This is so misunderstood in my previous prostitution thread it must be blared from the rooftops and not buried in the comments.
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 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.
Could someone please point me to where I argued that, if something isn’t feminist, it should be “codified in criminal law” or where I asked “the State to start putting people in jail and censoring media?” Because I don’t see it.
I believe my post included a defense of pursuing legalization (I used the qualifier “properly” b/c I wouldn’t be inclined to institutionalize pimps, I would want the possibility of unionization, etc.). I certainly didn’t argue that we should criminalize prostitution and I definitely never even remotely implied that the State should round up or shut up anyone who disagrees.
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.
There are 4 very critical points that come out of all of these accusations:
1) It’s okay to have a discussion about what one ought to do without implying there is a role for the state to play in enforcing it.
The questions I am pursuing are simply about whether a woman who believes in ending sexism and gender discrimination and chooses to work in prostitution is making a career choice that conflicts with her value set.
Right now, I don’t believe most women “choose” this work against a backdrop of other legitimate options, as I noted in my assumptions. But there are some who do, including some commenters. Thus, I feel that this is a discussion worth having.
Also, let’s say we rebuilt the sex trade to be much more fair and safe. This would be a very good thing. It would still leave open the question of whether working in it reinforces harmful attitudes.
This has nothing to do with state enforcement. At all. It’s a discussion about personal choices and what the implications of those choices are assuming you’re free to make them.
2) Discussions of the implications of a personal choice have merit.
Belledame222 doesn’t see why this matters because it doesn’t impact “realpolitik.” And that’s fine. We probably agree on what should be done in terms of policy and legislation, which I tried to make clear in my post.
That doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be gained from evaluating a choice. If we agree that the industry in the abstract (meaning in any form, no matter how fair) reinforces sexism and gender discrimination, then that’s meaningful information, don’t you think? We shouldn’t block the discussion because it doesn’t immediately advance our legal interests.
Maybe questions on this topic outside the realm of what laws we should pass right now don’t matter to you. Maybe they are secondary to legislative concerns. But their answers have value.
3) You can question something without shaming.
Belledame also referenced the “scolding” of prostitutes and implied it in a few other comments, too. KH was clear that she’s suspicious of it, which I understand.
But to ask whether the industry in the abstract (meaning in any form, no matter how fair) reinforces sexism and gender discrimination doesn’t mean “shame on you, you dirty girl” — especially if there is merit behind the concern (which even KH seemed to agree there is). It’s a fair, intellectually honest question. I don’t believe any choice is above being examined for sexism and gender discrimination.
I understand there’s a massive amount of shaming going on in the world at large, and we must be vigilant against it. But it’s important that, amongst other progressives (to which this site caters exclusively), we are able to ask the toughest questions on even the most sensitive of topics, yes?
4) Don’t read more than what’s written in the post.
Iamcuriousblue lumped me in with “radfems.” He and KH seemed to think my post left open the prospect of criminalization, despite my obvious endorsement of the opposite. Belledame’s shaming accusations seem like a built-in reflex. Honestly, though, based on what I wrote, I don’t understand where those claims came from.
Topics like prostitution are loaded, to say the least, but we should all do our best to try and stick to what a specific person has said and not assume they are toting around the baggage of other people with whom you disagree. That’s why I tried to break it down at my most basic assumptions, so there would be no misunderstanding. But it didn’t take too long for people to start glomming on other random assumptions and, on occasion, argue that I claimed the opposite of what was stated in my post.
Here’s to another round of it below.
I know no one cares, but for my own peace of mind because I don’t wanted to be lumped in with IACB, I’d just like to say I agree with delphyne about the skeeviness of the johns and do feel a sense of revulsion at the concept of a guy who wants to buy a woman’s body. The reason I’m in favor of legalization instead of decrim is because I don’t trust the police. I feel like we can make laws but we can’t enforce them without a mechanism, and as we’re presently constituted I don’t think the police can be trusted to do a damn thing on the enforcement side to protect sex workers regardless of what the laws are, and I’m afraid they’ll continue to use their power to exploit and abuse and make things worse for sex workers.
It would vary with area of course. I think we only have one Hilton here, for example, and the closer you get to the strip the more unpolite it becomes (for those who require polite and perfume to cover up what’s really going on). As for pimps? Virtually all prostitutes are pimped. Pimps also answer to daddy, SO, husband, manager and massage parlor or escort business owner.
The johns are all skeevy. What’s not skeevy about someone who use a woman like a toilet?
Caromboard and RenEv–I’m pretty agnostic on decriminalization vs. legalization, but fully agree that anything that keeps prostitutes out of jail–from high-priced escorts to women on the stroll–is a good thing. Whatever works, in that arena. Even with that opinion, I think a system that is so one-sided (with men as the consumers, and women–with a few men and transfolks–as the providers) is fucked up beyond all belief. I think that mindset/standard is–dare I say it–limiting.
Caromboard
I don’t know if you are aware of this article, and site. Of interest:
http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/laws/000078.html
“I have every right to buy whatever services they’re offering. The mere fact that people like you are clearly so horrified by the act that you’d like to see me jailed for it has no bearing on the matter as far as I’m concerned.”
Yeah well skeevy johns (what a good phrase) aren’t top of my list of people I’m trying to persuade. The general public and legislators are the ones who need to be made aware of the abuse and sexism inherent in prostitution.
In my lifetime I hope to see men like you prosecuted for what they do to women. It’s already happening in Sweden.
animeg:
It’s hard to find out for certain about the majority, or even accurate numbers in any various group. People can theorize, or estimate, even count those who they can find, but it is not an exact science. Most believe the street/trafficked prostitutes are the majority. But it is harder to know with the escort-types because, due to legal reasons and general strife, a lot of them are not standing up to be counted, as it were.
Wikipedia I remind you is that haven for porn fetishists
The best part is, we don’t have to pay taxes.
In the “Dancing Fudgems/Brownito” section of the site, Fudgems dances to “hip-hop” while Brownito prefers “reggaeton,” yet they sound exactly the same. However the music itself is some half-assed FruityLoops approximation of neither hip-hop nor reggaeton.
And this is what I get for having two windows open at once…
I am totally informed now! Of course there are other issues I’m confused about.
Well, I don’t pretend that I’m going to persuade radfems I don’t even share little fundamental philosophical sympathy with. Of course, we’re all trying to pull the unpursueded over to one side or the other.
It doesn’t help your cause any that radical feminism has some ideas that your average member of the general public is even more skeeved out about than I am. Not to mention that I don’t think many people in liberal democratic societies are entirely down with the severe restrictions on free speech rights or rights of sexual consent that are the natural outcomes of your position. I just do my part to point this out.
But give it your best shot – I’m not loosing any sleep over the thought of facing prosecution from the likes of you.
Pony writes:
Brilliant detective work, Pony, but perhaps you give me a tad too much credit. One of the major writers on mycology and altporn, perhaps, but major writer about feminism? I wrote most the article about Ellen Willis because I happen to be a huge admirer of her work and, by extention, happen to end up writing almost all of the article on Redstockings. I’m sure that just pisses some of you off, to which I say, “tough”. Judge the article on its own merits and remember, anybody can edit Wikipedia.
Just keep going there Pony, just keep going there. That statment has everything to do with your outlook and nothing to do with mine.
Goddamn. I should start a blogger pool to see when the different buzzwords and boogeywomen come up. Yep, people who criticize the status quo are all for censorship. I had no idea that because I don’t praise the cheesy-ass boring as all fuck porn out there, it means I must therefore want to censor it.
Detective work? You’re the one posted it.
The clue train just left and there’s IACB standing on the platform.
And yes Peter, remember, anybody can edit WP.
But it is harder to know with the escort-types because, due to legal reasons and general strife, a lot of them are not standing up to be counted, as it were.
I don’t think this is a valid excuse for why there is not one teensy shred of evidence that the vast majority of prostitutes do not loathe what they feel compelled to do and wish to get out of prostitution immediately.
Why would the escorts advertising their pictures and phone numbers on Craig’s List and in alternormal weekly ads refuse to answer a researcher’s survey? They’ve already put their picture and contact numbers on the Internet, but answering a study commissioned by Adult Video News or Playboy we’re supposed to believe would suddenly turn them into shrinking violets shaking with fear of exposure?
Also, how do you explain the lack of fear displayed by the very public, very visible prostitutes who make $pread magazine, put on sex worker art shows, host sex worker film festivals, release books like Sex Secrets From Escorts and The Washingtonienne, convene conferences to promote prostitution as work, enter the political process to affect prostitution laws, and appear on tv talk shows and radio to promote prostitution legalization?
That’s a mighty selective fear of exposure and publicity that can make supposedly happy, healthy sex workers send out press releases announcing Whore College classes and Hooker’s Balls some days and then cower in terror at the thought of answering a few questions from social workers questions or health providers other days.
Nice try, but I’ve certainly never argued that anybody who doesn’t like porn automatically wants to censor it. (Though “hot”, “cheesy-ass boring as all fuck”, or “neither here nor there” is entirely in the eye of the beholder.) I do associate radical feminism with a basically pro-censorship position based on the fact that, if I’m not mistaken, most contmeporary self-described radical feminists are in basic agreement with the legal positions of Catherine MacKinnon. I’ve read through the Dworkin-MacKinnon Model Ordinance on pornography, and, if this had been implimented, would have used civil law to effectively ban pornography, and probably quite a bit else that in somebody or another’s view “subordinated women”. (And don’t feed me the line of malarky about how its civil law and doesn’t ban anything.) If this is not the position of most radfems anymore, let me know, and I’ll stand corrected. If its not your position, Sheelzebub, then my criticism of “censors” doesn’t apply to you.
Most, not all, but most of the radical feminists I have run across would like to ban porn, or at least completely modify it to a different sort of media altogether. Not all, but most.
In lue of that, many seek far tougher regulations in the industry as a whole, and that I cannot argue with on many levels.
OK…so this may be a bit of an interruption.
I can see that many on this board, obviously the happy sex workers among them, feel that those that are anti-porn/prostitution (i.e. those that would want to criminalize it) marginalize the voices of women who are happy with sex work.
On the face of it, it would seem obvious that the sex workers on this board would have the most clear assessment of the situation. However, it seems to me that the mere fact that they have the time, education, and money to have computers and internet to participate in this discussion sets them in a position of privilege that the vast majority of prostitutes do not enjoy.
I can see how some could very well make a free, informed choice to engage in sex work, and that one could do well for herself in such a field. But why are what seem to be the most privileged, and least numerous, insisting that their notion of ‘choice’ holds true for everyone, or even a majority?
‘Choices’ need to be understood both through the context within which they are made.
Tomspelledgreg:
If you read carefully, you will see that us happy privileged types also are saying not all women do have a choice and every effort one can make to help them find a way out of sex work should be made. Well, at least I have, repeatedly, I won’t speak for all of us.
Tomspelledgreg: What RenEv said.
OK, I missed that. It seems that many do though – when someone is actually happy with sex work, everyone seems to latch on to that story and say “LOOK, IT’S OK!”
Everyone? More than a few dismiss it as a “tiny minority” and ultimately a factor that can be completely dismissed in debates around sex work. Maybe sex work is more complicated that that – a problem under many circumstances, OK under others. Hence, perhaps a blanket ban on the sex industry is sheer overkill.
So one would need accurate numbers on how prostitutes actually feel about their jobs. Furthermore, I guess one would have to look at what the availability of prostitution does for the wider picture.
I think that, especially with patrriarchy still in full force, all sex work can do is reinforce the notion that men should have access to women’s bodies as sex objects at will. Now, there are many other factors (media, whatever) that would contribute to that view, but I think that prostitution is a critical component of a system by which we are taught that women are meant to serve men.
At this point you might say “how can you legislate ideology”? If the above holds true, that sex work at this point can only reinforce male entitlement and the degradation of women in to objects to be bought and sold, the issue turns from one of the best “feminism” to one of “treating women like human beings”.
Patriarchy results in real hurt – sexual harassment, rape, discrimination, dehumanization. So I don’t think that criminalizing the buying of sex would constitute a “ban”. The word choice implies that those who would like to do away with the sex indsutry are doing so from purely ideological/”ooh I’m feminist and prostitution is icky” grounds.
“Most, not all, but most of the radical feminists I have run across would like to ban porn, or at least completely modify it to a different sort of media altogether. Not all, but most.”
Who? Could you provide a few examples, please RE.
Streetwalking is a fucking sweatshop and medievel to boot. And it’s quite common. I don’t want to throw prostitutes of any class in jail, but I’m not that jazzed about pimps who abuse streetwalkers not getting penalized for abusing and exploiting them. You don’t get to make money from exploiting the poor and the addicted. Or maybe you do in a capitalist society, but let’s not conflate this with “sex.”
Anytime I or anyone else raises a criticism of porn, we get an avalanche of accusations that we’re censoring people. Sorry, but I think the likes of serial rapist Joe Francis of GGW should be civilly liable for pouncing on drunk girls and getting them to perform for his ridiculous films. That’s not free speech, that’s just predatory. I would shed no tears if the standards for scumbags like him were put in place and enforced. You don’t get to make millions off of exploiting drunk students. Again, maybe one does in this society, but let’s not conflate it with speech or with sex. It’s a scam.
A lot of the porn out there is homogenized, cookie cutter “sex” and pretty much the same. Much like corporate designed and peddled pop culture, it does not promote free speech, it promotes an industry-dominated view of what sexuality is.
RenEv: In lue of that, many seek far tougher regulations in the industry as a whole, and that I cannot argue with on many levels.
I agree with this. Just one example–I think it should be far more regulated–fucking many partners without a condom is dangerous, but the assholes who make porn for het guys think that possible exposure to HIV and other STDs is an acceptable risk for the actors. The money shot is all-important, and profits take precedence over workers’ rights. Heaven forbid they take a page out of the playbook for gay porn and mandate condom usage.
Delphyne: I may be missreading everyone as far as their ideas on porn go, but I have gotten the impression that BB and many of her readers, yourself included, would like to see porn go away or be much more highly regulated/ “idealogically” reworked, and Sheelzebub in the comment preceeding this one expresses her own thoughts on heavier regulation. I have also gotten the impression that McKinnon and Jensen would like to see porn disappear. I may be wrong, if so, my bad, but that is definately the impression I have receieved.
Sheelzebub: i think more and more peformers are demanding condom use (female and male). I personally think it is an excellent idea to use them, but I also think that if the participants have paperwork (and faith, and more paperwork) and do not want to wear them, then that is their choice. But I also know that many times they (both male and female) are asked not to use them and trust only the paperwork, and that I do not agree with.
“I may be missreading everyone as far as their ideas on porn go, but I have gotten the impression that BB and many of her readers, yourself included, would like to see porn go away or be much more highly regulated”
Oh I’d like to see porn go away, but that has nothing to do with censorship, that is my wish that our society learns to respect all human beings including women. I’m allowed to wish without being criticised for it.
In practical terms I agree with the idea of the MacKinnon/Dworkin Ordinance that people who have been harmed by pornography should be able to sue pornographers. That isn’t censorship any more than consumer protection laws are barriers to trade.
I have to agree that one thing that annoys me is the idea that prostitution is some sort of kink. Instead of merely an economic choice, it gets lifted up to the status of sexual preference. Personally I think all porn performers should perform protected. In any other profession, they wouldn’t be allowed to risk an outbreak of disease that way. I think a greater percentage of porn should suck less. Like less punching women in the head, and more actually arousing stuff.
Tomspelledgreg writes:
As I’ve said above, that’s where I part company 100% with people who take this line. I do not believe in legislating ideology, and the question that always comes up in any case like that is, who’s ideology gets to have hegemony. Why is radical feminism or marx-leninism or christianity so special that its rules should be legislated for all to follow.
On the principle of indirect harms caused by “patriarchy” – that can be used to justify anything. You can make a case that anything opposed to your ideology ultimately leads to harm and therefore anything that reinforces that needs to be banned because, form your point of view, it leads to real harms. The religious right makes the exact same case vis a vis their beliefs. (If you don’t like the comparison to the religious right, well – tough. When you’re making essentially the same argument, the comparison is entirely appropriate.)
Sheelzebub writes:
A bit of strawsexpoz at work here? Who has any respect for Joe Francis? And its not like this guy hasn’t broken plenty of existing laws where he could be prosecuted if people could actually press charges if they so chose. There’s no special anti-porn legislation needed to take care of the Joe Francises of the world.
Well, I’d love to know where exactly the neat line is between “corporate speech” (which according to you isn’t free speech at all) and individual speech, which presumably should be protected. Should First Amendment protections end as soon as one makes a buck off of somehting? And if so, how would that not be applied to, say, AK Press? (Who’ve been known to turn a profit on some of their titles.)
Sorry if you don’t dig what I have to say or think its “unfair”, but you’re kind of speaking out of both sides of your mouth – “how dare you accuse me of being a censor” and “I don’t think x, y, and z count as free speech”.
“…but you’re kind of speaking out of both sides of your mouth – “
Oh the irony.
Delphyne:
“Oh I’d like to see porn go away, but that has nothing to do with censorship, that is my wish that our society learns to respect all human beings including women. I’m allowed to wish without being criticised for it. “
Sorry, “ban” was a poor word choice on my part. I am sure censorship is not the reason most anti-porn people oppose it.
Sheelzebub:
“I think the likes of serial rapist Joe Francis of GGW should be civilly liable for pouncing on drunk girls and getting them to perform for his ridiculous films”
There are so many legal grounds someone could go after that guy on…promoting underage drinking being the most simple one of all. He is an ass, and deserves a stay in a cell.
“who’s ideology gets to have hegemony”
Well white supremacist patriarchal capitalism gets to have hegemony at the moment but that doesn’t seem to bother you.
“You can make a case that anything opposed to your ideology ultimately leads to harm”
Oh really? I didn’t think that Marxist-Leninism or fundamentalist christianity could prove the high levels of death and murder amongst prostitutes, higher than any other job except perhaps solidiering (and that belongs in another argument) or the rate of rape and violence committed against prostituted women by johns, or the rate of post traumatic stress disorder. Radical feminism is based on women’s llived experiences, what actually happens to us in the world. That’s where the strength of our politics lie, they are based in reality.
What delphyne said was basically what I was positing – legislating against *real* harm is not legislating ideology.
The difference between me and say, a fundie, is that while fundies lack hard statistical evidence to show the harm of teh gays, there is plenty of evidence suporting the harmfulness of prostitution.
Your reality, perhaps. Those of us who find the “reality” of that ideology to be dubious, hence the refusal to live according to the dictates of radical feminism.
Your reality, perhaps. Those of us who find the “reality” of that ideology to be dubious, hence the refusal to live according to the dictates of radical feminism.
There’s an old quote about lies, damn lies, and statistics that comes to mind here. The statistics you quote are of course, widely disputed. Follow the prostitution threads back if you want to go over the arguments.
Huh?
Tomspelledgreg:
I think what IMCB is suggesting is that the numbers in statistics, even the very accuracy of the statistics themselves, has been disputed, as no one study can ever truly be considered wholly representitive or accurate. That issue itself has been discussed heavily over the other threads on this blog that led us here, to this current debate.
No, I don’t see corporate speech as free speech. I see it as a homogenizing force, and one that actually quells real speech. See the corporate owned “news” for more of that, and the multi-national “entertainment” industry that promotes a worldview that reinforces the status quo.
Money and a logo do not equal free speech.
I understand the problem with media consolidation in the hands of fewer and fewer owners, and believe me, I’m against it too. But content based-regulation helps this how exactly? And how is “real speech” not supposed to get caught in the cross-fire?
I’m sorry, I don’t but the whole Marcusian “repressive tolerance”, “no free speech for the privileged” line. It is still censorship and it still has the unavoidable side-effect of suppressing speech of those who aren’t exactly privileged, but merely on the wrong side of (marxism, feminism, whatever, insert your favorite movement here).
“There are three kinds of lies: Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics” – Mark Twain.
Widely.
Exactly how many is widely?
One? Three? Where were the widely opinions collected? Published? Where they streeters, or.. Oh you’re referring to that ONE opinion piece, where the author widely cites himself (three times) and also cites out of date, unpublished and uncheckable sources.
But content based-regulation helps this how exactly?
I advocated for “content based regulation” where, exactly?
I’m calling bullshit on the idea that corporate speech is “free”–it’s bought and paid for at the expense of truly free speech, and squelches dissent and alternate views. IOW, it’s not free speech, it’s a repressive force. Nowhere did I advocate for censorship, I simply said that the so-called “free” speech out there is dominant and homogenizing. And it’s not censoring to call it that, but thanks for proving my point that in some circles, criticism=censorship.
And thank you for the confused and confusing exposition of your own point of view. Not stating your own point clearly resulted in the response you wanted from me, and now you can set me up as another strawsexpoz who’s merely out to bash all criticism as censorship. Don’t forget to pat yourself on the back.
Dude, don’t bitch at me because you can’t fucking read–or that you insist on putting your own spin on what other people say. You’ve already done this with Marc, it seems like quite the hobby for you.
As this thread came & went in my absence & neither requires nor would benefit from retrospective reargument by me, I will restrict myself to noting that its premise, that I falsely attributed certain policy views to Marc, was itself mistaken. (My comments in this debate frequently were misunderstood, but, perhaps by chance, only by people who disagreed with me.) He said that I ‘seemed to think [his] post left open the prospect of criminalization,’ denied the claim, & explained that it is possible normatively to criticize a practice without criminalizing it. But again, the premise was false; in the comment he quoted, I attributed no policy views at all to him. I at least took care to read his earlier post, & was aware that, as he said, it explicitly declined to reject legalization. In the comment from which he quotes, as well as in an earlier comment elsewhere, I had already drawn the distinction between normative criticism & legal prohibition that he offered as a correction of my supposed error:
http://punkassblog.com/2006/08/19/exploring-assumptions-about-prostitution/#comment-6567
http://feet2thefire.blogspot.com/2006/08/right-now-some-vast-uncountable-number.html#115592296122661299
So we are agreed that his argument by itself entailed nothing about law & policy toward prostitution.
Why, then, should I have thought it pertinent to reject a claim he didn’t make? Because others did make it. His earlier post was framed as an intervention in an ongoing debate, in which he took a side. He must well have known that others on what he called his side did regard arguments like his as grounds for certain ploicy views, & that the discussion ranged beyond the circumscribed, sanitized limits of his own formulation. My point was relevant to what others on his side were saying in this thread & elsewhere in the discussion of which it’s a part.
“My point was relevant to what others on his side were saying in this thread & elsewhere in the discussion of which it’s a part.”
True, but you must explicitly point out that this is your intent, which you didn’t.
I wrote a post in which I stated all of my assumptions on the topic as a way to get down to the basics and stop assuming things that weren’t stated. This is because a lot of the reason things get so heated is because of mistaken assumptions.
So to come in and argue points that weren’t made on a thread specifically designed to carefully build from only what was written was frustrating. And I think that point still stands.
‘True, but you must explicitly point out that this is your intent, which you didn’t.’
If I do not explicitly attribute a view to you, you are wrong to assume that I mean to. Beyond that, it isn’t entirely for you to stipulate what I ‘must explicitly point out,’ & certainly not for you to suggest that anyone else shares responsibility for your own careless interpretation of texts. You should have the grace to acknowledge that you attributed a claim to me that I did not make, & that, at least as far as it concerns me, the premise of your post is false.
I take it that by your ‘True…,’ you now acknowledge that my point did address comments made earlier in the thread, as well as others made elsewhere in the same debate. If you were frustrated that the discussion encompassed ‘points that weren’t made [by you] on [the] thread’, you should have intervened against the earlier comments that raised the question I addressed. As it is, you have little cause to express frustration that, late in a long thread, I addressed an issue long since raised by others. Any initial ambition of yours to control the terms of the debate had long since been rendered moot by those earlier comments. Above all, you might consider that your purported capsulization of ‘our respective positions’ failed to convey the actual range of positions, & so was bound to be so overrun by comments.
In any event, the question of the propriety of addressing questions raised only in comments on an initial posting is an utterly different matter from the question of whether I falsely attributed anything to you. My concern here is with the latter question.
Be an adult, admit you were wrong & leave it at that.
from UBUNTU, I am because we are.
I think they effectively sum up what the sexpos position articulated by me, belledame, KH, RenEv, Amber, antiprincess, etc:
For some of us who are current or former sex workers, it is clear that a traditional feminist take on sex work (All sex work is harmful to women — period.) does not address any of these issues, or empower sex workers in any way. For this reason, two former sex workers and sexual assault survivors in UBUNTU developed a political education workshop to address these issues while discussing the particular needs that sex workers and former sex workers have in the healing process as survivors of sexual assault. Our coalition members really responded to this workshop and it has grounded our work in an internal politics that puts sex workers’ dignity, humanity, and right to safety at the forefront of our work to end sexual violence.
http://onecommunityofmany.blogspot.com/2006/08/statement-about-sex-work-sex-workers.html
http://blog.pulpculture.org/2006/08/29/ubuntu-i-am-because-we-are/