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?
@PI:
I guess that request goes to you as well. There are commenters all over the map here, and if you’re referring to Snowberry in particular being dismissed then it was hardly everyone doing the dismissing. (And at least from this white male idiot’s point of view, the ‘dismissal’ was more an appeal to statistics rather than a claim that Snowberry’s experience wasn’t valid or real…)
This thread is going to go down the toilet if you say people are doing something wrong but don’t explain directly what that wrong thing is…
@PI, I’m with catalpa on the “white feminism” allegation – I see it as being used to silence dissenting opinions. Seeing as trafficked and coerced individuals so often come from poorer and non-white countries, it seems more “white feminist” to me to steer the discussion towards choice sex workers and their clients.
The sex worker who chimed in was making a point that was pertinent to the allegation that had been made that nobody truly chooses sex work. I probably didn’t see that at the time because I was having a conversation with the sex worker client. I’m sorry if she or anyone felt I was rude to her or dismissive of her opinion. I thought the discussion was being derailed.
As many have said, everybody here seems to be coming from a place of wanting the best for sex workers, especially those most vulnerable and exploited. But I think throwing out terms like SWERF can be inflammatory. I haven’t seen any swerfery here, just people trying to share honest feelings and opinions while we all try to figure out what we think is right in this situation. I value hearing and discussing others opinions that are different from mine, even if it may not have seemed that way in this thread.
I didn’t want to bring up that word because I know it’s often used as a meaningless silencing tactic, but since somebody else broke the ice there… I’m sure most people are just getting a bit more heated than they mean to over what’s a very complicated topic that none of us have all the answers to, probably just need to step back for a minute and take a breather, but Aunt Edna’s post…
… That one is pure dictionary-definition SWERF, and it’s the one that’s making me the most uncomfortable.
@Kirby
I can’t speak for PI, etc, but in my case, I’d been trying to dance around saying which post I took umbrage to because I was trying to minimise the fight and accusations of silencing, but since I’m being accused of silencing anyway… =P
@Kirby: Alright, here we go.
Sally assuming that everyone who is in sex work was forced into doing so:
Fonicby completely dismissing Snowberry’s experiences as a sex worker, claiming that they’re the “exception, not the norm”, and calling her a “privileged minority” without backing that claim up:
Catalpa also dismissing Snowberry’s experience by claiming it’s only “anecdotal” and insisting that they shouldn’t speak on those experiences unless they also talk about people who aren’t in their position, while Catalpa also steers the conversation to throw Snowberry under the bus, thus leading to their post to defend themselves by explaining their situation:
Fnoicby doubling down when nightmarelyre called their actions out as “white feminism”, and then insisting that they should be able to talk over every one else, despite not saying if they’ve had experience in sex work or not:
There. Called out.
What I saw was you and catalpa both say that “Well, your experience isn’t the norm!” and provide nothing to back that up. You then insisted that you should be able to speak, regardless of if you have any experience in sex work or not. It sounds to me like you and catalpa are the ones insistent on the silence of others, not me.
I think it’s best that in this situation, we should be allies to sex workers, not insist on speaking over them. This feels like a Savior Complex to me, and I’m really tired of seeing it.
Not every sex worker needs “saving”. Yes, there are women and girls out there who are forced into it, and no one here has denied that, but we also need to focus our attention on how to make sex work safer for all of them, not just try to silence sex workers who have had it better than others with a game of Oppression Olympics.
And to do that, we really need to sit down, shut up, and start listening to sex workers, instead of just talking amongst ourselves to their exclusion. That’s just Ally 101.
I’m glad it was only a misunderstanding then.
This feels like tone policing, if I’m being honest, but I’m willing to believe that’s not your intention.
We all want to hear other’s opinions, yes, but some of the opinions on this thread have been very exclusionary towards not just a sex worker who has come into this thread, but also a john who has come into this thread. Both of their experiences have been dismissed as not important, and that’s not right.
I just wanted to second Snowberry’s experience. In a former life I freely chose this line of work, I made great money but didn’t stay in it because of the legal risks. Let me emphasize that I chose to do this work, I was not coerced, I was not exploited. Voluntarily working in the sex industry is completely different from being a victim of trafficking. I find it seriously frustrating that these two experiences are being conflated. I would say as a feminist that bodily autonomy is a cornerstone of my feminist belief system, the criminalization of sex work between two consenting adults seems like a direct (and very patriarchal) violation of this fundamental feminist belief. I also want to add that criminalizing the clients of sex workers makes it much more difficult to screen clients and therefore more dangerous for the worker.
Thanks for chiming in, Sunny, though I want to address this bit right here super quick:
Criminalizing the clients of sex workers might also entice them to be more violent to them, in an attempt to avoid punishment.
I think it was on this site where we had the discussion that we don’t want the death penalty for rapists, because that would mean more rape victims wouldn’t live through the ordeal. The rapists would rather kill their victims than just leave them, and that’s not a good thing.
Same thing goes for this scenario, in my opinion. Some of the more unscrupulous johns wouldn’t hesitate to beat a sex worker to death or threaten them with violence if the act would only get them in trouble.
@Scented Fucking Hard Chairs:
Yeah… *sigh* Kinda realized a bit late that my request might be taken to be provoking fights… I guess this’ll be the thread to test if calling out names works any better than vaguery.
I’m with you on Aunt Edna’s post. It didn’t stand out to me at first, because hey privilege, but on re-reading… yeah.
@PI:
Thanks, for what it’s worth. I was glad to see a number of people calling out Sally’s post later in the thread.
When it comes to trafficking (the kind almost every person would be against, worst case scenarios), it hurts the people without privilege. So no, not white feminism. White feminism doesn’t refer to skin color, many Eastern Europeans are not caught up in this.
I was looking over the thread and thinking wow, people are able to talk about the Nordic model now a days without people/men/libertarian Femras coming around using gamergate tactics to shut you down? This is amazing. It’s a pretty good conversation so the only thing people have been able to pull out is condescension (never mind if they are too, don’t look at that.).
Trafficked people might not have internet access and blogs and political power being that they are slaves. The claim that only sex workers can talk about this is a tactic. We have studies, we have concerns about people that don’t have a lobby. Also there are many ex prostitutes on line (their term for themselves) that tell their stories and are shut down. They are the only ones I have seen being shut down because they are not telling happy hooker stories. It seems to be ok to talk about sex work if you’re not a sex worker if you agree with everything their lobby says. If you have qualms of a different sort, then it’s not ok, even if you have have been in the business.
Some in academia don’t use the term “sex work”, but if anyone says hey I’m a sex worker, then to me that’s what they are. It’s simple. However, I ask these people if there is such a thing as a prostituted woman, and I have been told over and over again NO THERE IS NO SUCH THING, and they seem to all say the same line, like they read it in a newsletter. That term is used against us to hurt us. I understand, I say, but surely you acknowledge there are prostituted women? NO. I would like a sex worker to acknowledge to me that prostituted women exist so that I don’t have to say “they say” because i have not talked to every single person. and I’m sorry about the people writing papers saying there are no “sex workers”.
I do find it bizarre that when studying this topic I run in to information about some of the most marginalized people on earth, people of color people with no chance economically, who are stolen, whose families have debts with their local mafia so can’t say they want to go home when asked- I find it bizarre that in internet land talking about those without a voice is “white feminism”, but the ones with choice are somehow not. And these same people will tell you that only their experiences should be considered. They say that directly to me over and over, so no gaslighting will work with me on that. They erase an entire huge population of rape for pay people that really exist, they really do and no they aren’t on the internet by and large.
I have found a few things sorting through this for the last few years. For one, the ones with the loudest voices actually are internet workers and don’t get penetrated, they relate more to and associate more with MRAs than anyone else, they talk shit about feminism at the drop of a hat, they question the notion of male privilege, period all the time, not just when it comes to sex work, and they are politically libertarian. Now normally this shit does not fly, but for some reason it clouds people’s judgment on this topic.
Also love having to reiterate over and over as people try to slander you that you’re for decriminalization. I prefer the nordic model, but I believe that it all should be immediately decriminalized right now.
Another thing to consider when people offer their experiences is the harm level. Are they just being inconvenienced by a certain policy, or are their lives at risk? How many people do we have to sacrifice to make someone more privileged less inconvenienced?
Also I’ve noticed that along with internet prostitutes that are not on the street or penetrated, the other loud voices are industry people themselves, women included, that profit from, or wish to profit from the actual workers.
Consider The Sarkeesian Effect documentary. Notice Christina (sorry if the name is wrong) associates with and is a feminist hater. She, clearly, along with her best friends and husband are libertarians, and she is in internet worker. Now I am not defending the things she claims were said to her at all, but this is the sex worker archetype that is dominating the discussion in places I have been. I have also noticed that people will say things that you absolutely did not say, but we don’t need to go there. I’m sure people have said lots of stupid things to her to try and control her. But again, in her case she has the privilege to study and be an activist.
I have also talked with sex workers that link me to things where organizations work with street prostitutes, helping keep them safe, so I am remiss to not mention that. I am not anti sex work, in fact I think it should be “therapy” for those who need it for lack of a better word, but this has been one of the most frustrating topics to discuss or learn about, and it I find it one of feminism’s most unnecessary schisms. We really all are an inch away from all being on the same page, the most push back comes from libertarian industry types, and call me names all you want but many people are being wagged by this lobby.
Again, for full decrim, huge crackdowns on trafficking, and open dialogue and more study by people we can trust.
*now
now caught up in this… god damn it.
@Kirby
Oh, the snarkface wasn’t aimed at you, sorry, your post wasn’t even there when I started typing the first one. ^^;; Just in general.
@kirbywarp, I said “y’all” instead of pointing fingers in an attempt to avoid a #notallpeople kind of thing going. I think the links I posted to documentation of actual sex workers perspective on this issue should say enough of the type of person I am calling out and where I stand on this
@PI, I don’t believe you were the first to use SWERF or white feminism on this thread, so I’m not sure why you think I was accusing you specifically of trying to silence. Several people brought up these terms.
Regarding my last paragraph, I don’t even see how you might interpret that as me tone policing others. I was expressing regret that I apparently haven’t come across the way I hoped to – which is as someone who values debate and discussion.
I am not going to put my oar in as things are a bit too heated for my liking, but I loved Bina’s post and indifferentsky’s – thanks .
@ PI, you’re right. I was being dismissive of snowberry’s lived experiences, and that wasn’t okay.
Snowberry, I’m sorry. I was acting like an authority about what should and should not be discussed, about whose experiences were valid, and that was wrong of me. I’ll endeavour to be more receptive to other people’s experiences, especially when they have more experience in the subject than I.
Since my point from earlier got really lost in the shuffle, I do want to point out again that at least in the US, and I imagine many other places, a criminal record makes it next to impossible to find a halfway decent job and housing. Criminalizing sex work makes it harder for anyone who wants to get out of the business to make a living doing anything else. I’d also like to point out that it’s common for underaged “prostitutes” that is, trafficking victims to actually be arrested and put in the criminal justice system instead of helped. I really fail to see how criminalizing sex work helps either women who freely chose the trade or trafficking victims.
To me, making sex work legal but regulated with harsh penalties on pimps and johns for going outside of legal channels is what makes the most sense.
UNRELATED KITTEN PILE!
http://i.imgur.com/NewGoUj.jpg
(Because I need to go to bed and don’t like leaving on a tense note. So, leaving on a fluffy note instead.)
@WWTH
As I mentioned upthread (but it probably got buried) in England the authorities now do treat trafficked women as victims and so don’t prosecute them.
However such women still have a shaky immigration status. So even with total decriminalisation the pimps (for want of a better word) still have complete control. (“You report the abuse and they’ll just deport you anyway”)
RE: statistics
This study/book suggests that there’s about a 1:1 ratio (slightly more than 1 for voluntary) of voluntary sex workers to trafficked sex slaves.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=z0uRsGnTMnwC&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=trafficked+vs+voluntary+sex+workers&source=bl&ots=Mj2gE-zURf&sig=9Ce9hapQbJlkIcD56R92hVRSj3c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDYQ6AEwB2oVChMI5rz33OezxwIVCSqICh3ZhgCs#v=onepage&q=trafficked%20vs%20voluntary%20sex%20workers&f=false
I believe that the category of voluntary sex workers also include people who had the option of sex work or starvation, but I haven’t read the whole thing, so that’s just my assumption.
Okay I guess there is no leaving this:
@Catalpa
1. Were there actual sex workers involved in that study?
2. Why would not legalizing consensual legal sex for money supposedly make those numbers about slavery better?
3. Why do you have the notion that sex work is the most demeaning thing one could possibly do?
4. In what way do the 1:1 ratio bear relevance to the question of legalizing vs. criminalizing sex workers?
@indifferentsky: I don’t think the objection to the term “prostituted women” by sex worker advocates is a claim that coercive situations don’t exist (that would be silly). Rather, they don’t like the term because it frames prostitution as something that *happens to* women rather than something they are doing. Anti-prostitution advocates love to erase voluntary prostitution because it destroys their narrative. I’m sure you can appreciate how someone presently working as a prostitute would be upset by a term that robs them of agency.
Now, as I mentioned upthread, a critical factual claim that needs to be resolved is the question of just how common sex slavery is relative to prostitution as a whole. I suspect that outside of major urban areas sex slavery is approximately zero percent of the market. Without a substantial organized crime presence, how would sex slavery even get started? Within major urban areas, the share would become measurable, but what proportion? I suspect that it would be a high proportion of street prostitutes (pimps operating through domestic organized crime), but street prostitutes are a minority of prostitutes by any measure. That leaves trafficked women from the developing world brought into the developed world. No one knows exactly how prevalent this is and a lot of people seem to assume that any recent immigrant who doesn’t speak the local language well is probably trafficked — an assumption that is, frankly, kind of racist.
But even if you assume that every recent arrival with poor grasp of the language is a trafficking victim, and count in half the street prostitutes, you get to maybe 20% of urban area prostitutes are sex slaves and roughly 0% in suburban and rural areas. So, even making extremely dubious and borderline racist assumptions a reasonable estimate is that at least 85% of prostitutes are able to freely leave the profession.
Yes, many of these 85%+ are supporting vices or motivated by economic necessity but so are a lot of other people with non-ideal working conditions whose jobs nevertheless remain legal.
I don’t think you can lump that with slavery, though. Otherwise you’d have to classify a lot of legal employment as “involuntary”. Also the actual experiences of work are vastly different.
Ninja’d by Kurt.
@nightmarelyre, to your point #4, the Nordic model does not advocate criminalising sex workers or prostitutes. I don’t think anyone here advocates for that.
@Alan the Nordic model is imperfect in that trafficked/coerced women from other countries face deportation. I would much prefer they be given refugee status and assistance instead.
@nightmarelyre
I think we might have got off on the wrong foot?
1) Involved in the study as participants or as authors? Because they were most definitely involved, interviewed, and surveyed during the study. I’m not sure how one would go about studying sex work and sex slavery without interacting with people involved in those fields. As authors, I do not know. Potentially, but probably not.
2) I did not make any statements hypothesizing what might happen to the ratio with regards to legislation of any kind. If anything, my take from that statistic is that if 45% of a field of work is performed by literal slaves, there’s definitely efforts that should be made to protect and free those slaves.
3) I don’t. I’m not certain where you got this impression from. I do think that sex slavery is horrific, though.
4) …is…is literally ANYONE in the thread advocating criminalizing sex work? I don’t think that anyone is. My first post in this thread was supporting the Nordic system, which decriminalizes performing sex work. This isn’t an argument about decriminalizing or criminalizing sex work?
As for why I posted the statistic, I thought it might spark some discussion, or that someone might be interested in it or the book. It seemed relevant to the topic at hand.