So The Independent recently ran a piece by Catherine Murphy of Amnesty International, explaining why the organization is calling for the decriminalization of sex work.
In the comments, someone calling themselves THEMISHMISHEH offers a unique take on the issue.
And by “unique” I mean “seemingly from another planet.”
Shades of Tom Martin, huh?
I was gonna post something erudite and nuanced here, but Bina beat me to it. So go back and read her piece again and take it to heart. (Specifically, I was going to voice support for the Nordic model as well, but she both described it and advocated for it better than I could’ve, anyway).
I will add one thing–the Amnesty International document was, regardless of your position on the issue, horribly worded (it’s possible it’s been amended since I first read about it; this is the initial release I’m discussing). Saying, “sex is a fundamental human need” is likely what Dean Esmay was talking about, in claiming that IA had gone all MRA. That’s straight-up Government Gets Me Girlfriend talk. Had they thought it through and said, “mutually consensual sex is a fundamental human right”, instead, they would’ve skipped about ninety percent of the backlash they got, in part because it would’ve included an implicit rejection of trafficking.
Thanks for that post, Bina. I’ve read that the brothel owners in Germany control the (mostly Romanian) girls by not allowing them to work there if they don’t fall in with their “rules”, please them as they say fit. (I’m sorry to say I used sex worker only because I feared response to my post to tell me to use sex worker instead. I wasn’t aware that was a thing until yesterday.)
@Fnoicby: I’m interested in the book you mentioned but by googling the title I only found a romantic comedy film. Did you maybe mean “what do women want?” from daniel bergner?
@freemage: the document also said: “To criminalize those who are unable or unwilling to fulfill that need through more traditionally recognized means and thus purchase sex, may amount to a violation of the right to privacy and undermine the rights to free expression and health.”
For me this was the most damning part. using another person’s body for your own sexual gratification can never be a “right” (even if the other person is consenting). But as you said, they didn’t even bother to include consent in their wording. Esmay was not the only one recognising MRA agenda in that paper, I did too.
Wow, that’s super presumptuous. I’m not even going to pretend to have any particular insights into this topic as someone who is not a sex worker or a client but could we not make absurd generalizations at least?
Back in my barristering days I spent many as Saturday morning at Bow Street Magistrates Court. In the waiting area there’d be an eclectic mix of lawyers, their clients, those people who paint themselves silver and pretend to be statues, and of course that day’s selection of up for “solicitation”. In those days the legal term was “common prostitute”. That terms was removed from the legislation a few years ago.
As we drank the slightly metallic tasting tea from the machine we’d get chatting (the rule was that people in the cells got dealt with first so we usually had an hour or so).
We talked about all sorts of things, but occasionally the “how can you defend someone when you know they’re guilty?” question would crop up and this would lead into a general discussion of our various professions (the general consensus was that lawyering was probably the world’s *second* oldest profession).
The working girls (as they called themselves) had the very good point that effectively we were all in jobs where people just rented us for a time. (There were the inevitable jokes about ‘oral skills’). But in essence, I had certain talents that people needed to exploit for a time and so did the girls. But if I get a murderer off I’m feted for my skills, few people, apart from maybe some reactionaries, conflate the lawyers with their clients. But why is a brain or voice for hire seen as more worthy than a body?
As to why these women engaged in the work, well some had drug habits (often started by their pimps) but the majority were just doing it to put food on the table (“It’s better than shoplifting”). The “hooker with a heart of gold” may be a Hollywood cliché, but these women were generally nice compassionate ordinary people. They could even sympathise with some of their clients; especially the guys who just wanted someone to talk to. They were practically counsellors at times.
Of course, they all had stories about the aresholes and the abusers. Many of them took the risk of the occasional beating as an occupational hazard. They had their own little network to try and deal with that and methods like recording registration numbers. They also had a strange relationship with the police; some coppers did try to look out for them and they liked those ones; others just saw them as human vermin (although often they were the ones who try for a ‘freebie’).
As for the nomenclature, It’s a tricky subject. These women obviously had the same feelings as everyone else. They liked ‘working girls’ but they heard enough vile slurs that ‘prostitute’ wasn’t exactly a concern to them, and ‘brass’ and ‘Tom’ were almost seen as quant.
Very few of them were political, any more than someone struggling in a dead end minimum wage job, is going to find time to care about some policy wonk defining workers as stakeholders.
Their priorities were just about survival; whether that be feeding their kids or avoiding too heavy a beating from some irate ‘client’.
^^^^^ *baby barristering*
I’ll also stick in a link to some of the English legal stuff for people who like that sort of thing:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prostitution_and_exploitation_of_prostitution/
Tyra: I do think a huge part of it is the use of “need” in both the clauses we highlighted. A need has an even greater urgency than a “right”, generally speaking. I do think that people have a right to have sex with people who want to have sex with them, even if a financial exchange is part of the encounter. But there is no individual ‘need’ to have sex in the way one has a need for food, water, shelter and medical aid.
And the Nordic model described above makes certain that the sex worker (regardless of gender) has virtually all of the non-economic power in the encounter, which at least helps to balance out the inequity of the financial side of things. (Since a sex worker can turn to the authorities without fear of personal arrest, johns are more easily kept ‘honest’; at the same time, making it illegal to pay for sex means the john cannot just walk by claiming he didn’t know a particular woman was being trafficked against her will–he has an actual incentive to make certain that the woman is, at a minimum, only motivated by economic concerns, rather than other coercion.)
This isn’t my ideal world, mind you–sex work would be a fringe thing in that. But as Bina notes, this seems to be the best option we have right now, to both reduce demand and improve the lives of women in the business, be they trafficked or some degree of willing. My only concern is that in the U.S., there might be some sort of Constitutional argument against the divided legality. This isn’t a reason not to try it, though, especially in Nevada, where legalization outside of Vegas is the norm.
Thank you, Bina. Thank you.
@freemage: oh okay, I see what you mean and I agree. for me the whole “right to have sex” thing in the paper sounded more like “I have the right to have sex with *someone*, so [the government/society/…] has the obligation to give a person to have sex with to me” than “right to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with me”. Just to explain why I found the use of the word “right” that problematic, we seem to mean exactly the same. it’s probably because english is not my first language.
I am also pro-Nordic model.
@Bina well said.
Off topic, but next time somebody claims a rape chant at a frat is just a joke and we should lighten up because boys will be boys. Show them this. http://gawker.com/frat-bro-who-chanted-lets-rape-some-bitches-identifie-1724791970
@Tyra, yes that’s he book I meant. I always confuse the name with the totally unrelated Mel Gibson movie.
@Bina: HEAR, HEAR!! And it is worth noting that the Swedish arm of Amnesty was against this official position. I would think they know something about how the Nordic model is working out.
Everybody needs to have a red flag go up whenever “prude” or “anti-sex” is levelled at a feminist. This started the very first time a woman stood up for her rights, along with being called “ugly” or “just jealous of other women” or “man hating”. It’s been used since the beginning to silence people advocating for the rights of women and unfortunately I’ve seen it lately coming from supposed feminists (who really knows who’s behind that keyboard).
@chaltab, I don’t find that position so ludicrous, I think it is worthy of debate exactly what constitutes choice/not choice and where to draw the line.
@Bina: Beautifully said.
The main issue from my point of view is whether commodified, commercialized sex should be considered a normal business within the capitalist system — certainly prostituted people are far from being the only exploited workers — or as something that is intrinsically destructive of the human soul, that we should have the eventual goal of abolishing, while realizing that it won’t happen during our lifetimes and therefore what is necessary is working to minimize the stigmas, burdens, and risks for prostituted people.
I am completely in favor of decriminalizing the prostituted people.
I am completely opposed to decriminalizing the clients (whatever you want to call them) and the pimps, and I am in favor of aggressive prosecution of those who carry out what amounts to slavery, serial rape, and torture.
I’m sorry, but I cannot grasp the phrase sex work. I think that when we associate those two words together and turn them into a “meaningful” phrase, we’ve lost our souls (for the lack of a better term at the moment).
Sex is not work. Work is not sex. I’m not sure if I can even articulate it, but, as I see it, no matter how much commodifying we’d like to do to suit whatever purposes at hand, even when well meant, sex work is not really a thing — cannot be a thing if we retain our moral sensibility (=/= moralizing).
Yes, I understand reality, along with the legal, economic, and even humanitarian arguments involved in commodifying sex for the purpose of protecting the exploited (yes) persons, but none of them change the fact — and/or my perception — that once we go that route, we’ve lost our moral and human, in the best sense of the word, core.
The notion of the government legalizing the wholesale commodification of sex — setting and enforcing standards for it, including pay, etc. — is as absurd as it is soul-crushing. In my eyes.
@Fnoicby
I’d say.
The fact is that sex work is not work just like any other type of work. My mother raised us on welfare. She was expected to meet regularly with social workers and demonstrate that she was doing everything in her power to find work, ANY paying work. Literally anything. They want you off welfare and they don’t care how that happens. So if sex work becomes just a job like any other, will women on public assistance be expected to take jobs in sex work? She actually had a friend on social assistance whose social worker suggested she take up prostitution rather than suck on the public teat. It simply isn’t a job just like everything else. And I wonder how those who say it is feel about their daughters and sisters and nieces being in sex work. Or is it only good enough for those women over there? And while I keep using the term because I don’t want to offend, I do think that calling it “sex work” feels like whitewashing things.
Hi,
I’m only going to speak from my own experience but given that I am a long term (queer male) sex worker client I feel the need to speak up. (over $6000 and more than a year)
First, the shithead in the opening post is a shithead. People who sell sex are the vulnerable ones in the transaction and most of the risk that are carried by selling and buying sex is on the seller not buyer. (through it is not unheard of for clients to be robbed, assaulted, etc.) It is incumbent on the buyer to make sure that the sex worker is doing it as freely as any other job. (We all work out of economic necessity).
Second, no one thinks forced prostitution (i.e. trafficking, pimps, etc.) should be legal and frankly I think people are very careless to conflate forced prostitution with a person who enters the profession freely. I am of the opinion that sex work should be legal because it’s not the state’s business to tell two consenting adults what they can do in their personal lives. As long as the seller of sex is in a position to say no, the transaction should be legal. I don’t like the Nordic model conceptually; I don’t see how one can be free to sell but not free to buy. (it might work better practically).
Third, a lot of clients are shitheads (most?). I have no idea the percentage. But clients who abuse, threaten, rape or in anyway not treat a sex worker as a person should be severely punished and fuck’em. They make sex work more stressful, dangerous and unhealthy than it needs to be.
However, not all clients (and yes I am aware most people in this thread were not making this claim) are shitheads. I think it is profoundly important to NOT lump either sex workers or clients together in a group and judge everyone individually. I’m going to use myself as an example, because I know what I do. I pay for sex if and only if:
1) The sex worker is independent, and is an American. (I live in [major US city])
2) They do not take drugs (I have to trust them on this, and I do my best to find out)
3) They advertise online on a site like rentboy. (not homeless)
4) they keep their rate consistent regardless of the play being bought.
I have a strong preference for sex workers who also
4) have a source of income that is not sex work or sex work-like (i.e. massage)
5) has an established client base. (they are well reviewed online for example)
I do this because it is profoundly important to me that the person I am buying sex from is treated as they should be: a person first, and a sex worker second and never as an object. I do my best to never treat a person as quote whore unquote. I specifically stress that the sex worker always has the right to say no, stop and can withdraw consent at anytime. If I happen to lose a couple of hundred dollars because the sex worker withdraws consent because reasons; whatever it’s only money and I am not entitled to their bodies even after I have paid. Other clients might be shitheads about this but I try not to be.
I specifically want to address this:
@Bina
“They ARE people. And those who pay to use them don’t really want to see or treat them as such, no matter what they may say. (If they did, they wouldn’t pay to have their way.)”
I don’t pay to have “my way.” I pay for x hours of sexual activity. What that sexual activity amounts to is still up for complete navigation between the sex worker and the client as equals (as much as possible). I will ask for something once and if the answer is no, it’s a no. If it’s a no at this rate, it’s a no. I move on and don’t push for something (even if I really want it) because the cash does NOT given my any sort of entitlement to the person’s body. I will only ask again if the sex worker tells me something to the effect of “I will once I know you better.” And even after I pay the sex worker can change their minds!
And for the record, I purchase sex because at the end of the day I need the distance of the cash to fully enjoy my sexuality because of religious based guilt that I have around being queer.
Can we not treat johns like a monolith?
@Bina:
it’s their all-male panel of representatives who turned Amnesty’s head
On a progressive news site, which shall remain nameless, where this news was discussed a couple of days ago, the commenters were unanimously in favor of legalizing prostitution at the time when I saw the story. I guess it was just a coincidence that all of them were male.
@Bina, could you share a link to your blog? I’m very interested.
@ Bina & Aunt Edna
It’s almost a cliché to point out that in England, prostitution per se isn’t illegal; just peripheral things like soliciting, keeping a brothel etc.
There had been a big shift in the legal thinking over here a few years ago. The authorities started to see women in prostitution as, generally, victims. So although women can still be prosecuted, those responsible for charging are encouraged to try to help women out of prosecution if possible. In practice, if not in law, it’s illegal to buy, but not to sell, for the most part.
You might find the link I posted above interesting for more detail. The authorities to seem to be trying to address the real concerns, especially around trafficking.
I also like that a judge in a recent case pointed out in very strong terms that the term “child prostitute” was an oxymoron.
sorry just seeing if I should retype out my comment.
THIS.
Everybody needs to have a red flag go up when feminists start to sound more like fundies. I mean seriously, sex *can’t* be work?!? Who would actually believe that without having internalized a giant truckload of “sex is magical and special” propaganda?
I find it odd that somehow many progressive/liberal people seem to have adopted the position of being tolerant of prostitution and regarding it as a legitimate business, and regarding those who disagree as sex-hating prudes. There seems to be an “I’m one of the cool kids” aspect to it. IMO holding this sort of view means that you can only look at the very small top level, where the people involved are sex workers in the sense that they enjoy the job, and the somewhat larger next level; where the people have chosen what seems to them the best available alternative. (These would be the women Alan is talking about.) On the other hand, you have to ignore the vast quantities of brutality and misery that most prostituted people suffer.
Of course the condition of prostituted women is a major feminist issue. No feminist should be deterred for a minute worrying about the usual anti-feminist criticisms, as long as the exploited women are one’s first concern.. (If this be mansplaining, so be it.)
As a man, I’ve always found that if you simply need to ejaculate, masturbation works quite well and no vagina is required. And I ask myself, what is the point of involving a vagina in the operation unless you are interested in the person who owns the vagina? I am aware that there are men who hire prostituted women because they are lonely and want someone to talk to, but have been taught that paying someone to listen would be unmanly, but it would be acceptable if it is disguised as a sexual transaction. (For a Real Man, claiming sexual needs is always acceptable, admitting emotional needs is never acceptable.)
But for the most part, I think that the payoff from buying sex is that you can assert your will without having to worry about consensuality. Having been in prison, I can tell you that there is consensual sex in prison, but prison rapes are not about sex at all — they are about asserting one’s domination over another person and, since women are unavailable, other men are the only choice. (The rapist is never regarded as homosexual, while the victim will usually be referred to as “she” from that point on.) I think one major reason for buying sex is that what one is actually buying is the woman’s will — the right to do whatever one wants with her no matter what her preferences might be. Basically, one is buying the right to rape without taking the risk of being held to account for it.
I guess so, take two, quick version sigh. I’m a long term sex worker client. I have been seeing a male sex worker for more than a year and I have spent more than 5000 dollars
anyway
1st: the opening post is a shithead. The person who sells sex is the one who is taking the most risk.
2nd: a lot of clients are shitheads, and I feel like people are treating clients as a monolith. I think it is profoundly important to judge something like this on a case by case basis.
3rd: obviously forced prostitution is wrong: I take steps to make sure the sex workers I see are entering the profession as a free choice.
4th: I am NOT paying for unencumbered access to the sex worker’s body, or even particular sex acts. I am paying for x time of erotic activity. the sex worker, obviously, gets to set boundaries and say no whenever they want. They can withdraw consent at anytime and I “lose” a couple hundred because this happens so what? it’s only money.
5th: entitled abusive clients are shitheads and frankly anything that allows sex workers more protection should be encouraged.
6th: I don’t see how conceptually the Nordic model can work. Why is in the purview of of personal autonomy to sell sex, but not to buy it?