McDowell CP. False allegations. Forensic Science Digest, Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1985
Article does not come up in EBSCO search or Academic Search Premier. Search for article full text only leads to other MRA/advocacy pages, Men’s Rights subreddit. Search for “Forensic Science Digest” returns no viable results. Same for “Forensic Science Digest peer review.”
Kanin EJ. An alarming national trend: False rape allegations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994 http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.pdf
Article did come up on EBSCO but no full text available. Journal is peer-reviewed. PDF found here [link in original post]. While interesting, I find the idea of basing nation-wide statistics off one twenty year old article studying only 45 cases ill-advised at best and outright biased at worst.
Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. June 1996 http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt
This is an 18 year old report from the FBI about post-conviction exoneration based on DNA evidence. It was not intended to give national statistics on false allegations, nor did anything in the study state that there was no crime committed.
QotD: “Both succumb to the belief that whatever happens to a woman in prostitution is normal because it’s her choice”
The conservative view of prostitution is to blame women and girls for their alleged choice to be in prostitution; the liberal view is to romanticize women’s “choice” as self-determination and use it to normalize prostitution as “sex work.” Both succumb to the belief that whatever happens to a woman in prostitution is normal because it’s her choice. Both these views have facilitated the expansion of sexual slavery in many parts of the globe and the extensive ways in which women themselves become “goods and services” – as prostituted women, as trafficked instruments of exchange, as objects of sex tourism, and as indentured domestic workers who are often sexually exploited as well.
Janice Raymond Not A Choice, Not A Job: Exposing the Myths About Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade
The European parliament has voted in favour of a resolution to criminalise the purchase of sex.
On Wednesday, 343 MEPs backed a report proposed by the London MEP and Labour spokeswoman for women in Europe, Mary Honeyball, which recommends the adoption of the “Nordic model” of prostitution that legalises selling sex but criminalises buying it. Some 139 MEPs voted against;105 abstained.
The yes vote formally establishes the EU’s stance on prostitution and puts pressure on member states to re-evaluate their policies on sex work.
Anonymous asked: i don’t understand i thought sex positive feminism was a good thing? isn’t that the movement about not shaming women for having sex and making women feel happy about themselves even if they choose to abstain from sex / have sex with more people than society thinks is acceptable?
That’s what it should be. What it actually is in practice is “conform to male fantasies, be sexually available for men at all times, celebrate oppressive misogynistic institutions, homogenize all human sexuality to fit pornified standards, step on marginalized women to boost yourself off, pretend orgasms are more important than social change and are completely above critique, end all critical thinking and analysis, and pretend this is all liberating!”
QotD: “imagine a future generation who get off primarily by hacking other peoples’ Glass Sexperience feeds”
imagine a future generation who get off primarily by hacking other peoples’ Glass Sexperience feeds
imagine support groups for people traumatized by this, imagine sites where you can rate the sex performance of people allowing their feeds to be hosted for a data discount
imagine the complete disappearance of the line between the porn industry and having sex
imagine someone forcing a credit card in between every pair of teeth in your head
Stop forming organizations. Stop developing political programs. Make your own existence an act of rebellion. Claim to be non-ideological by swallowing bourgeois-liberal ideology whole and turning resistance into a completely individualized act. Fight bourgeois cultural hegemony by only engaging it on ground that it has chosen and on which it is bound to win. Feel self-righteous as fuck until the day you die in a world completely unaltered by your passing through it.
The European Parliament’s Women’s Rights and Gender Equality Committee has voted through a report that recommends the adoption of the ‘Nordic Model’ of prostitution laws.
Put forward by Mary Honeyball, Labour MEP for London, the report recommends the EU takes on the Swedish model of prostitution laws, which punishes the clients of prostitutes, rather than the sex workers themselves.
The model was recently voted through in the French parliament. Led by Women’s Rights Minister Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, the bill means anyone found paying for sex will be fined €1,500 (£1,250) for a first offence. If caught a second time, the fine would be increased to €3,000.
Fourteen of the European Parliament committee members voted in favour of the Swedish model, with two against and six abstentions.
The passing of the vote sends a strong signal in regards to Europe’s position on prostitution laws. The report can also now be put forward to the full European Parliament to vote on.
This will take place at one of the Strasbourg plenary sessions in February, most likely during the week starting the 24th.
The Nordic model has proved highly successful in Scandinavia, where countries generally have a high level of gender equality and acknowledge the problems of exploitation within the sex industry. The laws have also been supported by survivors of prostitution and sex trafficking.
Commenting on the vote, Honeyball said: “This is a fantastic outcome. It will form a key part of the sea-change taking place in the way we view prostitution across Europe. We are now a step closer to an approach which recognises the fundamental injustice that takes place when a man buys a women’s body.”
There was a report in the Observer yesterday on police raids on brothels in Soho. These raids appear to be heavy-handed, with women being photographed by reporters and threatened with exposure by the police, and, from other reports I’ve read recently, more about the gentrification of the area than the welfare of the women. This is not an abolitionist approach, as there are currently no large-scale, comprehensive, non-coercive exit programmes available, and as far as I can tell, no kind of help has been offered to these women.
Any abolitionist model worthy of the name must have exit programmes and safety nets in place first, and these services need to acknowledge that exiting can take a long time, with poverty, drug addiction, homelessness, lack of education, and the legacy of violence and sexual abuse all needing to be remedied. We are trying to undo centuries, if not millennia, of male supremacism and the poverty, discrimination, inequality, and abuse of women under it; that is not going to happen overnight with just a change in the law. We may have to accept the necessity of a legal transitional period, which may have to include tolerance zones for prostitution (which, by extension would mean tolerance of the johns too), in order to keep women safe during this transitional period – a first step would be the Merseyside Model of police relations.
A CiF piece out today by Diane Taylor calls for a “truce in this debate” and claims that “whether you criminalise buyers or criminalise sellers, the impact on sex workers is the same”. Taylor ignores completely the many sex industry survivor individuals and groups that support an abolitionist approach; she also ignores that Germany has become the destination of choice in Europe for sex trafficking, entirely because of Germany’s decriminalisation of the sex industry.
Taylor also says that “those who do want to get out lament the lack of financial and emotional support available to them, and equate leaving sex work to tumbling into a bottomless, moneyless rabbit hole” while at the same time ignoring the fact that there is fuck all in the way of exiting services available in Germany or New Zealand, because in those countries, it is seen as ‘just work’.
No law ‘works’ 100% (in that no law 100% eliminates the thing criminalised; we have had laws against murder for millennia, but murders still keep happening), the Swedish Model does not ‘work’ 100%, but it is still better than decriminalisation, which has led, in Germany, to mega-brothels and entirely legal flat-rate brothels, with New Zealand building its first mega-brothel (with the full support of the New Zealand’s ‘sex worker collective’). To borrow from Winston Churchill’s views on democracy, we have to choose the least worst option available, and that is, still, an abolitionist approach.
I’ve got a few click-throughs from a Yahoo Answers page regarding the ‘social problems of pornography’, and some wierdo shit-for-brains left this comment:
the website https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/whats-wrong-with-pornography/ tells you strait up “ANTI MALE with NO INTEREST of fairness or honesty” in the title. I will not believe ANYTHING from there. they are LESS HONEST than religious people (and that is saying something).
let me guess…
“feminist porn” DOES NOT “harm women”.
“feminist porn” DOES NOT “stunt sexuality but instead “expands it”.
“feminist porn” portrays sexual violence against men as normal, natural and an inevitable part of female sexuality.
“feminist porn” DOES NOT reinforces male supremacy, and the idea that men are entitled to sexual access to women’s bodies.
“feminist porn” portrays sex and MEN as disgusting.
“feminist porn” promotes misandry.
do you suppose the fact that this site is SELLING in opposition to others might have ANY EFFECT on their beliefs?
The sheer idiocy of your average MRA is mind-boggling. First of all, how does the name ‘Anti-Porn Feminists’ equal ‘anti-male’, unless you are going to beg the question by claiming that being anti-porn is the same as being anti-male?
And then that bizarro-bullshit about ‘feminist porn’, which demonstrates that 1) he hasn’t read any of this blog beyond that one page (and if he’d bothered to read through the comments he would have seen me being critical of the concept of ‘feminist porn’), and 2) he has no idea what ‘feminist porn’ actually means anyway, if he thinks it’s some kind of ‘female supremacist’ tool.
Also, read this one again:
“feminist porn” DOES NOT reinforces male supremacy, and the idea that men are entitled to sexual access to women’s bodies.
Whoops, MRA just made it plain what ‘misandry’ actually is, refusing male supremacy!
Also, I can’t even work out what this sentence is supposed to be accusing me of: “do you suppose the fact that this site is SELLING in opposition to others might have ANY EFFECT on their beliefs?”
I’m not ‘selling’ (as in asking money for) anything, so if that’s not his claim, and he’s using ‘selling’ in the sense of ‘selling an idea’, then he’s just said that my having an idea to ‘sell’ is affecting the ideas I have, so he’s accusing me of having the ideas I have!?!
There are three days left to answer the original question, anyone with a Yahoo account willing to go there and point out what a moron that MRA is (feel free to copy and paste in full)?
QotD: “the honorable scientists chose to sanction as normative the male commitment to the use of force”
In the area of sexuality, this fact was acknowledged with no recognition of its significance by the scholars of the Institute for Sex Research (the Kinsey Institute) who studied sex offenders:
“If we labeled all punishable sexual behavior as a sex offense, we would find ourselves in the ridiculous situation of having all of our male histories consist almost wholly of sex offenders, the remaining few being not only nonoffenders but nonconformists. The man who kisses a girl [sic] in defiance of her expressed wishes is committing a forced sexual relationship and is liable to an assault charge, but to solemnly label him a sex offender would be to reduce our study to a ludicrous level.”
Rather than “reduce [their] study to a ludicrous level,” which would be unthinkable, the honorable scientists chose to sanction as normative the male commitment to the use of force documented by their study.
Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women