Prophet 451
Prophet 451's JournalMy partner is a former sex worker
She used to be a PSO. You know those phone lines you can call where some woman talks dirty to you for a buck a minute? She was one of the people at the end of the phone line. She did this for several years and I had zero problem with it (although I had to stop being in the same room as I'd often have to fight laughter). The only reason she doesn't do it anymore is because my mental health issues make me paranoid of phones (I can't explain it so please, don't ask).
I find that at least some of the stigma to sex work comes from women who consider themselves feminist. They say they wish to empower women but if a woman chooses to express their sexuality in a particular way or chooses to make money off it, that's suddenly not allowed and/or should be banned. They don't want to empower sex workers, just get rid of sex work entirely. It's like there's only a small box marked "empowered woman" and if a woman doesn't fit into that, she gets shamed to hell. In a way, they've internalised one significant part of patriarchy: The shame nature of female sexuality. A woman who chooses to commodify their sexuality or gets off on being watched are shamed as disempowering to women. It's one of the few times blaming the victim is considered acceptable, even by liberals. A stripper gets called names? Well, it's their fault for being a stripper.
I call it "Republianity"
Republianity is a mixture of lip service to Jesus (while jettisoning virtually everything he actually taught), Nieztchian will-to-power, Randian beliefs to justify psychotic anti-tax beliefs, Nazi-level nationalism and worship of the military and Rapture beliefs that were invented wholesale out of a few twisted-from-context Bible verses about a century ago. It has it's own high priests (Pat Robertson, Limbaugh, Beck), it's own messiah figure (Reagan), it's own devil figure (Obama although really, it's whoever the most high-profile liberal of the time is), it's own designated scapegoats (liberals) and it's own versions of history, economics, psychology, theology and jurisprudence.
Should there be litmus tests for being a liberal?
Or for being a "proper" liberal?
Should it be our standard that there are certain things you must accept before we consider you one of the tribe? Things like anthropogenic climate change, evolution, white privilege, race realities, patriarchy and so on? I'm not talking about quibbling over fine details, that's all well and good and helps theory evolve. But if you outright reject these things, can you still be considered a liberal in the DU sense of the word?
Profile Information
Member since: Wed Jul 27, 2005, 05:10 PMNumber of posts: 9,796
