All of this, and we *still* haven’t heard when it’s right, or true, or real, or what possible scenarios in which women, in yours/Dworkin’s schema, to have sex–intercourse, or any kind of sex. Apparently, all women are always already whores, so female sexual expression is impossible, in your world. We’re hopelessly deadlocked in misogyny and patriarchy. I’ve already explained why it’s obvious that this is not the case in the U.S., where women are excelling and taking over every sector as we speak, so I’ll refrain from repeating myself on this point.

Beyond this, I find it absurd to that you accuse someone who thinks that sex and “love” need not and are not the same thing, and do not need to be conceived of theoretically as such, of doing so because they are “shallow”… I’m in good company with several of Badiou’s own intellectual mentors, Lacan included, and I’m sure you know this.

I don’t care about stupid pop cultural identifications and “playas” and whatever dismissive term you want to hurl at me for not living up to the monogamous heterosexual status quo (as a woman, I’ve heard them all, believe me–how dare I unapologetically have casual sex? I *must* be a brat, or “insecure”, or “boastful”, or damaged, or a “whore”). I live my life the way I want to, according to my own wants and needs, and I don’t care what you think. I’m sorry if that’s offensive to you, and doesn’t fit in very well to your schema where “love” needs to be at the center of erotic relations, and women are scared of/scarred by intercourse–but that’s the way it is.

What’s bratty and adolescent is to insist that everyone needs to live their lives, sexually and otherwise, according to some dictum that you’ve drawn up and that’s right, well, *because you say so*…and if they don’t agree, they’re only being “defensive” because you are the center of everyone’s psychosexual universe.

Can I get a :P?

Blah blah I’m sure I’ve heard all of this before somewhere.

Parody Center, I’ve already spent far too many words explaining why there’s no difference between a prostitute and a wife in this psychosexual economy– that is, if you’re going to insist on bowing down to the heterosexist status quo that already privileges male sexual expression and experience over the female kinds so that women can only ever be sexual subordinates, victims of masculine desire, and never desiring subjects. So ok, if you want to believe we can’t escape or ignore this status quo and its norms, then be prepared to, as Dworkin was fond of telling couples with kids, recognize your own children as “the product of a rapist and a whore.”

Trust me, you won’t get through to these people, it’s like talking to a brick wall of Christian guilt and body shame. We’re icky and sinful, don’t you get it!? We are not supposed to enjoy sex, that is bad. We are supposed to wear hair shirts and constantly compare ourselves to child sex slaves in the third world, no matter what, even if this is trivializing and insulting to the actual suffering and plight of these children because our lives are nothing like theirs.

What it really comes down to is that women can’t actually like sex outside of marriage, women are special angelic beings who don’t enjoy casual sex, they can only get off on Pure Love <3 <3 (*sends creepy possessive jealous insecure vibe*) When women sign their names they usually draw hearts above the “i”s, that is how angelic and romantic they are. They are scared of teh penis. That is why they love only mine and mine only. 4ever.

As the widely known phenomenon of the pimp and the ho’ on MTV, which has long since become de rigeur amongst the youth, illustrates, the omnipotent market has commodified most human relations save for those of the privileged few so that the very act of working implies prostitution. In this sense, we are all whores on the market.

Peter Stringfellow is a Christian, a Catholic in fact (who, predictably, votes Tory, and who, at 69, just married a 27-year-old). It is those opposed to sexual violence who ‘mainly’ lobby against lapdancing hellholes (what are you calling them ‘clubs’ for? Like golf-clubs?). So lapdancing is now elevated to a form of ‘female sexual expression’? Is this, like, slavery as a form of ‘black empowerment’?

Dejan, you were oh-so-eagerly reducing everyone to the status of ho’s. Why would you want to do this?

As with lapdancing, this is something to be resisted, not embraced (zombie-like).

Interestingly, it’s mainly Christians who lobby against lapdancing clubs, because it’s their repressed husbands who are frequenting them. And their sick imaginations cooking up some kind of “evil” in all forms of female sexual expression outside of monogamous relationships.

That’s rich coming from a zombie-existentialist!

Nor does the “law and order’ approach, so manic in the US, to sexual violence even begin to address the underlying causes: it just further expands the runaway industrialized prison/penal system (the US, despite having over half a million in prison for ‘drug-related crimes’, for instance, [that's greater than the entire prison population of the European Union, an area with double the US population], as the country continues to witness a growth in drug abuse).