By David Futrelle
Chuck Woolery is probably best known for two things: 1) being the host of the dating show Love Connection back in the 80s and early 90s and 2) his off-brand cartoon superhero head.
In the last several years, Woolery has staged a comeback of sorts, this time as a right-wing podcaster and Twitter provocateur with more than half a million followers. He’s especially fond of railing against the alleged evils of abortion.
Last night, he offered this deep thought on Twitter:
Why, yes, Chuck, it is. And that’s a good thing. It’s good that women can choose to have children, or not, on their own schedule and for their own reasons, rather than having such a major, life-changing decision left to the whims of nature and less-than-100-percent effective birth control. (Or some dude poking a hole in his condom to prove to himself that his boys can swim.)
The ironic thing about Chuck’s current stance on abortion and the sanctity of pregnancy is that, despite his recent comeback, his true claim to fame remains his former gig on a dating show whose original run ended a quarter of a century ago,
The Chuck Woolery incarnation of Love Connection — in which one shallow, attractive idiot chose another shallow, attractive idiot from a menu of three shallow, attractive idiots and went on a date with them — was basically all about enabling casual sex for cheap entertainment. Though they couldn’t talk about sex directly on the show — instead relying on salacious innuendo — so many of the contestants did have sex that the staff had a cutesy term for it: “boink dates.”
Which is fine, of course, but it seems a little out-of-whack with Woolery’s recent ravings.
In any case, with all that sex going on — the show ran through 11 seasons and more than 2000 episodes — it’s at least possible that some of the women who appeared on the show got pregnant as a result of their Love Connection dates.
If you”ve ever caught a rerun of the show, you know what a horrifying prospect that would be; these were lust connections, at best, and it’s hard to imagine that many of the, er, relationships that came out of the show lasted more than one or two more dates. This is exactly the reason why we need to protect reproductive rights in the first place: no one should be forced to raise a child spawned from a casual hookup — especially with someone from Love Connection.
Woolery has other, well, intriguing ideas about reproductive rights and politics in general, the most original probably being this take on the voting rights of babies.
I don’t know about that. But if we allowed babies to vote all of our politicians would probably be kitties. Or possibly big lovable monsters. I’m actually ok with that.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
Gaebolga: “Sex Worker Exclusionary Radical Feminist.” They are sexually conservative and tend to also be TERFs.
I suspect this has to do with something Kamala Harris did as a prosecutor and she’s moved to the left since then. I really hope that we’re not going to elect Trump (who’s actively going out of his way to harm trans people) again because the Democratic candidate is not perfect.
Rumor has it that Trump is worried about Harris and the fact that there’s a bot/troll campaign going after her supports that. Just as there were Russian troll accounts posing as Bernie bros in 2016, there are Russian troll accounts posing as black people attacking Harris. The fascists are going to do any and everything to depress turnout among potential Democratic voters in 2020. Lets not fall for their tricks. Absolutely hold candidates accountable and lets make sure we pick the best candidate, but let’s remember that we can’t get the Democratic party to go left if we let the Republicans win.
If infants were allowed to vote, people who are parents would get at least half an extra vote.
She hasnt. For starters, she co-sponsored SESTA-FOSTA last fucking year.
I’ve pretty much written off this generation when it comes to politics. The Trump dynasty probably have the presidency sewn up until 2032; and there’s a horrible ascendancy of right wing popularism in Europe, and across the globe, that looks to be shaping the political landscape for the next 20 to 30 years. I do not despair about that though; I have enormous hope and optimism; and it’s because of kids like the ones below.
They’re just better than us; all of us. They’re brighter, more motivated, and better focussed. They realise that there’s no point them planning for the future if they’re not going to have a future; and they know exactly what needs to be done. They have an innate understanding. It’s like how media aimed at kids always has to be so much better than that for ‘grown ups’. Kids can smell bullshit a mile off. They can’t be fooled, or bluffed, or dazzled by the emperor’s new clothes.
So I’ve made a decision that my only priority from now on, is to dedicate my life, and do whatever I can, however small that contribution can be, to stave off the impending eco catastrophe, just long enough until these kids are ready to take over.
And that just fills me with hope and joy.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/28/generation-greta-young-climate-activists-around-world
And now, people are starting to listen.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jun/29/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-met-greta-thunberg-hope-contagious-climate
Alan, I completely agree. I have a four year old and two year old nephew. I want a better world for them and I am gonna do my best to do what I can for them to get the chance to inherit it from me.
@ Dalillama, Bakunin
I admit that I did not know either of those things, mostly because I am privileged not to have to know. If I had a concern about her it was more that she was a prosecutor before, which usually leads to some unfortunate opinions.
However, I would still vote for her over Cheeto Benito, if she was the candidate. I would hold my nose and vote for Biden, if he was the candidate, and I can’t stand his guts. At least he would not start a war against Iran out of dick measuring and would have a better probability of replacing RBG with a liberal judge. Who knows if she can hold on for another 4 Trump years after 2 brushes with cancer.
If Harris really never had an iota of your support, if she was the candidate vs Trump… I just… don’t know what to say to you. Trump is just TE, not TERF. He’s everything but disgusting-white-people exclusionary. All that is needed for evil to win is for good people to stand aside and do nothing.
@katamont I have to wonder how many abortions mr woods has payed.
Ten years ago these guys were just sad and pathetic. These days they’re a thing of nightmares and what’s worse, the powers that be are even paying attention to them. Oh; I knew I shouldn’t have read that stupid book.
My impression of Trump is that, while he is super racist and sexist, his personal beliefs are not actually anti-LGBTQ+. He just doesn’t care about LGBTQ+ rights one way or the other, and if throwing them under the bus plays well with his base, then that’s exactly what he’ll do. I could be wrong, though. Not that this distinction matters much on a practical level.
I used to be a fan of Kamala and hoped she’d run for president… until FOSTA-SESTA. Goddamn it Mrs. Harris. I’d probably vote third-party protest in that case since there’s little danger of a Dem losing my state. My pick right now is Warren. Not because she’s a woman, I went Bernie over Hillary as the slightly better of two imperfect choices, but because I genuinely like her platform. Just… no Biden. I’d probably third-party him too.
Also, I have never heard of Love Connection and only know Woolery from Wheel of Fortune.
I really can’t understand all the SESTA-FOSTA hate; especially amongst a community that purports to care about exploited children and be anti-rape. I have found though that when talking to people about their objections; it transpires they haven’t actually looked at what the Acts do. Now apologies to those who have formed their views based on the actual source material; I’ll disagree with you, but I suppose it’s a considered opinion, but for those who aren’t familiar…
Ok, because of the First Amendment, the US has a thing called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. That gives internet service providers immunity for content posted to their sites. So its what allows Reddit or Facebook to publish hate speech without repercussion etc.
SESTA-FOSTA however creates an exception to that immunity for ISPs that are: “knowingly assisting, facilitating, or supporting sex trafficking“.
And that’s it; thats all the Acts do.
Now have some individual sites been over cautious, and blocked content that relates to consenting adults? Quite probably. But then criticism should be aimed at those sites. And if people want to set up sites where consenting adults can advertise sex work; then there’s nothing stopping them.
I know it’s a ‘genetic fallacy’ to look at who supports or disagree with a position; but if on one side you have all the child protection agencies and on the other you have the usual “Free speech for Nazis!’ suspects; then I know who I’m backing.
https://www.unicefusa.org/stories/fight-against-online-child-sex-trafficking/33815
It’s my understanding that “sex trafficking” is so broadly defined so as to mean essentially any sex work. Sex workers want to warn each other about potentially dangerous clients? Well, how do we know that all of the people involved in this haven’t been trafficked? Won’t allowing this news to be spread mean supporting the trafficking of those people? Can’t be having that.
Sex workers want to talk about their experiences and educate others? Oh dear, wouldn’t condoning that mean potentially supporting people who have been trafficked, which is basically the same as supporting trafficking, isn’t it? None of that either.
Sex workers want to have a hub through which to offer services in an environment that has more transparency and better community around it? That’s not allowed, some people who are being trafficked might be using that, so any solicitation of sex work (even not just full service intercourse sex work, but things like cam shows or other independent porn type stuff) can’t be done on any “respectable” website. Get back into the shadows where you belong, where there are significantly fewer safeguards.
Not quite probably. Absolutely definitely. Sex workers have lost venues through which to support themselves, to have their voices heard, to share warnings and properly vet their clients.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/how-congress-censored-internet
It’s an awful piece of legislation and it only works to make both sex workers and people who are trafficked less safe, by stigmatizing sex work even further and preventing transparency and community from being maintained.
As for the websites themselves being purely to blame, well, they are to blame, but that doesn’t mean that the Act is totally neutral. This outcome can be easily expected to occur as a direct result of the Acts.
It would be like if there was a law saying “If a hate crime is committed on your property, the owner of the property will be held criminally responsible for the hate crime having been committed”.
Hey, that sounds great, right? That means that people will be incentivized to make inclusive, welcoming spaces for everyone, right?
Surely absolutely no one would read that law, go “well, I can’t 100% control the actions of others, so the best way to limit my liability would be to just never let anyone of a marginalized identity onto my property. That way, they cannot be victimized in an area where I’d be responsible for it.”. That kind of segregation would definitely only be the fault of individual property owners, and not at all the direct result of a “well-meaning” but absolutely hollow gesture towards stopping a complicated and difficult issue, right?
@Alan Robertshaw:
Yes, like putting a bounty on cobras only results in the culling of street cobras, as intended. It does not result in cobras being bred for money and the wild cobras infesting the streets largely being ignored and remaining a safety hazard.
Just like shutting down the safety net for the most vulnerable sex workers in the name of preventing trafficking did not drive some of them into the hands of the sex slavers and leaving others more vulnerable to thieves and abusive clients while doing virtually nothing to prevent or hamper sex trafficking.
It couldn’t have been predicted, after all, that all of the major sites would be “overly cautious” after what happened to Backpage and Craigslist even when the latter was already cautious. No siree, Bob.
Oh, wait, that’s not all it didn’t do, because it didn’t go beyond websites. Landlords didn’t get in legal trouble for renting a home to a known sex worker and didn’t respond by forcing them into homelessness. Sex workers who were roommates were also not prosecuted for trafficking each other.
Entirely predictable unintended consequences don’t exist, you see. They’re mythical unicorns and all that. Also it’s not necessary to listen to actual current and former sex workers when writing a law meant to protect them, as your ignorance is more valuable than their experience.
I’m not bitterly sarcastic, as you can’t tell.
@ catalpa
I understand your concerns, but maybe I can alleviate them.
Sex trafficking isn’t defined at all in the Acts. It would be up to the courts to determine that; and as far as I’m aware there haven’t been any cases yet.
No; because as a matter of law, if you aren’t sure then you’re not doing something “knowingly”.
I understand there have been wider consequences; but that’s often the case with legislation. There’s no perfect solution so it becomes a grim utilitarian calculus. But people involved in child protection say it’s a good thing; I know people who do that work; and I trust their views.
@ catalpa
But there’s the “knowingly” requirement; so your analogy would have to be where the property owner willingly rents to Stormfront or a similar organisation.
ETA: Sorry Snowberry; your post hadn’t popped up by the time I responded to catalpa; but probably covers it anyway.
@Alan Robertshaw:
I don’t know much about the child side of things, and not sure I trust what little I’ve heard due to the sources possibly having an interest in exaggerating the benefits. Not my wheelhouse. On the adult side of things, where I do have experience and connections, the best which can be said was nearly everyone was thrown under a bus for only minor benefits.
If you “knowingly” support sex work on your website, and some of that sex work actually turns out to be trafficked persons being coerced, then surely you have “knowingly” supported trafficking.
@ catalpa
That is the sort of question that taxes the courts. But here the requisite mens rea (apologies for the Latin) is quite clear.
You would have to know (and there’s a fixed definition of that in law) that it’s actually sex trafficking; not merely know of something that might involve trafficking.
@ snowberry
Yeah; I appreciate “Will no-one think of the children!” is often a cover for ulterior motives.
But here I think that, whilst the Acts may have been exploited by people with their own agendas; that is the genuine underlying motive.
I know people who do child protection work; it’s completely harrowing. It has one of the highest burn out rates of any form of investigative work; and the wellbeing at the Bar people report that it’s one of the most traumatic fields to deal in; even for cynical and case hardened lawyers. One judge told that me that the worst aspect of his career was that he had to see the same child victims reappear time and time again as they grew up over the years.
So I guess it’s a particularly emotive topic; and as they say ‘hard cases make bad law’; but I certainly don’t think the Acts are as uncompromisingly evil as is sometimes suggested.
If sex trafficking isn’t clearly defined, how would anyone be able to “knowingly” support it?
Doesn’t that mean the law is so poorly defined as to either be unenforceable, or so as to be able to be applied to anything arbitrarily? (And which of those two options do you think that websites et al will assume it to be?)
@ catalpa
It’s not at all uncommon for statutes not to define terms like that. The rationale is it leads strict strict constructionism rather than addressing the ‘mischief’. So they leave in general terms.
When it comes to interpretation it depends on whether the definition is seen as a legal issue, in which case it’s for the judge to decide, or whether something actually amounts to trafficking, in which case it’s a matter of fact, and thus the province of the jury.
I don’t see any insurmountable problems there. It would be like saying there’s no point in banning ‘hate speech’ because there’s no set definition.
AFAIK, most laws don’t concern themselves so much with knowing. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse and all that. (Yeah, intent can be a mitigating factor, but rarely a completely exonerating one.) If hate speech laws were predicated on the person saying them knowing that the speech was hateful, instead of, you know, the results of the speech itself, then I would expect that there would be clear rules that would be expected to be known by a reasonable person in order for the law to be implemented.
You know what? I’m going go on a tangent while I wait for the resident legal expert to hopefully stop painting an overly idealistic image of a legal system which isn’t his own (seriously, the courts aren’t the biggest issue here, and Mens Rea doesn’t mean much outside the courts). And that is, in terms of sexual content, the mainstream internet is changing, and not in a good way.
Again, I can’t say this for sure about the entire internet, but based on what I’ve seen and what I’ve heard in discussion with others is that sexual content is becoming somewhat little more freely available – but only if it’s cisheteronormative, non-“deviant”, and nonthreatening to sexists/misogynists. Meanwhile, everything else is becoming more hidden. Mere nudity is more widely treated as “sexual” than it was a few years ago, despite the younger generations being more aware than non-sexual nudity is a thing.
If this is real, it’s a subtle, gradual trend. It’s not like Pornhub and DeviantArt are in danger of going the way of Tumblr any time soon, for example. The trend seems to be driven by the major credit card companies, which are putting increasing restrictions on the kind of sexuality that anyone who makes use of their services is allowed to display. Those restrictions, in turn, are driven by certain countries, definitely Saudi Arabia and likely China and Russia, which want an internet that caters to their regressive and/or repressive mores. And the US puts the pressure on them too, at least when the Republicans have full control of congress. Even Great Britain can be stupid about it sometimes, though their effects outside their country are very minor at most.
As a bisexual person who supports open expression of all forms of sexuality (well, okay, slightly exaggerated, but I shouldn’t need to list all the no’s) this is a disturbing trend. But frankly, I’m not sure what can be done about it… no, not Bitcoin, even if it worked as well as the creators originally intended, using blockchain money is kind of a privileged thing still.
@Alan
You’re wrong. You don’t understand what you are talking about, and you are wrong. Many, many people have already been hurt by this legislation, and some people have died because of it. It not only does nothing to prevent trafficking, it makes it easier by driving sex work further into the shadows. It was known beforehand that this would be the effect, and the law was passed anyway, due principally to misogyny.