Actually, Vi, Katha Pollitt pretty much backs up my assertion about the position that mainstream pro-choice takes on abortion.

No, you’re right. I was mostly commenting on the fact that she was advocating an abortion-as-morally-neutral position in Slate, a pretty mainstream magazine. It seems relevant to your point because the pro-choice / anti-choice divide isn’t regularly crossed with constructive dialogue, even if it seems like it ought to be possible. I think that’s because pro-choicers tend to see “safe, legal, and rare” within a framework of women having sexual freedom, agency, access to health care, and ultimate control over their bodies; anti-choicers tend to see “wrong, bad, and evil,” within a context of women being shamed and controlled by their appointed patriarch. They aren’t reconcilable positions, even if they appear so from afar.

Mirror’s, uh, presence reminds me of a question I had: to what degree was the session about dialogue within activist communities over issues of, say, decriminalization? Because that is contentious, but there might be enough shared ground to hope for productive dialogue in some instances.

I feel totally secure in saying that consensus between two groups is impossible when one of the groups sees the other as dehumanized. If you have some evidence that consensus actually can be achieved under those circumstances, I’d love to see it.

No, I didn’t think fundamentalist evangelicals are the only people that oppose prostitution. Actually, if you’ll reread the blog article…literacy is your friend …you’ll see that I never once mentioned prostitution at all, much less who does or doesn’t oppose it. In the blog, in my examples of those who practice sexual freedom, I listed “supportive of polyamory, swinging, homosexuality in general and marriage equality in particular,” actually. So where exactly is this prostitution thing coming from, may I ask..? And apparently Google isn’t my friend, because searching for all those ladies, coupled with the words “polyamory,” “swinging” or “homosexuality” gets no results whatsoever.

So I think you’re going to really have to start tying in what you’re trying to get across here with the actual blog post you’re appending your comments to, eh?

If, you have no knowledge of the ‘other-side’ – beyond ‘fundamental Christianity’

“Gail Dines, Rebecca Whisnant, Melissa Farley, have all addressed these issues.
Perhaps you might want to look into their work”

Google is your friend.

Who have I singled out in this blog post, other than fundamentalist evangelicals, as persons who oppose sexual freedom? Are you defining “anti-sexploitation folks” as fundamentalist evangelicals? If you’re defining anti-sexploitation folks in some other fashion, I’m afraid you’ll have to give a summary of what they believe/pursue/etc. before I can express an opinion about them…because I have not done so to date, since I clearly don’t know who they are. You’re commenting on my blog, not the other way around–you have to specify what you’re talking about to get any further responses.

Maybe they just have a valid and empirically researched different point of view, without the hyperbole.

But, there again, you have not read them.

It is difficult to imagine a position in favor of forced pregnancy or forced sex that does not dismiss the human rights of the person being forced.
I do not think it is possible to build consensus with people who think they have a right to restrict your rights. Who insist that their access to your body is an expression of their rights rather than a violation of yours.
Gail Dines, Rebecca Whisnant, Melissa Farley, have all addressed these issues.
Perhaps you might want to look into their work.