Sex In The Public Square - feminism - Comments

Another Week?

Chris — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:46:46 -0700

Wow, Ren. I didn't realize. You're kicking some serious ass over there. My compliments. They really should incorporate you as a regular.

Glad y'all are enjoying my

Ren The Barbarian — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 18:03:25 -0700

Glad y'all are enjoying my stint...I still have a whole 'nother week to go...

I would argue

Lou FCD — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:16:19 -0700

I wouldn't even phrase it that way, Elizabeth. Why not use the same terminology as any other professional service industry?

Do doctors "sell medical services" or "sell health"?

No. They "provide medical services for a fee".

Accountants provide financial services for a fee. Doctors provide medical services for a fee. Sex workers provide sexual services for a fee.

Chris, thank you for posting

Elizabeth — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 06:31:00 -0700

Chris, thank you for posting that. Following is the comment I just left on the "ranting about terminology" thread of Ren's over at Feministe!

Ren, thanks: The "selling her body" thing has been one of the things about the prohibitionist discourse that makes it so problematic. Nobody can argue that selling bodies is good. But you are right that selling bodies is not what prostitution is about. Following is

Jesurgislac asks about using "sell the sexual use of their bodies" and I would say even that isn't quite it. Selling sex, or selling sexual services much more accurately describes prostitution. To say "selling the sexual use of" makes it sound like the prostitute simply lies down and lets the client do what he (or she) wants. I don't know many prostitutes who would say that describes what they do. They actually work much harder than that, and to say "selling the sexual use of their bodies" may not dehumanize them in the way that "selling their bodies" does, but it certainly undermines any understanding of the amount of labor that goes into the doing of prostitution.

I have always advocated for language that is as accurate and descriptive as possible. To describe the prostitution transaction, I can't think of much that is more clear than "selling sex" .

Apologies!

Elizabeth — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 06:29:19 -0800

Stacey, I am so sorry that this post got lost in the forums list for so many days. Thank you for your patience and a big thank you to Chris for figuring out how to solve the problem and get the post to show up in the forum topics list! I hope that it will now get the attention that it deserves!

Great post!

kerwynk — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:49:23 -0800

Just wanted to thank Stacey for such a great post! Kudos! :)

Economic exploitation

Elizabeth — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 15:38:47 -0800

Stacey, it seems to me that you put your finger on something very important: the broader problem of global labor exploitation and its connection to the unsustainable American consumer market. It puts me in mind of something Debbie Nathan said about the day care sex abuse panics of the 80s, and that sociologists have pointed out about other panics: that is, they tend to happen during periods of some great cultural uncertainty/anxiety.

What you're suggesting is much the same, and I think rightly so. We must have to work awfully hard to be blind to the level of exploitation that is necessary to sustain our intensely consumer-oriented lifestyles, and one way to ease that strain -- and the dramatic uncertainty around how long we can continue to live this way -- is to panic about something that seems completely separate from it. That not only makes us feel better because we don't have to think about exploited labor more broadly, but as Ren and others have pointed out it actually diverts resources away from addressing the root problem.

I'd love to draw some immigrant-rights advocates and economic justice folks into this discussion so that we can put more of the pieces together. Thanks for a post that puts them all on the table!

To me it is amazing the

RenegadeEvolution — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:26:05 -0800

To me it is amazing the amount of time and resources that are wasted on hunting down and harassing the willing when those things could and should be better put to helping victims.

There are so many

Gracie — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 16:32:55 -0800

There are so many conversations going on this, that I may be mistaken, but I do think it was discussed somewhere that boys are more distracted by girls in classrooms. And I do believe there was not too long ago a study or report of an all boys school (and if I am recalling right, also black students?) which had results to say that such separation was benefitial to the boys... If I have time later I'll look it up.

There are also the matters of other educational components at work -- you'd have to compare equal quality schools and programs and isolate the separation issue to see if that's what is really at work.

My experiences in college make me think that there are times and places for separations, but that we do have to come together, work together, as we will eventually in the life outside of/after school.

PS Pls excuse typos etc., I'm typin on the fly!

Who benefits?

Elizabeth — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 03:00:32 -0800

It's interesting, Gracie: Rashima's essay (the one you link to) discusses separation of all sorts, not just gender separation. But where it does discuss separating students by gender the benefit is to the boys. I always think about single-gender classrooms as being set up for the benefit of girls and yet this reminds us to consider that boys benefit too. It's been ages since I've looked at any data on single-gender education but I wonder if boys actually benefit more?

The reason Rashima gives for the benefit she noted is the removal of social distractions. The boys stopped posing and posturing, she says. I have heard the same argued as a source of benefit for girls too. Rather than focusing on "victimization" or intimidation, the focus is put on the intensity of the erotic and social tensions between boys and girls and the attendant distractions from academic work.

My own students who have come out of single-gender schools have remarked on the same thing. They've also typically been schools with uniforms or fairly rigid dress codes and students report at least some reduction of what might be called fashion distractions. it's interesting to discuss the issue in classes. Often the students who went to co-ed schools (the vast majority) can't imagine ever wanting to be in a single-gender school and think the idea is a bad one because it prevents boys and girls from learning how to deal with each other. The students who attended single-gender education often report on the usefulness of it, and on the other places where they got to interact in mixed gender groups.

I'm teaching a Sociology of Gender course this semester. I should ask my students to comment on this, and I should also go back and check out studies of single-gender education to see if there is data on the relative benefits experienced by boys and by girls. Wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out boys benefit more?

Ryan, I can't tell which way

Gracie — Sun, 27 Jan 2008 22:38:29 -0800

Ryan, I can't tell which way your passion is leaning.. sarcasm was my first thought, but on my second read the intensity made me wonder if you wanted such a world as you described.

So far, if I'm reading all the comments at a total of 3 sites correctly, most people are thinking separation at times is a good thing, as is the choice to pick a gender specific shcool ~ if all things are equal in terms of quality at each school.

Yes, exactly what women need!

Ryan Prior — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 19:17:11 -0800

Of course, what women need is to be closed off from the scary, abusive, stifling male portion of society and allowed to flourish without being subjected to any real or imagined threats. Surely this will lead to an era of light and equality, where men finally realize that women are just as able to cope in competitve academic environments; where women can stop believing that they are of a different breed and class, unable to fulfill those jobs which men presently dominate! Besides, this will put and end to those awkward situations in which women must confront those who don't process and think the same way that they do.

Make it so!

Safi's Innocent?

ImaginePeace — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 07:55:51 -0700

Well truthalwayzwins, you are challenging my misguidance! Wow, you must have one hell of a clairvoyant power to know what actually happened that evening. They should have called you and there wouldn't have even been a trial. However much you think you may know, there is reason to believe that Ms. Bowen may be innocent as well since there's the possibility that she was drugged at the bar.

Regardless of guilt or innocence, the point your trying to make is not only infuriating it's barbaric! I would like to be the first to welcome you to the year 2007, where women have rights and are allowed to go out by themselves! I know this is a big concept for you to imagine but try. Regardless of your small mindedness, it isn't an issue of guilt. It's about the freedom to be able to express in your own words what happened, to be able to call things what they are. If we begin to limit what we're allowed to say in a court room, the trend will continue to an uncontainable point. The possibility that of not allowing such words as "robbed", "child abuse" or "kidnapped" is not far fetched. These banned words in Nebraska are unfortunately now common law which may now possibly be a law followed in all States. California has already banned such words as "family values".

The balance of justice in this case however, is definitely tilted. The judge did not allow the victim to express what had happened to her because of the implication it forms in the jurors minds. If this is case, then why is the accused allowed to express his words of what occurred. When he claimed that he had "consensual sex" is that not implying to the jurors the victim allowed this to happen to her or that she agreed? Shouldn't these words be banned as well? Let’s play fair.

Judge was correct

lrbinfrisco — Sat, 21 Jul 2007 08:55:15 -0700

It's difficult to testify what happened in a time period that you don't remember. The accuser claims to not remember the time period when intercourse was initiated and several hours of activity before that. She concludes that because she doesn't remember that she didn't consent or if she did consent that she was too incapacitated by alcohol or drugs to knowingly consent. According to NE law it is not rape if she consented and the accsued did not know that she was too incapacitaed by alcohol or drugs to conciously consent and if he could not have reasonable known this. If is up to the jury to decide if they believe beyond any reasonable doubt that consent was given or if the accuser was incpacitated to the point that she could not conciously consent and the accused should have reasonably known this. NE law prohibits witnesses from testifying to conclusion that the jury is charged with making. Therefore the judge was legally correct in the decision that he made.

The accused can testify that the only concious memories she has begin in the middle of intercouse that she has no memory of consenting to. She can testify that she had several drinks the previous night and remembers nothing form the time she left the bar until she awoke naked and in the middle of intercouse. The jury then has to take this information along with any other testimony and conclude whether this meets the legal charges of Sexual Assault (under NE law rape is legally covered under a section for all Sexual Assault crimes.)

It doesn't matter if he's guilty or innocent

linuxelf — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:25:08 -0700

The point here is that she is unable to properly mount an accusation against him. Even if she pulled him into the bedroom, ripped her clothes off, and had her way with him (and I'm definitely not saying she did, but even if she DID), she should still be able to speak about her accusations in the court using the actual terms that define her accusations! It's the lawyer's job to show that the accusations are true or false, and the jury's job to listen to the arguments and make a decision. It's the Judge's job to ensure that the trial is fair, to both parties. This clearly is not.