I think I figured it out, the whole thing, and can express it in a few sentences:
A. If it satisfies some men's sexual pleasure, it should be legal, or
B. If it allows some men to indulge in whatever sexual fetishes they want, it should be legal, or
C. If it empowers some men to greater control over, and access to, women, it should be legal, or
D. If it in any way restricts or limits the above three principles, it is an oppressive violation of freedom of expression and therefore unconstitutional.
Thank you, queer movement, you've made our legal system much simpler and easier to understand.
I would suggest the OPs Point A covers that. Also Point C, where fetishistic males demand access to women only spaces. The whole issue isn't just about female prostitution.
Certainly but the outlined discussion in the article doesn’t refer to point C . It’s a hypothetical not quite germane to the subject. It could be true discussing abortion or women’s only conferences.
Nope. Access by fetishistic males to women's only spaces such as changing rooms is germane to woman's safety and not at all hypothetical. It is happening now.
Except that these things do not live in silos. They are interconnected because of the nature of the fetishistic males driving much of the T part of this issue. You can try to split one from the other, but the world isn't that simple and in neat little boxes.
In NSW, Australia, a proposed Equality’ law, tabled by a gay male, strongly pushes LGBTQI+ ideology and contains sections to decriminalise prostitution and allow commercial surrogacy. It’s not hypothetical as The Labor Party is seriously entertaining significant parts including allowing self sex ID.
“have attached themselves, limpet-like” is a brilliantly apt turn of phrase! I wonder whether anyone credible has teased out stats by individual alphabet letter to demonstrate to whom exactly the claim applies that “Studies have shown that LGBTQ+ people, particularly gay and transgendered individuals, are more likely to be charged with sex offenses compared to their heterosexual counterparts.” Dollars to donuts, it is not the L’s to whom these stats apply. Time to call in the Lesbian Limpet Removal Brigade!
It can only apply to men selling and buying from men. I’m not aware of Lesbian prostitution but I’m sure it exists. Almost no gay men I know would dream of buying sex from someone who looks under 30. Prostitutes on the market - easy to see at Rentmen.com - rarely look under 25 or 30. Gay men tend to want … gay men. I was aware of a tranny market when I was in Texas, but that was a straight fetish. There’s something fishy about about the statements of this being about LGBTQ. It has virtually nothing to do with L, B, Q, may refer to runaway trans T, but they don’t generally interact with the G trade at all.
I predict gay and lesbian rights will fall soon if we are not able to distinguish ourselves from TQ+.
Support for the alphabet soup has fallen below majority support in my country (Canada) and is worsening. We have been effectively silenced from speaking out against trans activist incessant demands for males to self ID as females and invade women’s safe spaces and sports (similar to what is happening in Australian), “gender affirming care” for vulnerable children as well as gay male voices who support prostitution, the abuse of minors and the rampant displays of sexual fetishes at Pride marches. We must rise.
I see no way through but to attempt to change egregious laws that have been passed and to try to sever corporate funding to every major LGBTQ+ organization including Stonewall and Egale Canada. Am I the only one to think that it is profane that America’s largest LGBTQ+ organization (founded to preserve and defend the rights of gays and lesbians), Human Rights Campaign, appointed a straight parent of a trans IDing child as board chair?
If anyone can connect me with strong activists in Canada, that would be greatly appreciated. The LGB Alliance here has proven completely ineffective here, unlike the UK - no out representatives, disorganized with no action plan and no lesbian voices allowed at the table.
Question: has the L Project considered expanding into other Western nations?
I didn’t know about this and I’m actually a little bit shocked. Let’s see whether I have this right. The argument is that my main concern is as an LGBGT person (members of which grouping may have little or nothing in common anyway ), I should have the same chance of “getting away with it” when I choose to pursue sexual activities that come close to or are illegal, and for which I might be arrested. And that this right to get away with pursuing my pleasures supersedes the rights of a child to be highly protected under law?
Is that really it? I don’t want to get this wrong. But surely not…
I wonder what their position would be if the abused were (overwhelmingly) little boys:
"The Democrats in California that argued for less punitive penalties for those that target prostituted minors are, by default, suggesting that child prostitution is a ‘queer’ sexual identity. It also gives the clear impression that the men within the so-called LGBTQ+ ‘community’ should be given special dispensation. However it is dressed up, this is nothing more than child abuse apologism."
It is indeed deeply troubling that the official LGB side, groups like Stonewall etc. so vehemently supports the TQAI++++ which by & large have nothing to do with the LGB folk & I, for the life of me, cannot grasp why homosexuals, lesbians & bi-sexuals support the abject shitfuckery of the alphabet soup cling-ons who for the most part actually have nothing to do with the LGB cohort.
the support of the TQAI+++ side has done irreparable harm to gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals & most particularly women by allowing that old trope of homosexuals are paedophiles & sexual deviants & by redefining or more aptly UNDEFINING the meaning of woman, not man, just woman a cohort now invaded by men.
For what its worth, I'd suggest that what is going on, eg in California re using children sexually, is being excused by an amazing level of abstraction. The problem is that this is what the doctrine of human rights can lead to. Someone who wants to use a child in this way, suddenly awards him or herself the right to do so.
Its sobering the realize that psychosis, eg schizophrenia, operates in this way. A small example: Many years ago I was with someone who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. We were not at his home and he turned to me and said: "We have Siamese cat at home. He is thinking of me'. This last belief is only sustainable by an extraordinary act of abstraction from of course, many disconfirming details.
But this is the kind of thinking by people who think biological sex can be abstracted from.
Is this of interest to anyone, I wonder? Be interested to know. Ian Mordant
"The Democrats in California that argued for less punitive penalties for those that target prostituted minors are, by default, suggesting that child prostitution is a ‘queer’ sexual identity. "
Since prostitution is stated as men colonizing women’s bodies (or something like that) - voiding the fact of male prostitution - the article then has a very hard time articulating the concept of a gay man being a prostitute since of course that has nothing to do with a woman. All gay men I know who are prostitutes (I’ve known many over the years) enjoy the work, and have never in the least felt exploited. Whenever you speak of the Gay and Lesbian community and prostitution you are speaking of Gay men. I’m really not aware of Lesbian prostitutes but I’m sure it exists.
In fact the concept of lowering the age of consent for criminalization in the “LGBTQ+” community would at the outset seem to have nothing to do with women, it would only seem to deal with a gay man and a young gay man (I don’t know any adult gay men interested in very young gay men in SF - aka Daddyland) a gay man and a male trans (gay men I know want only gay men for sex) or possibly a straight man and a male trans. There’s an easy check anyone can do - go to “Rentmen.com” and look at who is listed in the major cities in CA. It’s hard to see anyone who looks under 30.
I think lowering the age of consent is a poor idea in general, but doing so to avoid pedophilia charges for gay men is of course ridiculous.
But I fail to see any connection to women in the discussion - is there anything in the LGTBQ grab bag that implies male exploitation of underage women?
As to the LGBTQ community overly targeted for sex crimes, the only community I know who has disparate impact from criminalization of male male pedophilia is Priests, coaches, teachers and boy scouts leaders - which, via successive waves of purging, have few gay men left to be charged with heinous crimes.
I just did a quick google, and read that it's the umbrella part that's for sex workers, but that it hasn't been officially adopted. Can anyone shed light please?
I am very worried if the Dems do not stop their misguided love of transgenderism they will lose much potential bi partisan support. And even if she wins I hope she does, if this insistence of not listening to the growing research that makes clear the importance of leaving children alone. Biology matters! Children’s bodies matter.
Julie, I see your point that prostitution is appalling exploitation of the (usually) woman concerned.
Excuse me if I'm just going to be ignorant in what I write, but am I right in assuming that the great majority of women who do this would rather not;
but they cannot find any other work that enables them to survive?
If I'm right about this, is it not a criticism of our current economic situation, that some women feel pressured by economics and maybe in other ways to earn their incomes in this way?
In the simplest sense, sure women prostitute themselves for money but it gets complex. For instance, at least some are desperate drug addicts or uneducated, unskilled poor single mothers, or ensnarled in abusive relations with pimps. A job slinging burgers at a hamburger joint might not seem to them as an escape? I would imagine those holding signs at protests are the better off prostitutes? May not be a lot of lesbians involved but insofar as it’s a women’s issue (how women are used and abused) it’s should concern us.
I think I figured it out, the whole thing, and can express it in a few sentences:
A. If it satisfies some men's sexual pleasure, it should be legal, or
B. If it allows some men to indulge in whatever sexual fetishes they want, it should be legal, or
C. If it empowers some men to greater control over, and access to, women, it should be legal, or
D. If it in any way restricts or limits the above three principles, it is an oppressive violation of freedom of expression and therefore unconstitutional.
Thank you, queer movement, you've made our legal system much simpler and easier to understand.
It has nothing to do with women - I fail to see any connection between LGBTQ and female prostitution in the proposals discussed.
I would suggest the OPs Point A covers that. Also Point C, where fetishistic males demand access to women only spaces. The whole issue isn't just about female prostitution.
Certainly but the outlined discussion in the article doesn’t refer to point C . It’s a hypothetical not quite germane to the subject. It could be true discussing abortion or women’s only conferences.
Nope. Access by fetishistic males to women's only spaces such as changing rooms is germane to woman's safety and not at all hypothetical. It is happening now.
It’s not germane to an article on LGBTQ fusion with prostitution.
Except that these things do not live in silos. They are interconnected because of the nature of the fetishistic males driving much of the T part of this issue. You can try to split one from the other, but the world isn't that simple and in neat little boxes.
In NSW, Australia, a proposed Equality’ law, tabled by a gay male, strongly pushes LGBTQI+ ideology and contains sections to decriminalise prostitution and allow commercial surrogacy. It’s not hypothetical as The Labor Party is seriously entertaining significant parts including allowing self sex ID.
“have attached themselves, limpet-like” is a brilliantly apt turn of phrase! I wonder whether anyone credible has teased out stats by individual alphabet letter to demonstrate to whom exactly the claim applies that “Studies have shown that LGBTQ+ people, particularly gay and transgendered individuals, are more likely to be charged with sex offenses compared to their heterosexual counterparts.” Dollars to donuts, it is not the L’s to whom these stats apply. Time to call in the Lesbian Limpet Removal Brigade!
It can only apply to men selling and buying from men. I’m not aware of Lesbian prostitution but I’m sure it exists. Almost no gay men I know would dream of buying sex from someone who looks under 30. Prostitutes on the market - easy to see at Rentmen.com - rarely look under 25 or 30. Gay men tend to want … gay men. I was aware of a tranny market when I was in Texas, but that was a straight fetish. There’s something fishy about about the statements of this being about LGBTQ. It has virtually nothing to do with L, B, Q, may refer to runaway trans T, but they don’t generally interact with the G trade at all.
Great point Susan. Yet another example where the forced teaming confuses more than it explains, conceals more than it reveals
I predict gay and lesbian rights will fall soon if we are not able to distinguish ourselves from TQ+.
Support for the alphabet soup has fallen below majority support in my country (Canada) and is worsening. We have been effectively silenced from speaking out against trans activist incessant demands for males to self ID as females and invade women’s safe spaces and sports (similar to what is happening in Australian), “gender affirming care” for vulnerable children as well as gay male voices who support prostitution, the abuse of minors and the rampant displays of sexual fetishes at Pride marches. We must rise.
I see no way through but to attempt to change egregious laws that have been passed and to try to sever corporate funding to every major LGBTQ+ organization including Stonewall and Egale Canada. Am I the only one to think that it is profane that America’s largest LGBTQ+ organization (founded to preserve and defend the rights of gays and lesbians), Human Rights Campaign, appointed a straight parent of a trans IDing child as board chair?
If anyone can connect me with strong activists in Canada, that would be greatly appreciated. The LGB Alliance here has proven completely ineffective here, unlike the UK - no out representatives, disorganized with no action plan and no lesbian voices allowed at the table.
Question: has the L Project considered expanding into other Western nations?
The inside of a child’s body is not a workplace. It’s astonishing that any of us have to write that sentence.
I didn’t know about this and I’m actually a little bit shocked. Let’s see whether I have this right. The argument is that my main concern is as an LGBGT person (members of which grouping may have little or nothing in common anyway ), I should have the same chance of “getting away with it” when I choose to pursue sexual activities that come close to or are illegal, and for which I might be arrested. And that this right to get away with pursuing my pleasures supersedes the rights of a child to be highly protected under law?
Is that really it? I don’t want to get this wrong. But surely not…
No, it's worse. They are arguing that you should have MORE of a chance of "getting away with it" if you are within the alphabet soup.
I wonder what their position would be if the abused were (overwhelmingly) little boys:
"The Democrats in California that argued for less punitive penalties for those that target prostituted minors are, by default, suggesting that child prostitution is a ‘queer’ sexual identity. It also gives the clear impression that the men within the so-called LGBTQ+ ‘community’ should be given special dispensation. However it is dressed up, this is nothing more than child abuse apologism."
It’s so insane. Just because “marginalized people” do something it doesn’t mean it’s good!!!
It is indeed deeply troubling that the official LGB side, groups like Stonewall etc. so vehemently supports the TQAI++++ which by & large have nothing to do with the LGB folk & I, for the life of me, cannot grasp why homosexuals, lesbians & bi-sexuals support the abject shitfuckery of the alphabet soup cling-ons who for the most part actually have nothing to do with the LGB cohort.
the support of the TQAI+++ side has done irreparable harm to gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals & most particularly women by allowing that old trope of homosexuals are paedophiles & sexual deviants & by redefining or more aptly UNDEFINING the meaning of woman, not man, just woman a cohort now invaded by men.
Ian Mordant
For what its worth, I'd suggest that what is going on, eg in California re using children sexually, is being excused by an amazing level of abstraction. The problem is that this is what the doctrine of human rights can lead to. Someone who wants to use a child in this way, suddenly awards him or herself the right to do so.
Its sobering the realize that psychosis, eg schizophrenia, operates in this way. A small example: Many years ago I was with someone who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. We were not at his home and he turned to me and said: "We have Siamese cat at home. He is thinking of me'. This last belief is only sustainable by an extraordinary act of abstraction from of course, many disconfirming details.
But this is the kind of thinking by people who think biological sex can be abstracted from.
Is this of interest to anyone, I wonder? Be interested to know. Ian Mordant
Thank you Julie.
this is horrifying
"The Democrats in California that argued for less punitive penalties for those that target prostituted minors are, by default, suggesting that child prostitution is a ‘queer’ sexual identity. "
wow
There is a mishmash of ideas in this post.
Since prostitution is stated as men colonizing women’s bodies (or something like that) - voiding the fact of male prostitution - the article then has a very hard time articulating the concept of a gay man being a prostitute since of course that has nothing to do with a woman. All gay men I know who are prostitutes (I’ve known many over the years) enjoy the work, and have never in the least felt exploited. Whenever you speak of the Gay and Lesbian community and prostitution you are speaking of Gay men. I’m really not aware of Lesbian prostitutes but I’m sure it exists.
In fact the concept of lowering the age of consent for criminalization in the “LGBTQ+” community would at the outset seem to have nothing to do with women, it would only seem to deal with a gay man and a young gay man (I don’t know any adult gay men interested in very young gay men in SF - aka Daddyland) a gay man and a male trans (gay men I know want only gay men for sex) or possibly a straight man and a male trans. There’s an easy check anyone can do - go to “Rentmen.com” and look at who is listed in the major cities in CA. It’s hard to see anyone who looks under 30.
I think lowering the age of consent is a poor idea in general, but doing so to avoid pedophilia charges for gay men is of course ridiculous.
But I fail to see any connection to women in the discussion - is there anything in the LGTBQ grab bag that implies male exploitation of underage women?
As to the LGBTQ community overly targeted for sex crimes, the only community I know who has disparate impact from criminalization of male male pedophilia is Priests, coaches, teachers and boy scouts leaders - which, via successive waves of purging, have few gay men left to be charged with heinous crimes.
I just did a quick google, and read that it's the umbrella part that's for sex workers, but that it hasn't been officially adopted. Can anyone shed light please?
I am very worried if the Dems do not stop their misguided love of transgenderism they will lose much potential bi partisan support. And even if she wins I hope she does, if this insistence of not listening to the growing research that makes clear the importance of leaving children alone. Biology matters! Children’s bodies matter.
Julie, I see your point that prostitution is appalling exploitation of the (usually) woman concerned.
Excuse me if I'm just going to be ignorant in what I write, but am I right in assuming that the great majority of women who do this would rather not;
but they cannot find any other work that enables them to survive?
If I'm right about this, is it not a criticism of our current economic situation, that some women feel pressured by economics and maybe in other ways to earn their incomes in this way?
Ian Mordant
In the simplest sense, sure women prostitute themselves for money but it gets complex. For instance, at least some are desperate drug addicts or uneducated, unskilled poor single mothers, or ensnarled in abusive relations with pimps. A job slinging burgers at a hamburger joint might not seem to them as an escape? I would imagine those holding signs at protests are the better off prostitutes? May not be a lot of lesbians involved but insofar as it’s a women’s issue (how women are used and abused) it’s should concern us.