Sex In The Public Square - public discourse - Comments

my moderation policy is...I

Ren — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 17:46:31 -0700

my moderation policy is...I don't have one. I think I've deleted two or three over the top racist comments in my years of blogging...otherwise, I am all for speaking ones mind.

An interesting project

Elizabeth — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 03:17:27 -0700

Caroline, I'm glad to read about your project. It sounds important not only because it gets conversation restarted where it has been squelched but also because it starts a conversation about managing conflict and difference of perspective. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time. We moderate comments here at SITPS, but we do not moderate for agreement/disagreement. In fact we hope for disagreement where it can lead to discussion of interesting issues. We moderate to keep spam out, and to screen out attacks, irrelevance, and inaccurate information. But I'm sure that at times what has struck me as an "attack" has struck its writer as "disagreement" and I've wondered a few times when to let an "attack" through in order to respond to it, and when to simply delete it.

I'd love to see a discussion of "editorial policies" from a range of feminist bloggers - bloggers coming from very different perspectives within feminism. I know that's not your project, but I hope it is something that grows from what you're starting. And in the mean time I hope "In The Moderation Queue" thrives and helps restart or redirect conversations where important voices have been silenced.

The "research" conducted by prohibitionist writers

RonWeitzer — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 10:13:37 -0800

It is important to keep reminding people that the "research" studies and other writings by members of the prohibitionist movement have been thoroughly discredited by several scholars in academia. I am one of those scholars, and I am happy to send anyone copies of my articles, which are highly critical of the biased orientation and flawed procedures found in writings by Melissa Farley, Janice Raymond, Donna Hughes, Julie Bindel, and so on. Unfortuntely, the media continue to cite their "findings" and grand claims about sex work as if they were credible findings. For instance, unverified number of trafficking victims are constantly presented in the media, and by government agencies -- for instance the current 600,000-800,000 trafficking victims worldwide. Another example are the op-ed articles by New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in Sept. 2007, which recapitulated Farley's dubious claims about Nevada's legal brothels. I could go on, but for now let me just say how important it is to challenge such unsubstantiated claims. I can be contacted at: weitzer@gwu.edu

food and sex and reasons

Elizabeth — Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:02:27 -0700

Tom, I initally had a similar reaction about the word "reason." I'd have found it more satisfying if the study had explored the things that triggered people's desire and the conditions in which they found they could act sexually on their desires. But the more I thought about it the more comfortable I got. For one thing, as you point out people do have sex even when they don't want to or when they think they shouldn't even though they do want to.

But also, remember that the study was based self-reporting, and people do often think of what they do in terms of the reasons behind their actions. I think your analogy doesn't quite work. If you put a plate of food in front of me, I might not eat even if I'm hungry because I might not like the food. My reason? I know I can get food I like without too much trouble. (This is based on a certain amount of privilege, to be sure!)

On the other hand, even if I'm not hungry, putting food in front of me that smells fantastic or that I get pleasure from eating might be reason enough for me to eat despite my lack of hunger. I've certainly eaten enough chocolate when not really hungry to bear that out, I think. I think the study is problematic for lots of reasons (there's that word again!) and the word "reason" is only one of them. (We often don't know all the reasons that we do what we do.) But given the fact that the study was entirely based on self-reporting, I think the word "reason" is the least of the problems.

why people have sex

tom_paine — Thu, 02 Aug 2007 18:53:18 -0700

I find the whole discussion either hopelessly arcane or else blindingly obvious. Being attracted to someone isn't a reason for having sex, any more than saying "the food smelled good" is a "reason" for eating. Human sexual arousal is as much an animalisitc response to inner and outer conditions as it is a mental decision. If you and I are talking and you begin flirting with me, that isn't about a "reason" for having sex.

If there are "reasons," it's precisely those times when we're either not aroused or accutely aware that we should not have sex. A woman who gives in to her boyfriend because she's afraid he's going to leave her, or a married man who allows a seductive woman to persuade him to have sex are thinking about their motivation. If you and I are unencumbered by outside forces, then our having sex is simply the natural progression of attraction and not a reason at all.