watershiphobbits:

If you are a man who thinks it’s funny to make misogynist jokes purely to make your female friends uncomfortable/angry, then you are a misogynist.  It is not “just a joke.”  You literally are finding humor in the discomfort and dehumanization of women.  You are not helping, you are not making satire.  You are just being misogynist.

(this post was reblogged from sinshine)
(this post was reblogged from neutrois)

jacqueslefemme:

Some one has brought this powerful passage to my attention: Audre Lorde “We have been raised to fear the yes within ourselves, our deepest cravings. But, once recognized, those which do not enhance our future lose their power and can be altered. The fear of our desires keeps them suspect and indiscriminately powerful, for to suppress any truth is to give it strength beyond endurance. The fear that we cannot grow beyond whatever distortions we may find within ourselves keeps us docile and loyal and obedient, externally defined, and leads us to accept many facets of our oppression. 
When we live outside ourselves, and by that I mean on external directives only rather than from our internal knowledge and needs, when we live away from those erotic guides from within ourselves, then our lives are limited by external and alien forms, and we conform to the needs of a structure that is not based on human need, let alone an individual’s. But when we begin to live from within outward, in touch with the power of the erotic within ourselves, and allowing that power to inform and illuminate our actions upon the world around us, then we begin to be responsible to ourselves in the deepest sense. For as we begin to recognize our deepest feelings, we begin to give up, of necessity, being satisfied with suffering and self-negation, and with the numbness which so often seems like their only alternative in our society. Our acts against oppression become integral with self, motivated and empowered from within.” 

Yes.

This is why I say it, again and again: listen to the voice of your desire.

(this post was reblogged from jacqueslefemme)
(this post was reblogged from joleneparton)
In a study published by Archives of Sexual Behavior, scientists from Brunel University in London found that people who tend to oppose female promiscuity on moral grounds also tend to believe that women are financially dependant on men, even when researchers controlled for political and religious ideology.

The researchers, whose aim was to provide a glimpse at the “evolutionary logic of anti-promiscuity morality,” found that “such opposition will more likely emerge in environments in which women are more dependent economically on a male mate.” They came to this conclusion by noticing how women with lower incomes and men with higher salaries tended to have a stronger opposition to people with the sexual habits of independent women.

Elizabeth Plank, Americans’ hatred of “promiscuous” women has more to do with socioeconomics than sex  (via micdotcom)

hmmmm…..

(via noshamemovement)

Which makes sense, given how often opposition to sex work focuses on male desires that would ostensibly be either eradicated or funneled elsewhere without the socioeconomic threat of sex work.

It’s never been just the sexual aspect of sex work that frightens people; it’s the intersection of sex and money - specifically, outside of an ongoing socially sanctioned relationship.

(this post was reblogged from moremaggiemayhem)

tobitastic:

Anti Sex Work Logic is Painfully Inhumane

The more commonplace jail and criminalization is, the easier it is to forget how inherently violent it is. To have men with guns grab you and threaten you with violence unless you go with them. To be locked up in a cage with little to no privacy. To be given a police record that makes it incredibly difficult to find other employment. That’s the baseline, even if the police are on their best behavior. For many people the experience may include unnecessary strip searches, sexual harassment, derogatory slurs, assault, and/or rape.

These statistics and letter sent to Melissa Gira Grant where the police tell us they see this treatment as the “humane” choice is very upsetting. Keep in mind we’re not talking about trafficking victims. We’re talking about individuals struggling to pay the rent, with friends and lovers who care about them, who might have children to take care of.

They say that they cannot “in good conscience” allow them to continue to provide for themselves in the way they have chosen and must instead use force, violence, and the threat of further harm in order to coerce them into giving up their income source.  They continue to rely on this tactic even though admit themselves that this is ineffective for many. 

The police are following the strategy set forth by anti sex work activists who intend to make the job an increasingly “hostile environment.” I can’t help but gawk at that phrase. In so much else of my life it is something to be avoided. Labor rights will rally against hostile work environments and call for better labor conditions. Employers are quick to respond to or defend against such claims because they know they could be held legally responsible. Yet here it is the desired outcome.

They know that those consensually engaging in sex work are typically doing so because it is the best option available to them. Some will tell you they honestly enjoy the job, or that it accommodates their life or their accessibility needs in ways that other jobs don’t. Others will tell you they don’t like it but it’s better than the alternative. Anti sex work activists want to see more harassment and violence until people choose to give it up.

In truth, that is the motivation behind criminalization models that focus on clients. Reduce demand to reduce the industry. But think for a moment about every other labor circumstance where the number of employers are cut in half but there are the same number of people seeking work. Supply and demand will drive wages down and employers will know they have the upper hand and make more and more outrageous demands. In sex work that means agreeing to unsafe working situations and not being able to screen clients, demand the use of protection, or report crimes.

This is the desired outcome people are talking about when they say “reduce demand.” Make the working conditions so dangerous and hostile that people move to other lines of work.

The major problem here is that other work is not always an option. Many of the sex workers I know enjoy the freedom that independant sex work can bring. They would hate to have it taken away, but they probably do have other options. I also know plenty of people who have chosen sex work because they were chronically unemployable due to anti-trans discrimination, accessibility needs incompatible with traditional workplaces, or other reasons. They won’t be able to find work elsewhere and will have to continue working in sex work no matter how “hostile” it becomes. 

That is the end result of this approach - some happy independent sex workers disgruntled dislocated workers forced into careers they dislike. Others will play the odds hoping not to be struck by violence. But desperate sex workers with no other choice will continue doing sex work, simply in more and more dangerous circumstances experience violence as a part of the job regardless of whether it comes from clients or cops. Safe houses or free hotel rooms won’t help pay the rent and utilities or feed you when you’re hungry.

It reminds me of a section from the book The Truth About Me: A Hijra Life Story when the author describes being arrested for sex work and being beaten and raped by police, then she ends up getting arrested again. The officer asks her “Do you chaps have no other work? Why do you walk the streets? What’re we supposed to do with you guys? We beat you, arrest you, and yet you return to the streets.”

It’s a dramatic failure of the imagination to only see violence as a possible solution to the situation. If arresting someone doesn’t work, they try beatings. If beatings don’t work, they have no other ideas left. So they just keep on arresting and beating and wondering why things aren’t getting better.

(this post was reblogged from moremaggiemayhem)
(this post was reblogged from sinshine)
(this post was reblogged from queershoulder)
crowcarousel:

musingsofasexworker:

what sex workers are trying to tell everyone, and what society still isn’t willing to understand

Histories of abuse* are used to pathologise sex workers - we need to challenge the idea that a history of abuse means people can patronise you, rather than simply challenging the idea that sex workers all have histories of abuse - otherwise, we leave survivors out in the fucking cold. 
If you are a sex worker who is a survivor of abuse, your decisions are still just as valid as anybody else’s and you deserve rights and to have your autonomy recognised. And nobody should silence you or try to make you keep quiet about your experiences or the shit stuff that’s happened just because it happens to play into horrible infantilising stereotypes.
And whether or not you are a survivor, you don’t have to be happy, or like sex. You still deserve rights and support and respect for your work and your life. 
*See also, drug use, outdoor work, pro-subbing/fetish/BDSM, mental health, disability, poor working conditions etc, all of which are used to suggest that sex workers don’t know their own lives or what they need. 

This.People in all fields have abuse histories. Only in sex work (and, occasionally, the entertainment industry) is that pathologized, and only in sex work is it used to imply that abuse survivors’ life choices are less real or less valid than those of non-survivors.

crowcarousel:

musingsofasexworker:

what sex workers are trying to tell everyone, and what society still isn’t willing to understand

Histories of abuse* are used to pathologise sex workers - we need to challenge the idea that a history of abuse means people can patronise you, rather than simply challenging the idea that sex workers all have histories of abuse - otherwise, we leave survivors out in the fucking cold. 

If you are a sex worker who is a survivor of abuse, your decisions are still just as valid as anybody else’s and you deserve rights and to have your autonomy recognised. And nobody should silence you or try to make you keep quiet about your experiences or the shit stuff that’s happened just because it happens to play into horrible infantilising stereotypes.

And whether or not you are a survivor, you don’t have to be happy, or like sex. You still deserve rights and support and respect for your work and your life. 

*See also, drug use, outdoor work, pro-subbing/fetish/BDSM, mental health, disability, poor working conditions etc, all of which are used to suggest that sex workers don’t know their own lives or what they need. 

This.

People in all fields have abuse histories. Only in sex work (and, occasionally, the entertainment industry) is that pathologized, and only in sex work is it used to imply that abuse survivors’ life choices are less real or less valid than those of non-survivors.

(Source: kee-yaw-nah)

(this post was reblogged from joleneparton)
(this post was reblogged from fuckyeahsexeducation)