www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> [some clever play on the word] sex [digest: harrison x3]
nettime's_dom on Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:12:47 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> [some clever play on the word] sex [digest: harrison x3]


Flick Harrison <flick {AT} flickharrison.com>

     Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale
     Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale
     Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Flick Harrison <flick {AT} flickharrison.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:19:09 -0800

On 2012-02-10, at 22:01 , Morlock Elloi wrote:

> Several replies indicate wide-spread religious attitude towards intellect, a
> brain-body separation reminiscent of the traditional theories of language
> before biolinguistics put them out of business.

Bla bla bla.  This is exactly the kind of obscurantist theory that can
easily be reality-checked.  Why don't you take a photo of your naked body -
nuts and all - and post a link to it here on nettime with your next
comment?  I mean, you post your thoughts here all the time, why not your
body?  And make sure you're holding up today's paper so we know it's real.

Even then, a picture of your body isn't your body - when a stranger fucks
you because you need a few bucks, that's a real sacrifice.

If you're talking about my reply, that it indicates a religious attitude
towards brain-body separation, I'd say you're wildly off-base.  The idea
that prostituting your mind is just as much a violation as prostituting
your body is the more religious response.  The pure mind, besmirched by the
performance of that which isn't fervently believed... just like the body
performing the sex act without love - both equally debase the soul...

That sounds more religious to me.

It's silly to say that an hour of lame intellectual labour is equivalent to
an hour of unwanted sex.  Name a culture where the social barriers to
sexual penetration are exactly equal to the barriers to intellectual
intercourse and I'll believe you that this difference is all culturally
constructed.

-Flick

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Flick Harrison <flick {AT} flickharrison.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:26:25 -0800

Margaret,

I wouldn't use the word "feminist" as a pejorative stick, but "pseudo-" I
would. Even 'pseudo-fascist' is kind of a double insult.
 
It's true the 'moral majority' get exposed for hypocrisy time after time,
and that's a source of amusement.  For some reason sex scandals undermine
their authority more than non-sexual exploitation of, say, precarious
labour.  Go figure.
 
On 2012-02-16, at 15:17 , Margaret Morse wrote:

> Your comment about sexual exploitation assumes that the sex worker keeps
> both the money and the pleasure.  

If you mean the Marxism bit, I'd say the sex worker doesn't need to keep
the pleasure any more than the car-building soviet keeps the cars; but they
should keep the money, or at least the profits.  And in Marxist analysis,
worker-ownership of the factory (in this case the [usually female] body)
should guarantee that.

Aside: In this debate over mind vs body we're ignoring the intellectual
nature of sex work.  If the mind is the most important erogenous zone, and
gender and sexuality are performances (phone sex being perhaps the most
obvious expression of that), then the prostitute is putting their mind as
well as his or her body into the service of the client.

and a PS: 'Sex worker' is a bad phrase for other reasons - for instance, if
phone sex workers, strippers, porn actors, models etc are all sex workers,
what is the specific word for a sex worker who sells sexual intercourse?

--
* WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison

* FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

From: Flick Harrison <flick {AT} flickharrison.com>
Subject: Re: <nettime> Sex Work and Consent at  {AT} transmediale
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 10:27:55 -0800

John,

I've done plenty of intellectual work that made me feel icky. It's already
a privilege to be literate, intelligent and articulate, for which you get
offered those kind of gigs.

I did once refuse to make a commercial for Gordon Campbell, but I did a
bunch of work for Dalton McGuinty because I needed the money. 

Outside the office where I worked at the time, there were a couple of gay
rent-boys who worked the corner.

There is no question in my mind about who had higher status.  I suppose
they could say no to a customer if their spidey-senses tingled.

I also shot Hollywood auditions for a year and a half, where the boundary
between intellectual (actress) and sex worker (can you try that again with
your shirt off?) was very thin indeed.

But: you will never see a brain-worker standing on a street corner.

Correction, I did see that in Pakistan.  Scribes lined the streets around
government ministries, offering to read and fill out forms.  However, they
were generally serving a lower class than themselves, i.e. illiterate
peasants.

--
* WHERE'S MY ARTICLE, WORLD?
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Flick_Harrison

* FLICK's WEBSITE & BLOG: http://www.flickharrison.com 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org