Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses The Internet United States Your Rights Online

New Child Protection Nonprofit Strikes Back At Sex-Negative Approach of FOSTA-SESTA (youcaring.com) 212

qirtaiba writes: When the FOSTA-SESTA online sex trafficking bill passed last month, it sailed through Congress because there were no child protection organizations that stood against it, and because no member of Congress (with the brave exceptions of Ron Wyden and Rand Paul) wanted to face re-election having opposed a bill against sex trafficking, despite its manifest flaws. In the wake of the law's passage, its real targets -- not child sex traffickers, but adult sex workers and the internet platforms used by them -- have borne the brunt of its effects. Websites like the Erotic Review and Craigslist's personals section have either shut down entirely or for U.S. users, while Backpage.com has been seized, leaving many adult sex workers in physical and financial peril.

A new child protection organization, Prostasia Foundation, has just been announced, with the aim of taking a more sex-positive approach that would allow it to push back against laws that really target porn or sex work under the guise of being child protection laws. Instead, the organization promotes a research-based approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse before it happens. From the organization's press release: "Prostasia Director Jaylen MacLaren is a former child prostitute who used a website like this to screen her clients. She now recognizes those clients as abusers, but she does not blame the website for her suffering. 'I am committed to preventing child sexual abuse, but I don't believe that this should come at the cost of civil liberties and sexual freedom,' Jaylen said. 'I have found ways to express my sexuality in consensual and cathartic ways.'" Nerea Vega Lucio, a member of the group's Advisory Council, said, 'Child protection laws need to be informed by accurate and impartial research, and ensuring that policy makers have access to such research will be a top priority for Prostasia.'"

New Child Protection Nonprofit Strikes Back At Sex-Negative Approach of FOSTA-SESTA

Comments Filter:
  • But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fafalone ( 633739 )
      The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit. At least on this one I even think "its a sin" is better than "because you're being exploited no matter what you say".. Empowering women right up until they make a 'bad' choice, then its 'we're stopping this for your own good' just like the right.
      • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Monday April 16, 2018 @09:03PM (#56449471)
        that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

        Now, I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes. Bill O'Reilly and the whole Fox News crowd come to mind . I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out. Pat Robinson comes to mind. Let that last one sink in for a minute. If you're a sinner you're not just a bad person to these folks. You're an existent threat to their continued being. God's done it multiple times before (The Flood, Sodom/Gomorrah, etc), who's to say he won't do it again? He's changed his mind before...
        • It's where the whole SWERF term originates.

          • Good point. But that really is a very tiny slice of the SJW pie. The term SWERF is generally a pejorative in SJW circles.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by SuperKendall ( 25149 )

          You must have missed quite a LOT of SJW types who get in a furor over cosplayers that like to publish erotic cosplay.

          But also many members on Congress who voted for this law, and against prostitution, can be considered "SJW" types.

          As noted, the far left and far right do have in common that you should not be able to decide what to do with your own body, except in ways each side deems appropriate.

          • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@ g m a il.com> on Monday April 16, 2018 @10:10PM (#56449717) Homepage

            SJW type and feminists at that. Remember the furor over dancers at a microsoft-GDC party? [forbes.com] Yeah. Small group of whiners, but damage is done, people no longer employed. These are the same two groups that have been going hard after video games for the last few years, either trying to make claims that "sexuality cause men to become rapists" or "violent video games cause men to become serial killers." What should be bothering anyone old enough to remember Jack Thompson is that the left sjw/feminists have their own in Anita Sarkeesian, and where if it was o'l Jack they'd be rushing to fling attack articles. With Sarkeesian, they're nodding their heads and smiling while saying that she's absolutely right.

            Remember the shit show over grid girls? All those feminists and sjws who screeched that a women should be able to work at any job they wanted? And....then pushed F1 to the point they basically fired dozens of women from well paying jobs that they wanted and enjoyed. Hope everyone is enjoying the regressive steps backwards and away from the sexual revolution now.

            SJW's, Feminists, and what's left of religious conservatives still in that realm are all on the same side. It was feminists and SJW's pushing the #metoo stuff, it was a nearly dead sex-negative religiously back conservative group that got cosmopolitian removed from walmart. It's also not hard finding the number of people from the first two groups, pushing for censoring non-western games or even running campaigns to have games banned from sale in North America. DOAX3 was a good example, to the point where the made a developer believe there was *no* western market for it. Then there's crunchyroll censoring DanMachi Memoria Freese and really, I could keep going.

            • by fafalone ( 633739 ) on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @12:10AM (#56450103)
              All of that is leading to not only an end to the sexual revolution, but back towards gender segregation.
              -A lot of professional men won't take private meetings with female suborbinates, and forget any kind of business travel where it's a man and woman coworker. Some women have noticed this and tried to say "Don't avoid women just don't sexually harass!" after they so thoroughly obliterated the line that asking for confidence it won't be crossed by something innocuous is a joke.
              -I can't imagine being a male on a college campus these days. Just about any alcohol is grounds for 'I was too drunk' (no matter how drunk the guy also is, he's always at fault*). 'Affirmative consent' is an absurd minefield 'Can i touch your breast now? Can I touch your butt now?'. Consent can be retroactively withdrawn years later. And it's guilt upon accusation with virtually no due process, judged by someones whose mandate is 'believe the victim no matter how many problems the story has', punished by expulsion, which is a major life destroying consequence. How long until college men avoid college women entirely?
              -At first, #metoo exposed some awful perverts doing some awful stuff. But, surprising no one, people soon were getting their careers destroyed over incredibly trivial stuff, and vague recollections of things decades old. A lot of guys suddenly thinking Mike Pence doesn't seem so crazy after all with his 'never alone with a woman besides his wife' rule.

              While I'm sure some of the rabidly man-hating women welcome it, I gotta think most women don't want a world where men and women are terrified of being alone with eachother. But it's still heresy to suggest any solution other than forcing men to walk blindly through the minefield.

              *- My all time favorite case [watchdog.org]: A girl goes into a guys room, he's black out drunk and mostly unconscious. She proceeds to give him a blowjob. Texts her friends about it, confirming this version of events, then goes back out partying and gives another guy head. Almost 2 years later, *she* files a Title IX complaint against the blacked out dude, claiming that because she had had a couple beers, he had assaulted her. Despite seeing the texts confirming he just laid there passed out, he was found responsible for sexual misconduct and expelled (eventually, a judge in a real court overturned it). That's right, the college said he had sexually assaulted her by receiving oral sex while unconscious.
              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                It's sad that some people are creating a climate of fear, where men are afraid to interact with women because they believe this kind of thing. Ideas have been deliberately twisted and exaggerated in order to make men feel unsafe and forego rewarding and enjoyable relationships, not to mention damaging their careers.

                Feminists like myself are trying our best to get the message out and help people understand issues like consent. They are not even complex issues, but there is so much mis-information and nonsens

                • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                  It's sad that some people are creating a climate of fear, where men are afraid to interact with women because they believe this kind of thing. Ideas have been deliberately twisted and exaggerated in order to make men feel unsafe and forego rewarding and enjoyable relationships, not to mention damaging their careers.

                  Nobody is creating a climate of fear, that actual fear already exists. Round that out with the fact that men DO NOT HAVE the benefit of the doubt in any case relating to any form of sexual contact(verbal or physical), and it's feminists like yourself that have pushed the "listen and believe" "women are always truth-tellers" bullshit that have created this fear. Feminists like yourself have pushed so hard, that you want to revoke exculpatory evidence(that's evidence that would prove fact) from court cases.

                  • by Whibla ( 210729 )

                    At this point the definition of consent is so far down the rabbit hole, that if a man says "Hello" to a woman it can be construed as sexual harassment, because "she felt it was a threat" or "she didn't like how he was looking at her."

                    I was reading your post, thinking to myself "That's a bit harsh, it's not that bad", then I came to this part...

                    Coincidentally when I got in last night and flicked on the TV, while I made myself something to eat, there was a debate program on the BBC on this very subject. One young woman in the audience, when questioned by the host as to what constituted sexual harassment, said something along the lines of:

                    "Well, if a guy walks up to you and says 'you look amazing in that dress' and offers to buy you a drin

                • Yet what remains is that "playing it safe" increasingly means that the opposite of what is wanted will be achieved. Legal departments are a pragmatic folk. How to avoid sexual harassment suits? By making sexual harassment impossible. How do you make it impossible? By not having men and women in the same department.

                  What you get that way is an odd kind of company policy of not mixing sexes, without it being written down (because then it could become a discrimination issue) but instead one of those "do it the

                  • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                    Having no women working there will put a lot of people off, because it's often a warning sign of a toxic environment. Like canaries or something.

                    • That was the entire point of the parent's post.
                    • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                      Having no women working there will put a lot of people off, because it's often a warning sign of a toxic environment. Like canaries or something.

                      Gee it's almost like the policies and responses you push, are creating this environment. You're so close to self-realization that people can probably taste it through the screen.

                    • Like canaries or something.

                      You should not compare women to birds, it could be seen as objectification or worse.

                      yours,
                      legal department

            • I am not sure the US and the EU had the same definition of naked and half naked. Looking at the microsoft dancing GDC women, first I see people everywhere naming them dancing girl. They are women. Dancing girl is already one step to remove them agency (women->girl). But yeah let us ignore that. Most article I can find say they are half naked. Nope. They are what we call in Europe maybe at worst lightly clothed, or sexy dancing outfit at best, but not half naked. Half naked is when your breast or your bo
              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                Welcome to the march of the prudes, and remember, if you don't bow to that view point someone will absolutely try to ruin your career over it.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Remember the furor over dancers at a microsoft-GDC party?

              Did you understand the objections? It was a professional conference for game developers. Objecting to the dancers at that event is in no way incompatible with sex-positive feminism or support of legal, safe and regulated prostitution.

              I've noticed one common aspect of arguments against SJWs is that they over-simplify and straw man the things they find objectionable. It's hard to tell if it is deliberate or if just some kind of premature "hot take". They often employ emotive language and imagery like "screech

              • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

                by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                Did you understand the objections? It was a professional conference for game developers

                Apparently I did, but you didn't. See this was an *after party* for people who attended the event.

                Objecting to the dancers at that event is in no way incompatible with sex-positive feminism or support of legal, safe and regulated prostitution.

                Really? Sure does explain why feminists were screeching that it was sexism and those women were being degraded(their argument) all the way down.

                I've noticed one common aspect of arguments against SJWs is that they over-simplify and straw man the things they find objectionable. It's hard to tell if it is deliberate or if just some kind of premature "hot take". They often employ emotive language and imagery like "screeching" and hint at conspiracies.

                Yeah that's funny, because reality happens to be the opposite of what you regularly spout. Just like in this case. You know, where it was an after party, and despite this type of even going on for literal decades there was zero problems until some sex-negative, self

                • So why did I start hearing "SJW" from people who dislike us? Suddenly, it was there, it was perjorative, and I was one.

            • by gijoel ( 628142 ) on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @04:28AM (#56450727)
              Which feminists would that be? Susie Bright [wikipedia.org], Nina Hartley [wikipedia.org], Rachel Kramer Bussel? [wikipedia.org] BTW they're all sex positive feminists.

              I'd also point out the Ron Paul often got into a lather about what people did with their unmentionables. [rationalwiki.org] Rand Paul like his father doesn't think women should be allowed to control their bodies. [rationalwiki.org] So you might want to take that log out of your eye now.

              About those grid girls, people objected as they're thought to encourage morons to view women as objects and not you know people with their own tastes, values and desires. How about you run this little experiment for me. Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.
              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                Take your pick, you can read them on your favorite progressive blog/website. Like polygon, vox, mic, paste, feministing and so on. While, we're getting into this why don't you explain why men have no paternal rights when there's a fetus involved.

                Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date. Tell me how many times you got groped on an average shift, and then tell me how bad objectifying is. Besides what has F1 lost by getting rid of them? Are you there to watch the cars or the women. If the latter then why don't you save yourself a sunburn and go to a strip club.

                Hey I got one for you, why don't you go be a police constable or cadet for a while. Then go work in a bar for a night. Get groped 100-250 times in a night by women, just women. Where they jam their hands down your pants, forcibly kiss you, and so on. Hey that's

              • Go and get a job at a gay bar, wear stupidly tight shirts and hot pants. Clothes so tight that they look ready to snap. Work there for a month and tell me how it felt. Tell me how it felt when a drunk patron makes a pass at you, how it felt when they waived a tip in front of you as they asked you out on a date.

                Men can handle this somewhat better than women, although maybe not to that degree. We shrug a lot of stuff off. I've never quite figured out why; and I'm a bad model because I shrug everything off (near-perfect psychological resilience--it's a defect), so I can't really explore by introspection using the data I have.

                I grew up in an era where you could generally insult a man for being fat, ugly, and stupid, because he'll probably get angry at you and then go about his life; whereas laying into women lik

            • the people complaining about sexy dancers weren't calling for sexy dancing to be illegal, they felt it had no place at a GDC party (e.g. an industry sponsored party for game developers). I asked you to find me a SJW who would ban prostitution. Keep trying.
              • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

                Sorry, there was no goal post moving. Why don't you go look up the names of the people who were "complaining about the sexy dancers." I'll wait, I used that for a very specific example. Do you need a hint? It answers your own question.

        • that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

          Oh, they are out there. http://www.womensmediacenter.c... [womensmediacenter.com]

          There is a schism in feminism between sex negative and sex positive. The sex negative version finds that prostitution is exploitation of women by men. I'm not certain how they feel about women going to women prostitutes.

          Sex positive feminists tend toward if the woman is doing this of her own free will, then she can do as she wants. Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one

          • by aevan ( 903814 )
            Women going to women are exploiting each other, it's an internalisation singularity. Except when it's empowering. /s
          • Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.

            No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.

            Student loans. Really.

            I'm sure some of them are

            • Many of the dancers at one of our local "Gentleman's Clubs" are students working their way through college. No one is forcing them, loans are available.

              No one is forcing a black teenager in South Carolina, 1820, to try to make a decent living while nobody will even let her shop in their store 'cause a free black is an affront to society. Slavery is available; she could even be one of them house wenches that gets to dress all pretty and smile for guests.

              Umm, your ridiculous attempt to cast exotic dancers as slaves is noted as ridiculous.

              Student loans. Really.

              Student loans - really. When a degree can cost you heading toward 100K you might look at ways to finance it. And you are not at all forced to. You can get student loans and live off them for four years. You can't work a regular student type job these days - at least ot make a dent in your college cost. And the kind of jobs that would allow you to make a tidy sum over the summer are now not available to American students,

              • Dancing naked or nearly so in an establishment designed for that purpose is not against the law, nor should it be.

                The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.

                Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.

                As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy

                • The argument is not whether it is against the law; it's whether free will is involved when you have a choice: you can forego a college degree and be poor forever; you can take a student loan and be crushed by debt, and poor forever; or you can become an exotic dancer because you have no other marketable skills due to that whole "everyone wants you to have a degree" thing.

                  Poverty, debt, or humiliation. Choose.

                  False Trichotomy. Wrong on so many levels. I took college while working at a University, so I got a hella discount. There are scholarships, full and partial. Many that are woman only. https://www.scholarships.com/f... [scholarships.com] https://www.scholarshipsforwom... [scholarshipsforwomen.net] Not having a college degree is not an assurance of poverty - you just have to get the right job. Having a degree is not assurance of a high paying job. And being an exotic dancer might not even occur to someone, and is only financially viable for women.

                  As I have noted: there are many who do not see the last option as humiliation, as they enjoy that sort of thing anyway, and the pay is just a bonus. That does not excuse the existence of those who do not and feel it is their least-terrible option any more than the existence of the BDSM community excuses the existence of domestic violence.

                  That

          • I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.

            That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.

            • I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.

              That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.

              Wow, that dude is kind of a jerk! And not old Ben either,

          • But I'm not sure I'm going to buy into a group that honors Hilary Clinton [latimes.com]. They look like a right wing group crouched in left wing rhetoric. In any case if they're cosying up to Hilary then they belong to the wing of the party that the left is actively trying to purge (e.g. the corporate Democrats).

            Still, good on you for finding them. Now if we can get them to understand they're doing more harm than good. But I'm guessing doing good isn't their goal. I'm guessing it's more about clamping down on prostit
        • by grumbel ( 592662 )

          Care to point any out?

          For a recent event, see the banning of grid girls in F1. For something older, the banning of booth babes at E3. And that's not even prostitution, that's just attractive girls hired for money, but that's already considered demeaning so it must be banned.

        • I do know a lot of right wingers who enjoy seeing people punished for their mistakes.

          Creating more crime. We must implement full Nelson Mandela Rules and Dynamic Security as the standard in the United States.

          I also know a lot of religious people who are convinced that if we don't get all this sinning under control God's going to wipe us out.

          A deity demanding worship and obedience under threat of punishment is trampling your natural rights and must be evil.

          You can see a great deal of peace in certain people who believe certain things about their religion; and a great deal of terror in certain other people who believe God is out to condemn us all to eternal torment if we don't repent and swear fealty every moment of eve

        • I don't know ant SJW types that oppose prostitution. Care to point any out? I do know a lot that want more social services so women are much less likely to turn to prostitution. But they're all in the "Legal, Taxed & Regulated" crowd.

          Where have you been for the last decade? You're describing the former liberal position. Now they refer to all forms of prostitution as "trafficking" and want to stamp it out, even in the legal jurisdictions.

      • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Just bloody masturbate. Don't even pretend you get any benefit from using a hooker or being one, reality is you simply degrade each other. All this crap driven not by reality, which is simply served by masturbation, outside of actually attempting to reproduce but by purposefully designed marketing techniques. Sex sells because they sell sex to sell product, you are a worthless piece of shit, if you do not get enough people to masturbate you of if you do not masturbate enough people. To achieve maximal non-r

        • Just bloody masturbate. Rant rant rant.

          Spoken like someone who's never put their dick in a woman's mouth.

      • by mjwx ( 966435 )

        The religious right and SJWs have a lot more in common than anyone wants to admit.

        I've been saying it for a while, the SJW's are the far right. Its not the liberals who are trying to tell you what you can and cant do with your body or what you're not allowed to say and it's not the liberals who are getting offended when you act differently, it's the far right that cant tolerate opposition or anyone having any different ideas.

        And before anyone asks... The far left may be the same... We don't know because the far left doesn't exist in our countries and if you think they do (no doubt wit

      • by jythie ( 914043 )
        Yet SJWs are generally against FOSTA-SESTA. It is almost like people make up what they believe....
    • by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday April 16, 2018 @09:21PM (#56449531)

      But now that both liberals and conservatives have turned sex-negative again, fat chance.

      Hopefully this will change. We have seen the (hopefully) ultimate of sex negative in the #metoo movement, which has mixed legitimate events with ones that are one step away from gender apartheid, like the Ansari Assiz event, where a date that a woman didn't enjoy was cast as a legitimate reason to destroy his career. The sex negative outlook of the third wave feminists casts women as fundamentally weak. Fragile minds that are so easily damaged beyond repair that Victorian women would be disgusted by the concept that women are that weak.

      So as marriage rates that were already plummeting are coupled with an active avoidance of the frail flowers that cannot withstand any adversity, and the definition of adversity extended to normal interactions - this entire sex negative worldview starts to look like a really bad idea.

      And it pisses off normal women who are able to take care of themselves, enjoy sex, and might enjoy their husband sweeping them off their feet for some impromptu wild sex, which is now considered rape in the world of "Yes means yes" where the male must ask permission for every stage of intercourse, and the woman must grant it.

      I suspect that the third wave feminists and their useful idiots will be marginalized soon, as more and more people understand the world they are trying to create is going to end as successfully as the shaker movement.

      • And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

        • And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

          Arrrrgh! I've been triggered! I agree completely. Of all the people, Keillor? When they toasted him, it was a big clue as to just how far they've sunk. Just how incredibly weak third wavers want women to be. Apparently sexual assault is now patting women on the back.

          Keillor's firing was so egregious, that that was the turning point for me, not the Ansari Aziz business, where She didn't have fun on a date so that's rape! case.

          • What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.

            • What was really ROFL-worthy was that his Minnesota station lost so many annual pledges from angry Keillor fans that it eventually had to disclose the secret reason for the firing. The big reveal: Keillor's tempestuous relationship with one woman. For that, I hope Minnesota Public Radio goes straight to the bottom.

              I used to listen to "Writer's Almanac" in the morning. But now I often forget to turn the radio on. Fuck MPR.

              Amazing that the women never even needed to identify herself. That's the real dig - no due process, only an accusation is enough. You don't even get to face your accuser.

              #metoo, and the open warfare on men has unfortunately been high octane MGTOW fuel recently. The part that I don't understand is why MGTOW, which is passive avoidance, is so wildly hated by the people who adhere to the "A woman n

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            Regarding Keillor, he claims he only patted a woman on the back but the radio station says that there were detailed allegations.

            MPR said in a statement Tuesday that Keillor was accused by a woman who worked on his A Prairie Home Companion radio show of dozens of sexually inappropriate incidents over several years, including requests for sexual contact and explicit sexual communications and touching.

            MPR said the woman, whom it has not identified, detailed the allegations in a 12-page letter that included excerpts of emails and written messages. MPR said as it attempted to investigate the case, Keillor and his attorney refused to grant access to his computer, emails and text messages.

            https://www.theguardian.com/wo... [theguardian.com]

            Since it's all been hushed up and settled out of court we will probably never know.

            • According to your very own Guardian source, one woman. Who among us, of whatever gender, has never had a troubled relationship with one partner?

              • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                Which is why it is a shame it never got to court, because then the authenticity of the emails could have been verified.

        • Next time you see a SJW, remember to spit on their shoes.

        • And I for one will never forgive the SJWs for what they did to Garrison Keillor.

          Wll congratulations! You've found a huge way to hate and never forgive a large block of people with politics starting slightly ot the left of you.

          Out of idle curiosity does this mean you won't ever forgive me for what I did to Farrison Keillor (many people call me an SJW)?

          Also, who the fuck is Garrison Keillor?

          • Keillor was a humorist on National Public Radio, the American equivalent of your BBC, but funded from a combination of general revenue and private subscriptions. Though the network has always had problems with visibility against the vast American private radio market, Keillor's program was a breakthrough hit in general culture, bringing NPR unprecedented popularity.

            When Minnesota Public Radio, Keillor's home station, chucked Keillor under the hashtag moral panic bus, it also deleted his huge archive of past

        • "SJWs" did nothing to Garrison Keillor. Someone made an allegation against him. Before anyone had a chance to comment on it, his employer fired him based upon the fact he had a history having such allegations made against him (they say it numbered in the dozens.) Nobody pressurized MPR, they looked at the evidence and based upon the fact it was highly improbable anyone would get dozens of completely independent allegations of sexual assault that were all made up, and based upon witness statements, they dec

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights. Those positions also affirm the belief that women are strong, intelligent and capable enough of making decisions about their bodies on their own.

        They are also the ones who have been really pushing to make sex more enjoyable for women by removing the taboo of talking about it and recognizing that women's bodies often need more than just

        • Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights or reproductive rights.

          Abortions are not a matter of sex. They are a matter of getting rid of the effects of having sex with a male. Note, I am pro choice. As for transgender, gender is not the province of women to justify or condemn, it is the province of the person who decides what gender they are. And it is not necessarily related to sexual acts. According to Facebook agender is a gender, Arguing that agender has something to do with sex is like calling atheism a religion. Then we can get into Tumblr's list of genders, most wh

          • The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.

            Marriage rates are down, and the numb

            • The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.

              Coming from a university environment, I can assure you that yes, the misandry and latent misandry is pretty strong. The concept of winking at a woman being some sort of invitation for sex is weird. If I had known that it was, I could have gotten laid a lot at work.

              But Yeah, most women I know wouldn't consider it harassment. But it is in the list, which can make it dangerous. People in general can and do some pretty vindictive things, and my experience leading groups is that there are people who work with

          • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?

            • One simple question. Do you know what "radical" means?

              One of the recurring themes of our discussions is I start to give evidence, and in the next reply, you marginalize it by claiming that I am taking extremes and using them as mainstream.

              Is there actually any point to having discussions with you? Because this is where we end up.

        • Third wave feminists are generally sex-positive, and in favour of bodily autonomy in general. Otherwise they wouldn't support things like trans rights...

          Actually their position on trans rights is indistinguishable from that of Vice-President Pence. Please try to keep up.

  • > research-based approach ... they've just lost half the country.

  • by Reverend Green ( 4973045 ) on Tuesday April 17, 2018 @12:18AM (#56450121)

    It's interesting that the director of this NGO, Jaylen MacLaren, has a very unique name. Yet Google seems to know nothing at all about her background.

    Perhaps there NGO is some type of front group?

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      According to the group she is a former child prostitute, so it's not that surprising that there isn't much information on Google about her.

      Anyway, do we really need to investigate her personally? I mean, what is the point, other than to make an ad-hominem attack? The argument put forward here stands on its own and it doesn't matter where it comes from. It's disappointing to see how many /. stories get comments along the lines of "oh but this person is X so now everything they ever say or do must be rejected

      • except the argument doesn't hold up. It smells bad. I mean what actions taken by human beings aren't 'evidence based' ? There is really no such thing, different actions are usually a result of filtering different evidence. If what you mean is 'science based' you will find very little science that can tell you how to make human beings more moral and less likely to exploit others. However I'd argue consistent training in viewing other people as PEOPLE helps, which is exactly the opposite of what porn and

        • Lots of actions aren't evidence-based. For example, you've constructed a theoretical argument that sex work and porn cause more child abuse. It's reasonably plausible, but there's lots of other possibilities. Perhaps some people who'd abuse other people sexually will find that porn keeps them calm and under control. (I know that pictures of unclothed attractive women do often make me feel calmer.) Perhaps some people are going to have sex with sex workers, but would prefer to keep it legal if possible

  • ...as if somehow they are meaningfully employed. Call me old-fashioned, but I certainly would have a problem with my daughter getting into this line of work, and I would HOPE every parent would feel the same way.

    • ...as if somehow they are meaningfully employed. Call me old-fashioned, but I certainly would have a problem with my daughter getting into this line of work, and I would HOPE every parent would feel the same way.

      I could say the same about coal mining, especialy as the safety regulations have recently been slashed. I presume many people would not want their kids to get black lung, excep for the fact they voted in a chap to slash regulations.

  • I think many slashdotters are upset because it's taking away a service they rely on.

    Who are the customers of sex workers in Silicon Valley.. in Seattle near Amazon.. In these places, there are now very few families left. And nerds not only struggle more to find women but have little time, as focused as we are on creating.

    I have never used the services of a sex worker, myself but I certainly can see the lure and the practicality of it. If we could ensure sex workers are willingly in the business and not f

  • Craigslist etc. should sue per free-speech guarantees of the Constitution, which overrides Congressional legislation (per court interpretation of Constitution).

    They could argue that the practical effects of the law hurt free legal speech. The court(s) may not outright strike the law down in its entirety, but strike down portions of it, or at least strike down enforcement of portions of it.

    It's unrealistic for a website hoster to monitor millions of users, and jail them if just ONE user slips through.

God help those who do not help themselves. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...