Fox: [referring to the subjects of Jonathan's critiques] Have you ever seen any of your victims?
Jonathan: Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Look at the DVD playing on the monitor. Tell me Fox. Would you really feel any pity if one of those pixels stopped moving forever? If I offered you twenty thousand Euros for every pixel that stopped, would you really, old man, tell me to keep my money, or would you calculate how many pixels you could afford to spare? Free of income tax, old man. Free of income tax - the only way you can save money nowadays.
Fox, you're just a little mixed up about things. ...in general. Nobody thinks in terms of human beings. Film critics don't, so why should we? They talk about the actors, and the characters... I talk about the suckers and the mugs... It's the same thing. They have their top ten-film plan, and so have I. Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in America for 10 years under the blogs they had flame wars, comment spam, hacking, and Windows Vista, but they produced Dennis Cozzalio, dissent and discussion, TOERIFC and the Movie Blogaissance. In the 90s they had web sites - they had 8 years of consensus and agreement and no comment sections, and what did that produce? Harry Knowles. So long Fox.
122 comments:
Fox is gonna shoot you. He'll feel kinda bad afterwards, though, if that helps any.
Oh yeah. Well then I hope my lover walks right past him.
Right past him!
That'll show him!
Ha! In your face Fox! Valli is gonna totally freeze you out at my funeral. Totally!
So...do you think Fox has even seen The Third Man?
This will be Fox's comment:
"Ha ha, this is like an X-Men movie where Jonathan is Magneto and I'm Professor X... no, wait, I'm totally WOLVERINE baby! Dude, who is that actor in the picture? It looks like Jack Black!"
And then he'll say something about penises.
Fox is a curious fellow. I'm always baffled by the mix of films he not only hasn't seen but doesn't seem to have even heard of (Shadow of a Doubt, The Omega Man), and the films he seems quite well versed on, like Fassbinder's films. How does that work, exactly? I mean, there are a lot of films I'm embarrassed to admit I haven't seen, but I know what those films are. How do you not even know Shadow of a Doubt exists, but at the same time know your Fassbinder backwards and forwards?
Fox, care to elucidate? Honestly, I'm not trying to be insulting. You do know movies, obviously. But still...you're weird.
Well, we'll have to wait. No one seems to start surfing the blogs until several hours after you and I have. It's like we're the early risers of the blogging world and everyone else is a sleepy-head. It's why I believe, Bill, that one day you and I will rule the world.
I already have my crown and my scepter. Aw yeah.
So...do you think Fox has even seen The Third Man?
I have it on VHS!
And wait wait wait... Bill, you are correct about The Omega Man, but where did the Shadow of a Doubt thing come from? I'm confused b/c I've even seen that one!
Maybe a reference to it me blew over my head (that wouldn't surprise me...) but I definitely have known about it for awhile.
Bill just likes being mean. He told me to write that X-Men comment. I'm with you Fox, 100 percent! You da man!
Okay, seriously Fox, DON'T READ THE NEXT PART OF THIS COMMENT!
Bill, boy Fox sure is touchy. I gave him some cock and bull story about you just being mean and yadda, yadda, yadda. I think he bought it.
I'm scared to ask this now - considering the theme of this post - but, Jonathan, what is that banner from?
As far as The Omega Man ignorance, I can only best explain that as me not having an huge interest in Sci-Fi. It's not that I don't like Sci-Fi films when I see them, it's just that they don't initially pull me in so much (this is especially true of the older ones... though, I do like Silent Running, and remember Lapper's banner of it).
Also, I think I get Sci-Fi art in general mixed up with each other ... books, TV shows, movies, comics. For instance, somebody could have told me that The Omega Man was a TV show and I would have believed them.
Okay, seriously Fox, DON'T READ THE NEXT PART OF THIS COMMENT!
Well, I tried my best. I didn't read all of "the next part". I stopped after this:
"I gave him some cock"
"I gave him some cock"
Did you enjoy it?
Fox, I snagged the screengrab for the banner from a certain friendly blogger who goes by the name Arbogast. He did a review of... uh, Urban Ghost Story I think was the name and I stole the grab from his review. Then I altered it which I do for many of my banners. People think you just throw some text on a grab and you're done. Sure, if you're lazy and stupid. Anyway, here's the original. As you can see, I lightened it, added smoke and saturated the colors.
Fox, I truly hope I didn't insult you. Truly! But sometimes you seem to be two people, movie-wise, and I get confused. And Jonathan did do a "re-write" post about Shadow of a Doubt that caused you some confusion. Anyway, that's all.
Fox offended? Bill, he's already making cock jokes. Fox really is da man, I wasn't kidding.
I tell you who is offended though Bill. Jarvis, that's who! He even namechecks you in his post and says "poop" in the same breath and nothing! Not even a comment from you.
Bill-
I'm not insulted at all!
As for the two person thing, that could be b/c I'm a Gemini. Though... I don't believe in that mystical mumbo jumbo... unless it's telling me that I'm awesome or something.
Jarvis wouldn't mind being called awesome. Of course it won't come from Bill. Bill hates Jarvis.
Of course it won't come from Bill. Bill hates Jarvis.
Yeah, seriously.
I mean, even after you dropped him a hint about Jarvis, he STILL (as of 11:09 CST) hasn't been over there to comment about him.
I mean, I was a bit surprised yesterday when I noticed Bill hadn't commented over at TIE, but it's almost been a full day!
Jonathan - Okay, look, I've been meaning to check out your Jarvis post, but it's hard to do at work, what with the sound and all, and then when I get home things start happening or I forget. But I'll do it! I promise! If work slows down today, I'll even do it before I get home.
Fox - I'm glad you're not offended. Know why? Because I think you're stupid! AH HA HA HA HA!!! WOOT!! ZING!!!
Also...
Bill hasn't complemented one of your banners in quite a while.
I may be a little nuts, but at least I appreciate blog artistry!!
Bill, seriously, don't listen to it at work if you think someone will hear it. It's got a "Not Safe for Work" rating, language-wise.
Fox, I love that you comment on my banners. They my mini-posts that go up every other day. But it doesn't bother me if no one else does. I mean, I'm hyper-sensitive sure, but I'm not ultra hyper sensitive!
Like, for instance, I'm not even bothered by the fact that Marilyn has apparently forgotten of my entire existence. Not bothered at... [Jonathan's lips starts to quiver. Hides tearing-up eyes and turns head]... uh, I have to go. Excuse me.
I'm a Gemini, too. And I know who Harry Lyme is. He's the guy who invented Lyme Disease, right, and let it loose on Bambi.
"They're just deer. How many of them do you need?"
Jonathan - You know, some of us have some serious goofing off on the job to do. I can't be holding your pixels all day, can I? Now run along like a good boy and see if there's any spam you can play with.
Wow, speak of the dev... I mean, angel. Marilyn hasn't forgotten about me.
Uh... I mean... yeah, duh. I never thought she had.
Now run along like a good boy and see if there's any spam you can play with.
Yes Marilyn.
In Marilyn's world I Blame The Patriarchy is the new Cinema Styles. It's sad, but people move on... y'know? I just hope they don't start referring to us as a "boys club".
Marilyn. Hi-Five on the Gemini! Maybe that's why we are so totally BFF. Right? When is your b-day? Mine is June 13th. WBS! LYLAS!
June 20. I'm on the cusp, which we all know is the happenin' place to be horoscope-wise.
Really, I have been swamped with another festival to cover and deadline for the magazine approaching. Sorry, fellas.
And IBTP has suddenly gotten very weird, with calls for the violent overthrow of the Y chromosome. Yikes! I knew we were angry, but I didn't know some of us were THAT angry.
I'm on the cusp too, with Aries that is. I even have a symbol of it on one of my tattoos (but please don't misinterpret that as me believing in astrology). One of you has even seen it. Anyway, for Fox's sake: FJATTH LYAALAY FHHHJKE LOLODELD
One of you has even seen it.
Um... please explain.
Marilyn-
On your IBTP comment... have there ever been any true American feminist militias in modern times? Like, the kind that call for extreme change that you referred too? (I couldn't tell if you were exaggerating or if some people at IBTP actually believe in that.)
I'm on the cusp, too, as a Sagittarius! We are so very great, each and every one of us! Except Fox, I mean, but you all knew that.
Hi, Marilyn! I also have a blog, you know! Death to Men! There, does that entice you over to my place?
My loves - I have been reading all of your websites, but not commenting, as my writing noodle has gone very limp indeed. Stress, stress.
Jonathan - The hubby is an Aries, so you're ok.
Bill - Mom was a Sag, so you're ok, too.
Fox - You're my twin, so you're really ok. As for feminist militias, some people thought the suffragettes were (chaining themselves to fences and all that), but I only know of SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men), founded by that gal who shot Andy Warhol (that's a great movie, btw, with Lili Taylor in the lead). But, yes, some of the IBTP gals are getting very Malcolm X on me...I'm more a Gandhi kind of gal.
Is there coffee?
Where? At my place? Sure! I'll whip up a pot! I make it with salt, though. Some people don't like that.
I worked with a radical feminist one time who told me a gang she worked with up your way, Marilyn, was seriously engaged in trying to genetically-engineer out the need for a y-chromosome. They also wanted to violently overthrow it, of course, in case the genetic engineering thing didn't work.
So, did the genetic engineering thing work? Because if so, they should have put that on the news, for cripes sake!
One of you has even seen it.
Um... please explain.
No.
Rick, nice of you to finally stop by. Hope it wasn't too inconvenient or anything. So sorry I plugged your blog and everything yesterday. I mean, geez man!
Bill, it was on the news: We're all women now.
Arbo, I've got coffee too. And doughnuts! I've even got donuts! So really, I'm covered.
Nah, but they did get a breed of heterosexual men who like Ethel Merman. Now they're back to the violent overthrow thing.
Rick, nice of you to finally stop by. Hope it wasn't too inconvenient or anything. So sorry I plugged your blog and everything yesterday. I mean, geez man!
Don't be so touchy ... you're getting to be a lot like Fox. And besides, what part of "I'm in St. Louis" didn't you understand?
Seriously, I had no time to do any blogging other than reply to some comments on my post about being gone. Which I know you read, because you commented on it.
what part of "I'm in St. Louis" didn't you understand?
The "St. Louis" part.
How do you violently overthrow a chromosome? Do you just use a toothpick and a microscope?
Maybe the radical femmes could do a reverse one-child policy thing and drown American baby boys instead of Chinese girls.
God... sorry, that sounded really awful.
And THEN! In 100 years when America is 80% women and China is 80% men, the two countries can make love to each other and start a new one called Americhina or Chinerica.
See, Bill, I didn't understand the "I'm" part. That word always throws me off.
Fox, why 80 percent instead of 100? Is it because the women will need 20 percent to be men so they can have sex slaves? I'm naturally assuming hardline feminists enjoy the concept of male sex slaves, right? Right?
Let's hope so.
Salts keeps coffee from being bitter. But too much makes it salty.
I've always enjoyed the concept of male sex slaves more than it's execution.
Oh you have, have you? Maybe you're doing it wrong.
I don't know what to blog about today. Just thought I'd mention that.
I don't know what to blog about today. Just thought I'd mention that.
Within about an hour from now (maybe two) the blog traffic for the day starts to dramatically die off as the first wave of surfers on the East Coast desperately try to get work done before heading home for the day. Then central, then West Coast. Then it all starts up again with Europe in the wee hours our time. So basically, anything you post now won't be read until tomorrow anyway so don't worry about it.
Or write about sex slaves.
Yes, so many ways to enslave a male, so little time ...
Jonathan - I know, but I want to get something up tonight. I like to maintain an at least every-other-day pace. And I got nothin'. I thought I had somethin' earlier, but it turned into nothin'.
Do a whole post on the song, "I got plenty of nuthin!"
That's a terrible idea!
BiLL-
YoU SHOUld do a POST ON hOw mUCH YOU smelL LiKE WalRUs POOp . . . A HA A HA A HA HA HA
I bet I know what JARVIS stands for!
Jack-
Ass
Rude
Vagrant
Idiot
Stupid!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HA!!
JARVIS, you crack me up!
heh, heh, you said "crack"
Jonathan - I see you DID find some spam to play with. I think, though, you should ask "sex with animals" to play, too, though. He's getting kind of lonely there in the kennel pushing around his Levitra pills.
RICK OLSon-
KNowING YoU. . . YOu arE PRObabLY At A FArT SMElLERs CoNFeRENCE IN saiNT LoUIS BECauSE YoU ARE A FaRT smELLER!
A HA A HA A HA . . . HA HA
Jonathan - I see you DID find some spam to play with. I think, though, you should ask "sex with animals" to play, too, though. He's getting kind of lonely there in the kennel pushing around his Levitra pills.
WTF is Marilyn Julianne Alvarado-Ferdinand talking about?!?!
I don't know, Fox. Does it have anything to do with chromosomes?
This does (from IBTP):
"Maybe paying to rape actual women would decline in popularity if what happened to this Detroit pay-for-rapist became trendier:
A 52-year-old perv seeks out sex on the internet. His degraded urges to use a human being as a receptacle for his incontinence eventually lead him to a house where, instead of getting to rape a woman, he gets robbed, tied up in a basement, punched in the mouth to the point where his teeth fell out and shot in the knee. The next morning, the suspects called the man’s cousin, demanding ransom."
I shed no tears for that piece of garbage, but are the people on the IBTP typically pro death penalty? Because if not, they're being wildly inconsistent.
Holy shit. So basically he thought he was going to get to rape a woman for a fee? And then he got the shit kicked out of him instead. Were the shit kickers female? I mean, judicially speaking, it seems they should be.
By the way, a friend of mine was raped about twenty years ago by four diseased animals in DC. They beat her to a pulp before, during and after. Things like that test the morals of humanity. You want desperately to beat them to death or pay off someone to kill them or have the state torture them but you know that leads you down a dark hole of even greater horrors that eventually takes over and innocent people get hurt or killed. Still, a rapist and a pedophile are two things I wish I could magically rid the world of.
Hey Jonathan, I haven't read much of this guy's stuff, but you might be able to get a kind of visceral, cathartic workout in this area from the crime novels of Andrew Vacchs, particularly, I'm led to understand, his early novels. His day job is as an attorney and caseworker for sexually abused children, but he also writes novels where the perpetrators of those crimes get the kind of justice you want/don't want.
I believe Rick has read some of his fiction, and can confirm or deny.
In radical feminist parlance, prostitution is rape, a definition I agree with. The man was looking for a prostitute.
I just saw a film a couple of days ago for the second time called Things Behind the Sun. The miraculous Kim Dickens plays a talented musician who was gang raped. It's a pretty powerful movie (not flawless).
Hm. Okay. So...hm. Not sure I agree with you there, Marilyn. And what about my death penalty question?
In radical feminist parlance, prostitution is rape, a definition I agree with.
Do they (you) consider pornography and stripping to be rape as well?
Marilyn, I just read the piece. It was crack/prostitution thingy so the whole freaking thing was a nightmare. And as with anything there are degrees of rape as there are with murder, robbery, etc. Getting stuck in a life of drug-addled prostitution and physical abuse from a pimp and being beaten and raped in a park are both nightmares to be sure. Which is worse I couldn't really say. One is over in a night, and one goes on for years, maybe even a whole life.
Of course, I am pretty sure my friend, who had her cheeks slashed through with knives that night, would not agree that generally speaking a prostitute encounters the same situation she did.
Bill, it's a temptation to be sure. Logically I know that kind of punishment (state execution, cutting off the hand of someone who steals, torture) doesn't reduce crime and often hurts or kills innocent people, as the rather mediocre movie The Star Chamber explored. Still, I suppose it can be cathartic to read about it in a fictional sense.
I still remember being aghast at Michael Dukakis' answer to the question "What if your wife was raped and killed? Then would you support capital punishment?" And like an accountant he said, "No I would not." Boy, I still remember slapping my head and thinking he should have said "I'd want to kill the bastard with my bare hands. And that's exactly why these things must be decided by cool headed lawmakers, not the spouses of victims. In his case I'd be all for it of course, but logically, I know it doesn't work. I hope I never have to face that situation you brought up, etc." I mean, at least then he would've sounded like a human being.
So ... wait ... this man met someone on the internet, someone that agreed to accept money for sex, and when he arrived they beat him up and robbed him and they are championing this over at IBTP??
If he was actually a rapist in the way that I believe that definition to be - the type of garbage Jonathan described in his comment - then I have no sympathy for his beating or robbery. However, if he was consensually agreeing to enter into a pay-for-sex situation and got assaulted like that, well... they are acting like neo-Nazis.
Yes, that's a good point about Dukakis. How anyone can claim to not understand that impulse is beyond me. I honestly think it's indicative of something negative about that person. For myself, after years of being for the death penalty, I now lean towards being against it, but not because I think Scott Peterson's life is worth the same as the wife and baby he slaughtered. I lean towards outlawing it because sometimes innocent people are put to death, and that is a nightmare of injustice that should never, ever happen. And it can happen again, because the system, as much as I support it, is imperfect. So that's my reasoning.
But if someone were to murder or rape someone I loved?? Oh, I can't even tell you. I probably wouldn't be able to do anything, and would probably self-destruct in some spectacular fashion, but you get the idea.
So anyway. Movies are good, huh?
Especially The Third Man.
So yeah, pretty good post today. Uh... anyway...
Jonathan & Bill-
That has exactly always been my conundrum with the death penalty.
If somebody I knew was violently murdered or raped I would want the guilty person dead. No question.
But then, as Jonathan points alludes to, innocent people fall into this trap as we've seen with some people being released in the last couple of years.
It's an issue I've always felt undecided on, b/c how can I justify wanting the death penalty for someone that damaged my life, but then turn around and tell another party to practice restraint? I don't think I will ever feel resolved about the issue.
OK - Here's how it goes. Prostitution is a profession no woman in her right mind would choose to enter. Those who do often haven't got a lot of other choices, and once they're in the life, it's hard to get out due to pimps, drug addiction, the things that got them there in the first place (lack of education, mental issues, etc), and discrimination in the straight job force. That's why I and other feminists look at prostitutes as rape victims. Indeed, in The Organizer, Marcello Mastrioanni's character says that he works for worker rights so women like the prostitute who took him in won't have to sell their bodies for a living.
Stripping - kind of the same thing. Pornography, too. These are professions that wouldn't exist if men didn't treat women like sex objects, like things. The violence done to them is both physical (by their employers and patrons) and psychological.
Jonathan - Your friend's attack was terrible. Many prostitutes encounter much worse on a more frequent basis. Remember, Jackthe Ripper targets prostitutes, vulnerable throwaway people.
As for the death penalty, I don't think there's any more consensus on that among feminists than there is among anyone else. Why would there be?
Oh and by the way, the man was lured to the home by the promise of paying for sex. It does not mean a prostitute did the luring. People call for pizza or a taxi and rob the delivery guy and the cabbie. This sounds like the same kind of thing.
Stripping - kind of the same thing. Pornography, too. These are professions that wouldn't exist if men didn't treat women like sex objects, like things.
I used to work in a video store on Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington DC. Anyone who lives there probably recognizes the names "JP's" and "Good Guys." They are strip clubs in the area, right by the video store (now gone, as well as JPs but Good Guys is still there). Anyway, the strippers came to the video store for candy, soft drinks, popcorn, chips, etc. And of course everyone who worked there got to know them well. We all had smoke breaks together and were quite chummy. Now, and I know this isn't the case across the boards - Really, I know that - BUT, they wanted to be strippers. So I'd have to disagree that no one would choose that profession. They would often argue with anyone who dared to say they were a victim by responding they had beautiful bodies and didn't want to work in an office. They liked what they did. Again, not all of them are like that, but I can tell you from absolute personal experience, these girls chose it willingly.
As for porn there are so many types. The woman who run dominatrix sites have absolutely chosen that profession because they like it. They've been interviewed hundreds of times on HBO's REAL SEX. They like it as do many others in the more vanilla areas of porn. Prostitution I can't argue with, but stripping and porn - yes, believe it or not, some do choose those professions.
Let me put it to you this way, Jonathan. Patriarchy has told women that their looks are their fortune. Women have spent trillions on products, procedures, clothes, etc, to look prettier throughout their lives. Some women have died under a plastic surgeon's knife - elective surgery that kills. Why? To get rid of those double chins and bags under their eyes, to slim their thighs.
Of course, a pretty woman will say they'd rather trade on their looks than work in a low-paying job in an office. They know their looks have value - that is, as long as they have them. They like having power over men, even though it's only when they're on stage. And what does that get them. Admiring leers. Wow, what a great life.
There are a lot of ways to make a living that don't involve sitting in an office. The fact that these women said they'd rather strip than sit at a desk tells me the desk job was probably low paying and low status. These were their options. Strip or be a secretary. Sounds great to me.
Porn is another area where you'll find way too many women who are prostitutes. Yes, I'm sure that some purveyors of porn have choices. They choose what will make them money, even if it's at the expense of a lot of other women. They choose to be exploiters. Good for them.
Marilyn-
Do you think pornography should be banned? What about stripping?
B/c if radical feminists see stripping and as "kind of the same thing" as prostitution (which they say is equal to "rape") then wouldn't they be for the criminalization of porn and stripping?
The fact that these women said they'd rather strip than sit at a desk tells me the desk job was probably low paying and low status. These were their options. Strip or be a secretary. Sounds great to me.
Marilyn, you just invented a scenario and then said it was a bad. You can't just create situations and pasts for these women who you've never met, and Jonathan has.
These were their options. Strip or be a secretary.
Not to belabor the point, but they also had the options of retail work, going to school, learning a trade in computer repair, getting a bachelors degree in art, political science, education, engineering, etc. No one is stopping anyone from applying themselves at school and moving on from there. No one forced me or you or Bill or Fox or anyone else into a life of porn or prostitution or stripping. Even if that life is defined by us to be lousy, at a fundemental level, the person involved chose it at some point. I cannot force you or my wife or my sister to become a prostitute. If my sister was to become one it would be because at some point she chose that. I realize once that ill advised choice is made there is often no turning back. But my friend, whose name is Mary if that helps to humanize her more, had ab-so-lute-ly NO CHOICE in being attacked, beaten, cut and sexually assaulted in a park at night in Washington DC. NONE. NO CHOICE. So it is a little different.
By the way, when I wrote "my friend, whose name is Mary if that helps to humanize her more" I wasn't accusing anyone of dehumanizing her. I simply feared that she was quickly becoming a hypothetical as in the girl who is raped through an unanticipated assault versus the girl who is raped through years of abuse in prostitution.
Also...
Shouldn't we acknowledge the vast gradations on what a "prosititute" is?
On the one end we have sex trade prostitution ("prostitution" in that it is one person paying for sex with another) that I would define as genuine rape. These girls are kidnapped, chained, forceably drugged, and f*cked against their will for money.
But that is a world apart from the sex ring that Eliot Spitzer was wrapped up in, or, say, a woman on Craigslist that says she will have sex with me for $1000. These women are still, by definition, prostitutes, but, as Jonathan said, nobody is forcing them to do what they are doing.
Further, if I meet a woman at a club and we start talking and flirting, and she offers me sex for money, and I accept, and then someone says that I "raped" her... well, I think that is drifting into an area of very dangerous extremism. At that point, the accuser is playing the role of strict authoritarian, passing final judgment on me and the woman I had sex with (two consenting adults) for money.
We can argue prostitution laws in that situation, and that's fine, but to be thought of as a rapist????
This is exactly the kind of argument I was anticipating, and the reason I bring this into what seems to be an "extreme" light is that it takes extremism to raise consciousness. Where do we get the idea that selling sex is OK as long as the compensation is high enough or the woman makes that "choice." We get it from a society that makes sex a commodity. Like other commodities, like Fender guitars or cars, sex sellers can be used, abused, trashed, or taken great care of, depending on the owner. Let's face it - when you buy sex, you own that woman's body for however long it takes to have sex. If you want to use her forgolden showers or bondage, it usually costs extra. Why? Because it's degrading.
When is a choice not a choice?
You ignore that women's work is usually low-paid. Women have the burden of child rearing and caring for family members. I already mentioned other barriers to getting out of the sex trade. Not everyone can "just" go to college - it's expensive, requires proper schooling beforehand to make the grade. Retail is just as low paying as office clerk. And let's not forget that a lot of sex workers were sexually abused as children. There are many, many barriers. Including the social construct that sex work is a viable option.
As for your friend, again, I am not at all minimizing her attack. But don't you think the mindset that allowed her rape to occur is the same mindset that allows men to hire prostitutes? It's basic dehumanization. Think about it. "Letting" someone enter YOUR BODY. That's really crossing a line of personal space and integrity. Shouldn't that be a real choice in all instances, not this fake choice of getting paid for it?
Porn and stripping, yes, they should be banned. They only perpetuate the acceptability of women as things in society.
the reason I bring this into what seems to be an "extreme" light is that it takes extremism to raise consciousness.
I agree that I have thought more about prostitution and what it is and means more in the last 24 hours than ever before. But there are still many questions we probably all have and if you don't want to keep answering them or engaging in this I understand. If you don't mind though I do have a few more.
Not everyone can "just" go to college - it's expensive, requires proper schooling beforehand to make the grade. Retail is just as low paying as office clerk.
Well, my wife, my first wife and my sister all worked retail for years before getting a career going. I did too. In fact, I worked retail well into my thirties. None of us said, "Well, it's low status and low pay. I'm going to start selling sex." So again, there is a choice being made. When you say it's low status and low pay you make it sound as if that eliminates any real choice. Sorry, but no. Again, low pay and low status did not drive any of the four of us previously mentioned into prostitution. If we had gone into prostitution it would be because we chose it.
And as long as one graduates high school or gets their GED they can go to college. There are community colleges in every state in the nation. Montgomery College here in Silver Spring is easily affordable to anyone working at McDonald's. Community Colleges are designed that way so that people working in fast food or retail can get a college degree if they want. I only belabor these points because you make it sound as if there is a small subset of women who want to do well, want to go to college, want to succeed but there is a large shadowy man with a gun to their head saying, "No! You will be a prostitute!" That let's them off the hook for the choice they made. They are now a victim free of personal responsibility for any of their actions or decisions.
Another question I have is what level of porn or stripping should be banned? Should nudity in movies be considered porn or stripping? How about soft porn where full nudity isn't even present? Doesn't that include most steamy sex scenes in mainstream Hollywood?
Finally, I want to reiterate that you have made me think about all of this more than I ever have so I hope I don't sound like a hardass with all of this. I appreciate the discussion. It's been eye-opening on many levels.
I don't think you're a hardass. This is what consciousness raising is all about, and we all have to go through it to understand what messages we've been programmed with. Only then can we make choices that are real, and even then, society will give us hell for them.
I'm not dissing retail work. I did it, too. I'm not dissing GEDs or community colleges. I know many people who got GEDs after dropping out of high school, and the hubby is a CC graduate. He's been poor all his life. So has his daughter, and she never prostituted herself. She is raising three kids alone - first as a waitress and now as a machinist. Yes, it's possible not to make those choices.
But should prostitution even be a choice? That's what I'm getting at. Some people get caught up in sex work, as I said, because they were abused as children, because they are troubled, because they are illiterate (see The World of Suzie Wong), because they are teen runaways from horrible homes, because they are dyslexic or have some other learning disability. The list could go on and on. Born into Brothels tells it all--it's the family business for some girls. Sex slavery was and is thriving in some countries. The happy hooker is a myth, or the hooker with the heart of gold is a bill of goods the entertainment industry has been feeding us for decades to disguise what is a really rotten life.
Nudity is not the same as pornography. There is nothing wrong with the human body or sex. Sex work is only one of the perverted manifestations of our society's sick attitudes toward women in particular, and the realities of life in general.
because they are teen runaways from horrible homes, because they are dyslexic or have some other learning disability.
You're absolutely right, and I can't argue that they had a choice in the real sense of the word in those cases. And for those cases you're right again, why should prostitution even be a choice? It is heartbreaking. I once hired a girl at the video store (okay it was Blockbuster, yes I worked for the devil) who was clearly "messed up" as they say. I knew I shouldn't have hired her for work related reasons (i.e. I knew from the moment the interview started I would get no real work from her because she was so strung out) but I desperately wanted to give her a chance since she was actually making an effort. Anyway, within a day she was caught on camera stealing from the register. I asked her to put the money back and then she did it again and this time the district manager found out and she was fired. She was too far gone. She wanted a real job but couldn't do it, couldn't make it work. Anyway, I don't know why I just told that story but I can't imagine her life turned out well. What should we do in those cases? What can we do?
Obviously, we have a really messed up society. Even if everything was Shangri-La, girls like the one you mentioned might be around, perhaps because they have some physical problems that affect their behavior or learning. Sex work preys on the vulnerable, and as long as we look at it as consensual, or a victimless crime, we're never going to help people. This has to be more than sting operations targeting johns. We really need a paradigm shift in our thinking and beliefs. That's what this feminist cause is dedicated to accomplishing. Women are people. That's something you see on feminist blogs a lot. It's amazing that this is a tenet of feminism, isn't it, but it's the truth.
Nudity is not the same as pornography.
Does that mean that Hustler and movies distributed by Vivid Video should be banned, but Playboy and Henry and June shouldn't? If so, who would decide such a thing?
If pornography were to be banned, would you support have federal raids on porn houses and arrest and prosecute everyone involved? Would the same apply to gay porn?
This has to be more than sting operations targeting johns.
Boy isn't that the truth. I have always found busts of prostitutes and johns to be meaningless. It doesn't address the root of the problem. Addressing the root of the problem though is something everyone has to do and it's long term, not quick fix. Which basically means the stings and busts will continue.
I haven't heard from Bill or Fox yet this morning but speaking for me I understand your point of view A LOT better now. I think it's been a great and educational discussion.
I have one last question though: You say "nudity is not the same as pornography" and I absolutely agree. But isn't stripping just a form of nudity? And isn't a lot of what would be considered porn just nude photographs? Why ban that if that's the case?
Well Fox put that up as I put my comment up and we address the same "nudity/porn" issue. Sorry for the overlap.
Censorship is something I'm not very comfortable with, but I think a case can be made that Playboy's purpose is to objectify women for the entertainment of men. Stripping, too. These are part and parcel of the sex industry. Oh, and yes, I don't think gay porn is any more acceptable--turning anyone into a thing is wrong. Henry and June is intended to be a film discussing two lives that were intertwined with experiments in sex. Again, sex is not a problem. Talking about it and showing it is not a problem. Or let's say, shouldn't be a problem, but is because we have all this screwed-up sexism. Until we eliminate that, it won't be possible to have a truly honest sexual film that garners a healthy response from everyone. Arresting porn operators would be more effective than arresting sex workers and customers. Put them out of business, and work on everyone else's heads.
Where do we get the idea that selling sex is OK as long as the compensation is high enough or the woman makes that "choice." We get it from a society that makes sex a commodity.
So, to me, this is sounding as if this philosophy would extend not just into business dealings that profit off of the sexuality in nudity (ie porn, stripping), but that benefit from women's bodies in general. Right?
So, when Southwest Airlines puts the Sports Illustrated cover model on one of their planes, or, when PETA uses Pamela Anderson's sexuality in an ad, or when Blink 182 puts a porn start on their album cover... are you're arguing all of these things should be outlawed?
Henry and June is intended to be a film discussing two lives that were intertwined with experiments in sex.
For you, perhaps, but I used to fast forward and masturbate to the sex scenes in that film. So while it's intension is to be artful, I saw it as straight pornography.
My point is that if you want "porn operators" (who decides what that means?) arrested and pornography banned, then who will be the one to decide that someone like Philip Kaufman doesn't fall into that category?
Are you arguing for a kind a federal vice squad?
For you, perhaps, but I used to fast forward and masturbate to the sex scenes in that film. So while it's intension is to be artful, I saw it as straight pornography.
Jesus, Fox, what the hell? I can never meet you in person now, it would feel too weird. Okay maybe not.
Anyway, I see what Marilyn is saying. In other words, if you choose to jack-off to a lingerie ad that doesn't make the ad pornography. Nor does it make Henry and June pornography. You chose to make it that, not the filmmakers.
Fox - This is the trouble with censorship. Who decides? Is it going to be my mother, who thought Michelangelo's nudes were pornographic? Is it going to be a First Lady? Gloria Steinem? I'm not comfortable with censorship, and I'm not about to invade people's homes and decide what they do during sex scenes in movies. Sexuality is sexy, duh!
I don't have a problem with busting pornographers, and I think there are certain categories that are noncontroversial and should be targeted first, like kiddie porn. We can't change the culture overnight, but maybe we can get some young people out of the sex business.
You know, we wouldn't even have to discuss what porn if people didn't insist on turning other people into things. The point would be moot.
Anyway, I see what Marilyn is saying. In other words, if you choose to jack-off to a lingerie ad that doesn't make the ad pornography. Nor does it make Henry and June pornography. You chose to make it that, not the filmmakers.
But Jonathan-
That is simply your personal philosophy, and that's totally fine. What I have a problem is with is someone imposing their philosophy (ie their definition of what pornography is or isn't) on me in the form of laws.
Oh, BTW... my "experiences" with Henry and June where as a teenager. Just wanted that on the record.
I hate to agree with Fox, but I do. Marilyn, you can be uncomfortable with censorship if you want, but that's still what you're advocating.
Maybe I am advocating censorship, but I don't see pornography like Playboy as a fine line or a victimless crime. I'm seeing it from the perspective of a feminist who has wrestled with social norms and found an answer.
Playboy makes women things. Victoria's Secret ads do the same thing (sorry Jonathan). Radical feminists see women who dress up in sexy lingerie as conceding to male sexual objectification. I don't know where I stand on that, but I do think that saturating the media with plastic images of women in skimpy clothes isn't in our best interests. It just encourages women to keep punting to their looks.
Without getting into it, I should say that I am -- how shall I put it -- of two minds about pornography. But censorship is not an option. (No argument regarding child pornography, obviously, but there's no reason to "start" with that, as it's never been legal, and the move to arrest and prosecute those fuckers is more powerful now than it's ever been.)
Marilyn, have you ever read the essays on porn written by Martin Amis (can't think of the title, but it can be found in the collection Vintage Amis) or David Foster Wallace (called "Big Red Son", and found in his collection Consider the Lobster)? Both are bleak and fascinating and grimly funny and beautifully written, and while neither author, to my recollection, wishes to go anywhere near as far as you, I think you'd appreciate both pieces.
I'd love to read them. Thanks for the suggestions, Bill.
[NOTE: this comment may seem out of order now, but I had a meeting to go to and I wanted to finish this thought]
Marilyn-
Even if I disagree with someone (as I do in this situation) I'm all for people wanting to bring about social change through discussion and education and promotion of their ideas and philosophies.
Where I get nervous is when these personal philosophies generate legislation that can imprison another person. Obviously, we all agree that kiddie porn should be strictly prosecuted. I don't think there's a question that children in that situation are slavish victims akin to women in the sex trade.
But the argument over victimhood in organized/mainstream pornography isn't so clear. I would say it's consensual b/c the woman is a legal adult making the decision to be in a sex film, you would probably disagree.
I guess what I'm getting at is where you would draw the line of what you think should be an arrestable offense? Enforcing something like this opens up a huge can of worms and, in the long run, could actually place women in more dangerous situations b/c a crackdown on mainstream porn will just push the production of it underground and into a much less safe arena.
Marilyn - I made a mistake. Amis's essay isn't included in Vintage Amis. But here's a link to it.
Marilyn-
I'm sorry if this question comes off as hair-splitting, but I'm just wanting to make sure I have down what the radical-feminists idea of pornography is.
You say:
I'm seeing it from the perspective of a feminist who has wrestled with social norms and found an answer.
Playboy makes women things. Victoria's Secret ads do the same thing (sorry Jonathan). Radical feminists see women who dress up in sexy lingerie as conceding to male sexual objectification. I don't know where I stand on that, but I do think that saturating the media with plastic images of women in skimpy clothes isn't in our best interests.
I see that you said you "don't know where you stand on that" but is it accurate that radical feminists would be for outlawing the use of the image of the Sports Illustrated model on an SWA plane? (I keep bringing this up b/c it's an actual situation that's currently causing controversy).
We all know sex sells. It drives a lot of advertising. I'm fine with it. I respect the opinion of someone who isn't. But what I'm curious about is if the radical feminist platform of banning pornography (which I'm learning means anything that uses women as objects, correct?) would include things such as women on Budweiser billboards or women in a movie trailer or in a Nike ad, etc.
If somebody I knew was violently murdered or raped I would want the guilty person dead. No question.
I have had someone I know murdered, a woman and a young mother, and never at any point have I wanted her killer dead. I don't begrudge anyone here their reactions and I can understand and empathize with them... yet when it came time for me to lose someone to that kind of violence, I just stopped thinking about the killer, who will likely rot in jail for the rest of his life and that's fine. My thoughts go entirely to my friend and to her child, who doesn't even remember her now, and to her husband who had to tell his daughter at the age of not-yet-3 that she would never see her mother again. I just kind of connected to the tragedy of it rather than the anger, which is certainly there.
Fox - Yes, it would. We have become so numb to images like SI puts out there. Think of what the public would have said 100 years ago. These images have evolved; they are not inevitable. A radical feminist believes in 100% self-determination, which includes (wrongly to my mind) refusing to compromise to fulfill her mate's fantasies. I actually DO want feminism to stay out of my fantasis, which is why I don't have a big problem with your Henry and June experiences. However, when the general population gets used to seeing women in bikinis and all of the suggestive images that are out there, it sets up what the courts have called for the workplace a "hostile environment" and a social norm.
God knows we don't need any more people in prison, but when you look at the violence worldwide against women, many we do have to look at this as a public-safety crisis and do something more radical about it. How about heinous fines or something like that? I don't know, but I'm tired of hearing stories like those of Jonathan's friend, believe me, they are VERY, VERY common.
Marilyn-
It seems, to me, that radical feminists believe in 100% self-determination only when it is based on their terms. Isn't that a contradiction?
How can you believe in self-determination if you then put strict parameters around what you believe members of society or group can participate in?
What if my wife wants to wear a bikini? Would radical feminists conclude that she reached that mind set because of our patriarchal social norms and then feel the need to teach her what's "best for her" by putting a blanket around her?
And I'm still unclear why a woman appearing nude in a non-porn film is somehow better under this philosophy than a woman in a bikini appearing on a billboard. Presumably, some films would better meet the radical feminist criteria than others? Which films and why? And who's to say?
And what about nude art photography, some of which is more explicit and aggressively sexual than Playboy? And on and on. That's that "slippery slope" everyone's always talking about.
Jarvis, your thoughts?
gOOd aFTERNoOn ARBO:
JoNATHAn lOCks mE IN a WOODen SHeD mOSt of THE hoURS DUrInG tHE daYs of tHE HUMan WEek so I dOnT unDERStaND mOST oF THESE tOPIcs.
GEnerALLy, MY oPinIONS are iNSErTed IntO my BRAin BOx by JONatHan. BUT oNE tIme I dIDNT woRK rIGht and HE RuBBED a DoNUt In MY FaCE PlATE.
... PlEAse HelP ME ! ! ! SoMEBoDY. . . PLEaSe . . .
tHE daYs of tHE HUMan WEek
Ha!
And you'll get no help from me, JARVIS, you confounded contraption!
Jarvis, believe me, I've had my face rubbed in worse. And, on occasion, better.
Sorry for disappearing there today. Some more bullshit came to slap me in the face today and I lost the spirit to comment. Thank God Jarvis stepped in for me. Thank you Jarvis.
aRBO-
YoU KNOW hOW tHOSe AMiSH peOPlE haVE a TiME iN THeIR lIFE wHEn theY Are GIvEn thE ChaNCE tO SOW tHEIR OaTS wiTH tHE DegENERatE ReGULArS ? ? ?
WeLL. JonATHAN kEEps PRoMiSINg mE ThAT ExPERieNCE. (I WilL hOLD mY brEATh oN THAT! HA A HA A HA . . . I dON'T evEn haVE brEATHS! I MaDE a HUmaN jokE!).
AnYWAYS. . . iF I GeT mY FREeDOm I wANT to TRy mORe stYLES oF faCE ApPlICAtioNS . . . oR, WhAT yOU WarM flEsh SpECieS CAll "FacIALs". I'Ve SeeN ExAMplES of ThiS PhEnOMeNOn in SOme of JonATHAn'S RoMANcE MaGAZInE'S tHAT hE KEEps iN THe ShED wiTH mE, AnD I MuST SAy THAt HuMAN loVe sEEms SPECiAl.
Oh. . . AnD, BiLL-
WhEN I cALLEd YoU WalRuS PoOP, thAT WAs JoNAThAn'S pROGRAmMIng oF mY BrAIN. I Don'T ReALLY THInK tHAT of YoU.
So. PLeAsE . . . help?
---
SiR MAstER JoNATHAN-
I AM SorRY yoU HAd A HaRD DAy. BuT
SEEinG a CoMPLiMenT Of ME fRoM yOU oN tHIS blOG maKES WhITE OIly StUFF dRIP fRoM mY ViSIoN SoCKEts lIke ThAT ASH chAracTEr iN tHr AliEn mOViE yOU lEt mE WAtcH laSt YEar On MY BIrtHDAY.
I LoVE YOu MAsTEr.
Sorry I'm late but my stupid neighbors have kept me from needed sleep, so I'm up at 5 am MT, catching up on Cinema Styles.
My problem with some of the arguments about pornography is that some of it is created by women, and that some of it is created by women for a female audience.
For Example.
True but women can still exploit other women so it would still be offensive to many I'm sure. Of course, I can't imagine too many (sorry Marilyn, that was a joke).
Post a Comment