Oh Christ on a (Sparkle) Pony....
LOOK, I am responsible for world wide abuse and oppression and everything...again!
Or something.
Humm, industrial vagina! Great name for a nu-metal band...or, me with the cyborg fetish and all...humm. And why yes Heart, the stand up thing to do is to name me, without linking for context. Very stand up indeed. Ah, and yes, thank you for-ahem-not encouraging flaming. I am, after all, now afraid of fire.
I am so pleased to know you are a regular reader thou...brings a smile to my lips and an arch to my plucked oppressor brow.
And, when things are cynical...makes me laugh my fucking ass off.
and why yes, I did leave a comment. This is it:
sigh. context, Heart, context. I, when making content of MY OWN creation, do not get paid. I do it for free because I am making it. Sometimes I have OTHER people to pay in those cases, and why would I pay myself to be in something I am making? When I am in something someone else is making, I get paid.
Lest you forget, I am not just a woman who "agrees to be prostituted in (gonzo) porn", I am one of those evil souless pornographers as well.
Context is important after all.
However, I might do it for free for other people, because, why yes, while I do like the money, I just like doing it to do it anyway.
Sigh, you can't win with these fucking people, because, they are not rational. I mean, for real. If people would do it for free...more of them and stuff, for real...don't you think that might, maybe, be more appealing to the Capitalist Porn Overlords than having to pay someone anything at all?
Real brain burner there, isn't it?
Friday, November 14, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
It's amazing how much of her online life (and probably RL too) revolves around you. I'm starting to suspect she has a shrine set up to you in her house.
>>>That really raises the bar for struggling poor women who turn to prostitution/porn for survival! “Oh, forget you, we’ve got women who will do it for FREE.”<<
Shouldn't Heart be thanking you? After all, you are saving those *poor women* from trauma of being viciously raped.
Ok, so aside from the restatement of the old "get the milk for free" trope, my mind is still boggling over this part of the OP:
... "Prostitution and marriage have always been related," says Jeffreys. "What is shocking is that today marriage is becoming more fashionable amongst some young women".
So, um, since marriage is becoming fashionable amongst some young women, prostitution is, too. (I guess, because of the whole entitlement thing at the basis of heterosexual relationships.) And since people like Ren are doing some scenes for free, these young women, who are getting married and thus becoming inclined toward prostitution or becoming de facto prostitutes, are not going to be making as much as they should. (I guess, because of the whole milk thing.) So people like Ren are increasing the wage gap between spouses and, thus, reinforcing the Patriarchy, along with driving down wages in the prostitution sector.
Much like women who decide to get married.
Because doing porn for free is doing prostitution for free is being a wife for free is reinforcing the entitlement mentality inevitably involved in heterosexual pairings.
Or something like that?
Maybe the dots just aren't supposed to be connected.
("It's a headless blunder operating under the illusion of a master plan," indeed.)
aspasia; well, I am the god emperor of rome...shrines are part of the gig!
beste: you'd think so, but....NO
infra; well, apparently, if you are not a clear eyed lesbian, you're doing it WRONG.
I find it incredibly problematic that women with little to no exposure to the sex industry are using dodgy stats on "average income" to make their points about the sex industry.
I know, you know, and most women who have even dipped a toe in the industry know that not everyone does this full time. There are a hell of a lot of women (often mothers, sometimes women on pensions, sometimes women supplementing other jobs) who deliberately see very few clients. There are women who are on their way out of the industry and still seeing their old regulars only. There are women who will do a week or two in a brothel every now and then to help make ends meet. There are women who work one day a week only, or one week a month, or sometimes one month a year, when the kids aren't around or when they have their yearly break from their other job. There are women who work for non-cash payment: yes, sometimes it's drugs, sometimes it's trade. And, of course, there are masses and masses of women who only sex work when they need the extra dosh.
That's even putting ASIDE the fact that, while fifteen thousand pounds sounds like shit all, it's $AU33,000. It's not huge, but there's plenty of people living on that who show up to work everyday in their neat casual or corporate gear!
To anyone with even the slightest awareness of how sex work actually WORKS, this is basic common knowledge. But somehow it's missed in Sheila Fucking Jeffreys' analysis, because she doesn't have a fucking clue what she's talking about.
Yeah. In case it's not clear, I have a whole SWAG of issues with that woman, her techniques, and her agenda.
Hexy:
EXACTLY!
You know, the best thing you guys can do is to ignore her. She is not worth your blood pressure.
I checked out her blog for a whole 2.5secs and I still want to kill her.
She just as bad as I remember her from the Msboards 1o years ago..She has not changed one bit.
Why even bother even bother checking out her blog??
beste- because it honestly amuses me to do so?
>I'm starting to suspect she has a shrine set up to you in her house.
Maybe. Got her address? I'd like to see if I can sell her silver crosses to kee the Devil-Empress restrained.
It makes my brain hurt.
So men should never be allowed to have sex with women unless the men pay for it and the women (but *only* the women) profit from it financially. But on the other hand men should not be allowed to get sex with women in exchange for money. (It goes without saying that no real women could *ever* desire hetero sex for its own sake.) In summary: men should never be allowed to have hetero sex at all, yet women should still profit financially from that arrangement.
And if all this seems off somehow then that just goes to show how deeply my male sense of entitlement is entrenched?
E.
My comment at Women's Space is in moderation, but I'll post it here in case it mysteriously disappears.
“It doesn’t help that some (like RE, don’t flame her because I don’t want to get into that here, I’m naming her because it’s the straight up thing to do, though I’m not going to link) agree to be prostituted in (gonzo) porn free of charge, without being paid at all.”
Hang on, “agree to be prostituted”? Really? This is a passive thing? That makes no sense to me that someone can aggressively be passive by agreeing to be prostituted. From what I can tell from reading Ren’s blogs, she prostitutes herself and is confident and aggressive without having to resort to the passive helper-verbs.
Secondly “…prostituted free of charge”? Isn’t the definition of prostitution “the exchange of sex for money or other valuables”? Isn’t “prostitution free of charge” just casual sex? A hobby, rather than employment? I mean, I’m an artist, but I only call my work professional photography when I’m getting paid to do it, prostituting my skills as it were; otherwise, it’s a hobby… a very expensive hobby that I was in school for 4 years to do and am now in a great deal of debt. I don’t think that my doing photography projects free of charge hurts the ability of other photographers to make a living. But, oh, it’s totally different isn’t it? I’m not being exploited like those poor girls who make $30,000 a year on average — I have a “respectable” job and don’t make that much. Tell ya what, if you don’t think that artists get exploited as often as is possible (based on the intellect and fortitude of the artist), you’ve got another thing coming. Everyone who works gets exploited and unless you’re completely self-employed you’re not the one making the profits from the work you’re doing.
I would LOVE to make 30 grand a year.
So her logic goes:
1) Women's bodies need to not be consumer goods.
2) Ren sometimes gives it away.
3) Ren is therefore making it more difficult for people to engage in prostitution.
4) Ren is a bad, bad person.
Okay, so according to her goals, shouldn't she be thanking you for making sex a less viable trade?
Beste - I think it's really, really important to know your enemy. In fact, I was just having a conversation about that - how my husband and I listen to right-wing radio and now we have my friend and her husband doing that. And, especially in Ren's case it's important because now Heart is talking about her personally.
Also, there are a lot of people who are taken in by the things that people like Heart, Jensen, Dines, Jeffries, etc. say and it's important to educate these people about the facts (in this case, of sex work). Even though Heart & co. won't change their minds or even listen, we can still change other people's minds. Especially when they hear the nuttiest comments these people make, like Sheila Jeffries bemoaning the popularity of marriage in the same breath she talks about the supposed horrors of prostitution.
And, like Ren, I'm one of those people who actually thinks it's fun to read this stuff. I'm addicted to Satsuma right now! She's even better than Lucky!
The name of that book totally creeps me out... "Industrial Vagina" - seriously??
@Ernest: "And if all this seems off somehow then that just goes to show how deeply my male sense of entitlement is entrenched?"
Yes it does and I will say GOOD DAY to you sir! *turns away*
@roykay: "Maybe. Got her address? I'd like to see if I can sell her silver crosses to kee the Devil-Empress restrained."
You know, this is the start of a beautiful business relationship. I'll bring the holy water.
@infra: "Maybe the dots just aren't supposed to be connected."
Oh infra, don't you see? To connect the dots means to use a straight, rigid line which is, of course, a phallic symbol of male dominance. Must I explain everything? :P
@Ren: That's true, but if she is gonna worship you like that, shouldn't you at least collect some tax on it? Really.
Gah Cheryl.
Folks, if your comment gets deleted or never unmoderated, there is a place for it.
Aspasia,
Point of information:
I am not E.
Just thought I'd mention that.
Ernest
@Ernest: Ah, my mistake. We need to forbid any other anonymous signing as "E." then. I can't keep you all straight!
Unbelievable!
Good day to you too, Madam. So where do I go to claim this sex I'm entitled to? :)
I'm not Ernest. Not to imply there would be anything wrong with being Ernest, and I'm quite honored to be confused with Ernest, but I'm not Ernest... You know what, I'll sign Eli from now on. I normally use E. everywhere but over here it's just too confusing since people keep mistaking me for Ernest. There isn't another Eli is there?
I found this article on politics of morality interesting and not irrelevant.
Also, "prostituted in porn"? wtf?
Eli (formerly known as the E. who is not Ernest)
@Eli: Thank you, sir!
Okay, I've reset my password on Blogger yet again, so just as an experiment, let's see if I can spare anyone else whose name starts with an E (who knew?) from having to cope with being mistaken for me, a fate I wouldn't wish on anyone.
If this appears under Ernest Greene, we'll know the experiment was a success, at least until Blogger forgets who I am next time.
Your blog is amazing, RE. I'm really happy I found it. I read Jensen's book a while ago and it left me kinda... uncomfortable. I just couldn't figure out what was off about it, though. I had this feeling that I disagreed, but I couldn't articulate what I felt. Your blog is great, helping me conceptualize and understand reality outside the whole "the only good sex is the sex that (flavour of the week authority) says is feminist sex." You are great!
Post a Comment