First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. – Martin Niemöller
In “Whorearchy” and “Little Boxes” I pointed out that those who wish to criminalize sex, whether they be politicians, moralists, neofeminists or just plain busybodies, are always drawing arbitrary lines between the “sexual” and the “non-sexual”, between “good” sex and “bad” sex, and between “legal” and “illegal” forms of sexual activity, especially sex work. The unwise or selfish react by claiming to be on the “right” side of such lines, but this is foolish because…
…attempting to define sexuality (commercial or otherwise) as being in the “permissible” or “legal” category rather than the “unacceptable” or “illegal” one is a tacit acknowledgement that such lines of demarcation are valid and that government has the right to draw them. That is a losing strategy because even if one wins the battle, the government can simply re-draw the line to include one’s entrenched position. The only way we as a culture will win the war for liberty is to reject any and all claims by “authority” to power over the private, consensual behavior of individuals, no matter what that behavior is or how far it falls outside of the boxes which define our own personal comfort zones.
As my epigram demonstrates, one cannot stand idly by while others’ rights are trampled simply because one is not a member of the persecuted group, not even if one is an enemy of that group (Niemöller was staunchly anti-communist); the machine one allows to crush others will eventually crush him. Or in this case, her; I’ve written before on a number of occasions about neofeminists’ contribution to the erosion of women’s rights, but today we’ll narrow our view somewhat to examine the inevitable results of “legal” sex workers failing to stand up for “illegal” ones. Take porn, for instance; it’s been legal to film it in California for quite some time, but that didn’t stop the City of Los Angeles from moving the imaginary line so as to make the great majority of it now illegal, nor stop a jury in that same city from convicting a filmmaker of “obscenity” for crossing another imaginary line between “good porn” and “bad porn”, nor prevent another city within the Greater Los Angeles area from firing a teacher for past work in a supposedly legal job.
Of course, there’s always an excuse, whether it be “health” or vague legal principles or “educational disruptions”; Sarah Tressler was fired from her reporter’s job at the Houston Chronicle for having been a stripper, but the excuse was that she “didn’t disclose her past”. I daresay most of the people working for the Chronicle (or any other company) don’t list every single job they’ve ever had on their applications; does anyone imagine Tressler would’ve been fired for failing to disclose that she worked for Astroworld when she was in high school? Of course not, because we don’t give governments power to regulate “theme park behavior” nor pretend that there are “good” park workers and “bad” ones. Once an activity is designated a “special case” the door is open to the sort of abuse for which Texas is notorious; Houston in particular is renowned for trying to shut down adult businesses by declaring them havens for drugs and prostitution, or more recently “human trafficking”:
The City of Houston filed a lawsuit…[alleging] that employees and owners of Treasures allowed human trafficking and prostitution for profit…Treasures’…attorney…said [they were] “actively engaged in litigation with the city for over ten years”…[and] since the city couldn’t get their liquor permit revoked they are trying now to file suit to have the club declared a nuisance.
Houston is not alone in the pretense that strip clubs are magically different from other businesses, thus justifying special harassment; Missouri enacted draconian restrictions on them under the premise that the sex rays emitted by naked female bodies cause “negative secondary effects”, and the total lack of proof for any such phenomena didn’t stop Illinois from enacting a “pole tax” using exactly the same excuse: “Sexually-orientated businesses contribute to objectifying and exploiting women,” said [Lieutenant Governor Sheila] Simon…“There’s been a strong, scientific recognition that when you associate those industries with alcohol, that there’s a substantial effect there, an increase in crime, particularly sexual assault.” Actually, the exact opposite is true; study after study after study demonstrates that stripping, porn and prostitution reduce the incidence of sex crimes, particularly sexual assault. Most politicians aren’t as stupid as they pretend to be; they know about these facts, but because they’re inconvenient they ignore them. Their real motive is visible in this story on California’s attempt to impose the same sort of tax using the same poppycock:
Another strip club tax is being considered by California’s Legislature. AB 2441…would place a $10 fee on visitors of establishments that offer alcohol and topless or nude performances…It’s the fourth attempt to tax sexually explicit businesses in the past four years in California. All of those bills, which would have taxed patrons up to 20 percent on sales or services at sexually explicit businesses including strip clubs, were shot down. AB 2441, however, would be the first [attempt] to mandate a fixed-fee “pole tax”…[whose] beneficiaries…would include programs that treat and prevent sexual assaults…Pole taxes are now mandatory in Texas and Utah, with legislation being mulled…in Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. “Most who go to these establishments know very well they’ll have to bring an extra few bucks,” [the bill sponsor’s spokesman] said. “So, for those who go, $10 is not so much to sacrifice. Let’s face it, adult entertainment does very well even during a recession”…
In other words, “they’ve got money and the moralists will back our efforts to rob them because they refuse to understand the precedent it sets.” Nor is it just the moralists or neofeminists who fail to comprehend; in a “tweet” following a link to that story, Furry Girl wrote, “Remember that link, OWS/anti-capitalist sex workers. The ‘we should take their money because they have too much’ argument hurts *you*, too.” If you’re a “legal” sex worker who supports persecution of “illegal” ones, or a feminist who supports persecution of all sex workers, or a Christian who supports persecution of “sinners”, or a pillar of the community who supports persecution of “undesirables”, or a have-not who supports persecution of those with more than you, remember that the rope you’re providing the politicians will hang you just as effectively once the noose is adjusted a bit for your individual neck.
One Year Ago Today
“Perquisites” explains how a large fraction of hookers’ fees are charged to corporate expense accounts.
My first problem with all this is: It’s my body. Why should anyone else say what I can do with it? I object to laws against sex work, smoking, drug and alcohol use, and diet.
I strongly object to “power over” situations, to laws imposed from above. Sure, some are necessary- Society doesn’t function well if people are allowed to murder. But that’s law restricting interactions between people. That’s different from laws restricting interactions between consenting adults, or decisions one makes about their own body.
There’s a libertarian catchphrase which sums it up well: “Your rights stop where my nose begins.” In other words people have the right to do as they please as long as their actions don’t adversely impact somebody else.
Witches have a phrase too, “As it hurts none, do as ye will”.
Yep. That’s the code I live by. 🙂
It’s my body.
Governments don’t recognize that fact, and therein lies the problem.
All laws against consensual behaviors, from sex, substances, surrogacy to assisted suicide etc. are based on the idea that the state owns your body, and you are only operating it under license.
Comixchik,
” I object to laws against sex work, smoking, drug and alcohol use, and diet.”
Well. They are not laws. They are legislation. One of the biggest LIES perpetrated on people is the lie that legislation is law. It is not. But people are amazingly unwilling to educate themselves on that point. They prefer to believe the lie of the guvment than to learn the truth.
Given this…do they not “deserve” to be criminally victimised because of their voluntary ignorance?
No Peter, they don’t.
It’s not as simple as you make it out to be. Law is what the government says it is because government’s opinion is backed by threat of force. Now – to a certain extent – I agree with you that people in most Western nations keep voting in idiots who keep squeezing our rights with ever more restrictive laws. So, to a certain extent we kind of deserve what we’re getting here. However, at the current time, no one can simply “ignore” the law without paying the penalty of it.
Alright, then what is it if not the law?
Please see my two articles at OpEdNews.com “Rights, Powers, Privileges, and Responsibilities,” and “The Tao of Government,” for my refutation of the idea that the power and authority, derived from the majority of a nation’s people believing in it, is what constitutes sovereignty. If tomorrow, everyone in the U.S. believed i were King, I would be King; all the rest would be paperwork, including my immediate abdication.
You can lie to yourself, and say that legislation that is passed is not the law, but unless you have the power and authority to negate that of the government, you are spitting into the wind.
Superconnected to this issue is a certain feminist stance that says ‘no woman really chooses to be a prostitute’ thus all these laws are for ‘her protection’ because she’s evidently too dumb to know the difference between making a choice and being a victimized.
As an ex-prostitute myself (a very long time ago), at one point I wanted to get involved in some kind of activism. At the time, all I could find was that feminist stance that insisted on the formulation that every prostitute is an absolute victim and must be protected from herself. I ran back into hiding.
That particular stance conflates the simple act of prostitution (a consensual exchange between adults of sex for economic gain) with the abuses and violence heaped upon prostitutes, and with rape, kidnapping and war crimes.
I don’t deny trafficking happens, or that prostitution is dangerous, and, in our culture, often degrading. I don’t deny that often the choice is made due to extremely limited circumstances. But to conflate those facts with choiceful prostitution just perpetuates the status quo – it just perpetuates that arbitrary dichotomy of good and bad sex, as if that were the issue. The issue in abuse and trafficking is violence and abuse of power, not prostitution.
But entering the military is also, similarly, a dangerous decision that has a large element of self-destructiveness in it, made out of limited circumstances. But we never say ‘no soldier chooses to become a soldier’, and we don’t judge their personal decision. We may hate war, but we don’t insult soldiers by proclaiming they are abject, hapless, agency-less victims who don’t even know what choice means. Regardless of their reasons, we consider their choice patriotic.
That’s because, historically, they’re men. It’s also because they kill. In our culture we still insist on believing in women’s passivity, and sex (esp. in sexually active and self-asserting women) is a bigger taboo than killing – it carries far more baggage.
In any case, the purpose of that argument is the same, to distinguish between ‘appropriate’ & ‘inappropriate’ sex.
‘Not choosing’ makes women innocent (which means ‘choosing’ means guilt) – a feminist effort to remove stigma and oppression without addressing the underlying causes. It’s a band-aid belief that side-steps the real problems.
It perpetuates the idea that for women to be safe they musn’t have ‘inappropriate’ sex. If they don’t choose, it’s not ‘inappropriate’ and they don’t deserve what they got. But it begs the question, what do women who do choose deserve? It leaves that question un-addressed because if we actually answer that, we might find out too much about ourselves.
This stance perpetuates the way, as a culture, we still stratify women according to their relationships with men, not according to their own attributes.
I say, if you want to do away with double-standards, and you want to further the cause if women in general, treat prostitution as the sacred profession it once was. Honor prostitutes who DO choose, and support them in making their work as healing and healthy as possible.
I say, prevent rape and violence against women and girls in all contexts – especially in prostitution. Making prostitution illegal, in itself, is violence against women. It perpetuates and deepens the traps, greatly reducing their options even further.
Quit treating prostitutes like they are either hapless victims to be protected from themselves or evil sirens who should be outlawed, and start examining what purpose it serves to sustain this dichotomy between good sex and evil sex. Start examining why women’s bodies are such an endless controversy. A hint (and of course, Maggie, you already know this) – it’s all about control and power structures.
“That’s because, historically, they’re men. In our culture we still insist on believing in women’s passivity”
Exactly.
Feminists today believe in one thing only: all women are victimized by all men. So when they see a woman who’s a prostitute doing business with a man they jump to the conclusion that he is victimizing her. This also makes them believe that women have no power and thus need to be protected. Add it all up and John Law just has to step in to save the poor women.
As for men being taken advantage of? **** ’em!
A bit off topic…but notice how the man is bad and the woman is a victim.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154515/Charity-worker-44-slave-master-wife-beat-belt-pair-sadomasochistic-pact-save-15-year-marriage.html
This despite that book, I can’t remember the name, is the #1 seller at the moment and is all about a woman becoming some mans submissive slave.
As I have learned more about women I have found they really do want to submit to a strong and masculine man. All this “we want to be treated as equals” stuff really messes the women up.
My fav#1 has talked a lot about this and told me things about women that western women would deny 1,000,000 times over if not more. What a shame our women can not be honest with us men.
Is it “50 Shades of Grey”?
@Furry Girl @Maggie
Strip clubs and porn companies did not destroy the economy back in 2008 and get a no strings attached bailout while doing so. There’s a difference between those criminals and those who’ve earned their money legitimately.
However, the “authorities” are adept at misdirecting class struggle to enrich themselves and increase their own power. Personally, I am not in favor of “taxing the rich” if those taxes are merely going to line the pockets of another class of rich people or government officials.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone in bed with the government (including banks, military contractors, etc) is part of the government, and it’s no secret how I feel about government. To me there is a vast difference between rich people who use their money for private purposes or philanthropy and those who use it to control others. To me the evil isn’t money, it’s control.
However, that isn’t the point; the point is that once we allow an “exception” to the government-restraining rules for “sex offenders”, or Jews, or communists, or “pornographers”, or “drug dealers”, or “terrorists”, or “racists”, or fill-in-the-blank, that exception will inevitably be expanded to include EVERYONE.
If you do or support “class struggle” in ANY form, you’re part of the problem (unless your target class is composed only of individuals who victimize others).
Susan: Anti-capitalist sex workers are not only mad about CEOs who gave themselves bonuses with bailout money, or con artists like Bernie Madoff. Anti-capitalist activists don’t differentiate between how “rich people” made their money, or take into account how the wealthy provide funding for so much stuff anti-capitalists would support: hospitals, the arts, environmentalist and animal causes, programs for disadvantaged children, the list goes on and on. (Not to mention how many activists rely on grants from foundations funded by the wealthy. It sure as shit isn’t the punk street protesters who are putting up the money to do things like find a cure for HIV or engineer efficient green energy technologies.)
A lot of visible sex worker activists in the US are left-wing anarchists and anti-capitalists. What they fail to see is that stirring up anti-“rich people” and anti-“money” sentiments is just shooting themselves in the foot. Though we all know there’s less money to be made in sex work than mainstream people assume, the fact is that sex workers are seen as rich and lazy, and that our money has been made unethically and that we don’t deserve it. Anti-“rich” sentiments are wielded against sex workers and sex businesses all the time, yet some sex workers believe that if someone *who is not them* is perceived as having “too much” money, then it should be confiscated and redistributed. Well, that’s exactly what’s happening with strip club taxes. People see strippers and club owners as exploitative and immoral and making “too much” money, and feel justified taking some of it.
When sex workers start down the path of, “anyone who I think has ‘too much’ money should have that money taken from them,” they better not act surprised when their exact same argument is used to pilfer cash from their own wallets.
What’s the difference between what libertarians do, blaming the government and the occupy movement blaming wealth people?
I mean every example you just cited was something the government plays a much larger and important role in.
The difference is – Libertarians are blaming the right people – the source of the problem.
Why does Wall Street invest so much money in political campaigns? Answer – because they know government has a strong influence over how capitalism is “run” in America. The bailout isn’t the investment banking industry’s fault – it’s the fault of a government that we’ve vested so much power in – they can take our money and give it (scott free) to anyone.
I know the occupy movement is pissed at the investment banks for taking the bailout money – but if I allow someone to have an advantage – can I really blame them for taking advantage of it?
The money came from government – had the money not been given by the government, then there would have been no bailout. Government needs to be restricted so that it cannot give out money like this. Banks should not get our money. Unions – should not get our money. Planned Parenthood – shouldn’t get our money. Public Broadcasting – should not get our money. Stop handing out money to ANYONE and you will stop this crony capitalist system where the banks get free money paid for by taxpayers.
But again, if you take the power to give money to people then you lose out on all that other things the government does. Just like taxing wealthy people would cost all the stuff they provided. What’s the difference?
And you pointed out that Wall street funds a lot of political campaigns, so they could be said to have started it in the first place.
Both groups give free passes to the part of the problem they like better.
There’s no debate that the problem lies with government. The occupy folks think it resides with the wealthy and they are wrong – because, as Furrygirl points out – not all capitalists are even remotely involved in the problem. Ford Motors refused a bailout – and, for their efforts – they are now shackled to labor contracts enforced upon them by their competitors – GM and Chrysler – because the government gave the unions large stakes in those two companies.
The only thing I want government to do is provide security for this nation (the United States), build interstate highways, regulate interstate commerce, and oversee the national parks. The Federal Government should also set certain minimum standards for civil rights for the states to follow. That’s it. I don’t want the government’s health care – because in order for government to GIVE me anything – it first has to TAKE from me and others. I don’t want the government’s social security – for the same reasons – and because it’s a sham anyway which only gives people a false sense of “security”. No one can “live” off social security and people would be better able to provide for themselves if they were forced to plan for their retirement without it. Families would take care of each other – the family unit would be stronger in this nation if government got out of the business of providing social “safety nets” – which are really just illusions of security anyway.
Beyond that – we have 50 states in this nation who can make all the social safety nets they wish to make. People overseas think the US has no comprehensive health care and, this is not true. Massachusetts has a universal health care system. I don’t like it – but if the people of Mass want it – more power to them. They should, however, pay for it themselves (which they currently aren’t doing). Other states have similar programs. Welfare – should be a STATE issue. I have no problems with states doing what their citizens desire – people who don’t like it can simply pick up and move to another state. That makes competition among the states – and competition is a good thing and improves the performance of everyone.
The Federal Government of the United States – does not – and never has had any competition – which is why it SUCKS so very badly and … “Occupy” and “Tea Party” both agree with that statement.
By only blaming one part, they ignore the fault of the corrupted business side of crony capitalism. Libertarians have a solution but they’re not identifying the problem any better than “Occupy”.
That solutions has some severe negatives, but I suppose there’s nothing wrong with trading those for principle.
It’s the government that allows businesses to function corruptly. Cure that and businesses are the same as you and I – SUBJECT to the law.
By the way – what about business is corrupt? Corrupt businessmen are forced to answer the law every day. Manipulating government in legal ways is NOT corruption.
Which is why I say that government is the problem – fix that and you will have neutralized capitalists who wish to capitalize on government.
Corrupt businessmen, before they get caught.
This is probably the core problem with libertarianism, the lack of attention paid to other, non-government forms of abuse. Now, I concede that they think that the law can handle those issues and nothing needs to be done to reform that.
But there is a reluctance in libertarian arguments to acknowledge those other forms. It’s like pulling teeth to get a libertarian to admit that maybe someone in the private sector has ever done anything wrong.
That’s why I never took libertarians until I encountered Maggie.
Methinks you’re confusing Objectivists (i.e. Ayn Rand followers) with libertarians. It is true that the former is a subset of the latter, but so are Southern Baptists only a subset of Christians. Most libertarians I know and read not only acknowledge that big businesses can be just as bad as governments, they decry cronyism and politicians enabling corrupt business practices (for example, Radley Balko’s excellent work on how cartels get politicians to establish licensing schemes so as to shut out competitors).
I might be, I thought regardless of whether or not they consider themselves objectivists, the majority of Libertarians had no major issues with any of her politics.
In fact, Atlas Shrugged itself had corrupt businessmen as villains no better than the government, so Ayn Rand herself brought up that problem.
Libertarians, as you pointed out, have a problem with “selfish morons” cloaking their evil behavior under libertarianism. Without doing more to acknowledge the culpability of big business in the financial crisis, libertarianism seems to have a dangerous weakness, as serious as some of the flaws of the Occupy movement.
What do you think of Ayn Rand?
I haven’t read enough Rand to make a valid judgment. I enjoyed both The Fountainhead and Anthem, and though I disagree with her on a few points, I otherwise largely agree with that portion of her philosophy presented in those two books, for example the point that collectives don’t create anything and the fact that control freaks often use fake concepts of altruism to dominate the masses.
As for the financial crisis, I honestly can’t see how failing to recognize the culpability of greedy banks is any worse than failing to acknowledge that the government started the ball rolling by applying asinine “equality of outcomes” practices in order to force small banks to give loans to people who couldn’t possibly pay them back. Why does only libertarianism have to be perfect, while collectivism is allowed to have gaping holes?
I don’t support the Occupy movement, so it having gaping holes doesn’t matter to me. It can just be wrong.
So, from an outsider position both can be wrong and neither side looks it’s any more workable than the other.
I didn’t mean Occupy; I meant the standard collectivist “big government is necessary and can solve social or economic problems” narrative peddled by both major parties and believed by at least 80% of Americans.
As an anti-capitalist retired sex worker, I see it like this: In our society, money is also power. Wall Street gives money to political campaigns because it buys the government Wall Street wants. The rich are treated differently under the law.
I don’t resent the rich, because they have money. I don’t resent Bill Gates. I do resent goons like GW Bush, born into wealth he never earned, and thus able to gather power he didn’t deserve.
Libertarians only have half the picture- Certainly, the government has too much control and power, but most average people spend a lot of their lives under the control of private capitalists, too. You can’t be free without addressing both.
And it’s not about how much money one makes, it’s about the ability to make money. Right now, most of that ability lies in the hands of the 1%, and they are intent on keeping it. To be free, society needs to see that that power belongs to everyone. Employee owned and co-op ownership of business ought to be the standard. We’d have a stronger, more sensible economy if it was. So remember, it’s not about money, but power.
@Comixchik – Right! And it’s not even about blaming individuals in power – it’s the structures that are designed to reinforce the power status quo.
Our financial system is designed to make money flow upwards – it has nothing to do with how people earned it in the first place, it’s how excess capital draws more capital to it in the form of interest, and other systemic mechanisms.
The whole system is a game of musical chairs, where, at each round someone has to lose – losing is inherent to the structure. And the more rounds you’ve won already, the greater the odds of your winning again – and in the end, it’s winner-take-all. Fine, maybe, for games – not so great for a functioning society.
And don’t say that those in power (whether political or financial – though it ultimately boils down to financial in any case) don’t use their power to reinforce structures that benefit them.
“…one cannot stand idly by while others’ rights are trampled…”
The fatal, classic mistake of non-conformists! I’m not a whore and have no interest in hiring one, but the persecution of whores is part of the attack against all non-conformists.
Even if you don’t agree with my views about breast shame and clitoral erectile dysfunction, we are fighting a common battle. http://sexhysteria.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/clitoral-erectile-dysfunction/
The comment thread was getting awkward, but I’d like to address your last point.
The non libertarian side holds that the failing of the government was not interfering enough with the market. They blame the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act rather than the CRA.
I want to try this next part in sort of libertarians terms. I came up with this idea as a thought experiment to illustrate the situation for a neutral description of the
other side.
Let’s call the other side to this argument the Control Freak Collective. Now the CFC has two halves which are in fact fundamentally opposed to each. This is a very sophisticated evolution of traditional CFC manipulation and indoctrination methods. The right side CFC oppress renegades and promote the “cult” of those lifestyles most compatible with CFC goals: soldiers, Work ethic types, fundamentalists. The left side CFC “flips” marginalized groups that organize themselves well enough to challenge the CFC by offering access to political power and organization. It also handles bribery, offering things like universal health care and generous pension plans to pacify groups closer to complying with CFC ideals. The crisis was a result of Libertarians and SMWCTL ( selfish morons who call themselves Libertarians) infiltrating the right side by taking advantage of the RSCFC venerating businessmen. They then made the market more free in the worse possible way, by removing the restrictions on lending standards just as people were beginning to relax their own in order to meet the sociological goals the CFC placed on them.
This is of course, much more subconscious than I made it sound.
There is no gaping holes in the collective position because they would have gotten away with it, were it not for those meddling Libertarians deregulating everything at the worst possible time.
Sorry if this seems weird, I like relating everything to guerrilla warfare, makes it feel cooler.
Also, is there any broad introductions to the sex worker rights issue. I was thinking it would be nice to have something to surmise all the relevant positions to advocacy in one link. Preferably on a site that has no form of erotic imagery because people are uncomfortable enough about that kind of thing and it would be in violation of many websites’ terms of usage.
One advantage of supporting the rights of pornographers, whores, or for that matter the rights of Klansmen or communists, is that when they do come for you, you can say, “Now hold up! If Larry Flynt and the frikkin’ KLAN gets to speak, I sure as hell get to!!”
If one is a stripper who thinks strippers are better than hookers, how nice to be able to say, when they come for the strippers, “If those whores can do what they do (ewww), then how you can ban me?”
But if those whores are illegal, then she doesn’t have that argument. So please, everybody, support the rights of those more icky than yourself.
Sarah Tressler is mentioned in the Independent today:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/journalist-sarah-tressler-is-sacked-after-her-secret-life-as-a-stripper-is-exposed-
7893589
“Sarah Tressler, a 30-year-old stripper who worked the gentlemen’s clubs of Houston, had a guilty secret: she earned a second income in the sordid world of newspaper journalism.”
She has a kindle book out now.
Brilliant! 😀
[…] that wisdom. One perfect example is the famous Martin Niemöller quote which begins, “First they came for the communists, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist…” I daresay few literate people in any Western country haven’t heard it, and most who have can […]
[…] porn, polyamory, BDSM or kink, because even though policing of sex usually starts with harlots, it never stops with us. We need all of the public health and human rights experts who understand the necessity of […]
[…] porn, polyamory, BDSM or kink, because even though policing of sex usually starts with harlots, it never stops with us. We need all of the public health and human rights experts who understand the necessity of […]