Exploring assumptions about prostitution
Published by punkass marc August 19th, 2006 in Feminism, SexBitch|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
8) 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.
Well, here:
I think sweatshops are a huge problem. I think there are way more miserable abused sweatshop workers than there are say happy independent fashion designers. But that doesn’t mean that I think that the “clothing industry” and/or the practice of making garments for money is inherently the/a problem.
But what’s been happening here is that sex work keeps getting talked about as though it were the -sex- that’s the problem. Yeah, it really does. No doubt due to those same pesky patriarchal assumptions we’re all been steeped in (which include sex-negative crap), the real concerns for the abuse of women (and men, yes) at the hands of exploitive, brutal men -and- concerns from an anti-capitalistic POV (both totalyl legit in my view) get all entangled with everyone’s–and I do mean everyone’s–personal stuff about sex. Possibly inevitably. But at least for a start it might be good to be upfront about it.
>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…>
There is nothing here that I don’t agree with. There is nothing here that I -think- any of the others arguing the..non-anti…POV in there would disagree with; although of course they can and hopefully will speak for themselves.
I realize you don’t want to conflate the RM stuff with the actual argument, but since you do bring it up here: I rather think KH’s main problem is with the invective that RM hurled at her. and while I see that RM is basically arguing more or less the same line you are here from a practical POV (well, we can talk about decrim vs. legalization I suppose; personally I can see that legalisation with attendant regulations has brought its own host of problems in such places as Amsterdam and Vegas), I can understand why KH, RE and maybe others don’t really want to go kumbaya about it, or even just let it go to rationally/dispassionately discuss these matters with RM herself, at least.
as for the ‘wads on the Dexterhorn site: I personally would be more than happy to send Hothead Paisan their way.
the “international travel” bit gets even more complicated (well, saying these guys are misogynist ‘wads and should be eviscerated is fairly straightforward), because now you have racism and neo-colonialism in the mix as well.
I wish I could find that website of johns discussing picking up streetwalkers on S. Congress. That website single-handedly remade my assumptions about the issue, which I thought was all about prostitutes’ agency and blah blah blah. Make no mistake; these men didn’t think of the whores as free agents providing labor. I think you’re right that they viewed them as subhuman commodities. The one post I read that made me burst into tears was a man describing how “hot” it made him to a) slap a woman with his cock b) refuse to use a condom and most importantly c) give her only half the money that he owed her ($5 instead of $10) afterwards, cackling about how he’d got one over on her. I wanted to rip his balls right off his body.
Johns are the big “if” in the whole situation. Most labor transactions are about the person wanting the labor, but for the majority of johns, the opportunity to hurt women is what they are “buying”, if they bother to pay at all. So what are we discussing when we say that we want to legalize buying sex? Everyone imagines some sad, hapless man who can’t purchase a woman’s sexual “labor” in some other way, but the truth is that in most modern relations between men and women, we’ve abandoned the idea that in sex, women are selling and men are buying. A wedding isn’t supposed to be a gaudy purchase of a woman’s virginity anymore. Dating isn’t about “I buy dinner; you suck my cock.” Framing prostitution as sexual labor offends a lot of women because it implies that all sexual encounters with men are prostitution on one level or another.
Anyway, I digress. I think that the majority of prostitution has nothing to do with sexual satisfaction, it’s about men getting a sadistic kick out of hurting and abusing women. As such, it’s not the same as other labor; even if a boss is a sadist at the typing pool, he still primarily needs the typing. Labor laws designed to rein in his sadism will be effective, because he will have to do it in order to get the typing. But labor laws protecting prostitutes are ineffective if what is being purchased is that sadism. The majority of johns do not want a respectful sexual transaction. And so no matter how legal said respectful sexual transactions are, they will still be drawn to the sore-covered streetwalkers because what they want is to abuse women.
That said, I have no problem with making it legal to be a prostitute who sells said respectful sexual transactions. But let’s quit pretending that call girls and streetwalkers are selling the same thing; the former is indeed selling sex and the latter is a slave to male sadism.
anyway, I guess…well, there are no simple solutions here, obviously.
but the misogynist ‘wads are no doubt vile misogynist ‘wads in every other area of their life as well.
and there are untold misogynist ‘wads who wouldn’t dream of going to a prostitute.
decriminalizing prostitution won’t in and of itself get rid of vile misogyny, no. or of institutionalized injustice. it’d be insane to suggest that this was so.
and yes, I know that the abolitionists here have been advocating the Swedish model. which, I suppose it’s an improvement over criminalizing the actual prostitutes; but, I’m…really skeptical.
mostly I think: look, if you (general you; lord knows no one here started this milennia-old business) keep emphasizing how filthy and degraded and sordid it INEVITABLY is to use your eroticism to make a living, what’s gonna happen is that the people who -also believe- that it’s filthy and sordid, if and when they go to prostitutes–and they do, and will–are gonna take it out on the prostitutes. world without end.
…so (sorry, I know I’m the multiple-post queen), one of my arguments for decrim is that at least removing the red-letter stigma might be somewhat of a help.
and I’m sorry, but the way the abolitionists talk, or many of them, I just see it as reinforcing the “dirty whore” stereotype.
>but the truth is that in most modern relations between men and women, we’ve abandoned the idea that in sex, women are selling and men are buying.>
Have we? Really? I don’t see that at all, honestly. it went a tiny ways underground is all, I think.
but go pick up a copy of “The Rules” or any one of the revolting “pick-up artist” manuals; it looks like a lot of people are still assuming it’s all pretty damn transactional to me.
>But let’s quit pretending that call girls and streetwalkers are selling the same thing; the former is indeed selling sex and the latter is a slave to male sadism. >
Um, admittedly not my area of expertise; but are we sure about this, categorically?
“pretending that call girls and streetwalkers are selling the same thing; the former is indeed selling sex and the latter is a slave to male sadism.”
I’m not pretending. I’ve been both and in both roles it was male sadism and the performance of sex. It was never sex.
A man films the prostitution going on his in neighborhood Personally, while I don’t think prostitutes themselves are dirty or less than, I feel that we have to acknowledge that often they are in dangerous situations.
In the developing world, many women are getting AIDs because they are being offered more money to go raw, not to mention the problem of men buying the sexual labor of underage girls, even children. In the US, there is still risk- the risk of getting infections, the risk of being injured by a john,etc. Not to mention, instead of trying to connect them to social services, many are arrested and not given the support they need.
But, ANIMEG!!!111eleven1!!, they love those conditions. And who am I to question them?
“from being called into question”
Aarrrrgghhh.
How can we even talk about this when it’s strawpeople all the way down? Do you realize that this isn’t what’s being dicussed by those authors? Do you care that that is not the postition being advocated? What’s going on here that this kind of persistant misrepresentation, oversimplication, and substitution constitute the discourse?
“But let’s quit pretending that call girls and streetwalkers are selling the same thing; the former is indeed selling sex and the latter is a slave to male sadism.”
“Male sadism” is why there’s 1 unionized sex worker in legal Germany for every 4000 non-unionized sex worker, and also why pimps and traffickers make millions of victims annually restocking supply of female bodies. These people joke about a girl’s shelf life because they know prostitutes age prematurely and either commit suicide or get killed far more frequently than other females.
“And so no matter how legal said respectful sexual transactions are, they will still be drawn to the sore-covered streetwalkers because what they want is to abuse women.”
Similar to the male sadism that puts the age of entry into prostitution in the early teens, so too do prostitute-using men mainly get their thrills out of feeling they’ve defiled something beautiful. This theme rules over the pornography industry, as is evident from pornography advertising. Sore-covered streetwalkers don’t fit that common bill of men getting off on the feeling of having ruined something that used to be worth something, they’re mostly for low-income men and middle class & upper class men who like “slumming it”.
I learned some time ago that the average income of the average Playboy subscriber is $32,000 and the average income of the average Hustler subscriber is $32,000. There’s the intentionally misleading perception that the sources of male demand for the two magazines are different but the only difference is some middle class men fantasize they’re classy & cultured Playboys and some imagine themselves bad boy Hustlers gettin’ some gritty titty.
That the past few years have seen men’s demand for Hustler-style gonzo hardcore pornography whiz past men’s demand for Playboy-style pornography is absolutely related to the recent explosion of the sex industry and sex trafficking all over the world. As a pornographer said to Martin Amis in this very triggering, very disturbing Guardian article, “Pussies are bullshit”.
Amanda, you wrote three great paragraphs focusing on men’s demand where I nodded in agreement with every point, yet at the end you pulled the teensy supply of happy hookers out of left field to justify encoding into law men’s right to sex on demand. If there is no way of justifying prostitution based on the overwhelming force that is male demand, then it hardly seems fair to base public policy on the potentially 1 out of 1000s of prostitutes who might not be abused more than the average woman is abused, which is an incredibly low bar to set when judging what constitutes male oppression of women, in my opinion.
See that video doesn’t help. By focusing on how it’s the “dirty sex” thing, he’s participating in the dehumanization of the prostitute.
belledame222,
It doesn’t have to be categorical. That’s unprovable. It just has to be generally true, per my first set of assumptions.
sly civilian,
way to go like 1 sentence in. i think i give the opposition’s argmuents very fair treatment as i am hardly on the warpath. my entire post is a statement of my assumptions and a request to hear which of those are in dispute from those on the other side because i want to learn more about where we disagree. how does that mean i am arguing with some kind of strawperson?
Sly, by using the strawman claim to shut down the discussion, you actually disproved your own point that people trying to shut down the discussion are strawmen.
my head hurts.
but he’s right in that the argument is not in fact that the majority of sex workers luuurrrrve their work. in fact, I personally agree with everything pm said in the opening post, pretty much–
–oh, wait, I actually already said that, didn’t I. huh.
Law & policy with respect to prostitution should be judged solely on the basis of their effects on the welfare of the women who engage in it, as they themselves evaluate it.
I begin from there. I’m aware of community concerns about the external (3rd-party) effects of prostitution, in particular the fear that prostitution reinforces patriarchal ideas that hurt non-prostitute women. Forms of this argument have been prominent in anti-prostitution campaigns for well over a century. I don’t know how much, as an empirical matter, prostitution currently contributes to the survival of sexist attitudes, & I don’t know how much, as an empirical matter, it would contribute under any of the proposed alternative policy regimes. I suspect it’s a less important contributor to sexism than some people think, but don’t dismiss the concern & am open to ideas about how we might concert a reasonable estimate. As it is, each of us has to decide her views in the face of some irreducible uncertainty about the question.
What isn’t uncertain is that many prostitutes currently endure bad conditions. I think we all know this. The diversity of prostitutes’ experience, even the number of prostitutes, is ill-understood, but for some large number of them, especially but not only street hookers, prostitution is just a bad part of a bad life, & exists together with a bundle of other profound problems. Amanda is right to cry. All of them, even the most ‘privileged,’ whose lives may otherwise be much like yours, are widely viewed, even among feminists, with a distasteful, wearying mix of contempt & pity. And all of them live under the constant threat of arrest. This isn’t a trivial concern: arrest & its sequelae can become routine for some women, but for others it has terrible consequences. (My views here are strongly colored by the suicide some yrs ago of my closest friend, attributable largely to legal problems stemming from an arrest.) And current law creates a climate of impunity. All prostitutes equally are beyond the protection of the law; pimps, would-be pimps, tricks, street thugs, psychopaths, lovers, other hookers, anyone can do whatever they want without fear. The most important ‘message’ current law sends the wider culture is that these women have no rights that anyone is bound to respect.
If the objective of reducing the effects of prostitution on men’s attitudes toward non-prostitute women conflicts with the objective of increasing prostitutes’ wellbeing, the latter should have priority. Any reduction in the incidence of patriarchal attitudes toward non-prostitute women that results from improvements in prostitutes’ welfare is good. But any reduction in the incidence of patriarchal attitudes toward non-prostitute women that’s purchased at the slightest cost to hookers’ welfare is bad, not worth a single hair on a single hooker’s head. It’s bad that non-prostitute women are harmed by the prevalence of patriarchal ideas, but the culture shouldn’t be reformed on the backs of this most despised & abused class of women.
This criterion is a pragmatic rule of thumb & isn’t meant to repudiate universal values. Any policy that seeks to mitigate sexism at hookers’ expense unjustly treats them as merely means, violates rights that must be respected even at cost to other important social goals. More, the harms prostitutes currently suffer & the gravity of the injustice inflicted on them are so large, I think, relative to any reduction in ambient sexism that might be purchased at cost to their welfare, that my criterion is, at least for now, in this world, consistent with liberal universalist values. No one need apologize for putting these women’s welfare first, for a change. Anyone who puts any other value first should be prepared to say how much further harm he expects & is willing to impose on prostitutes to achieve his aims.
Not everyone shares my priorities. And it’s another question, if we do accept that policy toward prostitution should maximize prostitutes’ wellbeing, what policy does that. Few people here will defend current law & policy. The discussion has centered on two alternatives, some sort of decriminalization or legalization, & something like the 1999 Swedish law, which retains criminal sanctions against only tricks. For reasons I’ve described elsewhere, I favor the former. I could, of course, be wrong.
First: While I am fundamentally opposed to prostitution as an industry, this does not necessarily imply that I’m in favor of full criminalization (I’m opposed), the Sweedish model (I’m open to empirical evidence on either side on the combination of legalizing the selling of sex, criminalizing the buying, and setting up programs to help women out of prostitution), or legalization (the empirical evidence I’ve seen so far has been fairly damning against it). I’m not entirely convinced on what the right short term strategy w.r.t prostitution is, though I am fairly certain that the best long term strategy is to eliminate patriarchy.
With that out of the way:
What is, to me, ultimately most troubling about prostitution is that it remains as a vestige of classical patriarchy carried into modern times almost unchanged. In classical patriarchy (basically most of known history before the 1900) women were compelled to alienate their bodies to men in return for a subsistence, primarily through chattel marriage or prostitution, and were by and large barred from realizing a subsistence outside of those structures.
While feminism has managed to achieve significant changes in the structure of marriage, prostitution remains fundamentally unaltered in that it remains women exchanging their bodies to men for a subsistence (before anyone bothers, I realize their are exceptions but they are vanishingly small in proportion to the whole).
Secondly, I’m strongly inclined to argue that in as much as prostitution consists of women being paid by men to realize men’s sexual desires (irrespective of their own sexual desires as they are being employed, not courted) prostitution is an institution of the sexual objectification of women, a central pillar of patriarchy.
Twixt these is a thought that occurred to me recently that one could say that prostitution posits subsistence as an equivalent and substitute for consent on the basis of sexual desire.
Also problematic is that prostitution remains the default means of last resort for women to realize a subsistence. What I mean by this that, while there are women who choose to become prostitutes and who do not choose it as a last resort, it remains the option of last resort for all women including those who would not otherwise choose it.
Of course, my perspective on this is heavily shaped by more fundamental questions of how I look at gender oppression, patriarchy, etc.
Well and you also factor in that there is a not insignificant number of male prostitutes (by far catering to other men, yes). you can chalk this up to patriarchy as well, of course; but its existence does alter the dynamic everyone’s been assuming here, I think.
Here’s maybe another way at going at this, okay:
let’s say we take for granted that pretty much everyone here agrees that for many if not the majority of prostitutes, it’s a last resort and exploitive at best, highly dangerous and maybe actively coerced at worst.
So the disagreement seems to be about what the best way of remedying this is.
But as far as assumptions go, PM, I think, you’re right to frame it that way; because before we even get to solutions (and let’s face it: as far as I know anyway, no one here is a policy expert)–yeah, I think some of us are coming from rather widely different assumptions than some others of us. maybe no one who’s posted in this thread so far, but–well, anyway:
first of all: there is the question of -why- the situation is as it is. People keep throwing around the word “patriarchy,” but does that even mean the same thing to everyone who’s using it? I mean: how exactly do you define “patriarchy,” and how do you imagine it came about, and what is the way in which it’s most heavily enforced?
Because if your answer is “through the physical act of rape,” then that’s probably going to color the way you approach this whole thing. If you think that the male–>female power dynamic is the -primary- oppression, and that the way in which it’s enforced is -primarily- sexual, then it makes perfect sense to not only want to put an end to any and all “pornstitution,” period full stop, but to make this one’s primary goal, or one of them.
If one -doesn’t- have that assumption, well, that too would color the way one looks at this.
belledame,
That is actually a really good point. I sort of touched on something similar; that different people bring vastly different approaches to the table when looking at this issue, and that one’s basic approach to gender inequality heavily shapes how and what one seen when looking at prostitution.
It doesn’t directly touch on prostitution or even gender, but I think Bitch | Lab’s latest post is sort of tapping into something parallel, here:
http://blog.pulpculture.org/
Completely rejecting white identity as having utterly nothing useful or interesting or good or artistic or redeeming, seems a lot like psychic splitting: realizing that there’s a bad part of you, one we all have, but feeling as if that badness will so defile you that you can not, ultimately, allow yourself to be cognizant of it. To protect yourself from the threat, you project it elsewhere. In the words of the great philosophers, Imperial Teen, “I have a can of shit / Can you open it.”
The result is narcissism: you are the world and the world is you. There are two kinds. One, you seek to dominate the world and see everything as a reflection of your idealized image of yourself and anything that suggested you’re not so great as the denigrated Other. A second kind is someone who simply shifts his or her personality to meld into whatever is around them — a blade of grass blown with always changing winds.
Belledame would bring in the language of boundaries — the inability to see where your self ends and the self of others begin.
The interesting thing is, Habermas’s interventions into epistemology were often developed around Germany’s debate over how to deal with the Holocaust.
– There were those who wanted to claim that the Holocaust came about b/c there was something distinctively wretched about everything in German history. It was the culmination of an essentially rotten culture. (Overstating the case here, but you get my drift)
– There were others who wanted to focus primarily on the greatness of German civilization, insisting that the Holocaust was an unfortunate aberration having little to do with German history and everything to do with pathological leaders.
– Others pointed out that you had to see Germany as both and history as both. Culture doesn’t operate in some vacuum, working behind our backs and behind history. Culture, rather, is shaped by a political economy and culture shapes political economy. In order for culture to operate, it must operate through people. It’s not this reified thing, floating out there.
Habermas’s position was similar to that of my mentors as well: one of was a survivor who’d fled Germany as a boy, the other fought the fascists as a student They were among the first to be put in the labor camps because the first to be sent to the camps were unionists, socialist, communists. They were sent there along with any other body considered a threat to the social order: the insane, the epileptic, the gypsy, the disabled, the criminal.
Germany’s Holocaust became, however, simply the most notorious example of what was happening in Western nations more generally. It’s tragic notoriety actually contributed to the tendency to forget that similar things were taking place everywhere else. Germany has come to be seen as emblematic of the most virulent, pathologized form of whiteness, something Jennifer’s also described here: the use of her supposedly virulent African Whiteness to be the scapegoat. We had a very decent-sized population of German immigrants in my home town, people who fled after WWII. They were occasionally treated the way Jennifer describes her treatment in Australia. Plus, the focus on the Holocaust also means that little is taught about Hitler’s and other’s attitudes toward the Poles and Russians, which people less than human in his view.
The point of a healthy psychic life is to deal with that splitting by reintegrating the good and bad. Larry Hirschorn says that we can manage the psychic threats to our sense of self worth when we are able to work through the process — which provokes anxiety in all of us — by creating art, making things, and coming to see them as gifts we give to our self and others. Hirschorn also thinks that work in a complex interdependent society can come to be seen as a gift, something one invests one sense of self in — even, he thinks, in a world where you do fairly mundane things.
****
My own problem with the abolitionists, at least as I’ve been reading them, is that it does in fact read like it’s more about putting all the “badness” onto…well, yes, men. or at least certain men; or aspects of…what? male sexuality? male aggression? masculine training? what?
You know, maybe another way to put PM’s original question here is this:
Is it possible to blame the patriarchy and not dehumanize men?
or, for that matter, women?
can you dehumanize the “other” without dehumanizing yourself?
how exactly do you define “patriarchy,” and how do you imagine it came about, and what is the way in which it’s most heavily enforced?
Homosocial bonding of men combined with gender segregation actually, rape is just the really obvious and nasty result of that, it’s a product of the rape culture that arises out of the patriarchy’s basic assumption that women are not people compared to men, and more than that, that women are also dangerous (or men are not dangerous enough in comparison) and need to be controlled in whatever way is neccesary.
Patriarchy controls men, to control women, it’s why the whole “men have no interest in ending patriarchy” business makes no sense, they’ll never be free as long as patirarchy is there, feminism offers them freedom from oppression that just happens to give them someone they get to oppress even more than they themselves are oppressed by other men.
Of course the number of bush voters makes me wonder if freedom is a big enough prize to offer people, it just doesn’t seem to motivate people that well.
Mildred, everything else is good, but ‘homosocial bonding of men combined w/ gender segregation’ underspecifies it. Not all homosocially bonded gender-segregated groups are equally pernicious. There’s something more.
Punkass Marc (& crew)
I just got home from work. I am tired, so, I am not going to say a whole lot here and now, but a few things…
1: One must realize there is a huge difference between the conditions, financial standings, potential danger and abuse and potential for criminal prosecution faced by street prostitutes and “other women in the sex business” (higher end escorts, porn performers, ect.)
2: No one in the previous debate ever insisted most street prostitutes were in the business by choice or liked it.
3. Sex work in and of itself may not be empowering, but a woman’s right of choice, especially in what she can do with her body, is perhaps the most basic form of empowerment there is.
4. Not only will prostitution exist so long as people are willing to buy sex, but as long as people are willing to sell it, which I reckon will be until the end of humanities stay on planet earth.
And you say: “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.” You use this theory on prostitution as well. However, I have seen ALL too well just how willing people are to see sex workers as “less than”, even while claiming to defend, champion, whatever “the poor, deluded whores”. That in and of itself, that superiority, makes me far more likely to want to slap someone than try (generally in vain) to reason with them.
You make many more excellent points/topics for discussion here…I will be back after some sleep.
right.
that and: I think it’s important to be specific about which patriarchy exactly we’re talking about.
I mean I’ve no doubt that there’s a “rule of the fathers” in many if not all non-”Western”-cultures, but personally I’m most familiar with contemporary U.S. assumptions (and coming from a particular demographic, at that, but): “Judeo-Christian,” specifically Calvinist, with a strong Victorian hangover in particular.
Hullo Lorenzo,
On historical context. Trivial semantic points: ‘subsistence’ isn’t always a synonym for ‘income;’ more often, most people’s, & most prostitutes’, income is usually said to be above subsistence level. (This is a holdover from Ricardo.) Prostitutes work for income, but may not be forced to choose between prostitution & starvation. All labor, even mental labor, is embodied, & in that sense all labor markets trade in bodies. No contemporary worker, however, including prostitutes, ‘alienates’ her body; she sells fixed quanta of embodied services. The terminology obscures the difference between slavery & wage labor. Do historical changes in workers’, including prostitutes’, property rights in their own persons affect your argument? Which properties does all contemporary prostitution, described at the level of an individual transaction, share with all the many varieties of pre-1900 prostitution? In what sense are contemporary women compelled to trade sex for survival in the same way that, arguendo, they were before 1900? Is the chattel marriage or prostitute dichotomy really exhaustive? (The demographics varied over the millennia; there were, of course, male & female religious celibates.) How, if at all, does your account of the history of prostitution bear on the choice between the Swedish model & decriminalization?
There’s this by Laurie Shrage in “Feminist Perspectives on Sex Markets”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004)
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2004/entries/feminist-sex-markets/:
‘I criticize these origin stories for their assumption that prostitution is a single, culturally familiar social practice, which can be traced to a single …[Gerda] Lerner’s account … assumes that patriarchy shaped commercial prostitution in all contexts in similar ways … By trying to explain contemporary prostitution & trafficking in persons in terms of earlier historical & cultural developments, these accounts [of Gerda Lerner & Gayle Rubin] overlook important differences in sex commerce in different cultural & historical contexts. For example, commercial sex providers have not always been regarded as ineligible for marriage & have, in some places, been integrated into their communities to a high degree (Shrage 1994, 109, 115; White 1990, 19; Rossiaud 1988, 70). I conclude that feminist analyses of prostitution should attempt to understand the variety & distinctness of different economic & cultural practices that are often lumped together as “prostitution”.’
Our earlier discussions of objectification were interrupted. Nussbaum identifies 7 kinds, not all of equal moral significance. Which do you have in mind? Why is sexual objectification worse than other objectification? Is objectification inherently a part of sex? Does objectification really describe inherent features of commercial sex? Aren’t there elements of intersubjective recognition in many of them. Does the master/slave dialectic actually empirically get stuck at the 1st moment, as in Beauvoir? Aren’t some of the most repulsive forms of sexual behavior usually considered under the rubric of objectification actually something other, dependent in the abuser’s mind on the victims subjecthood? Is there any reason why a prostitute shouldn’t deal with an objectifying trick if it’s in her interests? Unpopular minorities often depend on market transactions for their survival. (Chinese in SE Asia, European Jewry, etc.) They may know their clients don’t see them as fully human subjects, but nevertheless pursue their interests by dealing with them. How should sexual objectification figure in the evaluation of public policy toward prostitution? Toward other sexual encounters?
‘Twixt these is a thought that occurred to me recently that one could say that prostitution posits subsistence as an equivalent & substitute for consent on the basis of sexual desire.’
Yes, in prostitution money, not sexual desire, is the reason for consent.
‘Also problematic is that prostitution remains the default means of last resort for women to realize a subsistence.’
Trivial point: given the endemic confusion about coercion & consent around here, it may be best to avoid figurative talk about last resorts & just say the literal thing: many women continue to choose prostitution only because it’s the best resort among a terrible lot. ‘Last resort’ mostly just expresses a sense that (for some person) it’s as low as you can go. I may say it’s the last thing I’d ever do. This just describes its place in my preference ordering: it’s my least preferred thing. But is it really? It’s easy to imagine many resorts that might be even less preferred. Things almost always can get worse, worse even than prostitution. And is it always available when, allegedly, nothing else is? It’s not clear how it could cease to be a resort; almost anybody can try to be a prostitute. But not every effort need succeed. So neither last nor always a resort. Just bad.
Yes, in prostitution money, not sexual desire, is the reason for consent.
Technically, in a huge percentage, if not majority of cases, the best way to phrase this is that “money, not sexual desire, is the reason women are forced to have sex against their will.” In the cases above that Marc links to, these women are generally sexual slaves and not permitted to deny a sexual encounter.
I think what’s getting ignored in these distracting arguments about women and consent is that prostitution is generally based on the assumption that women’s consent is irrelevant. It’s a transaction between a pimp and a john; in other words, it’s men trading women’s bodies. The women themselves are commodities and their consent or non-consent is irrelevent, except to the johns who often get aroused by the opportunity to rape someone.
Hi all,
Very cool discussion. Thank you for sharing your assumptions so far.
KH,
The key for me is that we can both work towards making life better for sex workers while still questioning whether women help or hurt the larger causes of feminism by choosing this work. And that’s why the attitudes of the men participating and their implications are critical to the discussion.
You seem unconvinced, and that’s fine, 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.
Belledame,
You say:
let’s say we take for granted that pretty much everyone here agrees that for many if not the majority of prostitutes, it’s a last resort and exploitive at best, highly dangerous and maybe actively coerced at worst.
So the disagreement seems to be about what the best way of remedying this is.
And again, for me, that’s a critical issue. But it’s not the only issue. Even if the industry becomes legal and much safer, I would still argue that women who choose to be prostitutes hinder feminism’s objectives because their work reinforces the ideas behind sexism and gender discrimination.
Another sweatshop comparison.
It angers me when people say that sweatshops should be tolerated because they’re the “least bad” job teen Indonesian girls can do to keep themselves alive. For thousands of years before a man named Phil Knight started Nike in 1971, people not only lived but thrived in Indonesia. Many Indonesian islands lack a Nike factory and they have not had lives being extinguished due to the lack of Phill Knight’s “investment” in them. The hardship and deaths faced by women on islands such as East Timor are caused by war-making wealthy men using man-made weapons of destruction bought mostly from Phil Knight’s homeland, the wealthiest nation on the planet.
It’s the classic patriarchal racket, some Bad Cop men bring deadly destruction and then some Good Cop other men act as saviors by offering a “least bad” alternative that just happens to benefit him enormously. Some Bad men rape and then Good men can righteously tell women to not go outside, drink alcohol, or live the normal life Good men unquestionably assume for themselves. Some Bad men blow the shit out of Third World countries like Korea, Saipan and the Philippines and some Good men offer the survivor’s girl children the chance to live most of their shortened, pain-filled lives either in their sweatshops (90% female-heavy) or their rape rooms (more than 90% female-heavy).
Brothels, like sweatshops, are man-made. Women live and thrive in places where there are no brothels just like women always have because that’s what we humans do, survive. Men the world over have managed to prosper without millions of them being put into brothels, but for some reason some people can only see these women’s path to power through sexual submission to men. People say we have to let women become strippers or else they can’t afford college without asking how it is that men have managed to pay for college without becoming strippers all these many years.
The whole thing reminds me of school-critic Jonathan Kozol decrying white students encouraged to become doctors, lawyers and professors while black students are pushed into vocational classes to become car mechanics, hair stylists and call-center phone operators. Many famous studies have shown that most students will rise to the level of expectation teachers put on them, including a notorious one where students who tested “gifted” students and students who tested “challenged” had their records switched to eye-opening results. Because being a prostitute is seen as the best that can be expected of the world’s darkskinned women made poor and homeless by wealthier lightskinned men, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy that makes Good men out of those who offer to “help” poor, non-white women be the most successful whores they can be.
But sweatshops are a particular kind of institution. It is possible to make -clothing- outside of the sweatshop context.
Do you honestly not see any difference between defending the profession per se and the institution? Do you think a self-employed fashion designer is in the same position as a person working in a sweatshop? Is it useful to lump them into the same category when talking about how to get rid of sweatshops?
This is why people bring up the comparison. Not because people are invested in keeping -sweatshops- going. Or brothels.
> I would still argue that women who choose to be prostitutes hinder feminism’s objectives because their work reinforces the ideas behind sexism and gender discrimination.>
O.K. And the men who are sex workers? Are they actively subverting the patriarchy, or are they just too weird to even consider?
Are women who work in beauty parlors hindering feminism’s objectives? I just went to get my hair cut from a woman who used to be a forester and then a cement truck driver. She switched to doing hair because she wanted to do something more “creative.” Is this wrong? Should she have stuck with the forestry even though it paid a hell of a lot less and she had no insurance and it was hurting her back?
I’m really not interested in pointing fingers at individual people for “hindering feminism’s objectives,” unless they’re say Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schlafly.
Further, I’m not at all convinced that -chosen- sex work is at all opposed to “feminism.” For some people (Carol Queen, say) it’s a way of exploring their own sexuality, yes. Not many, but the fact that it happens at all is, I think, worth considering. Others see it as a part of the healing professions; akin to counselling and/or bodywork. Which I know that it can be, erotic work at least.
Finally, yeah, I just got off another conversation where women were talking about doing it once in a while to keep the lights on; and if that wasn’t feminist then by god they aren’t feminists.
iow, they’re not gonna stop what they need to do to survive before they dump the label that others are insisting has certain parameters.
this to me is useful to absolutely no one.
It is possible to make -clothing- outside of the sweatshop context.
Most sex happens outside an economic context, though not more according to women’s desires than men’s. The analogy to prostitution wouldn’t be made with a fashion designer, it’s a person who makes clothes they give away for free. That’s the difference between sex and prostitution, money and how it changes everything.
‘ …women who choose to be prostitutes hinder feminism’s objectives …’
What’s our concern here? I say prostitutes’ wellbeing should have priority, that no one, middle class matron, feminist activist, nobody at all, has any right to put his objectives ahead of prostitutes’ welfare. It’s really rather grotesque to begin by noting the abjection of that girl on S. Congress & end by worrying whether she’s an obstacle to someone else’s political project.
And is there any actual empirical evidence that prostitutes, by the way feed themselves, adventitiously just happen to be a greater hindrance to non-prostitute women’s interests than any of a vast number of possible impediments?
Amanda,
‘… “money, not sexual desire, is the reason women are forced to have sex against their will.” In the cases above that Marc links to, these women are generally sexual slaves & not permitted to deny a sexual encounter.’
You’re aware of the long discussions of the difference between consensual & nonconsensual prostitution at your blog, Bitch|Lab, & other places that don’t come to mind. There’s this recent iteration:
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/08/18/kh-on-freedom-and-coercion/
Some people are prostitutes only under force or coercive threat. There’s little dispute about what should be done in those cases. Some women choose prostitution only because they lack any morally acceptable alternatives. (There’s disagreement over what the criterion of minimal acceptability should be, but assume here it’s high.) Some abolitionists, dissatisfied with the outcome of the 1980s-era feminist debates over a whole range of sexual issues (incl. porn, sex work), see the trafficking as a way to win a more favorable settlement on all these fronts; & they argue, against evidence, that these first 2 categories jointly are exhaustive. They aren’t. Many, many prostitutes could live at an at least a decent level if they chose some other course. This is a problem for abolitionists, who deny or seek to obscure the difference between really consensual prostitution & prostitution that’s coerced or chosen only for lack of any decent alternative. Some women who’ve freely chosen sex work have spoken during this floating discussion, albeit not to universal applause. They’re far from a tiny minority.
Your sentence, ‘money, not sexual desire, is the reason women are forced to have sex against their will,’ is false as a general description. For the many women who don’t choose to be prostitutes only under threat or only because they have no minimally morally acceptable alternative to it, it’s false to say they have sex against their will. It’s no insult to any other prostitute to acknowledge this fact, & pretending otherwise threatens the wellbeing of many women.
You give the impression of someone in shock, who’s just seen a horror she didn’t imagine existed. It’s good that you know now; it’s always been there, on S. Congress & elsewhere. But that first shock is only the beginning of wisdom. Earlier somewhere, I told my abolitionist interlocutors to go spend some time with street hookers in their town. Maybe it came off as idle chatter, a stupid taunt, but I meant it. Forgive me, I don’t know the details of your life, but if you’re still in Austin & you care about this, one good cry isn’t enough. Go talk to some of these women on South Congress. Wherever you live, they do too. If the tricks can find them, you can too. I’ve been around them for years & I’ve seen what you’ve seen and more. I’ve fed & sheltered them, gotten them out of jail, tried to get them in rehab, to get them any help at all, been back to square one when they bolted from rehab, tried & failed to talk them into something smart or out of something stupid, I’ve taken care their children, I’ve tried to track down any living relative, I’ve flushed their drugs & broken their crack pipe, I’ve left their drugs where I found them, I’ve taken them to the hospital when they got raped or came down with frank AIDS, I’ve gotten punched in the face trying to pry them away from some teenage thug, I’ve thought this shit is finally going to get me killed, I’ve had them walk away with my valuables, listened to them bawl about how really really sorry they were, I’ve lied to tricks they rolled, I paid for one funeral& attended others. This matters to me. And I’ve also known hookers who never went near the street, and – Pony’s experience notwithstanding – they live in a different world. Not completely, but enough, & their lives also matter, & can be ruined by mean-spirited or thoughtless public policy - I lost my best, irreplacable friend -, & they also have just claims.
And Amanda, I’m telling you that you just don’t know what you’re talking about. I don’t know what I’d think & feel if I were you, having just seen what you’ve seen for the first time. But things aren’t so simple as you imagine. I’m not at all sure I know what to do – would all these women approve of what I say? – but these sweeping statements, even if they express a salutary revulsion, are just false, &, repeated, false statements make bad policy, more of which these women can ill-afford. You’re on all evidence a bright, serious person. Do not simply absorb anyone’s rhetoric. If you care about this subject, take the time to look at the evidence, all of it, not just that adduced by abolitionist activists, who (I think) aren’t generally entirely rigorous in their treatment of it (or in other matters). If you can, talk to the parties most affected.
‘ …prostitution is generally based on the assumption that women’s consent is irrelevant. It’s a transaction between a pimp & a john; in other words, it’s men trading women’s bodies. The women themselves are commodities & their consent or non-consent is irrelevent, except to the johns who often get aroused by the opportunity to rape someone.’
Is there warrant for any such generalization? It’s is an empirical question, not a matter for dogmatic assertion. 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. Consent or non-consent is relevant any time a hooker can quit, get a job at Wendy’s, go live with relatives, go to detox (far too little is paid to addiction in this discussion), find any decent alternative at all. There’s simply no plausible evidence that prostitutes generally lack this power.
But what about the others? Consent is relevant to policy. If hookers exercise consent, can be said to act at all & aren’t just acted upon, there’s prima facie evidence that, however much they may hate their work, they cast an even colder eye on the alternatives available to them. If they choose prostitution over the other alternatives they’ve got, then abolishing prostitution by itself leaves them only with the things they’d rather turn tricks than face. It leaves them worse off. The only way simultaneously to eliminate prostitution & improve the wellbeing of prostitutes is to afford all of them better alternatives, in effect, to outbid tricks. No combination of widened alternatives & criminal sanctions against tricks is superior to widened alternatives alone. Criminal law can only help women who choose under actual threat or because of fraud.
Sorry to ramble, I’m in a hurry.
I didn’t know calling strawpeople was now an automatic self-Godwinning thread ender.
Jeez. Marc, i read the whole piece, and there is some reasonable stuff going on here. But that’s the frigging problem. Claiming the stand of reason and moderation in the midst of the fight in express contrast to the unreason of an *imagined* opponent…
Do you see the problem in that?
This isn’t about shutting down the discussion. It’s about the terms under which productive discussion can take place. If the first sentence of the article is a “I can’t believe they are even listening to themselves talk” misstatement of the “Other’s” position….what, pray tell, are we to expect?
Bitch|Lab thinks gential mutilation is hawt, anyone? Give me a friggen break and a duff upside the head with a frying pan. The loss of consciousness may prove to have analgesic properties.
There’s a consequence to persistant misreading and oversimplication. Namely, that productive dicscussion isn’t possible anymore. We read critically, sure. But what’s being lost, and this includes me, is the ability to read openly and humanely. That’s not a small thing to misplace.
Because, sly, you made up the strawman charge that Marc was claiming that you wanted to shut down discussion….and you made up the charge to shut down discussion, disproving your very own argument. He asked people to examine their assumptions. Refusal to do that is refusal to do that regardless of your seeming familiarity with the term “strawman”.
sly,
i honestly don’t see how you got _any_ of what you’re talking about out of my piece.
my entire post is about MY assumptions. how can i be making weird strawpeople when i am ONLY articulating what _I_ think? it’s like you’re still pissed at someone else and taking out on me. don’t.
i laid out the foundations of my beliefs, and i asked if those who disagree would explain where they part ways. the WHOLE POINT of the post is to increase understanding. jesus. stop trying to act like i am not giving other people their due. that’s _all_ i am doing, trying to learn more about why we disagree.
KH, my point is to think outside the consent box you’ve created and refuse to think out of. Since the tacit consent of the women in the business is 100% irrelevant to the men who run prostitution and 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.
On top of that, for the majority of johns and 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 and will exist even if there is a parallel sex trade that’s about sex.
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. So, really I think the discussion is starting from the incorrect assumption that sex even has much to do with this and 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 and is suffering; johns pay to enjoy the suffering.
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.
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, and 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.
But things aren’t so simple as you imagine.
You’re the one who’s been trying to simplify it the entire time, KH. To think that all sex workers have as much choice in things as you think is downright ludicrous. I haven’t been in this discussion since I will admit I know nothing about it, but you seem to be thinking about it less than anyone else, so saying that anyone else is oversimplifying it is a laugh.
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 and 33 times a year by johns.
Marc,
You say I ‘seem to suggest’ that the references I posted on Mildred’s thread refute the claim that prostitution (‘the industry,’ a deceptive term) ‘as it currently exists is harmful to women as a general rule.’ My purpose was actually more modest; I was just responding to a person named Delphyne, the exact nature of whose demand escapes me. (She wanted evidence of some sort.) None of those papers address the effects of prostitution on non-prostitute women. They don’t bear on ‘the industry as it currently exists’ in any one jurisdiction, but report findings from several countries with diverse legal & policy regimes. And no such local finding fully disposes of the question of whether prostitution as it currently exists harms prostitutes. They do, however, belie some of the sweeping statements being made here, which we should feel uncomfortable making in advance of the evidence.
‘The key for me is that we can both work towards making life better for sex workers while still questioning whether women help or hurt the larger causes of feminism by choosing this work. And that’s why the attitudes of the men participating and their implications are critical to the discussion. You seem unconvinced, and that’s fine, 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.’
The evidence of tricks’ attitudes is partial & conflicting. There is a small body of social science research if anyone is interested, but I suspect that you personally haven’t seen enough evidence to warrant any general statement on the subject. I have been around tricks, & I am quite sure both that the sadists described here exist in some numbers (I’ve seen the damage) & that they’re very far from the rule. It’s a different matter that all men are dogs, or that it’s moral luck that any trick, whatever his attitude, doesn’t end up going with a prostitute for whom the encounter is a small death (no pun).
I’ve already said that I reject any arrangement that helps ‘the larger causes of feminism’ at the expense of prostitutes. I agree that tricks’ attitudes are relevant, but only to the extent they affect prostitutes’ wellbeing. I am all for mitigating tricks’ attitudes & handing them condign punishment, but not if, as it sometimes may not be, it isn’t to hookers’ best advantage. In a word, I objectify tricks. We can’t rid the world of these people but we may be able to use them to help dig hookers out of the hole many of them are in. I’ve already drawn the analogy with the circumstances of unpopular minorities (Chinese in SE Asia, European Jews, etc.) who historically have needed access to markets in order to live, to trade with people who may hold them in contempt. And in general, as the maxim says, It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner…
‘You’re the one who’s been trying to simplify it the entire time, KH. To think that all sex workers have as much choice in things as you think is downright ludicrous … you seem to be thinking about it less than anyone else …’
I don’t imagine & never have said that ‘all’ sex workers have any free choice worth having. Far from it. But some do, & it serves no just purpose to deny it. It’s not for me to say whether I think well, but grant that I do try to think. As I said, this matters to me.
No one said all men are dogs. Strawman. But sure, I’ll go on the record and say the vast majority who visit prostitutes—and all who go to streetwalkers or on “sex tours” in foreign countries—are worse than the noble dog.
KH,
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.
>The evidence of tricks’ attitudes is partial & conflicting. There is a small body of social science research if anyone is interested, but I suspect that you personally haven’t seen enough evidence to warrant any general statement on the subject.>
thank you, that’s more what I’ve been wondering. The statement that by far the majority of men who go to prostitutes are doing it from sadistic motives (as opposed to simply being not particularly interested in the prostitute’s wellbeing, much like anyone else getting erm “serviced” in the consumer society) seems to be an article of faith; I’m not at all sure where it’s coming from.
Both/and blog.
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.