Would "feminists" make up their fucking minds alre

SLAM: debunk creationism, pseudoscience, and superstitions. Discuss logic and morality.

Moderator: Alyrium Denryle

Post Reply
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10691
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Would "feminists" make up their fucking minds alre

Post by Elfdart »

According to pseudo-feminists who have become all too common, girls age 18 are old enough and mature enough (and should be allowed) to:

go to prison if convicted of a crime
as a juror, send a convict to prison or worse
enter a contract
get a tattoo
join the armed forces
get an abortion (actually, they think girls under 18 should have that right as well)

and anything else the boys age 18-and-up can do...

...except show their tits to a camera. I bullshit you not:

Wall Street Journal
Garance Franke-Ruta wrote:Is there anything to be done? Curtailing the demand side of such a "market" is difficult, requiring moralistic sermons and abridgements of speech. But the supply side is more vulnerable to change. It is time to raise the age of consent from 18 to 21--"consent," in this case, referring not to sexual relations but to providing erotic content on film.

Current federal laws bar the production or possession of erotic images of individuals under 18. These laws are hardly a matter of long custom: The first was passed only in 1977, after a spate of interest in child pornography, and until superseded in 1984, only covered those under age 16. A variety of state laws add their own controls on youthful sexuality, trying to keep minors free of exploitation by defining the age, usually under 18, at which adult consent may be freely and responsibly given.

In certain obvious respects, 18 years is old enough to ward off the threat of "child porn." But the "Girls Gone Wild" problem concerns adult porn: At what age is a girl ready to make that decision, one that she will live with--technologically speaking, at least--for the rest of her life? A woman of 18 may be physically indistinguishable from one who is 21, but they are developmentally worlds apart.

Think only of the difference between a college freshman and a recent college graduate, or between a high-school senior and a young woman with a job and apartment of her own. Or think of the difference between a 19-year-old girl--intoxicated by both a Scorpion Bowl (illegally served) and her own newly developed form--and a woman who has been through her first heartbreak and has had to think long and hard about what her value is, both in her personal life and at the office. The second woman is more likely to nurse a chardonnay with friends than "go wild" in the sense that Mr. Francis' cameras are so eager to record. Surely the porn industry can survive without the participation of teenagers.

It is true that teenagers become legal adults at the age of 18, right around the time they graduate from high school. The age of consent to serve in the armed forces is also 18 (17 with parental consent), as is the minimum voting age since 1971, when an amendment to the Constitution lowered it from 21. But the federal government is already happy to bar legal adults from engaging in certain activities. Most notably, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 raised the drinking age to 21 (by threatening to withhold highway funds from states that did not go along). In practice, the age limit is flouted on college campuses and in private homes. But it has still had a positive effect, not least by driving down fatalities from drunk driving.

A new legal age for participating in the making of erotic imagery--that is, for participating in pornography--would most likely operate in the same way, sometimes honored in the breach more than the observance. But a 21-year-old barrier would save a lot of young women from being manipulated into an indelible error, while burdening the world's next Joe Francis with an aptly limited supply of "talent." And it would surely have a tonic cultural effect. We are so numb to the coarse imagery around us that we have come to accept not just pornography itself--long since routinized--but its "barely legal" category. "Girls Gone Wild"--like its counterparts on the Web--is treated as a kind of joke. It isn't. There ought to be a law.
This idiocy has been picked up by others calling themselves feminists. Apparently, they think a coed showing her boobs to a camera in exchange for a T-shirt or hat is making a more important decision than if she chooses to join the Army. These yentas are no different from the fundies, who want to ban or restrict abortion and birth control on the grounds that adult females are such witless creatures that they can't be trusted to handle tough decisions. So which is it? Are they adults or aren't they?
Image
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Post by Molyneux »

Anyone supporting something like that forfeits all right to the term 'feminist'. They're not in favor of equal rights for men and women, they're not in favor of womens' independence, simple as that.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
Tanasinn
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 2007-01-21 10:10pm
Location: Void Zone

Post by Tanasinn »

I've always personally wondered if "feminists" who make a big deal over porn or (especially) tits either feel threatened by sexually appealing women, or are simply fundie fucks in disguise.
Truth fears no trial.
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Post by Starglider »

Clearly this is another industry America wants to outsource to more sensible countries. Marginally bumping the age limit will do little to address the basic problem (which I suspect is less serious than the anti-porn moralists want people to thin) of women getting into the porn industry without understanding the consequences. Frankly most people make career choices with less knowledge than they should, but if they want to fix that particular lack of clue they should concentrate on education/PR campaigns. I suspect the reason they're so desperate for a law are that their 'education' campaigns do not work, because a fair number of women are perfectly happy to get paid to do this.
User avatar
Starglider
Miles Dyson
Posts: 8709
Joined: 2007-04-05 09:44pm
Location: Isle of Dogs
Contact:

Post by Starglider »

Tanasinn wrote:I've always personally wondered if "feminists" who make a big deal over porn or (especially) tits either feel threatened by sexually appealing women, or are simply fundie fucks in disguise.
There are genuine reasons for women to be upset with objectification in porn. Frankly a fair amount of it upsets me. But the solution is 'don't watch it'. Legislating what mentally competent consenting adults do in private is usually the province of self-righteous ignorant assholes. The problem isn't feminists saying they think porn is a bad thing (they may or may not have a point depending on the specifics), it's anyone who uses the government to force others to abandon their private consensual fun on bullshit 'decency' grounds.
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10691
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

I do get the impression that these pseudo-feminists are just putting a new coat of paint on age old pettiness among insecure women who resent other women who arouse more attention because of their looks.
Image
User avatar
Lisa
Jedi Knight
Posts: 790
Joined: 2006-07-14 11:59am
Location: Trenton
Contact:

Post by Lisa »

The usa is messed. More in common with the middle east then they would like to admit.
Not only can I show my tits to camera at the tender age of 18 but I can walk around in public topless.
May you live in interesting times.
User avatar
Guardsman Bass
Cowardly Codfish
Posts: 9281
Joined: 2002-07-07 12:01am
Location: Beneath the Deepest Sea

Post by Guardsman Bass »

Looks like another re-iteration of the long-standing complaint against pornography among some feminists, who argue that it sexualizes women and perpetuates bad gender stereotypes among men. The author may have a point in trying to discourage the 'barely legal' fondness, but wouldn't most of the hot girls have had hot bodies for at least several years?
“It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”
-Jean-Luc Picard


"Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them."
-Margaret Atwood
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Lisa wrote:The usa is messed. More in common with the middle east then they would like to admit.
Not only can I show my tits to camera at the tender age of 18 but I can walk around in public topless.
They don't have indecent exposure laws where you live?
User avatar
Mr. T
Jedi Knight
Posts: 866
Joined: 2005-02-28 10:23pm
Location: Canada

Post by Mr. T »

TithonusSyndrome wrote:
Lisa wrote:The usa is messed. More in common with the middle east then they would like to admit.
Not only can I show my tits to camera at the tender age of 18 but I can walk around in public topless.
They don't have indecent exposure laws where you live?
Her laws are probably like Ontario's where it was ruled that having it be illegal for women to be shirtless flys in the face of gender equality under the law seeing as men can be in public shirtless.
"If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one? "
-Abraham Lincoln

"I pity the fool!"
- The one, the only, Mr. T :)
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10691
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

Man boobs should be banned from public. If that means college girls can't whip 'em out in public, that's a price I'll gladly pay.
Image
User avatar
Xess
Jedi Knight
Posts: 921
Joined: 2005-05-07 07:11pm
Location: Near Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

Post by Xess »

Mr. T wrote:
TithonusSyndrome wrote:
Lisa wrote:The usa is messed. More in common with the middle east then they would like to admit.
Not only can I show my tits to camera at the tender age of 18 but I can walk around in public topless.
They don't have indecent exposure laws where you live?
Her laws are probably like Ontario's where it was ruled that having it be illegal for women to be shirtless flys in the face of gender equality under the law seeing as men can be in public shirtless.
Which would make sense since there is a Trenton in Ontario, I have family there, nice place, F-18s, warmer than Winnipeg.

That attitude in the article is asinine. Women can't decide to show off their breasts at 18 but they risk their lives in the army? It smells like anti-porn bluster to me.
Image[
User avatar
Napoleon the Clown
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2007-05-05 02:54pm
Location: Minneso'a

Post by Napoleon the Clown »

American Dad makes a rather good point relating to women exposing themselves. A woman shows a little skin. The guy throws wads of money at her. Who's really being exploited? The person showing off a little skin, or the person throwing away sometimes hundreds of dollars?

Besides, the idiots that look at women as objects would do that with or without porn around. I don't like objectification in porn, so I avoid the shit that objectifies women or men. Simple as that.
Sig images are for people who aren't fucking lazy.
User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by Stark »

Call me crazy, but I think it's hilarious to watch wealthy businessmen come into a strip club and throw hundreds of dollars at some woman they wouldn't even acknowledge on the street. No time for the plebes, but they'll sure pay some single mother to show them her implants! :lol:
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10691
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Post by Elfdart »

Carol Avedon has it right:

http://sideshow.me.uk/smay07.htm#05061226
Many people have been talking about Garance Franke-Ruta's WSJ article, and Alan Bostick thinks I should be talking about it, too. The article advocates raising the age of consent for posing topless or nude to be photographed - to 21, thus making nude and seminude pictures of fully adult women into "child porn". Garance is disturbed by Girls Gone Wild - admittedly, an annoyingly tacky piece of modern cultural trash - and says:

<snip>

Of course, so can being in a "child porn" case that treats you as a complicit victim. And, as if being treated "like a child" when you are a child - and therefore not recognized as owning your own sexuality - were not bad enough, Garance wants to treat us as children when we are well past childhood.

It's mad. We live in a world where the same people who are increasingly being pegged as unable to make sexual decisions at older and older ages are nevertheless tried as adults at younger and younger ages.

I understand Garance's temptation, but that way lies Catharine MacKinnon. It's not a new analysis to point out that all this "protecting women" stuff leads not to the protection of young women, but to the infantalization of all of us.

Current federal laws bar the production or possession of erotic images of individuals under 18. These laws are hardly a matter of long custom: The first was passed only in 1977, after a spate of interest in child pornography, and until superseded in 1984, only covered those under age 16. A variety of state laws add their own controls on youthful sexuality, trying to keep minors free of exploitation by defining the age, usually under 18, at which adult consent may be freely and responsibly given.

Those same laws make it easy to arrest someone for having their own baby pictures (you'd be surprised how often police pull this stuff), and impossible to safely photograph yourself naked if you are under the age of consent for being in "porn". The law doesn't make a distinction for commerciality in "child porn" - and there's a reason for that, since most real child porn isn't made for commercial purposes, but is taken by perpetrators of child abuse for their own personal collection of memories, pasted into scrapbooks, kept in a shoebox in the back of a closet. Even when there were no laws against child porn, you couldn't find the stuff in porn shops.

But, for the love of all the gods, are we really going to keep trying to tell men (even young ones) that they are pervert sickos because they are attracted to healthy young adult women? That's just sick. And cruel.

And here I am wishing I hadn't been so shy about my body back when I was young, so that I'd have the pictures now to prove just how good nature was to me. *sigh* And Garance would make some of those pictures illegal. (I can't stand the idea of having to throw out any good picture of myself.)

Anyway, as Alan points out, the jerk who does GGW has already broken the law and it is apparently being enforced, so it seems like overkill to be talking about bringing in new stupid laws to go with the old stupid laws. And Alan also points out that GGW isn't even in the same class, where exploitation and life-ruining is concerned, with our usurious predatory lending industry.

I was once setting up for an interview about porn with a few other women, including one who had been a Playboy centerfold. (And also with Alice Nutter, which was very cool.) The ex-Playmate had said something about how she wouldn't want her daughter to do it, and I asked her why. She said something about how she'd rather her daughter finished college and did all sorts of respectable things. "I never posed for Playboy," I said. "I have my degree. And you're the one who has a column in a daily newspaper, and I'm not." She allowed as how I might have had a point. Her posing for Playboy when she was young had gained her all sorts of entry into a better life that none of her working-class friends had managed, and neither, with all my middle-class advantages, had I. So maybe baring your knockers for the camera isn't necessarily the life-ruining event Garance thinks it is.

Being indentured for the rest of your life by student loans or foolish credit card decisions could just end up being a life-ruining thing, though. But we don't seem to get nearly as upset about that.

But I wish Garance would rethink her whole approach. The problem isn't that girls get drunk and flash for the camera. The problem is that we still raise kids to think there is something dirty about sex, and we never quite get over it.
That got me thinking. I get the impression that people think nude modeling, stripping and porn are much more "degrading" than say, working a shitty retail job. Or any number of other jobs that offer lousy pay and/or work conditions. Even if you think (I have no idea one way or the other) those jobs are as bad or worse, at least nude models, strippers and porn stars get paid. As Wyatt Earp said in Tombstone:

I already have a guilty conscience; I might as well have the money, too.
Image
User avatar
The_Saint
Jedi Knight
Posts: 798
Joined: 2007-05-05 04:13am
Location: Under Down Under

Post by The_Saint »

Thinking of the the stripper exploiting the person throwing away large amounts of money, a girl I knew in Sydney worked her way through uni as a topless bar-girl and for a short while as a stripper (on stage). Her stated position was that she was fine with people seeing her body and for a uni student in her second year I've never heard of a student who owned a flat, had a car less than ten years old and no debt to the government... several years later with a degree in commerce/business management she quit and got a full time job as an assistant branch manager at a major bank.

Yea at age 19 she made the career/life destroying decision... that's why she could afford anything she wanted while at uni and has a job that pays her a horrendous amount of money now. Guess I'm just jealous. 8)
All people are equal but some people are more equal than others.
User avatar
Molyneux
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7186
Joined: 2005-03-04 08:47am
Location: Long Island

Post by Molyneux »

To anyone who might argue that it's bad to be photographed for Playboy or the like: I haven't heard many people object to the use of nude models for art classes.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
User avatar
18-Till-I-Die
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 7271
Joined: 2004-02-22 05:07am
Location: In your base, killing your d00ds...obviously

Post by 18-Till-I-Die »

There are some people out there who call themselves fiminists but they really arent. They idenify themselves as such not because of what they believe, but what they stand against, and think if they stand against it strong enough it makes them morally superior. They're "fiminists by proxy".

In fact you see people like that in any group. So far i've osberved blacks, neocons, patriots, Christians and fiminists who fall into this "by proxy" description. Their commitment to the cause is based more on what they think it stands against that what it stands for.
Kanye West Saves.

Image
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

I'm betting these are the same kind of pseudo-feminists shitheads who bash women who make the choice to stay home with the kids, as if feminism is about forcing women to have a different lifestyle rather than giving the right to choose.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
Pablo Sanchez
Commissar
Posts: 6998
Joined: 2002-07-03 05:41pm
Location: The Wasteland

Post by Pablo Sanchez »

The problem that feminists have had with porn is they feel that it objectifies women. Like a guy will watch a porno about sluts, and he'll go around thinking that all women are sluts and he doesn't have to respect them. There is also the idea that porn encourages violence, particularly sexual violence, against women. This is one area where feminist ideology definitely meshes with fundamentalism. Fundamentalists and feminists both tend to believe that men who watch porn will have their minds warped by it in some way.

This is bullshit, of course.

(Before he was put down like the rabid dog he was, Ted Bundy told James Dobson that pornography turned him into a monstrous serial killer. Hilarity ensues.)
Napoleon the Clown wrote:American Dad makes a rather good point relating to women exposing themselves. A woman shows a little skin. The guy throws wads of money at her. Who's really being exploited? The person showing off a little skin, or the person throwing away sometimes hundreds of dollars?
American Dad, huh? If you watched that, maybe you remember the episode of Family Guy where Peter works for a cigarette company, and he takes some politicians out to a club where one of them murders a stripper. The episode ends with a joke about how it's a waste of time to kill strippers because they're already dead inside.

Sorry, but I just don't buy the "lolz Strippers are teh ones exploiting the mens!" argument. They get money from the marks, yes. But what about social stigma and the endemic exploitation by club owners? Some women are able to take control and make it work for them; Jenna Jameson is an example. But things aren't as good for most women in the erotic entertainment field.

In an ideal world, that field would be regulated by the government enough to eliminate exploitation and society would recognize that these women provide a service that is, let's face it, pretty much essential. But this world ain't ideal.
Image
"I am gravely disappointed. Again you have made me unleash my dogs of war."
--The Lord Humungus
Post Reply