Underlying motives

I occasionally enjoy reading anti-porn and anti-sex work blogs. Although enjoy is probably not the right word. I find it cathartic to get annoyed and swear at my monitor now and again. Possibly this is related to my masochistic tendencies. It also helps me to a better understanding of the motives of the people behind them.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry about what happens when sex and money collide. Sex is a powerful motive force and undoubtedly bad things can and sometimes do happen when  it combines with capitalism. I also don’t think it’s unreasonable to worry about how sex is represented in popular culture. However, whenever I go and read the work of these activists (like Gail Dines or Melissa Farley) it’s pretty clear they don’t care about these things. If they did they’d do proper research, provide solid data, talk to a wide range of the participants and present nuanced arguments that capture the inherent complexity of the issue. Instead they provide garbage fact sheets and arguments that dissolve like tissue paper when people such as Brooke Magnanti so much as glance at them.

What these people really want is control over others. And not the good sort of control that involves rope, blindfolds and safewords. They want to control how people live and how they think. I was reminded of this fact when I came across an article by Gail Dines on the new James Franco Kink movie. Unsurprisingly she’s not a fan, but the part that really caught my eye was…

The usual defense of Kink.com is that the women signed a contract and hence agreed to the acts. But as attorney Wendy Murphy of the New England School of Law argues, “torture doctrine is not hampered by concerns about consent because, as a matter of law and policy, one cannot consent to torture.” And anyway, what does meaningful and informed consent mean to the women subjected to these degrading and painful tortures, which are designed to break the body and the spirit?
Gail Dines in counterpunch

She’s not arguing that this material shouldn’t be filmed and distributed. She’s arguing that the very idea of consent in BDSM is meaningless. She emphasizes this opinion by repeatedly conflating the awful non-consensual tortures performed on prisoners at places like Abu Graib with what people consent to do for Kink.com. In her world not just porn would be banned, but BDSM itself would be outlawed by government mandate. The underlying motive here is not to help sex workers or target the issues the commercialization of sex creates. It’s to control how everyone behaves.

I’ll leave you with an image of the kind of activity that obviously should be illegal. That poor man can’t possibly be in his right mind to consent to such inhumane treatment. Although I guess it’s possible that he’s taking advantage of her and she therefore shouldn’t be allowed to be exploited like this. Either way, the evil pornographers taking advantage of these poor helpless people is the Captive Male site.