Sex/Porn industry

[postfeminist]

I just wanted to pole the general feelings if you will.

Prostitution

I understand that prostitution is usually indicative of underage prostitution and human trafficking, this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the legalization of prostitution in regulated red light districts, where prostitutes are not alone, have security, and are paid, taxed, licensed, and tested like normal people with normal jobs.

The statistical advantages are that prostitution being legal reduced rape by about 1/3 (or ups it by 50% when made illegal), as well as reducing other violent acts against women by 1/2 (or ups it by 100% when make illegal). In the United States alone we spend $40 Million a DAY on prostitution, and that would be nice to tax. Further, things which are legal are more easily controlled, which would help eliminate human trafficking and underage workers. Further, regular testing would reduce STD transmission.

Stripping/dancing/porn/etc.

I've heard (though not from here just yet) a lot of people who would call themselves feminists complaining about this. It objectifies women, it takes advantage of them, etc. I have friends who strip, and friends in porn. The friends in porn might not be as happy as the friends who strip, but they certainly aren't defeated in any sense. The friends who strip love their jobs, and quite frankly, the average stripper earns $3,000 a week in the US... that's not being taken advantage of. If you think about it, then men who go to strip clubs are the ones being taken advantage of, monetarily. It's all a legal con game. That said, I think the sex porn industry is fine, but it probably needs tighter regulation... I disagree with the corruption within the industry, but the industry is fine.

So... what do you think? I can dig up some studies if you want and evidence... and no, none of anything here justifies rape, so help me god if one of you brings it up, the red light district actually protects prostitutes from rape and abuse!

[monk]

]Prostitution
Stripping/dancing/porn/etc

[Sonic#]

You want to argue with Catherine MacKinnon.

I think it's unfair to dismiss their points out of hand. Objectification, harrassment, trafficking, exploitation. It's patently sexist. All good points about the sex industry. Does that mean consent is impossible, that every practice is inherently awful? No. Does that mean I believe they should be illegal? No.

If you think about it, then men who go to strip clubs are the ones being taken advantage of, monetarily.

This is a gem of a sexist statement. Yes, because men are forced to go to strip clubs, and the prices are high, they have no choice but to pay their livelihood.

[Butterfly North]

I got sooooo taken advantage of the other day by Toshiba.

[Axiomatic]

the average stripper earns $3,000 a week in the US.

Closer to 1000$.

Which still isn't bad - that's like 50k per year, which is a lot more than many people make. But you have to factor in that this is entirely from tips - the strip club doesn't pay the stripper ANYTHING. In fact, most places actually charge you dance floor rent, between 20-100$ per night.

[LunchBox]

If it's what a person wants to do for a living by choice. Here in Nevada where it's completely legal in half the state. To go into any one of those professions be it exotic dancer or prostitute you have to go through extensive licensing; so to do it legally is it very much a woman's choice of occupation if she's alright with it. No taking advantage there. However, in Vegas where prostitution is illegal there is a big problem with homeless underage girls being coerced into prostitution. That, I strongly don't agree with. But legal prostitution with taxation, regulations, and all that jazz I am not going to complain about. An old roomate's sister paid her way easily through a master's degree through prostitution and was quite content and non-regretting of her decision.

[postfeminist]

If you think about it, then men who go to strip clubs are the ones being taken advantage of, monetarily.

This is a gem of a sexist statement. Yes, because men are forced to go to strip clubs, and the prices are high, they have no choice but to pay their livelihood.

If a man just goes and sits in the club, chooses to buy a few drinks, watch the show, then he's there out of his own free will. When dancers flirt with him in order to get him to spend more money, he's being taken advantage of. If you go out to buy a TV, and come home with a much larger TV, and an entire home theater system, because someone talked you into it, that's one thing. If someone used sexual coercion to accomplish getting someone to spend more, it's sexual harassment.

And before anyone says anything about the environment and expectations of a strip club, and that he chose to go there, I need to point out that this is pretty much the same as saying a girl chose to wear a miniskirt, so harassment is understandable, which it is not.

I understand that this is a weird grey area, but while some strip clubs just have a show, most have women roving the crowd looking for someone to take advantage of through lies/sexuality. My friend Tanner ended up spending like $750 on one girl over the course of a month (which isn't pro for a broke college student, everyone makes fun of him), because she would lie to him, say she liked him, etc. Strip clubs and strippers vary, however many of them would easily fall under con-artist. Are they all like this? I doubt it. Is it still a problem? Yes.

[Neko]

If a man just goes and sits in the club, chooses to buy a few drinks, watch the show, then he's there out of his own free will. When dancers flirt with him in order to get him to spend more money, he's being taken advantage of. If you go out to buy a TV, and come home with a much larger TV, and an entire home theater system, because someone talked you into it, that's one thing. If someone used sexual coercion to accomplish getting someone to spend more, it's sexual harassment.

Right, because men and women who choose to go to strip clubs to spend money feel oh-so sexually harassed and used by the barely-dressed temptresses who just happen to be there as employees.

Sounds like someone needs to get a lawsuit going that will result in strip clubs being required by law to post a sign on the door of their business that says, "WARNING: You may be sexually coerced to spend your money at this facility."

I know logic doesn't exist in the vacuum of the internet and no one will hear the screams, but come on. This is ridiculous.

And before anyone says anything about the environment and expectations of a strip club, and that he chose to go there, I need to point out that this is pretty much the same as saying a girl chose to wear a miniskirt, so harassment is understandable, which it is not.

No, this is not even remotely the same thing. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong.

[Tookie]

Lots of people in lots of professions coerce people to spend money. That's definitely not unique to sex work.

I have no problem with any kind of sex work, and heartily support the decriminalization of prostitution. I also heartily support feminist porn. The mainstream porn industry is all kinds of fucked up, but I don't have any objection to porn itself.

A feminist argument against sex work often goes that if people are being forced into it because they don't have any other options, they aren't actually making a choice. A rebuttal that a classmate shared was given that some people might find themselves in a situation in which sex work is the only (or most) viable option, denying them the right to call their decision a choice is only stripping them (no pun intended) of any agency they have left.

[monk]

My friend Tanner ended up spending like $750 on one girl over the course of a month (which isn't pro for a broke college student, everyone makes fun of him), because she would lie to him, say she liked him, etc.

How is this any different than if Tanner had met the girl at Starbucks, and she convinced him to buy her new clothes, fancy dinners etc and then dumped him when he wouldn't spend money on her anymore?

[Daktoria]

This is one of those weird dialectics where it's almost as if the goal is to destroy social cohesion itself.

On one hand, you have the third wave feminist professionalism argument that's about wielding femininity to self-judged benefit.

On the other hand, you have the second wave feminist anti-objectification argument that it's about degrading femininity.

Whatever happened to personhood? Whatever happened to relationships and people being more than just animals?

The worst part about it is arguing against either side is politically incorrect.

If you argue against the third wave feminist argument, then you're arguing for market regulation such that people who have a tough time getting laid end up having it harder.

If you argue against the second wave feminist argument, then you're arguing for social engineering such that society should be institutionalizing gender roles.

I'm not sure if it's even possible to have an honest conversation about the topic. It seems the entire situation is about political arbitrage rather than actually pursuing a higher value.

I suppose a good way to put it would be to ask, "As a mother, would you encourage or take pride in your daughter working in prostitution or porn?"

I can't imagine many feminists saying, "Yes" to that. Some might say they support their daughter's decision, but I can't imagine a mother believing it's good to have a daughter in such last ditch straits. The only mothers who would are the gold digging type who view relationships strictly in terms of money.

Another question I might ask is, "As a mother, would you encourage or support your daughter going to a friend's house whose mother worked in prostitution or porn?" Considering how dangerous and reckless the sex industries are, this again would seem to be a haphazard judgment.

Some other questions:

"As a mother, would you want your child's school teacher to have a history in prostitution or porn?"

"As a patient, would you want your OB/GYN to work in prostitution or porn?"

"As a voter, how would a candidate's participation in prostitution or porn affect your decision?"

"As a consumer, would you buy products from a company that had a prostitution or porn subsidiary?"

"As an aspiring homeowner, would you be inclined to buy a house in a community where prostitution or porn recording takes place?"

Of course, there's the wonderful multiculturalism overlap issue too.

"Do you believe prostitution or porn should be taken as a sign of struggling ethnic communities?"

"How do you believe foreign aid should be distributed among countries where prostitution or porn recruitment takes place?"

"Do you believe prostitution or porn should be taken as a sign of a corrupt government which might deserve military intervention?"

[Sonic#]

^
Yes, yes, irrelevant, irrelevant, irrelevant, yes, irrelevant, no, have to think about it, no.

[postfeminist]

If a man just goes and sits in the club, chooses to buy a few drinks, watch the show, then he's there out of his own free will. When dancers flirt with him in order to get him to spend more money, he's being taken advantage of. If you go out to buy a TV, and come home with a much larger TV, and an entire home theater system, because someone talked you into it, that's one thing. If someone used sexual coercion to accomplish getting someone to spend more, it's sexual harassment.

Right, because men and women who choose to go to strip clubs to spend money feel oh-so sexually harassed and used by the barely-dressed temptresses who just happen to be there as employees.

Sounds like someone needs to get a lawsuit going that will result in strip clubs being required by law to post a sign on the door of their business that says, "WARNING: You may be sexually coerced to spend your money at this facility."

I know logic doesn't exist in the vacuum of the internet and no one will hear the screams, but come on. This is ridiculous.

So... a man choosing to go into a strip club is different than a woman choosing to dress like a stripper... how? Both were choices, both are provocative, both can end up in sexual harassment, but only one robs you, and only the other is wrong. I'm just saying. The people I've known to go to strip clubs go for the show/drinks, not to have pseudo-sleasy liars try to trick/seduce them out of money.

Also, funny stuff, there are people who sue strip clubs:
http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/riptide/ ... p_club.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop
"Financial Injury"

I'm not expressing an opinion on that, just saying... it happens, and makes some sense.

My friend Tanner ended up spending like $750 on one girl over the course of a month (which isn't pro for a broke college student, everyone makes fun of him), because she would lie to him, say she liked him, etc.

How is this any different than if Tanner had met the girl at Starbucks, and she convinced him to buy her new clothes, fancy dinners etc and then dumped him when he wouldn't spend money on her anymore?

Both would be wrong on behalf of the woman, the difference is that gifts != paycheck. Either way, they are not particularly different from an institutionalized confidence scheme.

A feminist argument against sex work often goes that if people are being forced into it because they don't have any other options, they aren't actually making a choice. A rebuttal that a classmate shared was given that some people might find themselves in a situation in which sex work is the only (or most) viable option, denying them the right to call their decision a choice is only stripping them (no pun intended) of any agency they have left.

I've heard people argue that if a woman cannot get a job, and she's forced into prostitution, she isn't choosing it... I always reply that if she were a man, she would likely be homeless in the same situation, which means she's chosen not to be.

Lots of people in lots of professions coerce people to spend money. That's definitely not unique to sex work.

It's not, but in all the others SEXUALLY coercing people is sexual harassment.

Buy these socks and I'll put my dick on your face... ;D

Alright, that's not a great example, but... ya know... the problem isn't that it's like... $20 for boobs or something cut and dry like that, the flirting that is done is often with lies about how they like you, and things which might happen after work, etc. It's the lying sexual harassment that I was commenting on... not like... the things you would simply expect.

[monk]

Both would be wrong on behalf of the woman, the difference is that gifts != paycheck. Either way, they are not particularly different from an institutionalized confidence scheme.

Why? they're gifts. No one is putting a gun to his head. Institutionalized confidence schemes promise a certain amount of financial return on financial investment. The girl can give sex for free anytime she wants, so the smart thing would be to get the sex first. if she's selling it but is not a prostitute it's obvious from the start it's at your own risk to give things to her. especially when there's no discussion of specifics ie. what is the value of new shoes in sexual currency?

It's not, but in all the others SEXUALLY coercing people is sexual harassment.

In the others, the sexual attention is unwanted and the environment is of a non sexual nature. Touching people is also taboo, unless you happen to be in a dojo learning martial arts. The environment changes the rules. Also, If you're in a strip club and a girl comes by all you have to do is shake your head no and she will move on. Even faster is to shake your head no and say "no money" and she will tell her friends and you will really be left alone.

[postfeminist]

Both would be wrong on behalf of the woman, the difference is that gifts != paycheck. Either way, they are not particularly different from an institutionalized confidence scheme.

Why? they're gifts. No one is putting a gun to his head. Institutionalized confidence schemes promise a certain amount of financial return on financial investment. The girl can give sex for free anytime she wants, so the smart thing would be to get the sex first. if she's selling it but is not a prostitute it's obvious from the start it's at your own risk to give things to her. especially when there's no discussion of specifics ie. what is the value of new shoes in sexual currency?

So, manipulating a girl into sex with a promise is wrong... but using the false promise of sex to manipulate people is not? That sounds like a difficult position to back up. It sounds like an impossibility to enforce morality in any real way, especially when it's a change in morality, but it doesn't excuse those who do it. Women who do this fuck up everything for everyone. They cause resent, etc. in men, which leads men to distrust women, and so on... I'm not saying it's something easy to deal with, but the source of a lot of problems for everyone.

It's not, but in all the others SEXUALLY coercing people is sexual harassment.

In the others, the sexual attention is unwanted and the environment is of a non sexual nature. Touching people is also taboo, unless you happen to be in a dojo learning martial arts. The environment changes the rules. Also, If you're in a strip club and a girl comes by all you have to do is shake your head no and she will move on. Even faster is to shake your head no and say "no money" and she will tell her friends and you will really be left alone.

This has not been my experience, the one time I went to a strip club (for a business meeting, I thought it was stupid too) I had actually just had my wallet stollen. Admittedly, I was dressed nicely in a fairly flamboyant fashion (given that a suit was involved) but I had to deal with nearly every girl in the place more than once, even after telling them my wallet was stolen... a couple even felt me up in a way which seemed like they were checking me for it (I can't know their intentions, but given specific locations, I'm assuming).

[Axiomatic]

What kind of stupid question is "Would you want a teacher to have a history of porn?"

What, am I expected to say "THIS TEACHER IS HORRIBLE HE/SHE DIDN'T EVEN DO PORN, THEREFORE HE/SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO TEACH MY CHILD"?

[Daktoria]

Axiom, you also seem to be building a false dichotomy. The question asks if you'd want a teacher to be involved in prostitution or porn, not if you'd need a teacher to be involved in prostitution or porn.

[Sonic#]

"Want" can mean "desire" or "prefer" though, which plays into what Axiomatic says.

So... a man choosing to go into a strip club is different than a woman choosing to dress like a stripper... how? Both were choices, both are provocative, both can end up in sexual harassment, but only one robs you, and only the other is wrong. I'm just saying. The people I've known to go to strip clubs go for the show/drinks, not to have pseudo-sleasy liars try to trick/seduce them out of money.

Different space, different context, different choice. Also, you seem to give very little credence to a consumer's ability to withstand protection, suggesting that they deserve excessive protection from willingly giving their money under the influence of... sex? If that's so, you'd have to pull a lot of advertising too. Also, I would look very hard at restaurants that smell like food, because that's so tough to turn down. Oh, and retail stores with music? Damned if I wasn't robbed there too.

Expected financial transactions are not thievery. Tone down your rhetoric.

[monk]

So, manipulating a girl into sex with a promise is wrong... but using the false promise of sex to manipulate people is not?That sounds like a difficult position to back up. It sounds like an impossibility to enforce morality in any real way, especially when it's a change in morality, but it doesn't excuse those who do it.

Both are morally wrong, but they're not illegal. We don't pass laws on moral issues. Take adultery for instance, everyone agrees it's morally wrong, but no one goes to jail over it.

Women who do this fuck up everything for everyone. They cause resent, etc. in men, which leads men to distrust women, and so on... I'm not saying it's something easy to deal with, but the source of a lot of problems for everyone.

I would say it's a two way street here, there are women who manipulate men and there are men who vanish after they "seal the deal". Resentment & distrust flow both ways, so the best thing to do is act morally yourself so that you're not a contributor.

This has not been my experience, the one time I went to a strip club (for a business meeting, I thought it was stupid too) I had actually just had my wallet stollen. Admittedly, I was dressed nicely in a fairly flamboyant fashion (given that a suit was involved) but I had to deal with nearly every girl in the place more than once, even after telling them my wallet was stolen... a couple even felt me up in a way which seemed like they were checking me for it (I can't know their intentions, but given specific locations, I'm assuming).

Having been in dozens of strip clubs in 3 countries, I will say that though the approach is sometimes more aggressive, once a woman realizes there's no money to had she moves on. Stripclubs are retail business environments, the product is GFE(girl friend experience) and the specific menu of price & what type of GFE is up for negotiation, and depending on where you are that menu could have anything on it from conversation and 6 inches of space between you at all times to full intercourse. And while the price is negotiable the menu is usually not.

I can see why the women didn't believe you when you said your wallet was stolen, because if you don't have enough money to at least buy a drink, stripclubs usually don't allow you to just hang out. As for being felt up, I realize one mistake you were likely making was eye contact. You have to make it, and get their attention. If you're distracted by all the nakedness around you, you are unconsciously sending out the signal of "please come talk to me"

[postfeminist]

"Want" can mean "desire" or "prefer" though, which plays into what Axiomatic says.

So... a man choosing to go into a strip club is different than a woman choosing to dress like a stripper... how? Both were choices, both are provocative, both can end up in sexual harassment, but only one robs you, and only the other is wrong. I'm just saying. The people I've known to go to strip clubs go for the show/drinks, not to have pseudo-sleasy liars try to trick/seduce them out of money.

Different space, different context, different choice. Also, you seem to give very little credence to a consumer's ability to withstand protection, suggesting that they deserve excessive protection from willingly giving their money under the influence of... sex? If that's so, you'd have to pull a lot of advertising too. Also, I would look very hard at restaurants that smell like food, because that's so tough to turn down. Oh, and retail stores with music? Damned if I wasn't robbed there too.

Expected financial transactions are not thievery. Tone down your rhetoric.

Hyperbole.

Women who do this fuck up everything for everyone. They cause resent, etc. in men, which leads men to distrust women, and so on... I'm not saying it's something easy to deal with, but the source of a lot of problems for everyone.

I would say it's a two way street here, there are women who manipulate men and there are men who vanish after they "seal the deal". Resentment & distrust flow both ways, so the best thing to do is act morally yourself so that you're not a contributor.

There are also women who will vanish after sex happens, I can't think of any general examples of men taking advantage of women monetarily. That said, it's likely just like... spousal abuse. It's assumed that it goes one way, so people don't talk about the other side. *shrug* Well said.

This has not been my experience, the one time I went to a strip club (for a business meeting, I thought it was stupid too) I had actually just had my wallet stollen. Admittedly, I was dressed nicely in a fairly flamboyant fashion (given that a suit was involved) but I had to deal with nearly every girl in the place more than once, even after telling them my wallet was stolen... a couple even felt me up in a way which seemed like they were checking me for it (I can't know their intentions, but given specific locations, I'm assuming).

Having been in dozens of strip clubs in 3 countries, I will say that though the approach is sometimes more aggressive, once a woman realizes there's no money to had she moves on. Stripclubs are retail business environments, the product is GFE(girl friend experience) and the specific menu of price & what type of GFE is up for negotiation, and depending on where you are that menu could have anything on it from conversation and 6 inches of space between you at all times to full intercourse. And while the price is negotiable the menu is usually not.

I can see why the women didn't believe you when you said your wallet was stolen, because if you don't have enough money to at least buy a drink, stripclubs usually don't allow you to just hang out. As for being felt up, I realize one mistake you were likely making was eye contact. You have to make it, and get their attention. If you're distracted by all the nakedness around you, you are unconsciously sending out the signal of "please come talk to me"

Strip clubs are part of the service industry, actually, but that doesn't matter. Chances are it happened because it was earlier in the day, and the place wasn't very busy... they had a free buffet though (the reason the location was chosen, also, probably, to "look pimp" or whatever). My problem was that I was totally ignoring them, and they would constantly be pestering, etc, etc... my friend said it was because I'm attractive, I don't really care. My experience is just my own, the problem is just that it's easy to go from... the menu and a drink to drunk and unable to coherently make decisions. Sex and alcohol are very powerful inebriates, especially when combined, and if you get someone drunk, you can very easily manipulate them... just like when drunk girls are taken advantage of. I'm not trying to say that financial damages are comparable to rape, but if you woke up the next day, memory stopping half way through the night, and a $20,000 bill... you'd probably be mad.

And don't say anything about how he should not have gotten so drunk or whatever, that's victim blaming just like saying she should not have gotten so drunk. And yes, there are legal presidents for both... pretty sure I already linked the dram shop thing.

Honestly, I don't really have any strong feelings here, I think clubs (strip or otherwise) are stupid. Trying to regulate this industry in particular is very difficult, especially with a lot of it happening illegally (prostitution) in most places. Especially as complaints and compliments are usually the same... be it a business which dislikes being next to a strip club, or a business which loves the extra foot traffic. Be it saying that women are objectified, or that women have additional employment options, etc.

One thing I've noticed is that women tend to be far more aggressive patrons, and male dancers are treated much worse than female dancers. I think that just plays into social expectations of sexuality, women aren't rapists, etc. It's impossible to assign blame, only to note it as an issue... though men get shamed for resisting.

[Rainbow Dolphins]

Dude, you are really missing the point about victim-blaming. If you get drunk and spend $20,000 at a strip club, that is something YOU DID while you were drunk. Those were your actions. If you got really drunk and someone raped you, that is something someone did TO YOU while you were drunk. That's why when you're raped, you're a victim, and when you spend a bunch of money, you're held accountable.

You're still thinking of rape as something a woman submits to... it's not, she has no choice. She doesn't get drunk and decide to let herself get raped, like a person can get drunk and decide to give people money in circumstances that they wouldn't have spent as much had their judgement been better. Being raped is not a matter of bad judgement.

[postfeminist]

Dude, you are really missing the point about victim-blaming. If you get drunk and spend $20,000 at a strip club, that is something YOU DID while you were drunk. Those were your actions. If you got really drunk and someone raped you, that is something someone did TO YOU while you were drunk. That's why when you're raped, you're a victim, and when you spend a bunch of money, you're held accountable.

You're still thinking of rape as something a woman submits to... it's not, she has no choice. She doesn't get drunk and decide to let herself get raped, like a person can get drunk and decide to give people money in circumstances that they wouldn't have spent as much had their judgement been better. Being raped is not a matter of bad judgement.

You are assuming all rape is violent; it's been discussed in other threads that a drunk person cannot give consent, legally. As such people should avoid sexing up drunk people because you do not know what their feelings will be the next day. If she says yes, and is enthusiastic all through the act, it can still be rape the next day if she doesn't remember it. If you are put into so much debt that it seriously effects your life and have no idea how you got there... you suddenly cannot afford rent for example... I'm not saying they are the same, but that doesn't mean both cannot be wrong. If you happen to have an open tab, you could be charged for all kinds of things you do not content to, at least knowingly.

I think in both cases people should avoid blacking out in the first place, but it's difficult to say that one person is a victim and the other is not. If someone cannot give informed consent to sex, legal contracts, etc. while drunk, how can they suddenly be on top of shit with money? Most people can't deal with money when sober. I'm not really talking about buying an extra pitcher, I'm talking about waking up in debt.

[monk]

Me personally? I don't walk into a strip club or a casino with my ATM or Credit card because I know I will get caught up in the action and spend more than I should, that's drunk or sober, so I enter those places with only the money I'm willing to spend, for me to do so would be irresponsible, of me. Unfortunately a woman can't leave her body in the car or at home to prevent it from getting raped.

[Sonic#]

You are assuming all rape is violent

I can assure you that none of us assume that rape is violent. Funny that you would assume that we assume that though. (Then again, in a PM to me, you assumed that we thought that Islam didn't exist. Funny, that.)

You're comparing a financial transaction to a sexual encounter. These are not equivalent in gravity. The man in your situation pays the money, which means that the drunkenness makes him do an ill-considered action. When someone gets raped, it is against their will. In that case, it's not an ill-considered action, but a forced one. (And to clarify, force need not imply violence, only coercion.)

So, yes, drunk people are better off not making monetary decisions. However, people, drunk or sober, are better off not being raped.

[postfeminist]

I can assure you that none of us assume that rape is violent. Funny that you would assume that we assume that though. (Then again, in a PM to me, you assumed that we thought that Islam didn't exist. Funny, that.)

No, I pointed out that your categorical claim of MGC as acceptable because it happens to infants was in direct contradiction of Islam, where that is not the case. You were comparing specific MGC to general FGC, which does not work.

You're comparing a financial transaction to a sexual encounter.

I am comparing consent while inebriated to consent while inebriated. Dram store laws exist, please do not ignore them.

These are not equivalent in gravity.

I'm glad you know, stop assuming that I do not.