Defense of the Nordic Model for dealing with Prostitution (and the right to defend it)

661 posts / 0 new
Last post
MegB

Gustave, you're in the Feminist Forum and you are not abiding by its mandate. You've been cautioned by my co-moderator, Catchfire. You've been called on your mansplaining, rightfully so, by Timebandit. So let me tell you this; women run this forum. All are welcome so long as they abide by the pro-feminist guidelines. If you choose not to abide by that, you are free to post your opinions elsewhere on babble. But not here. If you persist in telling the women participating in this thread what they should or shouldn't be thinking, I will, reluctantly, suspend your posting privileges.

Gustave

Rebecca West wrote:

 

You've been called on your mansplaining, rightfully so, by Timebandit.

Hi Rebecca. According to wiki:

Mansplaining is a portmanteau of the words "man" and "explaining" that describes the act of a man speaking to a woman with the assumption that she knows less than he does about the topic being discussed on the basis of her gender.

In my previous post I said I did not even know Pondering was a woman. That's a particularly severe attack from a mod. Not necessary to bar me from the forum, I have lost all interest to participate in those conditions so I will stop.

Pondering

A man mansplaining mansplaining.  roflol, oh the irony. Don't mean any insults by it, just too funny to pass up. Sometimes you just have to laugh and that seriously tickled my funny bone. 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Well, there goes another perfectly good irony meter...

fortunate

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, he's here to mansplain.  Silly feminists, only a guy really knows!

 

That is completely unfair, and untrue.    The fact that he is presenting real facts is what abolitionists object to, and the fact that you come up with this insult in order to discredit these facts is unworthy of this forum, this topic, and you.    You are better than flinging out insults to make someone shut up because you are afraid of what they have to say is true.   

 

fortunate

Gustave wrote:

Pondering wrote:
If prostitution were legal, people could legally buy sexual services, and yet they can't. You are playing semantics. 

Again, I am not playing semantics, those calling themselves abolitionists do. If prostitution is illegal the policy is prohibitionist.

Pondering wrote:
The harms of prostitution including PTSD are well-documented. 

Would you mind providing some links?

The Uglymugs survey has nothing to do with consent. Furthermore, nothing in the survey suggests that a significant amount of the sex workers are not there by their own volition. More than 90%, if I remember well, were independent sex workers.

Catchfire wrote:
Hi Gustave! Welcome to babble. No lecturing women in the feminist forum. Thanks!

Hi Catchfire and thanks. Unfortunately I had to answer since I was lectured by fortunate (I had no idea if he/she was a woman or a man). And I will continue to do so if the attacks keep coming, like this one:

Pondering wrote:
I'm shocked and saddened that this level of blatant sexist aggression against women is allowed in the "feminist" forum. 

Intellectual frustration.

Pondering has been using personal attack all over this thread, against susan and against me. It has to stop.

 

 

Hi gustave, i cannot imagine me lecturing you about anything.   I appreciate your posts, because you are level headed and deal in facts.   

I agree about the attacks by pondering.   They are against myself, Brach, and others, anyone who attempts to inject some facts into the discussion.    I have mentioned it to her many times, and she continues to address me in exactly the same ways she does to you and others, and to me that is even more antagonistic and aggressive.  

If gustave is accused of mansplaining, then what is the term used when a woman does the exact same thing, to everyone who disagrees with her, regardless of their sex, in this forum?    Also how many times does pondering circle around repeating the same misinformation before someone steps in and stops her?    Sex work is legal in Sweden, i didn't even realize this was under debate.  The law is specifically a 'ban on the purchase'.    It is the entire explanation of the Nordic law, it is in every article and blog and discussion about the model.    I've seen pondering play semantics many many times, sometimes contradicting herself in an effort to be 'right'.   That and overquoting is blocking real dialogue about this, as many valid posts are buried by unnecessarily longer posts due to this effort to multi quote each and every sentence, pick it apart so it can be proven to be wrong.  

 

quizzical
Timebandit Timebandit's picture

fortunate wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Actually, he's here to mansplain.  Silly feminists, only a guy really knows!

 

That is completely unfair, and untrue.    The fact that he is presenting real facts is what abolitionists object to, and the fact that you come up with this insult in order to discredit these facts is unworthy of this forum, this topic, and you.    You are better than flinging out insults to make someone shut up because you are afraid of what they have to say is true.   

 

Actually, it's not.  He's a dick-swinging jerk who uses a lot of bafflegab and semantics to mansplain feminism to feminists while supporting something that it is to his benefit - and, IMO, to our detriment - to support.

susan davis susan davis's picture

and once again, a melissa farely study....value? none...she is an unethical "researcher"

and the korean study is no better....every sex worker they spoke to was in a shelter....they spoke to no sex workers outside of shelters....why do abolitionists hang onto this idea of us all as so victimized we don't know what's best for us...

its insulting

quizzical

oh my susan......so sex workers in shelters have no voice according to you...can't by into your theory yours is the only credible voice.

susan davis susan davis's picture

and....i can't buy into the theory that your perspective is the only "feminist" one

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
and....i can't buy into the theory that your perspective is the only "feminist" one

Susan, quizzical and I are separate people. I am not sure who the above is addressed to but I don't think anyone has claimed that their position is the only feminist position only that abolitionism is a valid feminist perspective. 

Other perspectives would have to be judged independently to determine whether or not they are also feminist positions. 

Repeatedly attacking feminist abolitionists' motivations is unfeminist. It is an unfeminist action therefore in my view casts suspicion on the attacker separate from the validity or non-validity of whatever argument they are presenting. 

I have repeatedly argued that the motives of women on both sides of the argument is to protect women from harm. Sex work advocates repeatedly reject that olive branch and insist that feminist abolitionists are evil prudes that hate men and want to control women's sexuality even if women are killed as a result. 

That is an extremely misogynistic attack. It has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments presented that support the feminist abolitionist view. 

Looking up and seeing the title of this thread reminds me that it is about the right to defend the Nordic Model. From the very first page this thread is an example of feminists being attacked and told they have no right to present their views even within a feminist forum.

Sex work advocates claim only they have a right to express a viewpoint with the exception of anyone else who supports their viewpoint.

They also demand that prostitutes be referred to by the general term sex workers which includes strippers and others who work in the sex industry as a whole. This, despite the fact that there are many organizations representing working prostitutes that use the term, and the SCC uses the term. 

This thread is a declaration that abolitionist feminists have a right to present their arguments defending the Nordic model without being personally attacked or vilified as monsters who don't care whether or not women live or die. The constant accusations are ugly and unfeminist. 

susan davis susan davis's picture

bullshit quizzical. i just don't appreciate the blanket brish you are painting us all with. the experiences of kprean sex workers in shelters has zero to do with the canadian experience and the small sample group of 118 korean sex workers being "proof" of all sex workers being damaged goods is insulting.

the report does not engage sex workers in canadian shelters...it does not engage sex workers who are not in shelters....it completely excludes the majority of sex workers, not in shelters...and ends up providing incredibly biased findings that once again strip us of our voice and agency.

completely insulting that you would hoist it as some kind of fact about sex workers lives.

please don't continually attack me as if i am silencing sex workers. i am not. i find it completely unfair that you continue to paint me as some monster trying to harm women and who only cares about myself. it is not true and is extremely personally insulting.

 

fortunate

quizzical wrote:

oh my susan......so sex workers in shelters have no voice according to you...can't by into your theory yours is the only credible voice.

 

This is typical of the kind of things abolitionists come up with to 'prove' something about sex work and sex workers.   The research has taken a small percentage of very specific population, they don't pretend it is anything more than that small percentage.  But the abolitionist will try to force feed it to the public as typical for the entire population.    

 

@pondering, perhaps if you stopped attacking in an attempt to silence the actual sex workers speaking, and their links and evidence to illustrate their points, and THEN also tell quizzical to stop the namecalling, insults and accusations, the hostility here is palpable. 

The biggest insult here is that because gustave is male, therefore every piece of evidence, every link to every article, etc is suspect.  He is only posting what he sees, not writing the articles.   It is again misleading and misdirecting, an attempt to silence another voice that doesn't just disagree with the idealogy, but actively disproves it.   

It isn't a debate, it is an attempt to silence and discredit anyone and everyone, not with an opposing view, but the facts.   I mean here, we have references over many pages about how bad something like the New Zealand model is.  Over time, we finally get it narrowed down to one single fact, which is used to 'prove' that is is fundamentally flawed and couldn't possibly be used in Canada.   That fact?  That the PRA (prostitution reform act) failed to eliminate violence against women.     Wow.   Since it wasn't ever intended to eliminate violence against women, and since there has yet to be any piece of legislation that has ever done that in any country that I know of, but this is the excuse an abolitionist will use to 'prove' it detrimental to all women?   

As an excuse, that is probably the lamest one ever.    But it is ok to have C-36, which will make it illegal for an over 18 year old sex worker (outdoors) to be in the vicinity of an under 18 year old worker, even if her primary goal was to help make working safer for the underager who would simply work someone more isolated, alone and without support.     

People commenting on various articles out in the  media ask, well what about brothels?  Isn't it true that the bawdy house law was overturned, and we don't see anything in the C-36 to reinstate that law?   Well, isn't it true that employers are being accused of being exploitive pimps and are targeted by the new legislation, meaning an end or closure of massage parlours or agencies?  And isn't it true that the govt plans to stop online and newsprint advertising.   Where are indoor workers to advertise? Or rent, for that matter.  As Swedish sex workers have found, there have been a lot of opportunities to harass them, and criminally charge anyone who assists them, even landlords.  

http://www.powerottawa.ca/Briefing_Note_C-36_Social_Science_Evidence.pdf 

 

susan davis susan davis's picture

ok, i fixed that pondering....changed it to quizzical....

in regard to your "olive branch"...bullshit...i reject your olive branch.

its not an olive branch at all, calling sex workers misogynist is completely ridiculous and is once again in the same vein as what quizzical said. you do not care about sex workers or prostitutes and have said as much in your assertions of prostitution harming all women. 

don't try to play us for fools, we see through your condesending assertions and denial of our voices.

fortunate

susan davis wrote:

ok, i fixed that pondering....changed it to quizzical....

in regard to your "olive branch"...bullshit...i reject your olive branch.

its not an olive branch at all, calling sex workers misogynist is completely ridiculous and is once again in the same vein as what quizzical said. you do not care about sex workers or prostitutes and have said as much in your assertions of prostitution harming all women. 

don't try to play us for fools, we see through your condesending assertions and denial of our voices.

 

susi, let me introduce you to Gaye Dalton.  she has been posting comments on articles on ipolitic, and elsewhere, she has been a sex worker, and advocate, and is now working to uncover the fraud in various NGO Rescue industry organizations.    

https://twitter.com/mechanima

 

Pondering

Pondering wrote:
I have repeatedly argued that the motives of women on both sides of the argument is to protect women from harm. Sex work advocates repeatedly reject that olive branch and insist that feminist abolitionists are evil prudes that hate men and want to control women's sexuality even if women are killed as a result. 

That is an extremely misogynistic attack. It has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments presented that support the feminist abolitionist view.

And you respond:

susan davis wrote:

its not an olive branch at all, calling sex workers misogynist is completely ridiculous ....

You don't quote me because it would prove that you are lying about me.

You do it to disrupt discussion (IMO) to prevent people from exploring the topic and coming to their own conclusions. 

susan davis susan davis's picture

i didn't quote your riculous post...so now i am a liar again? i have every right to take part in a discussion which impacts my life directly. explore all you want, but explore based on facts, not myths and debunked research. i will challenge people who promote these myths as fact and ensure that the disucssion is at least balanced by the truth being included.

if people are to reach their own conclusions, they should at least be given the tools and accurate information upon which to base those conclusions.

calling me a liar, calling fortunate a princess, attacking sex workers and naming us misogynist only serves to demonstrate your true intentions and feelings on this matter.

you do not care about sex workers / prostitutes, you only care about your goal of abolition.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
  The biggest insult here is that because gustave is male, therefore every piece of evidence, every link to every article, etc is suspect.  He is only posting what he sees, not writing the articles.   It is again misleading and misdirecting, an attempt to silence another voice that doesn't just disagree with the idealogy, but actively disproves it.  

No, it's not strictly that he's male.  It's his tone and his habit of splitting hairs, then implying that women in the discussion - the ones who don't support his self-serving cherry pick - don't understand basic feminist principles (like objectification) quite as fully as he does.  That's inappropriate behaviour in this forum.

He's not the only one who has, either - upthread, mark alfred gives us a nice example of mansplaining, and to a lesser extent, Barlauer. 

I understand that you want to defend Gustave, as he supports your position.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
susi, let me introduce you to Gaye Dalton.  she has been posting comments on articles on ipolitic, and elsewhere, she has been a sex worker, and advocate, and is now working to uncover the fraud in various NGO Rescue industry organizations.    

https://twitter.com/mechanima

I'm sure there are actual cases of fraud in NGOs. I would not, however, extrapolate that to "all NGOs are therefore part of a fraudulent nefarious rescue industry". Your twitter link quickly led me to this:

Quote:
 mymythbuster.wordpress.com/myth-turn-off-the-red-light-are-trying-to-save-children/ 

Notice I deliberately avoid using the term “child abuse” in connection with the sale of sex in Rio? That is because, compared to the rest of the abusive, absolutely hopeless reality those children live 24/7, selling sex does not even register, and probably adds up to “one of the better, safer days”. 

She provides links which tell a story of a real police massacre of sleeping street children in Brazil which is only the most extreme example of the abuse the children face which is common.

Apparently the NGO Turn Off the Red Light should not be raising awareness about child prostitution in Rio because it isn't the worst thing that happens to them. Instead we should be doing these children a favor and turning a blind eye to men using child prostitutes in Brazil because it improves the children's lives. We are imposing our values instead of respecting their choices. 

Quote:
A Brazilian sex worker in Europe sending money home, is sometimes the only thing that stand between other children and those dead end streets.

Are you quite sure you want to “end the demand”?

There are millions of women whose earnings could save the lives of their children and entire families if they could make it to Canadian shores, or the shores of any developed democratic country to work as prostitutes.

Yes I want to end the demand. 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:

i didn't quote your riculous post...so now i am a liar again?

No, the quote proves you are lying about me. Your statement was factually a lie. I did not call sex workers misogynists. 

 

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
If gustave is accused of mansplaining, then what is the term used when a woman does the exact same thing, to everyone who disagrees with her, regardless of their sex, in this forum? 

At the risk of sounding condescending I think the word you are looking for is condescending.

fortunate wrote:
Sex work is legal in Sweden, i didn't even realize this was under debate. 

Prostitution is not defined as "selling sex" nor is it defined as "buying sex".  Prostitution is defined as the exchange of money for sexual services

Prostitutes are positioned as victims under the law whether they think of themselves as such or not. The victim not being arrested during a crime does not mean it’s legal. The victim saying “I’m not a victim” doesn’t change a thing. It is impossible to legally conclude the exchange of money for sex, which is the definition of prostitution, therefore prostitution is not legal.  

Maybe you are right and I am wrong but it is by no means settled fact just because you declared it to be so. 

Pondering

susan davis wrote:
bullshit quizzical. i just don't appreciate the blanket brish you are painting us all with. the experiences of kprean sex workers in shelters has zero to do with the canadian experience and the small sample group of 118 korean sex workers being "proof" of all sex workers being damaged goods is insulting.

All she did was post two links, she didn't even comment let alone claim that they said anything about all sex workers. 

You manage to twist silence into some bizarre strawman argument, then you have a fight with it. 

fortunate

Timebandit wrote:

Quote:
  The biggest insult here is that because gustave is male, therefore every piece of evidence, every link to every article, etc is suspect.  He is only posting what he sees, not writing the articles.   It is again misleading and misdirecting, an attempt to silence another voice that doesn't just disagree with the idealogy, but actively disproves it.  

No, it's not strictly that he's male.  It's his tone and his habit of splitting hairs, then implying that women in the discussion - the ones who don't support his self-serving cherry pick - don't understand basic feminist principles (like objectification) quite as fully as he does.  That's inappropriate behaviour in this forum.

He's not the only one who has, either - upthread, mark alfred gives us a nice example of mansplaining, and to a lesser extent, Barlauer. 

I understand that you want to defend Gustave, as he supports your position.

 

But my point is also, that pondering is infamous for doing this exact thing, a tone of either condescension or condemnation,  splitting hairs, implying that the women who do not support her self serving cherry picked claims, etc etc, but is it the behaviour or the gender that is the real issue, in this particular forum?    

I defend gustave not solely because he has the right idea of finding the facts and presenting them, and that those facts are unpopular because they contradict the abolitionist's farfetched claims, but also because he has been accused of something in a most derogatory blaming way, and not in a constructive instructional way.    The method was intended to shame and shut him up.   That is what i object to.    

It does seem a popular way to respond to people who refuse to agree to inaccurate claims.    Princess, mysoginist, mansplainer, privieleged, pro-violence, and more.    Inclusion is helpful and progressive.  Exclusion is not.    And the sign on the door saying "NO Boyz Aloud" is not an indication of progressive thought.    

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

susan davis wrote:

i didn't quote your riculous post...so now i am a liar again?

No, the quote proves you are lying about me. Your statement was factually a lie. I did not call sex workers misogynists. 

 

 

Case in point, TB.   This is splitting hairs.   She said that susi made a mysoginist comment, (That is an extremely misogynistic attack.)  however when susi reacted to that, she has spent multiple posts calling susi a liar all based on the idea that she didn't actually say, in these exact words:  susi and/or all sex workers are mysoginists.     It's splitting hairs, misleading and misdirecting the entire topic.  It is also an attack and attempt to belittle susi, or humiliate her or something.    Otherwise, why not simply drop it?   

 

Not to mention, this continued attack on anyone who tries to say that sex work is legal in Sweden, the sale of sexual services, etc etc.    She tries anyway she can to make sure she can say 'ooooh, loook, you are soooo wrong", blah blah.    Semantics.   Irrelevant and unnecessary dissection of terminology on a topic that does not require it for the purpose of discussion here.  

 

In other words, i will return to completely ignoring whatever she writes, and in particular any attempt by her to reply to anything I post.  It is a ridiculous waste of time  "because i said so', is all i can hear, over and over again.      

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
She said that susi made a mysoginist comment, (That is an extremely misogynistic attack.)   It's splitting hairs, misleading and misdirecting the entire topic.

I was not referring to a comment made by susi nor was I referring to susi.

Pondering wrote:
 I have repeatedly argued that the motives of women on both sides of the argument is to protect women from harm. Sex work advocates repeatedly reject that olive branch and insist that feminist abolitionists are evil prudes that hate men and want to control women's sexuality even if women are killed as a result. 

That is an extremely misogynistic attack. It has absolutely nothing to do with the arguments presented that support the feminist abolitionist view.

My comment is referring specifically to the argument that abolitionists are evil prudes that hate men and want to control women's sexuality, not to susi, not to a comment susi made, not to sex workers, not even to sex work advocates. 

That is a misogynistic argument no matter who is using it. Maybe the person making the statement is a misogynist, maybe not, but the statement itself is misogynistic. 

fortunate wrote:
 It is also an attack and attempt to belittle susi, or humiliate her or something.    Otherwise, why not simply drop it? 

I am objecting both to the misogynistic attacks on feminist abolitionists and the false representation of what I said. 

fortunate wrote:
Not to mention, this continued attack on anyone who tries to say that sex work is legal in Sweden, the sale of sexual services, etc etc.    She tries anyway she can to make sure she can say 'ooooh, loook, you are soooo wrong", blah blah. 

Disagreeing with someone who claims prostitution is legal in Sweden is not attacking them. 

fortunate wrote:
  Semantics.   Irrelevant and unnecessary dissection of terminology on a topic that does not require it for the purpose of discussion here.

The SCC decision relied heavily on the notion that prostitution is not illegal in Canada. Bill C-36 criminalizes the buying of sex but not the selling of sex framing the prostitute as the victim. The question of whether or not that means prostitution would be legal is central to the reasoning of the court. The new law is modeled after the Nordic Model which began in Sweden. That makes the definition of prostitution and it's legality significant. 

It's fine if you don't want to get into that detailed level of debate but it is not just semantics.

Captain Obvious

fortunate wrote:

I defend gustave not solely because he has the right idea of finding the facts and presenting them, and that those facts are unpopular because they contradict the abolitionist's farfetched claims, but also because he has been accused of something in a most derogatory blaming way, and not in a constructive instructional way.    The method was intended to shame and shut him up.   That is what i object to.    

It does seem a popular way to respond to people who refuse to agree to inaccurate claims.    Princess, mysoginist, mansplainer, privieleged, pro-violence, and more.    Inclusion is helpful and progressive.  Exclusion is not.    And the sign on the door saying "NO Boyz Aloud" is not an indication of progressive thought.    

Having read through this thread carefully, I quite agree. And the moderators jumped right on Gustave too.

I've seen these posters around a lot on my campus, well known to posters here I'm sure.

http://inclusivityzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/inclusive-language-words...

Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

It's taken me several hours to read through this thread, look at links etc. I'm really not sure who has the right of such a complex situation. But I sure know which side I'd like to buy a beer and talk about it more with.

Pondering

Captain Obvious wrote:
Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

Mansplaining is specific to male attitudes towards women. Men generally don't condescend to other men who are known to be knowledgable in their field. Men are unlikely to start explaining to another man how a car works, but they will to a woman even if she is parked by the road with the hood up and has her tools out. Not all men of course, but quite a few will take over assuming their knowledge is superior. 

Within a feminist forum a man should assume that all the women know what they are talking about and if not they should assume another woman will correct them. If that isn't happening and he thinks he is the only one who will address the issue then certainly he can, but only with deference to the fact that he is addressing a woman within the feminist forum.

The situation with Gustave is very amusing because he quoted a definition of "mansplaining" to a female moderator in a feminist forum. A female moderator in a feminist forum should be assumed to be expert enough to know the meaning of mansplaining. 

Captain Obvious wrote:
It's taken me several hours to read through this thread, look at links etc. I'm really not sure who has the right of such a complex situation. But I sure know which side I'd like to buy a beer and talk about it more with.

Captain Obvious is an excellent handle. I know who I'd rather have a drink with, Rebecca West, the moderator, to start with whom I am certain knows the meaning of the term "mansplaining".

I am going to risk making the assumption that you are male. I could make some clever comments about the obviousness of the side you would choose to drink beer with but the moderators have a tough enough time in this forum so I will bite my tongue. 

I could not care less who you want to drink beer with, but it was a back-handed insult at the "not fun" side of the debate which is inappropriate in the feminist forum. 

Captain Obvious wrote:
Having read through this thread carefully, I quite agree. And the moderators jumped right on Gustave too....Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

So, you read this entire thread, and the most important thought you have to share with us is that the moderators of the feminist forum should have used the term "condescending" rather than the gendered term "mansplaining" when telling a man he was behaving inappropriately in the feminist forum.

Do you have any other preferences we should be aware of? 

Bacchus

Axtually the bill criminalizes the selling of sex as well. Advertising, doing it in public, everything design to 'stamp out' the practice as some of the cons have put it.

 

This will just end in violence and death for women

Seatree

Hi All, I found this thread comming in from another board, and reading all of this I feel compelled to comment on it, since it does affect me directly. I don't know if this is allowed, or contary to what is permitted to be said here. If it is considered offensive or disruptive, could the moderators please remove the post, I don't mean to intrude on your space or cause dissention. But it seems to me that most of the people posting here do not have any direct involvement with the community that will be affected by this legislation, and there is an over generalization of those in the community. It is not an abstract concept for discusion, there are real people involved with real feelings and a myriad of different motives for why they are there.

I am one of the people who this proposed law will criminalize.

Firstly, something about me, how I arrived in this position. I have Aspergers syndrome. One of the effects of that is my ability to communicate on a personal level is impaired relative to normals, and that has severe effects on my ability to form relationships. When I was young, during my school years, I could not hold a conversation with pretty much anyone other than my direct family. One of the consequences that regular people don't think about, besides the 12 years of hell that school was (I don't think they understood that either, but anyway), is that your ability to interact with members of the opposite sex when it comes to courting is very limited. So all that young love girfriend boyfriend stuff didn't happen to me, it happened to other people, pretty much everone else it seemed, but not me. Society is set up so that girls attract, and boys chase. The reverse does not happen much. You might think that is wrong, it shouldn't be like that, but that is how it works, mostly. So for me, trying to find a soul mate, fall in love, raise a family and all those other things was an exercise that raised the concept of awkwardness to new levels. Girls liked me in a platonic sort of way, thought I was sweet, but not someone they would ever consider for anything more. I was the shy nerdy kid who was allways on the fringes but never included.

If you know anything about Aspergers you would know that the level of disability you have as a teenager doesn't allways stay that way, you do develop, albeit at a much slower pace that everyone else. Over time my ability to communicate improved, but in some situations, such as when in a group of people as opposed to one on one, or trying to get a date, the crushing awkwardness I experienced as a kid comes back. So over the years I have learned to temper my expectations from life, and resign myself to the fact that so many of the life experiences that everyone else takes for granted were not going to happen to me. In all that time I had never had any intimate experience at all, not a kiss, not an embrace, nothing. I suppose people might think that was funny, but it was not for me. And you can't talk to anyone about it because of fear for how they would react. When I was young, I allways thought that one day they would improve, but the years turned into decades and nothing ever did. The funny thing though was that allthough my disability inhibited me from courting women, all my friends (those that I have) are women, and I much prefer their company. I think it is because women in general have superior communication skills, so it makes it easier for me to make up my deficit in that area. Men are different, it is hard to relate to them because they are so blank.

Anyway, when I turned 50 I reflected over the fact that I was now 50 and waiting, hoping that some day something magical was going to happen was not a realistic course of action. The options were either to eventually die of old age still a virgin, or, visit an escort. So I visited an escort. Not right away, that took another year or two while I tried to figure out who would be best to see and why. You don't really know what to expect, so eventually I contacted a lady who (at that time) had one of the highest fees in my city on the theory that she was more likely to be in my demographic. Of course I had to explain that this was all new to me, completely new, but she took it in her stride and was understanding. That surprised me, I was expecting it to be really awkward, but it was not, and felt natural, and certainly she helped a lot. As it turned out, while circumventing the whole courtship thing allowed me to get past the awkwardness and self conciousness, I guess the psychological impact of the situation was too much to actually do the deed, so we spent most of the time just talking. Since then I saw a few other ladies, and similar sort of thing. So I am still a virgin, oh well. When you have Aspergers, if you can't laugh at yourself you are going to have a miserable life, at least that is how I see it. Maybe someday everything will align and I will see what I spent a life missing. If nothing else, it has still been an experience that has made me more than what I was, and for the ladies who showed me that world, I will be eternally gratefull.

Now getting back to the debate here, one thing I can say about the ladies I spent time with, they are nothing like the supposed victims portrayed in the media. All of them had post secondary education and training of one sort or another, all of them were intelligent women in their 20s to early 30s, and all of them had goals of one sort or another. One wanted to travel the world, another to buy a condo, some to finance their university education. One was a graduate student. Another wanted designer clothes apparently, probably not a wise use of resources, but that was her choice I guess. These women were independent and had other options as far as employment was concerned. Why were they working as escorts then? That is harder to say, but if I were to guess it would be because they could command greater resources with less expenditure of time, which allowed them to leverage their goals. Some are still active as escorts, others have retired and moved on with their lives. I imagine that working as an escort is challenging at a personal level. On one hand, when they begin, there must be an element of thrill to it since it is a taboo activity, but over time there has to be a personal cost as well, having to keep that part of their lives secret from friends and family, not to mention the restrictive effect it would have on developing their own intimate relationships. So I understand how some might see a damaging aspect to the subculture, but I think it is important to note that it is not the same for everyone involved. When you consider someone who is an addict standing at the corner in some poor section of town you are talking about a very different situation that a high end escort operating from an incall. There is a huge diversity of people and situations inbetween those extremes, some have no choice and others have all the choice. Painting them all with one brush is just wrong. The same thing applies to the other side of the community, the clients. Some are dangerous users, others are lonely men like me, yet others are unloved husbands desperate for any sort of affection, no matter how fleeting. There is no generic person, everyone in the community is an individual, and stereotyping them is not objective.

For me personally, for now what I do is not illegal, at some point in the future it may become so. I believe that I can structure encounters so that they comply with the letter of the law, if not the spirit, but how that will work out I don't know. I think that it will not matter, because having a law and enforcing it are two very different things. The previous law was not seriously enforced, there is no reason to believe that it will be different with this one. If you look at trafficking for example, particularly Asian masage parlors, it is blatantly obvious what is going on, everyone in the community knows it, the police know it, yet they do nothing at all it seems even though it supposedly is an emphasis for law enforcement agencies. And it should be so easy, since these are immigration violations. But nothing happens. So how is all of this going to work out with the new law in practice from a pragmatic point of view?

I believe that what the current government is doing is not right. They have no accommodation for people like me. What are the people who are excluded from normal relationships by virtue of their disability supposed to do? I don't think they even thought about. They are too bound up in ideology and reactionary thought to consider what the proposed law will have on individuals as opposed to stereotypes.

There is also a more fundamental aspect that should be troubling to any progressive thinker, and that is the intrusion and criminalization of what consenting adults do in private (and in this case one half is legal while the other half is illegal - how on earth is that going to pass constitutional muster?). It is not clear to me how there can be any distinction between the law propose by the Conservative government and, say, that inacted in Uganda which criminalizes homosexuality. In both cases the laws are state intrusions into private behaviour between consenting adults, basically in the grounds that other people find the behaviour morally unacceptable. While there may be an argument that the general community is affected by what people do in public, what is done in private is not the general communities business. There is no common good in legislating like that.

Anyway, that is what I have to say. It is all I have to say, I am not going to debate anything, I know from other forums that it is useless to do that anyway, but perhaps it will give people somethign to think about since I think this issue is not a clear as some think. I hope no one is too offended by my views, and, as I said in the beginning, if a moderator feels this is inappropriate, feel free to delete it.

quizzical

oh my...so....women need to sacrifice their well being so a man can receive his just due in society?

 

my mom would agree with this sorta "medical" prostitution avenue but not me, i call bs on it. it's just another sense of male entitlement, "why won't we think of the poor downtrodden men or unloved husbands" who need to find relief.

ygtbk

@ Captain Obvious:

You have noticed that babble has a certain amount of asymmetric moderation. You are correct, I think.

I would not expect this to change, however - it seems to be an ingrained part of the way the board is.

If I randomly inserted the neologism "mansplaining" into my posts I would expect zero consequence from the mods. This is despite the fact that it's clearly a lazy way of getting to an ad hominem argument and clearly has no validity.

If I were to hypothetically use the neologisms "femsplaining" or "chicksplaining", I expect I would get into trouble. Therefore I do not do that.

 

lagatta

I get the mansplaining thing on my bicycle, or putting the chain back on if it has slipped off. Also a dose of ageism, especially since I let my hair grow grey (which I'd sword I'd never do, precisely for that reason). Patronising as all hell, considering I've cycled for at least 40 years.

I'd much prefer better treatment for people with disabilities, and this could include specific workshops on life skills for people with Asperger's.

Seatree, I'm not in the slightest offended by your post. The only posts that offend me are those that are deliberately nasty, and in my case denying I'm a feminist when I've been a feminist activist since my teens, which is a long time. We must remember how divided the feminist movement is on this question. I certainly want a world without prostitution, but also don't wish harm to anyone in "the trade". I used to have a more decrim outlook (though I didn't like what happened to most of the people I knew who were "working") but extensive stays in Amsterdam took the pretty sheets off the "Dutch model". And I don't see any easy answers to thousands of years of misogyny and hundreds of years of capitalism.

 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Quote:
But my point is also, that pondering is infamous for doing this exact thing, a tone of either condescension or condemnation,  splitting hairs, implying that the women who do not support her self serving cherry picked claims, etc etc, but is it the behaviour or the gender that is the real issue, in this particular forum?

It's actually a combination of gender and a particular condescension.  Look, it's not just Gustave.  There are a few men in this thread and others that have a tendency to come in and present their cases in a way that presupposes that the feminists in the room don't already know what basic terms mean or have any basis in understanding feminism as a movement (srsly, check out the objectification thread...  Oh, I was using this obscure academic definition of objectification which is really the correct one, your definition isn't specific enough - Really?!).  It's a way of asserting their privilege in the pecking order and frankly, I don't appreciate it here in the feminist forum.  This forum was specifically created as a space where the XYs don't lecture or dominate the discussion.

I mean, for pity's sake, he mansplained the term mansplaining to the (clearly female) moderator! 

Again, I get that you appreciate his comments more than Pondering's because he agrees with you and she doesn't.  That still doesn't mean he isn't obnoxious while expressing his views.  And he largely presents opinions, as do most people in the discussion, myself included. 

 

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Captain Obvious wrote:

fortunate wrote:

I defend gustave not solely because he has the right idea of finding the facts and presenting them, and that those facts are unpopular because they contradict the abolitionist's farfetched claims, but also because he has been accused of something in a most derogatory blaming way, and not in a constructive instructional way.    The method was intended to shame and shut him up.   That is what i object to.    

It does seem a popular way to respond to people who refuse to agree to inaccurate claims.    Princess, mysoginist, mansplainer, privieleged, pro-violence, and more.    Inclusion is helpful and progressive.  Exclusion is not.    And the sign on the door saying "NO Boyz Aloud" is not an indication of progressive thought.    

Having read through this thread carefully, I quite agree. And the moderators jumped right on Gustave too.

I've seen these posters around a lot on my campus, well known to posters here I'm sure.

http://inclusivityzone.wordpress.com/2013/02/26/inclusive-language-words...

Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

It's taken me several hours to read through this thread, look at links etc. I'm really not sure who has the right of such a complex situation. But I sure know which side I'd like to buy a beer and talk about it more with.

Thank you, Captain Obvious, for defining what is acceptable in the feminist forum.  Gawds know, having beena participant in this forum for well over a decade, I haven't been able to figure that out.  What would we silly feminists do without brave XYs like you to tell us what we're allowed to call obnoxious gendered behaviour.  And the word "mansplain" hurts!  Heavens to Betsy!  We can't have that.  We know how easily bruised the male ego is.

Translation sans sarcasm:  Your post was a great example of mansplaining, and you probably shouldn't do that here.  I'm pretty sure you and the other guys can hear the word "mansplain" without being terribly damaged.  There is also no such thing as "reverse sexism.

Captain Obvious

Pondering wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:
Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

Mansplaining is specific to male attitudes towards women. Men generally don't condescend to other men who are known to be knowledgable in their field. Men are unlikely to start explaining to another man how a car works, but they will to a woman even if she is parked by the road with the hood up and has her tools out. Not all men of course, but quite a few will take over assuming their knowledge is superior. 

Within a feminist forum a man should assume that all the women know what they are talking about and if not they should assume another woman will correct them. If that isn't happening and he thinks he is the only one who will address the issue then certainly he can, but only with deference to the fact that he is addressing a woman within the feminist forum.

The situation with Gustave is very amusing because he quoted a definition of "mansplaining" to a female moderator in a feminist forum. A female moderator in a feminist forum should be assumed to be expert enough to know the meaning of mansplaining. 

Huh. Could I call this explanation "womansplaining" then? If the shoe fits...

Regardless, I, not being an idiot, am fully aware of the meaning of "mansplaining." You can dress it up however you like, but it is still a deliberately gendered insult. You were trying to shut down debate with a man you didn't agree with, and you used a gendered term to do it. Successfully, it appears. So far as I can see (and have often experienced), condescension is human behaivour, not gendered behaviour. To deliberately make it gendered does not seem fair or just to me.

Regardless, here and below, you're being condescending. If you don't like it when it is done to you, why are you doing it to other people?

What I read from Gustave was both an attempt at defense, and to understand what it was that he was being accused of. It is a fairly common tactic in a debate--define a term and then see if one's words/behaviour fit it.

Captain Obvious wrote:
It's taken me several hours to read through this thread, look at links etc. I'm really not sure who has the right of such a complex situation. But I sure know which side I'd like to buy a beer and talk about it more with.

Pondering wrote:

Captain Obvious is an excellent handle. I know who I'd rather have a drink with, Rebecca West, the moderator, to start with whom I am certain knows the meaning of the term "mansplaining".

I am going to risk making the assumption that you are male. I could make some clever comments about the obviousness of the side you would choose to drink beer with but the moderators have a tough enough time in this forum so I will bite my tongue. 

See, again with the condescension. That's the beauty of that term--it isn't gendered, so you can make your point without completely undermining your own argument at the same time.

I'll neither conform nor deny your assumption. I'll simply note that would be much easier for you to put me in the "idiot man" box, since then you can simply pigeonhole me and dismiss anything I have to say about this discussion.

Pondering wrote:

I could not care less who you want to drink beer with, but it was a back-handed insult at the "not fun" side of the debate which is inappropriate in the feminist forum. 

Well, you're right about my subtlety--a much better word, since "backhanded" is a loaded term that implies (male) violence--and since you are clearly an intelligent person who uses thir words carefully, I cannot help but think it was chosen deliberately.

But to be "obvious" about it, your posts above and here are rude and confrontational. Since I was looking for understanding, I'd rather talk to people who have a genuine interest in discussion and who won't attack me personally if I don't immediately agree. I don't think there is anything unfair about that.

Captain Obvious wrote:
Having read through this thread carefully, I quite agree. And the moderators jumped right on Gustave too....Rather than a deliberate gendered insult like mansplaining, I think "condescending" would have served just as well.

Pondering wrote:
So, you read this entire thread, and the most important thought you have to share with us is that the moderators of the feminist forum should have used the term "condescending" rather than the gendered term "mansplaining" when telling a man he was behaving inappropriately in the feminist forum.

Do you have any other preferences we should be aware of? 

Well, some civility wouldn't hurt.

Is your position then that gendered insults are acceptable in this context then? What an odd statement to appear in a feminist forum. If there was anywhere you'd think that people wouldn't use gendered insults...*shrug* So noted. People are people I guess.

I didn't get involved in the thread more directly because I am well aware of how much I don't know. And because it is a complex issue with merit on both sides. So I acknowledged both the complexity and the tone of the debate. And I also figured I'd gently point out that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I tended to find Gustave and Susan more persuasive, but I was aware that this was the case because of how you were behaving in this thread. So I did my best to suspend judgement--ad hominem approaches shouldn't convince one of the merits of a given position. But by the same token, human beings being who they are, you're more likely to convince people by treating them with respect.

Now, this is clearly thread drift, so that'll be it from me on this topic. I think I'll PM Susan and Gustave and ask them if they have any more sources or reading I can do on this subject. Thanks for engaging with me!

fortunate

Captain Obvious, I think you were just womensplained, in yet another condescending and belittling way.   Come to the dark side (Sex Workers forum) for more links to articles and sites that you may find of interest.  Indeed anyone who considers themselves "progressive' and not a SWerfer or a Terfer, is welcome as far as i am concerned.    Brach, i've posted a ton of sex worker positive links for you.     

This thread has run its course anyway, so many have left it due to the attacks.   It is a place where your opinion, your facts, your information, and discussion doesn't matter, only your occupation and your gender matter.  And based on those two things, you are not welcome, and if you didn't get the memo about not being welcome, someone will be sure to come along and dissect everything you write and/or remind you of why you aren't welcome, in the most 'condescending' way available to them at the time.

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Calling men on their shit is not "womansplaining".  Like "reverse sexism" and "reverse racism", it's not a thing. 

fortunate

I rest my case.

Pondering

fortunate wrote:
 This thread has run its course anyway, so many have left it due to the attacks.

I think the thread is doing great. I have lots of posts to respond to which I will do in due course. I intend to enjoy myself tremendously regardless of who is or isn't here. This thread has turned into a hoot and a half. I've laughed so hard I cried. I'm afraid my sense of humor is a bit dry but hopefully some will appreciate my perspective on the latest dabate. I am particularly looking forward to the topic of womansplaining. 

Pondering

Seatree wrote:
I am one of the people who this proposed law will criminalize…..So I am still a virgin, oh well.

You haven’t broken any laws and you seem to have spent a lot of time with a variety of escorts over a period of years so the law won’t criminalize your behavior unless you are purchasing sexual services in which case it is your choice to break the law. No one is twisting your arm.

Seatree wrote:
For me personally, for now what I do is not illegal, at some point in the future it may become so. I believe that I can structure encounters so that they comply with the letter of the law, if not the spirit, but how that will work out I don't know.

There is no circumstance under which paying a woman for sex will comply with the letter of the law.

Seatree wrote:
If you look at trafficking for example, particularly Asian masage parlors,..

Several massage parlours were busted in Montreal. Many of the migrant women are in Canada legally some are not. The new laws should increase enforcement but we shall have to see. One of the primary effects of the law is to prevent expansion of the industry rather than shut down what already exists. These laws might change that somewhat.

Seatree wrote:
They have no accommodation for people like me. What are the people who are excluded from normal relationships by virtue of their disability supposed to do?

http://www.slice.ca/the-undateables/

There are dating services that can help (without going on television). There are just as many disabled women as there are men. If you can afford escorts you can afford help to meet women you can develop a relationship with that isn’t dependent on your paying her. You can get a relationship counsellor to help you through it.

Seatree wrote:
that is the intrusion and criminalization of what consenting adults do in private

If it is genuinely private, then no one else is in the bedroom to see money left on a dresser. Advertising is not private. Working the streets is not private. Brothels with signs are not private. Once it is commercialized it is no longer private and it impacts society. It legitimizes prostitution.

Seatree wrote:
in this case one half is legal while the other half is illegal

One is the victim while the other is the perpetrator. 

 

Pondering

ygtbk wrote:

@ Captain Obvious:

You have noticed that babble has a certain amount of asymmetric moderation. You are correct, I think.

I would not expect this to change, however - it seems to be an ingrained part of the way the board is.

If I randomly inserted the neologism "mansplaining" into my posts I would expect zero consequence from the mods. This is despite the fact that it's clearly a lazy way of getting to an ad hominem argument and clearly has no validity.

If I were to hypothetically use the neologisms "femsplaining" or "chicksplaining", I expect I would get into trouble. Therefore I do not do that.

Clearly you are talking through your ass. This is the feminist forum. It’s where we do femsplaining and don’t get called “chicks” by misogynistic jerks. It’s a place where women don’t have to listen to men telling us how we should talk and behave and what words we should or shouldn’t use.

I finally accepted I was atheist but now I have to go back to being agnostic so I can pray for patience. 

 

Captain Obvious

Pondering wrote:

Captain Obvious wrote:
And I also figured I'd gently point out that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

And you thought it was your place to pop into a conversation in the feminist forum to tell a woman (gently) she should post more nicely to win her argument. Gee, “be nice”, where have I heard that before? So let’s recap:

1)     Don’t use the term mansplaining. It’s mean and it’s gendered and feminists shouldn’t be using it.

2)     There is a particular side of the debate you would prefer to drink with wink wink

3)     The side you don’t like should act nicely if they want to win support.

That is the sum total of everything you have offered to the discussion.

You are being aggressive and controlling in a female space. I feel comfortable saying back the hell off. 

Wow. Wow, wow wow.

My bad for replying again. It really is. I said I wouldn't, but....wow.

Alrighty then. The only thing worth directly addressing in your reply is your highly objectionable 2nd point. I haven't flagged it as offensive, since I am given to understand this would be pointless. Nevertheless, it's complete bullshit. I don't think either side is "the fun side. There isn't anything "fun" about any side of this issue. Your inference is obnoxious, mean-spirited and again, a deliberate misreading my post.

But I'm not surprised. You've amply demonstrated both your personality and tactics. So noted.

 

Pondering

Captain Obvious wrote:

Alrighty then. The only thing worth directly addressing in your reply is your highly objectionable 2nd point.

I agree you weren't inferring anything sexual in your beer comment, but it remains objectionable. I disagree concerning the value of the balance of my post. 

This is the feminist forum. You have no business telling me how I should or shouldn't behave. 

Pondering

Captain Obvious wrote:
Huh. Could I call this explanation "womansplaining" then? If the shoe fits...  

No you could not because it isn’t which underlines your lack of understanding of the term.

Captain Obvious wrote:
Regardless, I, not being an idiot, am fully aware of the meaning of "mansplaining." You can dress it up however you like, but it is still a deliberately gendered insult. You were trying to shut down debate with a man you didn't agree with, and you used a gendered term to do it. Successfully, it appears. So far as I can see (and have often experienced), condescension is human behaivour, not gendered behaviour. To deliberately make it gendered does not seem fair or just to me.

If I were to go into a men’s forum and tell men discussing erectile dysfunction how they should handle it, that would be womansplaining. If I had pertinent information to offer that would be fine. If I had questions to ask that would be fine. If I just wanted to hang out and tell them what vocabulary they should use and who I think is right and who I would want to have a drink with that would be invasive, disruptive and womansplaining. The difference is, as a rule, women don’t do that. Men do. That is why there is a term for it. If you think the term is offensive imagine how it feels to be on the receiving end of the behavior for centuries.

 

Captain Obvious wrote:
I'll neither conform nor deny your assumption. I'll simply note that would be much easier for you to put me in the "idiot man" box, since then you can simply pigeonhole me and dismiss anything I have to say about this discussion.

You haven’t had anything to say about the Nordic Model. Your sole contributions have been to defend another man through telling us we shouldn’t use the term mansplaining, and declaring who you want to have a beer with. You would have to be actually discussing the topic for me to dismiss what you have to say about it.

Captain Obvious wrote:
Is your position then that gendered insults are acceptable in this context then? What an odd statement to appear in a feminist forum. If there was anywhere you'd think that people wouldn't use gendered insults...*shrug* So noted.

Yes because this is another misogynistic patriarchal thing men do. Men barge into women’s spaces acting as though they have equal rights to be there instead of realizing they are guests. We need words like mansplaining and misogynistic which apply specifically to overbearing male behavior directed at women. We use gendered words because it is gendered behavior.

Captain Obvious wrote:
And I also figured I'd gently point out that you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

And you thought it was your place to pop into a conversation in the feminist forum to tell a woman (gently) she should post more nicely to win her argument. Gee, “be nice”, where have I heard that before? So let’s recap:

1)     Don’t use the term mansplaining. It’s mean and it’s gendered and feminists shouldn’t be using it.

2)     There is a particular side of the debate you would prefer to drink with... 

3)     The side you don’t like should act nicely if they want to win support.

That is the sum total of everything you have offered to the discussion.

You are being aggressive and controlling in a female space. I feel comfortable saying back the hell off. 

edited to remove winking from item 2

Seatree

Pondering wrote:

 

Seatree wrote:
They have no accommodation for people like me. What are the people who are excluded from normal relationships by virtue of their disability supposed to do?

http://www.slice.ca/the-undateables/

There are dating services that can help (without going on television). There are just as many disabled women as there are men. If you can afford escorts you can afford help to meet women you can develop a relationship with that isn’t dependent on your paying her. You can get a relationship counsellor to help you through it.

 

 

I find your attitude a little disturbing, I think there is a lot of ignorance about autism in the general population because those with the disability usually can't or won't talk about the experience themselves. We have few advocates other than the Jenny McCarthys of the world, and them, well......normal people telling us what our experience is....hmmmm....OK. So, there is a lot of "well, you can just do this", without understanding that our disability is precisely that we can't do that.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on what it means to be autistic before offering advice to someone who is autistic. It is like Marie Antoinette suggesting that the peasants eat cake. Autism affects primarily men by a 4:1 margin, so it is primarily something men have to deal with. There are some woman who suffer from it (Actually, I know one who I suspect is so, her level of disability is somewhat more pronounced than mine, so it is kind of obvious, to me anyway), but mostly it is men. Within the general population the incidence of someone on the spectrum is about 1 in 200, so chances are you don't know one of us unless you work in certain fields.

A dating service will not help since those are basically hookup sites (and yes, some of my girlfriends used those extensively, and I heard all the horror stories - for them it was a complete waste of time so far as finding someone worth having a relationship was concerned). They are effectively like meeting random people in bars, just far more efficiently. The social encounter rules still apply, even more so because the people who use those sites are acutely suspicious. Don't believe the advertising you see on TV, it is a big con. And in any case, no matter where you meet someone, be it through a normal incidental encounter, or one of those sites, the basic requirements and rules of courtship still apply.

For someone like me, age has allowed me to develop coping strategies that allow me to structure social encounters. As long as the person who I am talking to is reasonably personable, and we are talking one to one, I can maintain a conversation reasonably well. That is fine when you are having a platonic conversation since those are relatively shallow. It is different when you are in a courtship situation. Then the couple are engaged in a metaphysical dance around each other, and it is that process that establishes the relationship in non-platonic enncounters. If you can't do that, it is highly likely that nothing will happen. Some people are really good at that, others not so much. People like me cannot do that at all, and I think that is what you don't understand. Autistic people tend to be very literal, things like body language and subtle nuances of conversation are usually missed completely by us. That is what the disability is (and a few other things as well, but they have less impact on social interaction). Meeting someone is not the problem, it is getting past that relationship building phase. It might be so easy for you, but for me it is yawning chasm with the person on the other side not having the patience or inclination to hang around while I try to cross it. That is when things fall apart, the challenge, and in the situation where you meet someone through a dating site, there is no buildup, for the date to be successfull it is necessary to be able to immediately do that dance or it is going to fail within a few minutes. It is one of those things that in theory should work, and probably does in some fashion (allbeit not very well) for most people, but for those like me it is not a realistic solution.

And talking to a relationship counsellor will not do anything. I have a Ph.D., I am not stupid, and I have had plenty of time to think about all of this, research it and try to understand it. They will not be able to tell me anything I do not allready know. This is not a problem for which there is an easy answer.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Pondering wrote:
There are dating services that can help (without going on television). There are just as many disabled women as there are men. If you can afford escorts you can afford help to meet women you can develop a relationship with that isn’t dependent on your paying her. You can get a relationship counsellor to help you through it.

 

[url=http://www.autostraddle.com/misadventures-in-queer-lady-dating-while-dis... in Queer Lady Dating While Disabled: It’s Not Me, It’s You[/url]

Quote:
I’m a virgin. Not only do I lack any sexual experience, but I have no romantic experience to speak of either. We’re talking 12 year old pre-spin the bottle levels of physical intimacy here. Of course, there’s nothing wrong with this, assuming that it’s your choice. There are a million reasons to take relationships at your own pace. Where it starts to be a problem is when you recognize that you possess and want to express these desires and society denies them. Worse, society takes the authority upon itself to deem you undesirable and ascribes a complete and total sexual absence to you and your entire community at large, with few exceptions.

My name is Erin and I’m a graduating college senior majoring in film and minoring in LGBT studies. I self-identify as a queer feminist who believes that personality / aesthetic / confidence wins out over anatomy in terms of who you love. I also happen to have a disability – cerebral palsy. My disability is very visible in that I use an electric wheelchair for daily transportation. Today I wanted to talk to you all about the ways in which being a disabled woman has shaped my romantic and erotic (mis) adventures.

Quote:
Many of my caretakers and friends insist that I could have a love life if I would only date disabled people and proceed to combat my hesitation point by point if I object. The problem is that the logic of disability dating follows the rather simplistic formula of like goes with like. In my case, this boils down to wheelchair goes with wheelchair. I’m not opposed to dating someone with physical impairments in the abstract, but I resent the notion that other people in wheelchairs are my only option and that I’m “uppity” if they’re not my type. By insisting that disabled people should only date those with similar disabilities, the able community not only reaffirms their perception of our undesirability, but indirectly admits that they fail to view us as having any kind of adult sexuality at all. Here’s where the myth of the bitter crippled virgin comes into play. If disabled individuals are accused of rejecting sexual options, we are often held responsible for our own repression. The unfortunate thing is that usually the only group that recognizes the sexual capacities of disabled people is the disabled community itself, which ironically has the greatest difficulty in building a sexual exchange as an outlet of this appreciation due to the prominence of physical barriers.

Pondering

Disabled or not people do tend to get into relationships with others who are on a similar scale of desirability.  Rich date rich, smart date smart, cheer leaders date football players. That doesn’t mean disabled must date disabled much less someone who has the exact same disability. Disability will be a factor just like height, skin, age, education, weight, income, etc. It shouldn’t matter if people are tall or short or ugly or pretty but the reality is it does matter. Expecting disability to not factor in is unrealistic. Blond hair factors in and that is a lot less significant. The size of everyone's dating pool varies based on innumerable factors. I caught part of some millionaires dating show and was shocked. The dating guru was coaching the men on how to behave on a date. One acted like he was interviewing the woman for a job. Another wanted a woman 15 years younger than him that would share his interests and be ready to start a family. I know disabled people who have married abled people; there are no rules, but some people will always have much larger dating pools than others. 

The point I am making is that people have all sorts of barriers to dating, social, physical, mental, financial... Some barriers are much tougher to surmount than others but there is no dearth of people at any level of the dating game. Everyone is dateable. It is a matter of people finding each other.

I understand that autism presents communication barriers but that doesn’t make dating impossible. People with autism do date. Prostitution may be easier but that doesn't mean you are entitled to it. 

The validity of prostitution as an industry rests on the well-being of women, not on the sexual wants of the disabled.

feministcurrent.com/8910/nobodys-entitled-to-sex-including-disabled-people/

It is important, then, to see that the supposed inevitability of disabled people never getting a shag is entrenched in societal prejudice. And, rather than fight this and challenge the misconceptions and the offensiveness, there are still those whose solution is to advocate for the right of disabled men (almost always) to have sex with a prostitute. So if you’re fighting for a disabled person’s “right” to sex via prostitution, consider the thought that you are reinforcing discriminatory ideas, not liberating us.

 

 

I don't know of any organizations for the disabled advocating for access to sexual services. It seems to me if this was a widespread issue for the disabled some of the major organizations that represent them would be advocating for it. 

 

ygtbk

Pondering wrote:

ygtbk wrote:

@ Captain Obvious:

You have noticed that babble has a certain amount of asymmetric moderation. You are correct, I think.

I would not expect this to change, however - it seems to be an ingrained part of the way the board is.

If I randomly inserted the neologism "mansplaining" into my posts I would expect zero consequence from the mods. This is despite the fact that it's clearly a lazy way of getting to an ad hominem argument and clearly has no validity.

If I were to hypothetically use the neologisms "femsplaining" or "chicksplaining", I expect I would get into trouble. Therefore I do not do that.

Clearly you are talking through your ass. This is the feminist forum. It’s where we do femsplaining and don’t get called “chicks” by misogynistic jerks. It’s a place where women don’t have to listen to men telling us how we should talk and behave and what words we should or shouldn’t use.

I finally accepted I was atheist but now I have to go back to being agnostic so I can pray for patience. 

Since I was a) not telling anyone how to talk or behave and b) pointing out the asymmetry of allowed language on the forum, I think I would pray for patience too, if I were a prayerful person.

fortunate

Pondering wrote:

 

I don't know of any organizations for the disabled advocating for access to sexual services. It seems to me if this was a widespread issue for the disabled some of the major organizations that represent them would be advocating for it. 

 

 

http://www.touchingbase.org/

And there are other similar organizations across the world.    It doesn't have to be WIDE SPREAD for something to be an issue.   Sex work in general, and sex workers themselves and their clients, do not make up a huge percentage of the population.  I think that fact is missed.   There are people in Canada who advertise exclusively for those who have disabilities.   

 

ygtbk wrote:

Since I was a) not telling anyone how to talk or behave and b) pointing out the asymmetry of allowed language on the forum, I think I would pray for patience too, if I were a prayerful person.

 

There is in fact only one or two people here telling everyone else how to talk or behave.     I recommend just leaving this forum, and discuss/debate the issue of C-36 and laws, and so on and so forth, in either Canadian politics section, or the sex worker forum.  

 

Pages