"But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between rabid antiporn Dworkinizing and Girls Gone Wild vapidity."

There's a world of middle ground between Fiji and the United States, but it would be criminally negligent not to acknowledge that one is a tiny island with no real power on the international scene and the other is the most wealthy, militarized, corporatized, culturally hegemonic influence in the world.

This is a really good blog, and I tell people that while qualifying it with how wrong I think you are about legitimized prostitution ever working in women's favor. But this flagship feminist blog doesn't link to the oldest feminist newsjournal in the country, off our backs, a publication critical of porn and prostitution, while it does host several dozen pro-sex industry websites. There may indeed be a large middle ground between Bust and off our backs, but positing them as two equally opposing poles denies that one is a household name to young feminists while the other barely registers on young feminist radars.

Girls Gone Wild vapidity currently *is* the vast middle ground of the status quo for young women. A more accurate statement juxtaposing two opposite sides of the debate might more accurately read, "But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between being antiporn feminists and being pornographer feminists."

U know it almost seems to me that their is alot of prudery hiding under the umbrella of feminism.

The fact is some of these feminists, in my opinion are prudes, and they dress up their prudery and dislike of "new" or "experimental" or "crazy" in feminist drag.

Then you have the younger feminists, socalled sex positive, who are always lefts scratching their heads as to "how" or "why" feminism says shaving the beaver makes one an anti feminist or something similar. It seems like the self proclamed feminists i know under 25 do enjoy hair removal. who cares? Is it a fad or here to stay, we do not know. But who is to judge what someone finds sexy to do with their own body?

Well, the answer in my opinion is the above. some people, are positionally (not refering to politics) conservative. Prudish feminists exist too, lets realize that. If their is any sexy power games going on, alarm bells go off in their heads, they can't grasp how such games are fun. Well, that is their experience, how they choose to "do" things. I just wish they would stop heaping judgementalism on everyone else who is having a good time.

yeesh, the server posted my comment on "debbie not doing dallas" three times - it just gave me an error message when i posted once - sorry!

one quick thought - it kinda drives me nuts when people like Jesella trot out Madonna of an example of using sex as power. she didn't - she used sex to get money, and the money gave her power. she was a really, really shrewd businesswoman, and controlled her own image and empire ruthlessly. she KNEW she was selling an image, though, so she hid the businesswoman part and played up the gender-bending, leather-clad babe. but without the material control, there's no true power there.

i mean, just look at her heir, britney spears. britney is what you get when you take madonna's sexuality and empty it of all individual agency.

You should really check out Susie Bright's post on Female Chauvanist Pigs. Bright calls Levy "'a sex-positive feminist' if one must use that term." Bright passes the prudery question on to Levy and Levy answers. You might be surprised to hear what both Levy and Bright have to say.

"But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between rabid antiporn Dworkinizing and Girls Gone Wild vapidity."

I know many women and men who pay no attention to porn at all. They aren't in the middle ground. They just have more interesting things to do, I suppose.

Anyone who enjoys pornography of any stripe, or strip clubs of any establishment, is feedingthis kind of market. There's simply no way around it - as long as there's hunger for a sex trade, there will be people filling it.

Statistically speaking, your strip club fantasies either get beaten by the pimps/husbands if they don't bring home enough tips for the night, or get paid in drugs rather than money. Also statistically speaking, those girls are far more likely to be 16 than 24.

But it's TOTALLY possible to want women to be empowered and liberated while enjoying the image of a woman wearing a collar, drinking out of a milk bowl, writhing, and purring to a thumping club beat while seedy men reward her humilation with dollar bills stuffed into the crotch of her g-string.

How anyone can claim to want equality and empowerment for women while saying the sexual exploitation of women is "sex-positive" is beyond me. How anyone can download internet porn while simultaenously being apalled at BBC articles about sexual slavery rings and woman traffickers makes me twitch with non-understanding. You WATCH those women. You ORGASM to those women. Then you feel all bad for them when you realize their stories? Then you GO BACK TO DO IT AGAIN?

How many women have to be sacrificed for this industry? How many women are you willing to let be raped, beaten, tortured, paid in drugs, and otherwise abused in return for you having an orgasm or titillating feeling? How many?

It took 3000 in one day for us to declare war on two other countries. Would 3000 raped women be enough for you to declare war on porn?

~1100 people over three weeks in New Orleans is called a "national tragedy". Would 1100 raped women in the process of smut creation in three weeks make pornography a "national tragedy"?

191 people in one day was enough to cause Spain to change its political policies. Would 191 raped women in one day be enough to make you try to change America's policy towards the sex industry?

52 people in one day was enough to make the UK pass laws restricting speech. If 52 women were raped in one day, would that be enough for us to justify passing laws restricting pornographic speech?

No, I suppose not. These women are never worth as much as anyone else. Even to many so-called "feminists".

Terpiskore, I'm not sure I understood this:

"Girls Gone Wild vapidity currently *is* the vast middle ground of the status quo for young women. A more accurate statement juxtaposing two opposite sides of the debate might more accurately read, 'But I know lots of women for whom there is a middle ground between being antiporn feminists and being pornographer feminists.'"

I agree with the first sentence entirely. If what you're trying to convey is that sex-positive feminists who are more positive towards the sex industry ought not to let their message be coopted into supporting an unanalyzed, commodified anti-woman sexual culture like GGW, then I agree with you.

(I also think the term "pornographer feminist" is a misnomer when applied to pro-porn feminists, and ought to be applied only to those folks who claim to be making sexually explicit work for feminist reasons -- Monika Treut, Shar Rednour, etc. I'm not clear on how you meant to use the term.)

Here's what I'm not really clear on: are you saying that GGW is on the continuum between Off Our Backs and Bust, and that the views women today are exposed to are so tilted towards Bust that GGW has become the center of gravity, and feminists ought to raise the profile of your views to create a more meaningful debate? (I don't aim to criticize that position -- I'm asking if that's what you're saying.)

Or are you saying that the debate between Bust and Off Our Backs is taking place at a level abstract to the one most young women are exposed to, and what falls down to the cultural common denominator is GGW? If that's your view, though some might deride it as elitist, I'm pretty much on board. GGW does not represent any kind of analysis or attempt to reconstruct messages about sexuality. Agree or disagree about the wisdom of the project, feminists of any stripe want to change the culture or sexuality in ways they think are for the better. GGW just aims to replicate the status quo -- commodification, inhibition, pressure, exploitation and recrimination.

Thanks for the pointer to this, and the comments pointer to Susie Bright as well.

Laurie Toby Edison and I have been talkign about this topic also on Body Impolitic.

It seems to me that the important thing is that Levy may be partially right, even importantly right, and at the same time she certainly isn't completely right. Like everything else interesting, the meaning of raunch is in the minds and hearts of the people who exhibit it, as well as in the analyses of those of us who see it.

"191 people in one day was enough to cause Spain to change its political policies. Would 191 raped women in one day be enough to make you try to change America's policy towards the sex industry?"

Prostitution is not illegal in Spain, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. http://www.femmigration.net/work/work_spain.html#working

If you want to fight against decriminalization of sex work, that's your right. But don't pretend you're doing it on our behalf, because I know plenty of strippers and sex workers who are being harmed and not helped by these efforts to "save" them. You keep painting these horrorific images of sex work that don't match the reality that I see everyday. Trust me, a stripper or hooker covered in bruises is bad for business. Most men don't want pimped girls, especially ones who've been beaten.

I don't know why you think so many men would want to have sex with women who have been beaten, drugged and psychologically manipulated into submission. If you read any of the so-called "john websites" you will see that they really don't. Men who get off on that want to do it, not pay someone else to, and they -along with the men who just don't care- are in the minority. Most guys will just let the girl keep the money, and then leave or send her away without receiving the service. Then they post about it on the "john websites" so that others can avoid her.

Being pro-porn, pro private commercial sex, pro any kind of sex between consenting adults doesn't make a person anti-feminist. Telling other women what they can and cannot do with their bodies does. We should all get to set our own sexual boundaries, and enforce compliance based on our individual limitations. Rape is a sexual act taken by force against a person's will. It isn't the particular act, but the violation, that is wrong.

"But it's TOTALLY possible to want women to be empowered and liberated while enjoying the image of a woman wearing a collar, drinking out of a milk bowl, writhing, and purring to a thumping club beat while seedy men reward her humilation with dollar bills stuffed into the crotch of her g-string."

Dim, I don't think you have been to many strip clubs. you don't have a clue. the chicks are more likely to be 16 than 24?? uh, yea right. Certainly not true in american clubs. thailand maybe, but not here. Go to a nice city club and you will find the dancers are professional. There is no inherent reason that getting paid to be sexy and flirt is degrading. That entire perspective is in my opinion dumb.

Strip clubs exist for men, not for women. That's obvious. Of course the work is inherently degrading. Who would claim that it's not? Interesting to see those who take such an odd view act like it's their prerogative to attempt to put those who state the obvious on the defensive.

Thomas, it would appear that you are the one who hasn't listened in on too many strip club conversations most of which seem to consist of men attempting to bring the price down, "TWENTY DOLLARS! For what?" or of men saying to each other, "She did WHAT!?!" "Yeah dude, she was WILD!" *rolls eyes*

Saradina, I believe you have me confused with someone else. I have never been to a strip club, and I wasn't making an empirical claim about them. Mine was the more abstract response to Terpiskore.

"If what you're trying to convey is that sex-positive feminists who are more positive towards the sex industry ought not to let their message be coopted into supporting an unanalyzed, commodified anti-woman sexual culture like GGW, then I agree with you."

Bingo

"Or are you saying that the debate between Bust and Off Our Backs is taking place at a level abstract to the one most young women are exposed to, and what falls down to the cultural common denominator is GGW?"

Yes

"are you saying that GGW is on the continuum between Off Our Backs and Bust"

Not really, but it's somewhat related. I think what we're calling the GGW demographic are the majority of young Western women while this is a discussion happening in feminist circles. That's why I felt the article's comparison of antipornography feminists to GGW women wasn't as appropriate as antiporn feminists and pro-porn feminists.

GGWers are influenced by the popular pro-porn feminist press despite not considering themselves feminists because this is the only perspective that gets reprinted in mainstream media. To most of them who know or care little about feminism, Bust is radical feminism.

But the same pro-porn feminist voices, like Ms. Jesella's and Susie Bright's, popularized in the most popular feminist press gets reprinted in non-feminist popular press, like Alternet and the Village Voice, while truly radical feminism, a sizable group of feminists, suffers from lack of mainstream media boosting as well as distorted evaluations (condemnations, really) from most "fuck me feminists" whose writing sees the light of not-feminist-circles day.

Statements like, "I don't know why you think so many men would want to have sex with women who have been beaten, drugged and psychologically manipulated into submission" make me not mind being accused of saying some people identify with their oppressors to the point of what's derided as false consciousness. If you don't know why people think men desire sex with beaten, drugged and psychologically manipulated women, it's not because of true consciousness.

Terpiskore, I agree with a lot of what you say. In terms of the discussion as among feminists, I think moving towards a positive and unencumbered sexuality is the direction everyone ought to want to go -- but the mainstream media co-opts those voices and strips the context until all that's left is "feminists have put their seal of aproval of images of naked women." Lavender-washing, if you will.

Of course, I think the answer to that is not to tell women like Suzie Bright and Tristan Taormino to shut up. I think the answer is to get them to be more critical when their message is misused.

Much of this, of course, depends on creative people having a significant voice in the way their work is used. But there's a co-option factor there, too. It's hard for pro-porn feminists to stick to principal when the assholes from the San Fernando valley are offering wads of cash.

I'm not suggesting that feminist expressions of sexuality have to remain totally marginalized, but if they are dumbed down and taken out of context until they convey no more than GGW, they're not doing any good.

To me, there are two issues at heart:

1) Legitimizing sex industry or not. This is a policy issue. I would say, legitimize. Theoretically, then we have more control over it. However, that does not get rid of black market for kinkier stuff, so we defnintely don't solve the problem of underage prostitution and slave rings.

2) Whether sex work is degrading for women. This is a personal attitude issue. I feel that right now it is degrading. Women who are in sex trade are not considered sexy. They are considered cheap and I'm saddened that they become strippers or prostitutes. It'd make me feel better if I knew that it was always their choice and they were compensated for their work. However, I feel that often it is not. So whenever faced with a woman like that, I can't stop thinking that she may be one of the unfortunate ones. That is why I would not enjoy myself at a strip club, even though I don't disagree with their existence.

Does that make me an "old school" feminist? A "new age" feminist? Not a feminist at all? I don't know.

Terpiskore~ There may be men who are willing to take advantage of drunk, drugged and/or manipulated women, sexually, but they still aren't the majority of men, and they're certainly in the minority amongst men who pay for it. Maybe that isn't the case at the street level, but the guys who dish out hundreds of dollars to sleep with a woman aren't interested in taking advantage of someone like that.

Here are a few quotes for you, straight from the source:

"She looked so sad. Her attitude was so bad I could not hold an erection. I could get no sex for free anywhere don't need to pay $ to leave without ever getting started. I could not even hold an erection to put on a condom."

"I ask whats wrong and she won't say anything. Thats when I removed the cover, got dressed and left. She probably said a total of 3 words while I was in the room. Never had any indication that she wanted to be there. She is a very sad looking young lady. It's too bad. She is too young and I'm glad I left before I did anything to her. I hope she gets out before its too late."

Before you say anything about those men sounding more concerned about their own sexual needs than those of the girl, when was the last time you paid hundreds of dollars for something you never got, and didn't feel the least bit annoyed with iut?

Clearly your experience as a prostitute was worse than mine. I'm not denying that some women feel/felt the way that you do. But I can attest to that not always being the case.