Bitch|Lab, belledame222, Renegade Evolution, and several others are defending the act of trading sex for money from being called into question by that ruffian R Mildred.
This debate generates passionate arguments on both sides, and whenever things get this heated, I think it’s important to dig around in our basic assumptions and see if we can at least find the core issue on which we disagree.
That’s what I want to do here. I hope that we can use the comments to continue exploring the building blocks of our respective positions so that we might better understand where we fundamentally disagree. Otherwise, this layered issue can and will create a lot of misunderstanding.
My position may differ from others on my side, but let’s start with some of my basic assumptions and where they lead us:
1) it is possible to willingly choose to be a prostitute
2) it is possible to live a happy, abuse-free life as a prostitute
3) however, the women doing one or both of the above are in the minority
These assumptions lead me to the conclusion that the industry as it currently exists is harmful to women as a general rule.
KH provided a reading list on the subject that she seems to suggest will refute this claim. While I don’t doubt there are plenty of happy sex workers to study, is there really any legitimate evidence that _most_ women are reasonably well off in the current model of prostitution? That seems hard to believe.
If you do think a majority of sex workers willingly chose this as a career despite other viable options, face little abuse, aren’t subjected to nonconsensual sex, aren’t controlled unreasonably by a pimp, and can leave the industry but choose not to because this is the work she would rather do, then I can understand why we disagree.
Next on the assumption list:
4) you can indict an institution without dehumanizing its participants
I asked a question about the above on RM’s thread, and I’ve been pondering it most of the day.
I like delphyne’s comparison to denouncing sweatshops. We can all get behind the idea that the system of sweatshops is generally harmful, and we can denounce it without implying its workers are “less than.” In fact, it is because we _don’t_ think they are “less than” that we hate the idea of sweatshops so much.
I believe people who argue against prostitution feel very much the same way.
Also, even if we knew of some sweatshop employees that enjoyed the work, were well paid, and chose to do it despite other legitimate options, I don’t think any of us would give up the fight against sweatshops. Because as a general rule, the current model of sweatshops is harmful. Now, I don’t think there are any of these people, but even if you somehow found out that there were, would it change anything for you?
Next:
5) We live in a patriarchal society
6) Prostitution reinforces negative patriarchal stereotypes
7) Those stereotypes harm women in a general sense
Economic equality alone won’t alter those negative stereotypes
9) A healthy sex industry can only exist in a world without those stereotypes
This might be where B|L and friends hop off board.
As I understand her, B|L believes class inequities are more responsible than the traditional notion of the patriarchy for what ails us. And in many ways, I agree. If you give all women sound/equal economic footing, a lot of problems would vanish pretty quickly.
But this isn’t an either/or issue. In addition to class issues, there is also a lot of patriarchal oppression. All you have to do is look across any single economic stratum — sexism and gender-based oppression exist amongst economic equals.
If you agree with that assessment, hopefully you agree that it’s important to end that sexism and oppression. One of the key elements of accomplishing that is to work towards ending the practice of men viewing women as objects intended to service their sexual needs. There are other issues we have to tackle, too, but this seems like a crucial one.
Does prostitution reinforce these negative ideas, though? I have to say in many cases it does.
Not every john is an asshole, but boy does prostitution enable those who are.
There are lots of sites out there for johns to talk sex. They’re pretty disturbing. I found one called Dexterhorn discussing international sex travel, and its forums make for ugly [and not-work-safe] reading.
A sample of their attitudes:
We asked them both if they would do lesbian stuff together. The Black girl (Maribel) was hot on doing it but the Blonde (Daisy) was not since she was not a lesbian nor did she have any desire to be with a woman. That was all the more reason why we paid her extra to come with us and do it.
A photo of an El Salvadorian slut that one of our members banged while he was there searching out skanky pussy.
It seems that some Thai bitches, I mean women have started of all things, a womens talk show. (I wonder where they got that idea). It seems to be modeled after the womens rag shows in America, such as The View, where several women sit around and talk about nonsense and other “womens” issues and generally bad mouth men and try to make themselves feel and look superior to men.
One of the cunts on the show specializes in “male bashing”, then she wonders why she doesn’t have any dates. Just another not so sutle sign that the insideous ways of the American women are begining to creep into the promised land.
Now that I live in Thailand, I’ll be damned if any women could treat me or control me the way my Filipina girlfriend did back in the states.
I have never been to whores in the States nor any modern country yet because of the expense and value for money.
The last comment is an interesting one. If a man views prostitutes through the patriarchal lens as sex objects, he really doesn’t care how they’re treated. He just wants value on his dollar. He prefers to go where women make less and do more because they, not just the sex, are a commodity for his consumption. This isn’t every man, but this isn’t a small number of them, either.
Even if a prostitute is not herself harmed by practicing prostitution, reinforcing the ideas held by the men above doesn’t do anybody any good.
Because I believe this, RM’s points regarding the legalization argument really resonate with me. Even if we legalize prostitution, even if we somehow resolve a number of the economic problems currently infesting it, we will still be faced with an industry that reinforces harmful ideas.
This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t legalize prostitution. Assuming it was legalized properly, the protection it would provide women would be very meaningful. It would allow unionization, etc., and we could work towards resolving the industry’s economic problems. You can work to legalize something as a practical matter because you recognize the patriarchy will be around for a while longer while still arguing that, principally, the institution does damage to women by reinforcing patriarchal ideas.
If you believe that the patriarchal stereotypes exist, if you believe they enable sexism, oppression, and violence, and you believe prostitution reinforces those stereotypes, it is quite difficult to defend the industry as a good thing for women.
In a world without patriarchal stereotypes, I believe you could have a healthy sex industry. Prostitution would probably thrive across gender lines in an egalitarian society because, frankly, sex is fun. But we don’t have an egalitarian society and we’re a long way from one, so I can’t bring myself to conjure up an image of prostitution as empowering in the status quo.
If you can, please tell me which assumption(s) we don’t share.
Here’s what I think is an underlying, unspoken assumption, okay:
-Sex is *different.*- It -has- to be different. You save it for someone you love. Or at least can pass off as love; or, or, okay, one-night stands, sure, no problem with that, butbutbutbut…
You can’t make sex a profession. You -can’t- trade sex for money. You just -can’t.- Because -there’s nothing lower than a whore.-
Yeah, I know. No one here thinks that, not -really.- But, c’mon. We’ve been talking for ages and ages now about how we all breathe in the “patriarchy,” how we’re all filled up with unconscious presumptions and expectations that aren’t ours, that are millenia-old legacies.
Don’t y’all think that -just maybe- this one might be influencing the argument? just the -tiniest- bit?
Again, it’s pretty simple. We know that men who go to prostitutes openly espouse dehumanizing attitudes. We know that the majority of prostitutes get out and out raped on average of about once a week, and that’s the actual rapes on top of the having sex they don’t want out of fear of being beat, amongst other things. We also know that women generally have sex when we want to, so there’s not really a free supply issue. The sheer amount of rape that goes on, the existence of pimps, and the fact that people generally don’t pay for what they can get for free points to a fairly obvious conclusion: Men who go to prostitutes go because they are getting something they can’t get in normal sexual relationships. Most of the time, what they’re getting is the pleasure of abusing/raping a woman.
No, belledame222. No I don’t. And that’s a pretty awful thing to say.
The only person I see showing evidence of johns’ attitudes is me. And those attitudes, on the whole, are cruel.
I don’t understand how you can believe we live in a patriarchal society and simultaneously claim prostitution doesn’t reinforce their negative stereotypes, especially when you see comments like the ones found on these mens’ sites.
Show me a site or a study or anything where the majority of johns aren’t getting off on the objectification and/or exploitation of women. Please.
Um, you’re the one making the claim; I don’t think it’s up to me to find a study that -disproves- the claim. I’m saying I just don’t know, and I don’t know how anyone here claims to know for sure for sure.
What I am saying is this: there is a very very strong cultural belief saying that *prostitution is dehumanizing in itself.*
And I expect we all are subject to it to some degree. Not least of all the johns who treat the prostitutes like yesterday’s garbage, for daring to fulfill their desires and charging for it.
I am SHOWING YOU A SITE — ONE OF MANY — DEVOTED ENTIRELY TO THIS KIND OF NASTINESS. That is evidence. First hand evidence. Why do you dismiss this?
I made a claim. I showed you evidence. And you still just blow it off. You also present none of your own. This is ceasing to be a fair and rational discussion.
Oh, I think you’re mistaken as to how it works in most cases, belle. I don’t think it’s men mad at women for daring to fulfill their sexual desires. Again, most of these men have women who have sex with them for free. Read the quotes Marc included. They are paying other men to have access to a woman they can freely treat as subhuman. For them, this isn’t about prostitution dehumanizing women as a side effect. The point of it is to dehumanize women. Not a side effect. The johns are looking for that as the main effect.
KH had anecdotal evidence at least somewhat contradictory smaller pool, but more directly experienced.
And PM, you didn’t answer: what about male prostitutes? What about the (few but existant) people, male and female, who do cater to women? To transfolk? I mean: you seem to be suggesting that there is -no possible way in which prostitution could exist- that isn’t men possessing women. I am here to tell you that that isn’t true. Is it true the majority of the time? Hell, no. But its very existence, to me, does suggest that no, in fact: the act of trading sex for money does not -inherently- reinforce sexist expectations. No.
Marc, Amanda…
“but the evidence of how most (not all) men perceive sex workers, what gets them off about the experience, and in many cases the way they prefer to treat the women involved seems pretty damning to me.”
“By the way, I honestly don’t believe there’s a real demand for plain old sex trade. If men couldn’t get free, fully consensual sex from women, we’d be talking a different story. But that’s obviously not true; most men who visit prostitutes get free sex from girlfriends or wives. They are paying to abuse women”
Oh, it’s just not the men who perceive sex workers as inferior pieces of garbage, it’s everyone…let me repeat…everyone. Even so called-allies or concerned citizens. You mention that your occupation is a sex worker, of any kind, and for some reason, with 99% of people, anything else about you ceases to matter, you are subhuman, end of story, even more so if you are not a walking tragedy.
Yes, some men, especially those who frequent street prostitutes, are freaking predatory asshole scum. Those who do the sex tours (where it is far easier to get access to underage girls AND boys), solely for the purpose of paying to rape, deserve to be gutted in Times Square. But those johns do not make up all johns, or perhaps even the majority. A lot of men who frequent prostitutes do merely want something that their wives or girl friends will not do…from a sex act, to an outfit, to an illusion, or just sex with someone different. That is often the case with the non-street prostitutes…and I can also tell you it is not unheard of for couples to hire escorts, or for women to hire escorts for their men. Oh, and personal experience, and that of my co-workers and friends in the field? Most requested act? A blow job. Not “I am gonna smack you around, do you in the ass, piss on you, and not pay” (which I do not deny ever happens, especially to street prostitutes, but since we are talking ALL sex workers apparently, I can tell you that blow jobs are popular).
Me, personally, along with some serious law reform and tougher assault penalties for abusive pimps and johns, I would like to see more women in positions of power within all aspects of the sex industry…prostitution, porn, stripping, whatever…especially women who were/are sex workers themselves. I think the more women who are in such positions, well, the more potential change from within the industry itself. Sure, there are plenty of women out there who would abuse/exploit other women for profit just as badly as men do, but I think the more women who “have been there” that end up running things, the more sex work might become “whore friendly’. Sex work is not going anywhere…but it can be changed.
>Read the quotes Marc included. They are paying other men to have access to a woman they can freely treat as subhuman. >
Yes, I -know- those men do. But 1) I still don’t know that those men represent the majority of men who visit prostitutes, -any- men, -any- prostitutes, and 2) that is hardcore institutionalized misogyny. And yeah, there -are- a lot of people who treat prostitutes as people into whom they can pour their garbage. The question is: -why do they do that?- And -part- of the answer I do believe is because there is this very very strong belief that -that’s what they’re there for.-
But is the way to get past that to say, well then let’s focus -more- on the actual prostitutes, on convincing them that they are doing a bad bad thing (for Class Woman, for themselves, whatever)? I don’t think so. Let’s talk about -why- sex for money is the big no-no for a bit, can we?
Marc, I will look at it more in-depth when I get a chance.
Look: for the last time, I am -not- DISMISSING that these men exist, or even that they -might- be the majority of johns.
And believe me, Marc, I am more than well acquainted with “nastiness” of that sort. Do you think you are telling me something I don’t know about misogyny?
Let’s talk about -why- sex for money is the big no-no for a bit, can we?
That’s not the issue. You want us to be badmouthing prostitutes, but it just isn’t happening because that’s not our intent one little bit. Why are you painting us as shamers when I bend over backwards to argue for creating fair conditions as a high priority?
Asking whether or not something advances feminism isn’t shaming or criminalizing anyone.
And you don’t get more direct evidence than johns talking to johns first-hand, belledame, I’m sorry.
> the majority of johns aren’t getting off on the objectification and/or exploitation of women. Please.
And here’s the other thing, Marc: even if I -did- find such a site or study, I don’t know as I would take it as final evidence. More to the point, -it’s not what this is about- –to me. I said wayyyyy back at the beginning that I do not necessarily disagree with -anything- you said in the opening post, okay. -Nobody- has. -Nobody- has said, point-blank, most prostitutes are happy and lively and making free choices. -Nobody.-
The question to me is, -why- is this so, and does it of itself categorically prove that prositution is -inherently- “anti-feminist.” Which is what you seem to be claiming.
I’m not sure that that follows, frankly.
If you believe an industry advances patriarchal stereotypes, which is a central point of my assumptions in the post, then how can you say it _isn’t_ anti-feminist?
Oh, and on the idea that the existence of male prostitutes undermines the patriarchal slant of all it? Not so sure. My dad worked across the street from where all the male prostitutes hung out and while they were obviously men, they would wear women’s clothes and make-up. Obviously, they had to be turned into women in order to make the whole transaction seem “right” to the johns.
Just from reading the comments here (I have not been following the discussions anywhere else.), it seems a main point of contention is in assumptions 6.
“6) Prostitution reinforces negative patriarchal stereotypes”
I think everyone would agree that 6 is largely true for prostitution as it currently exists. I think there is disagreement with it being a universal truth. This then leads to assumption 9 being contested in a manner:
“9) A healthy sex industry can only exist in a world without those stereotypes”
I think here the problem is focus, namely the industry as a whole vs. individual aspects that make up the industry.
I’m not sure if that’s correct or just my best attempt to describe what seems like two very separate discussion about two different things.
Also, the types of men who prostitute themselves tend to have a feminized or margalized position in society. Transwomen are considered feminine, and there are often a lot of people who think the person who sucks the dick or who is the bottom is the only one who is gay(often thought of as feminine) There are also homeless men who do surival sex.
Amanda:
‘KH, my point is to think outside the consent box you’ve created & refuse to think out of. Since the tacit consent of the women in the business is 100% irrelevant to the men who run prostitution & men who pay those men, then it’s silly to say consent is the only issue here. If the people who buy and sell women’s bodies don’t care if those women consent, then we need to take that into consideration.’
I haven’t said & don’t think that anyone’s consent to any exchange is the only issue relevant to its evaluation. If you’ve read what I’ve written, you know I’m very far from saying that if the hooker says yes, then everything is lovely in this libertarian wonderland. Choice is, however, important, to feminists as to others. (Abolitionist rhetoric about it, as I’ve argued, has been obscurantist, to prostitutes’ disadvantage. Anyone is free to accept their claims, but they depart from the ordinary meaning of English words.) Consent has intrinsic moral significance, but it’s also of interest for the light it casts on prostitutes’ wellbeing. Whether a women says yes, & whether she does so under threat or in response to an offer, & the context of other available options she foregoes when she says it, matters fundamentally, morally & for public policy. If she says yes in response to threats or fraud, one response is best. If she says yes in response to an offer rather than a threat, but only because she has no other decent options, then another response is best. And if she says yes in response to an offer & could have said no without being thrown back on unacceptable alternatives, then still a third response is best. Any rhetoric that elides these distinctions makes for policy that hurts prostitutes.
I very much doubt that all pimps & johns universally are completely indifferent to women’s consent, that, e.g., all johns are indifferent between consensual & nonconsensual rape. Actually, I know it, as do many other people. All tricks may merit contempt, but not for that reason. I’ve already described how & to what extent I think men’s attitudes need to be taken into consideration in the formation of public policy.
‘On top of that, for the majority of johns & pimps, rape is the point. They want to rape whores. Laws about prostitution need to start with the assumption that the trade is about rape & will exist even if there is a parallel sex trade that’s about sex.’
No one has privileged epistemic access to pimps’ & tricks’ minds, or to the whole range of prostitutes’ experience. You just can’t know. It should concern you that people who have extensive experience in the matter disagree with you. (Also see the research literature.) I suspect it’s true that a vestigial parallel trade would survive under decriminalization, both because johns would seek it & because some women would supply it. (I’m not speaking here of forced prostitution, child prostitution, etc., which would remain illegal in any case.) I’ve known women, mostly addicts with very disordered lives, who I suspect would stay outside any legal system. But this is a poor argument against decriminalization.
‘ … I honestly don’t believe there’s a real demand for plain old sex trade. If men couldn’t get free, fully consensual sex from women, we’d be talking a different story. But that’s obviously not true; most men who visit prostitutes get free sex from girlfriends or wives. They are paying to abuse women. So, really I think the discussion is starting from the incorrect assumption that sex even has much to do with this & that “consent” is the axis that this debate turns on. We’re talking about a trade predicated on the belief that the woman is not consenting & is suffering; johns pay to enjoy the suffering.’
I know you believe it, but it’s not true. Sex is not now so freely available to all men that no man currently is sexually frustrated. Many are. Thus the obscure phenomenon of masturbation, to which most men resort only for lack of a partner. This fact accounts for most of the sex trade. Still, the line between sexual desire & the will to dominate is alarmingly indistinct for some number of men. This is painful to contemplate, so we classify things in neat dichotomies, split them. But it may not be so simple. In any case, we agree there are sadists. They are, as you say, paying (or underpaying, of not paying) to abuse women. I can name women, mostly worn-down addicts, for whom prostitution seemed to be only this & nothing else; they really did seem like ghosts, utterly unreachable, & I don’t know what finally became of them. So I have trouble judging Eileen Wuornos too harshly. But the alacrity with which people make generalizations for which they can’t possibly have adequate warrant is a curious thing that begs for explanation. It’s also worth repeating that current law & policy (which I don’t say anyone here supports) create a climate of impunity at cost in women’s lives.
‘And actually, no I’m not “in shock”. This information came into my consciousness years ago. You give the impression of someone who is conflating a tiny minority of highly specialized sex workers who give men strings-free kinky sex that they really can’t get from wives/girlfriends with the majority of prostitutes, who are objects in a sadistic game of rape that is controlled by men.’
No intent to offend; the capacity to be shocked is measure of human decency. Something you said in your 1st comment here left me with the impression, evidently falsely, that you’d just recently seen the thing that ‘single-handedly remade my assumptions about the issue, which I thought was all about prostitutes’ agency & blah blah blah.’
Most hookers I’ve known were among the minority (according to a rough consensus of abolitionist activists & social science researchers) who worked the street. I personally know more about their lives than about the notional ‘tiny minority’ you describe. My response to you mostly refers to streetwalkers’ circumstances. I don’t conflate the circumstances & needs of diverse groups of prostitutes, but I also think they are & should be bound by ties of shared experience & interest. I contemplate with contempt the attempt of some people to discredit any hooker who disagrees with abolitionist dogma as some kind of ‘privileged’ pet of the patriarchy who suffers not at all from current law & attitudes, who’s less mindful of the circumstances of the worst-off prostitutes than their soi-disant abolitionist tribunes, & whose interests needn’t be considered in formulating public policy. Your impression is wrong.
‘Because frankly, your willingness to ignore that the vast majority of prostitutes have pimps or someone “pimp-like” is quite telling. Interestingly, the establishment comes down harder on those few women who do attempt to create a safe, woman-run environment for prostitutes—Heidi Fleiss goes to jail, but the entirely male-owned brothels in Nevada get a license. These are truths. I am open to intellectually honest discussions about prostitution, & I think there’s an intellectually honest case to be made for legalization. However, I’m deeply distressed by how rare it is—for instance, people like you pretending that pimping is not the norm—and it’s making me think there isn’t an intellectually honest pro-prostitution argument. If you want to make your case, be more honest.’
I don’t ignore anything about the vast majority of prostitutes, for whom you don’t care more than I do. You said prostitution is ‘a transaction between a pimp & a john; in other words, it’s men trading women’s bodies.’ A categorical statement. I noted only that the generalization, like others made here, obviously is false: ‘In fact, very many prostitutes have no pimp or middleman at all. Very many others work through agencies that, although they may take too much of the money, exert no coercive power over workers.’ What I said is true & hardly ignores anything. If anything is telling here, it’s the alacrity with which you resort to accusations of dishonesty.
‘Here’s a sobering statistic, KH, that took me five minutes to find in the latest issue of Bitch magazine, in an article that is very generous to upper class sex workers of the sort you’re conjuring up—the study quoted in an article that is generally pro-sex work is that 78% of prostitutes are raped on average 16 times a year by pimps & 33 times a year by johns.’
‘Conjuring’? ‘Upper class’? I don’t receive Bitch, so which study is this? Are you aware of other studies, published in equally respected journals, that disconfirm those claims? And what exactly is your point, that I don’t acknowledge how terrible prostitution can be in this world, with these laws & attitudes? Do I dishonestly conjure some fairytale? Is it absurd or insolent for me to remind you that I don’t require instruction from you about the circumstances of prostitutes, any of them? I also know some sobering statistics, some of them even valid, & also know things not easily learned by reading. Where did we come to such crossed purposes? Is it that I tell you that the experience of prostitutes & the attitudes of tricks are more diverse than you imagine? Is it not enough that things are bad, they have to uniformly bad, always in the same way? Do you imagine it’s a mark of virtue to make generalizations for which there’s no rational warrant, a mark of moral inferiority to say the simple truth?
‘No one said all men are dogs. Strawman.’
Read, slowly, carefully. I was the one who used the word. Didn’t attribute it to anyone, therefore not a strawman.
‘ … on the idea that the existence of male prostitutes undermines the patriarchal slant of all it? Not so sure. My dad worked across the street from where all the male prostitutes hung out and while they were obviously men, they would wear women’s clothes and make-up. Obviously, they had to be turned into women in order to make the whole transaction seem “right” to the johns.’
Those are transvestites, a minority among male prostitutes, who in my experience are pretty butch. Proving?
Marc is to be commended for an honorable effort rationally to reconcile, or at least discuss, differences of opinion about this issue, away from the personal invective it often attracts. It’s a mistake, however, to imagine that the unpleasantness is evanescent, a matter of individual personalities. It’s been a fixed feature of discussions of the subject since before most of you were born. There are irreducible differences, & not only about empirical facts, conceptual frameworks, normative values. There is an unbridged social distance, & chronic ill will, between abolitionists & the sex workers who disagree with them, ‘sex-positive’ feminists, & most social science researchers in the field. It’s possible that last three know less about sex work, think less clearly, & hold inferior moral views. Maybe I do. But I & we think not, & no one should imagine we’re going anywhere.
Except for me, tomorrow morning. I am now going to go pack my bags; tomorrow I ride the Vamoose line (clean & affordable) to NYC, away from this shit. Address further criticism to Belledame222.
¶3, 1st sentence:
… consensual [commercial sex] & nonconsensual rape …
There’s a lot of conversation about the how johns go to prostitutes to abuse women rather than have sex, and how they reveal this on the boards where they trade information.
First, I think its complete BS that the reason men go to prostitutes is to engage in violent sex. This is based on the completely weird idea that most men during most of their lives are hooked up in long-term relationships where they have fully satisfying sex in what should be happy monogamy. I can assure you, there are plenty of men who aren’t in relationships, who are in relationships, but the sex part may not be good, or they may just want to be with someone other than there primary partner. (I can just hear the lecture on fidelity coming – that’s a whole other issue). They might also be looking for someone who is normally, “out of their league” – say a 45-year-old trick and a 21-year-old prostitute.
In other words, there are plenty of situations in which paying for it becomes an attractive option – situations which have nothing to do with the kind of psychopathic violence Amanda and others have been on about.
Re: boards where Johns hang out. I know of a few, and while the conversation there isn’t exactly a bastion of enlightened politically correct feminist thought, the conversation I’ve seen has nothing to do with beating up on women. Mostly, its about what the girls look like (if they advertise, do they look like they do in the ad), what do they will do sexually, how much do they charge, and most importantly, will they rip you off. (Also, contrary to what’s often claimed here, if it comes out that a particular girls is pimped, that’s usually seen as a reason to avoid hooking up with that girl.) Basically, these sites are a kind of consumer protection for johns, and I don’t think that’s inherently a bad thing. Prostitutes also run some sites like this where they report bad tricks and police sting operations.
Rather than take my word for it, why don’t you go see for yourself. Here’s the San Francisco john’s forum, My Red Book, and here’s its “sister site” for prostitutes, My Pink Book.
Marc,
One last before I go.
“We can care passionately about helping women in the industry while still asking questions about whether, even if it operates under fair conditions, it could ever fall in line with feminism in a patriarchal world. These are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t wish to question your passionate helping feelings, or prevent you from proselytizing your views on feminism. I may even agree with them, as far as they go, who knows. I don’t, however, accept that they should be codified in criminal law. (I’ve already said how I think law & policy should be judged.) Most of the arguments offered as reasons not to decriminalize really are something else. This is a basic distinction in liberal (& maybe all) societies: not all moral judgments are written into criminal law. All of us can think of practices we find distasteful, base or unenlightened, but which aren’t & shouldn’t be illegal. I needn’t esteem sex work to conclude it’s wrong to use force to break it up. But many critics of decriminalization offer only reasons not to be in love it. Sometime more is required to justify writing their tastes into law.
‘You want us to be badmouthing prostitutes, but it just isn’t happening because that’s not our intent one little bit’.”
Which ‘us,’ pilgrim? (Asks a bloated parasitic whore.) You’ve been a perfect gentlemen – really – but the suspicion remains, not entirely w/o foundation, that a certain animus to sex workers is endemic in some feminist & progressive circles, for example, that they’re intellectually dishonest, to name a random criticism. I’ve seen it myself w/ my own eyes, as have others, & it makes an lasting impression. It’s far from a criticism of you, but the problem’s decades old by now & can’t be papered over by the no doubt sincere professions of good faith of one man. And it may be naïve to imagine that people generally can simultaneously judge that what a competent, intelligent person freely chooses to do for a living (& we’re talking about such people here), & indeed publicly defends, is a morally inferior enterprise (on feminist grounds or any other), while at the same time not holding that person in at least a measure of contempt. Also bear in mind that sex workers who’re party to this discussion (of their fate, &, maybe, character) are subject, among other things, to arrest & prosecution, & are bound to view other people’s deliberations, in that context, about whether they’re fit for feminism & whether the state should forcibly suppress their means of livelihood – they’re bound to view the whole measured, civil spectacle with a cold eye. Odd that way.
‘If you believe an industry advances patriarchal stereotypes … then how can you say it _isn’t_ anti-feminist?’
Offhand, you can say it isn’t inherently, uniquely or univalently anti-feminist. If you accept the premise.
Again thanks for trying. Now watch the parties once again slink back into their respective holes & deride the others as dim, ugly & wrong.
Re: the original post from PunkassMarc
You’re right that points 5–9 are where I fundamentally part company with the radfems, about both prostitution and pornography. I don’t believe it is the proper role of the State to start putting people in jail and censoring media to help create hegemony for any ideological or religious paradigm – feminism, socialism, christianity, or whatever. That’s a fundamental difference between the kind of libertarian left ideas I believe in as opposed to the authoritarian left ideas supported by, well, most of the Left it seems. In this case the argument is not just, “get your damn laws off of my body”, but “get your damn laws off of my mind”!
The needs, well-being, and working conditions of sex workers, and what role, if any, regulation would play in that – that’s a conversation worth having. Points 1–4 at least touch on this.
>
There’s the straw person — at least for me.
If I have time, I’ll answer on the blog. I would also add that we aren’t stopping RM from doing anything
Oh, and yes, we spend plenty of time, otherwise, discussing our foundational assumptions about sex work, etc. E.g., Anthony and I differ a great deal. What started this was me rapping him for constantly focus on how wonderful things for sex workers.
Amber and I differ as to the issue of choice and what the goal of feminism is. Belledame thinks I’m an unrepetent structuralist, and I think she’s way too into the personal is political as all individual stuph. KH and I agree on a lot but I’m a sociologist and not keen on the economics perspective. KH probably has some real gripes with my commie pinko stuff. Etc. etc.
We regularly hash these things out. So, I’m not sure about a lack of criticial self-reflection on these issues. As I noted before, my position comes from living and loving sex workers, including women who were freelance whores who’d once worked the streets. Including women who simply parlayed dating into whoring. Others were dancers. Etc. And, I just know a slew of men who’ve been with prostitutes due to my close association with a number of people in the Navy and Marines.
gah. there’s a script on the page that fucking with my browser. I wanted to quote this:
And in general, Sly’s right: characterizing others as claiming that ‘blow as feminist’ and other malarkey doesn’t really set the stage for a convo. i just assumed it was shit stirring — and that’s what it was, largely, since nothing in the actual post was terribly repellent
“that a certain animus to sex workers is endemic in some feminist & progressive circles, for example, that they’re intellectually dishonest, to name a random criticism. I’ve seen it myself w/ my own eyes, as have others, & it makes an lasting impression… about whether they’re fit for feminism & whether the state should forcibly suppress their means of livelihood – they’re bound to view the whole measured, civil spectacle with a cold eye.”
KH hits the nail on the head right there…dead on, actually.
Let me try this one more time.
Well.
Marc, you started this last post by framing this as asking, (among other things, which I’ll get to), whether the assumption among some of us was in fact that the majority of prostitutes were happy/non-coerced/empowered. I said for me at least, that is -not- my assumption. or at any rate that’s what i -thought- i was trying to say. What I do believe is that 1) there are a lot a lot of unhappy/coerced prostitutes and 2) there are a relative few who make a satisfying career out of it and 3) there is probably a grey middle in there where it’s crap miserable work but not necessarily the dire hellhole painted in the most lurid prose we’ve seen here either.
I don’t know what the numbers/percentages actually break down to; and I don’t know that I trust -any- of the studies to be the definitive word on it, frankly: it’s a very fraught subject, objective studies are difficult, not to mention there is a question of who you’re taking your samples from…anyway. Not my field, statistics.
So, the question then becomes, well, -why- are you asking this? Is it as a prelude to asking “what is to be done,” policy-wise? If so, I can understand it; and no, I don’t have a good answer either. But that doesn’t seem to be what you were asking here; what you were asking was, as I understood it, is it possible to be down on the institution while supporting the people in it.
Then, later, you came in with the notion that the “industry,” however we define it, is “anti-feminist.”
I…you know, I just don’t even know how to address this.
I think the entire goddam planet is “anti-feminist,” pretty much. Well. Sexist. What you will. Among other things.
And I don’t know the best way to go about remedying this. Lord knows I have an investment in it.
What I’m not sure of here is what it is we’re arguing about, really.
Because if the answer is for me to say, “gee, okay, you’re right, and maybe decrim is the way to go or maybe the Swedish model or maybe a case-by-case basis, but anyway: yes indeedy, Prostitution Is UnFeminist, and the women who participate in it willingly are perpetuating a Bad Thing”…no. I’m not going to do it. I think it’s silly and a waste of time at best, deeply patronizing at worst; and, well, what exactly do you expect this to accomplish? Shame people like Renegade Evolution into not doing it anymore? 1) you see how well this is working 2) and so then what?
and, I think it’s kind of funny to say that you see my suggesting that just maaayyybeee there is some shit for all of us to unpack wrt prostitution as “a terrible thing to say.” What, it’s okay for all and sundry to analyze this that and the other sex act as “inherently feminist” or whatnot, but the suggestion that whorephobia might just be a part of this our collective patriarchal legacy from which gasp yes we enlightened here might -not- be immune, and that’s “terrible?” Dude, to me, not nearly as terrible as calling someone a “bloated parasite.” But oh yeah: that’s -not- what this is about, I keep forgetting.
You know, I think institutionalized marriage, het marriage, probably has more direct impact on my life than does the odd sex worker here and there. God knows it’s been the subject of I think I’d have at least as much call going up to some married woman and call her a “bloated, anti-feminist parasite…” Which is to say, actually? Not one fuck of a lot of call.
Because I’m not gonna stop het marriage that way (even assuming that that truly is a goal). I’m damn sure not gonna get -myself- any more rights or happiness that way. All that’s gonna happen is I vented my spleen on some random woman and now she probably wants to punch me through her monitor. VIVA!!
Ummm, whorephobia… BD, next time I am in Nu Yourk, first round is on me.
(KH: how long are you in NYC? not to derail; drop me a note at my blog or email if it’s gonna be more than a week or so)
>Belledame thinks I’m an unrepetent structuralist
I do not; mostly because I’m still not entirely sure what the fuck structuralism actually -means,- tell the truth.
especially since I thought you were more “post-structuralist.” is that what you meant to say? have i been getting it wrong all this while? i am so confused.
…You know, what, too, actually: fuck feminism, yes indeedy. hell, fuck politics. mostly at this point all I know is: i’m sure tired of assholery. institutionalized and otherwise. my own included.
definition of assholery: I know it when I see it.
…goddamit, i hate to ruin a perfectly good exit line for myself, but i had to say something to this:
>Also, the types of men who prostitute themselves tend to have a feminized or margalized position in society. Transwomen are considered feminine, and there are often a lot of people who think the person who sucks the dick or who is the bottom is the only one who is gay(often thought of as feminine) There are also homeless men who do surival sex>
All true, more or less; but KH is also correct in noting that in terms of the actual transaction, male prostitutes (who are not synonymous with transgendered prostitutes) trend toward “butch.” and the request is likely to be to allow the john to suck him off or fuck him. no, I do not have statistics for this; you’re just gonna have to take my word for it. or not.
and do we want to introduce the question of why there are so many more professional dominatrixes (ces?) than pro-subs? probably not.
because truthfully, i don’t see why any of this matters in terms of 1) what is to be done in realpolitik terms wrt helping people who actually need/want help or 2) whether or not it’s particularly useful for an outsider to scold a prostitute for being unfeminist/participating in an unfeminist yadda (not in my book). and those are ultimately the only questions that matter to me. yeah, sure, I’m interested in unpacking assumptions, provided we’re really laying -everything- on the table; but at the end of the day, if all it really boils down to is “how many patriarchial symbols can dance on the head of a pin:” meh.
and -now- i really am off.
“This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t legalize prostitution. Assuming it was legalized properly, the protection it would provide women would be very meaningful. It would allow unionization, etc., and we could work towards resolving the industry’s economic problems. You can work to legalize something as a practical matter because you recognize the patriarchy will be around for a while longer while still arguing that, principally, the institution does damage to women by reinforcing patriarchal ideas.
……
In a world without patriarchal stereotypes, I believe you could have a healthy sex industry. Prostitution would probably thrive across gender lines in an egalitarian society because, frankly, sex is fun. But we don’t have an egalitarian society and we’re a long way from one, so I can’t bring myself to conjure up an image of prostitution as empowering in the status quo.”
I think Belledame has said it already, Marc, but these beliefs actually place you firmly on the pro-prostitution side. The belief that prostitution isn’t in itself bad and could exist outside male domination of women, and that legalisation of pimps and johns and a good union will solve all prostitutes woes are standard pro-prostitution ones.
The fact is that buying someone else’s body is an act of objectification and a denial of their humanity. Sexuality is an expression of desires. When someone is being paid for sex, their desires (and more importantly their disgust) are being ignored.
I don’t know if my sweatshop analogy confused the issue, I was trying to make a comparison between the way people in oppressive situations are viewed by those trying to end those situations (sometimes one and the same). I wasn’t making a comparison to the actual conditions that they were experiencing. It is very difficult to make accurate analogies with prositution because sex is an act like no other because it is a function of the body. Perhaps a closer analogy to the act would be that paying for sex is like paying for friends. No one would believe that people being paid to be a friend actually liked the person who was paying them, but it appears that it is quite possible to claim with a straight face that prostitutes sexually enjoy their work.
Just as a side note, unionisation is often offered as the magic bullet to the problems of prostitutes and prostitution. I always find it hard to get my head around exactly what the pro-unionisation side think that unions can actually do for prostitutes. In fact a number of the problems that pro-prostitution advocates seem to think a trade union could solve seem to be more matters for the police, but perhaps you could expand as to how you think a union could operate within prostitution.
[...] Because this is so misunderstood in my previous prostitution thread that it must be blared from the rooftops and not buried in the comments. [...]
On Delphyne’s comments:
1. I asked Lorenzo some questions about objectification above (& in previous threads) that may be pertinent here. (Or he may want to address them himself.) Many moral concerns currently discussed under the rubric of objectification actually have significant intersubjective aspects, there are questions about the relation of sexual objectification to other forms of it, etc., etc. Objectification is a matter of what’s inside tricks’ heads (or the institutional ramifications of that), & should govern policy only to the extent it’s relevant to hookers’ welfare.
2. ‘ … sex is an act like no other because it is a function of the body.’ It does indeed have many unique or nearly unique features, some involving bodily integrity, others its moral psychology. (Nussbaum’s ‘colonoscopy artist’ example comes close in the former sense.) But strictly, many other jobs also prominently involve the body, indeed all are embodied. Although arguments from the uniquesness of sexuality necessarily invoke particular comprehensive [moral] doctrines (to use Rawls’ term), which aren’t universally accepted, & so raise special problems in liberal societies, I suspect (as I’ve said elsewhere) they represent abolitionists’ best hope.
3. It’s true, you can’t buy friendship, (there’s a saying about that), but some people do try to, with a straight face. To the extent that johns are buying more that objective services, a possibility denied by most people here but in my view a very real aspect of most prostitution, there is an attempt to buy companionship, recognition by another subject. It’s one of the several strange aspects of tricks’ consciousness that they can decieve themselves this way. (I don’t know, maybe they’re self-aware enough to at least think they can be friends in the circumscribed way office workers are friends with coworkers, or, more analgously, bosses, even though everyone knows they wouldn’t be there but for the pay.) It’s possible to spend too much time contemplating the mentality of tricks, who, again, should themselves mostly be regarded as objects, of interest only to the extent they bear on prostitutes’ purposes.
4. The question on unions is also posed in other fields. They’re about bargaining power, & many of sex workers’ concerns involve that – e.g., pay & working conditions, which vary widely & are, as everyone acknowledges, currently a problem – as in any other kind of work. Unions generally do fact in part as semi-surrogates for the police, deterring violations of criminal (& other) law by employers.
delphyne,
i see what you’re saying, but let me see if i can clarify my position a little.
i do think if i could magically reconstruct the world sans patriarchy, there could be a healthy sex industry. i think people of both genders would freely choose to sell sex for money. as long as we were free from sexism and gender discrimination, there are far fewer problems with this kind of objectification.
especially if we were patriarchy-free, if you _want_ to sell sex for money and can do it in a fair setting, then i totally respect you choice to do that with your body, man or woman. willing participation would imply no oppression as far as i can tell.
but i also think this world is a loooong way away, and that practically speaking, it’s not worth considering as part of the equation. i was only pointing out that i could conceive of a world where it’s a reasonable personal choice, but that world would have to be free of sexism and gender discrimination first.
as far as legalization goes, i am definitely not the expert. maybe i’m wrong that it can help. but i believe the prostitution industry will exist as long as we live in the dadgum patriarchy, so any rights or protections we can provide women who are involved are worth it.
i know there’ll always be a black market for sex, no matter how many laws we pass, and this is where the abuse will always be the worst. and there is no magic bullet to make it safe for everyone. but if we stop marginalizing the women participating, and especially if we stop criminalizing them, then that’s genuinely helpful to them, yes?
I agree that prostitutes need to stop being marginalised. I think that the stigma and marginalisation actually belongs to the johns and it should apply to them. The way sexual stigma operates at the moment is that the victim – the abused child, the rape victim or the prostitute who suffers greatly, whilst the perpetrator somehow manages to walk away without even any criticism.
There has been a lot of discussion regarding the Swedish model of decriminalising prostitutes and making pimping and paying for sex illegal and its success in combatting protitution compared to legalising it on these threads, perhaps you’d like to share your thoughts on that as it has been successful in the real world at actually the problems of prostitution.
Legalisation across the board hasn’t worked and prostitutes in countries where it has happened are as vulnerable as they were before. What legalisation does provide is social approval for men’s view that they have the right to purchase other people’s bodies for sex. The stigma on the prostitutes they use has not been lifted.
“especially if we were patriarchy-free, if you _want_ to sell sex for money and can do it in a fair setting, then i totally respect you choice to do that with your body, man or woman. willing participation would imply no oppression as far as i can tell.”
How is being told what to do with your body by the person with $50 in your body, “choosing” what to do with your body? It seems that the person with the money is making the choice – be it blow jobs, fisting, golden showers or whatever.
Would you work as a prostitute?
“How is being told what to do with your body by the person with $50 in your body, choosing” what to do with your body?”
Don’t know why it came out like that -
“How is being told what to do with your body by the person with $50 in their pocket, “choosing” what do do with your body?”
Gosh.
“defending the act of trading sex for money from being called into question by that ruffian R Mildred”
From being called in to question.
Right from sentence one, as marc so aptly pointed out to me, the framing of this entry was the thesis that several bloggers were intent on placing prostitution beyond all reproach. And that somehow, if we didn’t come around, RM was….something. Probably bad. i can’t even figure that part out.
Are the shit-stirring lines you use not even registering? Or are we all entitled to a throwaway line diss? I’ve done
I quoted this line in the first comment i left. It’s where my objection was, that we didn’t have a good starting point. And repeatedly, I stated that i had no interest in shutting discussion as a whole down, but that it was going to be an exercize in misreading and futility if we didn’t have a better basis.
Note your follow up post, marc. Note how frustating it is to have your position misstated, over, and over, and over again. Rinse, wash, repeat.
Call me when it’s over.
‘I don’t know, maybe they’re self-aware enough to at least think they can be friends in the circumscribed way office workers are friends with coworkers, or, more analgously, bosses, even though everyone knows they wouldn’t be there but for the pay.’
That’s a good analogy – interactions with strippers, peep show girls, prostitutes, etc can vary from “strictly business” (or even downright unpleasant) to very friendly transactions. And I know of cases where prostitutes have stuck around “off the clock” to lounge around and have post-coital cuddling and conversation. And even examples where strippers have ended up dating customers. That’s obviously very much the exception and I’m not saying its even terribly common, but it does show there are cases where a sex worker gets enough out of what she’s doing or who she’s doing it with that she’ll continue with it on her own time.
Re: the sweathshop analogy. Belledame has mentioned this once, but it bears repeating – the analogy between the anti-pornstitution movement and the anti-sweatshop movement would only hold true if the anti-sweatshop movement was trying to wipe out not just sweatshops, but the entire clothing and garment industry, and also was opposed to garment workers unions and wanted to criminalize the buying of clothes.
Come Out, You Closet Libertarians…
When pimpbots are outlawed, only outlaws will have pimpbots. If I were to poll my readership, I would imagine that a large percentage would be in favor of either the decriminalization (milder) or legalization (more radical) of certain types……
sly,
let’s look at the next sentences:
This debate generates passionate arguments on both sides, and whenever things get this heated, I think it’s important to dig around in our basic assumptions and see if we can at least find the core issue on which we disagree.
That’s what I want to do here. I hope that we can use the comments to continue exploring the building blocks of our respective positions so that we might better understand where we fundamentally disagree. Otherwise, this layered issue can and will create a lot of misunderstanding.
Even those I am discussing this with, those you are supposedly defending, don’t seem to see it your way. Sorry you can’t read past line one.
Marc,
‘ …then i totally respect you choice to do that with your body…’
But under current & foreseeable conditions, no. Hate the sin, love the sinner?
‘How is being told what to do with your body by the person with $50 in their pocket, “choosing” what do do with your body?’
Ask anybody whose labor is embodied. You can choose not to take the $50. The choice is free, forced, etc., under the same conditions for any choice. See the previous discussions.
‘… it’s important to dig around in our basic assumptions …’
And as you say, I think, one of your basic assumptions is that the choices of people who voluntarily do sex work are unworthy of respect. Although, at least declaratively, you love the sinner (a view that’s always in danger of devolving into crude patronization, as we know from the Christian exemplar). Other people, your co-thinker Mildred for example, express your same assumption more harshly. And one basic assumption of many sex workers is that they don’t respect people – intellectually, morally, personally – who announce that they don’t respect their choices. So we’re stuck with something more than a debate over policy. Regretably, mutual contempt. Somehow, I suspect this discussion has made it worse.
“Ask anybody whose labor is embodied. You can choose not to take the $50. The choice is free, forced, etc., under the same conditions for any choice. See the previous discussions.”
That’s rubbish, almost everybody who works will get up some days and not feel like going to work but do so anyway because if they don’t they won’t get paid.
Anyhow that’s beside the point – most work isn’t couched in grand terms of “choosing what to do with one’s body” which of course every feminist must get behind because who are we to tell a woman what to do with her body? It’s almost uniquely prostitution (and maybe surrogate motherhood) that seems to attract this defence for some reason even though it’s pretty clear that the only person in the transaction who is choosing what happens to the various bodies involved is the john. He decides what happens to his body and to hers by virtue of his economic power. The payment involved is to compensate the prostitute for explicitly not choosing what to do with her body.
And as you say, I think, one of your basic assumptions is that the choices of people who voluntarily do sex work are unworthy of respect.
If you insist on equating the questioning of an act’s implications on feminism with a total lack of respect, then we have vastly different definitions of respect.
I fully respect sex workers, I do not call them sinners, I do not IMPLY they are sinning. You keep trying to frame me that way, but it’s false. I argue for their rights and protections and de-marginalization.
I impose no moral judgment on their behavior. I only point out that the industry reinforces negative stereotypes, which is the fault of johns and their attitudes way more than ANY indictment of the women involved.
Why do I have to have no respect for prostitutes to point out that the industry, even if it were built fairly, wouldn’t do wonders for fighting sexism?Ah, I see you said “the choices of people who voluntarily do sex work” — I missed choices. Sorry for the misread.
I don’t fully endorse their choice, but I definitely don’t hate on it with words like sinning, sinner, immoral, or anything of the kind. I simply think the choice doesn’t do wonders for fighting sexism.
Regretably, mutual contempt.
And why do you have contempt for me again, KH? Just for making an assertion you said earlier you aren’t sure you disagree with? Or is it b/c you think I judge like a fundie when my language demonstrates nothing of the kind?
marc:
‘ …then i totally respect you choice to do that with your body…’
okay, I will admit, I took that the wrong way upon reading it…as in, it sounded as if you had no respect for a prostitutes choice now…I see that you clarified yourself further on down the line, but it is that sort of sentiment (the one where it is assumed NO ONE working in the field has the aility to choose, and to extrapolate, think clearly, that gets to me…it’s VERY degrading and dehumanizing and happens all too often with people who are “concerned”).
delphyne:
“I agree that prostitutes need to stop being marginalised”
Really? All of them? Or just the face of the 90%? If the answer is all of them, well, you need to work on it yourself. Sorry if that sounds rude, or mean, or whathave you, but you do a pretty good job of being dismissive/marginalizing to those who do not fit the image you have for prostitutes as a whole.
Also, there are other professions where people sell their bodies…models and professional athletes come to mind…no, they are not having sex, but they are definately putting their physical appearance, performance, and being on the line for money.
As for unions: fair pay, safe working conditions, health care, a legal and/or political voice.
“If you insist on equating the questioning of an act’s implications on feminism with a total lack of respect, then we have vastly different definitions of respect.
“I fully respect sex workers, I do not call them sinners, I do not IMPLY they are sinning. You keep trying to frame me that way, but it’s false. I argue for their rights and protections and de-marginalization.
“I impose no moral judgment on their behavior. I only point out that the industry reinforces negative stereotypes, which is the fault of johns and their attitudes way more than ANY indictment of the women involved.”
As you said, under some counterfactual & regretably probably far distant circumstances, you would ‘totally respect’ their choices. In this world, not so much. So you respect the person, but not her fundamental choices. The word ‘respect’ was yours, not mine. I didn’t, of course mean to imply you accept any theology of sin, or attribute sin to anyone. I suspect that’s clear to most readers. But there is this parallel with respecting the person but not respecting her choices. That was my point, not anything else. You may say that you don’t respect someone’s choices but that you also impose no moral judgment on her behavior, but many people will find the distinction oversubtle, casuistic or otherwise unpersuasive.
Again, the word ‘respect’ is yours. Surely, if you’re free to withhold respect for my choices, I’m free not to respect your views.
I don’t say that I personally have contempt for you specifically; I’ve several times made a point of praising you. Your comments have been free of the invective that others have used, which does merit contempt. Rather, it’s as I said; re-read my most recent comments. There’s much in the tone & substance of these discussions that confirms sex workers in the view that these people just aren’t their friends. If you can’t understand why a person of normal intelligence might rationally draw that conclusion, then I’m afraid I don’t have time to explain it to you. (I have a bus to catch.) I do, however, encourage you to consider why it’s the case.
‘That’s rubbish, almost everybody who works will get up some days & not feel like going to work but do so anyway because if they don’t they won’t get paid.’
Yes, the analogy between prostitution & other work holds. And in this sense very very few people ever ‘choose’ to work, or rather, would have chosen to work, but for the money. We’ve been over these distinctions before.
‘…the only person in the transaction who is choosing what happens to the various bodies involved is the john.’
Again, in precisely the sense that your employer is the one who chooses that your body isn’t on the beach today. Distinctions based on choice don’t support a special critique of consensual prostitution. (Carole Pateman, who at least has the virtue of consistency, is driven to reject the entire system of paid labor. Which is fine, as soon as we get a few bugs worked out.) In the sense that any worker can quit, choose another job, etc., she chooses. In the sense that employers, in return for money, are granted choice, he does. Same for all work.
Again, other arguments are available. I don’t know why we keep coming back to this one. (And I’m the one criticized for harping on choice.)
As you said, under some counterfactual & regretably probably far distant circumstances, you would ‘totally respect’ their choices. In this world, not so much.
Just because I said I would respect the choice made in those far-distant worlds doesn’t mean I don’t respect it now. You are putting words in my mouth.
In the status quo, if we’re talking about women who engage in sex work under duress, I don’t think that counts as a ‘choice.’ It’s not really something to evaluate in terms of ‘respect,’ would you agree?
As for women who make fairer and freer choices to participate in a safer environment, those choices are possibly aiding the spread of sexism, it’s true. And I would argue that this should significantly influence the decision.
Is that a lack of respect?
So you didn’t really mean that whole conditional sentence construction. Okay.
Not all women are under duress. It’s the ones who do make a choice whose conduct is subject to evaluation. They voluntarily aid the spread of morally reprehensive things. But you view their complicity more in sorrow than in anger? Sorry, this bloated parasitic whore’s not entirely convinced.
Thanks, though. Gotta run.