Promotional Event for Pornography Book Interrupted by Demonstrators

They're publishing a book? Neat! I'll have to buy a copy...

One more sucker

Maybe somebody should look at the Suicidegirls website before simply labelling it "pornography"..while it is true a majority of the woman are naked, they are not forced to be. They can appear scantily-clad or fully clothed, and bear in mind that all woman are appearing voluntarily. What makes this website different is that there is also a large current events forum,music-sharing pages,etc..this is not merely a pornogrpahic website where woman are shamelessly exploited. It is an online community, the likes of which I have never seen before.

For you, or anyone, to even equate the SuicideGirls with the pornography industry is idiotic at best. There is no hardcore aspect to the girls work. The girls on the site are merely expressing themselves through a pure artform - photography. The people who protest the SuicideGirls ought to focus their attention on more noteworthy causes, such as the war in Iraq or the imbecilic creature we have running this country.
The bottom line is this: If the art and the community that is SuicideGirls.com is not your cup of tea, don't go there.

it is apparent that the author of this article did not research suicidegirls.com before publishing. had this particular author done proper research, they would find that suicidegirls.com is an adult web community, which happens to feature PIN UP photography. the web community allows members to host photos, have a journal, and post to message boards and participate in community events, among many other things. it makes me sick that there are still such close minded people out there.

Dear me.

I think what surprises me most about both this article, and the people who have commented on it, is how little any of you actually know about it. I'm sure the research and factual data is easy to come by, here on the information superhighway. And yet, it seems as though no one can actually debate the facts.

Suicide girls is co-owned and run almost entirely by women (including many of the models themselves). Each model has COMPLETE creative control over the content and explicitness of the photo-shoots.

The site features massagebpards where the models discuss everything form politics to pet care with the sites' paid members, breaking down the idea of adult models as two-dimensional, faceless assemblage of sexual organs. The site celebrates the models as real people, with thoughts and opinions. And the site's primary focus is to ensure a warm, safe, and comfortable enviornment for the models to express themselves. It is a site that not only celebrates the human form, but also challanges the notions of what mainstream society considers beautiful.

Can it be broken simply into another soft-core porn site, for men to "jerk off to" (as one person so eliquently stated)? Of course. No question, in fact. Can some models become disillusioned with the life, and perhaps even regret their decision to pose nude on the internet? OF COURSE. But does that negate someone's right to choose such a lifestyle? Esspecially where an OVERWHELMING majority of women who have gone through the experience, will attest being poud of their choice, and see what they do as being a positive experience? Well, I don't think it does.

(And just for the record; many of the sites' paid members are women. I'd estimate about half. So women, too, are "jerking off", to be fair.)

I do not argue against anyone right to dislike, or campaign aginst the ills of pornography industry (of which there are admitedly, many). But to howl incorrect facts, and make ignorant leaps of logic (many Suicide Girls are "local street kids"...???) is really sad, and frustrating to witness.

Their are many injustices occurring in the world today. Perhaps some people need to re-prioritize.

And one last thing; YES, I am a member of the site. But there is a reason I am
a member of THIS "adult" site, and no others.

Thank you.

i'd fucking love to know exactly how i'm being exploited by the porn industry simply because i model for suicidegirls. I even find labeling it as porn to be really funny. Besides the fact that almost half the members on the site are women. people should get facts before they blatantly make assumptions about things.

so, it's not porn because it's:

voluntary?
not hard-core?
features pin ups?
read by women?
not just naked pictures?

Sounds like porn to me. Can any of these things not be said about many (most?) porno mags?

So people complain about "facts" without even mentioning which facts are incorrect and why. How about actually mentioning what you think is incorrect and why? It might help your case.

"ought to focus their attention on more noteworthy causes, such as the war in Iraq or the imbecilic creature we have running this country"

Well, of course, by supporting SG you're supporting those "imbecilic creatures", their policies, and a racist besides.

Not that I'm disparaging any of you. Just don't kid yourselves about what you're doing, or who's benefiting from it. For those girls who are happy with SG why not organize a truly worker owned website? Just a thought...

But hey, the more you read this site the more you'll piss off sean, so it's really a win-win situation.

The tone of this article and some of the people commenting on it reminds me of the moral hypocrisy and sexual denial of the Chritian right.

Yes there is softcore nudity on suicidegirls.com. So what? Men and women enjoy looking at pictures of naked people. Sex exists. People enjoy it and that doesn't make them evil. Perhaps if you got some yourself you would be so prissy about it.

The photos are not the standard porn site photos that portray women as victims. These are strong women in beautiful, original compositions = posed by both paid models and volunteered by members. The women that model on the site are intelligent, articulate and aware of the choices they are making. To suggest they are exploited and that this equals "prostitution" is as demeaning as it is innacurate.

To suggest that one of the owners is "racist", just because he may (or may not) have a different opinion about Middle east politics is ridiculous. If you label everyone you disagree with a racist, then the issue of genuine racism becomes obscured.

Overall, the emphasis of the site is alternative culture. The majority of the members seem to be Liberal leaning, many are vocally antiwar and antiBush (although there are a few conservatives and independents). About half are women (as has been mentioned before).

If you want to pick on porn, pick on the truly evil sites, not the good guys.

I understand the desire for many to jump on the anti-porn bandwagon. This, however, is going too far. I am a member of the site in question, I am a photographer, and I am one of the FEW conservative thinking people on that site. This site about for self-expression and above all, about the sucide girl's love of themselves. It is directed more towards what is known as the "counterculture". You know, those scary kids with tattoos and crazy peircings, those gothic freaks, the ones that in high school always wore black, the outcasts. That is the premise, you remember those girls in high school, the ones that LOOKED like they were probably suicidal. Some of them were, and this site is about trying to mainstream the aforementioned people into what is commonly concidered beutiful.

Since I have been a member of this site, I have seen more creativity, more art, more political activism than anywhere else I have on the entire web. In the Current Event forums, there is heated, intelegent debate that allows one to think. This site is many things, but to throw it into the Porn pile is unfare. The autor of this article forgot one very important thing, "never judge a book by it's cover" or better still, "never judge a scuicide girl by her appearence."

I applaud the outstanding work you're doing with this campaign. I mean, to think that there are some misguided individuals out there who ACTUALLY make a distinction between a woman being paid to do nude modelling and taking money for illicit sex. It's simply apalling! I believe we need more forward-thinking individuals such as yourself to make sweeping generalizations and to lump what seem like unrelated topics into one convenient category. If history has taught us anything, it's that filing people or things under one neat heading for easy reference is ALWAYS a good idea.

I only wish there were more people to rush to the defense of the public's moral sensibilities. I can't tell you how often I've wished for someone to absolve me of my personal responsibilities. My only solace is that your mindset might catch on with others who will in turn work to create a sanitized and safe vision of America where no one's feelings are ever hurt and no one will be held accountable for his or her actions because everyone will subscribe to the exact same set of moral standards. I have seen that political correctness is the path to a greater America and I believe with your direction we can achieve this Orwellian utopia.

I only have one small request, and that is do you think it might be possible to use your boundless energy to rally for us men? Or does your quest for "equality" not extend to the other side of the coin?

Also to enlighten a few of you, Sean Suhl (Owner of SuicideGirls) hates indymedia and sees it as a conspiracy site. Don't believe me? Do a search on the boards.

I wonder how much research the author of this article did on Suicidegirls.com before writing it.

I would hope that even when taking an opposing viewpoint, an author would take the time to get to know their adversary. This way they might make an intelligent argument, as opposed to writing a preaching-to-the-choir piece that will get them a pat on the back by their like-minded cronies.

Such lame justifications for ever more depictions of women presented as whores are laughable. How quickly you forget that these women are PAID to get naked. With all the bellyaching about freedom of expression and blah blah blah, take away the MONEY and see how many women still want to express themselves through Suicide Girls.

If two people are calling a dog and one has a tasty chunk of meat in her pocket, when the dog goes to where the reward is it's well understood that they go for the reward and not out of some profound love for the meat-bearer. At least, it's well understood by people not kidding themselves that T&A pictures taken for PAYMENT are truly about 'free speech'...there's nothing free about this so-called speech, from the paid porn shoots to the paying customers to people who'll pay for the book.

Seriously, the idea that tatooed titties and punky colored hair are revolutionary to pornography via Suicide Girls is beyond moronic. Do you also think MILFs are an entirely new concept in pornography, something pornographers of the past never thought to exploit?

And we all know that if women use porn or do anything at all that men do then their participation automatically makes it pure and good and beneficial to the feminist cause everywhere. Like Lyndie England's female prescence automatically makes torture a-okay because, hell, nothing can be considered bad if some women do it too!

Knowing the name of the pet of a woman visually displayed pushing her fingers into her pussy, squeezing her left tit and smiling for the PAID photos is Mr. Bojangles makes these girls about as human as the biography in Playboy saying, "My turn ons are..." fully rounds out the unique personality of each individual Centerfold. Please.

When will we finally move past a culture that PAYS women more money to get naked and look eminently fuckable for paying looker-ons than it pays women to do anything else? Are class, gender, and racial questions regarding porn making and porn use so easily brushed aside that the extreme disproportion of demographics represented in pornography are blithely ignored by porn users who otherwise consider themselves 'liberal'? If this thread is any indication, the answer is yes.

Want to know one quick difference between art and pornography on the internet?

Pay-per-view, or pay-to-view

I know a man who is a cartoonist and I can view his cartoons on his website without paying money upfront. A wedding photographer, an interior decorator, a graphics designer, a muralist...all these people allow me to view their work before I choose to purchase and/or reproduce their art. The photographers I've seen who are serious about their art and not just prostituting sexuality for quick money are also lacking pay-to-view websites. This measure may not be foolproof but it has served me well and I find it remarkably consistant as far as the internet goes.

Your descriptions of the site are reminiscent of most of the people who speak out against it...but have never actually SEEN it. Regardless, that's of little or no difference to you. I have no problem if you hate it, but I DO have a problem with people speaking from a position of supposed "knowledge" who are as uninformed as they are mouthy.

If you want to agree with the author of this crusade lock, stock and barrel I can appreciated that. But then be prepared to add to that list the "prostitution" of a woman who goes out on a date and accepts food and/or drinks with the intention of having sex later. If you want to make such generalizations be prepared to be engulfed in them yourself.

Why would you assume I haven't been to the SG webpage? I have. I followed some discussions on the forums (you don't need to pay to see everything) and saw the same old porn and the same old alternaboy and alternagirl self absorbed vapidness I see elsewhere.

As for your befuddling other comment, that only goes to show you think all women are whores in their relations with men and that all relationship communications between the two genders can be reduced to simple pimp & ho dynamics. In your world view it seems obvious that all women trade access to their pussies for food or money, and obvious that all men are willing to trade food and money for access to women's pussy. How little you must think of sexuality and intergender relationships to reduce them to that.

I suggest you turn off the porn for a few days and try to remember that men and women are complex, emotional human beings and not a collection of genitals forming biological fucking machines.

I expected such a typical knee-jerk reaction. Which is why I call your attention to the AUTHOR of this campaign's assertion that this site and others like it are akin to prostitution. The comment you took exception to was meant to point out the absurdity of the comparison.

Don't try to deliberately misconstrue my comments to your own ends. I'm probably not as easily cowed as most of the people you're used to trying that on.

And it's like I said earlier, if you don't like the site I don't have the slightest problem with that. But to include it under the same heading as "prostitution" is just simply ludicrous. I should think we'd both agree on that fact that it's a stretch.

I don't agree with that, and I think you're comments about dating-as-prostitution says a lot about you.

It's amazing how many people separate in their minds prostitution from pornography. It's like asking a meat-eater if they know where their pork chops come from and getting in reply, "The grocery store."

You still fail (or more likely conveniently ignore) to see that my comparison was to point out the absurdity of this argument, because I explained that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Like I said before, hating the site is one thing. That in itself I wouldn't have seen fit to respond to in any way. But universally apply the label of whore to these girls I kind of take personally. I'm friends with some of these girls and I can honestly say that anyone who can just insouciantly toss that out doesn't know the first thing they're talking about.

And the fact that you find this whole crusade reasonable speaks a great deal to what kind of an overly sensitive moral hypochondriac you are. Fortunately there aren't enough of you to mind other people's business to effect any kind of difference in the world. And that in the end is the most delicious irony of all.

It ended about the time you said "such a typical knee-jerk reaction". The only "insult" I've seen leveled at you is that you're a porn user, which you are, so one would think you wouldn't consider that mud to be slung. But I guess everyone falls victim to projecting their own weaknesses onto others from time to time.

Perhaps you're objection stems from your negative view of prostitutes. There is really no difference between prostitution and pornography in the acts themselves. If I want to pay someone to have sex with me I can go and pay someone and it is illegal. But, if I pay them, photograph or videotape it, and sell it for profit then it is legal. And, as most prostitutes know, men pay for more then sex, even for people of a certain look to take their clothes off. But so long as they're not trying to make a profit in public but would rather seek their experiences in private, the legally of their actions is affected.

Of course, this is largely trivial to me since I do not partake in pornography of prostitution. I prefer real experiences with real people who aren't being paid to produce sexual material for my consumption. Derrick Jensen has done some excellent writings on the subject of how pornography changes the way one thinks from a non-academic point of view (which is not to disparage academic research on the subject at all). The Culture of Make Believe is well worth a read. Instead of seeing the conflation of prostitution and pornography as a negative thing, you may want to see it as an equalizer. There is no difference in the acts themselves and I'm sure you would find some prostitutes to be as friendly as some of those involved in pornography.

Remember, selling one's body to an individual or to a business really doesn't make a difference. Whether it's porn, stripping, prostitution, or anything else the effects on the psyche is often the same. And in that, educating people, particularly to their options should they decide to leave the sex industry, can hardly be seen as a bad thing. Cognitive dissonance would certainly prevent one from acknowledging that one's own actions as a consumer of pornography are harming those one considers friends; but that doesn't mean it cannot be acknowledged by others. If they are truly your friends, I'm sure you would not want them to regret their experiences later in life. Furthermore, you should encourage them, as has been suggested, to take control of the business selling their images. There is no reason for any third parties to profit from their life choices. That way, they will be less likely to feel like they have been exploited later in life.

The difference between pornography and prostitution is knowing where to draw the line between fantasy and reality. The Suicidegirls website has taught me to respect beautiful women as people as opposed to objectifying them.

I would just like to say that if you took the paid sets away, yes, there would still be Suicide Girls. There are many groups of voluntary member sets, from both males and females, including myself. Am I a prostitute? I think not. There are tons of people that come for the pictures, stay for the community.

Also "a woman visually displayed pushing her fingers into her pussy"...I haven't ever seen that picture, tell me, where did you find it using only the free parts of the site? Hardcore pornography and artistic pin-up are two different things.

That said, it looks like this article was written because of comments that Sean made on the message board. Seems like childish retaliation to me. "He doesn't like us, so let's slam his book."

kali, I try not to target my sights on sex workers because I empathize with their situation, but in this case I'll make an exception because you brought yourself into this.

I went to see your SG page and found the following on it. Reread what you wrote just this past Sunday it here and reconsider how great having your sexuality brought to the forefront of your character is for your own mental health:

SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 05 2004 1:20 PM

Fuck life. That's all I have to say. Keep going into depression swings lately. I hate my "friends"...I hate lonliness...I hate not being fucking appreciated. I hate spending my time with people that are only wasting it in the end.

I went to a party last night. I didn't really want to be there, so I drank myself senseless to numb it. Sitting on a golf course...picking fights with 18 year olds just because I didn't know them, and I needed some amusement. Sitting at Starbucks...vandalizing a shopping center. Realizing that just as much as I didn't want to be there, no one wanted me there. I was only invited because I promised Sarah that I'd come out this weekend, as she was whining that I don't come around more often. She's right to whine. I don't come around very often anymore. I do love that girl.

You would think you would get used to being lonely in a crowd of people. I'm not used to it. Still fucking sucks.

Called Adam out about treating me like shit in front of everyone AND two girls he's hitting on. Then felt like a complete asshole for it. I shoulda just ignored him, as was the plan.

Fuck men...Way too many reasons for this statement to mention. Three people tried to get in my pants last night. JUST BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO BE DRUNK DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T KNOW THAT I REALLY DON'T WANT TO BE DOING THAT SHIT! "Kali, do you want to go to the car with me?" "Kali, do you wanna take a walk with me?" "Hey, Kali, I can stay at your house tonight if you don't feel like being alone." "Kali, do you want to come back to my apartment and watch a movie?"....ok, I made that last one up, that was a completely different incident. I hate this fucking mindset, "I don't really want to be with you or anything, but can I touch your pussy anyway?" NO, YOU MOST CERTAINLY CAN FUCKING NOT!

*sigh* I want someone that will tell the world how much he likes me. Someone that will at least ATTEMPT to earn my affections. Someone that will sincerely give me a compliment. Contrary to popular belief "nice ass" doesn't make me feel all warm and squishy inside. I WANT TO FEEL WARM AND SQUISHY!

I have been a member of SG.com for a few months now, and while i DO regretfully refer to the site as a porn site, i must say that calling it prostitution is a large stretch. yes, the models do get paid, but so do strippers. are strip clubs illegal? no. prostitution IS. is this site legal? yes. so i think you see in which category this falls.

i think the difference in this "porn site" and most other porn sites, is that this site does NOT objectify women. it gives them a voice, a face, an outlet to express who they are as individuals as opposed to "just naked woman". you get to know, meet, and befriend the women on this site. they are funny, quirky, intelligent, witty, (yes beautiful too) and overall really great girls to know.

there's all this talk of men objectifying the women on the site.. i ask you, what about me? i am a heterosexual woman and i'm a member. am i just a member to gawk and ogle at the women? no. i am a member of this site to connect, meet, and converse with other people (men and women) who are a part of the same "counter/sub culture" i am.

in a world that IS so focused on sex, it serves as i think, a counter attack, to show that YES women CAN be naked, but at the same time, smart, thoughtful, and human... not just flesh. this is the same as madonna has done in the past... arguing that women can be sexual and still have a brain.

this site serves as an oxymoron to the very message they are trying to convey. you are trying to let the public know that pornography is wrong, it objectifies women, while at the same time, classifying any woman who dares bare herself as nothing more than a meer porn models.

if you have actually taken a look at the book, its not "typical" pornographic fare. what other "pornographic" book do you know that also contains Q & A with the women outside of "what are your turn-ons"? what other "pornographic" book do you know contains journal entries from the women displaying their senses of humor, their sadness, their anger, and their joy?

the poses in the book weren't designed to appeal to ANYONE except the model herself. she isnt posing for anyone else's pleasure/fantasy, but rather for her own creative expression. if thats what YOU choose to believe she was put there for, then you are contradicting everything you've been arguing against. you assume (if youre a male) that she was put there to appeal to your own sexual fantasy, then you're wrong.

I find it amazing how close minded and ignorant the person who wrote this article is. For one I am a member of SG.com and if the reporter bothered to researched SG in anyway, they would find it is not mainstream pornography, and by no stretch of the imagination "prostitution." The sets include not penetration, sex toys, or explicit sexual acts being performed on other people.

Wake up people, it's nude photography. It's pretty sad that these demonstraters have nothing better to do then protest a book of girls who willingly choose to be photographed in the nude, to display their natural beauty teamed up with their body mods.

All the issues in the world right now.... all the war... the turmoil... and this is the best way you can spend your time.

Congrats on being so ignorant.

Any people NOT profiting members of Suicide Girls or NOT paying members of Suicide Girls are the ones I want to hear from, not those with blatant self-serving interests.

I suggest you sassy, sexee rebel grrlz check in on some of your own (like kali) to get a cold splash of reality before gushing about how liberated you are.

Sinnocence, are you aware that everyday billions of people get together to talk, laugh, share experiences and lots more without having to pay a porn Internet website membership that includes pictures of naked bodies and checklist info about favorite sex positions? You sound like fraternity and sorority members who used to insist to me they don't pay for their friends, they just pay for the supportive community of peers whose only requirement for inclusion is paying dues. A real select, refined bunch derives from such paying membership requirements, certainly a better one than you could find by your own charismatic, gregarious, sexy self in the real world away from your computer.

Reading Mary's silly comment about the "natural beauty" (plus body mods...LOL) just reinforces that these aren't original arguments but simply the same old tired "It's not nekkid girls, it's beyootiful, natural women" weak line porn has always used.

I've noticed a funny thing often happens when prostituted people defend themselves from the obvious truth of their degradation: they usually point to others who have it worse than them as 'proof' that what they do is better, classier and more of free will than what other prostitutes do. One stripper says, "I let men call me bitch and whore but I don't let them squeeze my tits when tipping", another one says "I let men squeeze my tits when tipping but I don't let them call bitch or whore" and each one rests happy in the knowledge that they're not the white trash ho they think the other is.

Of course, men laugh heartily at both of them cause they know what they really think of women who are strippers, sex workers, prostitutes.

I fully understand why you tell yourselves how different the paid-for prostitution of your female sexuality is from other forms of sold sex, how different you are from other sex workers, how pictures of your naked ass on the internet is, like, you know, a piece of photographic artistry that just happens to be lumped with hundreds of other ass shots of absolutely equal artistic merit on the Internet

I think Vineeta's generalizations of men are even more disturbing than her generalization of sex workers.

It seems obvious that she's never met a man who can objectify her in sexual settings AND enjoy her for her other qualities (whatever they may be in her case) outside of them.

She'll probably NEVER find such a guy, because it seems she doesn't believe they exist. Sad. I cry.

Hell, I don't care about the "porn user" remark, I mean, by now that much should be pretty obvious. What I meant by mudslinging was the fact that up until that last point you kind of twisted my words to serve your own needs.

I WAS about to say that your last response to me was the first level-headed and rational thing you've had to offer so far and that that was the kind of discourse I was really hoping I'd find, but it seems that things have devolved again. We were on the right track but now it seems as though you've gotten right back on the superiority trip that I had hoped we were getting past. I'm hoping that with this post we can at least attempt to reclaim the sense of reason that we were so close to achieving.

Anyway, I'll continue as though we hadn't reached this obstacle. As it has been explained before, many of the girls actually work for the site. So it's not as if it's some giant entity controlled by a nameless, faceless Man Behind the Curtain. They actively contribute to the direction of the site, or controlling their own destiny as you suggested earlier that they should do. They do own it and most certainly DO make it work for them.

As to the prostitution thing, please don't condescend to me by arguing over semantics. You know what a prostitute's primary function is and you also know that by admitting it you leave your argument vulnerable to attack. The fact is that there is one glaring fundamental difference between what these girls do and what prostitutes do and you're glossing over that fact. And what is perhaps even more interesting is that while you purport to be so compassionate to the plight of the prostitute, none of what you've said about SGs, who are in your world view nothing more than lower eschelon prostitutes, suggests that in the slightest.

What you said about encouraging my friends to turn their life around so that they "don't regret their experiences later in life", I'm not sure what you meant by that. Are you really trying to cleanse the world of regret? Is that what this is really all about? Because if it is, you're embarking on a pretty daunting task. I'm just not entirely certain what you are trying to accomplish here because you seem to be going all over the board. I can assure you, though, that as it pertains to assisting my friends in bettering themselves I have exhausted hundreds of hours and spent many a sleepless night helping them (friends from the site as well as off) to deal with whatever issues were effecting them at the time. In the areas where it REALLY had an impact. NOT in worrying over whether choosing to wear white socks with black pants would come back to haunt them in their old age. Perspective is key here.

Ultimately though, I was a little disappointed by your desire to only talk to like-minded individuals. I should think that if you were looking for debate that you would welcome differing viewpoints, both from your side as well as the reverse. But it sounds like you would rather surround yourself with ever more people who will just agree with you. I took a shot here by entering the proverbial lion's den, not knowing if I would be alone in my viewpoints. For the most part I found all the previous comments trite and pretty dismissive. In you I felt I had a worthy adversary (if you'll allow the compliment). But a handful of yes-men won't give you the wealth of experience of just ONE person who disagrees but is able to carry on a calm and rational argument (heated as it may have gotten).

as to why you are so courageously protesting against SG, when obviously so many of the site's supporters are in here against you? i see no one in here backing up your viewpoint. albiet thought-out, it is an obvious sad attempt by one person who hasn't read the bible well enough to know that sin exists, will exists, and shall exist beyond your lifetime. am i a heathen to look at people's pictures when they have no clothes? are we not looking at animals everyday without clothing? why is this crusade *so* important to you and you alone?

for such a gift for debate, find yourself a more useful forum for it and go on with your tunnel-visioned life.

I find the difference in defense of SuicideGirls coming from the customers and the workers to be truly fascinating. I think there is something very telling to that but I don't think I'll address that at this point.

Now, there's seems to be several points that people are being defensive about:

1. That prostitution and pornography can be considered alike. My experience has shown there to be no difference between the two. Ultimately any act with a prostitute, recorded, and sold for profit, is in fact pornography. Perhaps I was naive to expect that people involved in the sex industry to be familiar with other aspects of the sex industry. I too have witnessed sex-workers distancing themselves from other sex-workers by trying to appear morally superior. So while people want to "elevate" (in a moral sense) those who work in the area of pornography in general or for SuicideGirls in particular above "prostitution" others would do just the opposite.

A pornography worker might say "at least I'm not being paid to have sex with someone" I know prostitutes who have said "at least my picture isn't being jacked off to by thousands of guys on the internet." In this, I think Vineeta is right, the division serves the interest of those profiting and not the sex-workers. Perhaps people would like a definition of prostitution to clarify the matter: The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire. As anyone who has ever talked to a prostitute knows, the range of sex acts is as varied as those offered through pornography.

2. That there is a moral condemnation of pornography being offered. I see no one accusing pornography workers or prostitutes of being sinners and burning in hell for eternity. This is not an issue of moral "rightness" or "wrongness" and no one is passing judgment against an arbitrary morality. The protest in question was not a moral crusade. As was stated above "Our goal for this particular action was to educate people about the dangers to getting involved in the sex industry. We want people to make that decision armed with good information. Our flyer talked about contracts, protecting oneself againgst harassing customers, and other problems with becoming a pornography model." Can anyone really argue that education and support for those engage in the sex business is a bad thing? I suspect only those who stand to benefit from preventing access or knowledge of those educational materials and support structures.

3. That the people on SuicideGirls are being objectified. Well, clearly, they are being objectified. There would be no SuicideGirls without the sale of a particular image. Pornography has always used personal details to sell their images. And it could certainly be argued that SuicideGirls, as well as many amateur porn sites, offer a lot more intimacy than a pornographic magazine. However, I don't suspect anyone is naive enough to think that the same "community" of customers would be involved if not for the pictures. It is a business, selling to people seeking a particular fetish. There is nothing wrong with that but it would be wise to recognize it for what it is. It is not revolutionary; it is the exact same model that has been used for decades.

And if you read the posts here carefully you can see how clearly this is laid out from both the SuicideGirls and their customers.

"It seems obvious that she's never met a man who can objectify her in sexual settings AND enjoy her for her other qualities (whatever they may be in her case) outside of them."

Apparently, the goal for women is to find a man who can objectify them in a sexual setting and appreciate their "other qualities." I would, and could go into far more detail about the underlying assumptions of such a statement but I'm assuming it more or less speaks for itself.

Now, objectification in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, in a short term situation. Over the long term it can have some very negative consequences, not the least of which is depression, and suicide. However, as long as one is aware that one's body is being used to sell a product, be it pornography or anything else and one is content to do that than you should be confident in that fact. To connect with the first point, if what you are doing pleases you, makes you happy, then why the need to feel and say things to separate oneself from others in the sex industry. Why not just say that you are proud to sell sexual photographs of yourself? Why let people tell you that you should be shamed into saying "at least I'm not having sex with people for money." And those people that are having sex with people for money, be it in porno or prostitution some of them are very happy with their career choices, or are at least are satisfied for some small portion of time.

And what this gets at is that people do not have the self-esteem to do this. And why is that? Because that's one of the first things being objectified does to someone; it robs them of their self-esteem. It takes away their identity separate from their appearance, or their sexual persona and tells them that those "other qualities" aren't that important, "whatever they might be".

Here's a fun experiment that really opened my eyes. For one day try not to complement any women on an aspect of her appearance (dress, makeup, how they look, hair, smile, eyes, etc). This is best done in groups to keep people aware because it is so unconscious. For a variation, everytime you feel like complementing a woman on her appearance complement her on something else. When I tried this every compliment felt weird, and indeed, people looked at me weird and I learned how crucial my role was in reinforcing the notion that women should just be appreciated for their appearance and ignored for their "other qualities." But don't take my word for it, try it yourself.

4. That SuicideGirls is contributing to a culture of objectification of women. I want to thank Vineeta for reposting Kali's post, which reminded me of so many rants I've heard from close female friends. In fact, it was almost identical to a friend of mine's experience at a party (though she had to punch a couple of people to keep them from groping her, stuffing the hands down her pants and such). This friend had interviewed with SuicideGirls and after some introspection turned them down.

I am not interested in attacking people or telling them that they are bad or making the "wrong" choice. But I do disagree that SuicideGirls offers anything that counters the current culture. Perhaps once in a while something breaks through to someone and they realize that paying to look at pictures of women isn't helping them build healthy relationships and that masturbating to images on a computer screen isn't quite as fulfilling as a relationship with a person whom one can actually spend time with in person. The internet leaves a lot to be desires in terms of people's ability to effectively communicate thoughts and emotions.

I also know that people are largely incapable of believing that they are harming others. Our minds have a protection against that. In psychology it's known as cognitive dissonance. We cannot believe that we are doing bad things so we choose to believe that our actions are good. But ultimately pornography is the commodification and selling of sex which leaves its participants as objects to be sold as an image, a video, or a journal entry. It's all part of the package suited for a particular audience of consumers.

I would never tell someone not to pursue the life path that they are on. I don't think that limiting others is a path to a liberated society (how obvious is that). However, to counter trends which some of us find distasteful (like treating women as sexual objects) those who spend time researching, studying, talking and interacting with people will take their efforts to educate people to their point of view. Hopefully, some day we will have a society which will embrace erotica and celebrate sexuality without it being tied to particular images, ideas, and big business; the porn industry, fashion, cosmetics, diet, these are all multi-billion dollar a year businesses intent on selling an image and an idea to people. The idea is that by looking a certain way you will happy and can have your body celebrated. And if you don't look that way you'd better buy some products to make yourself look that way because people certainly aren't going to stick around for your "other qualities".

5. That people are being forced or coerced into posing. This has seemed to come up a few times now and I'm not sure from where. I don't think anyone has argued that the women aren't acting on their own free will yet several people have used it as a defense. Surely, each person has her own reason for posing on a site that is a business venture. If one was only interested in self-expression one could always go elsewhere. There's no shortage in the demand for nude modeling. And if a person has their own ideas, it's trivial to find a photographer willing to work on a project. I think this stems from the notion that if one is objectified and being sold for another's profit than one is, by definition, exploited and therefore arguing that one has acted on one's free will counters the idea that one has been exploited. Yes, that's what we're really talking about here now that I've worked it out.

5. (revised) That SuicideGirls are being exploited. If one remembers the scene from Chasing Amy where Holden is accusing Alyssa of having been used and she scream back "I used them!" one can see the difficulty in talking about exploitation. Certainly the persons profiting from SuicideGirls are making use of the women they select to sell a product and make money from it. But is that in itself exploitation? Some people would say yes, and others no. I'm not sure if it's that meaningful a question honestly since it would just be a label. If the experience is negative than it is negative; if it is positive than it is positive. And more likely than not, it will be a mix of both, as is most of life. There are things to be learned, some of which are pleasant, and others not so much. But ultimately I will leave the judgment on whether one has been exploited to the individual. Even if by every objective measure I could claim a person had been exploited, if they truly did not want to believe that what would I have to gain from trying to convince them? Perhaps only if the day comes where I want to convince legal action that they have not already taken on their own behalf, offered as a hypothetical.

6. That SuicideGirls is just another porn business. I've already addressed this but to shed some historical light on the matter, not that I was alive or aware at the time, but during the 60's and 70's playboy was making all of these same arguments. They were offering their readers something new, a community, tasteful pictures, interviews with the women to show how they weren't just "pretty faces". Well, Playboy was then, as SuicideGirls is now, offering something in the form of creating a new market. And to be fair, Playboy was successful at fostering and advocating libertarian ideals. Likewise I have no doubt that something good will come from the SuicideGirls community in exposing people to new ideas. That's just life. Any group of people will talk and hopefully find some meaningful subjects to discuss. However, these businesses are still more alike than they are different. They have the same fundamental goals and the same fundamental plans. And why shouldn't they? Pornography has been a great money maker for a long time. Why change what works if you define "what works" as making money.

I was going to write more (I actually have written more) but I've taken enough of people's time. This framework has helped me understand the issues at work here and that has helped me revisit subjects I have not been involved with in a few years. Maybe I'll write more with specific responses, maybe not, as much of this dialogue can speak for itself and provide the right messages to the right people if it is the right time.

Remember, always trust your instincts and pay attention to your experiences.

And if you're looking for a book that delves into these issues check out Naomi Wolf's "The Beauty Myth." Most of the men and women I know got a lot out of that book with regard to these subjects.

your first request was to hear from not profiting, or not paying members of SG.com. if those are the people you'd wish to hear from, youre looking for the wrong crowd for opinions. if a person, is not profiting, that means they are neither model nor staff, and if they are not paying, that means they have never experienced the FULL benefits of this site... meaning they are uneducated and ignorant as to what SG.com can offer them.
maybe this is why youd like to hear from them? because without first hand experience on the site, they will assume its "just another porn site". but to those on the inside, (who either joined or modeled WILLINGLY i remind you) its a place, as i said previously, to laugh, share, discuss, and vent anger if need be. and yes, i realize there is an entire world outside of "an internet porn site... that includes pictures of naked bodies", but i also realize that there is potential to meet hundreds more people you'd never even get the chance to see, all right here, in front of me on my computer screen. these people all understand the discrimination we go through for our body modifications, we all have the same interests, and a lot of the time, we DO meet up, off the computer in real life to hang out, go to shows, festivals, have parties, etc.
do YOU realize there is an entire world out there full of ACTUAL prostitutes who are paid to do lots worse, and often unwillingly?
as i said in my previous post, you all go on and on about how horrible it is to objectify women (and it is), but then you assume the women are only put there FOR a man's pleasure. since when can a woman NOT show herself naked for her own satisfaction? thats what 99% of the women on this site have done. they are proud of their bodies, they are proud of their tattoos and piercings, they are breaking down the barriers of what "beautiful" is supposed to mean, and as a woman with just such body modifications, i applaud that. i gladly give my business to SG for the message they convey. (which is NOT, "hey boys, look at me. im naked") then people like you come along like "shame on you" and assume that the girls are only there to degrade themselves, the men are only there to jerk off, and the whole thing is just soooo scandalous.
id like to know your views on nudist colonies... i really would. because thats the only thing i can think to compare the site to. being nude for the love and beauty of it... not being nude for the nastiness and "sexual availability" it portrays.
id also like to know what you think about the fact that there is a group on the site (you CANT look into groups if youre not a paid member, so you might be a little unaware of this) called "suicide boys" where males are allowed to post sets of THEMselves nude. are they prostitutes? (they dont get paid) are they being objectified to?
and i cant help but laugh that everytime you quote something that is supposed to convey what the pro-SG'ers are saying, you misspell it horribly to insinuate we are uneducated, ignorant, children who dont know how to spell? interesting.

"they usually point to others who have it worse than them as 'proof' that what they do is better, classier and more of free will than what other prostitutes do"
once again, these women have more free will than ANYONE else of any other "sexual occupation" ive ever known/seen. the models dont do this as an occupation, but as a hobby/pasttime. they arent propositioned to model, they must apply if THEY choose to do it. THEY choose what they show and in what manner. THEY can leave without consequence whenever they see fit.
and yes, i even venture to say they are classier than any other "nude models" because they dont do overtly sexual/spread wide shots. there are no sexual acts being performed in the photos. its simply pin-up.
youve heard from the models who feel no shame or regret in appearing on the net naked. youve heard from the men on the site who agree that yes the nude photos are great, but they still see the women as women, who appreciate their personality and attitude just as much. youve heard from the women members who agree that the model arent being "sluts, whores, or prostitutes". we can appreciated who they are and their body modifications just as much as anyone else. and then we hear from you people, who have never spent more than probably 10 minutes on the site.
ive noticed that to all of our pro-SG posts we've only had one or two points addressed by you or anyone else anti-SG. all i can see in your arguments is a gross misuse of the words "porn" "prostitutes" and "sex". these are all broad generalizations of any woman who dares to bare her body. just because you dont understand, dont judge. i see you all as the close-minded people you accuse us of being.

That is PRECISELY the kind of well thought out, rational response I was hoping I'd eventually see. And while I still disagree in part (however agree with more than I thought I would) I still think you should be lauded for your decorum.

My basic issue is still this. Okay SG, Playboy, Jenna Jameson, Don "Magic" Juan, hell, Este Lauder are all part of the same industry. But if you will indulge me, imagine for a moment that the sex industry is represented by the primate family (I know it sounds ridiculous, but hear me out). Now as we all know, there are hundreds, if not thousands of different phylums within the primate family. Some of these different offshoots are carnivores, some herbivores, some mild-tempered, others aggressive. Heck, some of them can even be domesticated. The point I'm attempting to make here is that while all of them certainly belong to the same group, there are clear and distinct designations as to behavior and habits. So by that token, it would be erroneous to call a Silverback gorilla a monkey while referring to a Macaque as an ape just by sheer virtue of the fact that they both belong to the same classification of animal. While the differences are subtle, they are important and should, nay NEED, to be recognized.

I don't think that anyone here would say that education is a bad thing. But preachiness is. The difference between education and preachiness is in the delivery. Education is voluntary and usually exists without presumption, while on the other hand preachiness is overbearing, rigid and imposes itself on its intended without their solicitation or even interest. While this organizer's intent may well be to educate, her methods (and those shared by her supporters) only serve to foster bitterness and alienate the very ones she is trying to convert. There's no doubt that she will turn a few heads, but ultimately (as with any other movement such as right to life, etc) the majority of them will be those who already shared the same opinion but didn't have a label to pin on it or those who never had any intention of aligning with the opposition in the first place.

Thank you for your reference source. Because of this discussion (key word there) I am DEFINITELY going to check that out now.

As Ever,
Matt

When I found the site mentioned in a photography magazine, I visited the homepage. On the homepage I found an interview with someone who's writing I enjoy, Chuck Palahniuk. So I joined up because I thought it looked entirely interesting. Prior to this the only thing I had purchased online was a CD I could have found no where else. I'm a bit wary of internet purchasing.

At the same time I was going through a bad break up, so I became active on the site as a way to excersize some demons. What I heard over and over, was this message, "get fucking over it." And honestly, at the time, it was just the best thing for me. Then I signed up for the local group I'm part of, and now, at this point 6 months later 75% of my social life (as in time away from the computer that isn't sleep or work) is spent with other people who I met through suicidegirls or people I met through them.

Notice how "models" haven't fit into a single part of it to this point. I went there looking for interesting photography and I picked up a fairly healthy social life with some of the funnest most interesting people I've ever known. And I still have access to the photography!

For all the sites faults, I know this much: Suicidegirls.com has made my life more interesting, has helped me complete designs, has made certain aspects of my job more bearable, has given me interesting topics to bring up in social circles, has informed me of shows in my area, introduced me to cool people, continually makes me laugh and gives me more than my nominal membership fee is worth on any given day.

* * *

Aside from that, what I'm seeing here is a slightly one sided view of the site from the members involved. It doesn't hand deliver models who are willing to be cool people all the time and it doesn't always give you wonderful photos or even the types of women who are your cup of tea. But from the models point of view, their level of involvement is entirely up to them. Some are more active, some aren't. If they choose to be more active on the site then usually they have a fairly good time of it, some go to meetings and branch out, others continue with their lives and let SG be a sidenote of themselves.

From the non-members here I'm seeing the same one-sidedness, which is to say they're seeing what they want to see, and forming opinions they want to form. I'm sorry so many people are jaded, and I know there are good reasons for that, but if you choose to stop thinking about SG then it goes away, and if you keep it in the forefront of your crusade then it seems much more evil and effective than any member's experience will ever equate to.

Another thing that's not being mentioned here is how difficult the application process can be for girls sometimes. It's not like the site is just granting payment to every single girl who applies. They get many applications a day, and they can't take everyone. But people are applying everyday. Trust me at least on this one thing, that if explicit photography sells better that pin-up, then they are CHOOSING to make less money.

So one act of trying to educating people now constitutes a crusade. How interesting. I'll be sure to take note of that. Perhaps next time someone wishes to discuss the dangers of unprotected sex I'll scream at them about how they're on a crusade rooted in religious fundamentalism. Or maybe next time someone who has worked in my job tries to educate me to some problems I might encounter and some support services which could help me I'll dismiss them as being "preachy."

Speaking of roots, does anyone find it difficult to deal with the fact that the friendships that have begun on the site have their roots in appearance and money? I don't know how I would feel knowing that my friends wouldn't have been my friends if they hadn't looked a certain way and that I was paying them. But Vineeta is correct, I suppose this is no different than what happens in sororities and fraternities every day, and at least this is co-ed which should make the roles a little less rigid.

Yes, and applications... Of course, a site could choose to put up pictures from any person who wanted to. See, that might be a good idea. Allow anyone who wanted to post pictures to do so. Of course, then you're not selling a particular image, for better or worse. You would get a very different community but probably not make as much money. Though who knows, there's a market for everything when it comes to sex in our society, which is why SG does what it does.

i can't wait for the day when lust is eliminated from this carnal earth. it sickens me that men and women look at each other with desire.

p.s. sex is gross

p.p.s. vote for bush

Some people will always prefer to lie about others rather than engage in honest discussion. Their loss.

I posted this earlier but I think it got eaten.

It's almost like the paying SG customers and paid SG porn models responding are trying to prove reader's point by hitting upon everything he/she mentioned.

Sinnocense (ugh that pseudonym) reminds me of that line from Shakespeare, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". You can speak all you like about how your porn is different, your nudity is revered by men who pay to see your lovely nakedness and all that jazz, but men make it very clear how they feel about strippers, prostitutes, porn actresses and other sex workers and not just through the amazing amount of violence and harassment these population suffer. A short, unsolicited email sampling:

My mom sucked my penis and i liked it
ce urinating pussy pics/movies
nude pictures of my little sis jenny
Thirsty for cum
young & doing it for the 1st time
this cutey spread her legs wide open for us
Hardcore Honeys
It Was Bloody
tiny chicks huge dicks
Crazy Girls MAKE it fit..
Cum Swallowing Blondes
Booty shakin ho's
Jizz guzzlers
why get a pro, get a first timer
Hidden shower cams
Small town sluts
Tight hot teens K
Filthy animal love
Humping my leg
Girls getting fingered
100%free H0rnY eboNy girLs
Petite women try to handle these MonsTer C0ck...
Tight hot teens J
Watch Me Pickup My Friends Mom And Screw Her ...
Watch How I get My Friends Mom To Suck On My ...
-Riding and blowing big Dicks for the first ti...
bathroom cameras
silicone fantasy
B!g T!tty BL0nde Wh0re
Completely free dirty teens s
Where the D!ck G0es
More pussy than u can shake a dick at.. 3k
Twins Get..Fucked...Hard..
Blonde...Hardcore models get Slammed..
teenagers with little B cups
Make Her Choke On Your Huge Knob
Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sl-uts Begging F...
Check Out These Sleeping Teen Girls Being Scr...
women in heat
nude teen stars
Stupid...Blondes get slapped..in the Ass...
chicks face looks like a glazed donut
Seduced....Blondes get Abused
wild lolitas
Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
naughty schoolgirls
s e e these hoes take it deep
Check Out These Amateur Teen Sluts Begging F...
Watch These Hidden Shower Cams Of Hot College...
Blonde strippers
Drunk..College girls..get taken..Advange off....
Blonde strippers
Hot Teen Lesbian Threesomes After Mom Leaves
th>ese frea'ks >do anyt\hing
,Dirty,Amateurs,
Nasty ButtSluts take it in the Ass!
Shocking hole stretching
AdV...Mature Blondes..sucking.
You get to see this girl have a dickSlurpee
Bend over my pretty wife for no money Jm ...
Make Her Bleed After You Smack Her Coc-kpit W...
Watch These Sloppy Teen Girls Get It All Over
Nasty..Asian Teens..bent Over..
DEsperate..Mature Blondes..do anything..
Mature..Panty HOs..
Blonde..Hos Getting..Nasty.
Big..Tits on..Hot Blonde..

You can try to tell yourself none of this applies to you because SG porn is so very different from other porn, but it's a delusion to think men don't really think of you this way to the detriment of your humanity, to all women's humanity and a piece of their own. If this sort of misogynist, violent porn advertising didn't work pornographers wouldn't keep spending time and money promoting it this way, and many of those who pay for such "entertainment" are the same ones paying for your watered-down Baddie Body Mod Girl sold sexuality at SG.

This thread has me remembering something I read in the 2003 Willy Week article about SG  http://www.wweek.com/story.php?story=3716&page=4

"I think one of the main things is the amount of access we're allowed to the girls. People actually get to know them to the point where they don't want to look at their pictures because they're such good friends," Kairuz says.

Isn't that just fascinating? The more they get to know the girls as people instead of objects for masterbation, the less they want them to suffer the indignity of being spread bare and nakedly vulnerable to their own eyes. Like how your sister, daughter or mom may have nice tits, but you don't like to think of that because it's undignified. There's a world's worth of sexual psychoanalysis in that one statement.

Two thing:

1. Nobody has yet mentioned "god" in relation to this crusade. It's a common assumption, religion and crusades getting thrown together. The reason this sounds more like a crusade and not a mission to educate is its tone, which I mentioned earlier. I know you read that because you quoted me on the "preachy" part.

2. Everyone, everywhere bases their inter-personal relationships on looks to some degree. The degree differs from person to person, but more or less people aren't going to be attracted to someone they find physically unattractive. Friends are another matter in a certain respect. Not all of the people I've made friends with through the site or otherwise do I find attractive to me personally. The reverse is true of me. I'm sure a good deal of the people I've befriended don't particularly find me phyiscally appealing, either. So to say that that is any more true on the site than it is in your own life is a fabrication.

So let me see if I've got your reasoning straight. Strippers, prostitutes, nude models (or any models for that matter) can't have meaningful relationships with people, is that correct? Because everyone will inevitably want to objectify them.

You seem to agree so much with the woman who started this, but you share precious little of her compassion for these supposed prostitutes.

This debate is very interesting and I just wanted some clarity.

1) How much do the models on SG get paid?

2) Do you believe that no one should ever engage in nude modeling?

I'm genuinely curious. Thanks.

From your first post on you've acted like a real smarmy dick and thrown out a lot of pulled from your ass nonsense at people criticizing porn just to see what sticks.

No, it's not correct that sex workers can't have meaningful relationships with people, but as seems to be your M.O. that's not even close to what I said so...

What I said (and demonstrated through the language of men who use sex-workers) is that men in our culture seem to have an awfully difficult time seeing sex workers as human beings worthy of respect, common courtesy and bodily integrity. I wish I knew why men think less of women, why there is sexism, why this sexism seems especially pointed against prostitutes, but alas that's the way it is and the way they speak of and treat strippers, prostitutes, etc. speaks volumes. I have not said one negative word about sex workering people, not damned them to hell nor blamed them for the rape culture that is America nor accused them of being stupid or whatever other stereotypes you've dreamt up and are projecting here.

Oh, and I gotta say I love watching you try to play the Good Feminist/Bad Feminist game between me and reader. I'm a bad, baaaad feminist says Mr. Porn User. ROFL

Seriously though, I really hope kali and anyone else who so clearly is crying out for emotional help gets the support they need. And that was the point of the first post, you know, getting people the support they need because contrary to popular belief "nice ass" doesn't cut it. Reading kali's post at SG was depressing in a kind of no-suprise-here but still sad and searching for a better way, and I hope any SGers reading this drop a line over to her and say something nice.

"religion and crusades getting thrown together"

Yes, because the crusades were religious in nature.

"The reason this sounds more like a crusade and not a mission to educate is its tone."

What tone are you referring too? Again, these are people who have worked in the sex industry and/or with sex workers offering help to others through some of the issues they may face. What is your problem with this? I know plenty of people doing this sort of work; is an ex-construction worker talking to a current construction worker about the issues he or she may face a crusade? Shouldn't anyone be free to share their experiences with others, or at least offer them their experiences, and let them know that they are there?

"Everyone, everywhere bases their inter-personal relationships on looks to some degree."

No, they don't, and someday I truly hope you come to realize this. For myself, physical attraction comes from getting to know someone, not the other way around. Many people have told me that they feel the same. You should also be careful to try and categorize the experiences of others so broadly.

"So to say that that is any more true on the site than it is in your own life is a fabrication."

No, you go to a site because it offers a particular image for sale. Even the closest parallel I can think of would be a club where people might have very similar interests and fashion. But they would still not *look* the same. And of course, most people have social interactions that do not revolve around appearance. It has nothing to do with whether or not *you* find all the people on the site attractive. They were selected based on a set of criteria to promote the business. You were attracted to that criteria. If it were not for their physical appearance, they would not have been selected, and you would not have been interested, hence there would have been no relationships formed. Now perhaps you only choose to interact with people you find physically attractive but I do not. I also reject the concept of meeting people within paid social networks.

As I said, it's no worse than a sorority or fraternity, perhaps even better in some ways. But it's not something I would choose as an avenue for establishing meaningful relationships. You are, of course, free to do as you wish.

Finally, one thing I'm thinking is that the defensiveness here is really for a criticism that is not at all present. All this seems to be the stock response for puritanical "critique" of pornography. But no one here is saying that people doing porn work are bad, or evil, or that they can't have good relationships or be good parents. They're just trying to give them some resources to help them through the very real issues that many sex-workers face, like harassment and stalking (as a person I know who does work for a similar site to SG, is dealing with right now) or getting screwed by their bosses (both literally and figuratively, such as in contract negotiations). Some of people involved in SuicideGirls may be the people doing this education and support 10 or 20 years from now.

There is no good/feminist, bad/feminist play going on at all. Simply that the reader is the only one who is able to articulate him/herself without delving into petty namecalling and juvenile "I know you are, but what am I" style discussion tactics. In short, he/she is the only one of you dissenters who has proved themselves capable of holding a REAL, thought provoking argument. One, I might add, who welcomes opinions from the other side without dismissing them outright or being openly condescending. Also unlike yourself, she doesn't employ deliberate obfuscation to mask the weak points in her argument.

And as for misconstruing your words, well now, if that seems to be the case I apologize. I'm only stating my opinion on that, I suppose I should have said that up front. The fact is, for all your talk about being in support of this issue your words don't seem very compassionate to the very "victims" you purport to be so concerned about: The SGs themselves.

Granted, initially I did start out on a more belligerent note, I've actually tried to be conciliatory and elevate the level of conversation (from my perspective). Case in point, I've deliberately refrained from using obscenities so as not to diminish the impact of the point I'm trying to make OR leave myself open to petty gripes from opportunists eager to dismiss me without having to do any actual work. Yet even as I've tried, I find myself being dragged back down to my opponent's level of integrity. Which is why I actually welcome that other reader's opposing viewpoints, so that this can actually arrive at some semblance of intelligence and decorum that were conspicuously absent when YOU were the loudest voice here.

I suggest that a world fit for your impeccable ideals does not exist in this reality. Because instead of going to the mountain, you demand that the mountain come to you. It would be impossible to achieve your standards. While I'm sure they're not all as irrational as this, your insistence that everything bend to fit you is going to be your greatest disappointment. Not all of what you believe, I'm sure, is without merit. But most of what you've said here (or how you've stated it, anyway) is. I certainly couldn't condemn everything you have to say on this issue, but at the same time I get the feeling that you aren't willing to concede a point from the opposition even if you know that one has been made. That kind of one-way discussion is infuriating and smacks of someone who's sense of self-importance circumvents their ability to reason.

So in parting, I leave you with this quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet which I find eerily apropos, "Get thee to a nunnery."

def. Crusade: a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm.

This does not always imply religious connotations. No one here has tied this crusade to the G-word. If they had, EVEN if they supported my side of the argument I would consider it a feeble assertion at best.

"Now perhaps you only choose to interact with people you find physically attractive but I do not."

Obviously friendships are a slightly different matter (defined as those we do not consider ourselve sexually attracted to) but ALL people EVERYWHERE base their romantic impulses on physical appearance. Think of it, when you see someone for the first time on the street who happens to be attractive, you desire to get to know them better. You get to like someone's personality based on whether they catch your eye. Sure, maybe you've seen more attractive people before but have gotten to love this person because of his or her personality and intellect, but can you honestly tell me that you would date someone whom you openly admit is physically unattractive to you? Look, I'm not painting the world with a broad stroke from the bucket of my personal opinion, that's just human nature.

I'll be the first one to admit that I've found people physically appealing only to find out that they were as dumb as a sack of wet hammers. After that they all but ceased to be attractive to me. Intelligence IS an important part of the equation, but 1 without another 1 to add to it can never equal 2.

"If it were not for their physical appearance, they would not have been selected, and you would not have been interested, hence there would have been no relationships formed."

Most people have what is referred to as a "type". As it so happens, this variety of woman happens to be mine. It is for that reason that I was attracted to the site.

"I also reject the concept of meeting people within paid social networks."

I'm happy for you. I suppose next you're going to slam those who do or have as a way of vicariously lowering the importance of someone's stance on the issue? The plain fact is, I felt the same way you do. SG is the first internet community I have ever belonged to. Before that I derided internet communities as places that geeks gathered. But I have since come to meet some people through this site that I value and hold in the highest esteem. And that alone is more than I had any right to expect out of it.

But was your comment (a friend) saying that my relationships are based on money and appearance? I'm confused here, because if it was, you do understand that you don't know me right? And that you've never met my friends?

I certainly hope you weren't honestly generalizing my life like that, because that would just be moronic.

"On Monday July 19th, anti-prostitution activists demonstrated against a promotional event for a new pornography book published by the SuicideGirls, an internet pornography site."

From the SG FAQ: "These are real girls and are not paid to respond to you or to lead you on."
What gave these activists the thought that SGs could be hookers?

"SuicideGirls.com, a popular pornography web site, recently published what they described as a "coffee table book for the twenty-something set that captures the attitude of alternative youth culture." The book is typical pornographic fare: women displayed with emphasis on their sexual availability, in "come hither" poses designed for the male viewer to fantasize with."

I don't see a problem with this - It's not just male viewers fantasizing. People who take offence to pictures of attractive people have the right not to look. If you're not comfortable with open sexuality, you really have no right to assume any knowledge of it.

"Demonstrators handed out flyers to the audience that included important information about the sex industry, and cautionary advice for anyone thinking about a career in pornography. Two web sites were listed for anyone wanting more information: www.prostitutionrecovery.org and www.prostitutionresearch.com."

Purposfully insinuating an SG link with prostitution.
once again "These are real girls and are not paid to respond to you or to lead you on."

The girls are models. They get paid for modelling, not for sex.
The members are customers. They pay for a service (access to the site, images, message boards, chat ect.), not for sex.

There is a HUGE difference between eroticism (the arousal of or the attempt to arouse sexual feeling by means of suggestion, symbolism, or allusion (as in an art form)
) and prostitution (offering sexual intercourse for pay).

You're being disingenuous with your definitions. Can you source any dictionary where religious significance is not the primary definition?

crusade 1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse
American Heritage

crusade : any of the military expeditions undertaken by Christian powers in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to win the Holy Land from the Muslims
2 : a remedial enterprise undertaken with zeal and enthusiasm
Merriam-Webseter

"ALL people EVERYWHERE base their romantic impulses on physical appearance"

Once again, no you are wrong, all people everywhere do not do this. I do not, others do not. I take the exact opposite interaction that you do. As I get to know people and I like them I begin to find them physically attractive. I sincerely hope you can have this experience someday. And I am human so what you are describing is not "human nature" but rather a prevailing cultural norm. Instead of being physically attracted to someone only to lose interest if their personality doesn't suit me, I do not find a person attractive unless I am first attracted to their personality. I know this must be very hard for you to understand since you are convinced that all people everywhere are sharing your experience, but I assure you it is the truth.

"It is for that reason that I was attracted to the site."

Exactly.

"But was your comment (a friend) saying that my relationships are based on money and appearance?"

No, I'm sure you have many relationships that aren't rooted in appearance or money. Family, friends, etc. But those relationships formed with people hired because of their appearance for a website which attracted you because it was selling their appearance are rooted in appearance. Is that difficult to understand? If any of your SG worker friends didn't look in a way that fit what SG is selling you would not know them right now. Likewise, if you weren't attracted to that appearance, or didn't want to pay for the access to the site, you would also not be friends with those people right now. The whole interaction is based on a set of appearance and image criteria and the possession of money.

And again, there is nothing wrong with this in any moral sense. If you are happy with your life I'm not trying to tell you not to be. I just can't imagine what it would be like to have friends in my life who I never would have met if not for their appearance and/or my money. But the fraternity or sorority is the perfect analogy. Ever seen someone talking to a fraternity or sorority member about "buying friends"? It's the exact same defensive reaction, which was never my desire to provoke. If I had understood the model before hand it would have made more sense and I would probably not have asked about it. Don't take it personally or be threatened by it. No one is trying to break up your club, or call you a cult, or anything like that.

And I certainly hope that you would want the SG workers to have access to whatever information is available to help them deal with issues they may face. A lot of these issues have been around a long time and there are people out there who do have experience that could prove to be most beneficial.

"Seriously though, I really hope kali and anyone else who so clearly is crying out for emotional help gets the support they need. And that was the point of the first post, you know, getting people the support they need because contrary to popular belief "nice ass" doesn't cut it. Reading kali's post at SG was depressing in a kind of no-suprise-here but still sad and searching for a better way, and I hope any SGers reading this drop a line over to her and say something nice."

Amen to that, and something nice meaning not a compliment on her appearance. And also, I hope that the dialogue stays open about these issues because there are a lot of people who have had nearly identical experiences and it is important to be aware of that. It's inspiring to see that spark of awareness alive and I hope people are tending it; it needs to grow.

And to Divit, thanks for the honesty of your title, it saved me the time of reading your post.

Those demonstrators are lucky I live on the east coast. I would've filled a water gun with mace and went after all of them. Do something more productive you fucking prudes.... like getting laid perhaps?

SG fucking rules. No pathetic protest is going to put a dent into what they have.

...from 'a friend'
"But those relationships formed with people hired because of their appearance for a website which attracted you because it was selling their appearance are rooted in appearance. Is that difficult to understand?"

I have one friend who is an SG, who is also the single most worthwhile person I've met in my life, who I met through the site, prior to her being a model. Just thought I'd mention that, because if it weren't for the site I would not have met this person with whom I have the most meaningful bond in my life to this point.

The other friends though, who I was mentioning, are not suicidegirls. They are members on the site that I met because of our proximity to each other through a local group and a membership to SG. These are friends by association. Just like friends you have at your job, only backwards from that, I'm not being paid in currency. Maybe it's more like the people you meet through your hobbies. Stamp collectors meet other stamp collectors. Football fans meet other football fans. The list, of course continues.

All that I've said to here is to clarify that point and not so much to argue, moving on...

The reason I'm even elaborating on this is for one purpose and one purpose only. And that is to illustrate that even if the site exists with the intention of displaying alternative models (which is its stated purpose), it exists for many other purposes as well. If you ignore the rest of the site, then you may as well be arguing playboy or hustler or penthouse or barely legal or jenna jameson or strippers or prostitutes or ron jeremy or fashion magazines that also objectify women (and on a much larger scale with a much broader, younger consumer base) or tv commercials or...

If you were to combine a chat engine with public message boards, a site member search, special interest groups, advice columns and personal journals (some sites have already done this, and quite successfully) it would have your blessing as one more thing that the internet is useful for. But when you throw nude photography and vicarious access to the actual models and interaction with them, should they choose to correspond with you (via journals/chat/boards) then all of a sudden nothing else matters. And then everyone on the site is a freak, a pedophile, an exhibitionist, a slut, a whore, a lesbian (in some cases), dangerous, unfit, stupid, one sided, two dimensional, worthless...

Another list that goes on, goes on, goes on...

I was actually talking to someone about this about two hours ago. What really seemed to boil my view on this down to a discernable characteristic, one solid thing that I could measure the differences between different types of sex work with, is this: Level of involvement. In strip clubs a girl may be forced into situations that are uncomfortable for periods of time that are nearly unbearable. In many instances of sex for hire, that uncomfortable situation may last the duration of the activity in question. Sometimes people are hired with the specific intention of humiliation and degradation. In the case of suicidegirls.com, I don't think that's the case at all. The site views the models as having a right to avoid these uncomfortable situations. Most sex work, ESPECIALLY prostitution, does not follow that guideline.

Meanwhile, in another similar arguement:

Tell you what, I don't drink and I don't agree with drinking. Drunk folks kill folks because they get in cars while being drunk. Sure, it's true that this happens, but just because you drink doesn't mean that you're going to kill someone. In that same way, people who subscribe to a porn site don't out and out objectify women. Do members of suicidegirls.com objectify women? Certainly. Does everyone? Hardly. Does modeling for suicidegirls.com mean you're being exploited? It can. But does the fact that these girls and any member (male or female) who so chooses post nude photos change the general equation? Oddly enough, and as much as you disagree, yes. It does change the equation. How does it change the equation? Buy a membership and find out.

Well all the owner cares about is making money from his indieclick.com suicidegirls.com thebivvy.com
and the best thing about it is that he denies knowing anything about this ad  http://www.altporn.net/images/pimp.gif that was displayed on his other secret porn site thebivvy.com
More info here:  http://www.livejournal.com/community/sgirls/186289.html

"the best thing about it is that he denies knowing anything about this ad"

First of all, if you knew anything about the site, (will ALL of you please note this and stop trying to base points on this) the owner is FEMALE... Missy. Sean works for her.
Secondly, he DIDNT know anything about it, because once he was pointed in the direction of the ad, he is in process of having it taken down.
Thirdly, the ad was based upon something the model herself said (in sarcasm and jest). Another SG (who will remain nameless has said "she did SG for lots of butt sex." but to imply that she is REALLY out there hyping her SG status in exchange for sex is insane. another said "i had to have the pink SG panties" but to imply that she sold herself out strictly JUST for the panties, and did it for no other reason, once again insane. there are STILL a lot of SG's who answered that question seriously... "to show tattoos are beautiful"... "to express myself" yet no one points those out. they only choose to see what they want and they exploit those specific points to help prove theirs.
Fourth, no one yet has denied the site is porn. we DO deny that it is prostitution.

Lastly, you all beg and argue the fact that you are here to EDUCATE, and not preach. well, i have seen NOTHING of you that has educated me on ANYTHING. all i see/read are women pointing fingers at SG, calling them whores, prostitutes, sex-workers. how is this supposed to educate me or anyone else? how was breaking up the book signing, educating? how is ANY of this educating at all for that matter?

"Sinnocense (ugh that pseudonym) reminds me of that line from Shakespeare, "Methinks the lady doth protest too much". You can speak all you like about how your porn is different, your nudity is revered by men who pay to see your lovely nakedness and all that jazz, but men make it very clear how they feel about strippers, prostitutes, porn actresses and other sex workers..."

well vineeta (ugh, that name. see what really is the point of you saying "ugh" to that? does it help your case? no. lets try to stay focused. this isnt about me.) i never said this porn was different. i said it was softer, less hardcore. Ive NEVER said my nudity was revered by men who pay because i do NOT appear on the site nude... at all... ever. and i think the men customers of SG.com have made it VERY clear how they feel about the SG women. all of them have stated they appreciate the women for their charm, intelligence, wit, and attitude. it was in face a MAN that sent me this link in disgust over how you were talking about the women. he was who convinced the several of us to come and speak our minds about this because he hated to see them get talked about like trash.

once again, you're supposedly here to educate and reinforce positive views about women (seeing as how we supposedly degrade and dehumanize them) but once again, YOU are the one referring to them as prostitutes, whores.

and i ask again, are nudist colonies degrading to women?

and i ask again, if women arent supposed to be viewed as nothing mroe than "men's fantasy objects" (which they arent) then why are you assuming that is the only reason they are on the site?

and i ask again, is the suicide BOYS group on the site (FULL of naked men) just as bad? or is it only bad when women do it?

i repeat, so many points we make that you simply ignore because there is no defense.

Reader, Vineeta and to the Author of the article,

I like how everybody has failed to respond to the fact that many of the paying members are enthusiastically exposing themselves as well and that over half of the membership are women. Are they prostitutes as well? God forbid we bring up the gay membership.

It's time to face the fact that you are puritan zealots, and that your opinions and beliefs have grown old and withered, outdated and useless in a new society that can't wait for you and other zealots like you to dry up and die! In fact it's your puritanical oppression that has led so many young girls to leave home and enter the arms of the very establishment you are trying to fight!
Face the fact that you cannot win your battle on this field. The suicide girls themselves are "porn users" as you so aptly named poor Matt, as am I and my wife. Yes, eroticism has become mainstream among healthy sexual couples, not just lonely masturbating men! As long as there exists sexual desire, i.e.: horny men and women, you can not change the demand for this industry. You cannot win.

Instead why don't you focus your energies where they might do some good? Pressure your politicians fight poverty so that women everywhere have the financial freedom to not enter the sex industry out of desperation for money. Pressure them to legalize and institutionalize prostitution in order to take the "supply" part of this industry out of the hands of gangs and drug dealers, and allow these women to actually profit from their trade so that they might go on to be able to be financially free to make their own decision to leave the industry. Sponsor youth shelters so that UNDERAGE GIRLS have some other place to turn! There is the real crime, the real battle! Not a group of students and housewives who like to express their sexual liberation from their oppressive puritanical matriarch's like yourselves who are trying to convince us all that God will hate us if we touch ourselves!

Another losing battle: To my fellow "evil doers" and "porn users", stop wasting your energy on these prudes. Ignore them like they deserve. Let them march down the street chanting "The end is nigh!" They are last of a dying breed. Nod and politely say, "Yes Grandma", if only to humor them so you can get back on with your lives. They are too sexually repressed to ever be helped.

it's my understanding that the women who model for SG are paid a single modest fee for their time, and given free membership to the site, and some merch. i personally wouldn't have a problem with SG if it really were fair trade. but the way i see it, it's just a small group of people (mostly women) who are making money from people who'll pay to see naked women. the money earnt from subscriptions and advertising isn't going back to all the suicide girls. it's going to a few individuals. it seems incongruous that suicide girls runs this way. it doesn't seem to be addressed that the profits taken might be more fairly distributed amongst it's workers.

also i wonder if these women who pose for SG have union representation to support them if they aren't happy with the setup in the future, to advise them on how much they really deserve to be paid and all that sort of stuff.

i'm not a member of SG, but i do skim the boards and some diaries occasionally.

That's not disengenuous at all. I'm not saying that there aren't many different meanings to the word "crusade" I was telling which ONE I was using. I did it to clear up any misconceptions so that no one would see fit to come along and issue a blanket dismissal based on the assumed fact that I'm against this campaign because I'm against Christianity or anything of that sort.

It's basic human nature to be physically attracted to the best possible mate from the opposite (or same depending on your orientation) sex. This lends itself to all qualities, but as humans we are governed most by the visual aspect of the equation. Like I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing, just how it is. Obviously the other qualities have to factor into the equation (for most people, anyway) but generally speaking, appearance is the first thing you see. You can't "see" someone's personality. I'm not saying that there aren't ever any exceptions, but just because you and your friends are exceptions to the rule does not automatically disprove the mold. But anyway, this is another conversation for another issue altogether. It's kind of veering off topic so I digress.

I really appreciate your stance in this, however. So far you've been fairly open minded. I don't think that anyone here so far is worried that their club is going to be disbanded or that they are bad for indulging. The only part I myself take issue with is the labelling of these girls as prostitutes. That I HIGHLY object to. Other than that I find little here that peaks my interest one way or the other. The whole education part, I get that. That I don't have a problem with, per se. But this metaphorical tie-in with prostitution is absurd. Under their logic we're ALL whores because we all trade our services for money. Some of us trade our dignity along with that, others enjoy what we do more and feel satisfied in what we are doing. But just because METAPHORICALLY we all prostitute ourselves to some degree or other does not LITERALLY make the label stick. There are fundemental differences there which I've tried to bring up on a couple separate occasions but they keep getting overlooked.

And now that I'm thinking of it, most people at one time or another have met and become friends (or more) in a social setting where money was involved. If you've ever met someone in a bar or club, concert, sporting event, even at the grocery store or coffee shop. Given your broad perception of the friendships we've all made through the site, I count all those places as the same, given that they all required the trade of monetary goods. And think of it, in most of those places you're meeting people with like interests.

To Vineeta:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#138956

In this post, you call all of the Suicide Girls whores. Blatantly displaying your hatred for the  http://suicidegirls.com site. Frankly, you come off as somewhat of a mysogynist in this post.


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#139302
(a little more elaboration here)
You open by saying that all of the [active] members of SG are vapid and self absorbed..... you say this without actually think about your words, and not even bothering to get to know these people that you so casually insult. for that I call you stupid, and self absorbed.
You follow that rediculous statement, with the accusation that a person believes that all women are whores. Hmm, if that were correct, wouldn't you be the pot calling the kettle black there? (recall your first post please.)


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#140199
I don't care who the fuck you are, but you have NO right WHATSOEVER to call someone you've never met a slut.


You claim to be a feminist? so far all you've done is berate women for excesizing their freedom of speech, expression, and thought. You are to femminism what arsenic is to life expectancy.


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#140244
"The SGers are coming, the SGers are coming!"
So, the "whores" that you are trying to "defend" drop by to tell you what you think of your "help," and all of a sudden, they're not oppressed anymore! wow, you did an awesome fucking job there, you should be proud. you singlehandedly transformed these poor, oppressed, weak-minded whores into strong angry womyn with aggressive corporate interests!
I like you less with each paragraph.

Oh, wait... as that post continues, they turn back into whores.
I do get a slight chuckle out of
"Any people NOT profiting members of Suicide Girls or NOT paying members of Suicide Girls are the ones I want to hear from"
Openly stating that your mind is firmly closed, and you have no interest in hearing from someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#140366
A big irrelevent list of porn, and some more trash talking.
No one has said that SG isn't porn, but it certainly isn't "Thirsty for cum"


 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#140390
"I have not said one negative word about sex workering people"
Do you even read what you write? Apparently not.

"Oh, and I gotta say I love watching you try to play the Good Feminist/Bad Feminist game between me and reader. I'm a bad, baaaad feminist says Mr. Porn User. ROFL"
You are not a femminist, you think you are, but you aren't (in my oppinion, of course) You have not said a single thing throughout this entire thread that is positive or helpful to the femminist movement.

You are a Mysogynist, you are jealous of the freedom and power expressed by the Suicide Girls, and you absolutely hate that fact that you are largely alone in these feelings.



I'll get to reader next. At least that person came across as intellegent, and willing to debate - Although, I may have to up my grammar level for that post.

It stands to reason that through advertising and partnerships the site generates more money. And more money made by the site means more money for their employees.

A union? Please tell me you're kidding and that you're not that naive.

I already pointed put the "women do it too so it must be all right" bit of logical disconnect with the Lyndie Englad example. You know folks, women are not morally superior to men, so why the repeated wacky assertion that because women are involved with SG it makes it inherently acceptable? Lots of women work for Halliburton.

Apparently, someone here doesn't understand the difference between calling women whores and pointing out that SG has "women presented as whores". This same someone also sees the word "slut" where it is not and should probably invest in better glasses. And yes, dear reading-challenged divit, lots of people here have said SG isn't porn (a partial list includes HonkeyKong, scarry, suicidegirl, anon...), but if you can miss the entire content of several people's posts defending SG as different from pornography, well then...

Are you this awful a reader/debator all the time or is this subject matter too close to you to see/think rationally?

Gringo Stars has a post on the prostitution page at the top of the gender & sexuality page that skewers the idea that "we'll all prostitutes in some way". Um, no we're not, for the reasons given there.

"Are you this awful a reader/debator all the time or is this subject matter too close to you to see/think rationally?"

A thorough reading of everything you've contributed so far kind of demonstrates that you're out of your element in critiquing anyone else's debating skills, feeble as you may perceive them to be. So far, your idea of "debate" has relied on solely pointing out how stupid people are, and not even really by offering up any satisfactory reasoning on that. You scoff and that's about the extent of your abilities (or perhaps that's all you care to invest in it).

By the way, that's not just my opinion that time. That's facts culled from the evidence you've provided. You can call down hell on me and say that I too have been flippant and superficial in my arguments, but everyone who can read and think for themselves will see that that's not the case, even if they happen to hate my guts. At the very least, I have attempted to contribute something in the way of discussion.

Matt, even according to your own definition this does not constitute a crusade. I'm sure you're aware of that. And I'm also sure you chose the word because of its religious connotation. You wanted to dismiss people as puritans or, as you put it "overly sensitive moral hypochondriac[s]".

"but as humans we are governed most by the visual aspect of the equation"

No, we are not. Even if you were to make a defense based on evolutionary biology you would not be able to make a case for why being attracted to thin women with body mods is somehow evolutionarily adaptive.

"Like I said, it's not necessarily a bad thing, just how it is"

Well I would think it would be a bad thing if is was "just how it is." Fortunately that is not how things work for many people. And no, it is not a bad thing for you to be that way. I would hope you might want to try something different someday and see how it works for you.

"You can't "see" someone's personality"

So are you saying you never talk to anyone unless you find them physically attractive first? That would be truly sad.

"just because you and your friends are exceptions to the rule does not automatically disprove the mold"

Well, actually it doves disprove your statement that everyone, everywhere thinks like you do.

"The only part I myself take issue with is the labelling of these girls as prostitutes. That I HIGHLY object to"

Well, at this point perhaps it is the only issue you object to, and that is good, it's progress. However, no one accused these women of being prostitutes at the protest or in the reporting. It was taken on by anti-prostitution activists but who says these same activists aren't concerned with other aspects of sex-work, because of course they would be. And I would further continue to reiterate what has been said here many times, why do you consider prostitution to be worse than pornography? No one has claimed that the SG workers are having sex for money, merely that they're producing sexual material for money. Many prostitutes get paid merely to take their clothes off for someone to masturbate to. So, if this is just a semantic argument for you I would get over it. Not everyone would agree that sexual intercourse is necessary for an act to be labeled prostitution (even dictionaries disagree, check for yourself). If you want to be clear that no one is accusing the SG workers of having sex for money I think it would be trivial to examine what people have said and find that no one is making such claims.

And, again, what about being labeled prostitution is so objectionable? Many prostitutes are very nice people. You might find yourself being friends with them if you paid for their company instead of the SG workers. And it's entirely damaging to sex-workers to keep putting up these artificial divisions. And that's not just SG, it's all sex-workers who do that. And that's part of the degradation that they feel I'm sure. People label their actions unacceptable and they rationalize it with convincing themselves they could be doing worse. This is a fundamentally disempowering approach. If you're happy with your station in life who cares what people call it? Again, if it's semantic, it's pretty easy for an SG-worker to say, yes I have been hired to produce sexual imagery but I don't have sex with people for money. Then let people label as they will and don't pay it any mind, so long as you have been truthful in your statement.

"many of the paying members are enthusiastically exposing themselves as well and that over half of the membership are women. Are they prostitutes as well?"

Are they getting paid for their pictures? If not people would be hard pressed to call it pornography or prostitution (though such things is furthering the business). If a person sends a naked picture to a porno mag and it gets published is it pornography?

"can't wait for you and other zealots like you to dry up and die"

A new society that wishes for the death of others, how charming.

"you can not change the demand for this industry. You cannot win. "

Well, the demand for sexual liberation will not be stopped by the sex industry may find itself obsolete through that sexual liberation. Why pay for naked pictures when liberated people will trade them for free? The last time this happened the sex industry also had to completely coop the sexual liberation movement. I suspect that is what we are seeing for free. Why don't sexually liberated people set up websites or networks to trade pictures independent of having to pay for it and independent of a particular image. I suppose this is already happening and I suspect it will continue to grow. And cheers to that.

"And more money made by the site means more money for their employees. "

Yes, and more money for the owners.

"A union? Please tell me you're kidding and that you're not that naive."

Sounds like a great idea, though a truly worker owned business would be even better.

Finally, Matt, I'm sorry that your fellow SG customers are coming here threatening violence and reiterating the same puritanical nonsense that you wisely moved beyond. I hope you've gained some perspective on why former sex-workers and those who have worked with sex-workers would want to help other sex-workers, especially those whose clients threaten violence and wish death on others. One day perhaps we will see what true sexual liberation looks like, free from crass commercialization, profit-mindedness, and fetishized appearances. From the sound of things here, despite whatever progress SG might be making, we all have a long way to go.

I remain,
a friend

Hi! Now that you are back I was hoping you could answer my questions (see above post). Thanks!

>> Fourth, no one yet has denied the site is porn.

>> No one has said that SG isn't porn, but it certainly isn't "Thirsty for cum"

From above:

>> Maybe somebody should look at the Suicidegirls website before simply labelling it "pornography"

>> this is not merely a pornogrpahic website where woman are shamelessly exploited

>> For you, or anyone, to even equate the SuicideGirls with the pornography industry is idiotic at best.

>> The girls on the site are merely expressing themselves through a pure artform - photography

>> If the art and the community that is SuicideGirls.com is not your cup of tea, don't go there.

>> suicidegirls.com is an adult web community, which happens to feature PIN UP photography

>> i'd fucking love to know exactly how i'm being exploited by the porn industry simply because i model for suicidegirls. I even find labeling it as porn to be really funny.

>> This site is many things, but to throw it into the Porn pile is unfare.

French pornographie, from pornographe, pornographer, from Late Greek pornographos, writing about prostitutes

And also from American Heritage:

por·nog·ra·phy n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.

pros·ti·tu·tion n.
1. The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.

To be taken with a grain of salt, but interesting none-the-less.

"It is often forgotten that (dictionaries) are artificial repositories, put together well after the languages they define. The roots of language are irrational and of a magical nature."
- Jorge Luis Borges

I say again, no, I do not dismiss this campaign as a "puritanical" pursuit. I may not agree with it, but it doesn't deserve to be shuffled off that easily. I don't care whether it is, or isn't motivated by the religious right. I suspect it isn't, but even if it were the end result is pretty much the same.

And while I feel you're deluding yourself, I would hasten to mention that going down the "what we are attracted to and why" road is going to lead us off topic, I feel the need to clarify a few things anyway. I don't talk to people solely because I find them attractive, no. So now that we're clear on that, I can proceed to unravel the layers of this tremendously huge onion. As you cannot SEE a person's personality or intelligence upon meeting them for the first time in real-time you are forced to rely upon other faculties. For example, have you ever remarked, or heard someone to remark "Hey, check out her personality"? It is true that yes, while someone's attractiveness may increase as you get to know them, I would go so far as to say that at no point you thought to yourself that they were physically UNattractive to begin with. Those who don't spark our interest physically and those who do generally fall into the "friends" and "friends with potential to be more" categories respectively.

And just to head off anyone quick to capitalize, no, this reasoning isn't disproved by the fact that there are still people who are unattractive who have plenty of friends. Beauty is subjective, so what one person considers ugly, another might be attracted to (case in point: women with piercings and tatts). Most people don't only talk to people who they find themselves physically drawn to. On the contrary. We bump into people every day that don't draw our attention, but out of hundreds of such encounters there are usually a handful that turn into something meaningful. That's how someone's personality is uncovered and THAT is how friends are made. The ones we choose to date, however, are subject to a similar but slightly different criteria.

And yes, that is the only thing I object to, this horrendous misuse of the term "prostitute". I'm not saying that prostitutes are horrible people, I'm simply citing that there is a distinct and inarguable difference in the actions between the two. And action is what defines the term. There are very strict legal definitions regarding what is, and isn't considered prostitution. And they aren't open to interpretation. If you want to erase the distinction by calling them figuratively the same, then you're essentially calling for a rewrite of the definition. And once you've done that, you then must move on to the legal definitions defining the term.

In terms of semantics, you are correct. It IS ridiculous. Sure, you can pay a prostitute to do whatever you want. It's your money, you can hire her to go grocery shopping with you or even help you decide what color to paint your deck. But we all know the main reason that prostitutes exist and what accounts for the lion's share of their business, and simply stating that you can pay a prostitute to help you work on your transmission doesn't make the definition suddenly expand to embrace these girls (SGs, Playmates, what have you). That is the only claim I take issue with. I never once stated that I was incensced about people saying that they (the SGs) were paid to have sex, because obviously no one has been that stupid. I'm incredulous about the rampant misappropriation of the term. That is all.

"Even if you were to make a defense based on evolutionary biology you would not be able to make a case for why being attracted to thin women with body mods is somehow evolutionarily adaptive."

I'm merely separating this statement to point out that it is not evolutionarily adaptive, that is just something that I MYSELF consider attractive. That goes back to what I said earlier about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

And now on to this little piece of business...

"Yes, and more money for the owners."

Of course more money for the owners. Does that make them somehow worse? Hell no, my boss makes more than I do. Everyone's boss makes more than they do. That's how the chain of command works. I must admit that I'm having a difficult time with understanding how that comment was relevant because there was no explanation for it.

And lastly,...

"Finally, Matt, I'm sorry that your fellow SG customers are coming here threatening violence and reiterating the same puritanical nonsense that you wisely moved beyond."

While I'm not about to speak for the integrity of all our members, I would certainly hope that you understand that that is not indicative of all of us and further caution you not to issue a blanket disdain for all of us based upon such a small sampling. I haven't done that here, even as there are a couple specimens that seem to beg my general condemnation in the whole cause. Really, our site is very clear on where it stands regarding what you can and cannot post.

I'm glad you feel that progress has been made in this debate, and while there's nothing that you can present that can convince me that this and prostitution are exactly the same, I'm perfectly willing to hash it out. As it stands, that is the only sticking point I have. As it pertains to others in the sex industry wanting to help their colleagues, I don't see ANY problem with that. Not one bit.

Nope, not gonna waste my time with your self-serving defenses. Here's why: "Fourth, no one yet has denied the site is porn."

Why bother with the other three, or anything else you say in promotion of yourself via SG, when you get the most simple, observable truths going on in this debate wrong from the get go? Who has the energy to show you everything the rest of our eyes can see but yours remain willfully ignorant of?

Both you and I can go to the SG front page and look at the pictures. What do I see that you don't? 28 pictures and not a single Suicide Boy presented.

Know what else I see that you don't? 28 pictures of "girls" and not a single one is smiling. They've all that the same Vivid Video "come on big boy" blank stare, but not a single one is flashing a joyful smile, a happy smile, a self-satisfied smile.

Maybe they're too busy trying to make the fake fantasy face that satisfies paying customers that they forget to find something genuinely satifying to smile about during their photo shoots?

I've seen a pretty good share of them smiling. But there again, more blanket denials based on superficial expertise. Even more to the point, I have actually met some of them in person so I happen to know that they don't resent us as you're so certain of.

Regardless, none of this matters to you because I'm sure there's something in there, no matter how slight that will allow you to justify writing off the whole. And anyway, it seems that you've stopped responding to me anyway. Even the most well stocked arsenal eventually runs out of ammo.

Images of "liberated" "girls" sells (especially if they don't look too happy with their "liberation"). SuicideGirls, even the name is patronizing and insulting.

Was your last comment directed at me? The title would suggest so, but the subject matter had nothing to do with me.

Maybe you were so rude because it was unclear who I am - that was the first thing I had said in this debate. Theres really no need to direct your hostility towards me.

I stumbled upon this article and asked some questions in an attempt to understand your position. Especially since you asked for an outsiders opinion...




If the post was not directed at me, just disregard this, but please answer my questions! =)

My bad, but you sure could have been a lot clearer than "see above post".

My comments are to divit, the "above" question poser when I posted.

Your questions:

1. They could tell you most accurately
2. Of course not, I'm against pornography, the sexual objectification of women, and profiteering from commercialized sexuality. You can get a more detailed description of the difference between erotic art and pornography from Diana Russell  http://www.dianarussell.com/pornintro.html but keep in mind the word "pornography" itself breaks down into "whore viewing" where erotic has its root in "love".

At first I wasn't going to offer up any argument that Suicide Girls was NOT porn, but after reading Diana Russel's definition this was often repeated by her...

"Hence, I define pornography as material that combines sex and/or the exposure of genitals with abuse or degradation in a manner that appears to endorse, condone, or encourage such behavior"

I'll let her continue.

"The term abusive sexual behavior in my definition refers to sexual conduct that ranges from derogatory, demeaning, contemptuous, or damaging to brutal, cruel, exploitative, painful, or violent. Degrading sexual behavior refers to sexual conduct that is humiliating, insulting, and/or disrespectful; for example, urinating or defecating on a woman, ejaculating in her face, treating her as sexually dirty or inferior, depicting her as slavishly taking orders from men and eager to engage in whatever sex acts men want, or calling her insulting names while engaging in sex, such as bitch, cunt, nigger, whore."

Since SG and Playboy are not hardcore, you won't find "degrading sexual behavior" going on, and since the former is intentionally broad, you may make a case for one or more of those things. HOWEVER, her "definition" is hinged on the two COMBINED.

And while her definition seems to exclude the aforementioned publications (as well as many others) I still disagree with it. After all, it's really great that there are some who are presumptuous enough to rewrite definitions of what they find distasteful just to suit their own needs or goals. Or to sell a book, promote a seminar, self-help video, etc. And yet while I refuse to recognize HER definition of what pornography is, I will still concede that SG is porn. While it is at times subtle, more often than not it is direct and to the point. There is little mystery in its intent. Erotica is more subtle than that. So while erotica and Suicide Girls (or other softcore, pinup style modeling sites) may share a lot of the same qualities, at the end of the day I would still have to admit that it is porn. There's nothing I can find that will allow me to deny that.

Pornography and prostitution: Still beast of a different color.

"keep in mind the word "pornography" itself breaks down into "whore viewing" where erotic has its root in "love"."

It's nice to see that you finally came clean with your sentiments on these girls. Or was that referring to the prostitutes that you profess to have so much concern for? I gathered that you took that the Greek pornographos, which means writing about prostitutes. Regardless of just who the "whore" in your remark was, it was VERY telling.

You're still an ass Matt, and "pornography" still means "the lowest class of prostitutes (aka whores) are looked at" despite your repeated sad attempts to try and find a contempt for prostitutes that I just do not have. Look at the list of porn spam I gave and write letters to those men, because they're the ones cashing in on the general male population's low esteem for females.

As for Diana Russell 'selling a book" implying a profit motive...if you read thw whole website you'll learn that Dr. Russell paid money from her own pocket to self-publish this book because porn-profiteering publishing houses don't really give a flying fuck about 'freedom of expression' but about protecting their enormous profits from the porn industry. If you have ever self-published or looked into it, you'd know it is not a lucrative business move.

Pornies love to cry censorship when their already printed and circulated-by-subscription magazines are kept out of a handful of bookstores, but the male dominated publishing industry that refuses to even print feminist books critiquing pornography is an area of equal free speech rights the ACLU ignores (of course, they get millions from the porn industry too).

Yeah, you know that list had little if anything to do with what's being discussed here. In actuality it seemed like a diversion more than aything else.

Also note that you conveniently ignored the part where I agreed with you that it's still porn. To wit, I have never DISagreed on that point. Only that pornography and prostitution are two different things. In definition, legal and otherwise.

Feel free to keep dragging the level of discourse down as is your wont.

You can't tell me that she did this without an expectation of a return on her investment, whether it's from the radio or lecture circuit or the Dr. Phil world of daytime television. Just like everyone with their foolproof diet plan or self-help system, she's convinced she's got the market cornered when in actuality she's worth about a dime a dozen. She's no more altruistic in that respect than the Tony Robbins or the guy who came up with the South Beach Diet.

And to suggest that she couldn't find a publisher because of her anti-porn stance is simply asinine. Quite possibly the publishers she shopped her manuscript around to just simply didn't find it very good.

pros·ti·tu·tion n.
1. The act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.

pros·ti·tu·tion n.
the act or practice of engaging in sexual activity indiscriminately esp. for money

pros·ti·tute n.
1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.

pros·ti·tute n.
a person who engages in sexual activity indiscriminately esp. for money

Does this fit the "SuicideGirls"? I'd say so, but others are free to disagree. I suppose it would depend on what one considered a "sex act" or "sexual activity". Thus the semantic quibbling can continue.

Whether the definitions of pornography and prostitution are different depends entirely on what definitions one chooses. That should be obvious enough to anyone.

One is legal in the eyes of the law, the other predominantly not. And really, the law's definition is the only one that matters. But still, not to make the distinction is purely delusional. Anyone who could still argue that sex acts are taking place on SG or Playboy has never been on either of those sites. Case closed.

Everyone else appears to be discussing cultural definitions (the question has never been are pornography and prostitution considered equal under the law, because they are not, at this point, in most localities in the United States). You want to act as though the law is a fixed entity when in fact it is not. If the law is the only definition that matters, which law, in which country, state, or locality, at which point in history? Because laws disagree sharply when it comes to prostitution and to sex in general. And resting your case on the law seems foolish given how archaic the legal system is with regard to sex. I'm sure you don't want to spend your time discussing why the law is correct with regard to prostitution but incorrect with regard to sodomy (unless you believe it should be illegal to engage in sex acts other than intercourse between a man and a woman (and in some cases, intercourse other than the missionary position)). Since I suspect most people here believe in legalization prostitution, or at least adopting a modern legal approach to prostitution, the "legal" definitions with which you have tied your "case" is also subject for review, critique, and ultimately, change.

Personally, I don't see why you take this so personally; almost all the posts refer to "sex workers" a more inclusive term that can be agreed upon. Seems like a silly thing to get riled up about. But hey, whatever floats your boat. Case closed.

I don't see why prostitution is illegal, myself. However I understand that it is the result of archaic laws that were just never changed and now are being held in place by our "moral pillars".

The reason that I'm still debating this, is that the very crux of the argument here is some people believe pornography and prostitution to be one and the same. Now, if you wanted to make a case for hardcore porn being akin to prostitution it would be less of a stretch. But to openly come out and say that all forms of pornography (and apparently some people have a very liberal definition of pornography) are equal in all respects to prostitution is just laughable. And the reason I take it to heart is that some of these "prostitutes" are my friends.

I think you'll agree, though, that the law is very clear when it comes to what constitutes prostitution. There are no if's, and's or but's about it.

I read the link you provided and it was very interesting. Here is the given definition of 'erotica'.

Erotica refers to sexually suggestive or arousing material that is free of sexism, racism, and homophobia, and respectful of all human beings and animals portrayed. This definition takes into account that humans are not the only subject matter of erotica. For example, I remember seeing a short award-winning erotic movie depicting the peeling of an orange. The shapes and coloring of flowers or hills can make them appear erotic. Many people find Georgia O'Keeffe's paintings erotic. But erotica can also include overtly or explicitly sexual images.

This appears to me like it could be a definition of the suicidegirls website, from what I can tell from the sample picyures offered by the site combined with the responses of the people affiliated with the site that have responded in this forum. What do YOU think the difference is? Is it simply that the models are being paid, that transforms the images from 'erotica' to 'prostitution'?

Again, I am not trying to argue or be confrontational, I am just rying to understand your position and in the process come to some personal idea of what is exploitive and what is not. Thanks again.

The part where she says:

"The definiton's requirement of non-sexism means that the following types of material qualify as pornography rather than erotica: sexually arousing images in which women are consistently shown naked while men are clothed or in which women's genitals are displayed but men's are not; or in which men are always portrayed in the initiating, dominant role. An example of sexualized racism which pervades pornography entails depictions of women that are confined to young, white bodies fitting many white men's narrow concept of beauty, i.e., very thin, large-breasted, and blonde."

Despite not-very-convincing attempts to put Suicide Boys on equal territory as Suicide Girls, the overemphasis on young, white, female bodies posed like caricatures of females as men want to see them (not smiling, making 'fuck me' faces at the camera) plays into the inequality fostered by SG. Men are playing a dominant role in SG as the audience to be catered to in order to increase membership money because it is still men's ability to define female sexuality as it pleases them that fuels SG and other porn.

Also:

"The term abusive sexual behavior in my definition refers to sexual conduct that ranges from derogatory, demeaning, contemptuous, or damaging to brutal, cruel, exploitative, painful, or violent."

The erasing of individual female character and identity that happens with SG is part of the overall dehumanizing of women through pornography. Watching women play into it with their Suicide names instead of using their real names is just one more small bit piece of the whole disturbing sexism picture that remakes real women in the image of men's sexual desire du jour.

Have you noticed how many times three women presented in movies, TV, ads, etc as a group are presented as The Blonde, The Brunette, The Redhead? The option of using a racial fetish to cover The Brunette as in the new Charlie's Angels and more has gained popularity of late. When have you seen three men categorized by haircolor this way? Have you ever seen three men in an ad, one blonde, one brown-haired and one redheaded? Note the lack of a succinct word in English for male brunettes...such has language, like pornography, been made by men and for men to suit their desires.

Suicide Girls, and other porn, bank on this anonymous objectification of females. Real models making real art don't use oh-so-sexy pseudonyms to further mimic the male fantasies they mold themselves to fit. What is "Sinnocense" (and by extension "suicide" + "girls") except one more way of pandering to the Titney Spears, Lolita, Barely Legal, Girl Next Door male fantasy that all young females, even 'good, innocent' girls, are really sluts at heart who are ever ready to do whatever naughty, kinky sex acts men want? You don't see signs for strip clubs advertising "Women! Women! Women!"

Men are not infantilized this way, they don't have their entire sexuality reduced to "virginal yet also slutty" market cliches for to be paid for and consumed by women.

It's the same phenomena with the whole "twins" fantasy men seem to have. The point of Coors, Hugh Hefner and co. marketing the idea of fucking twin sisters isn't to show respect for each one's beauty and individuality, it's to reduce all women to replacable, clone-able Fembot fuck toys and erase any semblence of unique personality they have. The idea of two sisters co-fucking is also just nasty because of the incest implications, and it is precisely this 'girls are such nasty hoes they'll even lick their sister's twat for my pleasure!' dynamic that turns many men on (reread the above list of porn titles to see this humiliation in full action).

The infantilation and sexual object-making of women that runs through pornography is in SG, it's just more tightly wrapped in the far lopsided gender representation, false names, alternagirl fetish fantasies, etc. than other types of more overt pornography. The primacy of women's sexual availability to men is still paramount, and that's still not working to all women's benefit even if it works to the personal benefit of a few women willing to play into the punky & pierced fembot game.

Wow! Thank you, that was an awesome and articulate response.

...I don't think I agree with everything you've said, but you've given me a lot to think about. Thanks!

There you go again touting superficial knowledge. You judge solely by what you can see from the outside, not caring to do any ACTUAL homework like I imagine at least Ms. Barrera did a nominal amount of (maybe). Because the simple fact is that you're not interested in gathering enough information to make an informed, fair and balanced opinion. You just tow the party line like the majority of your feminist sisters. You're not interested in equality as it is defined, but rather a skewed bastardization of it. You're so convinced that the current spectrum is wrong that you'd have the pendulum make a complete sweep in the opposite direction, when what you SHOULD consider is that the ideal resides somewhere in the middle. Maybe the current state of things is not optimal, but to completely turn the tables isn't going to right things. It's just creating the inverse problem. But then, perhaps that IS your agenda.

"the law is very clear when it comes to what constitutes prostitution"

As I stated, which law, in which country, province, locality, at which time? There is no "the law", only what is defined as law in a particular place at a particular time and subject to constant change. The Oregon law, in its current form, has only been around for 30 years or so and criminalizes "sexual conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee."

No one has claimed that the FemaleChildrenKillingThemselves have violated any law. But it is clear that they are selling their bodies. They may not be selling them to those who will engage in "sexual contact" with them but they are selling them none-the-less. And if they are doing so of their own free will, there should be nothing troubling about that fact. More power to them (literally).

Okay, allow me to break it down. Anywhere you go in the United States, prostitution will be defined as the trade of sexual acts for money (I don't know how this pertains to hardcore pornography and I won't pretend to). Now you can argue until you're blue in the face that you can pay a prostitute to engage in acts besides sex. You can argue that companies like Playboy and Suicide Girls make their money off of selling an image. But that's the key point really, isn't it? Selling an IMAGE. You may disagree with it on moral or cultural grounds, that much is understandable. You can even banter back an forth over the metaphorical "selling of one's body" being akin to the very ACTUAL act of prostitution. But know this, the US legal system does not deal in metaphors. It has separate and distinct legal standards by which both are held in check. Therefore, the very BEST that someone so inclined could hope to hang PB, SG, Perfect 10 or any other similar publication on is indecency or obscenity. And as such, one would be hard pressed to adequately illustrate said claim. Not to mention that there are only a limited number of states that would be interested in hearing such a case, as evidenced by the fact that these publishing empires are represented in virtually every market, and even in some cases (as in Playboy) they are household names.

Once again, "No one has claimed that the FemaleChildrenKillingThemselves have violated any law." No one is trying to have them brought up on charges. We all could be brought up on a lot of sex charges I suspect. In many places in this country, anal and oral sex are illegal, defined as crimes against nature. But hey, the law doesn't deal with metaphors, so if the law says it we'd better all line up and agree, before the thought police like you come out and tell us what we should think. I understand that it pains you to have people think differently than you do, but you are going to be unable to convince people to adopt your views, particularly by resorting to strawman arguments (which I see in almost every single one of your posts). The strawman is only used when one cannot think of logical arguments or when one fundamentally does not understand the viewpoint of another. Either way, it's a losing argument style that most people wouldn't bother to deal with, myself included in most instances but this was just too fun.

Some sex workers take off their clothes, some do not; some have sexual intercourse with people, some do not. In the end I think the arguments above were best advocating for solidarity. The labels only serve to divide, as all labels do. I find the disparity of thought liberating, and thought policing unwelcome. And looking to the law is only a step backward, not forward. We don't need those in power defining our language for us and declaring which sex acts constitute a "crime against nature" as was the case in Oregon until the early 70's. And though I've never found quibbling over semantics to be effective at changing anyone's thoughts, I engage in it from time to time for the pure fun of it. I say tomato, you say...

"prostitution will be defined as the trade of sexual acts for money (I don't know how this pertains to hardcore pornography and I won't pretend to)."

Why don't you give this thought some sincere consideration? Think about how something that is so plainly prostitution (which you seem to think is plainly illegal) is allowed to go on all the time everywhere right in front of everyone.

Look in the back of the Willamette Weekly and the Mercury and tell me how "the US legal system does not deal in metaphors. It has separate and distinct legal standards by which both are held in check."

'Distinct legal standards' my ass. Pornographers who break prostitution laws with impunity claim they're only selling images, but there are real people's bodies used and real exploitation of the real sexual subordination of women to men being capitalized on.

I suggest reading Catherine MacKinnon's book "Only Words" for a more in-depth look at how pimps and pornographers brazenly get away with breaking law designed to prevent sexual exploitation and violate the First Amendment in doing so. It's a very short book, only about 100 pages or so, and you could probably read it in two hours. It's fucking brilliant, a real treat for analytical types with keen intuition and a head for both theory and example.

"before the thought police like you come out and tell us what we should think. I understand that it pains you to have people think differently than you do, but you are going to be unable to convince people to adopt your views"

First off, this is a patently stupid comment. Not once have I presumed to change people's opinions, only made a case for my point of view by showing some of the inaccuracies and (in the scant few times it applied) hypocrisies. Same as you. And as you can tell I'm debating the unpopular opinion so it's an uphill battle. Obviously I'm not a member of the "Establishment" or working for "The Man" or some other similar nonsense. This is plainly evident by the fact that I'm a member of the site in question. If that played-out insult were actually true, I dare say I'd be fighting to have the site BANNED. Now wouldn't I?

But as presumptuous as it would be for me to demand adherence to my opinion (which I don't care what you think, has NOT happened), isn't it equally as arrogant and irresponsible to dismiss someone out-of-hand just because they have a difference of opinion? And that's what it really boils down to. I've conceded a couple of points here, as you no doubt can tell because according to you, you've thoroughly read all my posts.

"particularly by resorting to strawman arguments (which I see in almost every single one of your posts). The strawman is only used when one cannot think of logical arguments or when one fundamentally does not understand the viewpoint of another. Either way, it's a losing argument style that most people wouldn't bother to deal with, myself included in most instances but this was just too fun."

We simply diverge on ONE point, and one point only. But since that appears to be such an insurmountable obstacle you have seen fit to smugly write off everything else. That's all that we really disagree on. I know I've made a least a couple of good points, whether you think so or not. Not only that, but I haven't delved down into the much by using profanity or contemptuously scoffing at people in lieu of presenting an adequate counterpoint. But just because we find ourselves at a crossroads, how does that suddenly make you right by default? I'd really like to know how that works so that one day I might be able to employ it.

"In the end I think the arguments above were best advocating for solidarity."

Do you really see that? Because in looking over it I see the same old, typical feminist stereotype at play. Everyone is a victim, and every victim is a potential ally. But as far as allies go, it's a precarious position because you either agree lock, stock and barrel or you lose the benefit of their sympathy. Not even other WOMEN are exempt from having to dance on the head of feminism's pin. That mentality is on full display here, as well. You can see it in the fact that while someone presents an opposing viewpoint, the only thing that matters is not who makes the best case, but whose voice is louder.

I find the disparity of thought liberating, and thought policing unwelcome.

And there's another thing that you see that I don't. I'm really one of a minority who represents a dissenting opinion. So technically we are the disparity of thought. If you go back over it you'll see that our voice is the one that is being summarily repudiated. So saying that I represent the "thought police" is grossly inappropriate.

"Some sex workers take off their clothes, some do not; some have sexual intercourse with people, some do not."

"And looking to the law is only a step backward, not forward. We don't need those in power defining our language for us and declaring which sex acts constitute a "crime against nature" as was the case in Oregon until the early 70's."

Perhaps you missed the part where I agreed with you. That's the only think I can think of that would explain your openly antagonistic slant. Look, I'm as weary as you are with Uncle Sam's constantly changing rules and definitions to suit whatever the current administration sees as acceptible. But by the same token, I'm equally as distrustful when other special interest groups try to do it. What makes it an injustice when one side does it but not the other? The only thing I can come up with by way of explaination is that when The Government is guilty of it, it's bad. But when The Average Civilian does it, it's good. Pardon me for saying, but the world is just not that black and white.

If you still want to argue that it's all EXACTLY the same, then there's nothing more I can say. I've stated my side of the coin, you've stated yours. If in the end this is the only point that we find a difference of opinion on, then I'd say we didn't come out too bad. But as such, we are at an impasse.

As a feminist, I resent being told by other so called "feminists" that the suicide girls empower women. i call bullshit. the name itself is a complete oxymoron.

Hey Kelly,

Does this crack you up, or what?! Thank god I'm not in the middle of it, I tell you what. But, mission accomplished I say, as one respondent chose not to get involved with SG based on the information we had. I am grateful for that, and, as always, happy to have stimulated a good round of debating.

Sincerely, Patricia Barrera
Director of Community Education
The Lola Greene Baldwin Foundation for Recovery
www.prostitutionrecovery.org

fun facts:

whatever part of the sex-work spectrum you put it on, or even if you don't, the models on SG are there because they're nude/semi nude. their sets go up and they are paid a bit of money and (more alluringly, i'm sure) showered with pages of praise and emoticons. then they can chat on the boards and post deep thoughts in their journals and be all fiesty and shit...but really, no matter how much they have to say about goddamn Heisse or "House of Leaves," they are depending on the oldest, most traditional view of women ever...that women's #1 value is -- their looks!
If they are feminist the Hawaiian tropic bikini contest is feminist. Period. And all of you arguing out your asses that it's not porn...oh who fXXking cares if it is or isn't. the reason the women behind this article purport not to like the sex industry is because it's exploitative and because it reinforces extremely damaging ideas about the way women are supposed to comport themselves in society and where they can receive their value. it doesn't matter if SG is technically porn or not (i think it is...and the website press says it is, btw). it's exploitative. it feeds on vanity, insecurity, self-aborbtion, sexist ideas of beauty.

Before condeming SG you might want to be aware of the fact that the models who appear on SG are there of their own choice, the process in becomming a Suicidegirl is throught and application process, models apply to become featured on the site of there own freewill. they can be a fully naked or clothed as they like. Sg is more than just a porn site it is a community. It is not designed just for men either, probably 50% of the member are female. I for one am a female memeber. Find better things to do with yout time that slanting a perfectly decent website that celebrates the female body.

So far in this thread I've seen my fellow 'feminists':

- Dismiss the desire of women to feel attractive and explore their sexuality on their own terms, when those terms include sex work or exhibitionism;
- Challenge readers to discuss whether or not women would post naked pictures of themselves on Suicidegirls if they were not paid for it ("With all the bellyaching about freedom of expression and blah blah blah, take away the MONEY and see how many women still want to express themselves through Suicide Girls") then play a ridiculous version of armchair psycologist when a woman happily provides an example ( http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293267.shtml#140199) in an attempt to demean and diminish her legitimate response,
- Use the word "whore," which is a vile and ugly word irregardless of your intent, then excuse themselves by stating that women on Suicidegirls are being "displayed as whores," which is a disengenous statement if their ever was one,
- Use misrepresentative information (fingers "penetrating" vagina, when there is not and has not ever been penetration on Suicidegirls; "28 pictures of "girls" and not a single one is smiling," when I just pulled up the site's FP and saw no less than five pictures of girls smiling what I judged to be happy, genuine smiles) to try to make a point,
- Use sex workers doing the work on terms they're comfortable with (One stripper says, "I let men call me bitch and whore but I don't let them squeeze my tits when tipping", another one says "I let men squeeze my tits when tipping but I don't let them call bitch or whore") as proof that they're being "degraded," and presume themselves to be morally and mentally superior enough to sex workers to actually know things about said sex workers, and a number of other women, that those women don't know about themselves (that they suffer from mental health problems and need "a cold splash of reality" and a variety of other nonsense; "I really hope kali and anyone else who so clearly is crying out for emotional help gets the support they need"),
- Use essentialist, generalized crap (men this, men that, women this, women that) about both men and women, and about men and women's desires, to make points,
- Second-guess women (see the above "you're not posing because it makes you happy! it makes you MENTALLY ILL!" and other nonsense), demean women's personal identities ("you sassy, sexee rebel grrlz," "silly comment about the "natural beauty"," etc.), dismiss women's experiences as less than valuable, and on and on.

Disgusting. Dworkin and many other fine feminist leaders are rolling in their graves, no matter how little they would have liked porn or Suicidegirls.

For the record, I have posted nude pictures of myself on the internet and in a public space. I did so because I enjoy my body, I enjoy the thought that other people like looking at my body, because I take pleasure in human sexuality as a whole, and because the thrill of exhibitionism is titilating to me.

Now, anyone may find such displays distasteful or less erotic than I do. However, anyone who wants to claim that a woman making an informed decision to explore her own sexuality on her own terms - including the production of pornography, sex work, exhibitionism, and anything else involving mutually consenting adults - is somehow "wrong" or "unhealthy" or any other kind of dismissive nonsense is not a feminist.

If you don't believe that women can be trusted to make their own decisions, you're not a feminist.
If you don't believe that women should be able to explore their own sexuality on their own terms without having their hands held, you're not a feminist.
If you don't believe that women who engage in sex work have the right to do so without being dismissed as "mentally ill" or somehow less capable of making an informed decision, without having their motives demeaned or made light of, or without being harrassed by people who want to "point them in the right direction," you're not a feminist.
If you believe that the desires of women, or the desires of men, can all be lumped into one group, you're not a feminist.

vineeta,
i have held off posting until i read the entire thread(took about an hour), and i finally came to the conclusion that you don't have any semblance of reasoning power. i am not flaming you, i don't even know you, so this is not a personal attack.
#1) the fact is that a prostitute is paid for sexual acts IN THE COMPANY OF THEIR CLIENT. end of story. a person who is paid for sex in the 3rd degree, be it telephone call girls, webcam girls, or any other similar example, is not engaging in prostitution. again, maybe if i reinforce it, it will make more sense. prostitution is a tactile enterprise. without physical conduct, it disintegrates into a number of other lesser divisions of sex-work.

2)even strippers are not prostitutes UNLESS they have sex with their clients! prostitution=SEXUAL INTERCOURSE!! there is no hazy idea of what prostitution is. someone could hire a girl to strip at a party. that does not make her a prostitute, or whore as you like to call them. the definitions you use for pornography are out-dated and long-since updated. your "whore-viewing" definition is ridiculous.

3)suicidegirls are NOT prostitutes. they do not engage in sexual acts, there is NO penetration, there is no sexual content on the entire site! so please, spare us the bullshit. anyone who calls nude photography "prostitution" or "whore-viewing" is closed-minded and needs to crawl out from under their rock. i highly doubt you say the same for nude paintings. these girls are not told to do anything, forced to do anything, and they most certainly do not use "fuck-me faces". that is an insult to the models, and you should know better. my best friend, whom i have known for close to ten years, wants to be a model. for a long time, she was overweight, and felt terrible about herself. over the past 2 years, she has done so much to lose weight, and now she looks great and FEELS great about herself. she is not a prostitute, a whore, a slut, or any other derogatory word you can think of. she wants to do it as a way to express herself, and nothing more. she has applied, yet has not had a photoset accepted to date. i take offense to your generalizations. she is quite possibly the best thing that has ever happened to me, and it makes me sad to think that because she poses nude for a camera, she is relegated to the lowest levels of humanity.

so, vineeta, think about this, and then say with a straight face that i am wrong in any way. if you do, and it is a lucid, well thought out, justified answer, then i concede. but i stand by my stance that the models on sg are not sex-workers, as there is no sex involved. therefore, they cannot be in any way, shape or form, prostitutes. feel free to check out my page, and maybe you will see that i am not "vapid" or a "whore-viewer". i am a photographer, and i find tasteful nude photography to be beautiful, and yes, i find it to be arousing. if you do not, then that is your choice. however, most of my favorite photographs are non-nude selections from the various sets. nudity is not what makes this site unique. it is the girls themselves, and the sense of community among those for whom the classical definition of mainstream is not so mainstream at all.

sincerely,
alex

www.suicidegirls.com/members/funnyman

OK... so it's porn... ok, so very narrow logic can make an association with prostitution.... so tomatoes must be a vegetable because they are always with the other vegetables at the market and not with the fruit... I fully support your right to your opinion... I also fully support your right to express it in both public & private forums... I don't happen to agree with your targeting this particular organization... yes, I am a paying member of SG... yes, I find the naked female body beautiful... yes, I think that sexuality & sensuality can be healthy aspects of human existance... I also happen to believe that, like many of our human endeavors, they can be obsessed about to the point of becoming unhealthy... what I am uncertain about is, that in this world of ours, when there is so much political/social/financial/spiritual injustice is this really the best use of your energies and efforts?.... over the course of my life I have discovered many things that I feel to be "wrong" with this world... one of those things is the tendancy of humans to attempt to impose their idea of what is morally right and wrong on the rest of us... another is the habit (especially in western culture) to attack problems in a symptomatic instead of systemic manner... we manufacture and consume medicines that treat our sniffles and soar throats instead of adressing the nature of our unhealthy physiology... if you truely feel that the commodification of the human form is problem in this world then I suggest you take a long hard look at what has brought us to this state... it is not just the women of the world who have fallen victim to this mind set (though I will agree that they have suffered more than some)... any time we are able to evaluate another living entity as being less than us we have devalued them... that includes those of a different gender/race/religion/social status/class/political opinion/species... more often than not this devaluation seems to be fear based... we see their difference as a threat to our own identity and lash out based on this fear... I agree with you that the devaluation of our brothers and sisters is a problem in this world, but you seem to be framing this as strictly an evil brought about by the heterosexual male population of this planet... being one of those myself, I would have to agree that we are not without our problems... but I would not conclude that we are the only ones out there devaluing our fellow living beings... our choices may be indicative of our fears but they are not one in the same... you have the right to your opinions and choices as do I... but as my high school social studies teacher pointed out when trying to explain the basic idea of equal right, "Your rights end where mine begin.".... I encourage your desire to inform and educate... just be sure that you are not mistaking opinion & ideology for truthful information & education... this type of mistake has done more harm than the supposed "evils" it has tried to address... sex is not always violence & tomatoes are a fruit

i'm barging into a dorr that was left open months ago, but fuck it.

i find comparing the mistreatment of nude models by an aggressive capitalist to the complex socio-geo-political situation in the middle east and the israeli-palestinian conflict specifically to be tantamount to comparing the holocaust to pretty much anything else.

basically, insultingly belittling.

yes, there's a possible point to be made about personal politics affecting business behavior but sheesh, talk about overblowing a simple enough topic. besmirching israel and tying in the suffering of the palestinian people for the sake of some bizarre human rights angle is beyond overblown, it's perversely sick. so far as i know, the suicide girls aren't being exploited nuch further beyond not being properly paid for their considerable charms and hard work, nor have any lost their lives (so not a very honest name for these sex workers, no.)

i can see it now, the next spate of anti-SG protest featuring a model undressed as a suicide bomber...

there's no denying that the porn industry is exploitative of women, as well as plenty of men. but you're not addressing that, are you? your comments are so all over the board that they only show you to be yet another typical, self-important dabbler in activism. a very overzealous one, at that. whatever ills israel suffers from, it's under no more a "brutal, racist regime" than that of the US, UK, france, russia...

blargh. particularly now, when the fight to keep politics out of pornography and our bedrooms is prominent, can't we just stick to the issue? suffice to say, "we take our clothes off for fun and profit, and you, dick, are not paying us anything remotely near what we're worth. plus you're also ruining the fun with your general dickness."

I recall Sean giving every SG a free membership to give to a female friend because they NEEDED more female members. Hmmm.
A little bit funny. If there was an even amount why was he so worried?

Ahh Matt. There is so much I'd like to say to you since you pretty much resort to every stereotypical pro-porn tactic possible - but alas, I grow weary of this thread.
Kudos on the Orwell reference.

Perhaps you may enjoy this article:
 http://slingshot.tao.ca/89/porn.php

And I leave you with this:
Men have never needed to pose nude online to prove they had sexual desires. In fact, show a penis in a movie and get an R rating. If anything our society is uptight about male nudity, and yet men are for some reason considered the sexually liberated gender (which I would argue against).
This is not about women finally acquiring sexual pleasure, it is about performance. It's nothing new: women have been performing for ages and women have always been told their value lies in their appearance.
More tellingly: Men have not ever been called prudes or any other such names for being against posing nude online themselves. In fact, why haven't you?
It's not for you? Why is that?


Make no mistake, this is not about freeing women to derive sexual pleasure from exhibitionism, as I have to wonder why there are SO many exhibitionists out there and yet the male population seems to be lacking. What this is really about is clamouring for a man's right for easier access to naked chicks, and a woman's right to seek out validation for her appearance.

Every girl wants to be attractive, but I don't think there's anything wrong if a woman thinks it's sad that a woman recieves more attention for this than any personal characteristics. Example: could we make a site called suicide girls in which these women share their thoughts alone, and have it thrive within a male audience so successfully?
When that is the case, I would perhaps lighten up about the whole idea.

I suggest you read Female Chauvinist Pigs, a book by journalist Ariel Levy - a liberal and feminist. Despite the rather alarming name, she argues her points very well.