No, I mentioned that I know of self-proclaimed feminists who espouse that view. I was merely pointing out that the trend within the feminist community seems to be a greater acceptance of expressive female sexuality and the idea that women can be involved in the sex trades without it being exploitative. Andrea Dworkin was an extremist in every sense of the word, and her brand of radical feminism is hardly representative of most modern feminism. I mean, Jesus God, the woman said "all sex is rape;" that's hardly a progressive stance to take on women's sexuality.
Dworkin was largely covered by the media the way Fox covers a Jeremiah Wright, not for real discussion so much as to be the foil for their agenda, a spectacle.
Her views were extreme and flawed IMO; they also had some truth to them. You need to remember it wasn't until recent decades rape was recognized as possible in marriage.
The idea of 'exploitation' is often under-appreciated. I've read diaries of slave-owners who felt that slaves must be happy and love them as they were so well treated.
How many people to this day laugh while mimicking the Vietnamese whore telling US soldiers 'me love you long time' - I heard this days ago - without actually considering the exploitation of the women - more likely girls - doing it that was damaging to them sexually, where it was something they had to endure to survive, how they were exploiting the poverty of the women for gratification of their lust, treating them like trash instead of any dignity - indeed, sometimes humiliating them as part of the 'entertainment'.
Much of the 'liberation' about the sex trade is debatable; it's a little like the perverse right-wing mentality that might say 'who are YOU arrogant liberal to tell a black man he can't sell himself into slavery, if he chooses to? You are denying him that freedom and power to do what he wants!' That's sophistry - playing games with 'freedom' while ignoring the actual exploitation going on. A less extreme example is how they mask the exploitatin of labor denying the benefits of organized unions by calling it 'right to work laws'.
See, they aren't trying to shift power from the workers to the employers, to lower labor costs and increase profits for owners - they're protecting workers' RIGHT to work.
On the one hand, it can be pretty easily arguued about the exploitation in the sex trade, an it's almost inherent where women are doing sexual things not because they want to - if they did, they could for free any time - but for money, which plays to economic inequality. It's generally based on lies - with both parties degraded, women lying about the customer being attractive (implicitly or explicitly) - the more they pay, the better the lying - where a cheap sex act doesn't bother much - because the woman wants money.
Think about it. If I told YOU you are going to spend tonight performing intimate sexual acts for a variety of partners' pleasure you don't know and might be repulsed by, and you agree for the money - prostitutes largely come to hate men, naturally, as a result frequently and are widely contemptuous of their johns - how would you like it?
It's more an ignorant ideology - the same kind that likes to say 'meth use is a free choice' turning it into teir libertarian ideology - to try to view it as just some 'free choice'.
And feminists can sometimes do the same thing for their ideology.
On the other hand, as a practical matter - one could argue about 'less exploitave', one could argue that sex work is 'less bad' than some things for these women. There are situations which are more and osme that are less harmful and exploitave. England has an interesting situation with some legalized prostitution where the women seem to almost be more entrepeneurial - where the 'freedom' argument becomes more relevant.
You get into issues where it's not just 'sex workers' where this exists - when a rich man and pretty young woman marry, are they using each other to a good degree, where she is expected to provide sexual pleausure and him money for her - where it's not all that different an arrangement, even if prettied up as marriage? A woman going on a date and sleeping with the guy can be 'empowered sexual freedom' - but how many times is that linked to 'in exchange for an expensive date'?
I could go on about discussing the lay of the land - no pun intended - from sex slaves and pimped drug addicts to $5000/night escort making well into sex figures.
But we get to the point of where basically a lot of people - partly from ignorance, partly from a desire to not appreciate the exploitave nature of doing what they want - don't care to look at the issue of exploitation. Ideology can be a bit blinding also, stripping the human issues and turning it into market issues - not entirely wrongly. It's not jus sex that has these issues. Remember 'bumfights' for an especially exploitave example, throwing a few dollars at desparate substance abusers for them to degradingly hit each other?
Of course that was their 'free choice' in the 'labor market'.
At this point, some will appreciate the different sides of the issue, and some will not. Frankly, I'd say that some people *doing the work* don't always appreciate some of the effects - it's not that hard to find one 'porn star' who has nothing but good to say about it, making her wealthy and giving her fame she enjoys doing what she likes - and another 'former porn star', who might have been that same one, who looks at it differently later.
Harping on it being her 'freedom' can sometimes be nothing more than a producer selfishly manipulating her to overcome resistance to making him money.
You can both support her 'freedom' to choose it, and view it as exploitave, as well.
When we watch thrill sport people risk their lives for us to enjoy - when the guy is paralyzed from a motorcycle crash trying to jump buses - is there not something 'exploitave' about the exchange of him choosing to get the money and fame for doing it, but paying such a heavy price? That can be debated, from one side saying it's immoral to the other saying it's absolutely legitimate and just fine.
It's hard to say that young Vietnamese girl selling sex to avoid starvation wasn't horribly exploited - but who's to say it wasn't her best choice in terrible conditions? It'd be easy to praise the soldier who refused to exploit her - but his small amount of money could be essential to that girl and her family. There's a problem in that situation.
The soldier himself could be said to be exploited - paid a few dollars to risk his life and kill people he doesn't know for some powerful interests.
The human issues in the sex trade worker and the soldier (violence worker) aren't entirely different - and both subject to being prettied up (sexy, 'honor of serving nation').
And both have a lot of disillusioned people who served in those trades.
Again, some people can better appreciate these issues than others. You so far have put yourself in the latter group, 'narrow-minded'.
Of course to the ignorant who don't understand the exploitation, claims of it might sound 'bizarre', just as marital rape once sounded 'bizarre' to most Americans.
There's a whole 'empowerment ideology' in feminism that makes some people money. Are they 'right' or 'wrong' to focus on sex as 'empowering'? Who knows, they make some bucks.
One could argue that such feminist authors are exploiting the sex workers they talk about.
Just as Dworkin did for raising some issues for people to either agree with or love to attack.
How much sexual activity in society has 'exploitative' elements to it, ones in which something more than fluids are exchanged - if not money or material things, simply 'not wanting to deal with the person's complaing about not getting sex', or 'performing their expected role in exchange for the security of marriage', or to improve their partner's mood to get something they want, and so on? At what point is sex being 'used' so commonplace that the exploitave issue is ignored?
And isn't even 'good sex' somewhat using one another? How many people agree to long-term sexual arrangements where they please another but are not plseased?
Sex isn't generally altruistic. Singles places are filled with proof of frustrated guys who will agree there's not as much altruism as they'd like.
And given the economic inequalities that contribute to women being 'paid', more explicitly or less explicitly, for sex, don't see a lot of altruistic guys giving them money for nothing.
This leads to a lot more acceptance for 'cleaner' sex trade; it's the broken street prostitute, almost always an addict, powerless, at risk for disease and violence - making money for a pimp who beats her and plays on her emotions, who elicits especially strong concern for exploitation. You know, San Francisco does a good thing. First time johns are exposed - as criminal punishment - to education on the life of the street prostitute. Former prostitutes talk to them.
It helps them appreciate the ugly exploitave nature and think twice about it - and many or most seem to feel bad after understanding better and be turned off to repeating it.
Save234