prostitution

[Benny Bunter]

apologise for the length, possibly tedious repetition of stuff i've previously said, and the general rambling style of my post btw.

 

[Benny Bunter]

The anti-trafficking position obviously sounds very rational but in reality it often seems to go hand in hand with general anti-migration stuff. A lot of women who worked as sex workers in London were deported based on police testimony that they'd been 'trafficked' after the recent soho raids, and a lot of trafficking figures have been debunked based on the definition they use etc

Here's an article about it based on a SWOU meeting in 2009 - https://bristolnoborders.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/more-evidence-that-sex-trafficking-is-a-myth/

Another here with some contributions from Laura Agustin - http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2009/01/20/the-myth-human-trafficking/

"She is critical of the conflation of the terms "human trafficking" with "prostitution" and "migration", arguing that what she calls the "rescue industry" often ascribes victim status to and thereby objectifies women who have made conscious and rational decisions to migrate. She advocates for a more nuanced study of migrant sex workers."



.

Here is what Laura Agustin has to say about women who work in brothels and sex clubs:

"women who live inside sex establishments and rarely leave until they are moved to another place without being consulted receives the media’s usual attention, it being taken for granted that this represents a total loss of freedom. In many cases, however, migrant workers prefer this situation, for any of a number of reasons: if they don’t leave the premises they don’t spend money; if they don’t have working papers, they feel safer inside in a controlled situation; if someone else does the work of finding new venues and making arrangements, they don’t have to do it; or having come on a three-month tourist visa they want to spend as much time as possible making money."

 

[Benny Bunter]

An interesting point from Sisters Uncut:
http://www.sistersuncut.org/2016/05/27/why-not-the-nordic-model/

a comment in this article nicely sums up the twisted logic of that sisters uncut piece.

Unfortunately, it is easier to identify bad arguments in this debate than good ones. For example, on 27 May, the direct action group Sisters Uncut explained that it supports full decriminalisation because: “In seeking to reduce the number of men willing to pay for sex, the Nordic model makes sex workers poorer.” (Hard to imagine a left-winger making the same argument about sweatshops: at least they are keeping people in work.) By the logic of Sisters Uncut, the truly moral thing is for more men to become punters, because that would make sex workers richer. All hail penis-based philanthropy!

 

[Benny Bunter]

I haven't forgotten about this thread. seeing as noone has responded to any of the last few points i made, i'm aware that I'm probably just talking to myself by now (especially now with brexit and chilcot taking up all everybody's attention), but iydm i'm just gonna use this this thread to share some good neo-abolicionist arguments as and when i come across them.

How does client criminalisation get to the root causes of those problems, as you see them? ...it worsens stigmatisation.

Prostitution has a “stigma” because men REQUIRE that stigma for prostitution to function. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for millions of men to purchase sex from female strangers if they did not believe those female strangers were worthless, dirty, and not deserving of respect. Prostitution has a stigma like slavery has a stigma — because it’s something that’s hard to do to a full human being.

Combating “stigma” won’t help because the men who purchase sex — who keep the industry going — are the main purveyors of it. Look at how they refer to the women they fuck: http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

Contempt and hate is so clearly central to the whole operation. You can’t “destigmatize” prostitution because that stigma is necessary for men who want to buy sex without having to consider the person they’re buying from a human.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Sorry Benny, I know I was going to bow out of this thread, but I just came back to say: really? Comparisons of sex work with slavery, that old chestnut? Hasn't this been thoroughly debunked as a bankrupt notion by now? I think it manages the neat trick of insulting both sex workers and slaves at once: the former by denying their self-determination, the latter by trivializing their experiences.

 

[Corpsey]

Sorry if you've already covered this, but what about women who work as escorts, independent of a brothel/pimp? Is that a class of prostitution entirely apart from what you're talking about, or is that in your view also a matter of exploitation?

Interesting point re: the men who use prostitutes REQUIRING the women to be demeaned, worthy of contempt, etc. I wonder if there are prostitution scenarios (such as the high-price escort with 'clients') where there might be a sense of mutual respect IN SPITE OF the transaction? I guess the question would always be 'why are you not willing to have sex with me for FREE?' though. Perhaps that's always fated to be an impure relationship.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I'd love to know what a theoretically "pure" relationship would look like. That of a nun and Christ, perhaps.

 

[Corpsey]

I didn't choose that word carefully, I'll admit.

Anyway, Christ and a Nun would be a most impure relationship, given that Christ would almost certainly be (if unwittingly) exploiting his connections to the man upstairs to get in her cassock.

 

[Mr. Tea]

And if he's carrying on with every nun, it kind of makes him the ultimate man-slag.

 

[Benny Bunter]

Sorry Benny, I know I was going to bow out of this thread, but I just came back to say: really? Comparisons of sex work with slavery, that old chestnut? Hasn't this been thoroughly debunked as a bankrupt notion by now? I think it manages the neat trick of insulting both sex workers and slaves at once: the former by denying their self-determination, the latter by trivializing their experiences.

You have completely ignored or missed the main point made in the quote, which was about stigmatisation, but nevermind. i'm on holiday so i don't have much internet time atm, but i'll try and respond to you (and corpsey) asap. suffice to say for now that the intention is clearly not to insult or trivialise, but to put the blame for exploitation where it belongs - on the MEN WHO BUY SEX.

I also recommend you click on the link that supports the quote, and have a think about why prostitution even exists in the first place

Look at how they refer to the women they fuck: http://the-invisible-men.tumblr.com/

 

[Mr. Tea]

And we're back to "all sex workers are exploited, by definition (even when they claim not to be)" - the same old impasse as before. Sorry, as I said, I should have stayed out of this thread. As you were.

Edit: and by all means, please get back to enjoying your holiday!

 

[Benny Bunter]

Well if you're not willing to discuss or interrogate the notion of consent in a society that is fundamentally unequal, or talk about the motivations of the johns and the function that prostitution has in maintaining the power imbalance, then yes its probably better that you bow out.

 

[Benny Bunter]

Sorry to go back so far in the thread, but these two excellent posts by Droid and Vimothy beg a lot of questions.

So we have two basic positions:
1. Sex is the ultimate form of human communion, (perhaps even) something sacred, the human body is not just another commodity, and the selling of sex is an affront to human dignity.
2. Sex is just another biological function like eating or shitting and if people wish to sell sex of their own free will then it's nobody else's business and any attempt to prevent this is a paternalistic attempt to control women's bodies.

I think that's a good summary of the debate here. The former position corresponds to a kind of 'natural law' understanding of sex that's very hard to get away from completely (which is why the question about how you'd feel about your own daughter doing it is so acute - if they're honest, most people would feel extremely squeemish about it). The latter accords more with contemporary liberal understandings. We're autonomous people, and most of our lives can be described in terms of our free contracting and transacting. Sex has no intrinsic meaning and is ultimately a commodity like any other that people might trade and contract over.

Ok, here’s the thing with position 2. How is it possible to treat sex as a commodity with no intrinsic meaning without trivializing women’s experience of rape? Doesn’t it devalue rape as a uniquely violent crime?

 

[Benny Bunter]

Another one from droid

Like I alluded to earlier, my position on pretty much all issues involving sexuality is essentially 'as long as there is consent and no-one is being harmed, its none of my business', but despite this there's something here that trips me up, which I suppose puts me closer to the first position personally - that the idea of buying sex has always seemed intrinsically wrong to me and its something I never have, nor will I (hopefully) ever do.

So, a question for those advocating decriminalisation.

Whatever about the morals of selling sex - do you think its moral for a man to buy sex?

Itis 'tripping you up' because you know it's wrong but you're still letting the consent issue take precedence. Here's the answer: preventing men from buying sex does not in any way infringe on anyone's rights so don't worry. In fact, nobody has 'the right to consent' to do anything do they? If they did, then then governments would have to sponsor us in anything that we desire to, whatever it is wouldn't they? I mean, look at the implications that this line of thought has on, say, gun control laws.

I mean i might desire to be a logger, but that doesn't mean I have the 'right to consent' to being a logger does it? And if the government gave permits to allow logging to everyone who wants one, it would lead to ecological disaster.

Denying someone the right to buy sex would therefore not violate other people's human rights, and as the nordic model seeks to criminalise sex buyers but NOT the prostitutes themselves, it's really the only sensible option. Right?

 

[Corpsey]

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/07/welcome-to-the-new-prostitution-economy

 

[droid]

Ok, here’s the thing with position 2. How is it possible to treat sex as a commodity with no intrinsic meaning without trivializing women’s experience of rape? Doesn’t it devalue rape as a uniquely violent crime?

Possessions are commodities - and yet people still feel violated, humiliated and powerless when they are mugged, robbed or burgled.

 

[Benny Bunter]

Does a rapist rape for the same reason a mugger mugs?

 

[Benny Bunter]

Should a rapist receive the same punishment as a mugger?

 

[droid]

There's a huge amount of literature suggesting that rape is primarily about power and domination rather than sex, so, in some cases, possibly.

You realise you're hectoring now benny?

 

[Benny Bunter]

Sorry, not my intention to hector (at least no more than I was hectored earlier in thread, though I suppose I started it. Whatever...). I just think they're good questions to be asking is all and I'm genuinely interested in what you've got to say. On my phone now so my posts are short and might come across as a bit brusque.