The invisible men project

[ArmyOfPenguins]

I think it's important that the buyers' choices in prostitution are highlighted and shared. This project was linked to on FB. Thoughts? I think it's a great idea.

the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2401788/Sex-tourism-Meet-middle-aged-middle-class-women-Britains-female-sex-tourists.html

And why do you never mention the female buyers of sex?

Oh good! Another person who has failed to read the OP but feels able to comment on it.

The question posed by the OP is.......

What do you think of the MEN'S choices?

Yes, a thread in a feminist forum which is asking about MEN'S choices, something we closed minded feminists apparently need to think about all the time. And yet, every punter who has commented has only been interested in the women's choices.

Why is that, do you think?

inwinoweritas - well gosh what a very long post. Why are you still using Sullivan in an attempt to challenge MacKinnon? Sullivan's opinions are irrelevant to MacKinnon's analysis. They do not refer to, acknowledge, address in any way or have any bearing on MacKinnon's critique of consent as a meaningful concept. Sullivan clearly fully accepts the traditional patriarchal concept of consent and uses it quite happily. She and MacKinnon are discussing entirely different things - it isn't because both discussions contain the word 'consent' in them that that means they are about the same thing. Sullivan employs the male perspective definition of consent as the framework for her discussion (a discussion which never addresses MacKinnon) with no questioning of the actual concept itself. MacKinnon rejects the male perspective of consent and explains why she does so.

MacKinnon's critique of consent as a meaningful concept could be used to challenge Suillivan - but Sullivan cannot be used to challenge MacKinnon. I don't think I can be much clearer than that.

Your lengthy cuts and pastes are hors sujet.

(Also on the use of 'prostituted woman' by feminists - it does not necessarily imply passivity. Inherent to the meaning is that the woman may prostitute herself. It is not at all a denial that some women choose to be in prostitution and are independents with no pimp.)

Oh and we can see from our new visitor what an important tool the male perspective concept of consent is to punters, pimps, rapists, porn consumers, abusers, etc.

Consent is a cunning rape myth. And it is used to invisibilize abuse and rape of girls and women the world over.

And notice how the concept of consent places responsibility on the woman for mens choices and actions. Men are relieved of all responsibility to act in a kind and humane way towards other humans thanks to the concept of consent.

'She consented' = 'she didn't want sex with me but she submitted/complied' = 'she didn't want sex but I fucked her anyway'

Then it is up to each individual to decide which definition of rape they use. My moral compass tells me that it is MacKinnon's not patriarchy's. Fucking someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is rape.

Flora
In reply to your post (Thu 19-Sep-13 21:55:36) perhaps I did not make myself clear. I am not particularly interested in discussing the batty ideas of Mackinnon on rape and consent or providing my own analysis in my own words, what I was doing was responding to the posts of Beach (Thu 12-Sep-13 20:21:33 Thu 12-Sep-13 20:27:30 ) which say that I missed the point of Mackinnon and that Sullivan does not deal with Mackinnon’s points.

I showed in my post Thu 19-Sep-13 15:32:56 ) that it was Beach who is wrong and Sullivan does deal with Mackinnon’s points (although perhaps not explicitly mentioning MacKinnon) and expose them as wrong-headed. And you obviously have not read or understood Mackinnon’s analysis of rape-in Rape: on coercion and consent (p5 para starting The law of rape..) which is as I have stated in the paraphrase.

Mackinnon views all sex which is not wanted (and she uses wanted in the sense of actively desired-the same point as Robin Morgan) as rape. A prostitute however will for money provide sex-that is the deal. Just because she may not actually desire that individual does not make it rape-and she is well aware of the difference of that sort of exchange sex-for money as being experientially different from rape.

And then in your post of Fri 20-Sep-13 01:44:51 you are back to your old line I have seen no proof that there are any women….. when in my post yesterday(Thu 19-Sep-13 15:32:56) I provided a ton of proof, with citations that what you say is WRONG-the MAJORITY of women in prostitution have chosen to prostitute and made that choice freely with no influence of abuse (past or present), coercion, addiction problems, mental health or poverty and have never been subject to rape, threats or assault while "working" What you mean is that you refuse to look at evidence that is in conflict with what you believe in-and might upset your faith.

Mackinnon views all sex which is not wanted (and she uses wanted in the sense of actively desired-the same point as Robin Morgan) as rape.

As I have said before - MacKinnon's analysis is much more sophisticated and profound than that.

You have consistently failed to show on this thread that you understand what MacKinnon is doing when she questions the actual concept of consent in and of itself. I suggest you read Dworkin's section on sexual intelligence in 'Right-Wing Women' in order to further your understanding of the point.

Might I also suggest that you stop paraphrasing MacKinnon because you keep getting it wrong - her work is complex and multi-levelled. It is demanding, challenging and necessitates a working understanding of a range of radical feminists observations (or lived experience of the female perspective those observations originate in. This is the 'personal is political').

It might be better to actually quote her and then give your opinion rather than try to paraphrase the complex and wordy books of a brilliant legal and feminist analyst. You keep failing to include the foundational thought of her reasoning in your paraphrasing. (You are failing to include her actual point.)

Sullivan does not challenge MacKinnon - she never engages with MacKinnon's actual point either - that of a critique of consent as a meaningful concept for all women within a male dominated society which is founded on the paradigm of dominance/submission.

MacKinnon's analysis is a paradigm shift. Sullivan doesn't even describe/analyse the paradigm let alone challenge (or acknowledge) the shift of which MacKinnon's reasoning achieves.

Oh now I understand

Beach “Then it is up to each individual to decide which definition of rape they use

Humpty Dumpty” When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

Silly me for not understanding this

wino

please tell me how your studies established there was no influence on the women's decision from:

• abuse (past or present)
• coercion
• addiction problems
• mental health
• poverty

and that the women have never been subject to rape, threats or assault while "working".

there's fuck all to understand wino.

If someone doesn't want to fuck you, don't wave twenties in their face til they swallow their disgust and give in. It's a rock/hard place situation for them and they still don't want to fuck you.

inwinoweritas you aren't thinking hard enough.

You quote me but you missed out the key part of what I said (a bit like you keep doing with your reading of MacKinnon).

I said; Then it is up to each individual to decide which definition of rape they use. My moral compass tells me that it is MacKinnon's not patriarchy's. Fucking someone who doesn't want to have sex with you is rape.

The way you interpret Lewis Carroll's humpty dumpty is revelatory - women are allowed to disagree with patriarchal thinking yunno

And that doesn't make us uppity or 'batty' or talking non-sense. Who is talking Jabberwocky; men (patriarchy) or women (feminism)? You seem to have missed Carroll's point too.

Exactly Whenthered. All this talk of consent is just noise on the part of punters in their usual dishonest approach which is to alleviate themselves of all responsibility for their own actions.

They always try to bring the focus back to the women in order to invisibilize what they do - which is fuck women who don't want to be fucked by them (in their droves).

Hence projects like the aptly named 'The Invisible Men'.

the term 'exploitation' has a specific meaning in progressive analysis of labour - it is not a moral judgement.

also - consent is the thing which has been bought, not sex. The conditions surrounding its sale can provide sufficient reason to negate it as meaningful consent.

Flora

RTFT-why don't you-its not hard. In my posts of Fri 20-Sep-13 09:09:16 and Thu 19-Sep-13 15:32:56 I provide the evidence that for the vast majority of prostitutes there was no influence on the women's decision from:

• abuse (past or present)
• coercion
• addiction problems
• mental health
• poverty

why don't you read and digest instead of parroting the same-old-same -old. Oh I forgot-you don't read anything that might disturb your flat earth faith

inwinoweritas seeing as you seem determined to avoid commenting on the actions of the punters and you seem to cling to evidence that hardly any women enter prostitution under any kind of duress or difficult personal/financial life histories or circumstances, why don't you tell us why women are in prostitution?

And why are they there is disproportionate numbers compared to men?

wino

Against my better judgement, I had a look at the first of the studies you claim to be evidence of the above.

The first thing to do when reading a report is to think, who wrote this? What are there credentials and what is the likelihood of bias in the report?

In this case, the lead author is Dr Nick Mai. His bio at:

metranet.londonmet.ac.uk/research-units/iset/staff/mai.cfm

His undergrad and PhD studies are:

"Nick Studied Modern Italian Literature and Media Studies at Bologna University, 1990-1995, before going to the University of Sussex, where he obtained his PhD in 2001. Nick’s doctoral research was on the relationship between migration and transcultural media consumption and addressed the role played by Italian media in the Albanian migration to Italy. During his PhD fieldwork he was the director of an Italian development project aimed at the setting up and management of four youth centres in central and southern Albania, where he lived for over two years. In 2000 he was a researcher within the project 'Archives of the Memory: from an individual to a collective experience' funded by the International Organisation for Migrations and carried out in Belgrade and Pristina."

Followed by some further post-docs and research positions relating to migration.

The advisory board members include representatives of SohoBoyz, a body supporting male and transgender prostitutes and a sex worker / activist from the International Union of Sex Workers (which campaigns for the decriminalisation of prostitution). The research team was four members, two of whom are prostitutes and one is an activist with the IUSW.

I'm going to say right here that this is not impressive. The lead author has no other credentials in relation to prostitution and the advisory board and research team include campaigners for decriminalisation of prostitution. Not a great start.

Looking at the study itself, I can see a number of issues with the sampling which Buffy kindly outlined upthread. I won’t go into those issues in this post because my question is how did the survey deal with:

• abuse (past or present)
• coercion
• addiction problems
• mental health
• poverty
• whether the women have never subject to rape, threats or assault while "working".

The report says that interviews were not recorded and there is no indication of the questions asked. The topics discussed in the report are:

• Reasons for Migrating to the UK
• The Role of Networks
• Socio-Economic Background and Pre-Migration Working Lives
• Work Experiences in the UK (including a subsection on Routes into UK Sex Industry)
• Focus on Sexual Exploitation

The report does not address abuse, addiction, mental health, incidences of rape, threats or assault at all so wino your “evidence” fails right there. Even if I take it on its face, written by a lead author with dubious credentials and researched by campaigners in favour of decriminalisation of prostitution, it is not evidence that there are any women who chose prostitution absent all the factors above.
I will note though the first interviewee quoted in the section “Routes into UK Sex Industry” was a 32 year Russian woman who had been a paediatrician until her husband was killed for political reasons and came to the UK, claimed asylum and got a job as a cleaner. A shining example of precious agency.

The point you are spectacularly missing in all your ramblings, wino is that you prove the case for us. Even if I accept all your reports and studies as unbiased, credible and representative, they do not prove that there any women who chose prostitution as an exercise of agency absent factors which negate the agency. Even by your own admissions, there are a number of women who are not exercising agency due to these factors. You are merely quibbling about percentages / majorities?

What is the acceptable number of women who find themselves in prostitution as a result of coercion, abuse (past or present), addiction, mental health or poverty or who are raped, threatened and assaulted by pimps and punters? What proportion of women must suffer this to uphold the precious agency of this free-choice prostitute that you can’t even prove exists?

Apologies to everyone else for the long post and for encouraging robo-punter's derail.

The issue of the thread should, of course, be the men. It's clear from the IM reports that one of the biggest sources of complaints from punters is that woman did not sufficiently hide her disgust at carrying out or worse, she adopts tricks to avoid penetration or some other acts. The punter regards this as a service failing rather than a human response. He carries on regardless then files his complaint on p net and tells others how to watch out for the tricks. The punter knows or doesn't care that the woman is disgusted. He has paid his money so he is entitled to carry on regardless of her evident disgust and he expects the payment to include that she hides her disgust.

What do you think about those men wino?

Mackinnon views all sex which is not wanted (and she uses wanted in the sense of actively desired-the same point as Robin Morgan) as rape.

and Mackinnon is completely correct. Anything other than enthusiastic and uncoerced consent is rape.

Coercion in this case being the money involved. Legally and ethically consent cannot be bought.

And back to the whole point of the Invisible Men Project......

What do you think of the MEN'S choices

Oh dear flora-you do make a complete hash of your argument.

I tried to be helpful and group the reports by the points I was trying to make but obviously this went over your head.
Please look again at my post of Thu 19-Sep-13 15:32:56 and lets start at the paragraph “What the evidence shows”..found it? Good. I mostly cite from freely available documents which are not behind publisher pay walls-I could add hundreds more to bolster the case from other academic papers

1. I cite three studies on coercion by pimps: One is a police research paper(why don’t you try to rubbish that one I wonder?), one from Nick Mai and the third from Australia from the Kirby institute. All three show that pimping is rare or non-existent-that deals with your coercion point

2. I next deal with coercion from child abuse-citing two pieces of research-which indicate that this is not a factor on entry into prostitution-that pretty much covers your - abuse (past or present)

3. I then deal with is poverty a driver-citing one report, I could cite more –that deals with your poverty issue

4. I then cite two studies on drug addiction-showing it is only a factor in street prostitution-that covers your addiction point

5. I then cite a report explaining why people might enter prostitution-citing two reports -one report on the relatively low hours and high pay providing flexibility-which may be fitted around childcare and study-and also point out that some women are comfortable with sex, perhaps not regarding it as some holy sacrament and are willing to use it to get money. Oh and list several mumsnetters who are prostitutes and confirm all of what I say above-that covers your mental issues (at least in part)

That pretty much covers your points-so please stop repeating them as you have done at several points-I have provided evidence

You next launch your ad hominem attack on the Mai article, which really was dealing with foreign prostitutes working in London-showing they were not trafficked and 94% were not pimped. You question Mai’s credentials as a researcher ( I hope you are also critical of Farley’s and Julie Bindel’s). You also raise the question-as has been done elsewhere of using current or former prostitutes to aid the research.

Perhaps you are unaware of the sociological method called “Community based participatory research”( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-based_participatory_research)- a good description of using it in relationship to prostitution is given in the Report to the prostitution law Review committee (the one you called lobbying-but was in fact commission by the NZ parliament-remember that gaff-demonstrating your profound ignorance?) on p41 it provides a good description.

Another lovely copy and paste there wino however, in what way does anything that you have posted ever discuss what you think of the MEN'S CHOICES. We know what you think of the women's choices, you love it, it means you can pay for non consensual sex.

I wrote it in bold in the vain hope that you might actually get it without wobbling off to find another 5000 words to copy and paste.

What do you think of the men's choices?

"Another lovely copy and paste there wino however, in what way does anything that you have posted ever discuss what you think of the MEN'S CHOICES. We know what you think of the women's choices, you love it, it means you can pay for non consensual sex.

I wrote it in bold in the vain hope that you might actually get it without wobbling off to find another 5000 words to copy and paste.

What do you think of the men's choices?"

Yes, what about the menz??? (I believe I'm using the phrase correctly )

im22 not entirely sure, but given that what do you think of the men's choices is the theme of the Invisible Men Project, and that's what the thread is about, I thought it might be somewhat relevant. I take it you disagree?

Note the lack of 'z'...