Well, the ROCK blogger has outdone himself.

… so we’re going to commence deconstructing the newest post by Bill Womack right now. (Not going to bother commenting directly on the ROCK blog after the last little go-round.) This little gem of refusing to think critically begins thus:

One of the arguments I hear most often used in defense of pornography, prostitution, and the sex industry is, “If adults want to do or view that stuff, what’s the big deal? Nobody’s getting hurt.” For folks who really believe that, there is a very sobering article from National Review Online that is worth a read. To summarize: Rhode Island decriminalized prostitution in 1980. In the ensuing decades (and especially in recent years) the state’s sex industry has flourished, but apparently at least in part due to human trafficking. Young women, and oftentimes teenage girls, are being coerced or lured into “Asian massage parlors” or strip clubs (which often double as brothels) and are enslaved into prostitution.

First, let’s be really, really clear, once again. No decent people, which includes PLENTY of sex-positive people and sex industry advocates, are okay with exploitation. Human trafficking is a horrible, horrible thing, and it’s a horrible person that trafficks a fellow human being. All clear? Good. Now, let’s note that Rhode Island decriminalized prostitution because prostitutes lobbied for the state to do so. Interesting, huh?

The National Review article continues essentially to say that prostitution needs to be illegalized, but never addresses how that will help or harm sex workers who’ve chosen the profession. Likewise, it never addresses that human trafficking is hard to prosecute everywhere in this country, in part because it’s a fairly recently recognized issue and because victims have such difficulty coming forward. What we need are strong laws that recognize trafficking as a crime. The article says that for laws against trafficking to work, there must be anti-prostitution laws too—why? The authors cite trafficking in RI as if it were obvious proof, ignoring or dismissing other interpretations or, really, nuanced thought on the matter.

Of course, the ACLU is arguing against illegalizing prostitution. Writes Womack:

… trafficking has become a political football being tossed back and forth between those who want more enforcement, and groups like the state ACLU chapter who oppose prostitution criminalization on “ideological grounds.” I’d really like to see an ACLU elitist try to explain “sex-positive values” and “the freedom to choose” to the bleeding, 16-year-old Boston girl mentioned in the article. Or her family.

“Enforcement” is a tricky word. Let’s be clear again: the ACLU works against human trafficking. Prostitution is illegal because of prudery, plain and simple; regulate it well, and it’s just another industry. And let’s remember that the world’s oldest profession will never go away. It may go underground, and heaven help anyone caught in it then. Same phenomenon as back-alley abortions.

Oh, and calling the ACLU elitist never gets old, I suppose. This is because the ACLU is run by educated people and works on behalf of minorities. Well, just to be clear (again!), sex-positive people, and I’m pretty sure the ACLU, would be horrified by what happened to the girl. Sex-positivity is NOT about approving of any form of sexual activity, it’s about removing the stigma from sex and sexuality. “The freedom to choose,” as Womack seems to mean here, refers to the choices consenting adults make. But that’s apparently more than ROCK can understand.

Moving on:

The Rhode Island story, while profoundly disturbing, is also instructive. I look at Rhode Island and I see Louisville and southern Indiana on a slippery slope towards that future several years ago… Thankfully, a group of concerned citizens finally said, “Enough!” and started asking questions. Why are these places allowed to run rampant? Why don’t they have to conform to zoning and health code ordinances like other businesses do? What can we do to restrain the deleterious effects of these establishments, such as reduced property values, increased ancillary crime such as racketeering, drug use, and prostitution?

… notice how Womack asks for proper regulation, which is actually all I’m—and the ACLU, and prostitutes, and victims of exploitation—are asking for? What ROCK actually wanted, and continues to work toward, however, is to remove the adult industry from town. Big difference, that. One goal acknowledges certain basic realities and tries to protect everyone involved; the other establishes a backward Puritanical precedent that ignores what’ll happen if the adult industry is forced underground.

Womack then gets saucy and asks, “Why aren’t more people aware of the causal connection between pornography and trafficking, rape, and other sex crimes?” and links this idiotic article by Janice Shaw Crouse, noted antifeminist fundie from Concerned Women for America. True to form, there’s no science and really pitiful logic abounds; Womack must not have noticed how scathing most of the comments are. Yet again, let us note that genuine science has never found a causal link between porn and abuse and that genuine science actually shows that porn may reduce rape.

There’s a bunch of praise-singing for ROCK before Womack concludes,

The only people having fun are the predators who line their pockets with the profits from objectified men, women, and children, broken families and compromised communities. In Louisville and southern Indiana, our eyes are wide open. As long as places like Theatair X exist and perpetuate their lies, ROCK and concern citizens will be here to debunk them.

Well, actually, it’s pretty obvious there have been loads of happy customers, and that most porn users aren’t addicts or abusers. The adult industry and its consumers aren’t inherently predatory, though ROCK doesn’t seem capable of grasping that.

And ROCK, please, really, do debunk something about sex, sexuality, or the adult industry. We’d still love to see it. Do you understand what debunking is? It’s when you use solid evidence to prove your point. You link to studies by real scientists, not ideologues. You have to be able to understand all aspects of the issue and be able to address them clearly and coherently. You use logic and sense, not scare tactics and disingenuous conflations.

I guess a real debunking probably is too much to ask.

(X-posted from The Reverie and the Reality.)