Why Sex Work Isn't Work

Slumberjack wrote:

 I can't subscribe at all to the so called logic of that article.  It's hardly worth discussing. 

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the article from a feminist perspective.

If you don't think it's worth discussing then you have no purpose in this thread. We do not need you to pass judgement over what is and isn't worthy of discussion.

If you are referring to me flagging a comment, the comment had nothing whatsoever to do with what approach would make conditions safer for people in the sex trade. I flagged the comment because it was an ageist personal insult. The person who made the comment is a person I hold in high esteem and I was rather shocked. We can disagree on how to approach this issue without such discriminatory comments. I'm sure she is just as convinced as I am that her approach would at least reduce the harm. The point of the article was to contend that it didn't, which is the conclusion I came to after long stays in Amsterdam.

And yes, I was an activist in 1975. And I'm an activist in 2015. We celebrated the 40th anniversary of Le Monde à bicyclette earlier this summer.

No, I've tendered my opinion on the contents of the article.  What you seem to be saying is that because it is not discussed in accordance with the way you would have it, then it is out of bounds.  Anyway, that is I have to say in this stifling atmosphere.

 I apologize for being insensitive Lagatta, I'm just frustrated because I find the feminist forum to be the single most hostile forum sadly, so I prefer to discuss this issue in other subforums.

 If I may ask, what makes you so uncomfort about the sex workers subforum?

some people keep comparing prostitution with inanimate objects like dynamite or shovels. what a bunch of nonsense.

yup, i get the "dangerous profession" analogy with the dynamite . i don't buy it. my bff's former partner is a blaster. they're highly regulated and trained.

thank you timebandit for your crafting a fine response to maysie.

i don't get why people censor themselves from potential knowledge gaining no matter the side it's written from or topic. i read everything in the sex worker forum and the links, and the links in the links, just don't participate because i've found nothing there contradicting my lived experiences.

i do this as i could be wrong in my beliefs. they're theoretical like everyone else's and there could be earth shaking revelations ahead. i'm not perfect.  i don't want to pretend to be. i want to be informed and learn.

 I didn't know that.

 So let get this straight, you can't discuss/challenge elements of feminism or even schools of feminism in the feminism forum, you can't challenge sex work legalization in the sex work forum, ect...

 Look I'm extremely pro legalization, extremely so, but as frustration and infurating as the abolutionists can be, not even being able to challenge each other it in the forum for which one would think was meant for it seems baffling. How can opinions and minds be changed and evovled when such dialogs are forbidden?

 What are supposed to discuss in the Sex Worker former, technique? the effect of the economy on the industry? weather Sex Workers in Canada should unionize.

 I don't know what to say honestly, no wonder the Sex Worker forum is so empty. I saw tumble weed drifting on by in there.

You can challenge elements of feminism from a pro-feminist point of view. This forum is considerably more flexible than the sex work forum.

hell pondering someone was suggesting elsewhere they weren't in favour of enforced condom wearing even.

 Why do people assume that only bad things get sexually transmitted, most of a person's mircobiome is supportive, not hostile or dangerous, I wish more science would focus on sexual transmitted symbionts, not just sexually transmitted diseases.

Brachina wrote:

 Arguements like that are not exclusive to sex for pay, they're inherant to sex itself (or most forms of it), if we fallow arguements like that sex itself would be banned.

 And no one has caught HIV from ejaculation on someone's face, the membrane of the eyes are too thick. 

you're wrong.

Pondering wrote:

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

Sineed wrote:

How do we dovetail an increasing awareness of rape culture and the drive to "enthusiastic consent" with sex for pay? As our culture moves towards acknowleging the importance of enthusiastic consent to sex, we need to ask: is economic coercion really "enthusiastic consent?"

As with the "right to refuse" question, this doesn't really apply because when sex is a commodity it is not in the same context as giving consent in a non-professional setting.

Again, of course you can refuse to use that shovel, and many people would rather not do the work they do, but it is a very different thing than giving consent to have sex with someone for personal enjoyment. In a work setting whether it is "enthusiastic" or not is not the issue; it is a job. And the fact that it involves sex does not make it necessarily worse than any other kind of bad and difficult work which isn't illegal.

And again, that is understanding that having sex for money poses personal challenges for most people that other kinds of work does not.

There is a broad range of views on prostitution among anarchists. In general, anarchists don't support "laws" (state repression) about anything, but that does not mean that they all condone the practice, as many anarchists have been and are opposed to the commodification of human beings (and many, of all sentient beings).

Others think that prostitution subverts the partriarchal order. I disagree; I'm of the opinion that it confirms patriarchy, the double standard and the "mamma vs whore" stereotype.

Renaissance Rome had the highest percentage of prostitutes of any Italian city of its day, serving supposedly "celibate" clerics.

Here is a random statement by a feminist anarchist opposed to prostitution: https://rancom.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/prostitution_is_not_compatibl...

Both libertarians and anarchists are opposed to State control, seeing it ALL as repression, but libertarians are rightwing and pro-capitalist; there is no reason they would be opposed to the commodification of humans.

And no, I don't think prostitution is the only example of commodification; just a particularly flagrant one, and a very dangerous one for people in the trade.

Jobs which provide the necessities of a modern society?

If that is the standard for which professions should be illegal you might have convinced me, since it will most certainly put Nickleback out of work and  in jail.

And all the decrim activists support zero regulations? Really? In the first place, my point was simply that not all forms or prostitution have the same level of exposure, and that is true. And that illegality is a factor in the risk of the profession, and willingness to be identified; also true.

In the second place, as I said in that other thread, reducing this argument to how the other side is absolutely wrong and not acting in good faith is a way to have no conversation at all, and find no common ground.

Perhaps you noticed where I said I agreed with you - to a point.

I was talking about characterizing their arguments as "lies" and claiming that their primary concern is not the safety of women.

If you don't know their motivation - as you say - then you have no grounds on which to make that claim. You don't have to agree, but undermining their good intent doesn't really do anything to help resolve this difficult issue.

Sineed wrote:

How do we dovetail an increasing awareness of rape culture and the drive to "enthusiastic consent" with sex for pay? As our culture moves towards acknowleging the importance of enthusiastic consent to sex, we need to ask: is economic coercion really "enthusiastic consent?"

6079_Smith_W wrote:

As with the "right to refuse" question, this doesn't really apply because when sex is a commodity it is not in the same context as giving consent in a non-professional setting.

Sex is not a commodity nor a service like any other. There is a reason rape isn't called theft or simple assault. There is a reason for sexual harrassment laws. Sex is not just like shaking someone's hand or even like giving a massage, not in any culture past or present. It is unique among human experiences. Justify rape law. Why should rape be a crime separate from assault? Shouldn't punching someone in the face be considered a more serious crime than rape that doesn't even involve any bruising? What's the big deal with rape victims needing therapy? While some victims of crime need therapy most just get on with their lives. Why is rape different?

Our laws are not written for the exception to the rule. Without searching them out I have come across mutiple accounts from reformed johns that quit when they realized the women they were with were putting on an act. They glimpsed pain or sadness or dissociation that forced them to acknowledge the reality of the situation and how far it was from the fantasy they created.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Again, of course you can refuse to use that shovel, and many people would rather not do the work they do, but it is a very different thing than giving consent to have sex with someone for personal enjoyment. In a work setting whether it is "enthusiastic" or not is not the issue; it is a job. And the fact that it involves sex does not make it necessarily worse than any other kind of bad and difficult work which isn't illegal.

I can't agree. As I said earlier, rape is not just like simple assault, it's different because sex is different. Sex is not just like washing dishes. It is unique among human experiences. The "who" matters enormously which is why incest is illegal. The forced marriages of young girls is based on sexual access to unwilling girls. Prostitution is based on gaining access to women who would otherwise be unwilling to provide sex. Unwillingness to have sex is not the same as unwillingness to wash dishes. A dad forcing his daughter to do the dishes would not be considered unreasonable. A dad forcing his daughter to have sex with him or anyone else would horrify most people.

So, I reject the equivalency being made between digging ditches and having sex. That some women say there is no difference to them doesn't make it a norm. Laws are not written for the exception to the rule, the women for whom rape is no worse than being forced to shake hands are few and far between.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And again, that is understanding that having sex for money poses personal challenges for most people that other kinds of work does not.

Many former prostitutes say they chose prostitution thinking that they could handle it only to discover once they were in it how destructive and damaging it was and for some how difficult it was not to go back to it "just this once" when needing money urgently.

Therein lies the coercive nature of money. Minimum wage laws do hurt some workers. There are times in my life I would have willingly worked for less than minimum wage. Minimum wage law protects more workers than it disadvantages. Laws against prostitution protect more women than it harms by keeping them out of the industry to begin with.

Pondering wrote:

Sex is not a commodity nor a service like any other.

"Like any other" I'd agree it is different than most, but that doesn't make it not a commodity in some situations.

Unique among human experiences? That is a moral, and frankly a romantic argument. And as I said while I agree that it is that way for most people, I do not agree that it is that way for everyone, and there is a wide range of what that "special" nature entails - especially when one is doing it as a job, not as part of a personal relationship.

I said nothing about rape being no different than assault. I don't agree with that, and I don't see that you can infer that from what I said.

If anything, part of my questioning this consent argument is that sex workers generally do have limits, even if some are driven by desparation to go beyond them, and I think people on all sides of this agree that people in that profession do get raped.

(edit)

And looking back again it seems I mis-read that comment of yours about the lie. Sorry, Pondering.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

  Unique among human experiences? That is a moral, and frankly a romantic argument. And as I said while I agree that it is that way for most people, I do not agree that it is that way for everyone, and there is a wide range of what that "special" nature entails - especially when one is doing it as a job, not as part of a personal relationship.

It's not at all romantic. Shitting is also unique among human experiences. It can't readily be compared to any other human experience.

That some women would have no trouble with prostitition does not mean that it's a common experience for women to not give a hoot who they have sex with. There is no test women can take prior to getting into prostitution that could tell them which kind they are. As I said, women slide into the profession and even after they quit some have trouble not returning to it even though it is self-damaging.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I said nothing about rape being no different than assault. I don't agree with that, and I don't see that you can infer that from what I said.

I wasn't. I am presenting the argument that rape would not exist as a crime separate from simple assault if sex were not uniquely different from other forms of unwanted physical contact and even worse that assaults that leave physical injury. Surely assaults that leave a physical injury should be deemed far worse than simply rape.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

If anything, part of my questioning this consent argument is that sex workers generally do have limits, even if some are driven by desparation to go beyond them, and I think people on all sides of this agree that people in that profession do get raped

But why is that? If to those women sex is akin to washing dishes then rape is no more disturbing than being forced to shake someone's hand. It would be very harsh if shaking someone's hand against their will resulted in a jail sentence. If we accept prostitution as a regular business no different than say, giving massages, then the prostitute cannot have the right to arbitrarily refuse service.

Prostitutes complain, rightly so, when police don't treat rape against them as seriously as they do of other women, but the reason for it is the popularity of the fallacy that sex is "different" for prostitutes.

The whole point of labour law is to prevent people from accepting conditions that out of desperation they would otherwise accept. If a job contradicts labour law, it's illegal. Prostitution inherently breaks labour laws. Someone else's solution was to have less protective labour laws for prostitution. That isn't acceptable to me. It's the same as saying if people are willing to work for below minimum wage they should be allowed to.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And looking back again it seems I mis-read that comment of yours about the lie. Sorry, Pondering.

Thank-you, I have made the same error myself at times.

Solid non-anecdotal statistics are difficult to come by but I have read plenty of accounts like the following:

I don’t teach clients how to “pleasure” me; that is far too intimate and a boundary I don’t cross. Sometimes I resent any sexual pleasure I feel, either because I find the guy irritating and enjoying his cock is like a compliment I don’t want to give, or because I’m not in a “sexy” headspace. Audacia Ray and Michelle Tea have written about the feelings of self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure that can accompany orgasming with a client; I’ve been right there with them. I’ve mostly gotten over revulsion towards my own body’s responses, probably because I’m better at controlling those responses now.

Pasted from  <http://titsandsass.com/getting-away-with-hating-it-consent-in-the-context-of-sex-work/>

They sound like regular women to me and they are supporters of prostitution as an industry. It doesn't sound at all like prostitution is like giving a massage or washing dishes. Self-betrayal, horror, and general displeasure are not emotions I would associate with any other jobs other than maybe executioner.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But just as you can't draw an exact comparison between consent to sex as work and consent to sex in a relationship, the fact that sexual assault is distinct from other forms of assault is not a the final word on individual people's personal feelings about sex. The law is by necessity strict and based on an mainstream definition; the latter is far more broad, and not something everyone agrees on.

As you just noted, "The law is by necessity strict and based on an mainstream definition." That some women are exceptions and don't consider sex any more personal than a foot massage doesn't mean laws should be changed on their behalf. Rape is a big deal, including for prostitutes, because sex isn't like giving a foot massage. It is a far more personal and intimate act.

Some homeless man was in the news awhile back for agreeing to be beat up for money. I hope we are all appalled by that and agree it should not be legal.

This is a different incident which I wasn't previously aware of:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/st-petersburg-homeless-men-say...

ST. PETERSBURG — It sounded like a good idea to George Grayson: Get $50 for submitting to a 12-minute videotaped beating by an attractive female.

A homeless man, Grayson needed the money.

So he followed the recruiters to a St. Petersburg townhouse on seven different occasions over the last few months, he said, and let five different women use his body and face as a punching bag.

Grayson, 37, became one of many St. Petersburg homeless men allegedly targeted by recruiters from Shefights.net, a locally operated website that sells for as much as $900 videos of scantily clad or semi-nude women beating up men, according to a lawsuit.

"I'm still in a little bit of pain from a couple of weeks ago," Grayson said last week. "I'm just trying to deal with it mentally right now."

Local homeless advocate G.W. Rolle said for months he noticed men walking around Williams Park with black eyes, split lips and limps before he finally got someone to tell him about the "beatdowns," as they have come to be known among the homeless.

He began interviewing and photographing several men with similar stories and injuries, and attorneys representing two of the men have filed a lawsuit against Jeff Williams of Shefights.net, J.P. Florida Productions, "Cindy Doe" and "Jane Does 1-5."

Southern Legal Counsel, which has represented St. Petersburg's homeless in the past, filed the suit seeking an injunction to stop the beatings, saying the men were vulnerable and desperate for money. It also seeks damages for medical costs and emotional distress.

"I was shocked when I found out what was really going on," Rolle said. "It's incredible what people will do to each other."

Williams, of Shefights.net, said Rolle coaxed and bought the testimony of Grayson and 20-year-old Kyle Shaw, the two plaintiffs in the suit. He said he plans to countersue, claiming the men and their advocates lied and have damaged his reputation.

"These men are crack addicts and will say anything for money," Williams said.

He said Grayson and Shaw were featured in some of the videos, but he said they signed liability releases and knew what they were doing.

"They've come back many times, which makes it pretty consensual," Williams said. Citing the case, he declined to speak about the videos or other specifics.

 

Unlike a beatdown rape doesn't always leave physical injuries behind, and in the case of rape the physical injuries are used as proof of the worse crime, which is rape. Lack of physical injury doesn't make rape less severe than other forms of assault.

Many women who have experienced prostitution describe the same emotions as women who have been raped. Just like those men accepting money for a beatdown, women are essentially accepting money to be raped, and do it over and over again because they need the money.

Just like those men, they feel it is their only option.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And regarding that fallacy that sexual assault against sex workers isn't serious, of course it isn't true, any more than the lie that there is no such thing as rape in marriage. Both are lies based on moral and partriarchal attitudes about sex.

But WHY isn't it true. If sex is just a service then it is unreasonable for rape to be considered such a serious crime. Sex is not just a service like any other. Prostitution is not a job anymore than getting beat up is a job. It is patriarchal attitudes about sex as a service performed for men that fuels prostitution.

But we aren't talking about changing laws on sexual assault, but rather whether or not to decriminalize prostitution, and to what degree.

And there is a big difference between sexual assault and sex for work, even if we agree that the latter can be very damaging for some people in some circumstances. I understand the argument, but I don't accept the equivalency that it attempts to draw.

I don't want this to get in the way of other discussion of that article; I should probably just leave it at saying I disagree on this point.

Quote:

If sex is just a service then it is unreasonable for rape to be considered such a serious crime.

Rape is a serious crime. That has nothing to do with whether or not sex is in some cases a service.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But we aren't talking about changing laws on sexual assault, but rather whether or not to decriminalize prostitution, and to what degree.

And there is a big difference between sexual assault and sex for work, even if we agree that the latter can be very damaging for some people in some circumstances. I understand the argument, but I don't accept the equivalency that it attempts to draw.

Quote:

If sex is just a service then it is unreasonable for rape to be considered such a serious crime.

Rape is a serious crime. That has nothing to do with whether or not sex is in some cases a service.

Many former prostitutes have the same symptoms as women who were raped. Some women claim that for them sex is no different than giving a foot massage but they are not the norm. Perhaps not for all women but certainly for many women prostitution is experienced as paid rape, even more devaluing than rape because it was consentual. I know of no tests that could determine how prostitution will affect a particular woman until after she experiences it.

Prostitution is paying a woman to have sex who would otherwise not have sex. The emotional experience of having sex when you don't want to be having sex doesn't change based on having accepted money to perform. I acknowledge that for some women having sex with strangers for money doesn't bother them anymore than flipping burgers but I don't believe that they represent a significant percentage of the population, so much so that their desire for that particular job should outweigh the damage done to other women who are not so blasé but who are driven to it out of desperation.

Quote:

I've tried  before with the decrim crowd saying they're only listening to the exited prostitutes they wanted to and not the rest

Have you tried the same with the abolition crowd?

some men  really do want to protect their "right" to access women as objects. and they'll fight and belittle women to do it!!!!!

how can objectifying women and sex more than it is now reduce harm? it can't.

i'm not sure all the voices we hear here are honest in motive. they're so different than those i know who've been, and some who still are, in 'the biz'.

 A voice for men aren't antiwomen, they have many female contributors, they're mostly antifeminist, but they're are exceptions, they've actually published some feminists as well. Some articles are shit and I strongly disagree, others are really good, such as the ones on the way countries like Iran and India are protrayed in the MSM, a MSM protrayal that is outright racist, often sexist, and misleading.