GaneshaFish.com » sexual politics

Romantic Advice

jfischer1975 — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 18:28:55 +0000

This article was originally published on The Legal Satyricon

3d Circuit: “No child porn charges in sexting case”

jfischer1975 — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:41:23 +0000

The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit handed down its decision this week in the Pennsylvania “sexting” case, in which a prosecutor threatened to press child porn charges against a group of teenage girls for sending cell phone pictures of themselves in bras and underwear. You can read the infamous J. DeVoy’s anti-gender-bias coverage of the oral arguments here. In upholding the preliminary injunction requested by the girls’ parents, the Third has declared that District Attorney George P. Skumanick, Jr., cannot use the threat of prosecution to bully them into a court-ordered “re-education” program. (source)

While education may be the right medicine (if you believe that there’s some disease), that decision is for the teens and their parents to make — not some jackass, let’s-think-outside-the-box DA who thinks he somehow knows what’s best. As much as I hate the ACLU for politically motivated meddling in the other direction, for once I’m glad they’re helping these families file a civil rights claim against Mr. Skumanick. (Read that complaint here.)

This article was originally posted on The Legal Satyricon

Anonymous Hooker Blogger Outed

jfischer1975 — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:23:07 +0000

If you’re a fan of Showtime‘s adult series “Secret Diary of a Call Girl” (or even if you aren’t), you may be interested to know that the real-life anonymous author of the blog and book that inspired the series went public earlier this week. (Source)

Dr. Brooke Magnanti, Ph.D. in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science, in an interview with The Times, talks candidly about how she got into the biz of having sex for money.

Dr. Brooke Magnanti
(a.k.a. Belle du Jour)

I was finishing my writing — I was getting ready to submit my thesis. I saved up a bit of money. I thought, I’ll just move to London, because that’s where the jobs are, and I’ll see what happens. So I did. I submitted the thesis but I was still preparing for the viva — there was quite a lot of writing and studying still to do.

I couldn’t find a professional job in my chosen field because I didn’t have my PhD yet. I didn’t have a lot of spare time on my hands because I was still making corrections and preparing for the viva; and I got through my savings a lot faster than I thought I would. The difference between living in the Highlands and living in London is massive. I hadn’t really thought that one through.

I have a pathological aversion to being in debt. My mother’s family are Jewish; there’s this hoarding thing, saving, being prepared — if you’re in debt somebody could come and knock at your door and take it all away tomorrow. It got to the point where I didn’t have quite enough money for my rent. I asked my best friend if I could borrow some money and he posted me a cheque.

I was looking at this cheque. It wasn’t even the total of my rent; it was a quarter of it or something, some stupidly low amount like £120. I thought, ‘But once I deposit this cheque, I’ll still need money for next month.’ And I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t borrow this money knowing that I couldn’t pay it back and that I’d need more pretty much straightaway. And that was when I started to think: what can I do that I can start doing straightaway, that doesn’t require a great deal of training or investment to get started, that’s cash in hand and that leaves me spare time to do my work in? (Source)

The Times article, while a little on the long side, is still worth the read. It discusses, in some detail, how Belle du Jour has *disproved* some of the time-honored preconceptions about the world’s oldest profession. One of the reasons that she gives for coming forward is that so many doubt her story, claiming that it must be fiction. How could a prostitute actually feel empowered by her career choice? Even claim to enjoy the work?

When asked about whether she thought being a prostitute hurt her emotionally, Dr. Magnanti answers “I’ve felt worse about my writing than I ever have about sex for money.” Somewhere, Andrea Dworkin is screaming in anguish, rolling over in her grave.

H/T Odie

How Much is Your Virginity Worth?: Lessons in Economics and Federalism

jfischer1975 — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 14:35:42 +0000

A twenty-two year old Nevada woman has placed her virginity up for grabs in an online auction, where the bidding has reportedly reached over $3.7 million. The transaction has caught the attention of some religious groups, who would like the federal government to intervene. However, because prostitution is legal in the state of Nevada, this particular sale of personal services will not be stopped, even though it may be advertised on the Internet – which can be accessed in states where prostitution is illegal.

One astute legal scholar had this to say about the matter:

It’s a First Amendment issue. You can advertise goods or services that are illegal where they’re advertised but legal where they’re performed. What’s she’s advertising is as legal as toast with the crust cut off where she is. (source)

* * *

WARNING, RANT ALERT

(what follows is the individual opinion of the author)

Here again, we have the latest example of some whackjob in the Bible belt confusing legality with morality. In case you, the reader is confused, they are not always the same thing, and arguably never should be – at least at the federal level.

The idea here is that “morality” is another word for the standards of a particular community. Those standards are subjective, i.e., everyone has their own idea of what is moral and what isn’t, and no one is wrong for having a different idea than their next-door neighbor – with a couple of rare exceptions, like pedophiles. Generally, you can get a group of people together who agree on a particular moral standard, regarding a particular issue. However, the larger you make the group, the less likely it is that the group will agree, and there’s no really good reason why 51% of the people should be able to dictate their subjective idea of what is moral to the other 49%.

In the United States, our system of government was designed to reflect this reality. Local governments (e.g., state, county, city, homeowners association, etc.) are the ones in the best position to, if it is absolutely necessary, pass a law/regulation that is based on the morality of the community that those governments represent. Our federal government should not ever be taking action based on some perceived moral standard. The above-described news item illustrates this point quite well.

The community of people that live in the state of Nevada have decided for themselves that prostitution is okay. They have chosen to elect officials who recognize this particular moral standard, and those officials have enacted legislation that reflects that standard. The people of Nevada are free to change their minds and elect new officials who might change the law. This scenario accurately depicts the dream of our Founders.

Outrage over some “spillage” of immorality into other communities is a weak excuse for demanding some sweeping federal standard that is contrary to the laws of Nevada. The First Amendment was written specifically to prevent this type of thing. If you don’t like it, don’t look at it – you are free to make the decision for yourself. Have the courtesy to let the rest of us do the same – for ourselves.

This story was originally published on The Legal Satyricon.