|
the white hand posted:Now, what is your idea of a "decent area" and what about those areas makes women less likely to be exploited there? If you're looking to deconstruct me, it's probably classist and based on income.
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Wasting posted:I've really tried to be respectful of everyone's opinion on the matter Bullshit. Wasting posted:I've only been to a few strip clubs in my life, but they are in generally decent areas, and perhaps I've been complicit in the victimization of women, but in major urban centres with high covers, it seems unlikely. the white hand posted:What does "decent" mean to you and why would those characteristics shield women from exploitation? You won't answer this, and you won't because it requires thinking properly, instead you deflect by whining about how mean these questions are. Hardly respectful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Bullshit. ^
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:26
|
|
|
Wasting posted:If you're looking to deconstruct me, it's probably classist and based on income. Oh perhaps you will attempt. How are rich people less exploitative?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:27
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Oh perhaps you will attempt. I never said they were. It was an admission, not an excuse
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Wasting posted:Makeup and women's fashion, at least popularly, exists to please men. I see no less need in discouraging toxic masculine behavior than discouraging female performance, regardless of the sex in question. Frankly? This doesn't matter in the slightest to what I said, because anyone going through this sort of thought process a) isn't leaving this stuff out for their kids, presumably and b) is not going to rage out over it. If you think that getting angry with a child for playing with something colorful, especially if you think they are doing it to emulate someone else, you can get fuuuuucked. Also what does this sex worker talk have to do with the subject of this thread? I have a great many opinions on this issue, an issue in which there is much to discuss and seems to be more a question of "how much of a woman's autonomy are we willing to sacrifice in order to prevent a woman's exploitation" or maybe "is providing support to an industry without adequate ethical safeguards itself unethical, especially if withdrawing support also robs a group of people of opportunity?" but when I stop and think of it in terms of "the impacts on men by the patriarchy" I'm drawing a blank. Isn't this exactly the sort of discussion that the normal feminism thread should be about rather than this one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Wasting posted:If you're looking to deconstruct me, it's probably classist and based on income. All right, thank you. I have no interest in deconstructing you, I just want to know what you think. If an area has higher average incomes or social class, how does that protect the women who do sex work there from exploitation? It doesn't seem to protect other workers from it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Wasting posted:It's impossible for me -- or you, for that matter -- to ensure that any person, whatever business they are engaged in, isn't being exploited in that business relationship. Admittedly, this is an industry where it is more common. Also the exploitation is literal sex slavery. Which sets it somewhat apart from many other industries. Perhaps it does not merit a great defence?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
Wasting posted:I never said they were. It was an admission, not an excuse Again you're deflecting, you specifically said that you considered it unlikely exploitation occurred in richer areas. You have yet to posit why.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Frankly? This doesn't matter in the slightest to what I said, because anyone going through this sort of thought process a) isn't leaving this stuff out for their kids, presumably and b) is not going to rage out over it. The sex worker talk came about from a poster talking about feeling sad in strip clubs, as a man
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:30
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Again you're deflecting, you specifically said that you considered it unlikely exploitation occurred in richer areas. You have yet to posit why. It was an unexamined belief. I'm not a robot. You're right
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also what does this sex worker talk have to do with the subject of this thread? I have a great many opinions on this issue, an issue in which there is much to discuss and seems to be more a question of "how much of a woman's autonomy are we willing to sacrifice in order to prevent a woman's exploitation" or maybe "is providing support to an industry without adequate ethical safeguards itself unethical, especially if withdrawing support also robs a group of people of opportunity?" but when I stop and think of it in terms of "the impacts on men by the patriarchy" I'm drawing a blank. Isn't this exactly the sort of discussion that the normal feminism thread should be about rather than this one? Hmm, this is a good point. Affects a man's ability to get aroused on demand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
Wasting posted:The sex worker talk came about from a poster talking about feeling sad in strip clubs, as a man And then it very quickly became about not-that. Maybe people should try to bring it back around - if you want to talk about the fact that men are often pressured into attending strip clubs, that might be relevant. This discussion? Seems less so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:And then it very quickly became about not-that. Maybe people should try to bring it back around - if you want to talk about the fact that men are often pressured into attending strip clubs, that might be relevant. This discussion? Seems less so. Honestly, I would welcome that. And also Factsareusless to respond to my original post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Also what does this sex worker talk have to do with the subject of this thread? I have a great many opinions on this issue, an issue in which there is much to discuss and seems to be more a question of "how much of a woman's autonomy are we willing to sacrifice in order to prevent a woman's exploitation" or maybe "is providing support to an industry without adequate ethical safeguards itself unethical, especially if withdrawing support also robs a group of people of opportunity?" but when I stop and think of it in terms of "the impacts on men by the patriarchy" I'm drawing a blank. Isn't this exactly the sort of discussion that the normal feminism thread should be about rather than this one? Are you really asking what men participating in empty, exploitative transactions as a substitute for equal, respectful relationships has to do with the effects of patriarchy on men?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:32
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Are you really asking what men participating in empty, exploitative transactions as a substitute for equal, respectful relationships has to do with the effects of patriarchy on men? Are you really this committed to being disingenuous?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
There's certainly a "what can men do" aspect to the subject. Which, again, I would say could probably always include "don't go to strip clubs"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Wasting posted:It's impossible for me -- or you, for that matter -- to ensure that any person, whatever business they are engaged in, isn't being exploited in that business relationship. Admittedly, this is an industry where it is more common. We could take steps to minimize the chances for them to be exploited, though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:35
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Tell us more about your slavery heuristic. What percentage of slaves is it acceptable for a man to use, and how would you advise him to avoid going over that number? Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, I agree completely. And Powell's books has a good online selection and doesn't torture it's warehouse workers as far as I've heard
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
twodot, men are having a hard enough time getting caught up here. If we try to get the robots caught up too we'll never get anywhere.GlyphGryph posted:Are you really this committed to being disingenuous? Disingenuous? I could have just phrased it as a statement, but it seems very relevant to me. Men are participating in systemic exploitation of women (often girls because johns are not too particular--or are particular), endangering their spouses with STDs and destroying their own relationships by participating in sex trafficking. How is that not an effect of patriarchy that causes damage to their well-being?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:38
|
|
|
Perhaps tomatoes and capacitors are harder to avoid than strip clubs. I know I am literally in a strip clup 24/7.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:39
|
|
|
I think we did get a bit off track there, though the pressure from other guys to take part in the ol' patriarchal objectivation is definitely an issue which has a lot to bite into. Wasting posted:And also Factsareusless to respond to my original post. for anyone in the dark about this guy's insistence, please have a fun time reading a) this guy's first post in the thread overall b) his rap sheet c) his second post in the thread. This is why I was snarky with you earlier and had some doubts about your posting in good faith, though thinking it through I can accept the possibility that your beef is just with one individual than the thread as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:41
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Disingenuous? I could have just phrased it as a statement, but it seems very relevant to me. Men are participating in systemic exploitation of women (often girls because johns are not too particular--or are particular), endangering their spouses with STDs and destroying their own relationships by participating in sex trafficking. How is that not an effect of patriarchy that causes damage to their well-being? Yes, disingenuous, because whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to the fact that you weren't talking about it and don't give a poo poo, and being smugly condescending while you pretend to be a moron seems more likely to convince people that you actually are than... whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
Am I missing something here? e: if it helps for context, I regularly coordinate with our county's CSEC task force and spend a lot of time working with survivors of trafficking
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:43
|
|
|
Burlesque is a good alternative to strip clubs. At least where I am, it's pretty arty, and the burlesque performers I personally know are also the most committed feminists I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:We could take steps to minimize the chances for them to be exploited, though. I agree. We're off on tangents and witch hunts though. This is a discussion about the impacts on men. How does the exploitation of women affect men? Prominently, the women in your life could be exploited in a similar manner. That said, if a relative or loved one was pursuing a career in exotic dance or sex work, how would you feel? I, personally, believe that a lot of the ideas expressed in this thread are rooted in a more fundamental sexism masquerading as concern over the exploitation of women. That we need to protect them from themselves and their own sexuality.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Angepain posted:I think we did get a bit off track there, though the pressure from other guys to take part in the ol' patriarchal objectivation is definitely an issue which has a lot to bite into. It's entirely legitimate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:46
|
|
|
Wasting posted:I agree. We're off on tangents and witch hunts though. There was no witch hunt, you loon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:47
|
|
|
the white hand posted:Am I missing something here? "We could talk about this issue in a certain way" is irrelevant to a criticism of "You are not talking about this issue in a certain way". Come on, this really isn't that complicated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Wasting posted:That we need to protect them from themselves and their own sexuality. Yes, you've caught us, this was all along a secret Catholic trap to try and fool SA D&D posters into putting all women into chastity belts. There's literally no other angle we could be approaching this subject from and you've pulled the cover from our trick.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:There was no witch hunt, you loon. Okay. I'm a loon, but I'm here and I want to talk to you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:"We could talk about this issue in a certain way" is irrelevant to a criticism of "You are not talking about this issue in a certain way". What I am saying is, I don't know how you could have construed what I said as disingenuous. Sure I phrased it a little sarcastically, but that's because there is a pretty obvious connection between men participating in sex trafficking and they, themselves, experiencing negative effects. That's why I am baffled that posters are treating this discussion as irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
At least in terms of the thread topic, treating women and women's bodies as accessories seems far more pervasive and toxic than the exchange of sex for money. We still treat the pursuit of women as similar to the pursuit of wealth. Its a common trope in media that a character's wealth is reflected as much in their access to beautiful women as it is in nice cars or conspicuous consumption, with it being extra egregious in rags to riches stories. I don't know how deleterious an effect it has on any given man (or woman) but I would be curious to see a culture where increased wealth is conceived of as enabling, say, greater family stability or a greater capacity to provide for loved ones, and not with a greater capacity to consume goods and people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Burlesque is a good alternative to strip clubs. At least where I am, it's pretty arty, and the burlesque performers I personally know are also the most committed feminists I know. This was my experience with it too. Most of the performers seem to use it as an excuse to do their own tailoring so it's sort of a really neat fashion show/dance/sex show combination. Some of the bigger ones also include other variety acts as well as I understand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yes, you've caught us, this was all along a secret Catholic trap to try and fool SA D&D posters into putting all women into chastity belts. There's literally no other angle we could be approaching this subject from and you've pulled the cover from our trick. At the extreme, yes, it's ridiculous. But can't you admit, just for a second, that a lot of our society's taboo over sex work and strip clubs is less a concern about exploitation and more an attempt to control women? I mean, that's pretty basic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
Wasting posted:At the extreme, yes, it's ridiculous. But can't you admit, just for a second, that a lot of our society's taboo over sex work and strip clubs is less a concern about exploitation and more an attempt to control women? I mean, that's pretty basic. Facile. Opposition to exploitation in an industry is not the same as opposition to the industry itself, and only someone utterly disingenuous would conflate the two.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
Wasting posted:At the extreme, yes, it's ridiculous. But can't you admit, just for a second, that a lot of our society's taboo over sex work and strip clubs is less a concern about exploitation and more an attempt to control women? I mean, that's pretty basic. There's a line between acknowledging this basic statement and accusing others discussing it in this thread of having the same motivations, and you've gone over that line without providing any evidence whatsoever other than your own inklings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Yes, disingenuous, because whether it is or isn't is irrelevant to the fact that you weren't talking about it and don't give a poo poo, and being smugly condescending while you pretend to be a moron seems more likely to convince people that you actually are than... whatever it is you're trying to accomplish here. The last thread was derailed by second guessing people's motivations and assuming everyone was a lovely troll. Can we give people more a benefit of the doubt this time around?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
Wasting posted:At the extreme, yes, it's ridiculous. But can't you admit, just for a second, that a lot of our society's taboo over sex work and strip clubs is less a concern about exploitation and more an attempt to control women? I mean, that's pretty basic. That people do a thing for bad reasons does not mean you should immediately not do it for even worse reasons. The response to "sexual taboos are disproportionately repressive towards women" should not be "so I am going to facilitate the sexual exploitation of women because that is vital to being sex positive"
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 00:36 |
|
|
Where did I accuse any of you of being on the latter? It's a real issue. Also, Tesseraction or whatever, since you have taken a particular interest in arguing with me, how do I separate the two? How do I oppose the exploitation in the industry while not condemning the industry itself? Refusing to partake? This is where the original opposition to me appeared: admitting that I've visited strip clubs. Is it possible to do that while opposing exploitation? I want to ask you guys what you're hoping to accomplish here. I'm a regular dude, not particularly educated in gender issues but familiar. The opposition is almost absurd. It's all "explain yourself" and no explanation. If you want to educate me, educate me. I'm really trying, as sad as that may be. Wasting fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Jan 2, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2017 02:56
|
|