"Safe to say Twisty's against decriminalization: "Note that the goal is merely to curb the male appetite for trafficked women. The message? Pay-for-rapists are here to stay! It is unfathomable that human society could exist entirely without a subclass of sex slaves.""

I couldn't have put it better myself! Brilliantly, and perfectly worded!
Imagine a world where women don't have to objectify themselves just to survive.
Now there's a crazy idea!

I'll start by saying that I am surprised at the fact that many feminists, who are (supposedly) advocates of women deciding for themselves what they want do in life, invalidate those decisions when it comes to working in the sex industry. How ironic.

Twisty and Amanda apparently believe that, by definition, any paid-for sex act is an act of violence perpetrated by a man against a woman, as if it couldn't possibly be consensual - the woman is deluded, apparently (some much for the rants about infantilizing women, no?). The fact that money was exchanged for it does not, in any way, automatically disabuse the act of consensuality.

It'll be interesting to watch how many people bring up the straw arugments about streetwalking being legalized, trafficking in underage girls, and women being coreced into prostitution. Clearly, all of those are illegal, should remain so, and no single person has advocated the legalization of those activities. They'll be thrust into the conversation nonetheless in an attempt to use those to support the continued crminialization of prostitution in general.

Three possible solutions:

(1) like illegal immigration, hit at the users (i.e. heavily fine the businesses that employ them) by treating all sex with prostitutes as some form of sexual assault rather than doubling the immigrant/prostitutes' problems with deportation/jailing. Chances of happening: 0%

(2) Propose a solution akin to the solution of the failed War on Drugs, which has only enriched drug lords (and militarily-outfitted police departments) and filled our prisons with non-violent inmates, like Sweden has. Divert money into stopping international trafficking, especially in minors. In other words, maximize the chances that the sex worker is actually giving consent rather than being exploited (if you're not a radfem and assume that such a thing is theoretically possible). Chances of happening: 0.001%

(3) Continue with our fucked-up system for the foreseeable future. 99.999%

I'll start by saying that I am surprised at the fact that many feminists, who are (supposedly) advocates of women deciding for themselves what they want do in life, invalidate those decisions when it comes to working in the sex industry.

One sticky issue for me is how to understand the relationship between sexual consent and economic incentive that is at play in many kinds of sex work. Feminists care deeply about mutual and enthusiastic consent when it comes to sexual intimacy in non-economic settings. It seems to me that the same standard for sexual intimacy should apply in sex work--that both partners should be fully and freely able to consent to the activities in question.

When you introduce money into the picture, however, this complicates matters. It seems akin to paying people to be surrogate mothers, or to donate organs. I'm not categorically opposed to the idea--and I've heard some good arguments for all of these, and sex work as well--but I'm worried about vulnerable people being exploited because of the economic incentives. There's a difference between doing sex work because you've chosen that as a career, and doing sex work because it's the only thing putting food on your table.

This doesn't mean, I hasten to clarify, that I think sex work shouldn't be decriminalized or legalized. Such a move makes sense on a lot of levels, and I've heard a lot of arguments from women within the sex industry making the case for decriminalization. But I do think that it isn't obviously a simple question of freedom of choice.

chefmatt, I think that the exchange of money does affect whether sex is "consensual." If you live in a capitalist society, money isn't just a nice present--it's the literal difference between life and death. You need money to eat, to have a roof over your head, for medical care, etc. Consent can't be said to have been free and enthusiastic in a situation where money is exchanged.

With regard to your comment about feminists "invalidating women's decisions," feminism isn't only about total freedom for the individual person. That is libertarianism, and libertarianism always benefits the powerful and further consolidates their power. Feminism is about getting rid of gender oppression for everyone. While I don't think prostitutes should be punished legally or socially for their work, I think it is absolutely essential to ending gender oppression to get to a cultural place where women's bodies are not considered to be objects for sale (and this actually has much more to do with changing men's beliefs and behaviors than with "invalidating" prostitutes).

Hello. I finally decided to make an account because this issue is close to my heart.

First of all, if you haven't already read "Whores and other Feminists" ed. by Jill Nagel, it should be on your must-read list. Additionally "Live Sex Acts" by Wendy Chapkis is another necessary item. I think what both of these books articulate so clearly is the need for feminists to not drag down other women by protesting sex work. Of course, they elaborate much more than I am in a one sentence synopsis, which is why I recommend reading rather than listening to me blather on about it here.

I always recommend reading the sex-worker run blog Bound Not Gagged http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/ which has a bit of commentary about the whole "scandal"

I'll also post a link to my thesis later which is on feminism and sex worker activism.

I feel like I've made these comments before, but I'll try one more time.

People can be pro-sex work and feminist and others can be anti-sex work but still sex-positive.

Personally, I am anti-sex work. I don't have a problem with the people who engage in the sex industry. I just hate that we live in a society where those with money feel entitled to use their wealth and power to buy sex.

If someone had the opportunity to make $X (however much money they would charge for sex) by either engaging in sex with strangers or doing something else with the same amount of effort in the same amount of time, I doubt most would still opt to sell sex. This probably isn't true for everyone, but it's true for most people.

For some people, this "I'd rather do something else for the same money, but nothing pays as well" is a kind of lack of consent. I don't know if I agree with that, but I can understand that reasoning.

Where I take issue is with arguments like Caitlain's straw arugments about streetwalking being legalized, trafficking in underage girls, and women being coreced into prostitution. Clearly, all of those are illegal, should remain so, and no single person has advocated the legalization of those activities. They'll be thrust into the conversation nonetheless in an attempt to use those to support the continued crminialization of prostitution in general. I may be misunderstanding, but I don't see why other prostitution (the straw arguments) isn't the same as "prostitution in general." It, to me, appears classist. If women aren't making lots of money (streetwalking), that practice should be illegal?

I do agree that coerced, underaged, or forced prostitution should be illegal. But those are logical side effects of a society that puts a price on sex with those who do not hold most of the power in society (women, children, etc.). I don't know how one would separate the "good" prostitution from the "bad" prostitution. But I'd be interested to hear ideas.

I wrote about my own close calls with sex work and why I didn't do it. I think it is important to hear from more than just the top tier, well paid sex workers (or in my case, almost sex workers)about why they do it.

Caitlain, I think you're missing the point of the feminist critique of prostitution, which is that it is not about individual women's choices any more than women choosing to wear makeup or wear high heels. (note: i'm not comparing the harm of those things, only that they are things some women do which are also products of patriarchy). Feminist critiques of the beauty industry aren't aimed at shaming women, either. To say, for example, that we are socially conditioned to conform to certain ideas of femininity and attractiveness is not the same as saying women who choose to do so are "brainwashed."

Prostitution is part of a system that enforces male privilege by commodifying women's bodies. You can't just separate out certain kinds of prostitution because they're inconvenient to your analysis.

Also, feminism is not about validating every choice women make. It's about respecting that women are human, and we make choices for a whole variety of complex reasons. It's about not shaming women in ways men are never shamed because of those choices. That's the kind of respect for women's choices feminists are talking about.

I don't know how many prostitutes you think are women who just think it's nifty to make a living by having sex for money, or how you can say that talking about the vast majority of actual prostitution is a "straw argument."

FWIW, I'm not for punishing the women involved, and I defer to organizations that advocate for sex workers and actually deal with the reality of their lives.

I may be misunderstanding, but I don't see why other prostitution (the straw arguments) isn't the same as "prostitution in general." It, to me, appears classist. If women aren't making lots of money (streetwalking), that practice should be illegal?

That's not what I meant. Women who prostitute via streetwalking invariably do so to support a drug habit (almost exclusively), and you can make a wholly legitimate argument that the women (and men) are not doing it free of coercion.

Further, it is impossible to regulate and therefore presents significant logisitcal issues with respect to ensuring public health), and takes place in a wholly unregulated capacity such that it is hard(er) to ensure the safety of those involved. It is not my intent to segregate this into a classist construct, but we're discussing the legalization of prostitution, and it is not possible to legalize streetwalking such that you achieve the legitimate goals of legalization in the first place (preservation of public health, ensuring the safety of both parties, etc.).

I don't think bringing those issues (that I brought up originally) to the table with respect to legalization do anything to further the discussion, since they fall outside the construct of what (most) people refer to when they're discussing making prostitution illegal.

I don't know how many prostitutes you think are women who just think it's nifty to make a living by having sex for money, or how you can say that talking about the vast majority of actual prostitution is a "straw argument."

Having interviewed over 60 for a project I am working on, quite a few. While the majority of them indicated they didn't want to do it forever, those who worked in brothels and as escorts were not "begging to get out" like some have portrayed them. In fact they were, generally speaking, satisfied with the work they were doing. The streetwalkers I interviewed, OTOH, were the diametric opposite of that. Of the 47 I interviewed, all but one expressed a deep seated desire to stop hooking (and all of them were doing it to support a drug habit or a pimp, save for one who did it for another reason entirely).

The point I made about separating the "bad" prostitution from the "good" prostitution goes specifically to the types of prostitution most people mean when they talk about legalizing it. No one has (seriously) advocated legalizing streetwalking. So, to bring that into a discussion about legalizing it serves no legitimate purpose.

norbizness:
Propose a solution akin to the solution of the failed War on Drugs, which has only enriched drug lords (and militarily-outfitted police departments) and filled our prisons with non-violent inmates, like Sweden has.

Sweden has done what now? Please explain.

I don't think bringing those issues (that I brought up originally) to the table with respect to legalization do anything to further the discussion, since they fall outside the construct of what (most) people refer to when they're discussing making prostitution illegal.

Damn, that last word should be "legal" there.

Anders: Sorry, that was a hanging clause that was accidentally retained as I made a hash of that point. I meant that their 'solution' to the War on Prostitution would be akin to what a solution for our War on Drugs would be like, i.e. never going to happen.

So, to bring that into a discussion about legalizing it serves no legitimate purpose.

I wasn't under the impression that legalization was the only issue with prostitution under discussion.

Caitlain,

You said you've interviewed 60 women and you draw the conclusion that women that work for escort services or in brothels aren't "begging to get out". Just curious, how many of the 60 women worked in brothels or escort services?

Also, just a note to everyone, can we all try not to refer to any sex worker as a streetwalker?

mmministerygoodness I totally and 100% agree with you. I think you might have confused my comments with somebody else (Caitlain). You said exactly what I was thinking, and you said it much more eloquently than I could have. So, thanks! :-)

Of course it would be disingenuous to pretend that prostitution (or other corners of the sex industry) is generally anything like the more positive, empowered examples that sex-positive feminists sometimes focus on. The point of those examples is not that they're representative, it's simply that they exist; they are a counterproof to the proposition that prostitution inherently is and always will be X. Once it is agreed that something can be acceptable under some circumstances - even if those circumstances are currently rare - it makes sense to shift the conversation to making those circumstances (or something like them, or something much better) more the rule than the exception.

As far as sex work being inherently degrading, I am reminded of Martha Nussbaum's discussion of sex work in comparison to other kinds of physical labor. Why is it any more degrading to sell the use of some bodily parts, and bodily skills, than others? I think the answers have a lot to do with the complex of anti-sex and anti-woman beliefs that pervade our society -- things that are not inherent, and that feminist strive to change. But I think it also has something to do with (as Greta Christina has recently written) the tendency of all of us to assume that if we can't imagine doing something willingly ourselves, because it strikes us as very unpleasant, those who do it must be, by definition and without exception, unwilling or disturbed.

I wasn't under the impression that legalization was the only issue with prostitution under discussion.

I never said it was. I specifically stated that bringing streetwalking into a discussion about legalizing prostitution served no purpose, etc. There was no attempt (or intent) to constrain the discussion here, but rather to preclude the tangential and superfluous use of those examples to argue against legalization when it was discussed (as has been the case in just about every other discussion I've seen on the subject).

You said you've interviewed 60 women and you draw the conclusion that women that work for escort services or in brothels aren't "begging to get out". Just curious, how many of the 60 women worked in brothels or escort services?

All 62 of them were either brothel workers in Nevada (n=37) or escorts in Miami (n=25). I made a reference to the other 47 involved in my project who worked the streets (107 total)

I highly recommend reading Alexa Albert's case study of the Mustang Ranch, called Brothel. The women Albert profiles give a comnplex and enlightening picture of working on the legal side of the sex industry.

As far as sex work being inherently degrading, I am reminded of Martha Nussbaum's discussion of sex work in comparison to other kinds of physical labor. Why is it any more degrading to sell the use of some bodily parts, and bodily skills, than others? I think the answers have a lot to do with the complex of anti-sex and anti-woman beliefs that pervade our society -- things that are not inherent, and that feminist strive to change. But I think it also has something to do with (as Greta Christina has recently written) the tendency of all of us to assume that if we can't imagine doing something willingly ourselves, because it strikes us as very unpleasant, those who do it must be, by definition and without exception, unwilling or disturbed.

And this hits the nail on the head. This explains why it seems acceptable for some to eschew the decisions a woman makes to enter the sex industry while praising another's decision to enter some other line of work where she may be treated just as badly as the protester believes that she would be if she were a sex worker.

That's why I've said it is imperative to discuss the subject with someone who is or has been actively working in the sex industry before you make a decision about the work and what it involves. Most everyone here only knows what they've read and have to rely on anecdotal information to form an opinion of what the work is like (or rely on people like Ms. Farley to the exclusion of anything that contradicts her). They can't fathom that some may enjoy the work or not feel degraded/abused when they do it because they themselves can't imagine doing it. And, of course, in some cases, people start with the notion that any paid sexual encounter is, by default, abusive or "rape" when that is hardly the case.

The overwhelming majority of legitimate sex worker rights organizations favor legalization of prostitution because they know it is the only legitimate way to protect the women (and their clients). I'm certainly not suggesting it is a panacea, but it is far better than the approach currently being used here in the US.

I highly recommend reading Alexa Albert's case study of the Mustang Ranch, called Brothel. The women Albert profiles give a comnplex and enlightening picture of working on the legal side of the sex industry.

Yep, and she starts out as someone who's avidly against legalization. By the end of her visits to the brothel (and the book), she's come to see the women as human beings fully capable of making the rational decisions that anyone else makes about the work that they do.

Painting all people who work as prostitutes with one brush as abused, coerced, victimized, and/or incapable of making a rational decision about wanting to work in the industry is disningenuous and, as I alluded to earlier, no different than infantilizing them (which they claim to hate when others do it regarding other decisions women make). You either have to treat women as though they are capable of making decisions on their own, or they aren't. You can't have it both ways to suit your specific bent on any one subject.

Prostitution is already legal everywhere. It's called your typical patriarchal marriage.

It pisses me off to no avail that people seem un-willing to seriously discuss men's roles in making a hostile environment for sex workers.

So women are the ones expected, as fucking usual, to adapt to men's uncivilized behavior?

As far as I am concerned anything more than medical care imposed on sex workers is unacceptable.

Ideally a woman should be able to do sex work, in the safety or her own home, and absolutely not have to worry about her safety. She should be able to have 100% discretion over her business: no pimps, no managers, no brothels to fire her or kick her out for not performing a service that she doesn't want to do. Period.

And I am big enough to admit that under certain circumstances sex work can be safe and enjoybable. Fine.

But why the hell do we not hold men accountable? Accountable for the ridiculous numbers of people entering prostitution as underage or as forced labor. And the violence? All of this is the choice not of of the supply side, but the demand side.

Look. You want to talk about gendered violence? Violence against a sex worker is a pure as it gets. There is nothing here to confound the "cause" of male violence against a female sex worker, as by default there is no intimate relationship.

So let's talk about this!

Lastly, trafficking, child abuse and forced labor are not straw arguments in that they are very real situations which stand to increase with the demand of legalized prostitution. Call it a supply and demand problem, but these phenomena must be part of the discourse.

Society needs to be rebuit from the bottom up for me to sign on to anything less.

Consent can't be said to have been free and enthusiastic in a situation where money is exchanged.
I'm disinclined to believe this. I freely give my labor to my job in exchange for money, but I don't feel this to be a form of slavery. I'm sorry if that seems pedantic; I know that sex work transcends simple labor issues, but we cannot assume that because somebody is doing something for money that they wouldn't do for free means that it is not their choice to do so.

"As far as sex work being inherently degrading, I am reminded of Martha Nussbaum's discussion of sex work in comparison to other kinds of physical labor. Why is it any more degrading to sell the use of some bodily parts, and bodily skills, than others? I think the answers have a lot to do with the complex of anti-sex and anti-woman beliefs that pervade our society -- things that are not inherent"

this is why I actually feel that prostitution needs to be made feminist. Why is buying sex from a woman the same as buying her body? Why is it more degrading than cleaning a toilet? while I do think removing any and all forms of coercion(including economic) is necessary, I can't help but feel that feminists who claim prostitution is inherently harmful are falling for the very anti-feminist argument that women who have sex are losing part of themselves, less valuable, and sex defines a woman.

I've had a number of discussions like this before, and we usually come to these basic conclusions about how to regulate prostitution were it legal.

1. No pimps or madames. The workers are not coerced into the trade and are free to leave whenever they want.

this one gets a big DUH

2. The workers cannot be working to support a drug habit.

3. Condoms are required, and the workers must get regular STD tests.

4. The workers have the right to refuse any "customer," and if he doesn't comply, then it's rape.

5. No street walking
Another big DUH.
Last week I was staying in a hotel in St. Petersburg Fl, in a rougher part of town. When I was waiting for the bus I got multiple people pulling up to me, thinking I was a prostitute. I coldly told them I was waiting for the bus and they drove off. One time I found myself in tears because of how the man approached me. I felt so disgusted and upset at being offered money for my body. So, needless to say, I definitely do not want the system to stay the way it is. I don't want anyone to ever feel like I did.

However, if a woman or man truely wants to be a sex worker, and he/she is doing it out of their own free will, etc. I don't have a problem with it.

This is a graphic design grad student's project for a campaign to raise awareness on the dangers associated with prostitution.

Incredibly well done.

http://www.designobserver.com/archives/034214.html#more

One last thing:

If anything, the prostitution debate infantilizes men, by absolving them of society's expectation to be responsible, compassionate human beings.

All of the safeguards to "protect" sex-workers shouldn't even be necessary.

Decriminilization and legalization programs are just band-aid solutions so that a relatively few people can make a quick buck while a lot more can get laid, and a whole lot more will be exploited.

Real sad.

ainomiaka,

Prostitution is incompatible with feminism because it commodifies and over-values female sexuality. Isn't that what feminists have been fighting against? Historically, women have had to rely on their bodies/sexuality (or lack thereof) to be respected; just look at all the purity balls suggesting that the only women worth marrying are the virginal ones. Likewise, in the public sphere, women are constantly reduced to titillating, sex objects who serve no purpose outside of what their naked bodies can do. Either way, women's bodies are commodities fit to be bought and sold at whim. Isn't prostitution (even if the woman exercises every right to engage in it) simply propagating the same ideas: that female power lies in her sexual power and nothing more? Isn't this EXACTLY the notion feminism has been trying to combat?

What really bothers me is that there never seems to be any in-between with regards to female sexuality. You're either a virgin who must save your body for a husband, or you're a commodity capable of making oh-so much money by screwing X, Y, and Z guys. I thought feminism was trying to place the focus on other aspects of a woman's identity.

I've been reading Renegade Evolution.

Just to clarify: although my dream is a society in which women may roam the countryside free of any and all commodification, I am by no means against decriminalization as an interim step in mitigating the violence against prostituted women. Love, Twisty

Prostitution is incompatible with feminism because it commodifies and over-values female sexuality.

I could not possibly disagree more. Prostitution doesn't overvalue female sexuality; it completely abnegates female sexuality. Female sexuality plays no role in prostitution. Prostitution makes women into screens on which men project their desires and their sexuality. The prostitute's sexuality and sexual desires simply do not enter into the transaction.

"What have y'all been reading/writing about this issue? I'd love to see more links in comments."

Here's a link (OK, so I posted it in another thread) on potential side effects of treating sex work as "normal work" in places with workfare:

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2001/12/18929.html

"This explains why it seems acceptable for some to eschew the decisions a woman makes to enter the sex industry while praising another's decision to enter some other line of work where she may be treated just as badly as the protester believes that she would be if she were a sex worker."

For that matter, isn't there some overlap between those categories of work? What if someone has an office job and the boss will fire her unless she puts out? What if someone says housewife is her career and her marriage is a sexual relationship instead of a celibate thing for a green card or whatever?

"They can't fathom that some may enjoy the work or not feel degraded/abused when they do it because they themselves can't imagine doing it."

I just figured it's possible that not all prostitution is sex slavery, given that not all agricultural work is slavery even though some is.

"Accountable for the ridiculous numbers of people entering prostitution as underage or as forced labor."

Good point.

"And the violence? All of this is the choice not of of the supply side, but the demand side."

BTW, I've heard of some men selling their daughters to brothels. That's supply side, right?

"Prostitution is incompatible with feminism because it commodifies and over-values female sexuality."

Not entirely. Some men are prostitutes, some boys are slaves in brothels, etc.

"What really bothers me is that there never seems to be any in-between with regards to female sexuality. You're either a virgin who must save your body for a husband, or you're a commodity capable of making oh-so much money by screwing X, Y, and Z guys."

Saldy, in some cases out there it seems more like "You're either a virgin who must save your body for having a husband to spend oh-so much money on you, or you're a commodity capable of making oh-so much money by screwing X, Y, and Z guys, and how dare you try to earn a living through any role that doesn't require sex at some point."

spike the cat:

It pisses me off to no avail that people seem un-willing to seriously discuss men's roles in making a hostile environment for sex workers.

So women are the ones expected, as fucking usual, to adapt to men's uncivilized behavior?

But let's discuss men's roles, then, though I'm not sure what you want added to what has been said already.

As far as I am concerned anything more than medical care imposed on sex workers is unacceptable.

But why the hell do we not hold men accountable? Accountable for the ridiculous numbers of people entering prostitution as underage or as forced labor. And the violence? All of this is the choice not of of the supply side, but the demand side.

Personally, I'd like to see the act of unlicensed prostitution reduced to a misdemeanor charge that has a mandatory requirement of registration with a counseling service to help people that want to get out to get out, while pimping of an unlicensed prostitution business gets treated as a combination of sexual abuse and slavery, and purchasing services from an unlicensed prostitution business is equivalent to sexual assault -- economic coercion is basically assumed.

However, this assumes a framework of legal prostitution, with licensing, health requirements, and taxes, because as you have admitted, there are safe and enjoyable venues for sex work where coercion cannot be assumed.

As the reports in Sweden indicate, however, there is a cost, and you allude to this:

Lastly, trafficking, child abuse and forced labor are not straw arguments in that they are very real situations which stand to increase with the demand of legalized prostitution. Call it a supply and demand problem, but these phenomena must be part of the discourse.

The immediate questions raised then are twofold:

1: Does this price exceed the social benefits from regulatory treatment?

2: Is it harder to subsequently fix the problems caused by legalization and regulation than it is to fix the problems caused by illegal prostitution without going the path of legalization and regulation?

Unless the answer to both of those questions is 'yes', considering a legalization route may still be a good idea.

I also want to note that we do, in fact, have widespread legalized prostitution in the United States, but it comes with a hitch -- there has to be a camera. As soon that happens, it's no longer "hiring a prostitute", it's "making pornography", which is entirely legal (to the point where you can find ads for it in newspapers) and solidly regulated down to proof of identity and frequently also medical checks (though this seems to be by informal agreement in the "adult entertainment" industry rather than governmental interference).

Whenever legalization of prostitution comes up, I'm always surprised that nobody really takes a closer look at the pornography model of business, especially since the problem of commercial child abuse in that industry in the United States seems to be incredibly small.

Society needs to be rebuit from the bottom up for me to sign on to anything less.

Just to clarify: although my dream is a society in which women may roam the countryside free of any and all commodification, I am by no means against decriminalization as an interim step in mitigating the violence against prostituted women. Love, Twisty

Thank you for clarifying that. I do take issue with your assertion that, by default, prostitution constitutes "rape." As others have pointed out, the mere fact that both parties agree to the transaction removes an essential component of rape; to wit, the lack of consent. The presence of a monetary exchange (or perhaps, the purchase of dinner, a wedding ring, etc.) in no way removes the fact that the sex act was done consensually.

To take your dream society to its logical conclusion, we'd also be a world without any physical labor, athletics, etc., since we wouldn't want to commoditize those individuals either, would we?

"Consent can't be said to have been free and enthusiastic in a situation where money is exchanged." - mmministerygoodness

Logically, that would mean all labor for wages is non-consenual, making everyone who works for a paycheck a slave (taking "slave wages" to a whole 'nother level). Needless to say, this is a viewpoint which I do not share.

"Feminism isn't only about total freedom for the individual person. That is libertarianism, and libertarianism always benefits the powerful and further consolidates their power." - mmminsterygoodness

Am I reading that right? Total freedom for the individual person helps the powerful consolidate their power? Does this mean that the only true freedom is in slavery? And shouldn't that post be signed by Orwell?

"Prostitution is part of a system that enforces male privilege by commodifying women's bodies." - Geek

"Prostitution is incompatible with feminism because it commodifies and over-values female sexuality." - AW

In reading the above two comments I'm struck by the inherent assumption that prositiution is exclusively a female vocation. Even if we grant that male sex workers comprise only a small percentage of the indurstry as a whole, don't the above two quotes (and similiar arguments expressed in various ways) imply that sex work is unacceptable only if it's for hetro-sex where the male is paying the woman? If so, then doesn't that mean the above statements imply that it's acceptable for a male to work as a prostitute, but not a female? And if so, what does that say about our feminism?

spikethecat: "But why the hell do we not hold men accountable? ... All of this is the choice not of of the supply side, but the demand side."

This made me think of a couple of questions that I guess I've always had. And sorry if I'm asking something that should seem quite obvious, but why do men pay for sex anyway? I'm just thinking from my own personal perspective, which I know is kinda narrow and won't really help me in understanding the demand for paid sex, because when I want to "get off" and my mate is not around or not "into it", I just practice some "self-loving". So why do some men commodify sex? Is it because they have a particular fetish? Is it just about "getting off" or is it more than that? Is it because they hate women? I know there are all sorts of reasons and again, I know these questions may seem kinda silly, but several people have brought up the issue of demand, and I guess I'm just wondering how this demand part of the equation works. I've always had a hard time understanding it...why do men commodify sex in the first place? Like I said, personally, the thought of putting a price on sex is unthinkable to me. But obviously there's hoards of men who DO put a price tag on sex and they are the reason that there is a demand for paid sex in the first place.

Two more questions: Is prostitution a symptom of the patriarchy? and: Is the idea of "sex as a commodity" incompatible with feminism?

This stuff confuses the hell out of me sometimes...lots of conflicting emotions, thanks ahead of time, for sharing your thoughts on my many questions.

As a former sex worker and peer outreach worker, and as a sex workers' rights activist, it should come as no surprise that I advocate for the complete decriminalization of consenting adult sex work.

As well, we should be setting up supports (and in my mind a complete systemic overhaul) so there are other viable options for those who do not want to be in the industry, but are because of poverty/lack of other opportunities.

One of the biggest challenges I see is that non-sex workers all too often (no matter how well meaning), muddy up consenting adult sex work with sex slavery and child exploitation. This does a huge disservice to consenting sex workers and victims a like.

Another issue is the one of trafficking. In my personal experience in dealing with migrant sex workers, many of them know what they will be doing when they leave their country, as many of them are sex workers back at home. They travel to other countries with the hope of working in better conditions and to make more money. Because of xenophobic boarder policies and the laws around sex work, many of these women turn to traffickers so they can get into other countries.

This leaves migrant sex workers in sometimes very dangerous situations where they own traffickers a lot of money and are made to ‘work off’ their fake visas and bank accounts, often with very little freedom. What makes this worse is that more often than not, authorities end up treating these women as criminals, and once they are done with them, end up deporting them, endangering the sex workers and their families.

Anyhoo, the following is but a small list of some recommended reading:

Laura Augustin's Helping Women Who Sell Sex

http://www.rhizomes.net/issue10/agustin.htm

and her Conundrum of Women's Agency: Migrations and the Sex Industry

The following report is by Cabiria of France:

http://hcc.med.vu.nl/artikelen/tequi.htm

Lies about sex work in Sweden

http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden/

Sex Workers Critique of Swedish Prostitution Policy

http://www.petraostergren.com/content/blogcategory/20/38/

Prostitution Seen as Violence Against Women: A Supportive or Oppressive View?

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/livjessen.html

Zed,

What I am getting at is that I don't hear any honest discussion regarding the reasons sex work should be any more dangerous than other jobs.

For example: people often compare sex work to other dangerous jobs like coalmining or firefighting:

Cave-ins and loss of oxygen- Dangerous. Check!

Fire, smoke and heat--Dangerous. Check!

What specifically is it about sex work that makes it so dangerous and exploitative? And why don't we talk honestly about it? We kinda talk about the supply side, but rarely the WHY behind the demand side. We just accept it for face value.

The Swedish model (I'm in Italy, btw) is the only thing that comes close to doing something on the demand side, but even then I hear some sex-workers say that they are still unsafe and that the underground market persists. Is this really a NET incremental improvement? Or is it just shifting around the problems?

Also, regarding straw:

I believe that there needs to be a more honest discussion of male sexuality. I'm not sure this is the place for that on this blog.

But basically, even when given the opportunity to use safer brothels with local adults, there are a significant number of men who CHOOSE to go for minors or people who are more likely in an exploited setting.

This is the only explanation for the fact that Sweden, Germany, Italy, USA, Brazil, Thailand, England, et cetera--countries that encompass the full range of prostitution legal status from outright illegal, to socially tolerated and more or less legal---cannot shake the scourge of underaged sex and other exploitative practices.

So what I am looking for is some honesty from the demand end of the spectrum.

Basically, I have seen nothing other than well-intentioned, marginally sucessful attempts to criminilize behavior that we know damned well will be poorly enforced and almost impossible to hold up in court.

Regarding building societies:

C'mon. America is in the business of country building or haven't you noticed? Yeah maybe it doesn't work so well these days, but at least you know where our priorites are.

one more note:

Porn is an entirely different business model. Basically, the "John" is the end consumer and doesn't participate in the actual production; this fact has a lot of implications for safety etc...but I won't elaborate here.

Also at the risk of being crude--- a porno, although dated, has essentially and unlimited lifespan. So, again...this has economic implications as far as lessening the incentive to try to drive down costs through exploitation or through the use of kids, etc. Not saying exploitation doesn't exist in porn...just that there is less incentive for it.

Shoot I have a boo boo in that last paragraph about porn and kids. It should say:

"So, again...this has economic implications as far as lessening the incentive to use kids or to drive down costs through exploitation..."

Sorry it's late where I am.

Meeneecat,

I would invite you to go lurking on some men's oriented blogs or forums under the topic of prostitution. You will be enlightened. It's interesting how people tell the truth when they are anonymous.

Buona notte a tutti.

Spike, I actually tried looking on some other sites, but I found it kinda hard to get what I was looking for. A lot of the comments were really juvenile, like a lot of the men seemed to blame their wives (if they were married) or girlfriend for not being X, Y, or Z. I mean, some of it was really mean, like one guy literally said that he paid for sex because his wife had gained weight, as if she were the one forcing him to hire a prostitute! I just got a lot of misogyny and women hating from the comments I read.(which is why I also asked, do these men just hate women?) Maybe you know of a better site, of maybe someone else here has some other insight into the whole "demand" part of the equation. I know this is a feminist blog, but I thought maybe someone who has read up on the sex industry, or has worked in the industry might have some thoughts. I guess I'm just trying to understand what drives the industry (demand) because it is important to understand the entire problem in order to find solutions. I also wanted to know what other people think with: "is the commodifying of sex compatible with feminism."

Spike the cat:

What I am getting at is that I don't hear any honest discussion regarding the reasons sex work should be any more dangerous than other jobs.

The problem, of course, is that only the most desirable can afford to exclude clients this way. As soon as you start taking on anyone who comes, in a segment of society that is in large part either incapable of finding sexual contact elsewhere or after something besides sex, you drastically increase the risk of encountering someone abusive.

The only way I see to fix that is to offload the cost of identifying abusers to the state -- and then suddenly your solution is worse than the problem, because you've generated a police state doing profiles on everyone that could be a potential customer (i.e. everyone) in advance, or at the very least, providing free access and storage for a database where their own records can be maintained and then subsequently viewed by anyone, with all of the associated privacy and libel issues.

Another way to look at it is that prostitution is a dangerous profession for exactly the same reason that coal mining is a dangerous profession: people with the means to do something less dangerous, do. It is unlike firefighting in that (with a few possible exceptions) nobody in the business is taking on those risks for a perceived greater good.

But basically, even when given the opportunity to use safer brothels with local adults, there are a significant number of men who CHOOSE to go for minors or people who are more likely in an exploited setting.

C'mon. America is in the business of country building or haven't you noticed? Yeah maybe it doesn't work so well these days, but at least you know where our priorites are.

Porn is an entirely different business model. Basically, the "John" is the end consumer and doesn't participate in the actual production; this fact has a lot of implications for safety etc...but I won't elaborate here.

If you ignore for a moment the secondary retail transactions, and stick to the hardcore films only, there was first an act of well-regulated prostitution.

Also at the risk of being crude--- a porno, although dated, has essentially and unlimited lifespan. So, again...this has economic implications as far as lessening the incentive to try to drive down costs through exploitation or through the use of kids, etc. Not saying exploitation doesn't exist in porn...just that there is less incentive for it.

Nor am I convinced that lack of incentive for exploitation is the reason that there isn't an open child porn market, when the more obvious reason is that even the underground ones hiding internationally in poorly regulated countries tend not to last long before an active police investigator puts a lot of people in jail and it shows up as a headline in a newspaper.

The main difference with porn that makes regulation so much easier is that it is subsequently visible. (Or usually so, anyway. I have no idea how many people have funded some recorded sex sessions and then never actually got around to selling them, but I'd be very surprised if the number was zero.) For liasons that are being kept tightly secret by both sides, there's nothing to start an investigation on. This is one of the things that is a bonus for a legalized system over one where prostitution is illegal: the abused party could try to find an authority for aid and make the crime visible enough to investigate.

Spike the cat:

What I am getting at is that I don't hear any honest discussion regarding the reasons sex work should be any more dangerous than other jobs.

The problem, of course, is that only the most desirable can afford to exclude clients this way. As soon as you start taking on anyone who comes, in a segment of society that is in large part either incapable of finding sexual contact elsewhere or after something besides sex, you drastically increase the risk of encountering someone abusive.

The only way I see to fix that is to offload the cost of identifying abusers to the state -- and then suddenly your solution is worse than the problem, because you've generated a police state doing profiles on everyone that could be a potential customer (i.e. everyone) in advance, or at the very least, providing free access and storage for a database where their own records can be maintained and then subsequently viewed by anyone, with all of the associated privacy and libel issues.

Another way to look at it is that prostitution is a dangerous profession for exactly the same reason that coal mining is a dangerous profession: people with the means to do something less dangerous, do. It is unlike firefighting in that (with a few possible exceptions) nobody in the business is taking on those risks for a perceived greater good.

But basically, even when given the opportunity to use safer brothels with local adults, there are a significant number of men who CHOOSE to go for minors or people who are more likely in an exploited setting.

C'mon. America is in the business of country building or haven't you noticed? Yeah maybe it doesn't work so well these days, but at least you know where our priorites are.

Porn is an entirely different business model. Basically, the "John" is the end consumer and doesn't participate in the actual production; this fact has a lot of implications for safety etc...but I won't elaborate here.

If you ignore for a moment the secondary retail transactions, and stick to the hardcore films only, there was first an act of well-regulated prostitution.

Also at the risk of being crude--- a porno, although dated, has essentially and unlimited lifespan. So, again...this has economic implications as far as lessening the incentive to try to drive down costs through exploitation or through the use of kids, etc. Not saying exploitation doesn't exist in porn...just that there is less incentive for it.

Nor am I convinced that lack of incentive for exploitation is the reason that there isn't an open child porn market, when the more obvious reason is that even the underground ones hiding internationally in poorly regulated countries tend not to last long before an active police investigator puts a lot of people in jail and it shows up as a headline in a newspaper.

The main difference with porn that makes regulation so much easier is that it is subsequently visible. (Or usually so, anyway. I have no idea how many people have funded some recorded sex sessions and then never actually got around to selling them, but I'd be very surprised if the number was zero.) For liasons that are being kept tightly secret by both sides, there's nothing to start an investigation on. This is one of the things that is a bonus for a legalized system over one where prostitution is illegal: the abused party could try to find an authority for aid and make the crime visible enough to investigate.

Ergh, sorry for the doubled waterfall of text. When the first post failed, I tried loading the comments a few times to see if it came through before trying again, but it seems they just got queued up somewhere.

A couple of different people said something to the effect that, "we cannot assume that because somebody is doing something for money that they wouldn't do for free means that it is not their choice to do so."

I totally disagree. And sex work is not the only profession I'd apply this to. But I'm no capitalist. I think that all labor should be chosen and consented to, using democratic methods.

But that's a whole other issue.

What I see people ignoring in this conversation is the effect that prostitution has on men and women who are not prostitutes. What is the impact on women (and men) as a whole? As far as I'm concerned, that is an absolutely key question for feminists, since we're interested in the whole of society rather than judging the "goodness" or "badness" of certain women's occupations. Clearly different kinds of sex work has different effects on the women involved (slaves trafficked for sex are having a different experience than women working for thousands of dollars an hour), but what about society as a whole? How does it impact us and what does it say about us that the sale of women for sex is such huge business?

I think we sometimes tend to fall into only discussing the effects of sex workers on sex workers themselves out of some old judgemental attitudes about sex workers.

With regard to whether states should contine to impose criminal penalties for prostitution, (which was not a crime at common law,) what is the legitimate governmental interest in criminalizing what adults do behind closed doors in a commercial transaction, into which each has freely and voluntarily entered?

Break down the transaction into its component parts. Prostitution most often involves male purchasers and female sellers. There is no legitimate governmental interest in criminalizing sexual contact between willing adult participants. Similarly, there should be no objection to a man paying money to a woman (nor to a woman paying a man, a woman paying a woman, or a man paying a man), absent the exercise of sexual contact. Where, then, is the State's interest in criminalizing the combination of these component parts?

I have tried to think of any service, other than human sexual activity, that may be lawfully given away, but not lawfully sold. The only examples I can think of are voting (which is not, strictly speaking, a service) and organ donation.

Caitlain, we know that no one is going to make sex slavery legal at the same time that they make another kind of prostitution legal. Nevertheless, the two interact. Some argue that if we legalize and regulate prostitution (but not sex slavery), there will be an increase in sex slavery. That's not a straw argument, it's an argument that pays attention to more than just the immediate consequences of legalization.

Some argue that if we legalize and regulate prostitution (but not sex slavery), there will be an increase in sex slavery. That's not a straw argument, it's an argument that pays attention to more than just the immediate consequences of legalization.

If they make that argument, they make it without any empirical substantiation. A reasonable regulatory scheme and the utilization of existing laws against such activity would preclude this from becoming any kind of serious issue. It has been an issue in other countries (the Netherlands, for example), but their culture and regulatory climate are much different than they are here.

The reality, of course, is that anything that is legal can be manipulated and abused to the point of being illegal. For example, the use of field workers to harvest crops. Much of that is legal, but there is a huge chunk of it that uses slave labor. We don't outlaw field labor across the board, however, just because some people abuse the system.

The larger point is that, yes it occurs, but that is not a valid reason to keep prostitution in general illegal. We don't use such arguments as a basis for making anything else illegal, so why would we treat it any different for prostitution (unless, of course, you're grasping for straws to find a reason to keep it illegal)?

"The reality, of course, is that anything that is legal can be manipulated and abused to the point of being illegal. For example, the use of field workers to harvest crops. Much of that is legal, but there is a huge chunk of it that uses slave labor. We don't outlaw field labor across the board, however, just because some people abuse the system."

Good point, and it also reminds me of unpaid-for sex. You know how some people out there who can't afford to hire prostitutes still feel they have a right to have sex and rent slaves from brothel owners? Some people who can't attract consenting dates for sex without pay still feel they have a right to have sex and rape without paying anyone...

Zed said:

...solution is worse than the problem, because you've generated a police state doing profiles on everyone that could be a potential customer (i.e. everyone) in advance, or at the very least, providing free access and storage for a database where their own records can be maintained and then subsequently viewed by anyone, with all of the associated privacy and libel issues.

Quoth Caitlain: "I do take issue with your assertion that, by default, prostitution constitutes "rape." As others have pointed out, the mere fact that both parties agree to the transaction removes an essential component of rape; to wit, the lack of consent."

Well, Caitlain, in a patriarchy, the cornerstone of which is a paradigm of male dominance and female submission, women do not enjoy the same degree of personal sovereignty that men do. This oppressed condition obtains a priori to all other conditions, and nullifies any presumption of fully human status on the part of women. A woman, therefore, cannot freely "consent," because her will is obviated by her status as a subhuman.

My solution is simple: instead of women living in a perpetual default state of consent which must be specifically withdrawn as a prerequisite to rape, we simply switch it so our default state is "no". This would allow women to define rape. Rape, as you know, is currently defined by men. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Twisty, in a word: balderdash.

Quoth Twisty: Well, Caitlain, in a patriarchy, the cornerstone of which is a paradigm of male dominance and female submission, women do not enjoy the same degree of personal sovereignty that men do. This oppressed condition obtains a priori to all other conditions, and nullifies any presumption of fully human status on the part of women. A woman, therefore, cannot freely "consent," because her will is obviated by her status as a subhuman.

I would argue that such is not universally the default state. A great many men do not consider women subhuman. Again, you're projecting the paradigm of a few (relatively) people onto the totality (or, in other words, generalizing).

Also quoth Twisty: My solution is simple: instead of women living in a perpetual default state of consent which must be specifically withdrawn as a prerequisite to rape, we simply switch it so our default state is "no". This would allow women to define rape. Rape, as you know, is currently defined by men. Talk about a conflict of interest.

Rape is defined as (sexual contact involving) a lack of consent, and is not gender specific insofar as I can tell. If you can draw a different construct of that, I'd love to hear it.

I do agree (vehemently) that the default state for consent for both/all parties should be "no," but I fail to see how that attaches to the concept of prostitution. If one person agrees to accept financial remuneration for a sex act, s/he is consenting to performing sex. Is it your assertion that every act of sex, regardless of the status/nature of the parties involved, is a de facto rape? If that's the case, then I certainly can see the connectivity between the two parts of your statement that I've quoted. I certainly disagree with both, however.

Meeneecat, men pay for sex for a variety of reasons. But I think you'll find that misogyny is at the heart of "demand."

I think many men find it thrilling to take part in something considered taboo or naughty.

In some cases the men want to do certain things sexually that their wives/girlfriends/lovers won't do.

I think a lot of guys feel powerful when purchasing sex (or "owning a woman for an hour").

I think men know they can get away with sexually brutalizing sex workers. Since they're paying the women, they feel entitled to do *anything* they want to them - things they wouldn't dare do to women they just met at bars. And since sex work is illegal (and sex workers stigmatized), the women don't exactly have recourse.
Sexual violence is really hot to some men. The demand for sex workers will remain as long as misogyny remains.

Some really old dude called out at me the other night from his car and apparently thought I was a streetwalker. I wasn't dressed in anything remotely provocative. Whether he really thought I was such a person, or whether he was simply trying to offend me is debatable. He did offend me, however. Does it mean I'm not sex-positive and a bad feminist if I'm offended by such treatment? Feminism confuses me these days. It used to seem pretty cut and dry that prostitution and other forms of reducing a woman to only her sexuality were bad. Now, this is not the case. It makes me very sad. I know that's not very well-put, but it is true. This discussion makes me sad on so many levels. I'm going to keep learning more about this issue, and I find all the pro/con comments interesting. I've gotta tell ya that my gut response is absolute revulsion to the very idea of women prostituting themselves and stripping.

I discussed the history of this debate at
http://letterbyafeminist.blogspot.com/2008/03/anti-sex.html

Comments about prostitution take place in a sphere of human thought that assumes that sex is without any kind of importance, like any other kind of work. When the radical feminist attempts to ascribe a definite weight to the act, by establishing the political atmosphere it takes place within (patriarchy, oppression), there is considerable resistance to this contextualization.

I hear nothing but confusion whenever I read comments defending the very idea that women are prostituted. The basis of the confusion comes from the insistence that women are not prostituted, that they are simply selling a service like any other, and that denying them this 'freedom' is unjust.

Nobody wants to look at intercourse as a huge battlefield where oppression and cultural bias is so firmly ingrained that it renders us incapable of seeing the act of sex as a simple service. Paradoxically we see feminists defending the act of intercourse as so implicitly disconnected with issues of male privilege, the beauty myths, and oppression that they claim it can be a service conducted in some fantasy land where oppression doesn't exist, and therefore, can't be considered rape, because the fantasy of the wholly independent woman to whom sex has no political significance is too strong.

If you try to point out that no woman has the ability to have sex in this world of denial where sex is completely devoid of politics, the easiest response is to say that to say this is to infantilize the woman. But it is the male culture that infantilizes the woman, not the act of pointing it out.

Feminism is a way of looking at sex that, unlike any other philosophy, assumes that there is much importance to be found in the sex act, and the sexual separation of human beings. To defend the idea of prostitution by lowering our views of intercourse to the point where it can be happily bought and sold is to also accept just as happily the idea that a woman is an object.

I don't understand why it's OK for men to objectify and use a woman as long as he pays for it. It should never be OK.

meeneecat,

You are on the right track. Don't give up. I have faith that you will find the answer for yourself. You almost need to find it on your own; even better if you can find a couple guy friends who are willing to be brutally honest about their sexuality.

*******************************
I am disappointed that male (demand side) behavior has once again dodged serious scrutiny.

Yet we bend over backwards to absolve individual men from taking responsiblity for their actions.

Rightly so we demand that government & law enforcement intervene---but how's that working out with other issues involving consensual sex? Date rape, anyone?

And we insist that women take measures to protect ourselves; and even though we have scary numbers on exploited people, rapes, etc, mainstream society asks almost nothing of males as far as working to prevent these abuses.

Talk about entitlement.

When the radical feminist attempts to ascribe a definite weight to the act, by establishing the political atmosphere it takes place within (patriarchy, oppression), there is considerable resistance to this contextualization.

The resistance comes from not accepting that view of the world. Disagreement does not mean confusion. Some reasonable people believe that a modicum of belief by men in equality of the sexes (in inherent abilities and rights, not as achieved in society) takes those men out of the oppressor paradigm. I've read the views of those who don't believe that, who claim that men qua men necessarily are oppressors. I understand the arguments, and I reject them.

Feminism is a way of looking at sex that, unlike any other philosophy, assumes that there is much importance to be found in the sex act, and the sexual separation of human beings.

Frankly the best argument I've read in the last ten days against legalization or decriminalization is the possibility that such a change would make truly coercive sex trafficking more prevalent or easier to get away with.

Comments about prostitution take place in a sphere of human thought that assumes that sex is without any kind of importance, like any other kind of work.

Why is it not possible for each individual to determine for themselves how "important" sex is? Why do you feel that, because you attach a specific importance to it, everyone else must attach that same importance as well? Why is it not feasible that some people (of both genders) to operate in the same "sphere" as you and have a different opinion of what sex should mean to them?

Some reasonable people believe that a modicum of belief by men in equality of the sexes (in inherent abilities and rights, not as achieved in society) takes those men out of the oppressor paradigm.

So, all it takes is a modicum of decency? I'm going to need a lot more than a modicum of belief in my equality before I recognize someone as not part of the problem.

Caitlain: I understand what you are saying, but I just think you should take into account that sex work (of all kinds) does not take place in a vacuum. As such, it is subject to all manner of influences, and also influences right back. Meaning, in the world as it is right now, you cannot divorce sex work from the patriarchy. Sex work also reinforces patriarchal norms. This is not healthy, and serves to hold all women under the thumb of sexual commodification and objectification. Sex work in our world as it currently exists is not good for women. That doesn't mean that sex workers should be punished for their role in it. I unequivocally believe that sex workers deserve our support and that protections for them need to be in place. I don't think they should be prosecuted for the work they do, and of course they don't deserve the stigma they get for doing the work that they do. I do believe that johns do deserve stigma and prosecution.

Sex work is different than other kinds of work. Why? Because it's sex! Yes, coal mining is dangerous. Yes, people die doing it. It's exposes people to unbelievably dangerous environments and all manner of diseases. (And quite frankly, I don't think coal mining should exist as an occupation either, but that's another issue.) But coal mining doesn't usually involve taking a part of someone else's body into yours. Sex work is intimate in a way that other work is not, whether or not you have any sort of special reverence for sex. It makes the worker vulnerable in a way that other work does not. Acting as though sex work is just like cleaning at a hotel or mining is being dishonest. They are different. There are abuses in many kinds of work, and I think most feminists oppose abuses in any line of work, but we're talking about sex work specifically.

"Why is it not possible for each individual to determine for themselves how 'important' sex is? Why do you feel that, because you attach a specific importance to it, everyone else must attach that same importance as well? Why is it not feasible that some people (of both genders) to operate in the same 'sphere' as you and have a different opinion of what sex should mean to them?"

Meanwhile, I've seen sex-should-be-equally-meaningless-to-everyone arguments too, like when some asshole on another forum said that prostitution should be legalized so teen moms on welfare can be put to work. My guess is that the poster had no problem fucking women he didn't like so he thought those girls should have no problem getting fucked by men they don't like...

"But coal mining doesn't usually involve taking a part of someone else's body into yours. Sex work is intimate in a way that other work is not, whether or not you have any sort of special reverence for sex. It makes the worker vulnerable in a way that other work does not. Acting as though sex work is just like cleaning at a hotel or mining is being dishonest."

Exactly.

"He did offend me, however. Does it mean I'm not sex-positive and a bad feminist if I'm offended by such treatment?"

I should say not, Luluminous. You can accept that some forms of sex work are genuinely consensual and attempt to work towards making that model the prevalent one, while deploring the current widespread state of prostitution.

kmp,
Sorry, I withdraw "modicum". It shouldn't have had a lessening modifier. A simple belief in equality in abilities and rights is sufficient, though. A guy doesn't have to be an absolutist or crusader to remove himself from the oppressor paradigm, is what I was trying to say.

I don't think any man can remove himself from the oppressor paradigm. It doesn't matter how enlightened or feminist he is, he is still a man in a world in which men hold more power and privilege than women.

An individual man can have respectful, healthy relationships with individual women, but that isn't the same as removing himself from the oppressor paradigm.

And since prostitution is the subject here, I can't even imagine how a man who pays a prostitute for sex even pretends to not be acting as part of the oppressing class without some serious denial.

Because, simply, these men don't have special auras or signs or something that lets individual women know that he is this special creature who somehow has removed himself from the patriarchy. The prostitute certainly doesn't know. I don't know that the man next to me on a plane is a decent guy and not the guy who's going to get off on me while I sleep.

I don't think any man can remove himself from the oppressor paradigm.

I have more power and privilege than many women and men. However, there thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of women who have more power and privilege than I do. I count among them my wife, of whom I am very proud. I hasten to add that I am not the least bit resentful at her success relative to mine. So to say that men have more power and privilege than women, simply because of their gender, flies in the face of my experience. Yes, there is prejudice against women which is rampant and historical and that needs to be fought. But not all men are the enemy, not even the indifferent ones.

Check out this study in Chicago:
http://www.chicagohomeless.org/files/images/sistersspeakout.pdf
Note the percentages of sex workers surveyed who experienced homelessness. Note the amount of violence they encountered in their lives—both before and after entering the sex trade. Note the percentage of women that entered the sex trade before 18 (and before 15). Note the racial and socio-economic breakdown of women in the sex trade.
I don’t know what the law should be regarding prostitution, but I do know that changes in the law is not going to make any difference in the lives of the women I have met who are/were involved in the sex trade unless we recognize that for a large percentage of women involved in the sex trade, their involvement was not a free choice. This is my long-winded way of saying that supporting job training, education, child-welfare, welfare and ending violence against women will go a long way to eliminating some of the ambiguities surrounding the issue of whether prostitution should be legalized or not.

Also for those commenters who linked street prostitution with drug use, you should be aware that many women begin to use drugs (or increase the use of drugs) AFTER entering prostitution-- rather than entering prostitution to support a habit.

"And since prostitution is the subject here, I can't even imagine how a man who pays a prostitute for sex even pretends to not be acting as part of the oppressing class without some serious denial."

Sometimes by assuming that he's acting as part of an oppressed class:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4309012.stm

"A disabled Danish man is fighting for the state to pay for him to have a prostitute visit him at home...

"...'It's unfair to deny people with disabilities the right to a sex life,' he added...."

"Also for those commenters who linked street prostitution with drug use, you should be aware that many women begin to use drugs (or increase the use of drugs) AFTER entering prostitution-- rather than entering prostitution to support a habit."

That's like the way I've heard of some homeless people drinking more than they did when they had homes, in order to numb the pain, right?

BTW, here's another link:

http://www.healthline.com/blogs/healthline_connects/2008/03/health-concerns-of-prostitutes.html

It's a brief blog post on health care issues for prostitutes and sex slaves, a whole bunch of doctors seem to read the blog, and it takes comments...

It's probably valuable to point out that the vast majority of sex workers aren't privileged enough to be pretty enough to work some place clean. Not to mention that there's that pesky problem of human trafficking and child prostitution.

Why do we all seem to willing to preserve an industry that survives solely on the objectification of women? I can honestly tell you that I once found a website, which has now been taken down, which rated the services of sex workers in a certain area. These Johns weren't a bunch of fat balding people deserving of our pity because they can't get laid by normal girls. No, these were the the scum of the Earth, who posted about how much they could get the girl to do for how little. I'll save you the details, but all of it was extremely abusive and degrading.

It seems that the vast majority of sex workers aren't pretty white girls who get paid well for tricks. There's a good chance that some of them are trafficked, held against their will, and fucked nightly by men who operate on a level much baser than monkeys flinging poo at each other.

I have no idea how anyone can apologize for Johns, the majority of whom are sick fucks, and think that prostitutes really like their job. The sex industry will always have more risks than benefits simply because there is a vast market of men that are willing to pay to have sex with a woman in the most demeaning way possible. And in a society largely absent of social nets, where drugs and trafficking can trap women into doing something they don't want to, it's very common that the sex worker the posters above me like to glamorize is actually the one person most deserving of understanding and pity in the entire world.

My opinion? Ban the buying of sex. Go after the pimps and other bastions of male power that think it's fun to mistreat women. In a society in which gender is about exploitation, I don't really see any other alternatives, my concerns of the "rights" of someone who wants to sell herself for sex aside.

I have no idea how anyone can apologize for Johns, the majority of whom are sick fucks, and think that prostitutes really like their job.

Yeah, not to mention the obnoxious entitlement that makes them think they have a penisgod-given right to women whose sexuality exists to serve them.

"It's probably valuable to point out that the vast majority of sex workers aren't privileged enough to be pretty enough to work some place clean. Not to mention that there's that pesky problem of human trafficking and child prostitution."

Probably? It's *definitely* valuable to point this out!

"These Johns weren't a bunch of fat balding people deserving of our pity because they can't get laid by normal girls."

As if that would justify prostitution? I mean, my looks and social awkwardness are most likely why I can't get laid by normal guys, but that's totally no reason for me to rent a guy...

Yeah, thanks for the very well said comments, Mina, Jen and Geek. I couldn't agree more. I am always very moved when I hear people make any argument about choice/civil liberties, but this isn't really about that. Selling one's body for sex in a completely unequal and unsafe manner to assholes who don't care about passing on diseases to these at-risk women is not about a personal choice. It should be banned, but we need to go after the johns, not the ladies.

Yes, Sixties Liberal, I do agree some of the comments on this thread are rather depressing to me and I agree the most with your opinions. Luckily many people are making thoughtful comments and I'm glad the subject is being discussed.
I wanted to make a comment about pornography. Pornography and prostitution are very similiar in many ways. But Pornongraphy has something specifically damaging to the people that participate in it that prostitution does not. It is recorded for everyone/anyone to either get off to or laugh at (as is often the response) anytime they so choose. I read so much about the people who were on drugs, poor, in pain during shooting, coerced or in a bad state of mind while on film. I can vouch from personal experience that this happens. Especially in these cheap productions -- keep in mind -- the majority of people on film never make it "big time". I wonder if while people are getting off to these films, if they ever wonder what these people were really experiencing on film and in their personal individual lives or what their pasts were like. And why as a society do we not emphathize more deeply with those individuals on film?