A class-action suit filed by exotic dancers over what they say are unfair labor practices at the Mardi Gras and four other area strip clubs parallels a similar suit filed by dancers earlier this year against a club in the city of Chelsea, the lawyer for the Springfield area dancers said Friday...
In August, Suffolk Superior Court Justice Frances A. McIntyre ruled the management of King Arthur’s erroneously classified the dancers as independent contractors. The ruling allows the class action suit to proceed and opened the door for as many as 70 women who danced at the club to seek thousands in damages for lost wages.
Since then, numerous similar suits have been filed against strip clubs across the state...
In Massachusetts, a worker is considered an employee unless three conditions are met. The worker must be free from control and direction in the performance of a service, the service is done outside the usual course of business of the employer, and the worker is engaged in an independently established trade that is the same as the service performed...
Hello everyone,
We have a lot of exciting news here at Stop Porn Culture.
Our new website is up and running. Take a look at www.stoppornculture.org. We have an "Anti-porn News" feature to keep everyone updated on pornography in the news. You can send us news articles for possible inclusion, including news about activism against pornography.
We had a wonderful slideshow training in Bellingham this month, with 30 committed and amazing participants. It looks like our first local chapter has formed--SPC Bellingham. We encourage you all to try something similar where you live. None of us can do this work alone. Guidelines for local chapters will be up on our website soon.
We are also planning our next conference, which will take place in June.
Stop Porn Culture: An International Feminist Anti-Pornography Conference
June 12-13, 2010
Wheelock College, Boston MA
Our second national conference will bring together activists, researchers, survivors, parents, and other concerned community members to continue developing our anti-pornography analysis and building our resistance movement. Come and join us for two days of keynotes, workshops, and discussion. Speakers include Wendy Maltz, Gail Dines, Chyng Sun, Rebecca Whisnant, Jane Caputi, Sharon Cooper, Robert Jensen, and Carolyn West.
Presentations and workshops include:For more information, or to register, go to http://stoppornculture.org/conference/. Feel free to post this announcement anywhere that you go on the web.
- The pornification of our culture
- Racism in pop culture and pornography
- Local, national, and international organizing
- Porn and capitalism
- Legal strategies against porn
- The sexualization of children
- Compulsive pornography use
- Hooking up: the porn culture on campus
As ever, we're happy to bring the slideshow training to anyone who can host us. Drop me a line here and I'll tell you what's involved.
We hope to see you all in June!
Lierre for SPC
...The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community." Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education—until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society....
Why men use prostitutes
Research published in 2005 found that the numbers of men who pay for sex had doubled in a decade...
... most of them told the researchers that they would be easily deterred if the current laws were implemented. Fines, public exposure, employers being informed, being issued with an Asbo [Anti-Social Behaviour Order] or the risk of a criminal record would stop most of the men from continuing to pay for sex. Discovering the women were trafficked, pimped or otherwise coerced would appear not to be so effective. Almost half said they believed that most women in prostitution are victims of pimps ("the pimp does the psychological raping of the woman," explained one). But they still continued to visit them...
Half of the interviewees had bought sex outside of the UK, mostly in Amsterdam, and visiting an area where prostitution is legal or openly advertised had given them a renewed dedication to buying sex when they returned to the UK...
Only 6% of the men we spoke to had been arrested for soliciting prostitutes.

The stories are horrific. Difficult to imagine. Impossible to understand.
Consider: A report from Amnesty International finds that rape and other forms of sexual violence in Darfur are being used as a weapon of war in order to humiliate, punish, control, inflict fear and displace women and their communities.
These rapes and other acts of sexual violence constitute grave violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, including war crimes and crimes against humanity. The report also examines the consequences of rape which have immediate and long-term effects on women beyond the actual physical violence.
The weapons of sexual violence are, by no means, limited to use in Darfur. You'll find reports of "rape camps" in Bosnia. Congo. Sierra Leon. Iraq. Afghanistan. China. Japan. Cambodia.
Name a war-torn country and you will find places where rape is the norm and its victims - some as young as 3 years old - are dying a slow death of the physical, psychological and social effects of the aftermath of this violence.
Some of them have been genitally mutilated. Some raped with broken bottles or sticks or guns. Some now have permanent colostomies.
Others have permanent fistulas which seep fecal matter through their torn vaginal vaults, causing a stench that isolates them socially. They await a doctor's surgical repair - which may take years for one to come near her village - or for the woman to find the strength to walk the many, many miles to the clinic to see a doctor.
They eke out a living after their husbands leave them. They try to love the child who came into being as a result of the rape. There are other "gifts" left by their rapists: STDs and TB, HIV infection and AIDS.
Some of them simply "stop living" and walk as "the living dead."
On June 20, 2008 the UN Security Council unanimously approved a resolution classifying rape as a weapon of war. Human rights groups hailed the vote as historic, but it is no legal remedy. Tens of thousands of victims of sexual violence still do not have the status of victims of the war.
Consider: Hundreds of girls, some as young as nine, and young women in the UK are forced into marriage each year, according to the report published by the Ministry of Justice into the first year of the Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act of 2007.
The report says the women and girls come under physical, psychological, sexual, financial and emotional pressure.
“A woman who is forced into marriage is likely to be raped and may be raped repeatedly until she becomes pregnant,” the report says.
Consider: The New Canaan camp for internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Kenya is named to sound like a promised land, but for many of the women living inside, it is anything but paradise.
That's because increasingly, women living in this and other refugee camps in Kenya and throughout Africa are faced with a terrible choice: feed themselves and their families via prostitution or risk starvation and death.
Consider: While South Africa invests billions to prepare its infrastructure for the half-million visitors expected to attend the World Cup games, tens of thousands of children have become ensnared in sexual slavery, and those who profit from their abuse are also preparing for the tournament.
During a three-week investigation by a Times reporter into human-trafficking syndicates operating near two stadiums, a lucrative trade in child sex was easily discovered. The children, sold for as little as $45, can earn more than $600 per night for their captors. "I'm really looking forward to doing more business during the World Cup," said a trafficker.
I'm willing to bet that this man, like the other pimps and soldiers and rapists, has a mother. He may have sisters. He may even have a wife.
What happened to the boy who was nursed by his mother? The brother who played with his siblings? The husband and father of his family?
A 'trafficker' sounds like a blue collar job. A 'soldier' has always meant a person of honor. A rapist? Well, the name has always carried its own dishonor.
How did the transformation from human being to monster begin?
We have new, political terms for what is happening to women, world-wide:
Human Trafficking.
The New Slave Trade.
New Weapons of War.
I call it The Unholy War Against Women.
Nothing new about it.
It's as old as sin.
And, becoming a world-wide pandemic, infecting the soul of the cosmos.
This quote from the Times article illustrates that this war is a multinational business operation:
Although its 1996 constitution expressly forbids slavery, South Africa has no stand-alone law against human trafficking in all its forms.
Aid groups estimate that some 38,000 children are trapped in the sex trade there. More than 500 mostly small-scale trafficking syndicates — Nigerian, Chinese, Indian and Russian, among others — collude with South African partners, including recruiters and corrupt police officials, to enslave local victims.
The country's estimated 1.4 million AIDS orphans are especially vulnerable. South Africa has more HIV cases than any other nation, and a child sold into its sex industry will often face an early grave.
Religions derive their power and popularity in part from the ethical compass they offer. So why do so many faiths help perpetuate something that most of us regard as profoundly unethical: the oppression of women?
It is not that warlords in Congo cite Scripture to justify their mass rapes (although the last warlord I met there called himself a pastor and wore a button reading “rebels for Christ”). It’s not that brides are burned in India as part of a Hindu ritual. And there’s no verse in the Koran that instructs Afghan thugs to throw acid in the faces of girls who dare to go to school.
Yet these kinds of abuses — along with more banal injustices, like slapping a girlfriend or paying women less for their work — arise out of a social context in which women are, often, second-class citizens. That’s a context that religions have helped shape, and not pushed hard to change.
“Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths, creating an environment in which violations against women are justified,” former President Jimmy Carter noted in a speech last month to the Parliament of the World’s Religions in Australia.
“The belief that women are inferior human beings in the eyes of God,” Mr. Carter continued, “gives excuses to the brutal husband who beats his wife, the soldier who rapes a woman, the employer who has a lower pay scale for women employees, or parents who decide to abort a female embryo.”
Mr. Carter, who sees religion as one of the “basic causes of the violation of women’s rights,” is a member of The Elders, a small council of retired leaders brought together by Nelson Mandela. The Elders are focusing on the role of religion in oppressing women, and they have issued a joint statement calling on religious leaders to “change all discriminatory practices within their own religions and traditions.”
The Elders are neither irreligious nor rabble-rousers. They include Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and they begin their meetings with a moment for silent prayer.
“The Elders are not attacking religion as such,” noted Mary Robinson, the former president of Ireland and United Nations high commissioner for human rights. But she added, “We all recognized that if there’s one overarching issue for women it’s the way that religion can be manipulated to subjugate women.”
Dear Abby:
Shortly after college and a bad breakup, I met someone I thought was a “nice” guy. I allowed him to take sexually explicit photos of me. I realize now that I did it because I had very low self-esteem then.
The moment he snapped the pictures I regretted it and asked for them back. He refused, and even tried to extort money from me with threats of sending copies to my workplace. I was working for a Fortune 500 company at the time and was scared to death. Fortunately, he didn't follow through on his threat.
Fast forward 20 years...I do wonder what happened to the pictures. With today's technology, they could be anywhere now...
Abby, please warn young girls and boys to think before doing something that can possibly follow them through a lifetime.
Students who have been the victim of sexual assaults on college campuses face a depressing litany of barriers that often either assure their silence or leave them feeling victimized a second time, according to the Center for Public Integrity’s nine-month investigation Sexual Assault on Campus: A Frustrating Search for Justice...
This important project was informed by interviews with 48 experts familiar with the college disciplinary process—student affairs administrators, conduct hearing officers, assault services directors, and victim advocates—as well as 33 students who reported being raped.
Nearly half the students interviewed by the Center for this project reported they unsuccessfully sought criminal charges; district attorneys often shy away from such cases, because they are “he said, she said” disputes sometimes clouded by drugs or alcohol. That often leaves students to deal with a campus judiciary system shrouded in secrecy. Those who do come forward can encounter mysterious disciplinary proceedings, closed-mouth school administrations and off-the-record negotiations. At times, official school policies lead to dropped complaints and, in some cases, gag orders later found to be illegal. College administrators believe the existing processes provide a fair and effective way to deal with ultra-sensitive allegations, but alleged victims say these processes have little transparency or accountability, and regularly result in little or no punishment for alleged assailants.
Accompanied by multimedia features including interviews with student survivors and a toolkit to help students, parents, educators and administrators explore this issue in their own campus communities, these first reports in an ongoing series tell a powerful story about the need for transparency and accountability in classic Center fashion.
Read about the project here...

Homosociality is the notion that for American men in particular, the approval of other males is of paramount concern, even more sought after than validation from women...
Men in our society, as countless scholars of gender have pointed out, are socialized to find particular delight and meaning in activities from which women are excluded, or which most women find repugnant and objectionable...
The effectiveness of strip clubs as a homosocial bonding strategy is thus linked to two things: the shared sense the male patrons have that their wives and mothers disapprove of their being there, and the opportunity to establish their credentials as “red-blooded, straight American guys” by sharing the experience of objectifying women’s bodies...

Man's Perfect Excuse for Visiting Strip ClubsAs Andrew Sullivan notes, there are valid reasons why some men feel dissatisfied with today's society. Adult entertainment, however, is a poor way to respond to this, is a distraction from seeking better solutions, and creates new problems.
...Over the past 30 years women have encroached on just about every professional field that was considered previously a mans domain. In past times man used to be able to come home to a lovely, devoted and sweet wife that looked after his needs, realizing that the man earned the crust, and was laboring tirelessly 6 days per week. He returned home from a hard days work, his food was on the table, the house clean, the children patiently and obediently waiting his return and swept off to bed in the early hours of the evening, allowing the man to enjoy some of the remaining moonlight hours with his indulging wife.
But something changed…
Women became tired of waiting at home, cleaning the baby’s nappies and ironing her husband’s clothes day-in and day-out, and for young women joining the workforce in the mid 1980’s their course had already been set, they were determined not to tread in the same steps as their battling mums had done before them.
Men lost all control, and life, as we knew it; was under-going an irreversible change.
These days for men that are married, come home to an un-kept and generally empty home, their wife or partner is also out at work and often returns home later than the average male, pursues the corporate ladder and excuse the pun, like a bitch on heat. The male picks up the children from day-care, cooks the meal, does the laundry and patiently waits for his partner to return and in some sick twist of fate still somehow falls into to some outdated statistical category that says that men still do little around the home!
Well it didn’t take long for men (married, single or repeatedly divorced) to realize that they now truly are holding the short end of the stick.
What was man going to do?
There is something about the atmosphere of a Strip Club, the way in which women strut their stuff on stage and not breaking eye contact is almost an animalistic approach that not only attracts men sexually but because of the eye contact that most women have mastered to enable to do their job well, it seems to offer men what they are so desperately in need off and they haven’t been able to get from today’s modern woman, “attention”...
So there you have it, no need to feel guilty, it's one of life's small escapes, the last bastion of the male domain, enjoy it!
Sullivan: [A]s our economy becomes less physical and more cerebral, as women slowly supplant men in many industries, as income inequalities grow and more highly testosteroned blue-collar men find themselves shunted to one side, we will have to find new ways of channeling what nature has bequeathed us. I don't think it's an accident that in the last decade there has been a growing focus on a muscular male physique in our popular culture, a boom in crass men's magazines, an explosion in violent computer games or a professional wrestler who has become governor. These are indications of a cultural displacement, of a world in which the power of testosterone is ignored or attacked, with the result that it re-emerges in cruder and less social forms. Our main task in the gender wars of the new century may not be how to bring women fully into our society, but how to keep men from seceding from it, how to reroute testosterone for constructive ends, rather than ignore it for political point-making."Waitressing, I cleaned the floors and I own a box of men's wedding rings that I found on the floor."
Our next slideshow training will be January 15-17, 2010, in Bellingham, WA. Come and get the experience, knowledge, and confidence to talk publicly against pornography in your community. The training will include in-depth presentations on topics such as:
We will also have a long session of practicing Q & As in small groups.
- the links between pornography and violence against women
- background on the economic industry that is pornography
- First Amendment and other free speech issues
- women in the industry
- the sexualization of children
- the question of “alternate” images
- how to organize in your community
The training will end with a session on self-care for presenters and activists since, as many of you know, this work can be grueling. For more info and to register, go to http://stoppornculture.org/training/
We are also planning our next international feminist anti-pornography conference next June in Boston. We're not ready for registration just yet, but you can mark your calendars. It will be June 12-13, 2010.