Why Sex Work Isn't Work

245 posts / 0 new

Sun, 2015-08-16 14:32

Sineed

Quote:

I wish to take seriously the claim that selling sex is “work like any other kind of work” and examine what taking this claim on its face as true would entail in the United States. In my view, there are serious problems with the regulatory approach that aims to treat women selling sex (“sex work” in their lingo) as simply a form of work like any other. To take the claim that “sex work” should be treated/regulated like any other form of work seriously, the following, at minimum, would have to be addressed:

Worker Safety

Sexual harassment

Civil rights

In what follows, I draw on the laws of the United States regarding workers safety, sexual harassment, and civil rights to show that the claim that selling sex is work just like any other form of work is indefensible.

http://logosjournal.com/2014/watson/

It's from an American perspective, but I suggest that Canadian regulations regarding worker's health and safety are similar. The discussion on sexual harrassment is especially interesting, considering that sexual harrassment and having sex with people they do not desire is a part of the job as a sex worker.

The author is a professor of women's and gender studies at the University of San Diego.

My own observations are that sex work is dangerous and enormously harmful to women. In my experience working with addicted persons, women who successfully conquer their addictions will stop doing sex work.

Legalizing sex work doesn't solve the problem of sexual predators who for time immemorial have been drawn to rape and murder sex workers.

Sun, 2015-08-16 15:54

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Thanks for posting this, Sineed. It illustrates a point I have tried to make less than articulately many times.

Sun, 2015-08-16 16:21

quizzical

good stuff sineed thank you.

Sun, 2015-08-16 17:00

takeitslowly

housewives or househusbands do work all the time, even if they don't always follow safety standards. Whether if its safe or unsafe work, it is work. Different jobs have different risks, the risk of being a soldier in afghanistian is that you can be blown up into pieces at any time.

walking on a tightrope is also unsafe work, its unlike any other job.

Not having a job is also work. Working to survive on little to no income, working to survive on the street or in unsafe shelter.

Sun, 2015-08-16 18:43

Sineed

Quote:

SPACE International

(Survivors of Prostitution-Abuse Calling for Enlightenment)

Statement Opposing Amnesty International’s resolution to decriminalise Pimps and Johns

We are a group of Sex-Trade Survivors from the US, UK, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Ireland and France, and this letter directly addresses you, Amnesty International, regarding your proposed policy of endorsing the worldwide decriminalisation of pimps and johns responsible for human rights abuses in the global Sex-Trade.

...

Your entire document is founded on the premise that the abuse of pimping and sex-buying should be decriminalised and the Sex-Trade regulated in order to somehow make prostitution safer for the prostituted. It is not the first time the world has heard this argument. The notion that the system of prostitution should be regulated with a view to making its conditions safer is no different than the senseless stance that slavery should have been regulated towards the same end. It is an argument that completely ignores the structural oppression that shamefully upheld one system for centuries and shamefully continues to uphold the other to this day.

http://spaceinternational.ie/public-statements/

For many years, I have sat on the fence on this issue, to my shame. Prostituted women were presenting themselves to the clinic where I worked suffering from the direct harms resulting from their sex work, such as sexually-transmitted infections, and violence. Some of my patients have died as a direct result of the sex work they undertook in order to pay for their addictions.

Quote:
You claim that you are considering endorsing full decriminalisation of all parties in the Sex-Trade out of a sense of concern for prostituted persons; if this is the case you will need to examine why you would consider endorsing a model that has been proven, time and again all over the globe, to massively swell the size of the Sex-Trade and thereby increase the numbers of prostituted and trafficked women and children abused within it.

I used to support decrim because I thought it kept women safer. But I looked into it, and the case has not been made. There is no evidence that decrim keeps women safer. So I have to land on the side of the Swedish model, which criminalizes johns, but decriminalizes sex workers themselves.

Supporters of decrim are basically supporting the rights of men to buy and sell women's bodies.

Am I wrong? Make the case. Change my mind.

*rolls ball*

Sun, 2015-08-16 20:39

lagatta

sineed, my position is very close to yours. I thought the Dutch model might be better (in terms of harm reduction) and want NO legal stigma or harassment of women, girls and other marginalized people (transpeople, boys and men of oppressed human groups such as Indigenous people, people of colour and colonized people by sex tourism). Spending a considerable amount of time in Amsterdam for work, I saw that the famous "windows" were a cover for a trade that involved mostly exploited, trafficked people from the global south and the poorest corners of Eastern Europe.

I I don't support C-36 - I think the law continues to attack people in the trade, not those who profit from it. But we must do better than consigning marginalized, oppressed people to "the life" or the "premature death". Yes, I'm thinking of Indigenous women I have known.

Sun, 2015-08-16 21:07

quizzical

Sineed wrote:
Quote:
SPACE International (Survivors of Prostitution-Abuse Calling for Enlightenment)

Statement Opposing Amnesty International’s resolution to decriminalise Pimps and Johns

We are a group of Sex-Trade Survivors from the US, UK, Germany, Denmark, Canada, Ireland and France, and this letter directly addresses you, Amnesty International, regarding your proposed policy of endorsing the worldwide decriminalisation of pimps and johns responsible for human rights abuses in the global Sex-Trade.

.... The notion that the system of prostitution should be regulated with a view to making its conditions safer is no different than the senseless stance that slavery should have been regulated towards the same end.

yup let's leave slavery in place and legalize it!!!!!!

Mon, 2015-08-17 00:49

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

takeitslowly wrote:

housewives or househusbands do work all the time, even if they don't always follow safety standards. Whether if its safe or unsafe work, it is work. Different jobs have different risks, the risk of being a soldier in afghanistian is that you can be blown up into pieces at any time.

walking on a tightrope is also unsafe work, its unlike any other job.

Not having a job is also work. Working to survive on little to no income, working to survive on the street or in unsafe shelter.

"Housewife" or "househusband" is not a job. It's being unemployed either by circumstance or choice and doing what the rest of us do after work during the day.

Mon, 2015-08-17 02:02

takeitslowly

My dearest mother did cash jobs as well and did house cleaning work as well for her clients. Some housework do get compensated and some house work do not, one thing for sure is that they are work. Thats how the rest of us work.

Mon, 2015-08-17 08:42

#10

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Cleaning your own house is not a job. Cleaning someone else's is.

Mon, 2015-08-17 09:56

#11

Slumberjack

For some, certain body parts are held out as having a particular, pedestled quality about them more than other body parts, to the extent that they consider it necessary that the use of the said special body parts by an individual must conform to certain parameters. For instance, we can offer up the muscles in our backs and arms in exchange for payment all day long until the cows come home, and hardly anyone gives any thought to it. One can be a waitress or waiter and be run off of their feet, and it's all considered normal. People work their hands to the bone and it doesn't seem to matter for most people. Apparently though, some feel it necessary to exercise a form of ownership over what somebody else will do with certain parts of their own body. They feel it is their responsibility to govern the use of other people's body parts, probably because somehow, if the certain body parts are not being governed and employed in accordance with the governors-in-chief, this inexplicably reflects on them and their body parts. It's like the hetero marriage couple complaining that gay marriage lessens their own relationship, when in actual fact someone else's relationship and lifestyle doesn't have anything to all to do with third party interlocutors. My advice? Stay out of other people's drawers.

Mon, 2015-08-17 12:02

#12

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

SJ, did you actually read the article? If sex work is just work with another part of your body, then many of the limits we place in view of occupational health and safety become moot. So is that okay with you? Should we waive what other workers and employers must comply with?

ETA: If we're staying out of "other people's drawers", do we also stay off other people's backs? Perhaps the construction worker should be able to waive OH&S regulations in his or her work as well, right? None of our business...

Mon, 2015-08-17 12:18

#13

Slumberjack

You mean actually read an article before commenting?.......pfffft.

With unregulated forms of employment though, isn't it more difficult, if not impossible to implement and monitor workplace occupational safety practices? If an establishment or an individual is licenced to perform certain tasks in relation to their field of employment, couldn't a licence to operate a business be withheld if everything is not up to snuff in terms of workplace safety?

Mon, 2015-08-17 12:30

#14

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
If we're staying out of "other people's drawers", do we also stay off other people's backs? Perhaps the construction worker should be able to waive OH&S regulations in his or her work as well, right? None of our business...

Well, if construction workers are covered by and in compliance with the existing standards I wouldn't see a reason to intervene. I think what people are saying about sex work from the perspective of OH&S concerns is correct, valid and logical, insofar as they would prefer to extend these protections and practices to the sex worker under the auspices of a decriminalized and regulated industry, as opposed to what it is now.

It would be similar to expecting positive outcomes for unregulated construction workers being employed by unlicensed companies, through the stratagem of denouncing with enough emphasis not only what it is they do for a living, but in reserving the harshest words for their customers.

Mon, 2015-08-17 12:51

#15

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Timebandit wrote:
If we're staying out of "other people's drawers", do we also stay off other people's backs? Perhaps the construction worker should be able to waive OH&S regulations in his or her work as well, right? None of our business...

Well, if construction workers are covered by and in compliance with the existing standards I wouldn't see a reason to intervene. I think what people are saying about sex work from the perspective of OH&S concerns is correct, valid and logical, insofar as they would prefer to extend these protections and practices to the sex worker under the auspices of a decriminalized and regulated industry, as opposed to what it is now.

It would be similar to expecting positive outcomes for unregulated construction workers being employed by unlicensed companies, through the stratagem of denouncing with enough emphasis not only what it is they do for a living, but in reserving the harshest words for their customers.

Either you didn't read the article or you are being obtuse. Sex "work" is incompatible with current labour codes. Either prositution would have to be exempt from the labour code or the safety regulations of the labour code would have to be substantially weakened to bring prostitution into compliance.

Secondly, sexual body parts are inherently different from nonsexual body parts. If a man came up to you and forcibly shook your hand it would be rude but you would have a difficult time calling it assault. If you were naked in a locker room and a man came up to you and shook your penis you would have a case for sexual assault. This is because grabbing someone's penis is not the same thing as grabbing their hand.

I find that arguments favoring prostitution as an industry are often based on libertarianism or anarchy masquerading as human rights.

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:06

#16

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
Sex "work" is incompatible with current labour codes. Either prositution would have to be exempt from the labour code or the safety regulations of the labour code would have to be substantially weakened to bring prostitution into compliance.

Or.....sex work is given standing and protection within society as a bonafide profession, licenced, regulated, in compliance with OH&S standards, etc. Of course sex work doesn't currently benefit from the provisions laid out in labour codes, mainly because there are too many groups out there who are opposed to granting sex work any kind of status except for one derived from criminalization.

Quote:
Secondly, sexual body parts are inherently different from nonsexual body parts. If a man came up to you and forcibly shook your hand it would be rude but you would have a difficult time calling it assault. If you were naked in a locker room and a man came up to you and shook your penis you would have a case for sexual assault. This is because grabbing someone's penis is not the same thing as grabbing their hand.

Normally the extension of a hand for a handshake constitues a request for the other person to respond in kind by shaking the hand. There are different levels of assault, ie: physical, physical of a sexual nature, etc. If someone grabbed someone else's hand or their penis without first asking and being granted permission, then in either case an assault has taken place. We differentiate on the nature of the assault based on what part of the body has been assaulted. That is the main difference I would argue. And then every circumstance of assault or sexual assault is assessed on the gravity of what has taken place.

Quote:
I find that arguments favoring prostitution as an industry are often based on libertarianism or anarchy masquerading as human rights.

I don't know about masquerading. I would like to think that anarchists would be up front about their interest in such things, like human rights, the rights of individuals vs. societal traditions and conservative mindsets around sex.

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:12

#17

Slumberjack

It seems as if the argument goes something like this. Sex work doesn't jive with minimum safety standards, and so it must remain where it is, in the shadows, criminalized, etc, because as it is, it constitutes dangerous, unregulated work with few if any protections.

To that we can say...duhhhh.

And so, the argument seems to posit that sex work must always remain outside of the protections of what other workers benefit from, because of the fact that it is rather lax in certain key areas pertaining to worker rights and safety. It's too dangerous a line of work to be made less dangerous apparently.

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:17

#18

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
Cleaning your own house is not a job. Cleaning someone else's is.

That's odd. Young people are often referring to housework as a job, like when they say....'it's not my job.'

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:20

#19

lagatta

I would like the men commenting here to remember that this topic is in the feminism forum.

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:22

#20

Slumberjack

What gave you the impression that any had forgotten that?

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:27

#21

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

It seems as if the argument goes something like this. Sex work doesn't jive with minimum safety standards, and so it must remain where it is, in the shadows, criminalized, etc, because as it is, it constitutes dangerous, unregulated work with few if any protections.

To that we can say...duhhhh.

And so, the argument seems to posit that sex work must always remain outside of the protections of what other workers benefit from, because of the fact that it is rather lax in certain key areas pertaining to worker rights and safety. It's too dangerous a line of work to be made less dangerous apparently.

It isn't "rather lax". It is impossible for prostitution to conform to labour laws and human rights laws. It really seems as though you did not read the article.

Mon, 2015-08-17 13:33

#22

Slumberjack

Pondering wrote:
It isn't "rather lax". It is impossible for prostitution to conform to labour laws and human rights laws. It really seems as though you did not read the article.

No I read the article. The central premise didn't make sense to me, and neither does your summary that it is impossible for sex work to conform to labour laws and human rights laws. If the dangerous work of window washing on the outside of sky scraper buildings can be made less dangerous through regulation, then to me what is being said about the impossibility of sex work being made safer seems like a load of nonsense.

Mon, 2015-08-17 14:40

#23

Pondering

Slumberjack wrote:

Pondering wrote:
It isn't "rather lax". It is impossible for prostitution to conform to labour laws and human rights laws. It really seems as though you did not read the article.

No I read the article. The central premise didn't make sense to me, and neither does your summary that it is impossible for sex work to conform to labour laws and human rights laws. If the dangerous work of window washing on the outside of sky scraper buildings can be made less dangerous through regulation, then to me what is being said about the impossibility of sex work being made safer seems like a load of nonsense.

The article, nor anyone here, is arguing that regulation can't make any sex workers safer so you are presenting a strawman argument.

The article explains why prostitution is not work like any other and why it can't conform to existing labor and human rights laws. You are not dealing with the arguments presented by the article. You are just repeating generic talking points.

Mon, 2015-08-17 18:13

#24

quizzical

lagatta wrote:
I would like the men commenting here to remember that this topic is in the feminism forum.

why would some of them remember it? they're are all about silencing women's and non-white people's voices. i

Mon, 2015-08-17 19:06

#25

Gustave

Sineed wrote:

Supporters of decrim are basically supporting the rights of men to buy and sell women's bodies.

Am I wrong? Make the case. Change my mind.

Sineed, I think there are two straw men in this argument.

1 No one that I know of claims that there is such a thing as a right to buy sexual services. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to buy anything. The fundamental rights are those stated in the bill of rights: security, freedom of expression, etc. Nowhere in it's policy proposition does AI pretend that sex work is a human right, same for Human Right Watch, WHO and all the other major international organizations asking for decriminalization.

2 No reasonable person could equate sex work to buying anyone's body. Buying someone's body is called slavery. A sex worker does not lose the property, nor the control, of her body.

You do not have to believe those two statements to be against prostitution or to promote it's prohibition. You may think, for exemple that sex is a special human activity and that selling it is demeaning. However those two statements are clearly fallacies, straw men arguments.

Mon, 2015-08-17 21:40

#26

quizzical

Mon, 2015-08-17 21:45

#27

quizzical

wth why is it multiple posting

Mon, 2015-08-17 21:59

#28

Sineed

Why, quizzical! A post so nice, you made it thrice ;)

Gustave wrote:

Sineed, I think there are two straw men in this argument.

1 No one that I know of claims that there is such a thing as a right to buy sexual services. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to buy anything. The fundamental rights are those stated in the bill of rights: security, freedom of expression, etc. Nowhere in it's policy proposition does AI pretend that sex work is a human right, same for Human Right Watch, WHO and all the other major international organizations asking for decriminalization.

2 No reasonable person could equate sex work to buying anyone's body. Buying someone's body is called slavery. A sex worker does not lose the property, nor the control, of her body.

Of course there is no "right" to buy sexual services. It is not a "right" as defined by the United Nations or a government or any other body with the influence to define and enforce such things. I am speaking of "right" in a metaphorical sense, as in, men who argue for decrim are protecting their access to women who do not desire them if they pay enough. Rape by way of economic coercion is an odd concept to be supported by socialists, no?

Quote:
2 No reasonable person could equate sex work to buying anyone's body. Buying someone's body is called slavery. A sex worker does not lose the property, nor the control, of her body.

That's optimistic.

slumberjack wrote:
Sex work doesn't jive with minimum safety standards, and so it must remain where it is, in the shadows, criminalized, etc, because as it is, it constitutes dangerous, unregulated work with few if any protections.

And nobody has presented any evidence that legalizing it makes it any safer. As the article states, the risk of HIV exposure is unacceptably high and could not be regulated. And in my direct experience, sex workers get killed because they are magnets for sociopathic men who regard them as prey. This latter problem cannot be adequately addressed by any legal framework.

Mon, 2015-08-17 22:12

#29

takeitslowly

what about giving a blowjob with condom on? Thats considered relatively safe. How about just giving hand jobs ? Maybe handjobs and blowjobs should be legal for purchase, and anal sex and oral sex without condoms on should be illegal for purchase.

Mon, 2015-08-17 22:31

#30

takeitslowly

“Syphilis can be transmitted through skin-to-skin contact and does not require exposure to semen or vaginal fluids.” The same is true of herpes, molluscum contagiosum, and HPV, among other infectious diseases.[34] Direct skin on skin contact puts “workers” at risk. Hence, direct skin-to-skin contact is not compatible with OSHA regulations governing exposure to potentially infectious materials.

That is from the article. So if I accidently bump into someone on the subway train, does that mean I can get syphilis, especially in the summer when some men are topless outdoor. Maybe we should ban topless men and women in public in case there is skin to skin contact. Imagine being a security guard working at a mosh pit.. What about giving massage therapy? How can we ensure massage therapists are protected from their clients? We do not know if the clients we see has any STDS, and we are forced to put our hands all over their body. Alot of professional sports which require physical skin to skin contact should create unacceptable risks as well.

I dont understand why its legal to be a police officer or soldier? You are potentially exposed to bloods, and snipers or a criminal ejeculating in public with their semens flying everywhere, it seems to be an unacceptable risk.

Maybe in a magical place or sometimes in the future, no one has to work for a living and no one is forced to live on the street and face unacceptable risks of living with homelesslness , we can create and legislate a world where every one is risk free from dangers.

Mon, 2015-08-17 22:57

#31

quizzical

Sineed wrote:
Why, quizzical! A post so nice, you made it thrice ;)

Gustave wrote:

Sineed, I think there are two straw men in this argument.

1 No one that I know of claims that there is such a thing as a right to buy sexual services. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to buy anything. The fundamental rights are those stated in the bill of rights: security, freedom of expression, etc. Nowhere in it's policy proposition does AI pretend that sex work is a human right, same for Human Right Watch, WHO and all the other major international organizations asking for decriminalization.

2 No reasonable person could equate sex work to buying anyone's body. Buying someone's body is called slavery. A sex worker does not lose the property, nor the control, of her body.

Of course there is no "right" to buy sexual services. It is not a "right" as defined by the United Nations or a government or any other body with the influence to define and enforce such things. I am speaking of "right" in a metaphorical sense, as in, men who argue for decrim are protecting their access to women who do not desire them if they pay enough. Rape by way of economic coercion is an odd concept to be supported by socialists, no?

Quote:
2 No reasonable person could equate sex work to buying anyone's body. Buying someone's body is called slavery. A sex worker does not lose the property, nor the control, of her body.

That's optimistic.

slumberjack wrote:
Sex work doesn't jive with minimum safety standards, and so it must remain where it is, in the shadows, criminalized, etc, because as it is, it constitutes dangerous, unregulated work with few if any protections.

And nobody has presented any evidence that legalizing it makes it any safer. As the article states, the risk of HIV exposure is unacceptably high and could not be regulated. And in my direct experience, sex workers get killed because they are magnets for sociopathic men who regard them as prey. This latter problem cannot be adequately addressed by any legal framework.

yup it is optimistic, and you're right there's been no evidence legalizing it makes it safer.

some just want more prey for the taking i think.

Mon, 2015-08-17 23:20

#32

Brachina

This thread should be in the sex work forum, there is a specifc forum for this sort of discussion and this isn't it.

The only exception should be perhaps discussing bill c-36 as an election issue, because it is, and because that subforum likely gets more traffic/attention then most of the rest of the subforums combined.

I will say that when Slumberjack is the voice of reason and sanity in a thread, that scares the hell out of me. :-)

I politely request the mods move the thread to either the sex worker forum or the election 2015 subforum if one wants to move it in a more election issue direction. Thank You.

Mon, 2015-08-17 23:57

#33

6079_Smith_W

Brachina, there are threads about this issue from that perspective in the sex work forum.

But if there was ever an issue that also deserved to be considered from a feminist perspective, this is it. You don't agree with the article or the opinions here? Fine. But trying to invalidate that perspective and take it out of this space is no different than any other attempts to shut down discussion.

Sorry, but this is a women's issue. That much should be obvious.

Tue, 2015-08-18 04:01

#34

Slumberjack

Actually Smith all genders are involved in sex work.

Tue, 2015-08-18 07:06

#35

Slumberjack

The thread title is an attempted statement of 'fact' that attempts to render the sex worker as a non person without rights that are commonly identified with a worker. It should be changed because it marginaiizes lives that are already precarious in far too many respects. It seems to insult rather than expand the debate.

Tue, 2015-08-18 07:34

#36

Maysie

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Sorry, but this is a women's issue. That much should be obvious.

Only a certian kind of woman, and feminist, apparently.

Slumberjack wrote:

The thread title is an attempted statement of 'fact' that attempts to render the sex worker as a non person without rights that are commonly identified with a worker. It should be changed because it marginaiizes lives that are already precarious in far too many respects. It seems to insult rather than expand the debate.

No "seems to" about it.

.........

Thanks, takeitslowly. Post #29 is wonderful.

........

I don't think this thread needs to be moved to the sex workers forum, not that the mods will move it anyways.

Why? Rabble and babble have made their views on what sex work is and isn't, and the place of sex workers as workers, abundantly clear. Voices opposing this Official Ruling™ aka "Rabble's Way or The Highway" aka "If You Disagree You Are Being Anti-Woman and Also Shut Up" are not welcome. Thanks again to takeitslowly and Slumberjack for going against the grain.

P.S. Liberal feminism is soooo 1975.

Tue, 2015-08-18 07:57

#37

quizzical

taking shots at women who do not agree with you maysie by saying "Liberal feminism is soooo 1975" is, from what i've learned, NOT feminist at all no matter the year.

guess you can't rebutt or provide proof so you attack women who don't believe as you. says a lot about you.

Tue, 2015-08-18 08:06

#38

Slumberjack

Tue, 2015-08-18 08:46

#39

lagatta

I'm not a liberal; never have been. I'm an ecosocialist. Anticapitalist, and of course, feminist.

Unless this was perchance an ageist attack?

Tue, 2015-08-18 09:21

#40

Brachina

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Brachina, there are threads about this issue from that perspective in the sex work forum.

But if there was ever an issue that also deserved to be considered from a feminist perspective, this is it. You don't agree with the article or the opinions here? Fine. But trying to invalidate that perspective and take it out of this space is no different than any other attempts to shut down discussion.

Sorry, but this is a women's issue. That much should be obvious.

If you use that logic one can argue that it should be in the Union form because there are sex worker unions, and in the TGLB community, because some sex workers are transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual, and in the enviroment forum where we can discuss the sex workers low carbon foot print, and in science forum where can discuss the science and technology of sex work, we can discuss the racial aspects of sex work, and in the international forum we can discuss international solutions to sex worker issues, and in arts subforum we can weather writing erotica counts as sex work (I think it does), and we can discuss regional sex work in all the provincial subforums and so on. We can have a thread on sex work in every subforum in rabble.

Or we can focus it all in the Sex Worker forum, assuming Lagatta gets over her fear of the sex workers that have tried to build awareness in the forum only to be ignored.

Tue, 2015-08-18 09:48

#41

lagatta

If it goes into the sex work forum, those who have objections to the idea of "sex work" can't take part. I simply don't visit that forum.

Yes, of course there are men and trans people in the trade, but the majority has always been female, and the overwhelming majority of clients are male.

Tue, 2015-08-18 09:54

#42

lagatta

Flagged as personal attack, obviously.

Also objectively untrue. I've worked with Indigenous street people who were involved in "survival" sex work. I know other people in the trade. I think the sex trade is something that preys on oppressed and desparate people, and that we should be working very hard to make this no longer necessary. In other words, abolish it. (Not outlaw it).

Tue, 2015-08-18 10:00

#43

6079_Smith_W

Oh for heaven's sake.

As I said Maysie, you might not agree. I don't actually agree with the black and white perspective in the article.

But as you correctly point out, anyone who thinks the perspective of sex work as work is under threat need only look at the name of the forum where sex work is often discussed.

Does that mean it isn't also a women's issue, and that it can't be discussed from a feminist perspective?

(and yes, ALL women, and ALL feminists; you know my position on that issue. And I am a man, evidently I am free to talk about it here too)

Does that mean it is okay to suggest that those who hold that perspective aren't in their right minds? Particularly men telling women in the feminist forum that they aren't sane? Sorry, but while I don't entirely agree with the thesis, I think it is worth considering, because there is plenty of truth in it, and I do think the people here are rational enough..

Speaking generally, the level of discourse in this place, and people not even wanting to listen to anything but the sounds of their own voices, is so pitiful that it is a wonder anything of substance gets discussed at all.

Brachina, you have made your position pretty clear as a rebuttal. If you want to discuss this from a sex work perspective there is no need to move this thread over there. By some coindicence we have a new one ready-made for you:

http://rabble.ca/babble/sex-worker-rights/decriminalization-sex-work-mig...

Tue, 2015-08-18 11:19

#44

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

What I find really interesting about this thread is that there's been precious little discussion of the analysis in the linked article, and rather a lot of slagging of brands of feminism and/or looking for mechanisms NOT to discuss the linked article on its merits.

ETA: You know, telling us we're sooooo out of date (like I don't get that from my teenaged daughters regularly - srsly, I'm so fucking immune to it you can't even imagine) doesn't do much to further the conversation. Nor does the labelling. I don't consider myself a "liberal feminist" on most counts by the arbitrary, black and white definition that somebody pulled out of their ass to paste together a straw woman argument.

Whether you DO cop to the label of "liberal feminist" or not, the point here is that some start from the apparently inarguable premise that sex work is tickety boo, and some see that as a bit of a false premise, thereby calling into question the purportedly logical conclusions that follow from it. The article actually makes an attempt to analyze why that premise might not hold up. The substance of this thread? "No it's not a false premise because bell bottoms."

Well. Who could argue with that?

Tue, 2015-08-18 11:39

#45

Maysie

You caught me, Timebandit. I didn't read the article because in the first sentence the author uses the term "legalization" and the sex worker advocate groups I know are all talking about decriminalization. There's a big difference.

My one question to this thread is this. What do you suggest for women who are working as sex workers but who would rather not be working as sex workers? I could, in fact, ask the same question about people who work in horrible minumum wage jobs who would rather not be. [Note: phone-sex workers make very crappy money, somewhere around minimum wage.]

Yes, both these groups will quit their jobs when they are able to, when / if better work comes along.

But until then, what should they do? In terms of health and safety while working? I'm asking sincerely, since they run many risks in their work (some related to the risks of sex itself, and some not related) and can't go to the police because their work is illegal.

I have no answer to this question. My only answer is, increase safety for all sex workers. From what I'm told by folks who live this reality, a viable way to this goal is decriminalization.

Tue, 2015-08-18 11:49

#46

6079_Smith_W

@ TB

To discuss it, I don't buy the moral argument that it being about sex somehow makes it distinct, and therefore not work.

(after all, one also has the right to not pick up a shovel, but not many ditches would get dug that way). And while for most people (and probably most sex workers) sex is something very distinct and personal, that isn't the case for everyone.

But I definitely get the argument about power, safety and victimization, and while I don't go so far as to say I don't consider sex work "work", it is definitely something that is in many cases akin to slavery, and in all cases in a class of its own. It is not ordinary work (though part of that is also its illegality).

But really, I was more interested in reading and listening than challenging these ideas simply because I don't entirely agree. Because as I said, I agree in principle with a lot of it, particulary given the obvious threats and damage that many sex workers suffer.

Tue, 2015-08-18 12:14

#47

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Maysie, it would be helpful if you could read the article, because beyond the first line using a single word you take objection to, the analysis is pretty interesting - and it isn't meant to be an answer to advocates of decriminalization or harm reduction (or the several good questions you ask in your post), it's a response to those who say it's just a job like any other job. I can't say I agree 100% with the exercise, but it's interesting to look at it from a different angle, and it doesn't really add up to being just like any other job, even when you stip out the moralist argument, from that angle. There are actually a couple of useful points made.

Read the article or don't as you like, but I don't see the point in deriding a point of view that's different than mine by being ageist or engaging in a soft ad hominem. I'm not sure why you do.

Tue, 2015-08-18 12:17

#48

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

6079_Smith_W wrote:

@ TB

To discuss it, I don't buy the moral argument that it being about sex somehow makes it distinct, and therefore not work.

(after all, one also has the right to not pick up a shovel, but not many ditches would get dug that way). And while for most people (and probably most sex workers) sex is something very distinct and personal, that isn't the case for everyone.

But I definitely get the argument about power, safety and victimization, and while I don't go so far as to say I don't consider sex work "work", it is definitely something that is in many cases akin to slavery, and in all cases in a class of its own. It is not ordinary work (though part of that is also its illegality).

But really, I was more interested in reading and listening than challenging these ideas simply because I don't entirely agree. Because as I said, I agree in principle with a lot of it, particulary given the obvious threats and damage that many sex workers suffer.

I suppose I could argue that some ditches don't really need to be dug, but I'll save that for another time. ;)

I think it's a highly complicated set of questions to which no-one has the answers.

Tue, 2015-08-18 12:21

#49

Slumberjack

Sineed wrote:
As the article states, the risk of HIV exposure is unacceptably high and could not be regulated.

It was unacceptably high everywhere. In all of the intervening years since the tragedy of the 80s and beyond, never did they contemplate making sex itself illegal. The struggle against HIV infection continues via engagement, preventative education, and medicine. All better facilitated within a legal environment to my mind.

Quote:
And in my direct experience, sex workers get killed because they are magnets for sociopathic men who regard them as prey. This latter problem cannot be adequately addressed by any legal framework.

If sex work gravitated toward legal brothels, or other places where people could look out for one another, help could reside just a help buzzer away like they have at the banks. The prohibitionist argument forces sex work to remain in the shadows where it is more open to violence.

In all of the ongoing press about the sociopathic 'men of the cloth' and their unfortunate prey, and there was plenty of it going on practically everywhere, none of it gave rise to outlawing sodomy entirely, at least in Canada it didn't. In the struggle for rights, questions like, what about this or what about were mainly served up as roadblocks along the way, and distractions from the central issues being raised by those looking to obtain their rights.

Tue, 2015-08-18 12:23

#50

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Slumberjack wrote:

Sineed wrote:
As the article states, the risk of HIV exposure is unacceptably high and could not be regulated.

It was unacceptably high everywhere. In all of the intervening years since the tragedy of the 80s and beyond, never did they contemplate making sex itself illegal. The struggle against HIV infection continues via engagement, preventative education, and medicine. All better facilitated within a legal environment to my mind.

It's different when it's an occupational hazard - one that the medical profession, for example, has developed standards to acceptably prevent transmission. The point is that it would be impossible to do this with sex work as it is currently defined. Multiple points of potential exposure raise the risk to a level higher than would generally occur in one's private life.

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:
And in my direct experience, sex workers get killed because they are magnets for sociopathic men who regard them as prey. This latter problem cannot be adequately addressed by any legal framework.

If sex work gravitated toward legal brothels, or other places where people could look out for one another, help could reside just a help buzzer away like they have at the banks. The prohibitionist argument forces sex work to remain in the shadows where it is more open to violence.

In all of the ongoing press about the sociopathic 'men of the cloth' and their unfortunate prey, and there was plenty of it going on practically everywhere, none of it gave rise to outlawing sodomy entirely, at least in Canada it didn't. In the struggle for rights, questions like, what about this or what about were mainly served up as roadblocks along the way, and distractions from the central issues being raised by sex workers themselves.

Those are the stock arguments and red herrings, all right. But I don't see what that has to do with the analysis in the article.

Tue, 2015-08-18 12:38

#51

Slumberjack

Timebandit wrote:
It's different when it's an occupational hazard - one that the medical profession, for example, has developed standards to acceptably prevent transmission.

Well, what's preventing sex work from being designated as an occupation so that the medical profession can get to work on that?

Quote:
The point is that it would be impossible to do this with sex work as it is currently defined. Multiple points of potential exposure raise the risk to a level higher than would generally occur in one's private life.

It is sex workers who are arguing for another definition. If it were defined as a legal occupation it makes sense that better outcomes are possible.

Quote:
Those are the stock arguments and red herrings, all right. But I don't see what that has to do with the analysis in the article.

Far less than the prohibitionist argument that's for certain. I can't subscribe at all to the so called logic of that article. It's hardly worth discussing. People who work with dynamite in the construction industry can't be said to enjoy the same type of safe working environments as the bulk of the population does in other regulated sectors, but they're still in demand at construction sites. It's regulation and safe working practices in that particular field that helps to minimize the risk.

Why Sex Work Isn't Work

Pages