29 Comments

1. Great post, and something that needed to be said. (If you want to be really offended by the mentality of a supposed pro-sex person treating the antis as misunderstood underdogs, have a look at this: http://highfeist.blogspot.com/2010/06/violet-blue-versus-stop-porn-culture.html ) I actually kind of read Audacia's post as falling into a "quiet engagement" argument, but maybe you have a different take on it.

   I disagree with Audacia in that she says its not a good idea to take on the likes of Dines and Hughes directly. (That's presuming you don't have the privilege of being attacked by Hughes directly, which several people have been on the receiving end of.) Well, sure, there's little point in engaging in discussions with them, and even directly debating them can be a drain, but at some point, one is going to have to argue against the ideas that they are putting out into the public square, because those ideas are going to be used to hurt you.

   Its about winning over people who are on the fence, or at least getting those people not to support the kind of legislation the antis have coming down the pike (something that they're going to be proposing in Washington DC tomorrow). And fighting the cultural atmosphere that makes that kind of legislation possible.

   Comment by Iamcuriousblue — June 15, 2010 @ 1:53 am

2. Iamcuriousblue: The best part of the post you linked was seeing yet another person get upset over the pro-porn side of things not being Proper enough in our response to being under attack. How dare that Violet Blue lady use the word "douchebag" in a Deep Important Discussion!? Whoever it is that's getting their fancy ed-u-micated feminist panties in a bind lately should remember something clever Anton LaVey once wrote: "Those who are humorless should not be taken seriously. They take themselves so seriously, they leave no room for others to do likewise."

   Comment by Furry Girl — June 15, 2010 @ 3:15 am

3. Yes, indeed, excellent post, FG.

   I, too, am sort of gobsmacked at the attitude of far too many liberals/progressives that the only way to approach an issue is to respect "both sides" and reach a "consensus" that is agreeable to "everyone". Don't they understand the basic fundamental fact that when one side has far more power and influence to control the terms of the debate, any bit of "compromise" will ultimately end up slanting towards that side? Of course, if those who promote the art of "compromise" are already compromised themselves towards the antiporn position (despite their branding themselves as "pro-sex" or "feminist" to deflect charges of being in toto with the abolitionist position), then it's not too surprising that they would tend to place their own turf protection over defending actual sex workers and performers who don't fit quite nicely into their particular "progressive" agenda.

   Now, as to Cyn of HighFeist's three part slam of Violet Blue and OPO (and her not so veiled defense of SPC, in spite of her supposed "pro-sex" positioning): well, call it so typical of "good cop" feminists doing the dirty work of the more radical antiporn abolitionists by claiming them to be "just plain folks" and underdogs battling the Big, Bad. Porn Industry and their supposed Capitalist Shills..as if BP or ExxonMobil or Walmart were dependent solely on porn profits for their survival. Her response is simply "approachment" led to its ultimate conclusion, where attempting to "break middle ground" with antiporn "feminists" leads inevitably to adapting much of their core ideology and throwing actual sex workers under the bus.

   At least Violet Blue is willing to call a spade a spade and a douchebag a douchebag....even if she is on occasion tooting her own hore a bit too much, and even if she is mostly representing her own "porn for women" turf rather than more broadly defending sexual expression and sexual media's right to exist as a whole.

   Also...having had more than my fair share of battles with the more extreme antiporn abolitionists (just index my SmackDog Chronicles blog (http://redgarterclub.com/SDChronBlog2dot5) under "antiporn feminists"), I can clearly see that there is no need to reach a "middle ground" with those who want to simply wipe you off the face of the earth. Not to mention, thier policies and ideas directly lead to innocent people being harmed for things they do not do, for thoughts being punished merely for having them rather than accountability for actions and deeds, and their political alliances are far more towards the most reactionary and restrictive, who will simply use the power and influence granted them to reenforce reactionary beliefs. I'd much rather simply expose to the daylight their lunacy and call them out on their bullshit and take the resulting hits for the home team.

   Anthony

   Comment by Anthony Kennerson — June 16, 2010 @ 9:56 am

4. OOPS...I meant "tooting your own HORN", not "hore"....I have no need to imply that Violet Blue is in any case a whore (except in the figurative sense of shilling herself as a social media guru, that is).

   Anthony

   Comment by Anthony Kennerson — June 16, 2010 @ 9:59 am

5. Anthony: Just to correct what the part you missed (and that other people might have gotten confused about)...

   Violet hasn't been saying, "I know the one true enlightened path of how sex workers are allowed to feel and express themselves." That was, however, the popular opinion from non-sex worker "allies" about SPC in the weekend's Twitter conversation. (A conversation dominated by a student sex blogger who tweets as @pledgemistress. Yes, I'm a major snob here - I take extra umbrage at being told what to do by people I've never heard of.) Violet doesn't declare herself to know what's better for sex workers than do sex workers themselves, she's addressing the issue from the perspective of women who love porn.

   Comment by Furry Girl — June 16, 2010 @ 3:45 pm

6. "At least Violet Blue is willing to call a spade a spade and a douchebag a douchebag....even if she is on occasion tooting her own hore a bit too much, and even if she is mostly representing her own "porn for women" turf rather than more broadly defending sexual expression and sexual media's right to exist as a whole."

   Never got that impression about Violet Blue *at all*. Anyway, have you seen most of the stuff she links to or promotes via advertising on her blog? Mostly European glamour porn, with a touch of Abby Winters and American alt-porn. About the only thing in recent memory I've seen her promote feminist porn-wise is Pink and White's videos.

   Comment by Iamcuriousblue — June 16, 2010 @ 4:33 pm

7. It should perhaps be noted that @pledgemistress "dominated" the Twitter conversation because she was one of the handful of sex-positive activists who had the guts and the bravery to attempt to humanize the issue by actually shaking the hands of her "enemies." (I know, that's a ridiculously bold step in this "debate"!)

   Looking at the weekends' Twitter stream, I can understand why you feel slighted, but I think your response hurt your cause more than it helped. When sex worker rights advocates (including sex workers) mirror the vitriol, if not the malice, of anti-porn activists, they are not successful in winning the war of "changing attitudes," which you correctly point out is where this "war" is being fought.

   There is a certain power in kindness that many sex workers seem to be forgetting, and equating kindness to one's opposition with devaluing one's own benefactors is simply an incorrect and IMHO totally inappropriate thing to do. When sex workers' anger encourages them to play into anti-porn activists' "divide and conquer" strategy, then I feel it's important to call them out on it, since when anti-porn activists attack sex-workers, they are attacking us all.

   Comment by maymay — June 18, 2010 @ 8:28 pm

8. FG...sorry for misinterpreting your point about Violet and about the SPC debate in general....though I still reserve my right to question to an extent her motives about defending porn en bloc rather than the kind of porn she personally prefers.

   IACB...never meant to disregard VB's personal tastes nor to dismiss her much welcome activism, which I have always acknowledged from the beginning.

   Maymay....showing kindness to the opposition may be all fine and good, but I'm one to believe in mutual respect being exactly that: MUTUAL. When one side wants to basically deny you your right of existence and deny you your right to be a free human being, and says so openly, I'm not so sure that the best response is to respond with "love" and handshakes. Especially when the return handshake is more than likely going to be boobytrapped with a firecracker or a buzzer.

   I appreciate what Pledgemistress was attempting to do in projecting an magnamonous image and playing the idea of attempting to reach common ground...but ultimately, as a pro-porn male and a progressive, I simply cannot and will not accept those who will not accept me as any less than a human being. Anything else give them that much more legitimacy to attack my (and other pro-porn folk's) right of existence. The idea should not be to talk with fascists, but to DEFEAT them. That's not "divide and conquer", that's self defense.

   When they become a bit more reasonable and recognize our side's legitimacy, then we can talk...but not until then.

   Anthony

   Comment by Anthony Kennerson — June 18, 2010 @ 8:45 pm

9. Thank you for composing a beautiful and logical distillation of the frustration I have often felt! Being expected to be polite to folks who stand against everything I stand for (especially by people who claim to be on "my" side) gets tiring.

   I'm glad to read that I am not the only one that feels this way.

   cheers,
   Matt

   Comment by agoodbadhabit — June 18, 2010 @ 9:57 pm

10. maymay: I don't think pledgemistress is some kinda of hero with "guts" because she wants to befriend anti-sex worker radicals, I think she's naive, and obnoxiously condescending to sex workers. That's not "bold", it's an asinine waste of time that alienates sex workers in order to try to appease anti-sex worker activists. If anything, her approach reminds me of something an agent provocateur would do to sew infighting in an activist group. (Real about COINTELPRO if you're not familiar with how such people have been used to destroy organizations.) It was nauseating to see her gush on and on about how exciting and cool it is to meet and try to find things in common with conservative hysterics. I find that offensive in the same way as I would if she was attending an event by the God Hates Fags people and excitedly tweeting about how great they can be, if only you try to be nice to them.

    Anthony: Agreed on respect being mutual. If I enter a room with people who have made successful careers out of trying to take away my human rights, and I don't smile at them, that's not *me* being an asshole. It reminds me, again, of Prop 8 and how religious nuts were whining about how queers and straight allies need to "tolerate" intolerant bigots and never criticize the Mormon church. Uh, no. There is no moral obligation to tolerate intolerance.

    Comment by Furry Girl — June 18, 2010 @ 10:12 pm

11. she wants to befriend anti-sex worker radicals

    I think you're playing with fire using assumptive language like that; you're loading a lot of assumptions onto a lot of people in a complex situation, and I know you know how unhelpful that is. I also know you don't care much for bridges, so please don't turn the water you're swimming in into a pool of fire.

    Comment by maymay — June 18, 2010 @ 11:45 pm

12. maymay: So, if "wants to befriend" is an incorrect assumption on my part, how would you phrase it when someone gushes on excitedly about how happy they are to get to meet anti-porn radicals, socialize with them, and shake their hands? Pledgemistress Twittered like a fangirl squealing about seeing her favorite boy band while at the SPC conference. To those of us ACTUALLY IMPACTED by anti-sex worker activism, it's beyond insulting to see an "ally" wet herself with excitement over how cool and smart our oppressors are.

    You keep repeating, over and over, how "unhelpful" I am. I think our problem here is that we're on completely different pages of what we're trying to do. If the goal is to make friends with anti-sex worker activists who want to take human rights away from others, then indeed, I am unhelpful. But that's not my goal.

    Comment by Furry Girl — June 19, 2010 @ 4:28 pm

13. how would you phrase it when someone gushes on excitedly about how happy they are to get to meet anti-porn radicals, socialize with them, and shake their hands?

    I'd call it humanizing, Furry Girl. In fact, I did call it humanizing.

    Your homogenization of SPC conference attendees—apparently both the utterly malicious and your would-be allies—is the exact same tactic as SPC's generalizing all sex-positive people as criminals and would-be rapists. Assumptions aside, like I said on Twitter, if you want to win this war of attitudes, you'd do well not to mimic the attitudes of your enemies.

    To those of us ACTUALLY IMPACTED by anti-sex worker activism it's beyond insulting to see an "ally" wet herself with excitement over how cool and smart our oppressors are.

    Two things. First, implying that pledgemistress was not "actually impacted by anti-sex worker activism" is a ludicrously uninformed, not to mention demeaning, statement. I refer you to my many blog posts about Donna M. Hughes' anti-sex worker activism (the person pledgemistress attempted to shake hands with), which very directly affected her. Second, anti-sex worker activists are smart, and that's what makes them so very dangerous; pointing this fact out seems to be insulting to you only because you wish it weren't so.

    Moreover, I'll quote from Elizabeth Wood:

    we need to stop fighting amongst ourselves in public. I have no idea how to achieve this[…]. While I truly believe that robust debate and dissent within a group leads it to make its best decisions, I see how counter productive the public disagreements by visible individuals and competing organizations are when we hold them in public and especially when our position is already marginalized.

    […W]e are hampered by divisions between identity groups on our own side. The diversity that the sexual freedom movement makes evident is beautiful. How do we make it an advantage instead of a liability?

    Elizabeth asks a good question. The first thing I can think to suggest to her, and to you, is that spotlighting diversity itself could be a powerful weapon against any force that wishes to generically demonize a group of individuals, and that perhaps viciously demonizing groups is itself counterproductive to the goal of spotlighting the diversity that would serve sex workers so well against anti-sex worker activists.

    Finally, I'll note that I've engaged in this discussion because I consider you a friend and an ally, and because it frustrates me far more when I sense allies harming the progress of causes I work on than when I see the opposition harming us. All I asked of you on Twitter, and all I'm asking of you now, is to reconsider the vehemence with which you publicly denigrate those who work towards advancing sex worker rights, and all people's sexual freedoms. And I guess, having made that request as clearly and fairly as I know how to make it, I'll now recede from your blog.

    Comment by maymay — June 19, 2010 @ 6:20 pm

14. maymay:

    I keep re-explaining my position, and you keep not hearing what I'm saying. I don't believe in trying to "humanize" people whose lives are devoted to taking human rights away from other people. Some people are simply, flat-out, no-ways-around it, dangerous ideologues that are clearly my *enemy*.

    Would you, as a supporter of queer rights, believe that the best way to advance that struggle is by reaching out to people who commit (or encourage) unprovoked hate crimes against queers? Or, as a non-racist, think that being more friendly with Klansmen and attending KKK rallies is the best way to stop racism in society? I can't understand where you get this idea that the best way forward for the sex worker's rights movement is by focusing limited energy and resources on being friendly to the *most* hysterical and devout people opposed to sex work.

    This ongoing debate feels much like the aftermath of Prop 8 when so many people were condescendingly telling queers that they shouldn't be angry at religious bigots, and that one should never be intolerant of intolerance, because, in some silly greeting-card-level-platitude logic, then the bigots "win". Dan Savage wrote a bunch about the absurdity of such a mentality, I wish I had bookmarked some of his blog posts on the subject.

    As for Pledgemistress being "directly effected" by anti-sex radicals, I find the comparison belittling. If anti-sex radicals get their way, I'll LOSE MY JOB AND GO TO PRISON. I have literally *everything* to lose, and her potential worst case scenario is what, not being allowed to hold kink events on her college campus? Conflating the two is insulting. It's like when people throw tantrums because they found out that such-and-such free web service won't let them host adult content. Can't put porn on freecoolbloghosting.com? Can't throw kink events on school property? Boo hoo. Pay to host your porn somewhere else, find a non-school location to hold your kink event.

    Comment by Furry Girl — June 19, 2010 @ 8:40 pm

15. Maymay and FG:

    I can actually appreciate what both of you are saying..though I am sttll at the end closer to FurryGirl's side of the debate than Maymay's, based on the actual behavior of the main spokepeople of SPC towards their critics in general and sex+/actual sex workers in general.

    I do think that Pledgemistress did have the best intentions when she attempted to reach common ground and find a "middle ground" with the antiporn crowd, and the effort by those of us on the "pro-porn" side to at least attempt to by magnamonous and not stoop to the levels of the other side is commendable as a tactical move...if only to isolate the other side and emphasize their recalcitrance.

    As for Elizabeth Wood's opinion that perhaps we should stifle self-criticism in the face of the common enemy: Well, I happen to adore Elizabeth, but I don't think that constructive criticism from activist sex workers will hurt our cause any. In fact, I think that it is just as bad to have an artificially induced consensus that glosses over diversity and genuine differences of opinion as it is to have gut-cutting internal battles over minutia and nonsense (the "Menshevik syndrome"). Especially since active and activist sex workers, as FurryGirl noted, are the ones whose asses (and pussies and even dicks) are actually on the line here.

    The problem is, though, that people like Gail Dines and the folks at SPC (like most other antiporn "feminist" radicals) aren't going to modify their views about porn and sex workers one bit merely because a sex worker happened to shake their hand...in fact, they will probably interpret Pledgmistress' act as a sign of converting her to their narrow position and gaining leverage in the overall debate, rather than reacting and reaching a "middle" consensus.

    There may even be more moderate elements of the antiporn feminist movement who may be open to a more conciliatory position or even accepting the legitimacy of pro-porn feminists or even activist sex workers...but they were NOT the ones sponsoring or speaking out at this conference.

    As for Elizabeth Wood's statement that perhaps we must stifle self-criticism in the name of unity against the common enemy: Well, I happen to adore and support Elizabeth, who herself has been the target of personal attack and slander from the antiporn forces, but I'm not convinced that constructive criticism from activist and active sex workers like FurryGirl will weaken our struggle. In fact, I happen the believe that not having such debates as this one would do just as much to weaken the struggle by allowing deep fissures to fester and ultimately blow up from within.

    And, I don't think that it is fair to say that activist sex workers and active porn performers should be merely shunted to the side merely because they might not speak as well as some sex blogger activists; because it is they who put their asses (and pussies and dicks) out on the line, and they are the ones, as FurryGirl noted, who will pay the full price of being the specific targets of antiporn legislation.

    Anthony

    Comment by Anthony Kennerson — June 20, 2010 @ 7:44 pm

16. Maymay, FG, and everybody else.

    All I have to say is that I'm very pragmatic and outcome-oriented when it comes to approaches. We all know now what Stop Porn Culture is out to do both on a cultural and legal level. So the question becomes how do we effectively oppose this in the interest of countering the stigmatization and *very real legal threats* against sex workers, and also against sex industry consumers and kinky people more generally.

    If there's a moderate group in the anti-porn camp who you can actually reach and turn them away from this destructive course of action, then by all means try. Success in this is its own justification. But if this doesn't end up being the case, and these people are still campaigning for these laws while feeling better about themselves for engaging in "meaningful dialogue", then all your nice conversations with these people are worse than useless.

    Or even worse, we start seeing sex-positive activists refrain from fighting these laws for fear being "too extreme" and alienating their friends on the "anti" side. I've already pointed out one series of blogposts over at Highfeist (link) by an ostensible sex-positive feminist who nonetheless ends up becoming an utter apologist for anti-porn feminism and derides the whole idea of any "pro-porn" activism as mercenary activity on the part of sex industry shills. That kind of "moderate" reaching out the the other side is an example of exactly what is *not helpful*.

    And with that said, its why I'm *really fucking skeptical* of talk of working with these people on areas that we superficially agree upon, like the need for comprehensive sex education. Which in any event, I have a feeling that what the antis are calling for will be something very different from what sex-positives are calling for, exemplified by their talk of getting an anti-porn curriculum into the schools.

    Comment by Iamcuriousblue — June 21, 2010 @ 6:11 pm

17. Anthony, in regards to:

    And, I don't think that it is fair to say that activist sex workers and active porn performers should be merely shunted to the side merely because they might not speak as well as some sex blogger activists;

    I'm obviously biased in thinking that I'm at least as articulate as any of the whine-core sex bloggers, but the issue that I was being attacked by them for was that it's wrong of me to be sarcastic or confrontational, and that I was "harming the cause". (Which "cause" it is that I'm "harming" and how I'm "harming" it with the use of sarcasm has never been explained to me, though.)

    I'd like to point out that the most famous and influential public intellectual when it comes to advancing and defending sexuality rights issues is Dan Savage, and he's sarcastic and abrasive as fuck. Which is, by the way, part of why he's so much fun for people to watch on television, or to read his books, columns, and blogs. I don't see the sarcasm/confrontational issue as one of "good for the cause" versus "bad for the cause", I see it as "dry, self-important, and over-rehearsed" versus "relatable, direct, and unpretentious". It's a different style of public voice, and one I personally think more people care to hear about. (Again, there's a reason Dan Savage is the top sexual intellectual, and it's not just his opinions, it's his style.)

    Comment by Furry Girl — June 22, 2010 @ 4:39 pm

18. Very thought provoking. I certainly agree with one part of what you have to say - that sex worker allies should recognise our place is to be supporting the actual sex workers, not telling you what to do.

    That said, I do think that perspectives from the outside can be valuable. I'm also interested in what you think about the situation I'm in. I've found myself working, on non-sex related issues, with a woman who has a high local profile as an anti-sex work activist. We've pretty much never discussed her positions here, other than for me to say "I'm not sure I agree with you". However, on all the issues we have worked on together we've developed a very high level of mutual respect. I've worked with literally thousands of activists and she would have to be one of the most impressive - not just effective, but insightful, strategic and humane.

    Now I have deliberately avoided discussing sex work with her, both because I'm worried about fouling up the working relationship, but also because I figure as a male consumer I'm about the worst person to have the discussion. But it does seem to me that when someone has established their bona fides on other issues it is worth reaching out to them on something like this. Whereas, that's not the case for someone who may pay lip service to other causes but is pretty monomanically focussed on one.

    It's perhaps also worth noting that the woman in question, while clearly anti-sex work, is also seen by many as a moderate. At one point I mentioned the local hard-liner (in regard to something different) and she said "I try to stay away from her", which also made me think there might be prospects for some reaching out if done by the right person.

    Comment by feral sparrowhawk — June 22, 2010 @ 9:44 pm

19. I haven't read all the comments that carefully so sorry if I repeat things.

    I try to be a good trans ally and I think that gives me some good transferable skills to being an ally in other ways. What I think seems to work best as an ally is shut-the-fuck-up when the oppressed are speaking, don't tell them what to do, don't react too quickly to what they're saying - take the time to digest it, consider their experiences and learn from it.

    If you personally think that snark and aggression are counter-productive, you have no right to say that to oppressed people (they'll have heard it countless times before anyway). The best way of being an ally is by asking "what can I do?" and by representing the interests of the oppressed when they're not there to do it themselves, or don't want to.

    I'm still learning though, so would love to hear if there are ways I can do things better.

    Anyway the point is, it sounds like many sex-worker allies really fuck up by telling the people they are supposed to be trying to support how to do things - obviously the number 1 mistake.

    Us liberal types aren't very good at managing our egos. We need more listening practice and less spouting-shit practice.

    Comment by english_thorn — June 28, 2010 @ 5:58 am

20. This post has legitimately given me something to think about. I'm probably going to end up revising my outlook based on this.

    Comment by LS — July 11, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

21. I think in certain circumstances, debating the anti-porners in public is quite useful.

    I organized panels at the Socialist Scholars Conference in New York City where I debated one of them, Robert Brannon, where I managed to expose factual errors in his presentation as part of my own. That swayed the audience, who were mostly folks sitting on the fence, in my favor. Since then, the APFers have never come back there.

    In most cases, they won't agree to a public debate, but if they do, there's no harm in shaking hands for public show. It's not smart to come off looking like the bad guy.

    Unlike other issues (abortion, gay rights), the Left as a whole still hasn't made up its mind about sex work. As long as there is no consensus that Dines & Co. are just plain nuts, challenging them in open debates is important work. And while you're at it, folks, try to get PAID for it. Don't let Ron Jeremy have all the fun debating Pastor Craig Gross or Susan Cole.

    Comment by Sheldon — July 18, 2010 @ 9:59 am

22. English Thorn: You summed it it completely with "shut-the-fuck-up when the oppressed are speaking". ;)

    Comment by Furry Girl — July 21, 2010 @ 8:01 pm

23. Sheldon: I've never stated that I'm opposed to public debate. Please read my actual post.

    Comment by Furry Girl — July 21, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

24. "People who have devoted their lives to taking away freedoms from other people are not seeking compromises and rational conversation - they are devout ideologues, not misguided random citizens that just need the real facts."

    I would be really interested to read what you have to say on how to tell these two apart. Not just on this issue, but on any issue. I used to assume pretty much everyone was in the "just need the real facts" category. I don't so much anymore, but I still find it difficult, oftentimes, to differentiate between who is an ideologue and who just spends to much time listening to the ideologues.

    Comment by yb — April 2, 2011 @ 7:29 am

25. • Tweets that mention Feminisnt » Loving my enemy and ineffective activism: "ally" commentary surrounding the Stop Porn Culture conference -- Topsy.com
    • The #Proporn/#Antiporn Debate Rolls On: VB Gets Slammed From The “Pro-Sex/Anti-Porn” Side; FurryGirl Blasts The “ProPorn/Sex Worker” Counterpoint | The SmackDog Chronicles (Ver. 2.6)
    • Tweets that mention http://www.feminisnt.com/2010/loving-my-enemy-and-ineffective-activism-ally-commentary-surrounding-the-stop-porn-culture-conference/#comment-1720?utm_source=pingback -- Topsy.com
    • Friday Sex Links! What What! « Sex with Timaree
    • Hur myndigheter diskriminerar sexarbetare | Liberaldemokraterna

    Comment by Trackbacks — May 22, 2013 @ 4:55 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.