, ever let go of Bill Clinton's bad behavior and will use it to excuse similar behavior in their representatives. WE, however, CAN free ourselves of his bad behavior and I believe we must.

I know that a lot people on DU think I am a prudish idiot because of my opposition to the sex industry but I wish that everyone would please consider what our country will be like if electing sexual predators becomes acceptable. The fact is that when people in power have needs they tend to guide things toward meeting those needs.

Objectification is exploitive and damaging regardless of the level of severity or mantle of legality involved. It's time for our party to go beyond paying lip service to feminism and take a stand against the primary root cause of the mistreatment and suppression of women--objectification.

I believe that the leaders of our party are far more decent human beings than most Republicans but because of Bill Clinton's mistakes we are being painted as degenerates and unless we do something about it before 2004, they will somehow find a way to use it against us yet again.

WE are the party of family values but we need to be clear and consistent in our position and message. The GOP is the party of exploitation and we must expose it for what it is.

I know--I'm a radical--but would you really want a government made up of people with the sexual habits of Arnold?

I really believe that we need a clear idea of what is right and what is wrong to counter the Clinton problem. You know how Bush says "After 9-11, everything changed?" Well, after Monica, everything changed for the Dems regarding the issue of sexual behavior, IMHO.

barbarann was speaking of objectification of women.

barbarann - it's a nice try. Unfortunately many men (even liberals) get quite ugly when their god given right to subordinate women is threatened.

you just dont get it.

most people do not give a damn about what other people do as long as it is not done with children, barnyard animals, or on their front lawn.

by insisting, as you do, that people do give a damn, especially in private sexual matters does not make one look prudish. it reflects a person who wants everyone else to conform to one's own personal morality, and that others with whom one disagrees are culpable of some moral deficiency.

"agree with me or you're a pervo" is a fine way not to make friends, or influnece people.

and if you disagree with me, "you're a pervo."

For example, unwanted groping. And believe me, I've posted enough about this on DU to know it doesn't make me a lot of friends. :-)

There are a lot of websites that go into the true nature of the sex industry and show that it just isn't a good thing for the exploitee or exploiter.

I don't think any sexual contact between two or more consenting adults or depiction thereof should be prohibited.... The operational word is "consenting".

But there is a difference between "consenting out of desperation" and "consenting" for example. Most prostitutes are economically desperate and some are actually forced.

and some prostitutes are quite well paid....

Maybe the best thing to do is to legalize it and regulate it like any kind of service...

And I would say that education about the sex industry is the key. If everyone understood it, then there would be nothing to legalize or regulate. :-)

By the way, they are digging up the remains of a lot of prostitutes who were killed by the Green River Killer here in Washington State. They are showing their pictures and sometimes their families and it is very, very sad. The police did not care enough about these victims because they could have found the killer much sooner if they had just tried. To the police, prostitutes are often just objects, too.

"educate" away the desire of men to seek sex for money from women and in some situations other men?

and some women hire male prostitutes too (admittedly rare)...

And you seem to want to eliminate pornography...


What sexual outlets would be available to these people?

Actually, my husband and I have educated our son about the sex industry in a realistic and appropriate way. Being a teenager, he has listened to us but also learned a lot from other people and sources and we cannot MAKE him think anything. What he does think after learning a lot is that it's pathetic to buy sex or go to a strip club. Please understand that this is the opinion HE formed based not just on what we told him. Neither he nor his dad uses pornography and they have a lot of interests that keep them busy and challenged. And, if neither of them has one minute for yard work, how could they have time for porn??!!! (Our yard is a disaster!!!)

One learning experience my son had was that a friend of his became a porn addict at age 16 and that opened his eyes. Also, he was taught at school that looking at porn was normal and his dad and I explained to him that we don't agree. We don't agree because we are both over 50 and have seen enough of life to know this and we did not know it when we were younger. Honest.

Regarding sexual outlets, I'm not anti-sex or anti-masturbation or anti-GLBT, but I am anti-sex-industry. I think that people should use whatever wholesome, non-exploitive outlet they want for sex and I do believe that sex with others should be in the context of a healthy relationship, not a business transaction.

that is the point. you did not listen, and yet you expect others to do all the listening on this subject. that's either dumb or fanatical

i did not offer any support of sexual exploitation, on the contrary. yet the point of your reply to me was to emphasis something with which i innately agreed upon with you. and you used it in an adversarial manner.

you tried to tie me in with support for sexual exploitation, and you did exactly what i pointed out are found in your earlier remarks. viz., those with whom you think disagree with you are pervos.

but you ignored that i happen to agree with you on these matters.

You are correct that most people don't care, but I believe that most people don't care because they don't know the truth about the sex industry and don't understand that it is all about sexual exploitation.

I don't accept that it is ok for people not to care. If this seems fanatical or adversarial, I'm sorry. I'm known victims of the sex industry and I know for a fact that it is not a good thing.

Also, it's not the easiest thing in the world to get a complicated idea across in a spontaneous post. :-)

The rationalizations in defense of Clinton have permited the entire subject to be shrugged off. I don't care if it was "consentual", Clinton took advantage of Lewinski's infatuation and used her. He was the damn president, he should've demonstrated restraint, maturity, discretion--he should've behaved with some integrity and demonstrated respect for the young woman.

It is not being prudish--it is having some damn class.

that Clinton was having sex with one of his subordinates, a major taboo for everyone who works, and nobody seemed to give a shit.

Plus his publicly humiliating Hillary and Chelsea! I still didn't think it was impeachable, but it's a DAMNED good thing he wasn't my brother-in-law, e.g.! :grr:

That is a good way to put it.

Maybe all of the bodies of prostitutes that they have been digging up here in the Pacific Northwest are getting to me. It's not just the Green River killer, it's also the British Columbia murders. The family members of some of the dead women did a lot of detective work on their own and begged and pleaded with the police for years to follow up on what they found but were ignored. More and more women died and they just recently arrested the man the families had suggested investigating. Many of the murdered prostitutes were members of a minority so they were even more objectified.

:eyes:

There are always limits to freedom, and excesses that it is the duty of society to regulate for the good of the society.

that the Democratic Party should take a stand against that but I don't think there is any chance that they will and I do know that a lot of people disagree with me. I have the opinion I do because of a lot of things I have seen in my life.

California just elected an admitted low-level sex offender as Governor. The GOP is using what Bill Clinton did to elect people that the Democratic Party would not accept. Can you agree with that? I am trying to find some way to stop the GOP from putting people like Arnold into public office because they are evil people and the fact they they objectify women is a manifestation of their negative attitude toward humanity.

If you have a better idea about how to stop the GOP from using Bill Clinton to elect GOP deviants I am open to hearing it. :-)

Oh, and remember when Loretta Sanchez cancelled the fundraiser at Hugh Hefner's mansion? I think she did the right thing. If she had held the fundraiser there the GOP would (hypocritically) been throwing in our faces for eternity and then running candidates who did FAR WORSE things. Cancelling it and basically taking a stand against the sex industry was, IMHO, the right thing to do.

... that it wasn't the sex. It was the perjury about the sex that bothered them. Arnold did admit what he did and apologized, however clumsily, for doing whatever he did. Ergo, he is off the hook as far as the Republicans are concerned.

I understand where you are coming from though, and I do think it's not at all inappropriate to speak of Republicans as individuals who condone admitted sexual misconduct in their leaders.

It's not OK as long as you're willing to admit it. It's just not OK at all.

And if I was a Republican, I could do any number of terrible things, but it would be OK as long as I say, "Gee, I'm SOOOOOOO sorry you were offended."

But the magic apology doesn't work unless you're a Republican.

And I totally agree. It's never OK.

(I just can't help adding a future Republican public appearance inspired by current events:

Scene: A fine sunny day during the presidential campaign. George W Bush IV is making a speech the day after people came forward to accuse him of murdering four people. It's all over the news and the evidence looks convincing so far.

Bush IV: And for the families of the murder victims, I'm sorry you are grieving. Vote for me anyway."

Crowd: (Wild cheers)

Protesters: (Boos)

Tomorrow's News: (lots of warm fuzzies for Bush IV)

Right Wing Blather Radio: (rants linking the accusers and murder victims to Saddam Hussein)

Your Co-workers the next day: (various conversations about how Clinton's blow job was infinitely worse than Bush IV killing terra-ists with his own two hands)

The moral of the story: being a Republican means you can undo any amount of evil with the magic words.

What If A Gay Man Wants To Hire A Male Prostitute Or View Gay Porn?

You are right in pointing out that men can be exploited as well as women. However, I believe that the point is whether or not both parties are consenting. I don't know much about male prostitutes, but I'm not convinced that any sort of porn films are entirely non-exploitative. If someone needs to sell his soul for money, how good is that?

I don't think young gay men should be exploited either. But that is not the same as objectification of women. Women can't pass, gay men can if they wish.

Ermmm... a VERY slippery slope to start down. :eyes:

It's very, very tricky. I think one way to deal with it might just be to educate people about the reality of pornography. In any event, I listened to what the rightwingers did with the Clinton behavior in the recall and how they twisted it and distorted it to elect a sexual predator and I KNOW that no one here agrees with that, but no one has come up with a way to fight it.

If you give the GOP an inch, they will take a mile. Think of what kind of person they might run next and use Bill Clinton to excuse their behavior.

And it didn't need a terrorist attack for it to change.

Everything changed to "It's OK if a Republican does it".

It's tough being the good guys, but we ARE the good guys. We're just not perfect.

Am I agree that it's time one of the parties stood up for women, and I'd really like that party to be the Dems.

May I direct your attention to http://www.wellstone.org and check out the Sheila Wellstone Institute. Sheila Wellstone spent a huge part of her life working on the behalf of battered women. Her legacy lives on.

Somehow Bill Clinton made sexual misbehavior acceptable for Republicans and no one has been able to change that.

Thanks for the link! I have to admit that I didn't fully appreciate the Wellstones until they were gone. :(

to exploit the men who want to pay them ridiculous amounts of money to do so, why should we stop them?

No one FORCES a woman to become a prostitute these days. (Children yes, another topic altogether) No one FORCES a woman to become a stripper. No one FORCES a woman to pose nude for the net or paper rags.

They choose this life, this behavior. And I say why not? If men are so pathetic that they want to blow a whole paycheck watching some chick dance nekkid, because they're so completely unable to form healthy attachments and relationships, well, why the heck not?

Women are making the choices here, to exploit men in very lucrative trades. Frankly I'd like to see WOMEN in control, and making the big bucks, taking over these industries. Now THAT would be AWESOME....

and how do you know all women willing engage in these professions? i imagine some, even in america, are forced. i know that is true of some immigrant women.

of deciding whether or not they want to be streetwalkers on Sunset Boulevard; to pose for sexually explicit websites, or in the pages of pornographic magazines?

What makes you think that women are being forced to engage in these activities? What makes you think they're not willing?

There are ALWAYS exceptions to the above, absolutely, and without a doubt. BUT, in AMERICA, and in the overwhelming majority, I stand by my position that women are in their right minds and fully capable of choosing whether or not to engage in these industries.

I fully advocate their ability to choose to exploit mens' weaknesses and vulnerabilities.

I believe that prostitution should be legalized and decriminalized. And like I said, I want more women to take control and manage these industries as well. That'd really piss off the fellas!

didn't you? and of course, SOME ARE FORCED...quite simple really.

by a 2nd class citizen status and economic nessesity.

Monica is a dead issue, now that it's OK to be Aaaaaaanold Da Gropenator!

Repukes can never use the monica card again. Never.

They, themselves, just neutralized it.

Now us dems can be PROUD and run on Clinton's RECORD!

The WORST thing Bill Clinton did was to his wife and daughter. Schwartznegger was equally bad to his wife, yet he also victimized his gropees at the same time. I'm pretty sure Monica was willing the entire time. Not so of the Gropenator's victims.

Clinton had several females who came forward and "accused" him of worse behavior as well. Rightfully, no one except for those on the right, automatically assumed their accusations were legitimate. One of the reasons Clinton's numbers remained high during the impeachment was that many Americans, some republicans included, detested the ridiculous charges that were coming out from everywhere, and the piling on that resulted.

There are those on the far right who still believe all those stories about his past with women and to them, our quick judgement of Schwartznegger smacks of hypocrisy. I think Schwartznegger is an idiotic choice for govenor, even without these allegations, but I will wait until there is more solid proof until I judge him on these accusations, same as I did Bill.

but as long as there's sexual desire, there's objectification. Hell, do you think male models get their jobs by being Mr. Intelligensia? I'm sorry, but it's natural, and women do it too. In the word's of Bill Hicks, "I'm ashamed to say it... but I'm not thinking of gum."

The way I see it, objectification occurs OUTSIDE of a relationship.

Some sex is exploitive, some isn't.

But basically you're saying that if I'm browsing through seventeen magazine, for some odd reason, and I stop on a page, and suddenly stop and yell, "I WANT ME SOME OF THAT.", then I'm a bad person for objectifying women.

course, but at some point objectification DOES become bad, IMHO.

There are degrees of behavior and we truly do have to draw lines we do not believe should be crossed.

I think we need to move the line back regarding sexual behavior from where Bill Clinton moved it to. It's destroying the Democratic Party! I'm just suggesting a way to save the party and no one else seems to be addressing it.

I have no problem with criminalizing sexual battery, molestation, etc., but I fail to see how a frontal assault on the 1st Amendment is going to help the Democratic party. I'm not being obtuse about this--- I'm quite serious.

objectification through education, comunication, and Democratic Party policy.

We simply have to do something about the Clinton baggage, IMHO.

:hi:

:hi:

Sex within a marriage can be exploitative, and an unknown percentage of it is. Are we going to start trying to monitor that? Two strangers falling into each other's arms and bodies from mutual need and desire may be completely non-exploitative, yet another person cannot tell, especially if no ongoing relationship follows.

I agree that Clinton's behavior was unfortunate, but I don't think it was exploitative, at least not on his part. Monica was the one who pushed it. Was she the "exploiter" here? Her main mistake was being young and excessively romantic, so that she had to agonize to people like LInda Tripp about her wish to turn the relationship into HEA (that's "happily ever after" in romance-novelist terms.)

And Clinton didn't "change everything" in how the Democrats are viewed by the Repubs re sex. Long before that, we were suspect, becuase of the Dem pro-choice position. And even in the earlier 20th century, in the North, because Democrats were the party of immigrants. WASPy Repubs thought the new arrivals undoubtedly had dubious sexual practices, along with their fondness for demon rum. (Anti-immigrant bias had a lot to do with the Prohibition movement.) Some studies of politics and social psychology have shown there are subtle but definite differences between the two parties' adherents in their attitudes toward sex. Basically Repubs. tend to be slightly more anti-sex, no matter whether it's consensual or not.

I too believe in taking a general stance against sexual predators, but there are civil liberties problems in extending this to all pornography and sex industry areas. Much less in demonizing any sexual contact that a third party considers exploitative. Let's hope some of the gropees file suit against Arnold, because _they're_ the ones who really know what they suffered.

But sometimes we have to. In raising a child I have constantly had to judge other kids and adults that might be spending time with my son. Just because being moral and human is a challenge is not a reason to not try.

Regarding Clinton and Monica, I am not sure we will ever know the exact details of who exploited whom, but I guess Clinton would have to get a more of a share of the blame than Monica because he must have known the effect he had on women. :-)

What DID change after Clinton was that the GOP got a propaganda weapon they did not have before and coupled with the Starr investigation they even used it to impeach him! I think it drives Republicans crazy that Dems are sexier and have better sex lives and they just can't let go of the Monica thing. They have crummy sex lives because they objectify others and sex with an object is boring. They are more anti-sex because of envy.

We could take a stand against exploitation and objectification by taking a stand for education about the sex industry, although if the GOP succeeds in destroying the middle class, even that might now work.

I wonder if any gropees will file--the fear of retribution in Hollywood seems to be worse than the fear of retribution in DC from the BFEE. I find that amazing.

I don't see any reason that shouldn't be a big dem issue.

Take the issue away from Ashcroft-style puritanism and turn it into more of a civil rights issue.

there are more reasons to defend bad behavior, apparently than to change it. Far too many people who call themselves liberal are totally disinterested in women's issues. How women are treated in the world is much less important than their right to buy pornography.

... it IS a right.

banning pornography couldn't and shouldn't be the platform, it should be regulating the industry not outlawing it.

the point is that ya'll are so wrapped up in defending your right to porn that you don't give a damn what happens to women.

Where was the big male outcry against Arnold? It didn't exist - and it doesn't exist today. If a whole boatload of men - including big name Democrats had stood up and roared - this man treats women like dirt - this cannot be allowed - the outcome might have been different.
Even if it weren't it would have shown that Democrats are the party of equality for women.

CW Webster - Where were the men? Why aren't you a feminist?

and I don't see how being pro porn and being a feminist are mutually exclusive...

People like to watch other people have sex....

users almost never get to know the person involved so they don't really understand the impact of that involvement.

Honestly, truly, if you spend a while researching this issue on the internet or reading books you will see that it is not a wonderful thing and that there is a price to be paid for objectification. I happened to have become educated about the sex industry through various volunteer jobs and other experiences I have had in my life.

Objectification of others is what allows soldiers to kill; it is what allows thieves to steal; it is what allows the BFEE to send detainees to Guantanamo with a trail; it is what allows corporate CEO's to mistreat employees; it is what allowed slaveowners to take part in slavery. I believe that we need to see every other person on this planet as a full human being, not an object.

Banning porn is not going to do that.

I think there should be sex industry education along with sex education in the schools. But also I think the Dems need to take a stand regarding the sex industry.

... agressively enforcing any laws the sex industry is violating.

about "contributions" from a strip club to council members who had to make a decision about the strip club expanding its parking lot.

Some laws WERE violated, some money was returned, and some careers were tarnished.

I am criticizing the fact that a discussion of women's issues and the Democratic party has turned into a defense of pornography. Why not address the substance of my post - which concerned the near total apathy of men concerning the the sexual predator in the California governor's mansion?

you are not a feminist. I have always doubted you are a democrat....not that theres anything wrong with that. I just don't like lies in advertising.

I'm defending the 1st Amendment. Once you start, where do you stop?

It's a sad commentary on the state of liberalism (and liberals) when a proposal to fight violence against women is criticized because it supposedly threatens people's "right" to read pornography.

jeesh

Yeah, I have the right to buy pornography, and until someone shows me proof that pornography leads to every injustice against women in the world, I'll continue to do so. These women aren't being raped, they're not a victim of circumstance, they made a decision to get into the pornography business. How does this corellate at all with how women are treated around the world.

And, drat, I don't have the time right now to track down some links to back myself up.

Actually, there's a lot of involuntary porn now with things like upskirting and spy cams so it's different from what it used to be.

because it violates the "consenting adults" rule.....

Liberalism to me involves empathy, not just tolerance.

Unwanted sexual advances should be discouraged and in certain instances are unlawful....


But if a guy and his wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever want to watch a movie of two or more people copulating that's their right.....

But that doesn't mean that it contributes anything positive to society.

Thanks for all the thoughtful posts and not flaming me too badly. :-)

let's outlaw reality television shows, romance novels, video games, most sports, and everything ELSE that "contributes nothing positive to society". Surely you'll agree that a great deal of human activity is of no positive social benefit? And perhaps you'll see how absolutely ludicrous social benefit as a determining factor of something's relative worth is?

Newsflash: many otherwise well-adjusted and happy adults work in the adult entertainment industry, and don't view their involvement as "exploitative". Many otherwise well-adjusted and happy adults consume the products of that industry, and cause no harm to themselves or others in doing so, and may even derive some PERSONAL benefit from it (whether such is the case is not for you, or me, to judge).

Your attitude is dangerously close to that of the extreme right-wing in many respects: "I don't like X, therefore it should be illegal for anyone to view/use/participate in X."

Personally, as long as the consensual activities someone else chooses to engage in cause no harm to others, I couldn't care less WHAT they do, because it is not my business, and it is most certainly not my right to try to enforce my personal morality on the remainder of society.

And because of partisan politics, feminists dropped the ball with Clinton. Because the alternative was so much worse, the principles of feminism were bound and gagged. Had Clinton been a Republican (...)he would've been dragged over the coals by feminists- now the issue is ignored.

The sad irony after all those years women raised awareness against men exploiting women as cheap sex toys. It doesn't seem to matter.

Frankly, I can't believe we've sunk so low.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=498454&mesg_id=498454

People are defending Arnold, saying that it's okay that he speaks like that, and brags about his libidinous excess like that, and admires Hitler like that, and hates women like that.

Are these Freeper people?

What a creep.

Dan Brown
Saint Paul, Minnesota

Arnold makes me sick and scared for the children of California.

Come to think of it, I guess that wasn't a very good suggestion.

:-(

:-)

I am not about to advocate the stripping of the First Ammendment.

What two (or three, or four or more) consenting adults do with a camera and a website is their choice and NOBODY ELSES BUSINESS. Period.

If you want to legislate morality, go to the Republican party. Or better yet, check out Fundamentalist Christianity. They have a job for you I'm sure.

We Democrats have no place for censorship, or censors.

Some folks like to watch other folks have sex....


I don't see the dilemma....

moral now. They have used Bill Clinton's behavior to elect a man who behaves in a sexually reprehensible behavior and to defeat a decent Dem!!! I don't want to see other people like Arnold elected.

Do you understand? I'm trying to address a political issue that is scaring me and I don't see anyone else coming up with a better idea. Virtually every sex scandal I can think of in the past few years has involved rightwinger or a fundamentalist, not a liberal or a Dem. And Clinton gave them a cover story.

You ought to at least be more careful about how you use these terms. A sexual predator is a serial rapist or a child molestor, or the like. Arnold is hardly in that league.

to as predators) and what he did was a low-level offense not requiring that he be put on the internet list of sex offenders if he were to be found guilty, but just a misdemeanor.

And, boy, it sure seems like serial behavior to me. Someone on television said that he was known as "The Octopus" for his constant groping.

but I don't see the nexus between his behaivor and the sex industry.....

Arnold didn't need to view porn.... He lived it....

And I don't think we can fight Arnold without being consistent on the issue.

How would you suggest combatting a mindset that is deeply ingrained not just in our culture, but in the human psyche? Honest question, I'm not intending to sound hostile. On a broad scale, I agree with your aims. People (men in particular) should be able to evolve a culture where all forms of sexual activity are conducted in a consensual way, and purely for pleasure and not money. To me that doesn't mean having no sex "industry," but it would bear little resemblance to what we have now.

Personally I don't think it's possible to eradicate objectification entirely because, IMO, men are hardwired to respond sexually to signals that have nothing to do with seeing one's partner as an entire human being. Men focus down on *things*, sometimes absurdly small or strange things. There's evolutionary advantage to having these triggers in men; this way, we're not ready to procreate 100% of the time.

I could come up with a proposal for the Democratic Party to address the issue in a few weeks but I would have to spend a few years on a proposal for society as a whole.

And I do know that men are hardwired for certain things sexually although I can't fully relate to it.

Basically, I think it's worth the Dems paying attention to the problem even though it super difficult. As someone posted, it seems like they just want to say that women are empowered now and wash their hands of the issue when all you have to do is look at the Arnold situation to see the reality.

are every bit the "sexual creatures" men are but they are conditioned by society to sublimate it , deny it, etcetera.....

In fact men are as "objectified" by women as much as women are by men....

It seems to me that pornography was barely considered legal when I was younger. Many communities still manage to keep out strip joints and such. Obscenity and all.

I think it is sad that society seems to care less and less about morals. "Let the Republicans have morals - we don't want them."

Without morals we have the powerful taking advantage of the unempowered (see Arnold Swartzenegger, the Republican agenda, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq... for examples). That is what it comes down to.

Has feminism made it more OK to objectify women because NOW women are supposedly empowered and so the powerful(male) is NOT taking advantage of the supposedly empowered(female)....?



I think the Democratic party should take this opportunity to make an issue of Sexual Battery not being tolerated. I think that people (mostly of the male persuasion) are not going to let go of their hold on porn. (So it seems like it is just as well not to attach it as an issue. Immoral business practices should be routed out, though).

I would rather not see porn becoming more openly acceptable - but I don't know if there is any chance of that not happening. It seems like an avalanche that is attached to the film industry and the internet.

It does seem like paying lip service to feminism has justified all sorts of behavior that existed before but was looked upon with disfavor. I do think it is sad.

And I also think we're more likely to see gun control than porn control any time soon. There was a story in the news today about how Bill Gates is going to help fight kiddie porn with open source software. Mr. Gates could do a lot more to PREVENT the problem but he doesn't want to.

Do you suppose the recall will wake the Dem leadership up regarding sexual misconduct issues?

Do you suppose the recall will wake the Dem leadership up regarding sexual misconduct issues?



It may take a lot of us screaming about it. The candidates for president might be good possibilities for making it an issue. It seemed like they might have helped get Rush booted off of ESPN (Clark and then Dean).

It seems like nowadays it takes a celebrity type of spokesperson for people to pay attention.

There is hope, however. It seems that in the 20th century domestic battery and child molesting made strides in being prosecuted crimes.

I posted on another thread and I'll say it again. I think there should be a class action lawsuit against the Hollywood studios that tolerated this (and against Arnold, of course). Seems like thats what it takes - Mitsubishi, etc.

Why is there so much fear of retribution in Hollywood? I am amazed.

violates the "consenting adults" rule and should be dealt with harshly, especially the distributors...

I don't think "what the Dem's position should be" is a tough one....


Treat each other with respect.... Or "your mother" rule....

Don't treat any woman in a manner you wouldn't want your mother to be treated....

The issue that should be #1 on the Democratic plate is taking a stand for Democracy. It all flows from there, and we are losing the big picture by overconcentrating on the details. It's like looking at the wall during a bad acid trip.

But I was glued to the news and the Clinton problem is indeed serious, too.

...What does Terry McAuliffe paying attention to?

I think that pornography and the sex industry are big, easy targets for opposing the objectification of women; however, I think it represents a case of attacking the symptom without dealing with the disease. I see woman, many fully clothed, objectified every time I turn on the television, every time I glance at the magazine rack at the grocery store checkout line, every time I turn on the radio.

It's a bit like people who want to ban violent video games. No, it is not a good idea for your 12-year old to spend eight hours "virtually" killing people, but getting rid of the games fails to address the underlying current of violence that so dominates thinking in our civilization.

I don't think it is really a legislative issue. It is an issue of education and re-education. The "dominator" culture that we live in has deep roots, and is largely responsible for a lot of the violence, injustice, inequity and objectification we see. Addressing the problems of that culture is important, but I think it simply has to take place one family, and one child at a time.

Who says we're pro-groping? I think we made ourselves perfectly clear on the subject with the Arnold campaign.

What people do/watch in the privacy of their own home/strip club/etc. IS their own business, and no one else's. As far as objectification goes, talk to a stripper with fistfulls of cash at the end of the night and ask them who's being taken advantage of. Objectification is often the POINT of some music, films, what have you. It SELLS.

And to bring Clinton into the debate means that the right has successfully brainwashed you. No one endorses what Bill did, and when Republicans inevitably use the Clinton touchstone, simply counter with the "youthful indiscretions" of Henry Hyde, Newt Gingrich, Bob Packwood, Bob Livingston, etc. etc. etc.

Don't get suckered into mistaking politics for sexual politics. Republicans have no leg to stand on when they insert their fake morality into what should always be debates on the issues.

groping. I think we need to be anti-groping for real--which means against objectification in word and deed. If Arnold had seen his victims as humans he would have asked their permission to nibble their breasts or whatever, but he didn't see them as human.

Oh, heck, I'm too tired to finish this post tonight so I will try to tackle it tomorrow.

What happens in a strip club is a monetary transaction and it isn't just the business of the people involved--the government has an interest in ALL monetary transactions for tax and regulatory purposes. And I have known people who got paid millions of dollars and were exploited--my husband is included in that group. I also know a man who made a huge fortune but had to work so many hours he didn't have enough time for his son and his son committed suicide.

Yes, certainly, objectification sells. That doesn't make it good or right, though.

I'm not bringing Clinton up because I'm brainwashed. I'm bringing him up only because I heard the rightwingers use him constantly in the recall to justify Arnold's sexual behavior. It was a faulty comparison IMHO but they did it anyway and they will do it for eternity if we don't come up with a way to neutralize it. Countering with Hyde, Gingrich, etc. simply isn't working and won't work because it only seemingly LEVELS things rather than ELEVATING our position, which it should because we really do have a much better position than they do.

The GOP is evil and we need to take stands that makes that clear.

Where are you getting the notion that ANYONE ANYWHERE approved of Clinton's infidelity? Like I said, you're seeing the state of things through Republican eyes. Don't let them do that to you.

I'm saying that the GOP is twisting what he did into sexual deviance and using it against us.

I do not believe Bill Clinton ever committed sexual battery, assault, or any other illegal sexual act but I do believe that many Republicans have. (like that Connecticut Mayor caught recently and Arnold, etc.)

The GOP twists things. They twisted Gray Davis's record just like they twist Bill Clinton's behavior. SOMEHOW we have to find a way to fight that and what we are doing now just isn't working.

By they way, I don't believe Juanita Broderick and Kathleen Willey. I don't believe them because I don't think Clinton would ever have needed to force himself on anyone and I don't think he objectifies women. Also, if a person does that type of thing, it's generally going to be part of a long-time pattern, not just isolated events.

The issue is not a proliferance of crazy sexed-up Democrats, but the GOP's manipulation of that notion.

And I'm just trying to help find a way to fight that manipulation because it was driving me crazy to listen to it over the last few days of the recall campaigning.

I have not turned my television on since the election and normally I have it on all the time to monitor the news. I'm just sick.

My concern is for the proper response to GOP crud. Ignoring their pathetic garbage is usually the correct move. Nothing moves people like the truth.

Congrats on a robust thread, barb! :yourock:

And nothing takes your mind off a crushing defeat at the polls like keeping track of a lengthy thread! :-)

These are all side effects of being human.

Hormones cannot be, and should not be, regulated by the state.

I am well aware of the harmful, dehumanizing side of the "sex industry." But it will never go away. I believe that America's prudish attitudes toward sex are in fact the driving force behind sexual aggression in the U.S.

Repressed sexual energy is a dangerous thing.

When something crosses over into violence, intimidation, etc. then it becomes a matter for the law; and there ARE laws to deal with it.

Bluenoses have been trying to legislate morality for thousands of years.

Give it up. Besides...strippers and porn are fun. :)

This society needs its vices. If a lap dance or a 12 pack or a Playboy keeps a budding criminal at home instead of wandering the streets looking for trouble, I'm all for it.

Perhaps if a real solution came as cheaply, we'd all being holding hands and singing in unison. As it is, a $5.99 pack of beer or girlie mag will have to do.

He said that if you have a lot of money, you can go skiing or to the opera, etc. to feel good but if you're poor a joint might have to do. So I see what you are saying about "cheap thrills" because I can't jet off to Tuscany every weekend (sigh) so sometimes I just drink some beer or red wine at a local establishment.

For many years I have had to deal with my son and his teenage friends needing something to do and I have had to steer them AWAY from the cheap thrill (you can imagine) and toward more quality thrills. It's tough but I am dogged and you would not believe the things I have helped them do--and they are good kids, not wild like so many of the kids around here. The effort has been worth it even though it has taken a LOT of driving and money.

p.s. Have you tried any red beer? I'm into that lately.

Over the last 50 years, pornography has continually become much more widespread.

During this same time period:

women's wages (for comparable jobs) has increased relative to men's wages (that is, the wage gap has narrowed); and

the proportion of women to men getting college degrees, law degrees and medical degrees has increased to the point where women are at parity or superiority in this ratio.


Based on these observations, it looks like expanded pornography correlates positively with expanded educational and job opportunities for women (relative to men).

There may be good reasons to regulate porn, but avoidance of economic suppression of women is not one of them.

and the status of women....


Look at the role of women where porn is prohibited.... Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, etcetera....

and

Look at the role of women where porn is widely available... The Netherlands, Germany, the United States, etcetera....

It's a fact! Giuliani closed down all the porn theaters in Manhattan. There are lots of porn shops where you buy videos, etc. but if you want to watch a porn movie you'll have to schlep out to Queens or Brooklyn.

Do women in Queens or Brooklyn have a relatively higher status than women in Manhattan? Stay tuned ....

A woman in Manhattan has more in common with a woman in Queens than she does with a woman in Riyadh...

Dontchathink....

Sorry to paraphrase that jerk. But I think getting rid of porn is a bad bad idea.

I think telling women, or men what to do with their bodies is a violation of their rights.

Rape occurs because of power, not sex. Pornography is for sexual pleasure, not power.

I also find it sexist to say that only women are raped or forced into sexual situations they don't want to be in. You are wrong.

You cannot outlaw sex. That is what the Republicans are trying to do. Nor would out lawing it get rid of rape. Rape occured long before porno, TV, flims, and strip clubs. If even occurs in the animal kingdom.

Mike

that was good.
thanks :)

And I'm talking about "telling" men and women what NOT to do with OTHER people's bodies, not what to do with THEIR bodies. Sorry if I conveyed that I don't understand men can be objectified, too. I do fully understand that.

Actually, I would start with education about porn and the sex industry and then go from there with dealing with the situation. I am not all-knowing and don't have a total solution for the objectification problem!

The problem is that many feminists want an accused person to automatically be assumed guilty. This is the case with both Clinton and Arnold. BTW, if one assume Broderick and Jones to be telling the truth Clinton is not better than Arnold, and quite a bit worse. Democrats and Republicans don't assume there guy is guilty, but assume the other parties guy is. The other problem is that this will always be used to greater affect against Democrats than republicans. The Clinton fiasco was a much bigger deal.

(Diclosures: I'm a man, I'm voting for Carol)

I think you're raising critical issues, Barb, but I think there's a better way to frame them, one that works to the advantage of liberals or liberal Democrats in particular.

The essential problem with objectification at this time stems from the inequality of the sexes. The problem is not sexuality, or psychology or morality narrowly defined--those are but aspects or modalities of a deeper injustice.

The challenge for feminism, in the public sphere, is the pervasive misperception that the feminist goal of liberating and empowering women is a fait accompli. The criticism here is akin to Adorno's critique of false humanitarianism. (I just picked that up from reading Said's Musical Elaborations, but it applies here.) We see the manifestations of this mistake all around us, for instance, in the belief common among White people that racism is no longer a big deal, etc.. Whether it's a failure of logic or a failure of empathy scarcely matters. The crucial matter at hand is to address the problem of gender injustice in our politics and in our communications.

I reckon a lot of women see injustices in their lives, and that they percieve the Democrats as better at addressing their concerns. However, let's be honest. The Clinton scandals cost the Dems goodwill, especially among suburban White married women, aka "soccer moms." For the large part, these voters are not inclined to see things in ideological terms. I dare say, when faced with political issues they are not inclined to intellectualize them--That's not to say they aren't astute, or aware of their own interests. Like I say, we have to be honest, here. At the same time Gore was up at the SCOTUS delivering an amicus on the administration's stern views in condemnation of sexual harrassment, Clinton was desperately trying to defend his perjury in the Jones case. Major disconnect.

When Patricia Ireland of NOW came out in defense of Clinton, I'll admit my jaw dropped. "Self," I said to myself, "What kind of feminism is this?" And to this day there are feminists who disagree strongly with their position, as you can see for example whenever the topic comes up on the MS. message boards.

However, there *was* a specifically feminist argument against impeachment, and in light of the tragedy in California, it bears revisiting. The issue is not that a political executive should be a moral exemplar, held to a higher standard than, for example, an executive at Mitsubishi. Rather, the essential issue is that the struggle for justice is ongoing, and in this struggle, the Dems are clearly doing more than the Republicans to empower women. Allowing the Republicans to take out Clinton--in what was in essence a cynical jab at Dem's commitment to fighting discrimination in the workplace--to let that happen would have represented a huge setback for the feminist cause.

That still leaves unanswered the question of how one addresses allegations of sexual harrassment. In the Clinton case that was Judge Wright's job, and as far as I'm concerned we should let her have the last word.

One lesson of the Schwarzenegger power grab, to restate one of your points, is that the Dems haven't made the case that the Republicans systematically work to disempower women. If we could take allegations of sexual harrassment out of the equation (as many voters appear to have done), and even abortion (though I'm not sure we know exactly where Shwarzenegger stands), couldn't we still make the case that the Republicans are hostile to women? Or at the very least unfair?

Yes, we can make the case. But only if we embrace feminism and commit to the struggle of ending sexism, in all of its manifestations, no matter how dull or trivial or politically inconsequential they seem in light of the talk of the day. We need to be more proactive in setting the agenda, in deciding what constitutes an important issue, or news of the day, or worthy speech in public fora.

Thanks again for raising your concerns. On the cause of fighting for equality and empowerment, of opposing the exploitation of women in all its forms, I am with you absolutely. On the appeal to a common morality, I might provisionally understand that as tactical move to counter the Republicans, but ultimately I believe we need to find new ways of talking about how to do the right thing in politics. We don't need to co-opt the Republican message, because we have a better one. The challenge is to make it resound with people in ways that make intuitive sense.

Murder but why is that issue conflated with porn?

porn--from the Latin word for prostitute, right? The choice of whether and how to engage in sex for pay cannot be understood apart from the relative statuses of the sexes.

That's not conflation, that's an argument about causes and circumstances. The recognition of a profound and abiding injustice with determinative influence doesn't preclude making distinctions between different instances of injustice.

And I think you're wrong about the politics of harrassment. Case in point, California's Governor elect. Another, sexual assault at the Air Force academy. Which candidate in this election has made an issue of the rape of female cadets? The one with the most power and the loudest media voice, the one who all the insiders are watching? Who has responded to this candidate's position on the matter? Where is the public outcry?

Back to porn, I know, I'm not providing an answer, I'm explaining a premise. I don't have the answers, but I think we can examine the question with more probity than reducing it to an absolute matter of free choice vs. moral depravity, or freedom of expression vs. human dignity. The legal and moral arguments point to those concerns, but surely we can be more sophisticated in our politics.

Where's the objectification in that?

Folks like to watch other folks like sex....

They use it as an aide to have sex with themselves or sex with others....

As long as it's fun, safe, and sane where's the crime?


They found porn on the walls of Pompeii for Chrisakes...

porno + graphy = prostitute writing

A strange association to make, but perhaps it reflects a reality of the past.

Lewinsky was a young woman who followed her own wishes sexually. Isn't that one of the keystones of the feminist approach to sex?

Yes, this was a matter of debate within feminism, mostly because of the supposed power deferential. In this case, however, it seems to me the difference was more pro-forma than real. There was Clinton, supposedly the most powerful man in the world, and yet who had more power in their relationship? In many ways, Monica, because if she "went public" about it he had a lot more to fear than she did.

Admittedly this is true only because at heart Clinton was a moral man. Freeper screeds aside, he was not about to have her rubbed out by a hitman to keep her quiet. The most he could do, when he decided not to see her again, was ask his staff to keep her away from him.

Given the record number of "suicides" by people who've offended the BFEE, this might not hold true for the current occupant of the Oval Office, however.

Not to be too harsh or anything, but I find that distracting. IIRC the Lewinsiki affair was relevant to the extent that it went towards proving the existence of a hostile work environment. Judge Wright found that it didn't. I think that should be the end of it.

NOW still has their comments on Clinton v. Jones case online.

Upon reviewing some of Ireland's statements, it's striking that she struggled mightily to present NOW as nonpartisan. And it was difficult because Jones shunned NOW and embraced wingnuts in what clearly looked to be a partisan attack--not just against Democrats, but against the cause of feminism. But still, NOW wanted to let it play out in the courts and not judge prematurely.

I tend to assume that feminists should embrace Dems for obvious reasons, but, as the California debacle shows, the reasons aren't obvious after all. It's up to the Dems to make the case, to embrace feminism, and define the issues in ways that voters respond to positively.

Holding up the intrinsic moral worth of Clinton I find to be unpersuasive. Likewise the moral turpitude of the opposition is a tough sell.

Did you see the sfgate quote from the exit polling of women (posted in another thread) where the woman was saying the problem was like between Arnold and Maria, as if the most important implication of the charges of sexual harrassment was that Schwarzenegger was an unfaithful husband? That indominatable and blissful subbornation of one's self-interest to the hegemon is I believe one of the byproducts of moralist rhetoric. Indeed, I believe Republicans use that kind of argument for just that reason, because they agree with and seek to further the subbordination of women and anybody else who would share power. Far better for Democrats to speak in terms of justice, or some other idiom, I don't know, anything which highlights the need for women to be more empowered, for specifically political responses to social problems. Because, really, that's what the Dems are best positioned to provide.

Gotta go to Missoula--. Peace.

We DO have a better message than the Republicans but we have largely lapsed into lip-service instead of being pro-active, as you say.

And I honestly believe that by simply working very hard on the party platform at the next convention to address feminist issues in a pro-active and creative way, we can gain some incredible tactical advantages. It will be tragic if we can't find some way to make very clear to the women of American that the Democratic Party opposes the type of treatment that Arnold Schwarzenegger inflicted on women and that the consquences of objectifying women in that way are far-reaching and very negative.

you want us to embark on some feminist crusade? Gosh, I wonder why the right is so successful in calling us out of touch. Oh, and W's comments the other day about stopping the sex trade to the UN really got huge applause, right?

Most people, men, women, democrats and republicans are appalled by sexual assaults. There are laws against it on the books. But most people also agree that what people do with their own bodies consensually is their own business.

For every airheaded teen girl who foolishly runs away from a comfortable home to Hollywood, prostitution, etc., there are ten little kids in homes with no income or iunsufficient income for the necessities of life.

I'm sorry, but I think your priorities are a bit out of whack.

PS- men and women sexually objectify each other - So what? Should we all wear burqas and decide to date solely on the basis of 'personality'? Where's the fun in that?

who more than likely was abused or is mentally ill....IMO.

But they ARE making a choice when they choose that road. They could also get a friend as a roommate, get jobs at Wal-mart or whatever, and stick it out like the rest of us. Trying to escape via the sex industry is a one-way road to ruin for most. It's ashamed more girls aren't taught that early on. However, I don't see this as a winning campaign issue AT ALL, and certainly is not at the top of my priority list. Those exploited girls are old enough to fend for themselves. Children are not.

In fact they are coming from the homes you seem to be sympathetic with. They are just teens instead of preteens so all the sudden you don't care. I am not latching on the objectification proposal because it is too broad and includes looking at naked people pics, Victoria's Secret, and probably the impeachment of Bill Clinton, because the assumption of guilt, but dismissing the exploitation Prostitutes face goes too far as well.

Admirable as this ultimate goal is, there are many issues in this world that are vastly more pressing than this one--like the survival of the species, to start with. Getting rid of Bush will seem like a temptest in a teapot compared to the environmental problems this planet will face in the next century.

the people being exploited are seen as objects/nonhumans. For example, in this country, slavery meant that the owner had complete control of the slaves bodies for labor and sexual purposes.

By the way, I have done much work to help homeless and jobless people and believe there is a connection between all forms of exploitation. Did you know that virtually every homeless teenager engages in survival sex?

1) Isn't it interesting that obscenity laws are written so that they reflect the community sensibility. So the question may be - how does one affect the communities sensibilities? (With the internet and films widely available - the world becomes the community).


2) No offense to any porn lovers here - but in MY limited experience the men I know who like porn just happen to be abusive to women and the one man that I know of one who liked child porn also abused children (and is now in jail), whereas the men I know who do not view porn are not abusive. When a person, such as myself, sees these connections in people - it is difficult to think of porn in a positive light.


My conclusions are that child pornography and voyueristic pornography should be dealt with more severely. I would rather see communities not become more accepting of obscenity - but I think that like it or not, porn is not going away. IF there were enough studies that supported my observations - MAYBE it would be possible to reduce porn and make it less common. At least if more people thought there was a connection - one would hope that porn would be less openly acceptable.

because minors can't consent to engage in adult activities which include sex.


If the world is the community do we use the standards of Saudi Arabia or the Netherlands when it comes to pornography...



I assure you there is no comparison between the rights of women in the Netherlands and Saudi Arabia and isn't that our ultimate goal.

may be more important with the global community we share than anyone realizes.

It is hard for me to see that pornography gives women any rights.

Saudi Arabia or the Netherlands are quite an extreme. I wouldn't want to have to hide. But I'm not interested in exhibiting myself, or living in a place where people do not acknowledge sexual boundaries. (ie. the world of Arnold Swartzenegger)

involves two men....


How does that objectify women?


And I think the Netherlands and Saudi are excellent examples because it's impossible to come to any consensus on what is obscene....

Even in the U S , community standards are so amorphous that the authorities almost never win obscenity cases, much less bring them...

When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor, he interpreted community standards as being offended when men held hands while watching a dirty movie. He made it illegal! When the court overruled him, he hounded and harassed the porn theaters until they went out of business. To this day there are no porn theaters in sophisticated Manhattan. None.

and look at pictures of men having sex with other men, men having sex with women, or any combination thereof would you recommend I be imprisoned since that is the logical consequence of the policies you seem to be endorsing....

Your support is appreciated.

funny...why is there no much talk about it in this thread?

objectification and what coming out against it means.

to include pornography among other things.

I believe in political, economic, and social equality for women.....

However, I don't see any tension between my advocacy for women's rights and my advocacy for the position that if someone likes to watch others copulate he or she should not be denied that right....

in the making of pornography...i don't have a problem with it either. probably not the case with snuff films and the like. i also have a problem with products that are sold without the permission of those involved. other than that... :shrug: i could care less. however, i do think obectification is a larger problem, one that desensitizes people to others as humans. but of course, that's my issue...one of the reasons i don't watch porn.

People who do the upskirt and spy cam stuff should be vigorously prosecuted...

It's invasive...


"Porn as a moral good or evil...."

That's a topic for a whole new thread...

You are correct that most people don't care, but I believe that most people don't care because they don't know the truth about the sex industry and don't understand that it is all about sexual exploitation.

What I'm seeing here is that it's you who doesn't know anything about the sex industry. I've worked in the sex industry since the late '80's. Primarily I'm an exotic dancer, but I have dabbled in the porn industry both in film and on the internet. It is by FAR the most empowering thing I have ever done. I don't feel the least bit objectified - on the contrary, it is I who objectifies my customers... in this business, the average customer is often jokingly refered to as an ATM. Since the dawn of humankind women have been using their femine allure, their sexual appeal or other various personal charms to entice men into doing what they wish, be that cash, gifts, favors, attention, sex, love... it is a natural phenomenon that is built into the human condition. Men as well have used their masculine appeal and assets to entice women into doing as they wish which is also built into the human condition. This is how people are made, and it's a damn good thing or we can kiss future generations good-bye and become extinct.

The sole reason that there is so much exploitation connected with the sex industry is precisely because it is still considered in this country to be taboo, and the government prefers to keep it hidden as-is rather then to accept it and regulate it. Instead of passing laws to insist on a clean and safe environment for these workers and provide them with the proper education when interested persons come into the business, they pass laws attempting to make it stop... it is a FACT that it will not be stopped as prostitution and other forms of sexually related services are THE oldest professions. To pass laws attempting to discourage workers to continue in the profession and thwart patronization only serves to encourage workers to push the envelope farther then they should need to in order to continue existing profit.

For example, in the strip club industry in every jurisdiction where ordinances have been passed requiring that patrons remain at least 3, 6 or 10 feet from the dances in the course of their work, has only resulted in more dangerous or outragous sexually related behavior - customers who had been accustomed to being able to receive a certain level of physical attention from the dancers will not pay the same amount of money (or any money) for much less attention they had previously been allowed. This causes those dancers to face either quiting the profession for lack of profit or regularly break the law in order to continue to make decent money. Since the penalty for being closer then the allowed distance from patrons is the same as if they had full on sex with them, a few dancers would quit, but the vast majority who are unable to move to greener pastures will lower the bar on their comfort zone and perform various acts they never would have engaged in before the passing of the law in order to make sure they make enough money not only to meet their expenses but to pay for court costs, fines and attorneys fees should they be arrested. These kinds of laws are actually lowering the standards as the most professional and attractive dancers will vote with their feet and move to another location where they can still make a good living without having to break any laws or compromise their personal comfort zone. This results in only the "dregs" of the dancer crop remaining in the area and in the profession, which is exactly how decent clean clubs degenerate into the dives that so disgust the concerned community. The industry is well able to regulate itself to a great degree as long as they are left in peace to continue unencombered by laws that force any decent earning potential for all involved out of the business. It stands to reason that if a club is allowed to operate at a profit for the workers, the most desirable and professional workers will be happy to remain... as there is no shortage of beautiful and intelligent women happy to work in this profession, the dregs of the dancer crop will be forced out of the area due to the heavier layer of more competative dancers.

Before I started working in the sex industry (funny, strippers used to be part the entertainment industry and now suddenly we're part of the sex industry although it's still the same job) I was a paralegal with 2 years of law school. Both on the job as a paralegal and as a student in law school I was more objectified and sexually harressed then I've EVER been as a sex worker. Now, if I don't like a customer's attitude, I can walk away from them. I have big, burly trained bouncers that watch out for me and are quick to eject anyone with a behavioral problem usually without even requiring as much as a nod from me... NO questions asked. In film it was perpetually pushed on me that in no way should I agree to do anything I wasn't comfortable doing or doing anything with any particular person who for whatever reason upset my comfort zone. In the corporate world I was stalked, sexually harrassed, verbally and emotionally abused, and when I complained about it to the powers that be (who on two occasions were even the source of the abuse) I was further abused by being ignored, deemed not a "team player" and a "complainer" and even FIRED or had more abuse strategically heaped on me until I quit.

It is my CHOICE to work in the sex industry, and there is no question whatsoever that it was the smartest thing I ever did. I'm far better off then just being financially stable. I can work when I please and where ever I please. If I don't like a certain club for whatever reason, I can vote with my feet and work at a virtually unlimited number of other clubs in any state I chose to work in. I can work as little or as much as I want. I can take as much sick, personal or vacation time as I want. I am never forced to work with co-workers who are ill because those workers have just as much right to not work if they don't feel well as I do. As a result, I'm far healthier then I've ever been as in my past corporate life, I HAD to work with people who came to work and spread their germs to me because they are forced on threat of firing to not exceed the paltry number of sick time allowed. I metamorphesized from a miserable penny pinching cubicle drone with depression and anxiety to a stable, empowered HAPPY woman. Being told all night long by customers as well as co-workers that I'm gorgeous, a sweetheart, great fun to be with, that my presence makes their day, etc. etc. over and over is EMPOWERING. Show me any woman that doesn't like being complemented however outrageous or unbelievable those compliments are.

The absolute key here is CONSENT. And there is a HUGE difference between actual consent and consent because for whatever reason you feel you have to. I agree that there should be NO women or men in this business that should ever feel that they would ever need to compromise their own comfort zone... and the beauty of this business is that YOU DON'T HAVE TO. I have never known anyone in any other profession that has not had to accept certain aspects of their job that they aren't comfortable with. As a corporate indentured servant I had to put up with more unwanted sexually related crap then I have ever had to deal with in the sex industry, and in the corporate environment I had to put up with said crap in exchange for chump change. Since involving myself in the sex industry and leaving the "straight" jobs behind, I became my own boss. I decide what is acceptable or unacceptable according to my own personal needs and desires, and I am free to either personally deal with anyone who crosses my line or have security do it for me.

What I find ridiculous is that women complain that the sex industry is anti-feministic when a huge chunk of the whole reason behind the feminist movement is that women wanted to have the right to behave sexually as men have been able to throughout history without being looked down on by society as women of bad character and loose morals. To complain that the sex industry is bad, contributes nothing to society and to assume that those involved need to be "saved" is insulting to me personally and all the people who work in or patronize the sex industry. Making such complaints is in direct contrast to one of the biggest reasons behind the feminist movement and somehow it's gone unnoticed. Thanks very much, but me and countless others have saved themselves already by getting into a profession we enjoy, and are financially rewarded for by leaving behind those professions that made us miserable and broke.

To say that the sex industry does nothing to improve society is to have no true understanding of society and the absolute necessity of the services we provide. The two main reasons for the collapse of a relationship is money and sex issues. The sex industry has gone a LONG way in helping couples to improve their sex lives, which in turn has saved relationships. I have witnessed this happen on virtually a daily basis in the course of my work, and I'm more then happy to continue doing so. Any sex therapist will recommend the use of pornorgraphy, toys or other tools in order to help couples improve their sex lives, so how can it be considered a bad thing? Women in particular have been helped through the sex industry to shed inhabitions that keep them from a more enjoyable sex life and has helped to educatate them about their own bodies and its capabilities. Most women would not have explored the possibilites of multiple orgasms, ejaculating orgasms, G-spot orgasms, etc. if not for the sex industry. I know countless women who have been traumatized by occasionally having ejaculating orgasms because neither they nor their partner had an understanding of what it was and why it was happening. If not for the educating platform of the sex industry, many women would continue to be traumatized by this phenomenon and far more men would continue to be disgusted and angry being allowed to continue to believe they had been urinated on. Without the sex industry, I ask you honestly how any of you complainers would ever have learned of the vast array of sexual arts that the sex industry has been more then helpful in conveying to the masses. Sex happens naturally, but fulfilling sex comes only through education, and I have yet to see any other platform get that message out better then the sex industry.

It is bizarre to easily accept consensual sexually related instances when cash doesn't change hands. It would be perfectly acceptable if I were to engage in consentual sexual activities with whoever I please and be rewarded with jewelry or dinner and a show or any other variety of tangible appreciation, but to do the same and be rewarded in cash is somehow damaging to me, my partners and society as a whole... what absurdity. Sex has been used more as a tool for any variety of fulfillment other then just procreation since the begining of time, and that is never going to change nor should it change as it is a useful and mostly healthy tool for both men and women.

Objectification of women is permiated throughout our society... take a good look at the fashion, advertising and "straight" entertainment industries. What is also interesting is that these industries also objectify men. Objectification is a matter based largely on personal perception, it effects both genders, and whether or not it is harmful and to whom is arguable.

Certainly, there are those women who work in the sex industry who should not be. If the industry were accepted and regulated like any other, "problem" personalities, drunks and drug addicts would not be permitted to work in legitimate sexually related enterprises just as they are not permited in any other legitimate enterprises and would be forced to clean up their act or become the lowest of the lowly street hookers, which is absolutely not the job that any sex industry worker would ever want to fill.

When Rudy Giuliani was Mayor, he interpreted community standards as being offended when men held hands while watching a dirty movie. He made it illegal! When the court overruled him, he hounded and harassed the porn theaters until they went out of business. To this day there are no porn theaters in sophisticated Manhattan. None.

Not so. What Rudy did by cracking down on the strip club and pornography industries in NYC only served to force those industries underground. There are now FAR more seedy underground strip clubs and theaters as a result of this foolish crackdown. All it has done is slap a coat of paint over the industry that causes it to rot underneath. The average citizen can go along their merry way believing that the issue has been "cleaned up" when in fact it is much worse. I no longer dance in NYC as I've not comfortable with the level of the industry that Rudy's crack down forced to happen. It's absurd to assume that the majority of sex workers quit the business or left the city... they just went underground where they're engaging in activities that before the crackdown they would not have considered doing, and as is typical of any underground operation, their safety is threatened by unclean unregulated environments. Even the most reputable clubs like SCORES, VIP and Flashdancers have sunk in the respecability level they used to enjoy when they were left the hell alone. It is no longer financially or personally acceptable for me to travel to NYC to work as has been the decision of many others of my ilk. The result, as I explained above, is that many of the most professional and attractive dancers have voted with their feet to move on to greener pastures leaving the average dancers and bottom feeders behind, and it is those average and bottom feeding dancers that are the most suseptable to allowing their comfort level to be compromised. In reality, this crackdown was actually the worst thing Rudy could have done to the community as it has made the issue far worse and put blinders on the average citizen as to what it really achieved.

The sex industry isn't going anywhere. This is a multi-billion dollar industry that directly affects all of us whether or not we like it. To attempt to do away with it will have a negative affect on EVERYONE, not just the sex workers themselves. Consider all the jobs that would either be lost or forced underground and all the other "straight" industries that would be severely negatively affected: waitresses, bartenders, security personnel, managers, DJ's, janitors, valet parking attendants, fire and safety personnel, administravive personnel, beer and alcohol distributors and manufacturers, interior designers, architects, furniture and appointment manufacturers and distributors, set designers, camera crew, set crew, film and camera equipment manufacturers and distributors, costume designers and clothing manufacturers, advertisers, realtors... the list goes on and on. This industry is intertwined with just about any other type of business, and our economy is dependent upon it. In all actuality, a movement to attempt to remove this business will have the IRS screaming the loudest. There is no possible way that the government is going to be willing to lose out on the millions upon millions of tax dollars this industry generates.

The bottom line is that this industry needs to stop being whitewashed and swept under the rug. Acceptance and regulation is the only way to squeeze out the negative aspects of the industry as the whitewashing has only served to worsen and expand those negative aspects.

The only type of objectification that I have ever experienced as a sex worker is that which comes from the likes of those complaining about the industry... the industry is bad, therefore, I am bad. I'm judged for the job that I do and not the person that I am. No one gets into this business imagining that if they ever want to quit they'll be accepted for "straight" jobs if it is known that they worked in the sex industry. That portion of society that slapped the "BAD" label on my forehead are the ones that are the most responsible for the objectification of sex workers and they don't even seem to be aware of that simple fact. What irony.

Holy crap, TorchTheWitch!!!

This was the verbal equivalent to a from the free throw line, alleyoop, 360, windmill, reverse slam dunk that breaks the backboard and you still hold the rim in your hands as you point to the crowd (which in this case is Barbarann)

I trust she is just sitting there with her mouth hanging open and trying to construct some more sanctimonious drivel about why the 'sex industry is bad.. mmm kaaay?' - Or maybe how the only 'pornography' that should be 'accepted' are things such as watching those dirty hairy hippies 'make love' in the book 'Joy Of Sex'

Look, get away from my porn. I am disgusted at your attempt to claim that the sex industry and its patrons are to be labeled as in need of your 'help' - get the hell off it.

I make no apologies for fantasizing about having sex with various hot sex industry workers. I understand the reality is I do NOT KNOW this person, but I have a physical attraction - and that is something I can not help.

And BTW - just what the hell am I supposed to masturbate to if not porn?

National Geographic....

Never! I can never go back to the days before the gorgeous, toned and made up modern porn stars!

what Bill Clinton and Monica did so that they can elect people like Arnold Schwarzenegger? How will YOU feel when a perverted Republican gropes YOUR wife or daughter and you can't do anything about it because they are a powerful elected official?

Seriously, the bottom line is NOT that I am trying to take away your porn but that I am trying to stop the BFEE from whatever evil, evil plan they have for us.

Do you understand? And do you understand that they didn't go to all that trouble so that Arnold could make life better for the people of California? They have worse things in store for us and I think more power for Arnold is one of them.

OK. Let's go through this again.

CONSENSUAL groping among adults = OK

NON-CONSENSUAL groping among adults = NOT OK

What Clinton did was majorly fucked up I will never forgive him for what he did to his family and the ammo he gave to the Repukes (who he KNEW were just waiting for him to pull something like this)

What Arnold did was NON-CONSENSUAL and is unacceptable. However, I for one also distinguish between his pathologically vile behavior and the RAPING of women.

One other thing that, to me distinguishes us from the Repukes on this issue. We don't make a habit of running candidates who tell OTHER people what kind of sex is good or bad. That is precisely why when a Repug gets caught in this situation it is much different. Because the Repug is telling OTHERS not to do the very things THEY are doing.

Dems may have their vile bastards in the lot - but those vile bastards are seldom the same ones crowing about 'family values' and the 'evils of the sex industry'

I know what you are saying but they twist it to use it against us. And, yes, they are hypocrites of the worst sort.

I listened to them do it in the last few days of the recall DOZENS of times, over and over. It was unbelievable and no one could stop them and I think it would help if the Dems took an uncompromising stand against objectifying sex.

It's easy to convince ME that Arnold did was unacceptable, but we didn't convince a lot of Californians and I find that alarming. The GOP is going to push that envelope as far as they can push it and, frankly, I'm worried that they want to try to make Arnold President.

Upon reflection, it's hard to argue that there might not be some places of employment where objectification and exploitation are worse than in strip clubs. Hey, maybe the Air Force Academy is a worse place for women!!! And the way things are going in the workplace with the Bush administration's attack on workers, even streetwalking might be better some day. However, I don't think we are at that point yet.

There was a big newspaper article a decade ago or so about extensive sexual harassment at the Santa Cruz Operation. It was quite a story and what it revealed was that basically some women accepted and participated in certain sexual activities to get ahead and when it all exploded into the legal area, they were ashamed. It wasn't until the whole thing saw the light of day that the participants could see it for what it truly was. I do think that this might be the case with the sex industry, but I am sure you would disagree.

I wonder what your feeling is about the fact that many of your customers are in relationships and deceiving their partners about what they are doing? Perhaps the partners of sex industry customers and workers are the ones being exploited. I have seen families destroyed because of the sex industry--that's why I bring it up.

What you write about how pressure against the sex industry drags it down is interesting but I honestly have no knowledge of that and have to believe that there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. My feeling is that there should be enough wholesome things to do so that people don't need to go to stip clubs. I know this sounds insanely idealistic but that's how I feel. My husband has been to a few strip clubs in his younger years but now he doesn't go; and if he could go back and change those hours into time spent differently he would. That is the truth--at the time he didn't feel that way but now he does.

Regarding the dinner/jewelry, etc. for a date thing--that's behind the times and it was never a good analogy. Now I think what happens is that both people on a date just use judgement and communication to arrive at a non-exploitive way of dating IF one of the daters isn't actually trying to exploit the other one, which does go on. Heck, have you been reading about how older women are dating younger men with less money lately? I'm guessing there's a lot less exploitation for gifts/money these days.

I don't think it's easy for a sex worker to be a mother or a wife and I think that is sad. I wonder if some sex workers look back and wish they had had the chance to have a normal life with a husband and kids and grandkids in their old age. I wouldn't trade my son for any amount of money or attention from adoring customers. However, if the BFEE starts the draft up again and takes my son and kills him then perhaps I may be the one who is sad.

More sanctimonious self-righteous drivel. You don't see how insulting your words like

"chance to have a normal life..." and

" there should be enough wholesome things to do so that people don't need to go to stip clubs"

Please! You can apply this ludicrous line of reasoning to so many activities that take place among consenting adults. Tell me, does your husband wish he could go back and replace all the time he spent drinking beer? How about the time he spent eating junkfood? Good god you must be a THRILL to live with!

Get off your highhorse please. Some people in the sex industry are there not by choice but by necessity. Guess what? Some people in ANY industry are in the same situation.

And then there are those that are there BY CHOICE and are of SOUND MIND and judgment - And you need to recognize that and keep your crusade away from them.

Of course, you can't do that if you are busy demonizing the "Sex Industry" as one generic entity that is deserving of our scorn.

among other things, and I might be there drinking it with him. (I lived in Germany for many years and am quite proficient at that activity.) And, actually, my husband does find me thrilling. Honest.

Wholesome is not a bad thing, especially if you are raising children, which I and many other people are in fact doing. I have posted a lot on DU about how the world needs more wholesome things to do and I stick by it.

Sorry if I seem sanctimonious and self-righteous. I have had to deal with some of the fallout from the sex industry, including a father (a career soldier) who was a sex industry customer. I do believe that we need moral standards and do not apologize for that.

Upon reflection, it's hard to argue that there might not be some places of employment where objectification and exploitation are worse than in strip clubs. Hey, maybe the Air Force Academy is a worse place for women!!! And the way things are going in the workplace with the Bush administration's attack on workers, even streetwalking might be better some day. However, I don't think we are at that point yet.

I already mentioned some, and those industries aren't going anywhere either.

There was a big newspaper article a decade ago or so about extensive sexual harassment at the Santa Cruz Operation. It was quite a story and what it revealed was that basically some women accepted and participated in certain sexual activities to get ahead and when it all exploded into the legal area, they were ashamed. It wasn't until the whole thing saw the light of day that the participants could see it for what it truly was. I do think that this might be the case with the sex industry, but I am sure you would disagree.

And they were ashamed why? Because society looks down on such activities and the people that do them. In any case, what has this to do with the sex industry? Did I not explain in enough detail how no one in the legitimate sex industry is forced to do anything they don't want to do? How is it that you can make broad accusations about an industry that you know nothing about?

I wonder what your feeling is about the fact that many of your customers are in relationships and deceiving their partners about what they are doing? Perhaps the partners of sex industry customers and workers are the ones being exploited. I have seen families destroyed because of the sex industry--that's why I bring it up.

You don't have to wonder - just ask. I'm hardly going to sit here and lie to you. Personally, I would prefer that the men (or women) who patronize strip clubs and are deceiving their partners that they visit these clubs is unwise. However, that's between them and their partners and I don't butt my nose into other peoples' business uninvited. Deceiving one's partner in a relationship for ANY reason is unwise. Folks that feel that they need to deceive their partner in order to do something they want to do or lose the relationship are probably in the wrong relationship to begin with. No families are destroyed because of the sex industry. That's the excuse that is used when the real problem is either the relationship isn't strong enough to begin with or they aren't addressing serious communication issues. I have seen countless relationships saved because of the sex industry. There isn't one married/attached customer that leaves the club without the urge to run home and have marvelous sex with their partners. I've had many wives and girlfriends come to see me to THANK me for helping to put the spice back in their relationships, and many of those women are now customers, too. Obviously, you aren't aware of how couples friendly the nice clubs are.

...My feeling is that there should be enough wholesome things to do so that people don't need to go to stip clubs. I know this sounds insanely idealistic but that's how I feel. My husband has been to a few strip clubs in his younger years but now he doesn't go; and if he could go back and change those hours into time spent differently he would. That is the truth--at the time he didn't feel that way but now he does.

Actually, it sounds insanely condescending. It very well may be that your husband still visits strip clubs on occasion and keeps it hidden from you out of respect for your negative views about it... he'd hardly be the first. I would hope that isn't the case, but in my experience it's quite likely. I don't say this to upset you but to make you aware of how likely it may be. Excuse me a moment while I put the "UNWHOLESOME" label you just handed to me on my forehead.

Regarding the dinner/jewelry, etc. for a date thing--that's behind the times and it was never a good analogy...

Are you serious? Can I ask what planet you've been living on? If anything, these days both men and women are far more up-front about their exploitation of one another... not such a bad thing since it eliminates a lot of the lying and deception which is the major issue.

Heck, have you been reading about how older women are dating younger men with less money lately? I'm guessing there's a lot less exploitation for gifts/money these days.

Lately? This has been going on ever since women have been able to be in a position to offer more then a vagina and bare feet. There's no less exploitation... the tables are just turning to a more even keel. Good on those older women that can captivate the buff younger guys that can go all night long by whatever means works for those involved. Nice that women don't have to feel washed up at 30, huh?

I don't think it's easy for a sex worker to be a mother or a wife and I think that is sad. I wonder if some sex workers look back and wish they had had the chance to have a normal life with a husband and kids and grandkids in their old age. I wouldn't trade my son for any amount of money or attention from adoring customers...

What is abnormal about being a sex worker? It's just a job! Why can't sex workers be good wives and mothers? At least half of the women I work with are both wives and mothers and have healthy well-adjusted children. One woman I work with has 5 daughters with a grandchild due in about a week. Without the sex industry, she would not have been able to afford to have those children or dump the SOB she had the bad judgment to marry in the first place. Working as a dancer, she has been able to not only provide for their needs but for special things like piano and horseback riding lessons that they would not have been able to benefit from had she worked in some other type of job as she would never have been able to afford it. But more importantly, because it isn't necessary for her to work more then a few days a week for about 5 hours a day to make very good money in this business, the best thing that this industry has provided her is far more quality time with her kids then any other job she would have been qualified to do could have provided. Seeing as how the two biggest issues that cause a relationship to fail are money and sex, how is it that dancers can't be good wives? Married folks with one or both partner working in the sex industry certainly don't have any problems with either money or sex. Why are you alleging that sex workers don't face the same issues and fears as "normal" people? HELLOOOOOO... we ARE normal people!

There's nothing about the sex industry that has anything to do with Arnie's disgusting behavior or why it's being brushed off as petty. It is society's attitude doing that, and people like you who aren't even aware of the condescending attitude you have toward the sex industry and it's workers is not helping. What it actually does is contribute to the problem by labeling me as "UNWHOLESOME", unfit for marriage or motherhood and devoid of the same types of anxieties and hopes that any other person would have as though I were some kind of non-woman, non-human second class citizen... my, how objectifying.

A-holes like Arnie are getting away with their actions because they are being allowed to... specifically allowed to by the victims. If the first woman he ever molested had gotten in his face and read him the riot act for what he did, he would have thought twice about doing it again. THAT is the primary reason that men who are inclined to act this way continue to do it... they are being taught by their victims that they can get away with it, and society is not stepping in to do anything about it. Of the women that have come forward at this point to finally make public what he did to them, only a few are not anonymous. That sends a strong message to women that if such a thing happens to them, they have a need to and should hide from the issue, which is exactly the wrong thing when it comes to attempting to make society treat these issues with the importance they demand.

I have seen the sex industry from the perspective of the customers and families that are affected. Strippers don't ask customers about their lives and assess the impact of what is happening to the man who is watching them. Let me try to illustrate with an analogy.

I haven't been in a strip club but I have been in casinos. When I'm inside it looks like great fun and there isn't a hint of personal or social damage from the activities. (Well, except maybe for some small children I have seen who were forced to sit by the restrooms while their parents gambled.) From the perspective of, say, a blackjack dealer, the customers are thrilled to be there, it's harmless, and there's no thought given to a family member who might be hurt by the gambling.

From another perspective, one might see a desperate wife whose retirement has been spent or a child who misses his parent night after night or a customer who might later embezzle funds from his or her company to cover gambling losses. Or perhaps the customer could have been enjoying some hobby and had some satisfying fun but instead goes home feeling crummy at the end of the night because the gambling didn't fulfill their fantasy--just a minor thing.

There is almost no hint of the other perspective when one is in a casino, but that doesn't change the reality of what happens outside the casino.

You said ""I would prefer that the men (or women) who patronize strip clubs and are deceiving their partners that they visit these clubs is unwise. However, that's between them and their partners and I don't butt my nose into other peoples' business uninvited." This is where we disagree profoundly. I have had hundreds of opportunities to become involved with men in marriages or relationships and I have never done so because I feel it is immoral. I feel that when Monica and Bill got involved that BOTH of them were wrong to do so because he was married. That is an issue of morality that arises inside and outside of strip clubs and I don't think cheating and deception or enabling cheating and deception are right anywhere at any time.

Regarding wholesomeness--I've got proof on that one. I've raised a son according to my strict interpretation of that word and he is a great kid even though we quite candidly had to endure a lot of ridicule and criticism and he and I fought a lot about it. For many years his friends thought I was insane because I didn't want him to watch R-rated movies until he was 17, etc.; but the most important part of "wholesome" was doing good stuff like soccer, skiing, camping, surfing, volunteering, working on bicycles, etc. I can only say that now I have an awesome young man to show for it and NO ONE criticizes or ridicules me now. He is an honor student, he was the top employee at his new job on his first day, he does not do drugs or alcohol, and he is a kind and honest person who does not see women as objects, plus he is a lot of fun and a liberal. I could go on but you probably would think I was bragging. Now that my son is almost grown he understands everything and really appreciates how I brought him up, even though he hated it much of the time when it was happening.

No, my husband doesn't sneak off to strip clubs. If he wanted attention and sex from lots of women he could get it for free because he is a musician, among other things.

I do make a moral judgement about sex workers just as I made a moral judgement about my best friend who gave my husband a sort of "lap dance" with her feet one time under the table before we were married. It hurt me a lot when he told me what she did and now she is no longer my friend. You might think that I am a condescending, puritanical, self-righteous prude for that but I make no apologies. I judged that she was wrong and that's that. And, by the way, she is a beautiful, wealthy woman who is a lot more capable than I am but he finds me more attractive from some reason that is a mystery even to him.

For an artistic illustration of the relationship between fascism and objectification, I recommend the play/movie "Cabaret" or the book/movie "Handmaid's Tale."

I have seen the sex industry from the perspective of the customers and families that are affected. Strippers don't ask customers about their lives and assess the impact of what is happening to the man who is watching them.

And how many strip club customers have you analyzed in your entire lifetime? I met a few Democrats once. They were obnoxious jerks, therefore the Democratic party must be full of obnoxious jerks and should be done away with... you don't see the absurdity of this? And the families that are "affected"... I already made that point, which apparently you choose to ignore. According to your reasoning, there is no such thing as personal responsibility. Alcoholism certainly affects families but I don't see you blaming the alcoholic beverage industry for this... why is that?

I haven't been in a strip club but I have been in casinos.

BINGO! WE GOT A WINNAAAA! You've never even been in a strip club in your life but have formed a strong stance against them anyway based purely on ignorance, and when an informed person such as myself attempts to give you a realistic understanding of the business, you still have your fingers firmly planted in your ears.

As for the casino rant... I don't see you forming a negative view toward it as you have the sex industry. How surprising that the casinos weren't added to your list of unwholesomeness... why not?

You said "I would prefer that the men (or women) who patronize strip clubs and are deceiving their partners that they visit these clubs is unwise. However, that's between them and their partners and I don't butt my nose into other peoples' business uninvited." This is where we disagree profoundly. I have had hundreds of opportunities to become involved with men in marriages or relationships and I have never done so because I feel it is immoral... and I don't think cheating and deception or enabling cheating and deception are right anywhere at any time.

What in the world do strip clubs have to do with relationships? Do you really think I have relationships with my customers as anything other then customers? What I do is about MONEY... PERIOD. Payment for services rendered. If a patron isn't forking over the Benjamin's, I have no interest in them whatsoever... NONE. Once again - it is a JOB. I would be far more worried if my SO were going to regular clubs where the women are flirting with and/or picking up men for some reason OTHER THAN money, and you and I both know that those other reasons are far more dangerous to a relationship then cash. Several times a shift I'm asked for a date, my phone number, what am I doing after work, etc. and the standard reply is that I don't mix business with pleasure. There is a very strong reason why strippers don't form relationships with customers and that is because once you do, that's the end of the money. Sure, there are still those naive girls that need to learn that, but they always do, and they sometimes learn it the hard way. In all actuality, strippers are SAFER as far as the home-wrecking theory goes because we want money, not relationships. This is the single biggest "dressing room rant" that there is... bitching and moaning about the slobs that don't get it that it's about the money.

As for cheating and deception... show me any business or social situation where customers/people aren't doing some of that. No business or worker is responsible for what their customers do personally... once again - PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I don't suppose you blame the auto manufacturing business for the fact that many of their customers are irresponsible drivers, and I know you don't because I know you understand the concept of personal responsibility, but for some reason you lay blame on one business for the same failings that any other has. Face it, where the sex industry is concerned you're actively fooling yourself.

Regarding wholesomeness--I've got proof on that one. I've raised a son according to my strict interpretation of that word and he is a great kid even though we quite candidly had to endure a lot of ridicule and criticism and he and I fought a lot about it. For many years his friends thought I was insane because I didn't want him to watch R-rated movies until he was 17, etc.; but the most important part of "wholesome" was doing good stuff like soccer, skiing, camping, surfing, volunteering, working on bicycles, etc....

It's wonderful that you've raised such a well-behaved, bright and talented son, and you have every right to be proud of that. If you didn't brag about him, I'd wonder why not... you should. However, there's no kid alive that doesn't keep some things from their parents that they know their parents would disapprove of, and this is a good thing because it clearly shows that they respect their parents' feelings. It's those kids that tell all and don't care that they upset their folks that one should worry about.

As for that list of accomplishments, what does this have to do with strip clubs? I've yet to meet any customer that has no hobbies, interests or accomplishments. Here again, you give the impression that you believe that strip club customers are some abnormal type of human species... perhaps a walking penis wearing a trench coat? Who in the world do you think is going to these clubs? I've sat on the laps of more doctors, lawyers, bankers, politicians, celebrities, judges, police officers... paper pushers, and laborers from every walk of life. Today I was fortunate enough to spend time with a renowned archeologist as that's a particular field I have a fascination of. The ONLY difference in the clientele of a strip club and any regular club or bar is the preponderance of men. The God's honest truth is that strip club patrons are far more respectful toward women then those that never go, and I normally steer clear of regular bars and clubs for that reason alone. Any stripper can spot a first time strip club goer a mile away for the single biggest reason that those are the ones that sometimes have behavioral problems... but they learn very quickly from the dancers, security AND the customers that we are treated with respect or they will have to leave. Many times it's other customers that come to the rescue when some newbie schmuck needs to be taught proper etiquette before security has a chance to deal with it. Several times I've witnessed other customers physically remove an obnoxious cad themselves just because they were closer to a situation when it developed then security was as customers generally can't abide any disrespect toward the dancers.

Interesting note: I only refer to strippers but that title as it's a comfortable word for those that disapprove of them and/or don't go to strip clubs like yourself. Customers and other workers as well as ourselves always refer to us as dancers or ladies... how's that for your objectification theory?

No, my husband doesn't sneak off to strip clubs. If he wanted attention and sex from lots of women he could get it for free because he is a musician, among other things.

For your sake, I would hope he doesn't, but you already know my experience about that. I almost never meet a male customer that doesn't bring his SO who has that SO's permission. For that reason, most clubs forbid the dancers from using body glitter or strong perfume so that customers need not worry about bringing home "evidence." I'm amazed that you would have a problem with your husband going to a strip club and don't have a problem with his playing in regular clubs... the groupies and girls out looking for a new man are far more worrisome (if that's the kind of musician your husband is). My SO is also a musician, and I'd be far more worried about him dealing with that then the dancers at a strip club. I understand that it's part of his job to be gracious, flirtatious and act the role no matter how much he'd like to escape from that... just as that's part of my job. I know the girls that go up to him when he plays at a venue are looking for personal attention for purely personal reasons whereas the dancers in the strip clubs are doing it only for cash.

I do make a moral judgement about sex workers just as I made a moral judgement about my best friend who gave my husband a sort of "lap dance" with her feet one time under the table before we were married.

The two have no relation to one another. Your views on sex workers comes from ignorance of the industry and it's value.

It hurt me a lot when he told me what she did and now she is no longer my friend.

I hope you whacked the B*TCH over the head before bulldozing her on out of your life.

You might think that I am a condescending, puritanical, self-righteous prude for that but I make no apologies. I judged that she was wrong and that's that.

Yes, you have been condescending and you still are. What you still haven't noticed is that your condescending attitude toward sex works IS OBJECTIFICATION... quite interesting since your purpose of starting this thread was to condemn that. I could care less whether you're a puritanical prude or a flaming hussy as that's your own personal choice... I wouldn't care if you were the strictest of nuns as everyone has the right to choose their own feeling for THEMSELVES. Pushing your own personal ideals onto other people is extremely undemocratic (not that you've noticed). I wouldn't go so far as to assume you were self-righteous... just ignorant with blinders firmly in place.

What your ex-friend did WAS wrong, yet once again, it has NOTHING to do with the sex industry. She knew it would upset you, which is why she did it out of your view, and her reasons behind it were obviously motivated. A stripper doing the same thing is motivated by CASH... not personal interest.

And, by the way, she is a beautiful, wealthy woman who is a lot more capable than I am but he finds me more attractive from some reason that is a mystery even to him.

I suspect he doesn't find her attractive because he disapproves of the her behavior and especially the motivation behind it, which is particularly unappealing because she knew it would upset you and this person was supposed to be your friend... that's a big turn-off.

For an artistic illustration of the relationship between fascism and objectification, I recommend the play/movie "Cabaret" or the book/movie "Handmaid's Tale."

Seen both the play and the movie of "Cabaret" many times. Not like it taught me anything as I'm a longstanding member of the PA Cabaret Association... interesting tale but little to do with real life like most STORIES. If you're trying to compare "Handmaid's Tale" to sex work you've still missed the whole point of this discussion, and I've wasted enough time.

For a realistic look at sex work, might I suggest the forums at www.stripperweb.com... dancers, club owners, DJ's, bouncers and lots of customers telling it like it is. Interesting how you can easily tell which women work in nice clubs and which work in dives.

By repukes and so-called "christian" "conservatives" condoning and even supporting the gropenator, they can never use the "monica" card again.

Never.

That's the ONLY good thing to come out of the Cali recall.

Notice how tonite dem debates the candidates started actually embracing Clinton and his RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTS?! They couldn't get in enough good plugs about how better PRESIDENT Clinton was the the current pResident.

Dems are free at last! We can run on our exceptionally good record.

The bushbots are all deathly afraid of this.

Don't criticize bunkerboy! Don't criticize bunkerboy! Don't criticize bunkerboy!

That's their new rallying cry - and if dems fall for it, we might as well give up and go home now.

And I'm not going to hold my breath, but I hope you are right!

Remember, this is the party of Pat Robertson, who is suggested that people nuke the State Department. :eyes: