Weeeeell…
The Guardian op-ed is indeed terrible, it's the kind of unsubstantiated hyperbolic rant I'd expect to find in the Mail. But I don't think the Guardian does have an "anti-sex" stance: in fact, it's one of the few mainstream media that seems aware of the feminist debate about sex work, and I find it has commissioned interesting people to discuss it, from both
fun-feminist and
more radical 'pro-sex' voices to a
male porn actor to a
male radical feminist. The CiF comments, obviously, read like the transcript of an ill-tempered Fathers 4 Justice meeting, but is that the Guardian's fault?
Moronwatch is guilty of some dubious shortcuts, too, in the article you linked. The liberal/conservative dichotomy is rather facile. I dislike and disagree with the 'new puritans' bit: I've never detected any common ground between radical feminists and the abstinence wing of organised religion. The research about porn quoted by the author all centres on its effect on men and on incidents — especially the (very dodgy Washington Post) figures for rape. It doesn't take into account the
cumulative impact of ubiquitous pornifying objectification
on women. Moreover, the author talks of "strippers who are defending themselves against campaigners who threaten their right to work in the London boroughs of Hackney and Tower Hamlets". The aim of the campaign, in fact, is to have lap dancing venues classified as part of the sex industry, thus requiring a different licence from an ordinary bar or nightclub. It's quite a stretch to claim that the strippers' "right to work" is threatened by this; it's more about the owners' right to pay less for their licence.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
