Sound a lot like Rethuglican logic when it comes to do, mostly with women, but.. almost anything – “If its something we approve of, then its defensible. If its something we don’t, then not only is the same, identical, defense unacceptable, but your body actually belongs to Go.. err, sorry, where was I? Ah right – the State!” But then, this can hardly be a surprise, since its the same logic by which, in modern times, a bank executive is exempt from the law for robbing a thousand people of millions, while an adult stealing a wallet *must* receive jail time. A much more ‘enlightened’ view than ancient times, in which sending an army to rob a thousand people of everything they owned made you a sultan, while stealing an apple meant having you hand cut off.

Of course someone who hates prostitution and thinks its fundamentally robbing someone of something, somehow, to sell sex, would see a vast, gigantic, irreconcilable gap between “My body, my choice”, as it applies to *everything* except for sex work. Nope, those people deserve to be the apple stealer, for some perfectly logical, not at all purely theological/ideological reason, which everyone else just can’t properly comprehend.

The fact that you juxtapose liberal individualist feminism with the struggles of women of color speaks volumes about your own assumptions. Ever heard of intersectionality?

Andrea Dworkin’s husband, John Stoltenberg, lamented Roe v Wade’s individualist reasoning for establishing a woman’s right to choose because it has been used by sex workers to justify their own way of living – “My body – my choice”

I am currently not a sex worker, but I am a writer who has presented on Dworkin and MacKinnon at the Socialist Scholars Conference in the 1990s and most recently at the Left Forum in NYC. Nothing in their ‘complex’ philosophy contradicts their hate speech.

And Sheldon, are you even a sex worker? I’m asking because I’ve actually read both Dworkin and MacKinnon (more of the latter than the former) and their philosophies are much more complex than you present. But perhaps expecting someone who thinks that we would not have Roe v. Wade without liberal individualist feminism (because women of color organizing around reproductive rights didn’t analyze their struggles with a vision of collective liberation, right?) and seems blatantly unaware of feminist of color concerns regarding the sovereign subject (read Hortense Spillers, maybe?) to understand feminist philosophy or legal theory was an endeavor set to disappoint.

You sound like a troll. How could you post on this web site without knowing its concerns about Dworkin and Mackinnon?

Without individualist liberal feminism, Roe v Wade would not exist, nor would you even have the right to post here or anywhere else on matters of gender.

About what exactly Dworkin’s and MacKinnon’s philosophies do you disagree? Your critique charts a dangerous line along ad hominem attacks without addressing this.

I think it’s valuable that Dworkin and the author of this post invite us to think beyond the liberal humanist idea of the individual sovereign subject. I especially appreciate the author for approaching this subject so carefully and noting sex workers’ particular vulnerabilities within the legal system and how individualist sex positive feminism fails us (and non-sex working women of color). Doing so prompts us to imagine alternative political strategies that does not hinge upon violently oppressing people of color and the working class.

“For example, children may not understand the functioning of social mores regarding sexual “innocence,” “purity,” and “stigma” in mainstream society well enough to understand how sex with an adult might affect their self-perception or the attitudes of others towards them in the future.”

Yeah, well, this aspect is simple – they are all bullshit. Seriously though, you are correct. A child may have no idea what the consequences will be of how much of an asshole adults can/will be about such things, because of “beliefs”. These things bug the hell out of me. They are no different than slut shaming. They don’t even exist in all cultures. Don’t remember the one, but there is one which is rare in at a) its post-agricultural, and b) has a clear concept of marriage and fidelity, but where 13 year old girls a built a hut, to which they can, outside any supervision, let any suitors they want visit them, and yeah, that includes “sex” with many of them, since there are cases where the parents object to the relationship and problems arise, if she should accidentally get pregnant.

Some of this stuff has nothing at all to do with real harm, and everything to do with, “We very clearly plan to harm the person involved, but since we can’t really punish a child for it physically, we will enforce are hate, anger, fear, jealousy, etc. by harming the adult, and merely mentally abusing the child. The adults, to be entirely honest, who get this crap handed to them for their choices *only* have one thing that the kid doesn’t – the expectation that some idiot out there will in fact try to hurt them, and, hopefully, but not always, the maturity to tell them to go F themselves and their opinions.

But, what you are, sadly, basically saying, is, “One huge reason we don’t allow it is so we can protect them from all the bullies, who we either sort of agree with, or, at the least, refuse to slap down for mentally abusing people they disagree with.” Personally, what ever my views on *any* other aspect of this may be, the idea that we treat people who would abuse a child for “having had” such a relationship, like there was nothing wrong with such abuse, instead of with just as must disgust and anger as an adult that does use, themselves, mental abuse through trickery, lies, and possibly even fear, to seek non-consentual sex with a minor pisses me off. There is imho no difference between the person that bullies/tricks a kid into such an act, and the one that then abuses them, for the rest of their lives, for having been the victim of it. And, when they are not a victim at all, such bullying is even more horrible.

Having your life ruined because someone else objects to your choices ***should not be*** a logical consequence, an expected consequence, or an acceptable consequence, for those choices, unless they somehow cause harm to more than some idiot, or group of idiots’ sensibilities and prejudices. And, it should never garner praise for those bullies, never mind **only** cost the victim, and never those who deal it out.

Yet, this seems to be how it works. Sad.. that being, “no longer a child, but an adult”, really means, “Knowing that what I chose to do, and saw nothing wrong with, can lead to thousand of people treating me like dirt, and hating me for having done it.” Why the F should anyone have to take that sort of BS into account when deciding something, never mind be deemed “innocent” purely based on not knowing this is possible? Its sick, if you ask me.

I believe I am addressing sex workers and their allies – at least those who read this website.

I have read and collected all of Dworkin’s and MacKinnon’s books, and there is nothing complex in their philosophy, their use of big words notwithstanding. I find it almost cartoonish in its simplicity, except that would be an insult to cartoons.

Can I extend charity to someone who morphs from a ‘debate opponent’ to a political demagogue bent on censorship and empowering the most retrograde patriarchal forces in our society/ Nah. This very website wouldn’t survive if they had their way.

Sheldon—I’m not sure who you’re addressing when you refer to sex that “you or I think of as consensual.” I do not believe that women under patriarchy can ever give perfect “consent.” The concept of consent itself may be inherently “partial” or “impure,” because almost all human decisions may be said to involve an element of transaction or exchange. However, I think it is generally wise to be cautious before making any “always/never” statements, or attributing those types of views to others. Things are typically more complex than that, and you actually benefit yourself as well when you understand a debate opponent charitably.