Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
Hi Simon, It's not just about obvious cases of slavery, of whatever kind (from wage slaves to far worse). I Agree... Page 3 girls, for example, are as much a problem as anything else. They normalise unhealthy and oppressive attitudes towards women that effectively enslave all women (and those whose attitudes are thus shaped). One of the most depressing things regarding working class culture in the UK (of which I am part of), is that the 'gutter' press and x factor mentality, has poisoned cultural dialogue through a process of 'top-down' corporatized mediation, with shallow glamour celebrity banality; which holds down any hope of 'real' change from the lower classes, en masse. It is the middle class, the educated who are out there changing things and protesting, and the younger dysfunctional kids 'uneducated' who rioted and smashed the shops for designer clothes. We are truly living in a Ballardian nightmare, where most rebellions exist within a constant loop of consumer orientated entrapment. The desire to be free, is channeled, exploited through protocols and frameworks which mutate the mutated, into extreme distortions which more relate to consumer, designed fetishism, rather than connecting to actual 'wild' and deeper resonances. Whether male or female, we are all trapped in a maze of a trade off that demands the sell-off of our possbile liberations, via gadgets and fantasy-promises. The revolt of the privelaged, gains greater control through globalization, its networks, and an never ending war on us the people, and the constant creation of wars to distract us from claiming civil liberties, whilst they say civil-rights is nothing but a privelage in itself. The other thing to remember, is that supply and demand whether technological or 'physical', social construction, is based on exploiting 'habits' not 'needs'. Thus, if we are to expect to change anything, either personal or societal, we need to recognise that our habits are our weeknesses. Re-establishing control over our 'INNER' contexts will only be truly evolutionary or revolutionary, if we express, think and act beyond habit. For the habit of the individual/masses, creates ways in, various roots - where methods of psychological power is at its most potent and exploitative. As you say 'its about power', of course - but there different forms of power, and it is up to ourselves to gain some hold of power reflecting own contextual nuances which are less driven by the powers over us and more about mutual powers and personal forms of power. And power involves claiming control of a situation, of others, of things and of aspects of life; the resolutions we weave are not always going to be seen by the journalists, the media, the lucky enlightened, but by personal localism where communities forge out their own contexts, not reliant on hegemonical, distant unrelated dialogue or remits. For the general dialogue out there, is close to entertainment, whilst being in a post-modern sense, important at the same time. Regarding the Sun Newspaper and Page 3, I think you know what I think about it (and Ruth). This is the video we did last year 'at winter equinox we burn The Sun' http://vimeo.com/18325342 It was shocking when a senior newspaper executive responded by saying page 3 girls are harmless fun. They do enormous harm to those involved in their production and all those exposed to them. The impact of hard porn is arguably that much greater, as is the impact of prostitution. Again, I must refer to prostitution from experience. When I was younger I knew prostitutes personally, some were friends of my family and just like anyone else they are varied and different, in respect of intelligence and class. I have never sex with a prostitute - but have talked with many, played board games and stayed round their houses and have been to parties with them as younger lad; and the wisdom and knowledge they possesed about men and the world is deep, tragic, violent, beautiful, hilarious, enlightening, horrible and more. The Sun Newspaper has cheapened sex, based around principles of patriarchal mechanisms of economy and shallow habitualness, to a point where sex becomes a taboo. The power game here, is that, we are now unable to claim sex and its variant forms because it has been exploited to such an extreme level - the real depths of its (possible) beauty can only be discussed within a political context alone - it has been stolen from us, dialogue is now inflammatory and our potential as human beings to explore sexuality on our own terms is no longer acceptable as an awakening and discovery. Wishing you well. marc The recent submission to the Leveson inquiry by a number of feminists on this topic was timely. It was shocking when a senior newspaper executive responded by saying page 3 girls are harmless fun. They do enormous harm to those involved in their production and all those exposed
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
You've hit all the nails on their heads :) On 9 Feb 2012, at 11:39, marc garrett wrote: One of the most depressing things regarding working class culture in the UK (of which I am part of), is that the 'gutter' press and x factor mentality, has poisoned cultural dialogue through a process of 'top-down' corporatized mediation, with shallow glamour celebrity banality; which holds down any hope of 'real' change from the lower classes, en masse. It is the middle class, the educated who are out there changing things and protesting, and the younger dysfunctional kids 'uneducated' who rioted and smashed the shops for designer clothes. We are truly living in a Ballardian nightmare, where most rebellions exist within a constant loop of consumer orientated entrapment. The desire to be free, is channeled, exploited through protocols and frameworks which mutate the mutated, into extreme distortions which more relate to consumer, designed fetishism, rather than connecting to actual 'wild' and deeper resonances. Whether male or female, we are all trapped in a maze of a trade off that demands the sell-off of our possbile liberations, via gadgets and fantasy-promises. The revolt of the privelaged, gains greater control through globalization, its networks, and an never ending war on us the people, and the constant creation of wars to distract us from claiming civil liberties, whilst they say civil-rights is nothing but a privelage in itself. The other thing to remember, is that supply and demand whether technological or 'physical', social construction, is based on exploiting 'habits' not 'needs'. Thus, if we are to expect to change anything, either personal or societal, we need to recognise that our habits are our weeknesses. Re-establishing control over our 'INNER' contexts will only be truly evolutionary or revolutionary, if we express, think and act beyond habit. For the habit of the individual/masses, creates ways in, various roots - where methods of psychological power is at its most potent and exploitative. As you say 'its about power', of course - but there different forms of power, and it is up to ourselves to gain some hold of power reflecting own contextual nuances which are less driven by the powers over us and more about mutual powers and personal forms of power. And power involves claiming control of a situation, of others, of things and of aspects of life; the resolutions we weave are not always going to be seen by the journalists, the media, the lucky enlightened, but by personal localism where communities forge out their own contexts, not reliant on hegemonical, distant unrelated dialogue or remits. For the general dialogue out there, is close to entertainment, whilst being in a post-modern sense, important at the same time. Regarding the Sun Newspaper and Page 3, I think you know what I think about it (and Ruth). This is the video we did last year 'at winter equinox we burn The Sun' http://vimeo.com/18325342 It was shocking when a senior newspaper executive responded by saying page 3 girls are harmless fun. They do enormous harm to those involved in their production and all those exposed to them. The impact of hard porn is arguably that much greater, as is the impact of prostitution. Again, I must refer to prostitution from experience. When I was younger I knew prostitutes personally, some were friends of my family and just like anyone else they are varied and different, in respect of intelligence and class. I have never sex with a prostitute - but have talked with many, played board games and stayed round their houses and have been to parties with them as younger lad; and the wisdom and knowledge they possesed about men and the world is deep, tragic, violent, beautiful, hilarious, enlightening, horrible and more. The Sun Newspaper has cheapened sex, based around principles of patriarchal mechanisms of economy and shallow habitualness, to a point where sex becomes a taboo. The power game here, is that, we are now unable to claim sex and its variant forms because it has been exploited to such an extreme level - the real depths of its (possible) beauty can only be discussed within a political context alone - it has been stolen from us, dialogue is now inflammatory and our potential as human beings to explore sexuality on our own terms is no longer acceptable as an awakening and discovery. Wishing you well. marc The recent submission to the Leveson inquiry by a number of feminists on this topic was timely. It was shocking when a senior newspaper executive responded by saying page 3 girls are harmless fun. They do enormous harm to those involved in their production and all those exposed to them. The impact of hard porn is arguably that much greater, as is the impact of prostitution. It's all exploitative. I stress again, this is not a moral issue
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
The question might not only be about whether the sex workers themselves are being exploited but that others not associated with their activities are. For example, sexual representation of young (or young appearing) sex workers could be leading to the sexualisation of children. Ditto, images of women performing as subservient sexual partners to men exploits women generally. There are loads of examples like this. It's not just pornography - it's a concern in representation in general (eg: Louis Malle's representation of Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, a great film with huge problems). Of course, such exploitation is not unique to sex work. It happens in other domains too. But there is no justification for such exploitation, wherever it happens. This is not a moral argument but a political one. I agree with the feminist argument that pornography and sex work are intrinsically exploitative, not just of women but everyone involved in, exposed to and even those totally unaware of it. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:02, marc garrett wrote: [Copied from the Spectre list...] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale - by Dmyri Kleiner Transmediale 2012 is over. R15N is closed again, until the nextnbsp;occasion. As usual, lots of great people at the festival, and lots to talk and think about. On Saturday I attended the discussion Commercialising Eros with Jacob Appelbaum, Zach Blas, Liad Hussein Kantorowicz, Aliya Rakhmetova and moderated by Gaia Novati. Aliya Rakhmetova, supporter of sex workers' right working as a co-ordinator with SWAN, gave an overview of her organization and it's campaigns defending the rights of sex workers, including campaigns to fight violence against sex workers. Jacob Appelbaum went over his experience working in the IT department of smut.com, a leading internet pornography company, which he left as a result of his opposition to exploitive pay inequality at the company which paid the performers far less that the executives at the company. Liad Hussein Kantorowicz talked about her work as live erotic performer at a internet pornography site, and performed her job on the stage for her online clients while the other panelists gave their presentations. Zach Blas gave an overview of the work of the Queer Technologies art collective. I enjoyed the presentations and discussions and applaud the panellists for their support of sex workers. One question stuck with me, I didn't expand upon it at the discussion, but I'd like to here. Several of the panelists referred to the issue of consent as a justification for sex work and a way of arguing against legal repressions of sex work, and against the opposition against sex work that some feminists and other have, as well as a way to distinguish sex work from rape. Sex work is distinguished from rape because it is consensual, and neither legislator nor moral campaigner has any place interfering with what consenting adults do. Yet, this argument is unsatisfying. Within the capitalist system, where workers and their families face destitution and homelessness unless they work, no work can be truly described as consensual. What's more the pretense of consent, is often used as justification for exploitation and to excuse the exploitive behaviour of employers. After all, the worker chose to accept the job. Yet, as the cliche goes, in context this choice is not much different than the one that a mugger gives you. Your money or your life is also a choice. Like all professions, there can be no doubt that many sex workers feel empowered by their work, and take great pleasure in it. However, there can also be no doubt, that many sex workers are directly or indirectly coerced into doing this kind of work, and face emotional and social trauma as a result. Consent seems to justify not only the sex-work itself, since the sex worker consents to perform sexual services for a client, but the conditions of the sex-workers labour as well, since the sex-workers, like other workers, has consented to the terms of employment. Thus while consent may help us differentiate sex work from rape, it justifies the economic exploitation of the sex worker at the same time, since both the workers relationship with the client and the employer are ultimately consensual. I would prefer to see a stronger line of argument that says that sex work is a valid form of work not merely because it is consensual, but because it is valuable. Rather then a week liberal argument based on the sanctity of what consulting adults to, a strong social argument that argues that sex workers do necessary and beneficial work and should be protected and supported. Like the consent argument, the value argument also differentiates between sex work and rape, as rape clearly is not socially valuable, but unlike the consent argument it doesn't excuse the economic exploitation
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
Hi Simon, Let's I def-agree that we do not abide sexual exploitation... Yet, people also need to be able to find their own sexual identities beyond the restrictions of the state or moralists. One of the problems with sex is that is one of those things which is deeper than society can 'openly' deal with - you have interesting individuals crossing the borders of their sexual activities such as Kathy Acker, and much of 70s French cinema, and the sexual liberationists such as Tuppy Owens. Where their sexual exploration is linked to their liberty and politics and they consider society as a social construct limiting their particular feral discoveries... Pornography is exploitative because we exist in a male dominated world, with men who value exploitation and its industry above the liberty for others - and this goes way beyond sex itself, wars, vid-games, sport, economies - pornography is such a loaded term, and usually appropriated as an absolute and partial to simplistic symbols. Yet, the problem is not sex - it is our lack of freedom to explore the 'feralness' of ourselves, in a world contained by frameworks trapping people's 'real' potential as intimate human beings at various levels - thus it creates scarcity and isolation as part of the product. Stop men controlling everything - then we'll find new ways of rediscovering things beyond literalization of our 'selves'... Wishing you well. marc The question might not only be about whether the sex workers themselves are being exploited but that others not associated with their activities are. For example, sexual representation of young (or young appearing) sex workers could be leading to the sexualisation of children. Ditto, images of women performing as subservient sexual partners to men exploits women generally. There are loads of examples like this. It's not just pornography - it's a concern in representation in general (eg: Louis Malle's representation of Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, a great film with huge problems). Of course, such exploitation is not unique to sex work. It happens in other domains too. But there is no justification for such exploitation, wherever it happens. This is not a moral argument but a political one. I agree with the feminist argument that pornography and sex work are intrinsically exploitative, not just of women but everyone involved in, exposed to and even those totally unaware of it. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:02, marc garrett wrote: [Copied from the Spectre list...] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale - by Dmyri Kleiner Transmediale 2012 is over. R15N is closed again, until the nextnbsp;occasion. As usual, lots of great people at the festival, and lots to talk and think about. On Saturday I attended the discussion Commercialising Eros with Jacob Appelbaum, Zach Blas, Liad Hussein Kantorowicz, Aliya Rakhmetova and moderated by Gaia Novati. Aliya Rakhmetova, supporter of sex workers' right working as a co-ordinator with SWAN, gave an overview of her organization and it's campaigns defending the rights of sex workers, including campaigns to fight violence against sex workers. Jacob Appelbaum went over his experience working in the IT department of smut.com, a leading internet pornography company, which he left as a result of his opposition to exploitive pay inequality at the company which paid the performers far less that the executives at the company. Liad Hussein Kantorowicz talked about her work as live erotic performer at a internet pornography site, and performed her job on the stage for her online clients while the other panelists gave their presentations. Zach Blas gave an overview of the work of the Queer Technologies art collective. I enjoyed the presentations and discussions and applaud the panellists for their support of sex workers. One question stuck with me, I didn't expand upon it at the discussion, but I'd like to here. Several of the panelists referred to the issue of consent as a justification for sex work and a way of arguing against legal repressions of sex work, and against the opposition against sex work that some feminists and other have, as well as a way to distinguish sex work from rape. Sex work is distinguished from rape because it is consensual, and neither legislator nor moral campaigner has any place interfering with what consenting adults do. Yet, this argument is unsatisfying. Within the capitalist system, where workers and their families face destitution and homelessness unless they work, no work can be truly described as consensual. What's more the pretense of consent, is often used as justification for exploitation and to excuse the exploitive behaviour of employers. After all, the worker chose to accept the job. Yet, as the cliche goes, in context this choice is not much different than the one that a mugger gives you. Your money or your life is also a choice. Like all professions,
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
Kathy Acker's work was often sexually explicit, in print and performance (I was a videographer for the Pussy, King of the Pirates performance in London, with the Mekons, so was there), but I'd never have considered what she did as pornographic. Pornography isn't about sex. There is plenty of pornography that has no explicit sexual content (much popular culture fits in this definition). I would argue that any representation that is created with the intention of inducing a sense of gratification at the expense of those presented in or consuming the representation is pornographic. This is also true of any particular activity, not just representations, so when sex involves such dynamics it is exploitative. I can accept that sex workers and their clients might not believe themselves to be in an exploitative relationship with one another. However, my earlier argument was not about those directly involved in what might be fully consensual activities but the affect of their activities upon others. When activity is in the pubic realm then you are going to encounter major issues. Again, this isn't just about sex. The same dynamics can be seen in sport, the creative arts and elsewhere. Coming back to Acker, her work often sought to highlight how what appears to be quite normal human interactions are actually exploitative and pornographic. I see Alan's work in the same light. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 13:46, marc garrett wrote: Hi Simon, Let's I def-agree that we do not abide sexual exploitation... Yet, people also need to be able to find their own sexual identities beyond the restrictions of the state or moralists. One of the problems with sex is that is one of those things which is deeper than society can 'openly' deal with - you have interesting individuals crossing the borders of their sexual activities such as Kathy Acker, and much of 70s French cinema, and the sexual liberationists such as Tuppy Owens. Where their sexual exploration is linked to their liberty and politics and they consider society as a social construct limiting their particular feral discoveries... Pornography is exploitative because we exist in a male dominated world, with men who value exploitation and its industry above the liberty for others - and this goes way beyond sex itself, wars, vid-games, sport, economies - pornography is such a loaded term, and usually appropriated as an absolute and partial to simplistic symbols. Yet, the problem is not sex - it is our lack of freedom to explore the 'feralness' of ourselves, in a world contained by frameworks trapping people's 'real' potential as intimate human beings at various levels - thus it creates scarcity and isolation as part of the product. Stop men controlling everything - then we'll find new ways of rediscovering things beyond literalization of our 'selves'... Wishing you well. marc The question might not only be about whether the sex workers themselves are being exploited but that others not associated with their activities are. For example, sexual representation of young (or young appearing) sex workers could be leading to the sexualisation of children. Ditto, images of women performing as subservient sexual partners to men exploits women generally. There are loads of examples like this. It's not just pornography - it's a concern in representation in general (eg: Louis Malle's representation of Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, a great film with huge problems). Of course, such exploitation is not unique to sex work. It happens in other domains too. But there is no justification for such exploitation, wherever it happens. This is not a moral argument but a political one. I agree with the feminist argument that pornography and sex work are intrinsically exploitative, not just of women but everyone involved in, exposed to and even those totally unaware of it. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 10:02, marc garrett wrote: [Copied from the Spectre list...] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale - by Dmyri Kleiner Transmediale 2012 is over. R15N is closed again, until the nextnbsp;occasion. As usual, lots of great people at the festival, and lots to talk and think about. On Saturday I attended the discussion Commercialising Eros with Jacob Appelbaum, Zach Blas, Liad Hussein Kantorowicz, Aliya Rakhmetova and moderated by Gaia Novati. Aliya Rakhmetova, supporter of sex workers' right working as a co-ordinator with SWAN, gave an overview of her organization and it's campaigns defending the rights of sex workers, including campaigns to fight violence against sex workers. Jacob Appelbaum went over his experience working in the IT department of smut.com, a leading internet pornography company, which he left as a result of his opposition to exploitive pay inequality at the company which paid the performers far less that the executives at the company. Liad Hussein
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
Hi Simon, I remember in the 80s, a radical lefty feminist artist who was showing strange artwork in a Brixton Gallery in 84, introduced me to Kathy Acker's work; and lent me a copy of her book 'Blood and Guts in High School'. I found the book not only disturbing but also liberating. A brillaint writer, I wish there much more like her. She challenged men and women. What I like about her work, is how it cuts across the hypocrisy around 'self censored imposed ideas', on human sexuality. Much of the work, unearths, even admits, certain realisms about human sexual fantasy which may not necessarily be acceptable in polite or conservative thought (right across the board), but is what it is. Of course, in respect of sex slavery - I am a humanist and believe that people should never be made to do what they do not wish to. I have worked with people who have experienced such situations themselves, and it has been traumatic (personally) to work with these individuals. Especially in some of the homeless centres I have worked in in London. The systems in place seem designed to exploit rather than support. Wishing you well. marc Kathy Acker's work was often sexually explicit, in print and performance (I was a videographer for the Pussy, King of the Pirates performance in London, with the Mekons, so was there), but I'd never have considered what she did as pornographic. Pornography isn't about sex. There is plenty of pornography that has no explicit sexual content (much popular culture fits in this definition). I would argue that any representation that is created with the intention of inducing a sense of gratification at the expense of those presented in or consuming the representation is pornographic. This is also true of any particular activity, not just representations, so when sex involves such dynamics it is exploitative. I can accept that sex workers and their clients might not believe themselves to be in an exploitative relationship with one another. However, my earlier argument was not about those directly involved in what might be fully consensual activities but the affect of their activities upon others. When activity is in the pubic realm then you are going to encounter major issues. Again, this isn't just about sex. The same dynamics can be seen in sport, the creative arts and elsewhere. Coming back to Acker, her work often sought to highlight how what appears to be quite normal human interactions are actually exploitative and pornographic. I see Alan's work in the same light. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 13:46, marc garrett wrote: Hi Simon, Let's I def-agree that we do not abide sexual exploitation... Yet, people also need to be able to find their own sexual identities beyond the restrictions of the state or moralists. One of the problems with sex is that is one of those things which is deeper than society can 'openly' deal with - you have interesting individuals crossing the borders of their sexual activities such as Kathy Acker, and much of 70s French cinema, and the sexual liberationists such as Tuppy Owens. Where their sexual exploration is linked to their liberty and politics and they consider society as a social construct limiting their particular feral discoveries... Pornography is exploitative because we exist in a male dominated world, with men who value exploitation and its industry above the liberty for others - and this goes way beyond sex itself, wars, vid-games, sport, economies - pornography is such a loaded term, and usually appropriated as an absolute and partial to simplistic symbols. Yet, the problem is not sex - it is our lack of freedom to explore the 'feralness' of ourselves, in a world contained by frameworks trapping people's 'real' potential as intimate human beings at various levels - thus it creates scarcity and isolation as part of the product. Stop men controlling everything - then we'll find new ways of rediscovering things beyond literalization of our 'selves'... Wishing you well. marc The question might not only be about whether the sex workers themselves are being exploited but that others not associated with their activities are. For example, sexual representation of young (or young appearing) sex workers could be leading to the sexualisation of children. Ditto, images of women performing as subservient sexual partners to men exploits women generally. There are loads of examples like this. It's not just pornography - it's a concern in representation in general (eg: Louis Malle's representation of Brooke Shields in Pretty Baby, a great film with huge problems). Of course, such exploitation is not unique to sex work. It happens in other domains too. But there is no justification for such exploitation, wherever it happens. This is not a moral argument but a political one. I agree with the feminist argument that pornography and sex work
Re: [NetBehaviour] Sex Work and Consent at @transmediale
Hi Marc It's not just about obvious cases of slavery, of whatever kind (from wage slaves to far worse). Page 3 girls, for example, are as much a problem as anything else. They normalise unhealthy and oppressive attitudes towards women that effectively enslave all women (and those whose attitudes are thus shaped). The recent submission to the Leveson inquiry by a number of feminists on this topic was timely. It was shocking when a senior newspaper executive responded by saying page 3 girls are harmless fun. They do enormous harm to those involved in their production and all those exposed to them. The impact of hard porn is arguably that much greater, as is the impact of prostitution. It's all exploitative. I stress again, this is not a moral issue but a political one - it's about power. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 16:36, marc garrett wrote: Hi Simon, I remember in the 80s, a radical lefty feminist artist who was showing strange artwork in a Brixton Gallery in 84, introduced me to Kathy Acker's work; and lent me a copy of her book 'Blood and Guts in High School'. I found the book not only disturbing but also liberating. A brillaint writer, I wish there much more like her. She challenged men and women. What I like about her work, is how it cuts across the hypocrisy around 'self censored imposed ideas', on human sexuality. Much of the work, unearths, even admits, certain realisms about human sexual fantasy which may not necessarily be acceptable in polite or conservative thought (right across the board), but is what it is. Of course, in respect of sex slavery - I am a humanist and believe that people should never be made to do what they do not wish to. I have worked with people who have experienced such situations themselves, and it has been traumatic (personally) to work with these individuals. Especially in some of the homeless centres I have worked in in London. The systems in place seem designed to exploit rather than support. Wishing you well. marc Kathy Acker's work was often sexually explicit, in print and performance (I was a videographer for the Pussy, King of the Pirates performance in London, with the Mekons, so was there), but I'd never have considered what she did as pornographic. Pornography isn't about sex. There is plenty of pornography that has no explicit sexual content (much popular culture fits in this definition). I would argue that any representation that is created with the intention of inducing a sense of gratification at the expense of those presented in or consuming the representation is pornographic. This is also true of any particular activity, not just representations, so when sex involves such dynamics it is exploitative. I can accept that sex workers and their clients might not believe themselves to be in an exploitative relationship with one another. However, my earlier argument was not about those directly involved in what might be fully consensual activities but the affect of their activities upon others. When activity is in the pubic realm then you are going to encounter major issues. Again, this isn't just about sex. The same dynamics can be seen in sport, the creative arts and elsewhere. Coming back to Acker, her work often sought to highlight how what appears to be quite normal human interactions are actually exploitative and pornographic. I see Alan's work in the same light. best Simon On 8 Feb 2012, at 13:46, marc garrett wrote: Hi Simon, Let's I def-agree that we do not abide sexual exploitation... Yet, people also need to be able to find their own sexual identities beyond the restrictions of the state or moralists. One of the problems with sex is that is one of those things which is deeper than society can 'openly' deal with - you have interesting individuals crossing the borders of their sexual activities such as Kathy Acker, and much of 70s French cinema, and the sexual liberationists such as Tuppy Owens. Where their sexual exploration is linked to their liberty and politics and they consider society as a social construct limiting their particular feral discoveries... Pornography is exploitative because we exist in a male dominated world, with men who value exploitation and its industry above the liberty for others - and this goes way beyond sex itself, wars, vid-games, sport, economies - pornography is such a loaded term, and usually appropriated as an absolute and partial to simplistic symbols. Yet, the problem is not sex - it is our lack of freedom to explore the 'feralness' of ourselves, in a world contained by frameworks trapping people's 'real' potential as intimate human beings at various levels - thus it creates scarcity and isolation as part of the product. Stop men controlling everything - then we'll find new ways of rediscovering things beyond literalization of our 'selves'... Wishing you well. marc
