Beautiful Justice: Left of Porn

By Ben Barker / Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin

This essay was originally published in the Fall 2013 edition of Voice Male.

If the fight against pornography is a radical one, where are the radicals fighting against pornography?

Earlier this year, the 18th annual Bay Area Anarchist Bookfair, an event that brings together radical activists from around the world, was held at the headquarters and production facility of so-called “alternative” porn company, Kink.com.

Kink.com is known for its unique brand of torture porn.  As Gail Dines reports, women are “stretched out on racks, hogtied, urine squirting in their mouths, and suspended from the ceiling while attached to electrodes, including ones inserted in their vaginas.” But to grasp the agenda of Kink.com, we can just go to the source: founder Peter Acworth started the company after devoting his life to “subjecting beautiful, willing women to strict bondage.”

When the Anarchist Bookfair announced its choice of venue, feminists were outraged. The few who were billed to speak during the event dropped out. But ultimately, the decision was defended, the outcry lashed back against, and the show went on.

Anarchists are my kind of people—or so I thought. When I first discovered the radical Left some eight years ago, I thought I’d stumbled on the revolution. The rhetoric seemed as much: brave, refreshing demands for human rights, equality, and liberation; a steadfast commitment to struggle against unjust power, however daunting the fight.

It wasn’t long, though, before my balloon of hope burst. To the detriment of my idealism and trust, the true colors of my radical heroes began to show.

Pornography was then and is now one such let down. Over the years, I’ve bounced between a diversity of groups on the radical Left: punks, Queers, anarchists, and many in between. But wherever I went, porn was the norm.

Here’s the latest in radical theory: “We’re seventeen and fucking in the public museum. I’m on my knees with your cock in my mouth, surrounded by Mayan art and tiger statues. Our hushed whispers and frenzied breathing becomes a secret language of power. And us, becoming monstrous, eating-whole restraint and apology. The world ruptures as we come, but it isn’t enough. We want it all, of course—to expropriate the public as a wild zone of becoming-orgy, and to destroy what stands in our way.” I’m sad to report that this quote, and the book it comes from, reflects one of the most increasingly popular of the radical subcultures.

Conflating perversion and revolution is nothing new. We can trace the trend all the way back to the 1700s in the time of the Marquis de Sade, one of the earliest creators and ideologues of pornography (not to mention pedophilia and sadomasochism).

Sade was famous for his graphic writings featuring rape, bestiality, and necrophilia. Andrea Dworkin has called his work “nearly indescribable.” She writes, “In sheer quantity of horror, it is unparalleled in the history of writing. In its fanatical and fully realized commitment to depicting and reveling in torture and murder to gratify lust, it raises the question so central to pornography as a genre: why? why did someone do . . . this? In Sade’s case, the motive most often named is revenge against a society that persecuted him. This explanation does not take into account the fact that Sade was a sexual predator and that the pornography he created was part of that predation.” Dworkin also notes that “Sade’s violation of sexual and social boundaries, in his writings and in his life, is seen as inherently revolutionary.”

Despite all they seem to share in common, most of today’s radicals actually don’t revere the Marquis de Sade. Rather, they look to his followers; namely, one postmodern philosopher by the name of Michel Foucault, no small fan of Sade, whom he famously dubbed a “dead God.”

Foucault’s ideas remain some of the most influential within the radical Left. He has catalyzed more than one generation with his critiques of capitalism, his rallying cries for what he calls “social war,” and his apparently subversive sexuality. Foucault, who in fact lamented that the Marquis de Sade had “not gone far enough,” was determined to push the limits of sexual transgression, using both philosophy and his own body. His legacy of eroticizing pain and domination has unfortunately endured.

So where are the radicals in this fight against pornography? The answer depends on who we call radical. The word radical means “to the root.” Radicals dig to the roots of oppression and start taking action there—except, apparently, when it comes to the oppression of women. How radical is it to stop digging half way for the sake of getting off?

What is called the radical Left today isn’t really that. It’s radical in name only and looks more like an obscure collection of failing subcultures than any kind of oppositional movement. But this is the radical Left we have, and this one, far from fighting it, revels in porn.

Just as we need to wrest our culture from the hands of the pornographers, we need to wrest our political movements from the hands of the sexists. Until we do that, so-called “radical” men will continue to prop up sexual exploitation under the excusing banner of freedom and subversion.

This male-dominated radical Left is expressly anti-feminist. In a popular and obscene anarchist essay, “Feminism as Fascism,” the author—who is male, need I mention—ridicules feminists for drawing any connection whatsoever between porn and violence against women. He concludes that feminism—rather than, say, the multi-billion dollar porn industry—is a “ludicrous, hate-filled, authoritarian, sexist, dogmatic construct which revolutionaries accord an unmerited legitimacy by taking it seriously at all.”

I’ve ceased to be surprised at the virulent use and defense of porn by supposedly radical—and even “anti-sexist”—men. The two have always seemed to me to go hand-in-hand.

My first encounter with radicals was at a punk rock music show in the basement of a stinky party house. I stood awkwardly upstairs, excited but shy. Amidst the raucous crowd, a word caught my ear: “porn.” Then, another word: “scat.” Next, the guys were huddling around a computer. And I was confused . . . until I saw.

More sophisticated than the punks, the anarchist friends I made a few years later used big words to justify their own porn lust. Railing against what they deem censorship, anarchists channel Foucault in imagining themselves a vanguard for free sexual expression, by which they really mean, men’s unbridled entitlement to the use and abuse of women’s bodies. And any who take issue with this must be, as one anarchist put it, “uncomfortable with sex” or—and I’m not making this up—“enemies of freedom.”

The Queer subculture puts the politics of sexual libertarianism into practice. Anything “at odds with the ‘normal’ or legitimate” becomes fair game. One Queer theorist explained in specifics: “Sleaze, perversion, deviance, eccentricity, weirdness, kinkiness, BDSM and smut . . . are central to sex-positive queer anarchist lives,” she wrote. As the lives of the radicals I once counted as comrades began to confirm and give testament to this centrality, I abandoned ship.

Pornography is a significant part of radical subcultures, whether quietly consumed or brazenly paraded. That it made me uncomfortable from the beginning did not, unfortunately, deter me from trying it myself. It seems significant though, that, despite growing up as a boy in a porn culture, my first and last time using porn was while immersed in this particular social scene. Who was there to stop me? With all semblances of feminist principles tossed to the wind, who was there to steer me from the hazards of pornography and towards a path of justice?

The answer is no one. Why? Because the pornographers control the men who control the radical Left. Women may be kept around in the boy’s club—or boy’s cult—but only to be used in one way or another; never as full human beings. How is it a male radical can look honestly in the face of a female comrade and believe her liberation will come through being filmed or photographed nude?

I have a dear neighbor who says, “There’s nothing progressive about treating women like dirt; that’s just what happens already.” My neighbor has little experience in the radical Left, but apparently bounds more common sense than most individuals therein. She, along with many ordinary people I’ve chatted with, have a hard time believing—let alone understanding—that people who think of themselves as radical could actually embrace and defend something as despicable as pornography. If the basic moral conscience of average people allows them to grasp the violence and degradation inherent in porn, we have to ask: what’s wrong with the radical Left?

In a way, this let down is predictable. From ideologues like Sade and Foucault, to the macho rebellion of punk bands like the Sex Pistols, to the anarchist-endorsed Kink.com, justice—for women and for all—has been a periphery goal at best for countercultural revolutionaries. Of vastly greater priority is this notion of transgression, an attempt at “sexual dissidence and subversion which challenges the symbolic order,” the devout belief that anything not considered “normal” is radical by default.

I can’t speak for you, but there are plenty of things that I think deserve not to be seen as normal. Take Kink.com, for example. Despite the cheerleading of shock value crusaders, I don’t really care how many cultural boundaries the company believes itself to be transgressing; tying up and peeing on another human being is simply wrong. If this sentiment gets me kicked out of some sort of radical consensus, so be it.

What is transgressive for some is business-as-usual oppression for others. As Sheila Jeffreys explains, “Transgression is a pleasure of the powerful, who can imagine themselves deliciously naughty. It depends on the maintenance of conventional morality. There would be nothing to outrage, and the delicious naughtiness would vanish, if serious social change took place. The transgressors and the moralists depend mutually upon each other, locked in a binary relationship which defeats rather than enables change.” Transgression, she contests, “is not a strategy available to the housewife, the prostituted woman, or the abused child. They are the objects of transgression, rather than its subjects.”

Being radical is a process, not an outcome. To be radical means keeping our eyes on justice at every instance, in every circumstance. It means maintaining the agenda of justice when picking our issues and the strategy and tactics we use to take them on. Within a patriarchy, men cannot be radical without fighting sexism. This is to say that radical activism and pornography are fundamentally at odds. Where are the radicals fighting porn? The ones worth the name are already in the heat of battle, and on the side of justice, whether or not it gets us off.

As for the rest, we’re going to have to make them. As the current radical Left self-destructs under the crushing grip of misogyny—as it already is and inevitably will—it is up to us to gather from the rubble whatever fragmented pieces of good there are left. And it is up to us to forge those pieces into a genuinely radical alternative.

Women have been doing this work for a long time. But it is by and for men that women’s lives are stolen and degraded through pornography. And it is by and for men that the radical Left colludes with this injustice. So it must now be men—the ones with any sense of empathy or moral obligation left—who take final responsibility for stopping it. Women have already mapped out the road from here to justice. Men simply need to get on board.

It’s no easy task taking on the cult of masculinity from the inside, but it’s a privileged position in comparison to being on the outside and, thus, its target. And this cult needs to be dismantled. Men need to take it down inside and out, from the most personal sense to the most global.

Men can start small by boycotting porn in our own lives, both for the sake of our individual sexualities and for the sake of the many women undoubtedly suffering for its production. Through images of dehumanized women, pornography dehumanizes also the men who consume them.

Individual rejection of pornography is necessary, but social change has always been a group project. Men must put pressure on other men to stop supporting, and at the very least stop participating in, sexual exploitation. We can demand our movements and organizations outspokenly oppose it. We can disavow them if they refuse.

As it stands, it’s hard to tell apart the radical Left and porn culture at large. Both are based on the same rotten lie: women are objects to be publicly used.

As it falls, the male-dominated radical Left can be replaced by something new and so desperately needed: a feminist, anti-pornography radical Left. Its goal: not the transgression of basic human rights, but the uncompromising defense of them.

Beautiful Justice is a monthly column by Ben Barker, a writer and community organizer from West Bend, Wisconsin. Ben is a member of Deep Green Resistance and is currently writing a book about toxic qualities of radical subcultures and the need to build a vibrant culture of resistance. He can be contacted at benbarker@riseup.net.

23 thoughts on “Beautiful Justice: Left of Porn”

  1. Slow clap. You have spoken to the heart and soul of this insane culture. May this article soar like an eagle across the web!

    There is another sexual world besides that which takes pleasure in subordination and dehumanization, but this world cannot be inhabited without dismantling what has colonized the vast majority of modern males…

    This article is so well written, yet difficult to read. Torture porn, disposable females, and hate speech has been a problem for many decades – but digital culture has mushroomed it, and the nightmare is very close to our hearts. Thank you Ben, for speaking to it as-it-is, and helping bring the writhing mess to undeniable light on the Left.

  2. “women are objects to be publicly used.”
    Just say publicly fucked.
    And also posting erotic porn is not wise as a male pro-feminist. When you do this you are just triggering many women to have sexual responses from that depiction of rape.

    Also… why don’t you also tell men to just stop fucking women in general? They are gonna watch porn because they think that PIV sex is okay. In their minds this makes women forever holes. These men feel empowered through watching women be raped, because they are also rapists.

    I’m just saying, just because men don’t watch porn, doesn’t mean they aren’t going to rape us.

  3. True; the porn industry preys upon, objectifies, dehumanizes women. But let’s be clear, sex itself is also under attack from pornography; the commodification of something natural.

    Hang on now… what about sex workers? Hmmmmmm. Something to think about. Or better yet, ask sex workers about. (there are plenty of essays by sex workers out there on the web, you don’t have to actually [heaven forbid] SPEAK with a sex worker)

    This essay lumps a whole lot of sex into “anti-woman” acts. I am not really sure what sex is left over, but my first impression is any-sex-the-author-condones, is the definition of what constitutes “good” sex. Nice try.

    The attack on pornography as an industry which feeds on exploitation and dehumanization of women is to be applauded. And indeed, any industry is driven by consumption. I like what the neighbor said; “There’s nothing progressive about treating women like dirt; that’s just what happens already.”

    Should we (men) tell women, radical or not, what is appropriate for them? You know; for their own good. Should we let them know that if they have some desire that in some way, shape or form resembles anything like, “Sleaze, perversion, deviance, eccentricity, weirdness, kinkiness, BDSM and smut,” they are in imminent danger of being objectified or dehumanized? Let’s see… bondage makes you anti-revolutionary, but a slap on the butt doesn’t. No wait, can’t have the slap, because that is violent. Let’s try to draw the line somewhere else… If you film it, it’s bad, but otherwise it’s ok. No, that won’t work, because, you know; rape. It’s only bad if there is an exchange of money! (oh wait, those pesky sex workers again…) That won’t work either.

    Did it dawn upon the author that imposed definitions of what is “right” or “wrong” onto the bodies of women (and men for that matter) is as abhorrent whether those impositions are kinky or they are not? Let me repeat that word; Imposed. There is nothing revolutionary about insisting pornography is revolutionary. However, there is nothing revolutionary about insisting it is NOT.

    Lest there is any confusion, this comment is NOT in defense of pornography. At all. This is criticism of the author’s moral authority.

    Informed consent. Adults (1, 2, 3 or more!) taking the time to understand what is desired, why, how and if they really want to, and then; engaging in acts from their own volition, expressing their own desires, without demand or expectation.

    Yes, the author is kicked out of my radical consensus. Because the author assumes to know what should or should not be seen as “normal.”

    As a male feminist I say this; no man has the right to tell a woman what she should or should not enjoy. That is her business. At most, I will share my opinion at her request.

    As a radical I say this; no person has the right to tell another what they should or should not enjoy in order to “qualify” as radical.

    If we are going “to the root” of oppression, then perhaps we should look at the roots of coercion. (pro-tip: coercion and judgement are best buddies)

    I do not know the author or the group with which he works. However, it appears from this essay that he chooses to hang out with people who “know what’s best” for the rest of us. Both women and men.

    How radical is that?

    1. I tried to say something like this, but with an actual radical feminist perspective which Ben doesn’t truly represent, but says to .

      “Did it dawn upon the author that imposed definitions of what is “right” or “wrong” onto the bodies of women (and men for that matter) is as abhorrent whether those impositions are kinky or they are not? Let me repeat that word; Imposed. There is nothing revolutionary about insisting pornography is revolutionary. However, there is nothing revolutionary about insisting it is NOT.

      Violence is wrong. Orgasm attached to it or not. No one on the receiving end truly enjoys the pain someone inflicts on them, it is a trained reaction to have sexual arousal from it.

      Stating that pornography is not and has never been revolutionary can be revolutionary. Aren’t your contradicting everything you just said by stating that it isn’t?

      “Kinky” ahh, kinky is a euphemism for violent. They call it kinky to make it sound like something it is not, which is violence. Nice try.

      1. “kinky is a euphemism for violent.”

        No.

        Kinky is a subjective term. There are some people who view cunnilingus as kinky. Others view dressing up like stuffed animals as kinky. Neither of those acts are violent. However, coercing (emotionally, physically, economically, etc.) someone into cosplay or oral sex is certainly violent. Indeed, coercing someone into any form of sex is violent. See: date rape. (of course, some kinks ARE violent. I do not mean to say that there are no violent kinks, and some people do indeed use the word as an euphemism. But I do not.)

        Additionally, how can you or I know how any other person experiences pain or pleasure? That is hugely assumptive. I know from my own experience that some forms of what is considered “pleasurable” stimulation can be painful for me. Does the theory of “trained reaction” apply? If I can experience pleasure as pain, is it not possible that someone else can experience pain as pleasure? Furthermore, if an individual is indeed experiencing a trained reaction to painful stimulus, should it not be their choice to determine when and where to engage or not engage in that act? The revolutionary aspect, is the agency of the individual to embrace or reject according to their specific need at any given time.

        What I said about pornography and revolution lies in the insistence. INSISTING that it either is, or is not, revolutionary, is where I take issue. Who are the people who get to decide what is and is not revolutionary? This reminds me of the very structures of oppression being apposed. Some people taking the liberty to INSIST (and coerce) others conform to their standards of what is right and wrong. That is not to say that there is no revolutionary analysis of pornography. In my opinion the analysis is directed to what drives pornography, and not the acts depicted.

        “Violence is wrong.” Really? Always? Should I discover someone committing rape, I assure you, I will quickly become very violent in defense of the victim. Female or male. Is that wrong?

        I think part of what bothers me about this is equating the act with the institution. How any person expresses their sexuality (assuming it is consensual for all involved) is their business and nobody else’s. Simultaneously, there is real abuse occurring through porn. My point is that the nature of the act is not an indicator of whether abuse is present or not. Two teenagers in the backseat of a car, fumbling through their first sexual experience could be much more abusive (again: date rape) than a full blown BDSM scene with leather and whips. Or vise versa. What defines the abuse is the relationship between the participants. Is someone complying due to fear? Or are all participants equally empowered to be there or not be there.

        All that being said, the systems and institutions which drive pornography are oppressive. You know what I mean; patriarchy, capitalism, sexism… all the “archys” and “isms” that defeat human agency. Any time that a person is subjected to dehumanization in order to feed themselves, or to find acceptance in a group; that must be undone. However, vilifying people for their kink is not a step in that direction.

      2. “No.

        Kinky is a subjective term. There are some people who view cunnilingus as kinky. Others view dressing up like stuffed animals as kinky. Neither of those acts are violent. However, coercing (emotionally, physically, economically, etc.) someone into cosplay or oral sex is certainly violent. Indeed, coercing someone into any form of sex is violent. See: date rape. (of course, some kinks ARE violent. I do not mean to say that there are no violent kinks, and some people do indeed use the word as an euphemism. But I do not.)”

        Nope. Kinky= involving or given to unusual sexual behavior.

        By unusual sexual behavior, in porn, and in your OP, kink refers to violent acts “Sleaze, perversion, deviance, eccentricity, weirdness, kinkiness, BDSM and smut,”. Sado-masochism, and fetishes.

        Pornographers call violence kink.

        “Additionally, how can you or I know how any other person experiences pain or pleasure? That is hugely assumptive. I know from my own experience that some forms of what is considered “pleasurable” stimulation can be painful for me. Does the theory of “trained reaction” apply? If I can experience pleasure as pain, is it not possible that someone else can experience pain as pleasure? Furthermore, if an individual is indeed experiencing a trained reaction to painful stimulus, should it not be their choice to determine when and where to engage or not engage in that act? The revolutionary aspect, is the agency of the individual to embrace or reject according to their specific need at any given time.”

        Wow. Try shoving a dildo up your arsehole and tell me what you feel. Your obviously not a radical since you are saying that personal experience and choice is more important than compulsively and constructed heterosexuality causing sexual stimuli.

        WOMEN DON’T HAVE AGENCY. MEN DO.

        I generally don’t care to read what else you have written. So I’ll stop here. *Yawn*

        Also, you’re not FEMINIST. NOT A FEMINIST. lol, but it’s hilarious you think you are.

  4. THE MAIN RESPONSABLES ARE: UNITED NATIONS, GOVERMENTS, POLITICIANS AND INTERNET SUPPORTS. ALL MEN IN THIS WAR AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN!

  5. Thanks for writing this. I found this as a re-blog on another site. As I wrote to her, I’m glad to see a man talking about these issues. As you say, eroticizing male dominance is so not radical. It is sooo the norm. And as John Stoltenberg points out the alleged freedom of the Marquis de Sade and his ilk is really only the freedom of the powerful against the powerless, whose freedom is taken away. Typically, the freedom of more powerful men against less powerful women and children. And power even in terms of directing how we see the world–defining this issue through a patriarchal male perspective.

  6. So, there are lots of people debating right and wrong…

    I am just going to drop tidbits to nosh on so here we go. Assimilate later as you will.

    Action takes root in thought. All action. Good or bad. Think about that for a wee bit.

    Now imagine this: your mother is staying at a hotel on a road trip. She travels alone and midway through the night a hotel employee gets in and forces her to sleep with him. Maybe he beats her maybe he doesnt. Unless you absolutely hate your mother or if you mentally blocked the emotional response you anticipated from the scenario–in reality youd want to kill the mother f**ker {no pun intended} who ruined the forseeable future for your otherwise vigorous matriarch. Even if you watch rape porn you probably would still want to mame or kill the person who did the same to your mother.

    New thought: Lots of women in the porn industry are willing partcipants initially(need money, rebelling, something to prove, really like sex) but because there is a gray area created, many end up in situations they regret or feel dehumanized (this is from direct accounts and testimonies).

    The problem I have with porn is what it inspires in the hearts and minds in our society. Do all porn watchers rape? Nope. But are they less likely to draw the line from porn to rape because it interferes woth their personal “freedom” or viewing pleasure? Im pretty sure yes.

    Anudder thot: Say Suzie Q is a pornographic performer “working her way through college” and ends up shooting a rape scene that is available online. She did it for money, whatever, moved on. Say Suzie Q’s little sister is in high school and a group of boys see big sister’s film on the web. They tease little Q and after a football game and on her walk home decide she “wants to walk in her sisters footsteps.” Don’t knitpick the scenario, it was jut to set up the questions: Is Suzie Q a proponent of ACTUAL rape? Is Suzie Q going to side with her sister’s attackers because her sister shouldnt be bothered by what happened? Is it less of a crime if people pretend to do it on screen? If Suzie Q knew her sister would get raped would she have still so glibly performed her bit? Does Suzie Q have outrageous rage and guilt over the connection? Twist: Little Qs attackers never saw Suzie Qs video but saw another one. Ask all the same questions as the previous scenario. Some of the questions seem stupid and honestly Im typing on my phone with two thumbs and am trying to hurry–BUT the ramifications are universally detrimental regardless of the “freedoms” you tout. Rape is not okay and porn inflates and cultivates the lust and desire for POWER that numbs people a little or a lot and shortening the distance between seen fantasy and lived fantasy. I doubt any porn star wants its viewers to go attack people in alley ways or back bedrooms at parties.

    I am neither feminist not mysogenist–Im humanist. Honestly, men get raped too and have NO voice in our society. Im glad to hear men stand up and be anti porn and point out the fracture in our morality. It DOES cause problems on a large scale. Women are the third most trafficked “good” on the global market. Not porn or prostitution: the actual physical human being. This starts with dehumanizing and is undeniably akin to the scenarios in just about every porn video available. A cut from the same fabric. THAT one cannot deem acceptable.

    Lastly, as a rape victim, I cannot tell how deeply crushing it is to know people are so flippant with something that is such a dark and terrifying thing. Maybe the actors and producers dont know? Or maybe they do? Regardless, I wouldnt wish it on my worst enemy. I can tell you first hand IT ISNT ENTERTAINING ENJOYABLE OR DESIRABLE…IT HAS IMMEASURABLE CONSEQUENCES AN IS ENTIRELY LIFE ALTERING. Thanks guy, thanks for wasting a precious portion of my finite existence. Not.

    Reality being doled, I hope no one rapes your mother. I hope no one rapes your sister. I hope no one rapes you. People matter. Sex has the inherent power to create (thats kind of the point), but all power can be perverted to destroy(think nuclear energy shall we–no one is high fiving over melted humans and disfigured babies). We have to honestly consider the long term fruit of ALL of our actions. You never know man, one day you might have a daughter. You call is sexual freedom now, but you never know who is gonna step on hers.

    Peace and love, y’all.

  7. Just out of curious, how are you determining the following:

    “In a popular and obscene anarchist essay, “Feminism as Fascism,” the author—who is male, need I mention—ridicules feminists for drawing any connection whatsoever between porn and violence against women.”

    How did you come to the conclusion that this article is popular?

    If you look it up on google, it’s not reprinted on a single anarchist website nor is it available in zine format. Not that google knows all, but I think it’s a fair indicator of popularity in this case. Compare it to an essay that anarchists actually care about and you’ll see the difference. For example, the article/pamphlet “At Daggers Drawn.”

    I’d really like to know how you determined this.

  8. Great article, thank you Ben Barker.

    ” the macho rebellion of punk bands like the Sex Pistols”

    People tend to forget that, much like pornography, the Sex Pistols were a product manufactured, managed and marketed by entrepreneur Malcolm McLaren. They were not some spontaneous grass-roots expression of resistance from below.

    Also, for all of the leftist men here issuing correctives and admonitions in the name of protecting the agency of women who “choose” to work in the sex industry: you’d be wise to tread carefully, lest you come off as self-absorbed, unaware bigots that beautifully illustrate the proposition of the article. This is about women’s rights. Perhaps you could hold off on taking up space with your “insights” and try (as you have admonished others to listen to sex workers) listening to female commentors.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *