I realize this may be too heavily based on theory and not a practical legal scenario: like “gun control” or “the war(s) on drugs/terror.” In all of these cases, there are varying degrees of what may be considered acceptable and what can be enforced. After all, a rape is a rape – according to our legal system – when she can prove that she told her rapist “NO!” If there’s any question as to the consensual nature of the sex act, it is usually not declared to be a rape. It cannot be proven that somebody who owns a gun meant to use it for hunting and that it was therefore a legal ownership of said gun after that gun has been used to kill a human being. It cannot be proven that somebody meant to keep their private stash of legal marijuana to him or herself after he or she illegally sold it to a minor. It cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Iraq did not play some role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks…or so Republicans would have us believe. It also cannot be proven that a sex act in porn was NOT consensual if women are smiling and faking orgasm. Intent is difficult to prove.

And so, my principles might make for shitty laws!

I think it makes no sense to have a free market and then impose restrictions on bodies, apart from passing legislation that allows people to protect their bodies. What if a woman doesn’t have the start up costs for the American dream: small business? Well, she can sell her body in Nevada and Rhode Island. She might have to move, but… That’s the gist. Her body is HER BODY!

And I think you can’t look at the prostitution/porn issue without acknowledging that our long upheld understanding – or rather misunderstanding – that women don’t like sex or can’t achieve orgasm (easily) is part of overall gender stereotyping that would keep women barefoot and pregnant in their ignorance and men miserable at 9 to 5 day jobs with no freedom to choose different paths. People who assume that all women who participate in sex trades don’t really like sex, assume too much!

Fact, you are totally correct in my book about the U.S. ignoring the global status of women…in fact, we are ignoring the global status of people in general. We ignore starvation, genocide and disease. Specific to women, what are we doing about a recent U.N. report (bottom citation), which found that nearly 90% of Afghan women suffer from domestic abuse? What, President Obama? The Olympics in Chicago? Who fucking cares!

That question too, Mr. President, is NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/09/23/afghanistan.women.abuse/index.html

i always ask myself what the different “brands” are bringing to–or taking away–from the table in regards to those goals. and the same questions should be asked of all of our policies, both domestically and internationally–perhaps particularly things are thought to be gender-neutral but arent (if they impact those goals in any way, either positively or negatively, they arent gender-neutral). if the above arent all feminists’ goals, then i am unsure where that leaves us, and whether there is even a feminist “movement” at this time and place. there might not be one, considering the vastly varying agendas of many feminisms today (trans- activists and sex-pos for example). if we arent trying to advance women as a class, and if we are completely ignoring women in other (less privileged) countries, then what are we doing? this is not a rhetorical question.