New Child Protection Nonprofit Strikes Back At Sex-Negative Approach of FOSTA-SESTA (youcaring.com)

qirtaiba writes: When the FOSTA-SESTA online sex trafficking bill passed last month, it sailed through Congress because there were no child protection organizations that stood against it, and because no member of Congress (with the brave exceptions of Ron Wyden and Rand Paul) wanted to face re-election having opposed a bill against sex trafficking, despite its manifest flaws. In the wake of the law's passage, its real targets -- not child sex traffickers, but adult sex workers and the internet platforms used by them -- have borne the brunt of its effects. Websites like the Erotic Review and Craigslist's personals section have either shut down entirely or for U.S. users, while Backpage.com has been seized, leaving many adult sex workers in physical and financial peril.

A new child protection organization, Prostasia Foundation, has just been announced, with the aim of taking a more sex-positive approach that would allow it to push back against laws that really target porn or sex work under the guise of being child protection laws. Instead, the organization promotes a research-based approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse before it happens. From the organization's press release: "Prostasia Director Jaylen MacLaren is a former child prostitute who used a website like this to screen her clients. She now recognizes those clients as abusers, but she does not blame the website for her suffering. 'I am committed to preventing child sexual abuse, but I don't believe that this should come at the cost of civil liberties and sexual freedom,' Jaylen said. 'I have found ways to express my sexuality in consensual and cathartic ways.'" Nerea Vega Lucio, a member of the group's Advisory Council, said, 'Child protection laws need to be informed by accurate and impartial research, and ensuring that policy makers have access to such research will be a top priority for Prostasia.'"

Comments

Trump is going to be sex-negative for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

He hopes! Never cheat on your wife and then get sentenced to life in prison.

Re: Trump is going to be sex-negative for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

Good work, Billy! $0.50 has been deposited into your Shareblue account.

Re:Trump is going to be sex-negative for a while

[Anonymous Coward]

no more golden shower for you Mr. Trump.

I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.

Re:I wish them luck

[fafalone]

The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit. At least on this one I even think "its a sin" is better than "because you're being exploited no matter what you say".. Empowering women right up until they make a 'bad' choice, then its 'we're stopping this for your own good' just like the right.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think it's fair to conflate anti-prostitution with anti-sex.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.

Hopefully this will change. We have seen the (hopefully) ultimate of sex negative in the #metoo movement, which has mixed legitimate events with ones that are one step away from gender apartheid, like the Ansari Assiz event, where a date that a woman didn't enjoy was cast as a legitimate reason to destroy his career. The sex negative outlook of the third wave feminists casts women as fundamentally weak. Fragile minds that are so easily damaged beyond repair that Victorian women would be disgusted by the concept that women are that weak.

So as marriage rates that were already plummeting are coupled with an active avoidance of the frail flowers that cannot withstand any adversity, and the definition of adversity extended to normal interactions - this entire sex negative worldview starts to look like a really bad idea.

And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.

I suspect that the third wave feminists and their useful idiots will be marginalized soon, as more and more people understand the world they are trying to create is going to end as successfully as the shaker movement.

Re:I wish them luck

[john of sparta]

agree with that. singularity.

Re:I wish them luck

[jedidiah]

> I don't think it's fair to conflate anti-prostitution with anti-sex.

The same people that are against prostitution are generally against many of the choices you would make about your own body. This goes for both political factions.

This strange confluence of fundies and feminists has been in force since the 80s when Gloria Steinem first picketed against porn.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Most "SJWs" as you call them favor the right of a sex worker to do as they please with their own damn body.

Re:I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

Arrrrgh! I've been triggered! I agree completely. Of all the people, Keillor? When they toasted him, it was a big clue as to just how far they've sunk. Just how incredibly weak third wavers want women to be. Apparently sexual assault is now patting women on the back.

Keillor's firing was so egregious, that that was the turning point for me, not the Ansari Aziz business, where She didn't have fun on a date so that's rape! case.

Re:I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

One would think that any women's rights group would be way more towards legalizing prostitution than expanding abortion options. I mean, it's the easier fruit to pick right? On one hand you have consensual acts, on the other you have potential murder of an unborn child, or at least that's the argument. One just seems a hell of a lot easier to reach than the other. It almost seems like certain figures in these battles picked the abortion route to be their primary target simply because it's the fighting that is beneficial to them, not actually achieving results.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.

That... that isn't how consent works. You can negotiate whatever structure of consent works between you and your partners. The structure you are referring to is for hookups where by definition nothing has been negotiated beforehand because it's the very first sexual encounter (and my understanding is that pre-sex negotiation is rare in vanilla hookup culture).

Re:I wish them luck

[rtb61]

Just bloody masturbate. Don't even pretend you get any benefit from using a hooker or being one, reality is you simply degrade each other. All this crap driven not by reality, which is simply served by masturbation, outside of actually attempting to reproduce but by purposefully designed marketing techniques. Sex sells because they sell sex to sell product, you are a worthless piece of shit, if you do not get enough people to masturbate you of if you do not masturbate enough people. To achieve maximal non-reproductive masturbation, you must buy and wear fashionable clothes, you must buy a flash car, you must wear make-up, you must behave like the crap head pseudo celebrities who promote this shite, you know tell lies about yourself and tell lies about the person you want to masturbate and who you want to masturbate you because apparently you are sexual incompetent and do not know how to masturbate yourself.

Do you not realise, that whole marketing shtick about you being a piece of shit failure if you do not participate in mutual masturbation enough is the 'root'(heh, heh) of rape, blaming the other parties for them not masturbating you enough and making you a loser in the eyes of the lies by main stream media and hence rape.

That whole masturbation is a sin, is a fucking lie to drive idiots to reproduce to maintain populations to burn you up as cannon fodder, slave workers, consumables for the rich and greedy. Masturbate is not a fucking sin, it is a straight forward logical hormonal adjustment, your mind adapting to the evolutionary state of your body. Prostitution is just as stupid as fuck, utterly pointless activity that degrades both parties and puts them both at risk and does harm the community as a whole, being part of that overall abusive message, that sex sells. Fucking masturbate already and leave everyone else the fuck alone.

Re:I wish them luck

[Notabadguy]

Just bloody masturbate. Rant rant rant.

Spoken like someone who's never put their dick in a woman's mouth.

Re: I wish them luck

[Reverend Green]

Next time you see a SJW, remember to spit on their shoes.

Re: I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who talks a lot about "consent" is themselves a rapist. Into the Gulag with you, feminazi scum!

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull Fucking Shit. Every one of them will swear that up and down when Bill Clinton is getting Oval Office BJs, but then gasp and shriek and froth and screech when a Republican President did it a decade before he got into politics.

Re:I wish them luck

[Bobrick]

What you refer to as "SJW" staunchly defend the right of sex workers to do as they wish with their body. Unless you're talking about some random people you've decided to label as "SJW" simply because you've disagreed with them.

Re: I wish them luck

[Bobrick]

Next time you "see a SJW", remember that "SJW" is some label you've put on pretty much anyone you disagreed with that registered anywhere on the left side of the political spectrum which you're somehow stupid enough to see as some homogeneous block of people.

Re:I wish them luck

[pots]

Legalizing prostitution would be easier to achieve, but it's also a much smaller issue. The legality of abortion effects nearly everyone in the country (I was about to say every woman in the country, but the men are certainly also effected), while the legality of prostitution is of relatively limited scope. Though it's still a pretty big group.

Re: I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Riiiight... can I spit on you now?

Re: I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't judge the left for being a homogeneous block of people while they are bitching about the right being a homogeneous block of people?

Yeah. You need spit on.

Re:I wish them luck

[serviscope_minor]

And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

Wll congratulations! You've found a huge way to hate and never forgive a large block of people with politics starting slightly ot the left of you.

Out of idle curiosity does this mean you won't ever forgive me for what I did to Farrison Keillor (many people call me an SJW)?

Also, who the fuck is Garrison Keillor?

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

If prostitution is a job like any other, a free choice (and an empowering sex-positive anti-puritan choice at that) then surely you wouldn't mind if it was legislated that unemployed _men_ should be stripped off their unemployment benefit if they refuse to take up a position as passive male prostitutes for rich ugly old men who have a thing for ejaculating on their turd and feeding it to their prostitute after they have shagged him, right? I mean I can't think of anything more empowering and I am *certain* there are at least 100 men in the States who would enjoy doing this work.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Emptying my prostate into someone else's throat is much cleaner than masturbation and even provides enough nutritional value to the swallower to make this quip work.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Serviscope, I'm fucking tired of you. Tammy Bruce: How the Left builds on Narcissism covers why your post is total retardation quite nicely. You think EVERYTHING is about yourself. Context? Ha, you are the ONLY context in your own mind! Get out.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't think it's fair to conflate anti-prostitution with anti-sex.

The same people that are against prostitution are generally against many of the choices you would make about your own body. This goes for both political factions.

This strange confluence of fundies and feminists has been in force since the 80s when Gloria Steinem first picketed against porn.

Well until it's legalized I don't see why we should give a damn about whether their adult jobs are effected.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

Regarding Keillor, he claims he only patted a woman on the back but the radio station says that there were detailed allegations.

MPR said in a statement Tuesday that Keillor was accused by a woman who worked on his A Prairie Home Companion radio show of dozens of sexually inappropriate incidents over several years, including requests for sexual contact and explicit sexual communications and touching.

MPR said the woman, whom it has not identified, detailed the allegations in a 12-page letter that included excerpts of emails and written messages. MPR said as it attempted to investigate the case, Keillor and his attorney refused to grant access to his computer, emails and text messages.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo...

Since it's all been hushed up and settled out of court we will probably never know.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights. Those positions also affirm the belief that women are strong, intelligent and capable enough of making decisions about their bodies on their own.

They are also the ones who have been really pushing to make sex more enjoyable for women by removing the taboo of talking about it and recognizing that women's bodies often need more than just penetration to get off. Sales of sex toys are way up because of this mini-revolution.

Re:I wish them luck

[mjwx]

The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit.

I've been saying it for a while, the SJW's are the far right. Its not the liberals who are trying to tell you what you can and cant do with your body or what you're not allowed to say and it's not the liberals who are getting offended when you act differently, it's the far right that cant tolerate opposition or anyone having any different ideas.

And before anyone asks... The far left may be the same... We don't know because the far left doesn't exist in our countries and if you think they do (no doubt with your examples of people who aren't far left) then you are an SJW proving my point for me.

Re:I wish them luck

[squiggleslash]

"SJWs" did nothing to Garrison Keillor. Someone made an allegation against him. Before anyone had a chance to comment on it, his employer fired him based upon the fact he had a history having such allegations made against him (they say it numbered in the dozens.) Nobody pressurized MPR, they looked at the evidence and based upon the fact it was highly improbable anyone would get dozens of completely independent allegations of sexual assault that were all made up, and based upon witness statements, they decided the best course of action was to terminate him.

Do you oppose that? Are you saying that you believe employers have some sort of duty to hold on to people who they strongly and legitimately believe are serially sexually assaulting their staff?

Re:I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

According to your very own Guardian source, one woman. Who among us, of whatever gender, has never had a troubled relationship with one partner?

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

I say just do not allow SJWs to engage in sex no matter what. The SJWs will quickly die out as a species. By all accounts this will be good because by their own definition all male on female sex is in fact rape. Also nobody is smart and intelligent and mature enough to consent to the deplorable act of sexual intercourse. Once all the people who are against sex are protected from sex, the sexual deviants who are for all manner of rape and exploitation will repopulate the planet.

White people are just not fucking. Browns sure are. I predict that in 50 years there will be no such thing as a white SJW. There will be a lot of very healthy hard working conservative brown and black people who love fucking and laugh at how stupid white people were. This will be a good thing.

Re:I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

Keillor was a humorist on National Public Radio, the American equivalent of your BBC, but funded from a combination of general revenue and private subscriptions. Though the network has always had problems with visibility against the vast American private radio market, Keillor's program was a breakthrough hit in general culture, bringing NPR unprecedented popularity.

When Minnesota Public Radio, Keillor's home station, chucked Keillor under the hashtag moral panic bus, it also deleted his huge archive of past programs, which had been circulating on the larger network for years. Even just from the special viewpoint of those interested in seeing NPR survive, this was inexcusable.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Saying every woman is fair. It really and truly doesn't effect men. Not trying to make a political statement or anything, but men have no say in the matter. If a man wants the child and the woman doesn't, there is nothing he can do to have the child. If a man doesn't want the child but the woman does, he will still be found fully responsible to support the child. Literally no say. As such, it doesn't effect him in any way.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

Which is why it is a shame it never got to court, because then the authenticity of the emails could have been verified.

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, who the fuck is Garrison Keillor?

Too stupid to use a search engine?

Re:I wish them luck

[thegarbz]

I don't think it's fair to conflate anti-prostitution with anti-sex.

Really? Because I find the people who are anti-either being anti-the-other, while also being anti-prochoice, and usually also anti-contraceptive.

Re:I wish them luck

[jythie]

Yet SJWs are generally against FOSTA-SESTA. It is almost like people make up what they believe....

Re:I wish them luck

[Anonymous Coward]

If I ever tried to get myself elected to political office, I'd be lucky to get my own mother to vote for me. So it may be the Dunning-Kruger talking. But it sure seems like the Democratic party has a major schism between the upper class ladies of the party and the working class men of the party.

The working class men are laying awake at night with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs worrying about how their going to feed their families while the upper class ladies are worrying about having their butts grabbed. The events in a typical working class man's life that determine how he feels about the #metoo movement - what it means to him are almost certainly going to be totally different from the events in the upper class lady's life.

If I was in a leadership position in the Democratic party I would be very concerned. But, again, that may just be the Dunning-Kruger talking.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights.

Abortions are not a matter of sex. They are a matter of getting rid of the effects of having sex with a male. Note, I am pro choice. As for transgender, gender is not the province of women to justify or condemn, it is the province of the person who decides what gender they are. And it is not necessarily related to sexual acts. According to Facebook agender is a gender, Arguing that agender has something to do with sex is like calling atheism a religion. Then we can get into Tumblr's list of genders, most which seem to have no relation to any sexual act at all.

But this sex negative versus sex positive thing - apparently there aren't many third wave feminists by your definition. I did a little research on the topic, and aside frmo women who are obscuring the issue by declaring sex negative is actually sex positive and vice versa, but there is what appears to be a consensus that sex positive is simply playing into the hands of the patriarchy. https://www.lipstickalley.com/...

As well, much of what is referred to as sex-positive these days is same sex activity between women. As this woman notes from https://radtransfem.wordpress....

"Under patriarchy, sex is power, power is sexy, and sex is compulsory. That is to say, the sex act is attractive in a way that is conditioned by its qualities of power and violence sex is not above criticism. Not bad sex, not sex gone wrong, not the sex that other people have. Our sex.

https://taikonenfea.wordpress....

Reading the lit, sex positive among third wavers aould appear to be positive in the notion of lesbian sex. Sex with men is largely negative. That's okay, I don't really care who puts what where, but we need to know that the definitions are gender fluid.

Those positions also affirm the belief that women are strong, intelligent and capable enough of making decisions about their bodies on their own.

You are working the conversation into some sort of men ruling over women's bodies here. But okay, lets have some of that strong and intelligent business.

http://www.ggenyc.org/programs...

Do not hand me the idea that women are strong when winking at one is legal sexual harassment and damages the woman. As well, when looking at a woman is sexual harassment. All she has to do is define it as innapropriate or harassing and legally, it is just that. Yeah, when you can be intimidated or mentally damaged by a man who winks at you - it's pretty difficult to call that a strong person.

Regardless, the reaction to #metoo, the wholesale drugging of male children to keep them in line, a lot of men raised in single parent households (alomst all women HOH) and the divorce laws and society are enabling what women apparently want - to be left alone. There is a reason that the marriage rate has dropped precipitously. Less children are being born, and a whole lot of men have decided that LWA is the proper response. This is a win for women.

They are also the ones who have been really pushing to make sex more enjoyable for women by removing the taboo of talking about it and recognizing that women's bodies often need more than just penetration to get off. Sales of sex toys are way up because of this mini-revolution.

Well now - masturbation is not sex, it is a substitute for sex. And another interesting area opens up. Did you know that a man can rape a sexbot?

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.

That... that isn't how consent works. You can negotiate whatever structure of consent works between you and your partners. The structure you are referring to is for hookups where by definition nothing has been negotiated beforehand because it's the very first sexual encounter (and my understanding is that pre-sex negotiation is rare in vanilla hookup culture).

Here is Yes means yes: http://endrapeoncampus.org/yes...

In 2014, California garnered widespread attention when Governor Brown signed the nation’s first affirmative consent standard for colleges to use in campus sexual assault cases. The law established that consent is a voluntary, affirmative, conscious, agreement to engage in sexual activity, that it can be revoked at any time, that a previous relationship does not constitute consent, and that coercion or threat of force can also not be used to establish consent. Affirmative consent can be given either verbally or nonverbally. Additionally, the law clarified that a person who is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol, or is either not awake or fully awake, is also incapable of giving consent.

Perhaps I don't understand what I just pasted from the site. A previous relationship does not constitute consent. Just like it says. Every time my friend, every step from hand holding to orgasm - unless you want to expose yourself to charges of rape. And don't forget that even without a rape trial, not getting consent every time can get you in extra hot water during the likely divorce a few years down the road.

I've read articles by women lamenting that men no longer sweep them off their feet. The husband sneaks up behind her and "ravishes" her. This is a pretty popular fantasy. It's also called a surrender fantasy. It is kind of a pity that Yes means Yes makes that illegal. Is she going to report that if you surprise her with that some times? Probably not, I suspect most normal woman like the idea of their husband or SO lusting after her and going impromptu. But a man would have to be a fool to take the chance, because under the law, it is exactly rape.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.

I used to listen to "Writer's Almanac" in the morning. But now I often forget to turn the radio on. Fuck MPR.

Amazing that the women never even needed to identify herself. That's the real dig - no due process, only an accusation is enough. You don't even get to face your accuser.

#metoo, and the open warfare on men has unfortunately been high octane MGTOW fuel recently. The part that I don't understand is why MGTOW, which is passive avoidance, is so wildly hated by the people who adhere to the "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle" mantra made famous by Irina Dunn, and co-opted by Gloria Steinham. Since women do not need men, why do men deciding that they do not need women make so many so very angry. It would seem to be a near total victory for women.

It's pretty obvious that this is not a sustainable situation. The really sad irony is that while normal men start to protect themselves by avoiding interaction with members of the opposite sex, the creeps will just keep on doing what they were doing all along.

Re:I wish them luck

[pots]

he will still be found fully responsible to support the child ... As such, it doesn't effect him in any way.

There must be some kind of language barrier here. These statements are contradictory.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

If I ever tried to get myself elected to political office, I'd be lucky to get my own mother to vote for me. So it may be the Dunning-Kruger talking. But it sure seems like the Democratic party has a major schism between the upper class ladies of the party and the working class men of the party.

Yes. The far left portion of the Democrats is analgous to the extreme right of the Republican party. Big freaking albatrosses that the other party is all too happy to exploit.

That's why liberals paint the Republican Party as White supremacists and Neo Nazis and the Conservatives paint Democrats as all radical feminists. The main difference I see now is that the Republicans have pushed right too far. They've made the tent very small.

The working class men are laying awake at night with cold fear in the pits of their stomachs worrying about how their going to feed their families while the upper class ladies are worrying about having their butts grabbed.

Yikes! That's pretty well put. As a male who has had his butt grabbed by women, and not had to go into therapy because of it, I suppose I might be accused of not understanding, but I do. There are issues that happen between the sexes on occasion. But just as Mothers Against Drunk Driving don't disband after getting the BAC lowered to .08, they moved on to a modern day version of prohibition activism, feminists, who have been wildly successful, merely push further with every victory. And when the way a man sits on a bus is a symbol of rape culture, and can be arrested for it. And a man having a physical relationship with a woman must be approved step by step, with a request and a positive response, and that positive response can be withdrawn at any time, lets face it, that is pure distilled hatred.

The events in a typical working class man's life that determine how he feels about the #metoo movement - what it means to him are almost certainly going to be totally different from the events in the upper class lady's life.

He is likely to come to the conclusion that he won't have to worry about feeding a family if he doesn't have one.

Re:I wish them luck

[Stolovaya]

I think you need to learn the difference between progressives and regressives (SJWs).

Re: I wish them luck

[Stolovaya]

Sorry if you don't understand what is an SJW, or that some people misuse the term.

SJWs are regressive, not progressive.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent? I've read about too many assholes who apparently believed that it did. Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live. Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.

So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.

It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases. There's sometimes enough confusion on campuses to make it a good idea to lay out things clearly, and establish exactly what "consent" is. Presumably, married couples can set their own rules. Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.

Marriage rates are down, and the number of people living together in a sexual relationship without marriage has gone way up since I was a kid. I don't know which way sexual cohabitation is going. Birth rates are down everywhere women get education, opportunity, and access to birth control.

Re:I wish them luck

[Applehu Akbar]

Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights...

Actually their position on trans rights is indistinguishable from that of Vice-President Pence. Please try to keep up.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent?

I think that if you are married to a woman, you do not have to ask her "May we hold hands?......may I kiss you?..... May I hug you?.... every time I wish to engage in sex. That previous consent thing means every time, it means every step, and makes no exceptions for happily married couples.

In real life, it does make almost all married men into criminals, and if my sex life is any indication, a lot of married women. Call them latent criminals if you like. But in a divorce proceeding, if a man in a Yes means Yes state cannot answer affrmitively that every time he had sex with his wife, and at all stages, he has raped her.

Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live.

https://thinkprogress.org/tenn... I'll just leave this here....

Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.

Define an intimate area. Many women find it very erotic to have their fingers caressed. Many find a male touching them to be assault. Many laws define assault as any touch any where. Better get permission.

So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.

What is a non-verbal consent that would hold up in a court of law if the man was being charged with rape?

It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases.

Do you think that the young women are going to come out of college and suddenly stop thinking that anything other than yes means yes no longer means they are being raped? Of course she will, which is why I note the uselessness of a non-verbal claim of consent.

In addition, what of a young woman in college dating a townie - who's rules govern their interactions? the college cannot touch him, but the courts can. There will be test cases.

Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.

"Something short of a gross misdemeanor." That's hilarious. You know what happens when you have to second guess your every move? "Could this come back to get me in trouble?" You think about some impromptu fun with the wife, she's looking good today, you second guess it, then go out ot the garage and work on the lawnmower.

If I were in college now, (and single) I'd simply avoid contact with women other than that needed to complete my studies, and definitely stay away from any relationships. I'm there to get an education anyhow, and if sex is a such a minefield, then I'm going to focus on that. 4 years of celibacy will not only keep me out of trouble, but the young ladies will appreciate me not sexually assaulting them, so its a win-win situation.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.

Coming from a university environment, I can assure you that yes, the misandry and latent misandry is pretty strong. The concept of winking at a woman being some sort of invitation for sex is weird. If I had known that it was, I could have gotten laid a lot at work.

But Yeah, most women I know wouldn't consider it harassment. But it is in the list, which can make it dangerous. People in general can and do some pretty vindictive things, and my experience leading groups is that there are people who work with you, and ther eare people who want to tear you down. So winking at a woman might be a tool in the kit for tearning you down. Same goes for a man in another situation. But the intense emphasis on the sexual act by society and women forces a prudent man to make certain to defend himself.

And its a real pity, as it forces especially men to avoid risky situations. Going out to a bar for a drink after work with a co-worker isn't uncommon, and I've done that with male co-workers hundreds of times. Enjoyable, and strong bonding even. But would never ever do that with a female co-worker. It was career destructive years ago, and worse now. That's really too bad, is the answer to workplace equality to destroy male bonding? I do not see an answer to that problem because prudent men are withdrawing from female co-workers now, probably the opposite of what is needed.

You figure I'd be fired for my views if I worked at Google?

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?

One of the recurring themes of our discussions is I start to give evidence, and in the next reply, you marginalize it by claiming that I am taking extremes and using them as mainstream.

Is there actually any point to having discussions with you? Because this is where we end up.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

Well, one of your links is to a blog called "radtransfem" and Meghan Murphy is fair radical too.

I think it's also important to understand these lists of behaviours, like the one you link to, are just examples and not meant to remove the need for some judgement. When it lists winking as an example of potential sexual harassment, along side licking your lips, it clearly doesn't mean winking to indicate humour or licking that delicious sauce off your face. And it's listing it as examples of things you should avoid doing, not a list of arbitrary actions you can be hung for.

I'm happy to have a discussion of these issues if you want. Really, I am. But for that to happen both sides have to give the benefit of the doubt and not try to interpret everything in the worst possible way, because otherwise language becomes a minefield and no-one can express any complex ideas.

So in this case I'd say rather than picking one or two words out of what seems like a very reasonable document, can you point to actual, documented examples of people being sanctioned for non-sexual winking? There probably are some, and I'll condemn them now just to avoid doubt, but they are mistakes rather than the intended implementation.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

You figure I'd be fired for my views if I worked at Google?

Nope. You might be fired if you made a nuisance of yourself pushing your views on others, like Damore did. (I did read what the Labor Relations board concluded.)

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, one of your links is to a blog called "radtransfem" and Meghan Murphy is fair radical too.

Coming from a University environment, those links are not remotely radical.

I think it's also important to understand these lists of behaviours, like the one you link to, are just examples and not meant to remove the need for some judgement. When it lists winking as an example of potential sexual harassment, along side licking your lips, it clearly doesn't mean winking to indicate humour or licking that delicious sauce off your face.

And if the lady does not interpret it as humor or whatever the hell "delicious sauce" you are speaking of? It it not up to you to decide - it is her decision. If she is offended, she is offended. If she interprets that as you harassing her in a sexual manner, that is what it is.

And it's listing it as examples of things you should avoid doing, not a list of arbitrary actions you can be hung for.

Now this is interesting. I'm parsing what you wrote as "Don't do these things. It doesn't mean that you will be accused of sexual harassment, they are just examples of sexual harassment that aren't sexual harassment even though they are actually sexual harassment so don't do them. "That makes exactly zero sense.

I'm happy to have a discussion of these issues if you want. Really, I am.

The problem is, you are as resistant to evidence as a Sean Hannity fan. Looking at the body of work of our discussions, you belittle anything that doesn't mesh with your narrative. Either outright rejection, claiming extreme viewpoints, or that tapdance you just did regarding a list of things that are sexual harassment and you shouldn't do but somehow are not.

But for that to happen both sides have to give the benefit of the doubt and not try to interpret everything in the worst possible way, because otherwise language becomes a minefield and no-one can express any complex ideas.

One of the first issues is your idea that I "interpreted it in the worst possible way" Allow me to post the thing you are objecting to that you are claiming that I am interpreting in the worst possible way.

Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:

Touching, pinching, or grabbing someone else’s breasts, butt, or genitals

Touching, pinching, or grabbing your own breasts, butt, or genitals in front of others

Sexual comments, jokes, stories, song lyrics, or rumors

Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)

Inappropriate looks or staring at someone’s body

Clothing pulled to reveal your body or someone else’s body

Sexual pictures or drawings (e.g., a pornographic magazine)

Demands for sexual activity

Physical intimidation (e.g., standing too close to someone, following someone, blocking someone’s way so they can’t leave)

Cyberbullying (when the Internet, cell phones, or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person)

So in this case I'd say rather than picking one or two words out of what seems like a very reasonable document

This licking of lips or winking is considered sexual harassment. Otherwise they wouldn't have said it was "Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to:" then used the words: "Gestures and facial expressions (e.g., winking or licking lips)

There is zero interpretation of that. It is right in the article. And if you try to slip in their use of the word "can" you are forcing the rather obvious sexual harassment situations into the same boat as your winking or licking lips interpretation. I interpret nothing.

examples of people being sanctioned for non-sexual winking?

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

You figure I'd be fired for my views if I worked at Google?

Nope. You might be fired if you made a nuisance of yourself pushing your views on others, like Damore did. (I did read what the Labor Relations board concluded.)

I do not express my opinion in the workplace for other than work subjects. This is even for people who push their views on me.

Re:I wish them luck

[AmiMoJo]

"can include" seems pretty straightforward to me. Here are some examples if things that can be part of sexual harassment. It doesn't state that any of them individually are (although some clearly would be if deliberate), just that sexual harassment can include such things those in the list.

At this point we are arguing over semantics. I think you would need to show that someone had actually been sanctioned for just licking their lips or winking and nothing else. Obviously I can't prove a negative.

I'll concede that perhaps some clearer wording might help allay some concerns, and that it could be misinterpreted.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

I think that if you are married to a woman, you do not have to ask her "May we hold hands?......may I kiss you?..... May I hug you?.... every time I wish to engage in sex.

No, and there's nothing in your cite that says you have to. Assuming you're going by those rules, you have to get affirmative consent, which doesn't have to be verbal. In my case, a certain short hum with a sharply rising note is consent if my wife indicates, and a question if I'm initiating.

Define an intimate area.

In my state, according to the appropriate statute, it is "Subd. 5.Intimate parts. "Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.". Touching fingers without permission can't be criminal sexual conduct in Minnesota.

What is a non-verbal consent that would hold up in a court of law if the man was being charged with rape?

Sure. In a criminal trial, it is necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that it's up to the prosecution to show that there was no consent, or that consent was withdrawn. Rape is a difficult crime to get a conviction on, except in clear-cut cases. If there's doubt that consent existed, that's not enough for a conviction. (I'm assuming you're getting a fair trial. Actual results may vary with skin color.)

In addition, what of a young woman in college dating a townie - who's rules govern their interactions? the college cannot touch him, but the courts can. There will be test cases.

There have been. This doesn't seem to change anything off-campus. If you were worried about a rape charge before, (a) you should be worried about a rape charge afterwards and (b) you really need to rethink your approach to women.

You think about some impromptu fun with the wife, she's looking good today, you second guess it, then go out ot the garage and work on the lawnmower.

Then you take your wife to marriage counseling, and strongly consider divorce. If you're worried that impromptu fun will result in legal action, you've got an awfully dysfunctional marriage going on. I'll also suggest that you talk to someone to try to figure out how you got into that horrible state in the first place.

If I were in college now, (and single) I'd simply avoid contact with women other than that needed to complete my studies, and definitely stay away from any relationships.

I've known lots of people who did things with fellow students and didn't get into serious legal trouble. Do you have any statistics to show that this is a real problem? It looks like a real problem because you see individual cases mentioned, and therefore think there's a lot of it going on. There's a name for it: the availability heuristic, and it simply doesn't work in the modern world. There's lots of bad things that could happen on campus. You could be hit by a car. You could be shot. You could lose your wallet, and the person who finds it might try some "identity theft".

Bear in mind also that you won't get the whole story from a news source, particularly one that likes to whip up controversy. In general, when I read some startling news, if I can investigate it, it turns out not to be so startling. That guy claiming he was falsely accused of rape? Try to find some other account of what he actually did. I know it's a Slashdot tradition to believe the first story you read about something or some person and stick to it, no matter how implausible it is or whatever else you hear about it, but I'm sure you can follow things up on your own.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

I'll concede that perhaps some clearer wording might help allay some concerns, and that it could be misinterpreted.

Of course clearer wording would be great. By the way, roughly 30 percent of women ages 18 to 24 consider winking at them as sexual harassment, source https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017...

Its a pretty interesting chart - if a bit weird in layout. So I'm not completely certain that this is a edge case as you might suggest. Is Yougov UK a fringe group? Looks like something to avoid, I think you would agree.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

you really need to rethink your approach to women.

Why? If I'm not bothering anyone, who are you to judge?

I'm just the quiet guy that keeps to himself around the ladies.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

Please note that "rethink your approach to women" was a conditional, based on being worried about a rape charge. If you have legitimate reason to fear being charged for rape, you're either of a non-popular skin color or have been pushing the limits.

Re:I wish them luck

[david_thornley]

I do, but carefully. I don't push my views on people who don't want them. If you want to stay employed, you're doing the right thing by not making a fuss about your views.

Re:I wish them luck

[Ol Olsoc]

I do, but carefully. I don't push my views on people who don't want them. If you want to stay employed, you're doing the right thing by not making a fuss about your views.

You don't understand. If I do not know the person very well - I have no opinion on anything. No views. Now if I were to express a view that fits with the permissible view, I would be able to carry placards and march around in protests The University environment is remarkably intolerant. Here on Slashdot is one of the few places I express it, never at work.

But not to whine about it too much, it doesn't matter to me a whole awful lot except that the University environment was at one time a place where differnt views were celebrated. I remember when speakers like G.Gordon Liddy, and even people like KKK Wizards would come to speak.

Today Jerry Seinfeld and Bill Maher are not allowed to talk or won't because they do not conform.

I kind of miss the days when I could respectfully listen to someone I might not share the views of.

Republican hyprocrisy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans always claim to be all about individual freedom and personnal responsability. Less laws, small government, etc. And yet, at the first opportunity, they sneak up a law, under false pretense, that's sole purpose is to impose the religious "moral" values of their voting base to the entire population.

Know this republicans: You can't be on one side defenders of individual freedom and liberty, and on the other side adhere to christianity, a religion who's sole purpose, like all religions, is to impose it's own values, by any means necessary, including force, genocide, war and bloodshed, to the entire population of the world, like a virus.

You can't have it both ways republicans. It's liberty OR religion. Chose one.

Re:Republican hyprocrisy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Shill all you like, it doesn't change the fact that this was actual bipartisan legislation.

Turns out even your masters are tired of your depravity.

Re:Republican hyprocrisy again

[Anonymous Coward]

christianity, a religion who's sole purpose, like all religions, is to impose it's own values, by any means necessary, including force, genocide, war and bloodshed, to the entire population of the world, like a virus.

Found the Islamophobe!

Re:Republican hyprocrisy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Turns out even your masters are tired of your depravity.

And my "depravity", real or not, is not of your damn business, nor the goverment`s.

Re: Republican hyprocrisy again

[Reverend Green]

Tell that to the feminists.

Re:Republican hyprocrisy again

[Anonymous Coward]

Linda Sarsour be praised! Kill gays and apostates! Destroy zionist Israel! The hijab empowers you!

Nice Name...

[Anonymous Coward]

Prostasia... Prostie Asians... Prostitution Asia...

Re:Nice Name...

[qirtaiba]

It means "protection" in Greek, as in, child protection. But yes, we've heard all the jokes already! The biggest factor with choosing a name for a new organization is often whether the associated domain names available. The fact that we could score both prostasia.org, prostasia.foundation, and prost.asia was what sold us on the name... despite the fact that people will make jokes.

Re: Nice Name...

[Anonymous Coward]

cuntpoundia.org is probably also available. It probably means something innocuous in some language too.

I don't know any SJW types

[rsilvergun]

that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

Now, I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes. Bill O'Reilly and the whole Fox News crowd come to mind . I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind. Let that last one sink in for a minute. If you're a sinner you're not just a bad person to these folks. You're an existent threat to their continued being. God's done it multiple times before (The Flood, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc), who's to say he won't do it again? He's changed his mind before...

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[OverlordQ]

It's where the whole SWERF term originates.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[I'm New Around Here]

Here's a group:
http://nomas.org/nomas-prostit...

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[SuperKendall]

You must have missed quite a LOT of SJW types who get in a furor over cosplayers that like to publish erotic cosplay.

But also many members on Congress who voted for this law, and against prostitution, can be considered "SJW" types.

As noted, the far left and far right do have in common that you should not be able to decide what to do with your own body, except in ways each side deems appropriate.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[localman]

Good point. But that really is a very tiny slice of the SJW pie. The term SWERF is generally a pejorative in SJW circles.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Ol Olsoc]

that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

Oh, they are out there. http://www.womensmediacenter.c...

There is a schism in feminism between sex negative and sex positive. The sex negative version finds that prostitution is exploitation of women by men. I'm not certain how they feel about women going to women prostitutes.

Sex positive feminists tend toward if the woman is doing this of her own free will, then she can do as she wants. Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.

Now, I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes. Bill O'Reilly and the whole Fox News crowd come to mind.

Well, as long as it is other people's mistakes. Buddy Billy is a first class creeper in his own right, and Roger Aisles and his raw hamburger like genitals are just two of their creeps.

I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind.

I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh bitchboi you gotta language problem? .......I do know a lot ( of SJW sluts ) that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution .... Jeeez bitchboi that's kinda the definition of opposing prostitution? Capish drooler?

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Those types don't get excluded from the group though. No one ever disavows that shit. The progressive left barely disavows anything, it's why they are so insane.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

SJW type and feminists at that. Remember the furor over dancers at a microsoft-GDC party? Yeah. Small group of whiners, but damage is done, people no longer employed. These are the same two groups that have been going hard after video games for the last few years, either trying to make claims that "sexuality cause men to become rapists" or "violent video games cause men to become serial killers." What should be bothering anyone old enough to remember Jack Thompson is that the left sjw/feminists have their own in Anita Sarkeesian, and where if it was o'l Jack they'd be rushing to fling attack articles. With Sarkeesian, they're nodding their heads and smiling while saying that she's absolutely right.

Remember the shit show over grid girls? All those feminists and sjws who screeched that a women should be able to work at any job they wanted? And....then pushed F1 to the point they basically fired dozens of women from well paying jobs that they wanted and enjoyed. Hope everyone is enjoying the regressive steps backwards and away from the sexual revolution now.

SJW's, Feminists, and what's left of religious conservatives still in that realm are all on the same side. It was feminists and SJW's pushing the #metoo stuff, it was a nearly dead sex-negative religiously back conservative group that got cosmopolitian removed from walmart. It's also not hard finding the number of people from the first two groups, pushing for censoring non-western games or even running campaigns to have games banned from sale in North America. DOAX3 was a good example, to the point where the made a developer believe there was *no* western market for it. Then there's crunchyroll censoring DanMachi Memoria Freese and really, I could keep going.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[aevan]

Women going to women are exploiting each other, it's an internalisation singularity. Except when it's empowering. /s

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly the same as how neo-nazis are good folks.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

The progressive left barely disavows anything, it's why they are so insane.

I've seen so many SJW Tumblrs/Twitter accounts with "please don't follow me if you are a TERF or SWERF" or similar verbiage that I am very confused by this statement.

That said, when I saw the GP I was already planning to post that from the anti-feminist perspective, the SWERF vs. anti-SWERF divide and other divides within feminism probably blur together.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

But also many members on Congress who voted for this law, and against prostitution, can be considered "SJW" types.

I'm clearly understanding something very different from the term "SJW types" than you are if you think anyone in congress is remotely close to as far left socially as the group I understand from the term "SJW types". If any of them qualifies, it's surely some in the small subset that voted against FOSTA-SESTA.

(I also have literally never encountered the anti-erotic-cosplay sentiment you're describing. I've seen plenty of discussions about cosplay: nearly all of them related to the "cosplay is not consent" movement which is explicitly in favor of people being able to wear whatever they want.)

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[fafalone]

All of that is leading to not only an end to the sexual revolution, but back towards gender segregation.
-A lot of professional men won't take private meetings with female suborbinates, and forget any kind of business travel where it's a man and woman coworker. Some women have noticed this and tried to say "Don't avoid women just don't sexually harass!" after they so thoroughly obliterated the line that asking for confidence it won't be crossed by something innocuous is a joke.
-I can't imagine being a male on a college campus these days. Just about any alcohol is grounds for 'I was too drunk' (no matter how drunk the guy also is, he's always at fault*). 'Affirmative consent' is an absurd minefield 'Can i touch your breast now? Can I touch your butt now?'. Consent can be retroactively withdrawn years later. And it's guilt upon accusation with virtually no due process, judged by someones whose mandate is 'believe the victim no matter how many problems the story has', punished by expulsion, which is a major life destroying consequence. How long until college men avoid college women entirely?
-At first, #metoo exposed some awful perverts doing some awful stuff. But, surprising no one, people soon were getting their careers destroyed over incredibly trivial stuff, and vague recollections of things decades old. A lot of guys suddenly thinking Mike Pence doesn't seem so crazy after all with his 'never alone with a woman besides his wife' rule.

While I'm sure some of the rabidly man-hating women welcome it, I gotta think most women don't want a world where men and women are terrified of being alone with eachother. But it's still heresy to suggest any solution other than forcing men to walk blindly through the minefield.

*- My all time favorite case: A girl goes into a guys room, he's black out drunk and mostly unconscious. She proceeds to give him a blowjob. Texts her friends about it, confirming this version of events, then goes back out partying and gives another guy head. Almost 2 years later, *she* files a Title IX complaint against the blacked out dude, claiming that because she had had a couple beers, he had assaulted her. Despite seeing the texts confirming he just laid there passed out, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled (eventually, a judge in a real court overturned it). That's right, the college said he had sexually assaulted her by receiving oral sex while unconscious.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[grumbel]

Care to point any out?

For a recent event, see the banning of grid girls in F1. For something older, the banning of booth babes at E3. And that's not even prostitution, that's just attractive girls hired for money, but that's already considered demeaning so it must be banned.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

No Kendall you can be considered a whiny faggot who cries about SJW's incessantly, because you're that kind of bitch.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Kendall speaks for all of us except for you SJWs.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[serviscope_minor]

What should be bothering anyone old enough to remember Jack Thompson is that the left sjw/feminists have their own in Anita Sarkeesian,

This shit got +5 informative? Good to see that blatant sexism is still A-OK on slashdot. The only thing Anita Sarkeesian did was publish a series of videos with her rather mild (and occasionally snarky) opinions on video games. Oh that and being female with intent.

Literallt none of the bullshit lies you've tried to spread about her over the years have been true. Not one single one. Mod parent down.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[AmiMoJo]

Remember the furor over dancers at a microsoft-GDC party?

Did you understand the objections? It was a professional conference for game developers. Objecting to the dancers at that event is in no way incompatible with sex-positive feminism or support of legal, safe and regulated prostitution.

I've noticed one common aspect of arguments against SJWs is that they over-simplify and straw man the things they find objectionable. It's hard to tell if it is deliberate or if just some kind of premature "hot take". They often employ emotive language and imagery like "screeching" and hint at conspiracies.

If SJWs didn't exist then anti-SJWs would have to invent them... So they did.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[AmiMoJo]

It's sad that some people are creating a climate of fear, where men are afraid to interact with women because they believe this kind of thing. Ideas have been deliberately twisted and exaggerated in order to make men feel unsafe and forego rewarding and enjoyable relationships, not to mention damaging their careers.

Feminists like myself are trying our best to get the message out and help people understand issues like consent. They are not even complex issues, but there is so much mis-information and nonsense put out about them that it's hard to get past that sometimes. And those messages don't make good clickbait headlines so it's hard to compete.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[gijoel]

Which feminists would that be? Susie Bright, Nina Hartley, Rachel Kramer Bussel? BTW they're all sex positive feminists.

I'd also point out the Ron Paul often got into a lather about what people did with their unmentionables. Rand Paul like his father doesn't think women should be allowed to control their bodies. So you might want to take that log out of your eye now.

About those grid girls, people objected as they're thought to encourage morons to view women as objects and not you know people with their own tastes, values and desires. How about you run this little experiment for me. Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Did you understand the objections? It was a professional conference for game developers

Apparently I did, but you didn't. See this was an *after party* for people who attended the event.

Objecting to the dancers at that event is in no way incompatible with sex-positive feminism or support of legal, safe and regulated prostitution.

Really? Sure does explain why feminists were screeching that it was sexism and those women were being degraded(their argument) all the way down.

I've noticed one common aspect of arguments against SJWs is that they over-simplify and straw man the things they find objectionable. It's hard to tell if it is deliberate or if just some kind of premature "hot take". They often employ emotive language and imagery like "screeching" and hint at conspiracies.

Yeah that's funny, because reality happens to be the opposite of what you regularly spout. Just like in this case. You know, where it was an after party, and despite this type of even going on for literal decades there was zero problems until some sex-negative, self-righteous, white knight decided that sexy scared them.

If SJWs didn't exist then anti-SJWs would have to invent them... So they did.

Oh there was no need to invent them, we used to call you "politically correct activists" then you decided to start using SJW because you believed that you were doing good. Where as most of western society believes otherwise. Especially when you bring out the **NO FUN** sign, and get people fired from a job they enjoy.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

It's sad that some people are creating a climate of fear, where men are afraid to interact with women because they believe this kind of thing. Ideas have been deliberately twisted and exaggerated in order to make men feel unsafe and forego rewarding and enjoyable relationships, not to mention damaging their careers.

Nobody is creating a climate of fear, that actual fear already exists. Round that out with the fact that men DO NOT HAVE the benefit of the doubt in any case relating to any form of sexual contact(verbal or physical), and it's feminists like yourself that have pushed the "listen and believe" "women are always truth-tellers" bullshit that have created this fear. Feminists like yourself have pushed so hard, that you want to revoke exculpatory evidence(that's evidence that would prove fact) from court cases. And the government is trying to push that right here, in Canada against the arguments of every law society in the country.

And at the absolute worst from your own country(the UK), feminism has gotten to the point where the police now refuse to believe female rape victims because the: police, crown, and government, had for so long done so that lives were ruined, the crown refused to turn over exculpatory evidence, the police literally hid evidence, government pushed this as official policy, it was taught to lawyers and in police collages. It only took hundreds of lives ruined, to get back to the basics of "just the facts, and only the facts." But those men who killed themselves and were innocent are still dead, and they're dead because they saw no way out.

Feminists like myself are trying our best to get the message out and help people understand issues like consent. They are not even complex issues, but there is so much mis-information and nonsense put out about them that it's hard to get past that sometimes. And those messages don't make good clickbait headlines so it's hard to compete.

Full-stop. You're doing actual harm to society. At this point the definition of consent is so far down the rabbit hole, that if a man says "Hello" to a woman it can be construed as sexual harassment, because "she felt it was a threat" or "she didn't like how he was looking at her." The most egregious violation of rights has happened under feminism via Title IX, where the standard of evidence wasn't "the burden of proof" but the "preponderance of evidence" and now universities all over the US have and are being sued for ruining male students lives by claiming they were rapists/abusers/etc when women were abusing the law because "they changed their mind" based on social pressure, or simply regretted it the next morning. Or the woman was the actual rapist, bragged about it, and the kangaroo court still sided with her.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

This shit got +5 informative? Good to see that blatant sexism is still A-OK on slashdot. The only thing Anita Sarkeesian did was publish a series of videos with her rather mild (and occasionally snarky) opinions on video games. Oh that and being female with intent.

So it's "blatent sexism" because she's a female Jack Thompson, and places blame for school shootings on "toxic masculinity" and then states men are sexist because of video games? Or that she wants to ban and/or video games if they don't fall into her moral compass. How about her whining about "extreme violence."

Literallt none of the bullshit lies you've tried to spread about her over the years have been true. Not one single one. Mod parent down.

Considering you can't be bothered to click on links, and read her own words for yourself. That's hilarious. Don't worry, those are all factual links too. Just like every other time you can't be bothered to click on them.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Take your pick, you can read them on your favorite progressive blog/website. Like polygon, vox, mic, paste, feministing and so on. While, we're getting into this why don't you explain why men have no paternal rights when there's a fetus involved.

Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.

Hey I got one for you, why don't you go be a police constable or cadet for a while. Then go work in a bar for a night. Get groped 100-250 times in a night by women, just women. Where they jam their hands down your pants, forcibly kiss you, and so on. Hey that's all sexual assault right? Then get told that there is no recourse or any formal or legal complaint process and you have to put up with it. With the implicit threat, that perusing this will earn you a blacklist in the job. Now that you've got all those drunk women doing that, and there's no recourse why don't you tell everyone what the solution is. Because that's the norm if you ever work a bar as a cop, cadet, or volunteer. And it's like that every weekend and you're expected to do your job regardless to keep the peace.

Now just think back 40 years ago, after helping the corner pick some kids brains off the ceiling of the barn where he committed suicide you were told to "take a few days off, and drink until you can't stand." Today, you'll at least get psychiatric counseling after that, but that was still standard even a decade ago and still is in many small police forces. There are far more protections, recourse(legal and policy) for a women in nearly every environment that exists in the west. The same does not apply for men, but we're still expected to do that job, whether working, or volunteer and put up with it and deal with the problems on our own.

Now why don't you ask those women who enjoyed working as grid girls and were fundamentally pissed off because they lost their jobs over it, but there were recourse and legal options for everything you've already described.

And I already know what your answer will be, it's obviously "go to the press." Problem, the press doesn't care. They'll care if it's a woman in that situation though. So by all means, explain.

Re: I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

How about we are there to watch the cars and the women. Not everybody is so aspie that they can't enjoy more than one thing at a time.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Kendall is a whiny hoebag and you're his beta bitch, you deserve to be fags together I guess.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

They only support prostitution when it's "right-thinking" people. SJWs hate prostitutes that don't follow SJW dogma. Prostitutes provide a service that improves the lives of males which is very much against the SJW agenda.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Shove it, Serviscope. You have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Anita Sarkeesian is the most heavily debunked SJW imaginable; her bullshit is so strong that they're mining it for methane. "None of the bullshit lies you've tried to spread about her over the years have been true" you say, but it's so extremely simple to demonstrate the falsehood of that statement with her "Strategic Butt Coverings" horseshit where she "tries" to reveal Batman's ass in a game but "can't" despite the fact that it's extremely easy to get a nice glimpse of the dark knight's tight buns if you actually play the game. Mod yourself down, dumb shit.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Nazis are socialists, and they come from the left, ideologically.

Look up the founding points of the nazi party, and it's virtually communist. Just because it does not follow the soviet style of comrades and politburos confuses the simple minded into thinking it was something else. So does the fact they opposed the communist parties and soviets -- as though leftist groups do not fight and compete amongst themselves, LOL.

They believed in supremacy of the state, disarmed and disempowered individuals, they advocated collectivism and confiscating profits and nationalizing industry. They scapegoated and labeled and tracked and discriminated against, and eventually rounded up, jailed, and exterminated their "deplorables". I see many of today's leftists going right down that same path.

The fact they ended up a brutal warmongering regime of tyranny that exterminated its own people does nothing to distance itself from the typical communist and socialist regimes. Quite the opposite actually, it is yet another in the long list of similarities that the nazi regime had with other leftist regimes.

People somehow managed to lump "racism" on to the right, as though leftist regimes and ideologies were not and are not racist. Total fallacy there too. From Che to affirmative action to Robert Byrd to Hillary "bring them to heel like dogs" to the hatred and bullying and cross burning reserved for the modern "Uncle Toms", the left is awash in racism. Racism is at the very core of the modern left's entire ideology. Their being champions of the worker is long in the past, they are now champions of racism and race and class division.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Whibla]

At this point the definition of consent is so far down the rabbit hole, that if a man says "Hello" to a woman it can be construed as sexual harassment, because "she felt it was a threat" or "she didn't like how he was looking at her."

I was reading your post, thinking to myself "That's a bit harsh, it's not that bad", then I came to this part...

Coincidentally when I got in last night and flicked on the TV, while I made myself something to eat, there was a debate program on the BBC on this very subject. One young woman in the audience, when questioned by the host as to what constituted sexual harassment, said something along the lines of:

"Well, if a guy walks up to you and says 'you look amazing in that dress' and offers to buy you a drink it depends on whether you find him attractive. If you do, it's a compliment, if you don't then it can be seen as harassment."

I'm slightly ashamed to admit to a minute of ranting and profuse swearing at the TV at that point.

Just in case it's not clear, to anyone who doesn't yet realise this:

If any attention you are receiving is unwarranted you need to tell the person that their attentions are unwelcome. In the case of online (e.g. social media stalking etc.) profiles you can even do this 'in advance' with a simple little note to that effect. Harassment can, pretty much*, only occur after this point. If you don't tell them their attentions are unwelcome then any further attention you receive is almost certainly not harassment. Sexual harassment, being a subset of harassment in general, can likewise only occur after you've categorically refused someone's advances or pointed out the inappropriateness of their behaviour. After all, if someone doesn't know that what they're doing is wrong why would they stop doing it?

There's obviously a couple of caveats to this, but they depend slightly on social 'norms' - what is actually considered appropriate behaviour. For example, while I hug my close female friends on meeting them I would not consider doing the same to a woman I had just been introduced to. Of course social rules do change over time, both on a broad scale and on a more personal one, as relationships evolve, but, like most rules, they sometimes have to be explicitly taught rather than just picked up along the way or inferred.

As an individual, if you're not willing to teach other people the rules by which you want to be treated - which are your rules not anyone else's - don't expect everyone to understand or abide by them. After all, they may not see the world the same way and may have a very different set of personal rules. Only after telling them your rules can you claim harassment if they violate them!

*There are clearly some edge cases that are wrong whatever the situation. I'm not talking about those, just general social interactions where no harm is intended and there's no obvious abuse of a power imbalance in the relationship.

Re: I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you write liberals so well? Easy, I think of a conservative and take away reason and accountability.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Opportunist]

Yet what remains is that "playing it safe" increasingly means that the opposite of what is wanted will be achieved. Legal departments are a pragmatic folk. How to avoid sexual harassment suits? By making sexual harassment impossible. How do you make it impossible? By not having men and women in the same department.

What you get that way is an odd kind of company policy of not mixing sexes, without it being written down (because then it could become a discrimination issue) but instead one of those "do it the way we say or we'll find some other reason to fire you" issues.

When you hear people say "I like working here, no women means no minefields", you know that something is going in a VERY wrong direction.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[AmiMoJo]

Having no women working there will put a lot of people off, because it's often a warning sign of a toxic environment. Like canaries or something.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[squiggleslash]

Just to add to the irony: while Sarkeesian has basically only said "It'd be nice if they made games aimed at women, and some games have gender based tropes that are harmful to women and often to men, so if you're developing a video game, it'd be nice if you kept that in mind, thanks", and Thompson has said "We should ban Grand Theft Auto because I don't like it", Gamergaters actually held Thompson up as a hero at one point in the whole Gamergate fiasco.

...which was probably only a surprise to people who thought Gamergate was about anything other than hating women and minorities.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

It's Mashiki, he sock-puppets his way to +5. Today he overdid it a bit, and has now run out of mod points so all his replies are stuck at the default level.

Nice conspiracy theory. It's not that you have ideas that are increasingly regressive and people are having enough of it, no no, it's *not* that. It's the fault of someone else. Just a tip though, I only need one account. Maybe, you're projecting your insecurities and need for self-validation?

I don't think he will ever stop blaming Sarkeesian and Clinton for everything. They are too convenient. Look at his post history, whenever he has no argument to make (which is most of the time) he just starts ranting about one of them.

Where's the blame? Are you saying that a person who puts themselves into the public spotlight, espouses views that are socially and culturally regressive shouldn't be challenged on them? That pointing out and making people who support her, realize that her views are "toxic and problematic" to use your lexicon? Oh, I see now...it's "ranting" when someone with media and/or political power does something and people make commentary on it. Unless of course you disagree with it. Well, I guess you'd know that from experience so I'll just bow to the master.

I realized a while back that he never argues in good faith. Should have seen it sooner really... It wasn't until he accused me of being a secret sexual predator for the third time that I decided to stop replying to him if he addresses me directly.

I almost always argue in good faith. But I've never accused you, I simply wondered if your repeated pushes of regressive feminism, and rampant white-knighting, made you just like other white-knights that eventually are shown to be sex-pests and you act the way you do to try and make yourself feel better. I mean, plenty of those anti-GG actors you used to use in your arguments were great. I personally like the defenders you used, that claimed people who were supportive of gamergate were rapists, sexual predators, pedophiles and can't forget terrorists who call in bomb threats to religious/public buildings were well...projecting all the way down.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Kielistic]

That was the entire point of the parent's post.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? So her addressing the united nations, spreading misinformation and trying to get her opinions codified into policy is "publish a series of videos"?

No, she took the path of very direct and very powerful political lobbying to push an agenda that would stifle freedom of speech. I don't agree with how some have treated her, but I find what she has pushed for is far worse.

And just because I know it'll piss you off, what her supporters did to thunderf00t was far worse than anything anyone ever did to her.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Just to add to the irony: while Sarkeesian has basically only said "It'd be nice if they made games aimed at women, and some games have gender based tropes that are harmful to women and often to men

Sure thing, it's not like it's different at all...here maybe a image will make it all easier for you.But probably not.

Gamergaters actually held Thompson up as a hero at one point in the whole Gamergate fiasco

And...when you go full retard, and fail to figure out that people that support gamergate don't swallow the identity politics pill. Sure not seeing "hero" in your link by the way. Looks like a whole lot of people saying he's a crazy loon, but has the occasional good point. Oh, there's that identity politics bullshit you just couldn't avoid. With the anti-gamergate actor who wrote the storify, repeatedly posting their own tweets over again as proof? That it's 100% true. Man, that's just earth shattering.

You know something though? They have a very interesting history with another anti-gamergate actor. I'm sure you're quite familiar with them too. Just another one, that claimed it was all bots and harassment while making up the harassment all on their own to smear.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Having no women working there will put a lot of people off, because it's often a warning sign of a toxic environment. Like canaries or something.

Gee it's almost like the policies and responses you push, are creating this environment. You're so close to self-realization that people can probably taste it through the screen.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Opportunist]

Like canaries or something.

You should not compare women to birds, it could be seen as objectification or worse.

yours,
legal department

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes.

Creating more crime. We must implement full Nelson Mandela Rules and Dynamic Security as the standard in the United States.

I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out.

A deity demanding worship and obedience under threat of punishment is trampling your natural rights and must be evil.

You can see a great deal of peace in certain people who believe certain things about their religion; and a great deal of terror in certain other people who believe God is out to condemn us all to eternal torment if we don't repent and swear fealty every moment of every day and beat everyone who doesn't until they repent or die.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

They're convenient because they're both terrible.

It's like when people bring up that Pelosi is condescending and insane; Hillary won't take any personal responsibility for anything; and Warren is hurr hurr Pocohontas. Elizabeth Warren is literally unapproachable to these people: she has never really claimed any special privilege for the family heritage her grandparents shared with her growing up, and everyone from which she's accused of extracting special favor via privilege has detailed records denying this; yet all they can do is plug their ears and warble a lot about nothing. Meanwhile Pelosi and Hillary have earned the disfavor of Democratic voters because yeah, they're legitimately terrible.

Sarkeesian made her name by being the distaff Jack Thompson.

Whether you can blame Hillary for anything beyond being Hillary, though, that's another matter.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date.

Men can handle this somewhat better than women, although maybe not to that degree. We shrug a lot of stuff off. I've never quite figured out why; and I'm a bad model because I shrug everything off (near-perfect psychological resilience--it's a defect), so I can't really explore by introspection using the data I have.

I grew up in an era where you could generally insult a man for being fat, ugly, and stupid, because he'll probably get angry at you and then go about his life; whereas laying into women like that will get you beaten in the nearest back-alley because women actually wander away hurt and people don't give you a pass on that one. That's about the extent of data I have here.

The experiment might just end up with someone telling you a bunch of dudes are assholes but they don't see why women can't just "man up" and quit whining. This is especially-likely when you've prepared someone for the experience ahead of time by allowing them to consider the ramifications and then put themselves there by intent: they go in with stronger defenses, and will generally attempt to achieve validation rather than understanding.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.

No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.

Student loans. Really.

I'm sure some of them are just fine with the situation and feel like they're in control; others are terrified of crushing student loan debt and feel like they have no choice.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[jythie]

It is the same argument as 'muslims never disavow anything'. No amount of disavowing will ever be enough to satisfy the meme unless they become adopt islamophobic or MRA language.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Warren tried to use "hot racial idea of the day" as an attempt to sell herself to a group of people as a political motivator aka vote favoritism. That's about as sleazy and low as you can get, besides people like Shaun King, or Rachel Dolezal.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not objectifying to offer to pay a woman to dance in sexy clothing, provided she can say no.

It is objectifying to decide that because you wouln't accept that offer no one should be allowed to make any woman that offer.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Ol Olsoc]

Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.

No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.

Umm, your ridiculous attempt to cast exotic dancers as slaves is noted as ridiculous.

Student loans. Really.

Student loans - really. When a degree can cost you heading toward 100K you might look at ways to finance it. And you are not at all forced to. You can get student loans and live off them for four years. You can't work a regular student type job these days - at least ot make a dent in your college cost. And the kind of jobs that would allow you to make a tidy sum over the summer are now not available to American students, because that would be a job at the shore or other tourist attraction, and colleges have started their fall semesters before Labor day, the busiest part of the season. Those shore jobs are now taken up by European teenagers. I make it a game guessing this CoO from their accent. Being from Eastern Europe, they don't think that is attempted sexual assault, But I digress.

There is absolutely nothing forcing these women to enter this line of work for a few years, just an outlook that allows them to do it. Did you know that there are male dancers as well? But they only get maybe 25 cents on the dollar, a clear case of wage discrimination, but I digress again.

I'm sure some of them are just fine with the situation and feel like they're in control; others are terrified of crushing student loan debt and feel like they have no choice.

My wife knows a number of Exotic dancers, they often come down to the restaurant she goes to breakfast at with some friends, and they are all early risers. Some times after an evening's work, the owner treats them to breakfast. What is interesting is that they don't fit the "Law and Order, Special Victims Unit" stereotype. They fit the normal spectrum of human females. Most are personable, smart, and when they aren't made up for an evening's work, look just like pretty young ladies.

Not one would be described as terrified, that isn't hard at all to spot. They seem rather happy in fact. But a person - male or female - should have the choice of what they want to do. Dancing naked or nearly so in an establishment designed for that purpose is not against the law, nor should it be. This is not prostitution, this is not the patriarchy oppressing women. it is entertainment.

More's the pity that third wave sex negative feminists and far right wing Fundamentalist Christians have decided that they need to attack legitimate employment, although I wonder what the feminists think about gay versions of these clubs. We know what the Fundies think of gays.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Stolovaya]

Thompson is no hero to GG.

Thompson was a much easier enemy since most of the gaming community (fans, journalists, developers) teamed up to call him on his bullshit. He was a common enemy that provided gamers with a united front.

Sarkeesian, on the other hand, has pushed a huge divide in the gaming community. Her messages are essentially the same as Thompson's. But so many people have moved from being progressive (which is good!) to being regressive (which is bad) that we have the split that you see today. To regressives like yourself, any criticism isn't about her arguments, it's about her gender. Which is just deflection from the stupidity of her arguments.

I will say it's true that GG has it's share of conservatives; you can go to KotakuInAction and you'll see a lot of references to Trump. But that's because it's not about being D or R, Left or Right, or whatever. They're allowed to express their opinions, regardless of how moronic some of them can be.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Stolovaya]

So you're sex-negative. Good to know.

Objecting to the dancers at that event is in no way incompatible with sex-positive feminism or support of legal, safe and regulated prostitution.

You just contradicted yourself.

If SJWs didn't exist then anti-SJWs would have to invent them... So they did.

Not at all. Moral righteousness has taken on a lot of different forms over the years. Decades ago, it was the religious zealots that were at the forefront. Nowadays, it's regressives.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind. Let that last one sink in for a minute. If you're a sinner you're not just a bad person to these folks. You're an existent threat to their continued being.

I don't get this logic. Don't the righteous get to sit at the right hand of gawd and sing his praise when they die? Wouldn't all the sinners get sent to hell for eternal damnation? Why, then, do these religious nutbags give a tinker's damn what anybody else does or what the consequences might be?

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[david_thornley]

So why did I start hearing "SJW" from people who dislike us? Suddenly, it was there, it was perjorative, and I was one.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[david_thornley]

I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.

That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

Dancing naked or nearly so in an establishment designed for that purpose is not against the law, nor should it be.

The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.

Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.

As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy that sort of thing anyway, and the pay is just a bonus. That does not excuse the existence of those who do not and feel it is their least-terrible option any more than the existence of the BDSM community excuses the existence of domestic violence.

You resolve this by eliminating the terrible choice: you ensure economic equity such that nobody is forced into this sort of degrading situation by sheer need, and then only those who see it as an expression of their own free choice will take up the practice.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Ol Olsoc]

I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.

That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.

Wow, that dude is kind of a jerk! And not old Ben either,

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Applehu Akbar]

I don't know ant SJW types that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

Where have you been for the last decade? You're describing the former liberal position. Now they refer to all forms of prostitution as "trafficking" and want to stamp it out, even in the legal jurisdictions.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Ol Olsoc]

The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.

Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.

False Trichotomy. Wrong on so many levels. I took college while working at a University, so I got a hella discount. There are scholarships, full and partial. Many that are woman only. https://www.scholarships.com/f... https://www.scholarshipsforwom... Not having a college degree is not an assurance of poverty - you just have to get the right job. Having a degree is not assurance of a high paying job. And being an exotic dancer might not even occur to someone, and is only financially viable for women.

As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy that sort of thing anyway, and the pay is just a bonus. That does not excuse the existence of those who do not and feel it is their least-terrible option any more than the existence of the BDSM community excuses the existence of domestic violence.

That argument simply makes no sense. You have it stuck in your mind that this is some manner of sex trafficking existence. With a few people enjoying it, and others doing work that disgusts them.

Your logic is tainted with your sex-negative bias. Peace out.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. I think the best advice for a young man headed off for college now is to find an all male school and then just get whores off backpage. Oh, wait - you can't do that anymore either. Great. This will probably work out like prison where dudes go gay just because it will be so incredibly risky to try to have sex with a female.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

And how exactly is this documented so it's not a he said she said that has zero practical value? And isn't it obvious someone who is scared may think it puts them further at risk, even to the point of death, to tell someone harassing them that their attention is unwelcome? And you don't craft laws around vague social norms - who is the authority here for the obvious disputes?

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Anonymous Coward]

The toxic environment isn't the workplace, it's the half baked ideas being pushed outside through culture like yours that make it seem like a good option.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

So why did I start hearing "SJW" from people who dislike us? Suddenly, it was there, it was perjorative, and I was one.

Maybe you weren't paying attention? It was "social justice" advocates that started using the term SJW and it was very popular for several years. That was until their actions started to have an impact on society in a negative way, now SJW means a "a person who advocates for social justice, and virtue signaling that has a negative impact on society." Now it's the common lexicon and regular people use it. That pejorative was created all by the actions of the people and views you support.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[bluefoxlucid]

False Trichotomy. Wrong on so many levels. I took college while working at a University, so I got a hella discount.

Good to know there are millions of jobs at university so every student can get a near-free education by also being a university employee.

There are scholarships, full and partial

Good to know that every single student entering college is qualified for a full scholership.

You have it stuck in your mind that this is some manner of sex trafficking existence

It's not sex trafficking; it's desperation--like when a man who cannot feed his children shoplifts food, and we call him a terrible person and a criminal when really he and his family are only those whom we have failed.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[AutodidactLabrat]

Sorry, that's a lieHitler's movement is no more Socialist than China is a People's Republic but you know that, right?
Hitler was a confirmed Christian who not only distained socialists, he had them murdered repeatedly.

Re: I don't know any SJW types

[AutodidactLabrat]

If reason and accountability are the hallmarks of Conservanazis....
Why do you back tRump?

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[david_thornley]

Could be. My main claim to be a hipster is that I was a nerd and a geek before it was fashionable. When I want to be cool, I turn the thermostat down.

I find your "until their actions started to have an impact on society in a negative way" unconvincing, given that I don't trust the people who now use it as a perjorative to tell positive from negative changes in a way I find convincing.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Could be. My main claim to be a hipster is that I was a nerd and a geek before it was fashionable. When I want to be cool, I turn the thermostat down.

Well SJW as a pejorative is about 4 years old now, and you can find people using in that term instead of "politically correct nut" so if you wanted to be a hipster on it you'd have to go back at least 5-6 years when it was just starting to catch on in various political forums and chan circles.

I find your "until their actions started to have an impact on society in a negative way" unconvincing, given that I don't trust the people who now use it as a perjorative to tell positive from negative changes in a way I find convincing.

Ask yourself who were pushing no-platforming. The groups pushing anti-speech zones. Demanding safe spaces, and shutting down events like MRA's discussing law. Those people all called themselves SJW's or advocates of social justice. All of those actions I mentioned have had a negative impact on society, either stifling speech, restricting public assembly, causing venues to refuse to cater to particular groups for fear of vandalism.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[lpq]

SJW?

As for videos/porn/prostitution causing violence against women -- hasn't that been put to rest by showing countries with low-controls on those having lower violence rates in general as well as lower rape rates, while countries where those subjects are controlled, restricted or banned have higher violence rates? The worst violence rates are in those countries where the restrictions on consensual acts are backed by a monotheistic government, and 2nd by a monotheistic-cult dominating society.

Why can't women use their bodies to make money as men do in things like football & boxing, etc...

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[david_thornley]

Ask yourself who were pushing no-platforming.

That's a lot less important than you seem to think it is. As long as platforms are available, and they continued to be, that doesn't suppress free speech. You right-wingers are far too hung up on regulating private institutions to spend limited resources on carrying your messages.

The groups pushing anti-speech zones.

Political parties, with their detestable "free speech zones". This was bipartisan. The case I'm most familiar with (having lived in the metro area at the time) was a Republican convention, but Democrats did it also.

Demanding safe spaces,

Like Pence wanting Broadway to be a safe space? Republicans attacking football players for peaceful protesting, and who apparently wanted NFL stadiums to be safe spaces? Of course, the wealthy and/or powerful creating safe spaces for themselves, where they don't have to listen to other people's opinions, goes back millennia.

I really don't think the Republicans involved called themselves SJWs.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

. As long as platforms are available, and they continued to be, that doesn't suppress free speech. You right-wingers are far too hung up on regulating private institutions to spend limited resources on carrying your messages.

Those are *public* institutions.

  Political parties, with their detestable "free speech zones". This was bipartisan. The case I'm most familiar with (having lived in the metro area at the time) was a Republican convention, but Democrats did it also.

Amero-centric view that's out of touch within their own country, colour me shocked.

I really don't think the Republicans involved called themselves SJWs.

They didn't. But democrats including key member of the democrat leadership at both the state and federal level have openly voiced their views that this is all acceptable. I'm not sure what's worse, that you have such an insular view, or that someone that lives in America's Hat, has a better and clearer view on the state of US politics, speech, and assembly. It's actually far worse in Canada, if you need a summery go look up the Lindsay Shepard saga.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[david_thornley]

Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. Now, I don't get the memos on how you right-wingers are supposed to think (I never even receive the memos to me as a leftist), but I thought you liked free enterprise and wanted regulation to be limited. Social media profits depend on what they permit and what they don't. In the meantime, if you don't like what they don't let you say, it's really easy to set up your own site. Contrast this with the situation when I was a kid, and it was very difficult to get your views any sort of hearing if the MSM didn't cooperate.

I don't really understand your final paragraph. I don't see the antecedent for "this" in "this is all acceptable", and Democrats are not very uniform in beliefs. "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers. I also don't quite understand what you mean by "insular view", or why you think you understand US politics better than I do.

Re:I don't know any SJW types

[Mashiki]

Facebook and Twitter are private corporations. Now, I don't get the memos on how you right-wingers are supposed to think (I never even receive the memos to me as a leftist), but I thought you liked free enterprise and wanted regulation to be limited. Social media profits depend on what they permit and what they don't. In the meantime, if you don't like what they don't let you say, it's really easy to set up your own site. Contrast this with the situation when I was a kid, and it was very difficult to get your views any sort of hearing if the MSM didn't cooperate.

Are you now trying to say that Facebook and Twitter are universities? Or did you not bother reading? "No platforming" is a near exclusive to university campuses. That's the thing we're talking about here, or have you missed it.

I don't really understand your final paragraph. I don't see the antecedent for "this" in "this is all acceptable", and Democrats are not very uniform in beliefs. "I belong to no organized political party. I am a Democrat." - Will Rogers. I also don't quite understand what you mean by "insular view", or why you think you understand US politics better than I do.

That'd be the point where you don't seem to be paying attention to the leadership of the democrats and the views that they promote. If you're a democrat, then you fall under those beliefs. Sorry if you don't like it, on the other hand if you're not supporting those views that the democrat are promoting you're not a democrat. This is your own self-labeling in action.

Just wanted to point out the following:

[Anonymous Coward]

Jaylen MacLaren is a former child prostitute who used a website like this to screen her clients. She now recognizes those clients as abusers, but she does not blame the website for her suffering.

If we charge children for murder, drug dealing/trafficking, etc. Shouldn't we also charge them for aiding and abetting in the prostitution of a minor? I find it repugnant when people place all the blame on the party who can't defend themselves while not taking any of the blame on themselves for their own conduct. I imagine she made better money than anyone working a minimum wage job in her area at the same age. 50/50 chance she was living a better lifestyle too, unless she was working an area in abject poverty.

Re:Just wanted to point out the following:

[qirtaiba]

Well in fact we are charging minors with sex offences, and that's something that Prostasia will be addressing. In many states, you can be charged as a minor for producing child pornography, by taking selfies for your boyfriend or girlfriend. As a result, you can end up on the sex offender registry, which can be for life (again, depending on the state). While the distribution of such selfies is a real problem, it's pure insanity for the young teens involved to be charged criminally.

Re:Just wanted to point out the following:

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see how many people we can set into a frenzy with one set of questions. If she was okay with being a child prostitute until she wasn't one anymore and we can safely assume that someone else "got her out of the business" so to speak, was she abused? What if she hadn't been told that she was abused by other people? If she doesn't think she was abused without external influences demanding she think that she was and she didn't have a problem with it until those influences took hold, was it actually abusive at all?

Hard mode: no appeals to emotion, appeals to authority, appeals to morality, or retarded analogies. GO!

Re:Just wanted to point out the following:

[Anonymous Coward]

was she abused? What if she hadn't been told that she was abused by other people?

Was she abused? Please do the world a favor, and refrain from having children, you fucking moron.

Re:Just wanted to point out the following:

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical fact-free response. I see you've opted out of reality.

Those poor, poor, pedovores...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wherever will they get their adrenochrome, now?

When they say...

[localman]

> research-based approach ... they've just lost half the country.

Re:When they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

What should they say instead? An irrational, emotional approach like what got us this far?

Re:When they say...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think localman is implying that, usually, the mention of 'research-based approaches' means 'we kept looking/doing research until we found a conclusion that agreed with our irrational, emotional viewpoint'.

Half the country is lost because they are actually being reasoned and don't have confirmation bias or because they have their own confirmation bias in the opposite direction.

It's for the children.

[sharkbiter]

Any bill that attempts to pass both house and senate with that tired mantra should be ripped up, stamped upon and burned to ash with the ash stomped upon again for good measure. While the original premise of passing laws for the children's welfare was an honest endeavour, that principle is now nothing more than a broad brush that permits abuse of the laws to pass a niche minority group's maligned concept of morality.

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works."

Re:It's for the children.

[Anonymous Coward]

You misunderstand the purpose of these laws. None are for protecting children. All are just using that excuse to con us into paying for, developing, and testing a suite of tools and systems that can be used to identify, track, and persecute any class the government eventually decides needs to be controlled. We could just as easily use these systems to track hispanics, muslims, terrorists, any type of activists, white supremacists, SJWs, etc.

When a hoe speaks ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Slash-Dot progressive droolers listen. Here pupupup ... here pup pup pup . You can tell ... by how wide Pelosi-esque bitches spread their ... ears.

too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

The industry has had twenty years to regulate itself. It failed. Utterly failed. Backpage was a perfect example of the industry indifference to the problems.. The "i dont care and i dont have to" attitude. The feds come calling eventually tonall such industries. They might make mistakes and overreach but they have to do something. Someone has to give a shit. If the industry wanted good regulation they should have acted a long time ago.

Re:too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the government doesn't always HAVE to do something. They often do though and usually their actions are symptoms of the actual problems. Sort of like bitter medicine. We may not like the taste but we wouldn't have to swallow it if the disease didn't exist.

There are many regulations and laws that suck. Ask yourself why they exist. The EPA for example. A lot of that crap is exactly that - crap. No ask yourself why the EPA exists. If people and industry (mostly) didn't constantly play the games of externalizes and tragedy of the commons, the EPA wouldn't exist. For a non-government example, unions - if employers hadn't been abusive of their employees, the employees wouldn't have had any reason to unionize in the first place. That unions today have become the corrupted bodies they generally are doesn't excuse the employers that pushed employees to unionize in the first place.

Re:too little too late

[qirtaiba]

I actually agree that the industry needs to do more, and Prostasia aims to work with platforms on developing well-informed self-regulatory child protection policies. (Backpage is nobody's idea of a stellar corporate citizen.)

Re:too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Are there any sites that ethically put sex workers in touch with potential clients?

The big one (for UK users, at least) seems to be Adultwork, but I'm not sure how much they police the profiles. Finding workers who are doing the job out of free choice is always going to be challenge - it's difficult to be an ethical consumer.

For context, my view is that if someone makes a free choice that selling sex for a few hours a week is a better life for them than a 60 hour weekly grind in a coffee shop at minimum wage then that's fair enough. They may be "coerced" by society, in a sense, but they have a choice.

Re:too little too late

[fish_in_the_c]

They may be "coerced" by society, in a sense, but they have a choice.
So is it also you view that if people want to self medicate depression using meth , they may have been co-erased by society but hey they have a choice?
That's all fine and dandy till they rob you to get the meth.
Sex work is all fine and dandy until the you have to deal with the attitudes that coercing people into having sex is 'Ok'. How about the woman that works for me? Is it all good if she agrees that I promote her? Why not a few kiddies, they agree to it right? How about a few drunk frat girls, they said yes to drinking and they weren't passed out? So their choice right?

Just because someone 'chooses' to allow themselves to be exploited doesn't make the exploitation any less disastrous. Did you ever hear of 'indentured servitude'. Life time 'indentured servitude' later became known as 'slavery' in the united states. So is slavery ok if someone 'chooses' to sell themselves because they can't find a better way to survive? How about if they sell thier kids? That used to happen too.

Re:too little too late

[david_thornley]

You're talking about sex work, and instead complaining about imbalance of power and cases where consent really can't be given. If an adult female wants to do something sexual with me for a certain amount of money, that's one thing. We both have to agree to the transaction without external pressure. Sex with an employee is coercion to some extent, and promoting someone for something she does for you rather than for the company is an abuse of your position (which isn't really a sexual issue). Children can't legally consent. That's why we have restrictions on contracts with minors, among other things. Women who are sufficiently drunk can't consent.

It's not that difficult to understand. Giving consent without being coerced and while legally able to give consent is one thing. Sex with some sort of coercion is another, and in some cases it's really not possible to know if there's actual coercion going on. Sex with someone without the mental and emotional capability to consent is also wrong.

Re:too little too late

[Anonymous Coward]

Until there's a universal basic income, we're all coerced to work by society. That's what I meant. My point was that sex work for a few hours a week vs. a long week in a minimum wage job is a choice, and a choice that probably suits some people.

Yes, it's hard to determine whether someone is a sex worker for those sort of reasons - that they've made a rational, informed choice and are as happy with that choice is anyone doing any job is likely to be.

That's where I set my ethical bar.

Not aimed at abuse of minors (citation needed)

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to say that the people who wrote and passed this bill don't actually care about the sexual abuse of minors, you're going to need to provide some citations. Sounds like bullshit to me. And not only bullshit, but pretty morally horrendous bullshit.

Re:Not aimed at abuse of minors (citation needed)

[qirtaiba]

The point is not that they don't care at all about sexual abuse of minors, because of course they do, but they also have a (not so) hidden agenda against consensual adult sex work, which is why they made the law so much broader than it needed to be. Here is some reading on this from sex blogger Violet Blue. As others have also noted, this is just part of a bigger bipartisan war on sex that also places porn in the firing line.

Re:Not aimed at abuse of minors (citation needed)

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going to say that the people who wrote and passed this bill don't actually care about the sexual abuse of minors, you're going to need to provide some citations. Sounds like bullshit to me. And not only bullshit, but pretty morally horrendous bullshit.

I'm sure the people who wrote and passed this bill care about the sexual abuse of minors.

Do said people also care if the law they passed will actually help prevent the sexual abuse of minors? Do said people also care if the law they passed has unintended consequences for other parties, much larger in number, also affected by the law? Do said people also care more about minors than they do about what surveys say they need to do to secure their own re-election?

What is the motive for these lawmakers? Are they actually thinking of the children or are they thinking about looking like they're thinking of the children. If its the former, it seems misguided. If the later, it seems, like most laws, to be selfish. Watch the Zuckerburg testimony. The members of Congress didn't ask any hard or detailed questions. They asked feel good crap but made damn sure everyone knew they were sponsoring legislation favored by the current opinion of their constituents.

Re: Not aimed at abuse of minors (citation needed)

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation #1: the bill itself. What part of "censoring websites were prostitutes sell themselves" are you confusing with "protecting duh children from the boogey man"?

fake news??

[Reverend Green]

It's interesting that the director of this NGO, Jaylen MacLaren, has a very unique name. Yet Google seems to know nothing at all about her background.

Perhaps there NGO is some type of front group?

Re:fake news??

[Anonymous Coward]

The domain, prost.asia, and Foundation was registered by Jeremy Malcolm. Jeremy is a lawyer for the EFF.

It looks like the address of the foundation, 18 BARTOL ST #995, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94133 could be one of those virtual office addresses. No actual office, just outsourced business services by Davinci.

According to its California business registration, Jeremy Malcolm is CEO, Pearl Joan Regalado is secretary, and Katherine Gwen Schluntz is CFO.

Re:fake news??

[AmiMoJo]

According to the group she is a former child prostitute, so it's not that surprising that there isn't much information on Google about her.

Anyway, do we really need to investigate her personally? I mean, what is the point, other than to make an ad-hominem attack? The argument put forward here stands on its own and it doesn't matter where it comes from. It's disappointing to see how many /. stories get comments along the lines of "oh but this person is X so now everything they ever say or do must be rejected".

Re:fake news??

[fish_in_the_c]

except the argument doesn't hold up. It smells bad. I mean what actions taken by human beings aren't 'evidence based' ? There is really no such thing, different actions are usually a result of filtering different evidence. If what you mean is 'science based' you will find very little science that can tell you how to make human beings more moral and less likely to exploit others. However I'd argue consistent training in viewing other people as PEOPLE helps, which is exactly the opposite of what porn and sex work encourage so, ending porn and sex work certainly would help the goal of putting an end to child exploitation.

Re:fake news??

[david_thornley]

Lots of actions aren't evidence-based. For example, you've constructed a theoretical argument that sex work and porn cause more child abuse. It's reasonably plausible, but there's lots of other possibilities. Perhaps some people who'd abuse other people sexually will find that porn keeps them calm and under control. (I know that pictures of unclothed attractive women do often make me feel calmer.) Perhaps some people are going to have sex with sex workers, but would prefer to keep it legal if possible. Lots of things are possible here, and I don't see a whole lot of evidence one way or another.

"Sex workers"

[Tony Isaac]

...as if somehow they are meaningfully employed. Call me old-fashioned, but I certainly would have a problem with my daughter getting into this line of work, and I would HOPE every parent would feel the same way.

Re:"Sex workers"

[serviscope_minor]

...as if somehow they are meaningfully employed. Call me old-fashioned, but I certainly would have a problem with my daughter getting into this line of work, and I would HOPE every parent would feel the same way.

I could say the same about coal mining, especialy as the safety regulations have recently been slashed. I presume many people would not want their kids to get black lung, excep for the fact they voted in a chap to slash regulations.

Re:"Sex workers"

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing it's your daughter's choice and not yours, retard.

But how will Hollywood react?

[thinkwaitfast]

How FOSTA Could Give Hollywood the Filters It's Long Wanted

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

looking at the reporting on that GDC kerkuffle

[aepervius]

I am not sure the US and the EU had the same definition of naked and half naked. Looking at the microsoft dancing GDC women, first I see people everywhere naming them dancing girl. They are women. Dancing girl is already one step to remove them agency (women->girl). But yeah let us ignore that. Most article I can find say they are half naked. Nope. They are what we call in Europe maybe at worst lightly clothed, or sexy dancing outfit at best, but not half naked. Half naked is when your breast or your bottom are uncovered. When you have a bathing suit which cover both you are still not half naked. But in the case of the dancing women, they had far more coverage, from the picture I saw they had short skirt and some sort of bikini/tank top. So while i don't care about dancing women at my game party, I view the US coverage I saw on that incident really funny: lightly clothed dancing women => half naked dancing girl. *shrug*.

Re:looking at the reporting on that GDC kerkuffle

[Mashiki]

Welcome to the march of the prudes, and remember, if you don't bow to that view point someone will absolutely try to ruin your career over it.

Re:Dignity

[Bobrick]

With appropriate respect... so allow sex workers to practice their trade with dignity instead of criminalizing them.

A day late and a dollar short

[Anonymous Coward]

Too late now, you've lost that part of your first amendment rights.

Re:Dignity

[Opportunist]

We could treat sex as what it is, a hormone-filled expression of joy, lust, love, fun and a lot in between.

sex -positive

[fish_in_the_c]

I love how people just make up terms then think they are saying something useful. If there is such things a sex-negative. They you need to ask what sex-positive means. The article somehow implies that prostitution and pornography are sex-positive, which is about the farthest from the truth.
Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species? How does pornography help that? If anything it drags down sex and makes it about 'using' images of other people to gratify and appetite and does nothing to encourage healthy propagation of the species.
It discourages monogamy, and reduces the effective relationship of the parental bond by encouraging both women and men to treat each other like objects and any child that might come from sex as byproduct or an afterthought.

Prostitution , exploits everyone involved and the sexual act itself and make it about money, not reproduction.

The effect of both of these actions is highly sex ( aka reproduction) negative they encourage irresponsible attitudes towards children and sex , so they are truly 'sex negative' activities. I'm not advocating specifically for any law, but the fact of the matter is a society without porn and prostitution would be a healthier place to live with a whole lot less need for #metoo because most of the cause of that is in the attitude that leads to the behavior, which is the same attitude that is encouraged by pornography and prostitution.

Re:sex -positive

[bluefoxlucid]

Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species?

Friends and family occur because of oxytocin release and dopamine responses. Sex is generally a rewards-driven response engaged due to impulse and reinforced due to pleasure: most intelligent animals will respond to a sexual reward strongly by establishing a behavior likely to repeat the sexual reward, and will ignore such a reward if a direct stimulus (e.g. cocaine) is available. We've seen this with bonobo, whereby a female bonobo will offer sexual favors (including oral sex) to get food from a male bonobo--and the male will actually give up the food to get sex!

Nothing on this planet engages in sex with the intent to reproduce except the occasional human trying to fulfill a long-term plan of some romantic ideal of a family life in which a child is basically an object created for the purpose of furthering one's own ego. Reproduction is incidental to the desire for pleasure, self-gratification, and social acceptance.

Re:sex -positive

[fish_in_the_c]

Human beings are the ONLY thing on this plant that engage in ANYTHING with an INTENT. There are no other creatures the provably INTENT to do anything because there is no evidence any other creatures have a sufficient understanding of self to do what human beings call intending.

The vacuously truth value of your statement aside. There is one simple reason why sex has a 'reward based response' and that is continuation of the species.
Honestly from and evolutionary point of view that is why 'feeling good' exists. Either preservation of the individual or preservation or benefit to the offspring both of which happen in a feedback look in such a way they increase the likelihood of specific genetic variation surviving. The reward response exists because it increases the likelihood of survival. If some other environmental factor causes the reward system to fail , the species either fails or evolves. Consider your example with baboons. If there we baboons living in an area for a long time where cocaine was naturally present, they would either develop immunity to cocaine or they would go extinct.

However, if you attempt to define any debate narrowly by only provable science you will inevitably fail, because there is no such thing as evidence based ethics. There is no test for 'right or wrong' only outcome and there is no such thing a 'proof' we 'should' desire any outcome , even survival of the spices.

On the other hand if you think the exploitation of women is wrong and want to change the 'rape college' in modern american college, they you need to address what people 'intend' and why. Which basically involves training in morality and changes in philosophy. Weather or not people acknowledge the philosophy they ascribe to , everyone ascribes to some kind of philosophy , which in turn generates their ethical framework. Any philosophy that views random sexual acts outside the context of child rearing as positive, will create an ethical system when women ( and men) are treated as objects for sexual pleasure instead of other people due the same level of respect as oneself. Any philosophy the separates sex from child rearing will generate an ethical system were children are expendable and abuse tolerable.

Re:sex -positive

[bluefoxlucid]

there is no such thing as evidence based ethics. There is no test for 'right or wrong'

Several years ago, I sat down and decided to explore this. People don't provide a real basis for right and wrong; I had determined that ethics are essentially a means to avoid difficult moral judgments by taking an action mindlessly based on a prior analysis so as to shirk your responsibility of making the right decision based on your own conscience. I later discovered rules lawyering, which makes the ethics thing a bit more problematic.

A human, alone, naked, and unarmed, is useless. It dies. It has no way to support itself, no way to protect itself, and generally will die from weather, starvation, or predation. Humans group together for security, establishing society: a group of humans agrees to a social contract by which the group protects its members and ensures their security.

Failure of a society to provide security for its members results in societal decay. Our broken penal system in the US actually increases crime by taking people for whom society has failed to provide security (or who have made mistakes) and making them even more insecure, thus they come out of prison as worse criminals, and end up back in prison soon after. You see similar in revolutionary societies where an oppressed underclass eventually turns on the rest of society and either cuts it off (wars of independence) or tears it down to start over and establish security (wars of revolution).

What is right is what provides the greatest individual security for the greatest span of society at the least expense to any member of society who does not violate the social contract. Criminal justice reforms are essentially based around creating security for those who violate the social contract by extending help to bring them back into society and forgive them so long as they become compliant. Welfare is based around extending security to those who have faced a lack of economic opportunity or other hardships.

Creating insecurity is wrong.

Yes, my view of right and wrong is due to a defect: I can't actually "believe", and only understand validation of conclusions by evidence or internally and externally consistent logical proposition extrapolating from physical fact. In this case, the motivations and behaviors of humans has always displayed instability when faced with insecurity, and stability when granted security: people need to feel safe or counterproductive and destructive things happen.

Right and wrong are based in physical evidence.

Any philosophy that views random sexual acts outside the context of child rearing as positive, will create an ethical system when women ( and men) are treated as objects for sexual pleasure instead of other people due the same level of respect as oneself.

Any philosophy where the consensual engagement of desired activity between two people is rejected by the greater social group will create insecurity for those with such desire, and a sense of oppression by society at large. Compliance occurs to retain the security of social acceptance, and comes at the expense of repression (unhealthy covering of emotions and impulses without addressing the root cause) instead of suppression (the delay of expression of emotions and impulses until appropriate). This causes psychological stress which is eventually released in unhealthy ways (rape or secret lives of adultery).

You suggest people are simple tools meant to reproduce, and that you have the ultimate moral authority over them. They are your toys, and they will play as you direct, for your approval.

Liberty is security. People sacrifice some so-called natural rights, such as the right to do harm onto others, to the government so that the government may use these rights to protect other natural rights, such as liberty and property.

Re:sex -positive

[fish_in_the_c]

"What is right is what provides the greatest individual security for the greatest span of society at the least expense to any member of society who does not violate the social contract"

The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure' by violating the social contract. When you look at history, slavery , for instance, has served more then a few societies quite well for centuries.

The second problem is that even if what you claim was provably true and all ethics are basically evolutionary social contracts, that is not a logical reason for the individual to not violate them if they find they are able to with impunity and doing so has the desired effect. Basically if you can become the 'dictator for life' by enslaving all women , there is no good reason you shouldn't. ( I've removed the customary nazi allusion from this because they have just become silly).

So your claim would be provably false for the individual, and the correct answer would be for an entirely evidence based ethic 'The individual should take whatever action that is in their power that maximizes their persona pleasure' this is of coarse limited by the the others around them and so all laws are basically a impingement on personal freedom that should be ignored whenever possible. This of coarse destabilizes society , but why should the individual care so long as they get what they want?

A much better answer is this: It is evident from the study of human beings that we require a source of truth that is objective and transcends beyond any cause that exists within the individual members of society. The fact that we have evolved to need such a object is evidence that we evolved in response to the existence of the object even though the object itself is not directly measurable.

Further, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion ( in the composite if not the the specific).
So it is incumbent on human beings through the use of there various arts and sciences to discover and respond correctly to the transcendent objective truth or we can reasonably expect less desirable outcomes of our moral decisions , very much the same way as would be expected with a lack of knowledge of any of the other laws encountered in the universe as a whole.

Re:sex -positive

[Stolovaya]

The article somehow implies that prostitution and pornography are sex-positive, which is about the farthest from the truth.

It's not hard to understand. Here's the definition: "having or promoting an open, tolerant, or progressive attitude towards sex and sexuality". What another consenting adult does with their body is none of your business. None. And I will repeat that over and over to you and it will continue to be true.

For instance, it's very easy to see you're sex-negative.

Think about it. Sexual intercourse exists scientifically , in nature for a single purpose, propagation of the species?

By your words, sex is to be used only for the purpose of propagation of our species. Never mind that human beings have sex to feel good (depending on the circumstances, physically and/or emotionally). You lump human beings in with all animals, which is really weird.

You come off as some sort of sex-negative zealot. You seem to have an unhealthy obsession on what other people do with each other.

Re:sex -positive

[bluefoxlucid]

The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure' by violating the social contract.

Perhaps, perhaps not. We're well-aware of issues of behavioral health stemming from prior insecurity as a failure of our society, including mental health issues as a minority proportion of poor behavioral health, and poverty as a majority portion. We have several states and even nations around the world which have instituted minimum standards for treatment of prisoners in which their human dignity, safety, and individual needs are met, education and leisure is provided for, and every effort is made to integrate the prisoner with society and speed their rehabilitation is made. These efforts generally resolve the issue and convert prisoners to productive members of society who then uphold the social contract.

that is not a logical reason for the individual to not violate them if they find they are able to with impunity and doing so has the desired effect.

True! This is why I have often described the Fourth and Fifth amendments as checks and balances against government overreach by way of ensuring that a person who is not a sufficient nuisance is also not likely to be convicted of crime. You can make something illegal, but you have to find evidence to gain warrant to perform a search, trial, and conviction. This has had results ranging from laws which do nothing in practice (my State at one point had made it Constitutionally illegal for a woman to perform oral sex on a man--nobody has ever been arrested for this, and it happens quite frequently without actionable police evidence anyway) to laws which have proven utterly unenforceable and only created a lot of arrests but not the consistent ability to arrest (see: Marijuana).

In other words: it is likely you can violate the social contract if the social contract is invasive and without purpose, because your violation does not in fact threaten the security of those around you. The more your action violates the security of others, the more likely they are to know about it.

there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion

Correct: The primary behavior of humans to seek security--to seek things like liberty and freedom, personal safety, and the long-term protection thereof--has been experienced by nearly all throughout history, and has lead to behaviors which cannot be explained through any other reasonable fashion currently known to the scientific body.

Re:sex -positive

[david_thornley]

The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure'

Let's think about the philosophy for a moment, without worrying about details of implementation. If we can agree on a philosophy of ethics, we can work on implementing it in practical terms. It doesn't have to be easy to be valid.

A much better answer is this: It is evident from the study of human beings that we require a source of truth that is objective and transcends beyond any cause that exists within the individual members of society.

That falls firmly into the Would Be Nice category. In fact, we have no source of objective transcendent truth. All attempts to establish such mean trying to ram beliefs down people's throats. We have truths we can objectively investigate, but they aren't transcendent. Transcendent beliefs are always subjective reports that can't be objectively verified.

Further, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion ( in the composite if not the the specific).

There is a significant body of scientific evidence that a large number of people have mystical experiences, yes. Such experiences tend to be similar in many ways, and different in others. Some of the similar ones are objectively unverifiable but scientifically unlikely, like life everlasting or the fairly common perception of the Universe as full of something vaguely like life. Many people come out of those experiences as better people, but that's hardly inexplicable.

I consider this to be evidence that the human brain is predisposed to such experiences. They're either real or accidents of brain evolution. I don't have a way, currently, of telling which. (This is what I'd most want to talk to a nonhuman intelligent life-form about, preferably one with no evolutionary relationship. If they have similar experiences, that is some evidence that they're in some sense real.)

The "many physical events" are all explainable. We don't have to believe all accounts of strange events, after all. All miracles we attribute to Jesus were written down some time after his life by people with a vested interest in making it impressive. Which Gospel was it that tried to satisfy a prophecy by tracing Joseph's ancestry, despite the claim elsewhere that Mary was pregnant before Joseph had sex with her? Now, if someone wanted to retcon Jesus as divine, throwing in a few things like water to wine and healing lepers wouldn't seem out of line.

Finally, when we look at all those people with mystical experiences, they don't necessarily agree. In every religion I've looked at, there have been mystics, and the religions don't agree with each other. Moral codes vary to some extent. You seem to be advocating that we take a certain group of people who have had mystical experiences and trusting them and not others with mystical experiences.

You moved the goal post

[rsilvergun]

the people complaining about sexy dancers weren't calling for sexy dancing to be illegal, they felt it had no place at a GDC party (e.g. an industry sponsored party for game developers). I asked you to find me a SJW who would ban prostitution. Keep trying.

Re:You moved the goal post

[Mashiki]

Sorry, there was no goal post moving. Why don't you go look up the names of the people who were "complaining about the sexy dancers." I'll wait, I used that for a very specific example. Do you need a hint? It answers your own question.

It's Anti-Nerd; Nerds like prostitutes.

[Slicker]

I think many slashdotters are upset because it's taking away a service they rely on.

Who are the customers of sex workers in Silicon Valley.. in Seattle near Amazon.. In these places, there are now very few families left. And nerds not only struggle more to find women but have little time, as focused as we are on creating.

I have never used the services of a sex worker, myself but I certainly can see the lure and the practicality of it. If we could ensure sex workers are willingly in the business and not for lack of other opportunities then I think it's a good and appreciable business. In fact, I would strongly support legalization and regulation.

A bigger issue than prostitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that stopping these sites also pushes those exploiting children further from view. Stopping these sites is not going to end child predators. I would argue what the sites did help was show the extent of the problem and provide an easy means for the good guys to find and help them. If they truly cared about child sex trafficking there are many other laws they could pass. It seems more like they are more interested in beginning to find publicly acceptable ways to censor the Internet. This is just the beginning. Expect a version of this to be used against sites hosting terrorist content - especially since it is so broad and allows for civil action.

Re:A bigger issue than prostitution

[fish_in_the_c]

Interesting point, and unless anyone forget, after the republicans have passed a law allowing sites to be punished for hosting terrorist content, we can expect the democrats to classify anti-abortion and pro-catholic web sites and terrorisitic in their content, when they get in power.

Censorship is always dangerous, much better to monitor then sensor , then actually punish people when the break the law.

Re:A bigger issue than prostitution

[david_thornley]

Democrats aren't in general anti-Catholic any more. The only Catholic President I'm aware of was Kennedy. Pro-Catholic websites are not going to be considered terorristic. There is some terrorism in the anti-abortion movement, and I'd like to get rid of that. The rest of the anti-abortion movement is basically just a bunch of people I disagree with on something, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, I am pleased that you've noticed that, while extending the power of government to do what you agree with is tempting, the extended power will be used by people elected later that you don't agree with.

Re:Dignity

[fish_in_the_c]

There is no such thing as sex work with 'dignity'. Selling , what is naturally an act of intimate affection and bonding , that has it's primary function in the creation of other human beings is utterly and by definition disrespectful to anyone involved.

Re:Dignity

[fish_in_the_c]

What it is first and foremost, is the human action responsible for each of us being here. Treating sex like a plaything is to disrespect every human being created by it.

Re:Dignity

[Stolovaya]

There is no such thing as sex work with 'dignity'.

How antiquated. What a person does with their body, as long as they are freely consenting, is absolutely ZERO of your business.

Re:Dignity

[Bobrick]

I don't think you realize the irony of your signature in contrast to your statement. Regardless, I have to inform you not everyone is part of your church.

Re:Dignity

[david_thornley]

Currently, the average middle-class woman in developed countries has less than two children, on the average. I'd suspect that such women on the average have had sex a lot more than two times. Almost none of the sex between my wife and me was with the intention of reproduction. As far as I could tell, Mom and Dad had an active sex life for a long time after my younger brother was born. However, I don't think they were dissing me.

First Amendment Violation

[Tablizer]

Craigslist etc. should sue per free-speech guarantees of the Constitution, which overrides Congressional legislation (per court interpretation of Constitution).

They could argue that the practical effects of the law hurt free legal speech. The court(s) may not outright strike the law down in its entirety, but strike down portions of it, or at least strike down enforcement of portions of it.

It's unrealistic for a website hoster to monitor millions of users, and jail them if just ONE user slips through.

I know I'm No True Scottsmaning here

[rsilvergun]

But I'm not sure I'm going to buy into a group that honors Hilary Clinton. They look like a right wing group crouched in left wing rhetoric. In any case if they're cosying up to Hilary then they belong to the wing of the party that the left is actively trying to purge (e.g. the corporate Democrats).

Still, good on you for finding them. Now if we can get them to understand they're doing more harm than good. But I'm guessing doing good isn't their goal. I'm guessing it's more about clamping down on prostitution without actually spending the money to help people who are forced into prostitution.

Re:I wish them luck - money from porn

[John.Banister]

People who make money from porn and also believe it's valuable to protect children might want be funding this organization in a big way. I have the impression that people exist who have made a fair amount of money from porn.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Tell me your name and where you work

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll get you fired if your workplace has a private anonymous complaint system. Where there is smoke there must be fire right? A few people making complaints now and then can add up to a lot of smoke to some idiots looking at HR records which last forever and are easily shared when organizations merge or outsource HR services.

Hell, I have 1 on file because told off a woman who kept bothering me for a date, I didn't even like her as a person and she would NOT leave me alone. So I heard she filed a complaint against me which ended up in my file but nothing was done because everybody knew I was avoiding her all the time. But everything ever so slight was in our files because management would pull that out if they ever needed leverage against a staffer. As we heard when a staffer sued the place -- out of context allegations came out in court but that staffer won a big settlement for their violations of labor laws (but had to get all their claims into the court transcripts.. i don't know if those become public. but clearly they wanted to make it a miserable process, despite it having nothing to do with their illegal violation of rights.)