Don’t vote for Trump.
I wrote that in 2020 (link) and I’m writing it again now, because it needs to be written.
And as before, probably it’s going to cost me sales, but there are things more important than sales, and if this is the thing that makes you not want to buy my books then I’m comfortable not taking your money. Given what I write, it’s my responsibility to write this.
Yes, I’m Australian, and therefore I will not be voting in the US election. But unfortunately when the US sneezes, the world catches a cold, and the reality is that the upcoming US election is more likely to direct affect me personally and many of the people in my life than some elections that actually happen within the borders of Australia. And it will affect my readers, and it will – critically – affect many of the topics I write about.
The last time I approached this topic, I said – somewhat presciently – that the single most important factor deciding your vote in 2020 should be that, come the end of his term, Biden would step down, but that Trump would not.
That turned out to not be hypothetical. Trump did not accept the result of the election. He encouraged his followers to engage in insurrection, and we are mostly lucky that they were so very bad at it. They will likely do better at their next attempt. Trump has talked openly about abolishing term limits, about being open to a third turn. His campaign has sought to sow doubt about the accuracy and legitimacy of vote counts, while actively working to interfere with those very counts. He constantly points to dictators as his allies and role models. He could not be less subtle about his intentions if he tried.
Biden, meanwhile, proved willing to step down from the nomination in the interests of his party, his nation, and democracy, and I have no doubt that Harris will do the same when the time comes.
That should be the end of it. Don’t elect a dictator, people.
===
But I do need to say more, because I’m an adult creator writing some very specific kinks.
I will not pretend that Kamala Harris is a friend of adult creators. She is a cop, she has prosecuted sex workers, and she was a prominent supporter of both the disastrous FOSTA/SESTA acts and the current KOSA/KOSPA bills which would further criminalise adult content and chill free speech on the internet. I do not, all things considered, like her. Much work will need to be done to defend our liberties under her presidency.
But still, there is a vast gulf between Harris and Trump.
I write stories about patriarchal, oppressive societies, where women are treated like shit. They’re hot, for me and for many readers, but part of why they’re hot is that they’re taboo. They’re forbidden. They represent our fears. They’re an exploration of things that shouldn’t happen, in fiction, for the purpose of erotica.
I can tell you from personal professional experience that real oppression isn’t hot. It’s scary, it’s messy, it’s ugly, and it’s abhorrent. There is no real-world version of institutional patriarchal oppression that is sexy.
And, at a more mercenary level, it doesn’t give us what we want. A world of gender inequity is not a world where men get more sex or more satisfying sex. It’s a world where everyone ends up repressed, frustrated, and unhappy. Sexual freedom requires, as the name implies, freedom, and true freedom requires safety, respect, and opportunity for everyone involved.
Trump and his allies have been very clear about the world they want to create. It is a world where abortion is criminalised, even in cases where it may save a woman’s life. It is a world where contraception is prohibited. It is a world that persecutes queer and trans people and denies their identity and in some cases subjects them to forcible medical treatment or mistreatment.
This is not a hypothetical. This agenda is already rolling out in many US states, through legislation and through government policy.
They intend to go further. The much-publicised Project 2025 sets out a Republican plan to transform society in considerable detail, and while Trump has made some attempt to distance himself from it pre-election, the architects of the plan remain in Trump’s inner circle, among his staff, among his donors, and whatever Trump may personally intend it seems clear that the apparatus around him fully intends to put these plans into effect.
They include the total criminalisation of adult content creation and publishing, the national criminalisation of sex work, and the restriction of access in all media to discussion of feminism, of reproductive health and contraception, of all forms of queerness and kink.
If you’re reading this then you’ve probably enjoyed my stories, so you need to understand that this is a plan to criminalise you, to make your sexual expression forbidden and to jail you if it becomes known.
Everyone has a responsibility to not allow that to happen – but as kinksters, with the specific kinks I write about, you have a further additional duty to fight for a world of free sexual expression, of gender equity, of freedom from sexual and gender discrimination and oppression.
So don’t vote for Trump.
===
Do I need to go further? Do I need to say that when Biden retired out of concerns about his age and mental capacity, Trump continued to campaign, despite being roughly the same age? Do I need to point to his consistent difficulty in remembering names and faces, his frequent confusions, his nonsense sentences, his inability to stay focused and on topic during even his most important public speeches, his unwillingness to prepare or do homework for even his most important engagements, and his consistent refusal to take any formal assessment of his cognitive abilities? If elected, he would be 82 by the end of his term, 18 years past the official US age of full retirement.
In Australia we make federal judges retire at age 70 out of concern for their ongoing ability to reliably and fairly handle complex matter.
Do I need to remind you that he’s a convicted felon? And not convicted for, like, political protests or political actions, but for fraud. For lying needlessly and repeatedly about financial matters for his own benefit. And that’s just one of many criminal cases pending against him for a range of activities. I tend to say that politicians who are the subject of allegations should step down. Voters deserve better from their leaders than “not proved”. The idea that anyone would vote for a convicted criminal – whether from their own party or someone else’s – is baffling. Is this really the best candidate the Republicans can put up? And despite what naysayers might suggest, it is not easy to see an opponent convicted of a crime in the US for political purposes. The Republicans tried it on Bill Clinton with far less success, for doing incredibly inappropriate things that we are today all agreed that he definitely did do. The reason Trump is a convicted criminal is because he committed crimes.
And while we’re on that topic, let’s remember that a civil court found that, on the balance of probabilities, he had raped a woman. Again, nothing political about that. He is a rapist. It’s a finding of fact.
Conservative voters in the US are entitled to a better candidate than this, and they should be outraged that this is what their party is offering them. The Republicans have far more distinguished and intelligent statesmen sitting on the sidelines, and it’s a scandal that they’ve been benched in front of this rambling arrogant would-be Putin. If Republicans want their party back, and want to see a sensible and sane conservative political agenda back in play in their nation, they need to use their vote to say that.
===
As I said at the beginning – look, I don’t like Kamala Harris a lot.
The United States doesn’t have a serious left-wing party. The most “far-left” progressive policies of the US Democrats – government-funded healthcare, a non-militarised police force, sensible gun control, work towards racial and gender equity – are agreed bipartisan centrist policy in most of the rest of the Western world. Your choices at the presidential election, by the standards of the developed world, are “far right” or “centre right”.
That’s not a bug – that’s a deliberate feature of the US system, which was designed explicitly and deliberately to keep power concentrated in the hands of educated white male landowners. And, despite some modest constitutional alterations, that remains largely the case today. The major parties will never offer you a truly progressive presidential candidate. Further, in a two-party first-past-the-post presidential race, it is unlikely to ever substantially change without significant revolution – whether that revolution be cultural, structural, or armed.
I’d urge readers to work towards that revolution (non-violently), but in the meantime you’re stuck with what you have. Your options at the presidential election are Harris, Trump, wasting your vote, or not voting at all.
Not voting is the idiot’s protest. It changes nothing. It cedes your political power to those who do vote.
So get out there and vote, and vote for Harris – holding your nose, if you have to. The choice are not equivalent, and one is significantly better than the other.
That’s all I have to say
But I did have to say it. I can’t write the stories I write, and then in good conscience stand silent on a question that may make them reality.
I doubt I’ve convinced anyone to change their vote. But history will condemn those who stayed silent at this time, and the fact that you can’t make a difference all by yourself doesn’t remove your moral obligation to try.
I hope you’ll continue reading and enjoying my stories. If you strongly feel that you don’t want to, after reading this, then they really weren’t for you anyway.
– All These Roadworks
September 2024
Thank you for writing this. Genuinely, your reality checks are why I keep reading and buying your content. As a woman in the US, it’s scary right now. And having these kinks, it’s so hard to know if people recognize the difference between fantasy and reality. I keep supporting you because I know it’s safe here.
gracias, completamente de acuerdo
Thank you for touching on this election with your platform. As a woman enjoyer of your content, the world Trump wants to make happen is a scary, scary patriarchy that pushes women back 100 years.
Also, I absolutely have always liked your reality checks to remind your content enjoyers that this is a safe space for fantasy’s but that theres a whole world out there where this would ruin peoples lives if it were to be made true.
From a kink perspective we all need to mind the golden rule; Safe, Sane, and Consensual. Trump is everything against that, in regards to women. And as an american living is Australia, yeah, if the US says a law, its a ripple effect of countries that will try to push whatever the US pushes. I can only be grateful that as shit has happened in my home state I’ve been in a country that doesn’t dictate my body and my decisions. I’d like it to stay that way.
I’m not a Trump supporter, but I’d call this far from a “reality check”:
– Trump wasn’t convicted of fraud… (etc)….
[majority of long comment deleted by ATR]
The purpose of this post was to set out my position, not to host or participate in a debate.
But FWIW my background is in law and none of what you said changes the fact that it is legally correct to say that Trump was convicted on 34 charges that constitute fraud, and that it is not defamatory to say he is a rapist because he has been found by a court to be one.
Sure, advocate away. I’m good with freedom of speech. What you put as facts just isn’t factually correct, though. The below isn’t a debate. It’s a correction of how the US legal system works.
Perhaps you’re less familiar with US law? Fraud is a different statue in the US. Trumps only criminal conviction was for falsifying business records under a very unique, untested legal theory. His fraud offense is civil, and you can only be found liable in a civil trial, not convicted of a criminal offense. The appeals court is looking at the civil fraud trial now and will likely adjust the verdict. I couldn’t find the Carroll trial summary online but here’s the summary: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse and defamation. That’s a civil liability not criminal conviction otherwise the split jury would have meant no conviction at all.
[Links provided to Reason and to NY Post, neither of which are reputable news sources and neither of which I will host links to on my site – ATR.]
Dude, you are just wrong, and I’m guessing that you don’t have *any* background in law, whether US or otherwise, and you’re summarising something that a website or a commentator told you.
On 30 May 2024 Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts under New York Penal Law, Part 3, Title K (Offenses Involving Fraud), Article 175.10. It is a criminal charge, not civil; the offence literally has the word “fraud” in the title”; it’s a felony, and it’s punishable by (among other possibilities) jail time. The verdict was returned by a jury, and the jury was not in any sense “split” as New York requires unanimous verdicts for offences of this kind. There is nothing unique or untested about the legal theory involved in this trial – except to the extent of the larger question of whether a former president can be found guilty of anything – and the case was decided on the facts, not the legal technicalities. This is the case that related to the Stormy Daniels hush money payments.
He was also, *completely separately*, found liable in February 2024 in a CIVIL fraud trial (still fraud, though, that’s the still the word used in the legislation), and ordered to pay a $355 million judgement. That’s the case relating to his lies regarding the value of his New York business interests and properties. It is still correct to say that he was found to have committed fraud in that case, although noting it’s a civil fraud (in addition to his criminal fraud, as above). This trial did not involve a jury (as is normal for such cases) and it again did not involve novel legal theory. The main point of contention was as to Mr Trump’s knowledge of the truth of his business portfolio, his intent in making the false statements that he made, and the degree to which those statements originated from him as opposed to his employees and agents.
They are two separate cases.
And they’re both in addition to the earlier hearing related to Ms Carroll, in which Trump was found to have committed “sexual abuse”, which is literally the formal name for the offence of rape in New York – see PL 130.55, 130.60, 130.65. This trial was held before a jury, but the jury were not “split”, as the law again required a unanimous jury verdict. Being a civil trial, the offence was only proved to the standard of “balance of probabilities”, not “beyond reasonable doubt”, but it is still correct to say that it was found by a court to have occurred. (And please trust me that it is *exceptionally* difficult to get a finding of rape *anywhere* in the world, for any defendant, let alone a rich white man, to even the civil standard, let alone the criminal standard, and it only happens where the evidence is overwhelmingly strong.)
It is 100% correct, both technically and colloquially, to say that he committed fraud, that he is guilty of fraud, that he has been convicted of fraud, that he is facing possible imprisonment for fraud, and that he was found by a court to have committed rape.
And I’m just going to highlight again how exceptionally unusual it is for ANY political candidate at any level to still be running for office while facing criminal charges, let alone this many of them. If it happened in Australia, the candidate would immediately step down, or their party would make them, even if they were pleading not guilty and felt confident of acquittal. Voters deserve better from their candidates than “not proved”. Republicans should be able to field a candidate that has no suggestion of criminal behaviour.
I always find it funny how non-Americans keep trying to tell us how to vote. You clearly get your information from poor sources because you keep repeating misinformation that’s been corrected for years now.
Do you know who the prominent politicians of Australia are, and the scandals? Could you do a reality check on Australian politics?
[majority of long comment about rape and abortion deleted by ATR]
I studied politics at university. I personally ran as a candidate in an election. I am literally spending today volunteering in the political office of an Australian party. Yes, I know what I’m talking about, whether in Australia or the US. (And for what it’s worth, I’ve *also* worked professionally alongside the investigation and prosecution of sexual assault, and I can say that your thoughts on that topic are deeply misinformed.)
I’m sorry that you’re living in a bubble of misinformation.
In any case, I’m not interested in hosting a debate. I’m setting out my position, because I have a duty to, and that’s it.
It’s ironic for you, as an American, to tell someone who’s not American that they don’t have the right to comment on American politics or advocate for one candidate over the other when
A. What America does literally affects the rest of the world
B. America often involves itself in foreign disputes
C. You’re free to read up on, and comment on Australian politics. There are probably scandals galore that you can have an opinion on.
ATRW – your work along with posts like these are what keeps me coming back, keep up the good work!
Personally, I’ve come to prefer an alternative to presenting not voting just a ceding of vote power to others, or even any kind of pointless protest. Rather, not voting is neither an abrogation of authority nor so much as a rejection. Not voting is, in practice, a “positive” vote – it doesn’t say “I don’t like either candidate” or even just “I don’t care about politics.” The practical upshot of not voting in America’s democracy, such as it is, is a declaration of “I am fine with either candidate.” It is saying “I think all of these candidates are equally good.”
So if you look at Harris and think that she’s not perfect, that you have problems with her platform or whatever the specifics of the hang up you might have – refusing to vote at all until your perfect candidate comes along is not saying that you want better. It’s not even saying nothing. It’s saying that you think Harris and Trump are equally good. It’s saying you like them both. That’s the practical reality of things in our present flawed system. And if you genuinely do thing Trump is as good as Harris, or Harris is as bad as Trump, then frankly you must be blind, deaf, and probably have been living under a rock since late 2015. All of Harris’ worst policy areas and flaws are still leagues ahead of what Trump and his entourage want, even if we only look at specifically just those policy areas.
Don’t be an idiot. Go vote for Harris. Then go protest, work on finally forcing through long- and much-needed fixes for our flawed democratic (and non-democratic but attached) systems, keep pushing for more progressive candidates and for moving the Overton window so democratic policies that are good for people become more acceptable and harmful policies become less acceptable, work to counter far-right and right-wing disinformation, consider if you might want to go into politics personally to try and do it right, if you find differences with the Democratic Party irreconcilable then go build the groundwork for a proper new political party and not just the glory-chaser nonentities we currently have. Voting does not have to be the only thing you do, and provided you have the ability it probably shouldn’t be the only thing you do. But the rest of this takes time, and right now the only time we have is about 40 days, tops. So right now, for the first thing you do of any of that, go vote for Harris. Make sure we still have a ruddy democracy to work with. Then, get to work on the rest of it.
Thanks for posting this.
deleting posts you don’t agree with is incredibly trashy and absolutely devalues your opinions
No, it doesn’t. Please don’t mistake my website for a public forum. You have a right to your opinion, but not a right to have me platform it. Feel free to post your thoughts on your own platforms. Possibly under an identity that has some weight or reputation attached to it rather than from behind a throwaway email address.
I have some tolerance for dissenting opinions that are intelligent, or based on a mistake of fact, but you can’t use reason to dig a person out of a hole that they didn’t use reason to get into, and I’m not interested in the views of those who have chosen to live in a world of alternate facts in order to flatter their existing biases.
As an Independent, I find the whole thing rather funny. But do you truly not see the irony in saying “I’m not interested in the views of those who have chosen to live in a world of alternate facts in order to flatter their existing biases,” right after censoring content you don’t like? LOL.
Also, thanks for bringing those two up here. I may never get hard again.
My condolences to you as an independent voter that, due to the nature of the US electoral system, your vote will always be entirely irrelevant and wasted in federal elections.
You misunderstand the nature of censorship. It is not censorship to decide what speech will be published on the walls of your private business(*), particularly when that speech included – as here – (a) some quite offensive comments about the nature of rape, (b) personal attacks on me, and (c) links to misinformation. If those are things people want to say, then they’re not the customers I want in my business, and they’re driving away the customers I *do* want and making them feel unsafe.
When you’re running a bar, you can either kick rabid MAGA types out, or you can be a MAGA bar, and I’m not interested in being a MAGA bar. If you’re intending to vote a rapist into national office come October then my stories are not for you, and never have been.
==
(*) When your private business gets big enough that it becomes a monopoly, or a meaningful public forum, or where it delivers essential services, or where it hosts political candidates, or where being denied access to it represents a significant barrier to a person’s ability to fully engage in public life, then we can come back to talking about censorship again.
Thanks for writing this. As an American voter, I appreciate you saying this.