Suppose you were in a position of power and given the opportunity to improve living conditions for millions of people within your jurisdiction. Would you do it? What if this proposition would also control the spread of disease? Would a proposal that would also protect your people from abuse be welcomed? The charges would be minimal, with most costs being covered by the revenue generated by the plan itself. This scheme would also curb a good percentage of street violence, without rescinding any person’s civil liberties. The proposition I write about is the legalization of the work of Adult Service Providers – including prostitution.

“Adult Service Providers” is a blanket term, referring to escorts, erotic entertainers, adult film stars, prostitutes, brothel managers, and adult website managers. Treating this variety of work like any other business would enable the same standards to apply to the sex industry. If a legal adult chooses to become an Adult Service Provider, often known as a “sex worker”, he or she would have the right to do so. Just like other businesses, professions with sex workers would be subject to strict health regulations and standards. This factor would likely lead to a sharp decline in STI/STD and AIDS rates among sex workers (and, of course, among their clientele). Since sex workers and their executives would be under the same laws as other companies; verbal, sexual, and physical abuse laws would now be able to protect millions of men and women from said abuse. As a result of these adult oriented institutions now being subject to strict regulation, persons or institutions that traffic humans or illegally take advantage of minors would be discovered and punished easier.

The current laws against the sex industry are unacceptable, because, rather than attempting to actually fix many problems, they pretend that prohibition will actually end an industry known colloquially as “the world’s oldest business.” It has been well over 100 years since most laws prohibiting prostitution were enacted, laws that have stood only to clutter our judicial system and overfill our jails – while doing nothing to protect the freedom of Americans. In other words, these laws have not ended human trafficking, they have not lowered STI or AIDS rates among sex workers, nor have they prevented minors from being used in sexual exploits.

Furthermore, most harmful pieces of legislation prohibiting the work of Adult Service Providers are “feel good” laws – enactments that serve little purpose other than to seem favorable. The success of keeping traditionally scorned-behavior – prostitution, the use of recreational drugs, etc. – illegal is irrelevant because said laws are not measured by actual success, but by how “safe” the laws make most of its citizens feel – even if millions of Americans suffer in the process. These laws, in essence, take away adults’ rights to their own sexuality, privacy, and freedom. Furthermore, as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a 2007 explanation,

“Such laws [against prostitution] have traditionally represented one of the most direct forms of discrimination against women. The woman who engage[s] in prostitution is punished criminally and stigmatized socially while her male customer, either by the explicit design of the statute or through a pattern of discriminatory enforcement is left unscathed.”

Unfortunately, conservatives and many liberals actually staunchly support these “feel- good” laws, instead of the commonsense solution of legalization. Among liberals, feminists are debatably the most divided on this issue. Older feminists tend to disagree with the notions behind many sectors of the sex industry, due to its sexist tenancies, and are fine with its inadequate prohibition. However, many younger feminists (“third-wave feminists” recognize that the government should respect a sex worker’s choice in his or her own line of work. On the other side of the political spectrum, some libertarians have come out in support of legalizing the work of Adult Service Providers, but most self-identified conservatives want no change of the status quo. While President Obama has never addressed the issue, due to his repeated actions of backing-away from socially liberal views, one can guess that he would be no more progressive on this issue than Glenn Beck.

Americans need to ask themselves if they are ready to let go of their idealistic world view and start fixing the country. At the end of the day, the sex industry is not going away. We can either embrace it, therefore making America a safer place for all, or we can continue allowing this failed system to waste more time, money, and resources, while simultaneously destroying countless lives. The choice is up to us; for the sake of the nation, I hope we pick the right one.

[link]

15 Aspects That Must Be Recognized In Third-Wave Feminism
(Cross posted at Daily Kos)

The following is a incomplete list of my many thoughts, objections, and suggestions concerning the current state of feminism and where we should be headed. All of the following points could be expanded upon. They are listed in no particular order.

1. There must be a widespread understanding that feminism does apply to men. Therefore, men who stand up for feminist issues may, and should, be identified as feminist. It is counterproductive and hypocritical to discuss gender equality while simultaneously creating a double standard towards males who share feminist values.

(I think that the phrase "feminist male" should be dropped, as well. A feminist who identifies as female is never addressed as a "female feminist". A man who advocates for feminist ideology should have the same title as a woman who does the same. By buying into the system of calling a feminist who identifies as male a "male feminist", we reinforce the concept that there is something wrong with being a male AND a feminist.)

2. While transsexual acceptance and rights are an important aspect of third wave feminism, it must understood that not every person is as educated on the topic as some are. Unless clear transphobia (a bigoted attitude transsexuals) is exemplified, ignorance should be contacted with empathy and, bluntly, education. Feminist infighting only hurts the cause.

3. Fox "News", World Net Daily, CNS News, Drudge Report, and The Fox Nation are all unreliable, far-right, anti-feminist sources. While some feminists legitimately speak out against the mainstream media's approach to feminism (which is more times than not negative), we must understand that these sources are beyond saving. While more feminists should be encouraged to appear in these sources arguing for the benefits of feminism, feminists should simultaneously discourage the use of them for anything else.

4. Applying make-up, nail polish, shaving legs, and most other sexist, cosmetic double standards are NOT antitheses to being a feminist - the motivation behind the products are. While these products are all derived from the sexist ideal of a "perfect" woman, many women (and men, for that matter) enjoy these items; there's nothing wrong with that choice. However, there is an inherent problem when there is no choice involved. Feminists should be strongly encouraged to consider the motivations behind their habits but not castigated for living them out.

(This logic applies only to minor, mainstream cosmetics. Feminists should be weary
concerning breast implants, skin whitening creams, and vaginal rejuvenation.)

5. Feminists can be from any religion, race, creed, gender, socioeconomic class, country of origin, sexual orientation, relationship status, height, status of ability, experience or lifestyle. While some religions and lifestyles have very anti-feminist sentiments, accepting individuals of these communities will allow us to spread our message to even the most unlikely repentants. Feminism is about equality, not discrimination.

6. As feminists, we cannot allow sexism or objectification to happen to males, like it has to females. As embarrassing as Rush Limbaugh, Micheal Savage, or Bill O'Reilly and their visions of oppressed, white, straight, Christian males are, we must remember that white, straight, Christian, males need to be treated with the equality they deserve.

7. All women who are politicians, actresses, singers, CEO's, or in any position of power are NOT necessarily feminists. While feminism has enabled most of these women to suceed, that does not mean that they currently identify with it. Sarah Palin, Tila Tequila, Michelle Bachman, and Lady GaGa are not feminists due to their success.

8. Despite the Republican party's strong anti-feminist stances, being a member of the Republican party does not mean that one is inherently anti-feminist. Many economic conservatives hold strong feminist values. It hurts the feminist movement when possibly dedicated people are needlessly excluded.

9. Feminists must remember that men are sometimes the victims of sexual assault; not just women. Also, men are not always the assailant. While, statistically, women are usually raped by men at a much greater level, one must never forget that unconventional sexual assault is still sexual assault.

10. While one can be a feminist and personally oppose abortion, taking away a woman's right to choose is an inherently anti-feminist position. There are many people that are pro-choice, but would personally never condone or undergo an abortion procedure. This is a very controversial subject, however an extremely important one as well; feminists cannot be silent or waver on the issue of abortion.

11. In cases of rape, victim blaming is always unacceptable. However, over time, there multiple cases have occurred in which the "victim" has lied about being raped for personal gain. While these attacks are very, very infrequent, feminism must not be blind to their existence.

12. Feminism must be unafraid to call "fakers" out. Every time that Sarah Palin would call herself a feminist (before promptly contradicting herself), every time Tammy Bruce agrees with Bill O'Reilly, and every time plastic surgery is marketed as a "liberating" thing to do, real feminists must speak up! How can the true message of feminism reach the people if it is drowned out by all of these fake feminists?

13. Making sexist comments against men, in favor of women, is a directly un-feminist action. Whether it be a joke from a progressive, Dana Perino discussing the Mark Sanford affair, or anything else, these comments enforce gender stereotypes and are still sexist.

14. There is nothing wrong with choosing to live in a traditional lifestyle (being a stay-at-home mom, wearing a burqa, having the male in a heterosexual relationship be the breadwinner, etc.), but there are major problems with expecting it and castigating those who do not fit into it. This being said, people who choose to live in traditional lifestyles must respect others choices as well.

15. Reaching out to younger people is one of the most important actions that third-wave feminists need to accomplish. Many myths about feminism - "feminism is irrelevant", "feminists are sexist against men", "feminism is only for women", etc. -are accepted as truth to an alarming number of young people. If feminists hope to keep the movement alive, then young people must have exposure to feminist ideologies.

Why exactly does Fox "News" have a "Maxim Monday"?

[link]
[link]
[link]

It seems frivolous and hypocritical of a "news" station so devout to promoting "conservative family values" to be sponsored by Maxim magazine. As Media Matters has documented, Fox has a history of this inappropriate behavior:

[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link]
[link] (Why exactly is Fox [Out Of] Business Channel even covering this story? What does it have to do with business news!)
[link]

Now, yes, sex does sell; truthfully Fox isn't the only station to do this:
[link]


Still, why does the media - mostly Fox - choose to go down this road? Do we - as a society - really need to objectify women to make people watch the news?

She was asked for her opinion - and she gave it. Everyone has an opinion and she was asked for hers.

Now, just like many opinions, hers does NOT stand up to scrutiny - she said that one could "choose gay marriage" which would only be true in 4 states. Unless of course she was repeating the myth/talking point/lie that being non-heterosexual is a "choice", which also does not stand up to psychological scrutiny.

However, "Perez Hilton" is also a trouble maker. Calling her a "bitch" and a "cunt" was not only sexist, but it was unintelligent. He is also NOT an LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) activist by any stretch of the meaning and should not pretend to be (and the media should not act like he is one). He is a blogger - and a lame one at that.

On another note, Miss California was NOT denied the title of "Miss USA" because of her homophobic views. The right-wing will blame Perez Hilton and say that his agenda blocked her win, but this is not true. It has been revealed that she would not have won, even if she was not a bigot.

However, I do find it amusing that a woman who believes that same-sex marriage is a threat to marriage and society (which the Republicans have failed time and time again to prove) and a woman who preaches “family values”, not only has fake breast implants, but she has numerous naked pictures of herself floating around online!

Furthermore, no one mentions the fact that her call to fame was walking around on a stage with less than 6 square inches of clothing on. If she – and the right-wing – wish to discuss what is detrimental to society, let us take a look at the whole “Miss USA” pageant. Pushing women to fit a borderline anorexic body size? Making them trot around on stage like objects in minuscule outfits? Pushing women to be more concerned with their looks then their intelligence? (Especially in the case of Miss California.) Sounds pretty nightmarish to me.

No conflict in recent years has separated Americans quite like the issue of abortion. The abortion debate has spiritual, political, and moral implications. Despite the Supreme Court ruling Roe v. Wade in 1973, abortion remains a hot button issue for many people in America. But what specifically is an abortion? What remains legal and illegal in the United States? Is abortion just a fancy word for murder, or is it a safe, legal medical procedure, or both?
An abortion is an operation to remove an embryo or a fetus from a women to terminate a pregnancy. During the late 1960's and early 1970's, people began to rally against abortion in mass numbers, labeling the procedure as “murder of an unborn child”. The Roe v. Wade ruling said that it was unconstitutional to bar women from undergoing an abortion, thereby legalizing abortion in every state. In the 1989 case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, the Supreme Court decided that each state government had its right to choose whether to allow funds to go to clinics that provide abortion services. These two court decisions opened the door for the anti-choice rebellion to attempt to chip away at our current laws concerning abortion.
The concept of a fetus or an embryo being labeled as a “human being” has been disputed by many doctors and scientists. Embryologists' research shows that an embryo is merely a collection of cells. The cells divide to eventually, over the course of eight to ten months, create a human being. However, the embryo is considered merely a ball of cells when it is in its early stages of the pregnancy and a fetus only has a few of the major functions associated with a living, breathing human being. Before this stage, the female egg has just been fertilized by the male sperm. At this time, there has been no set plan for the egg. Statistically, the majority of fertilized eggs end up as miscarriages and never make it past the first few stages. Still, it remains inconceivable that cells, merely dividing as directed by their DNA, could possess a mind or feel pain in the same way that grown human beings can. These medical facts seemingly contradict the Christian bible and many other religious texts, causing much argument.
While abortion must remain legal until Roe v. Wade is overturned, the opponents of abortion will stop at nothing to limit the availability of abortions. In 2003, Congress passed the Federal Abortion Ban, banning abortions from being performed after 12 weeks of a pregnancy. Currently, 19 states have laws that stop federally mandated clinics from even suggesting abortion to women. In thirty-three states, women who rely on federal health care are not allowed to receive an abortion. In 43 states, women who are under the legal age of adulthood are not permitted to receive an abortion without a parent or guardian's consent. In early 2009, President Barack Obama reversed the “International Gag Rule” during his first week in office. This legislation banned the United States from funding charitable organizations overseas if their clinics provided abortions.
Recently, the government of North Dakota has taken steps to completely ban abortion. This ban, which is illegal under federal law, will not only ban abortion, but certain types of contraceptives as well. While the bill still needs to pass that state’s Senate, chances look good for its success. Republican Governor John Hoeven, the North Dakota House, and the North Dakota Senate were all classified as anti-choice by NARAL, the biggest pro-choice association in America. The American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL, and the Obama administration have not yet commented on this disastrous situation, but Planned Parenthood has. “[The North Dakota abortion ban] is dangerous, far reaching and allows the government, not women and families, to make critical decisions about health care,” said Sarah Stoesz, President of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota.
Abortion should be legal to everyone without restriction, for it is every human being’s choice to make moral decisions. People who are against abortion would still be able to keep a child or give him or her away for adoption under current laws. If the religious right feels strongly about abortion, why do they continually attempt to change the laws rather than educate people of their beliefs? Teaching people about one’s beliefs is a better solution than painting liberals as “baby killers”, boycotting charities that provide abortion as one of many helpful services to the impoverished, and even bombing abortion clinics. Furthermore, the anti-choice side must cease their assault on scientifically and medically accepted facts; no matter how hard they believe that an embryo is the same as a human, that does not make it so. The Government should not intervene in women's lives to the extent of removing reproductive rights. Politicians and priests are neither doctors nor scientists, so why should they be making decisions as if they were? Abortion has never been an easy decision to make, but with her intellect, her family, her doctor, and her friends, a woman will make the right decision. Some people may abuse the system, overlooking easier and safer means of birth control, but these select few should not disable everyone else from the right to abortion.