"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?