Prostitution Revolution in America [Archive]

View Full Version : Prostitution Revolution in America

jseaman0

8th March 2011, 01:23

LuÃs Henrique

8th March 2011, 15:48

Prostitution should be legal or decriminalized in the u.s. as it already is in most developed countries in the world. Even in some places where it is still illegal, it is mostly tolerated. If there was or ever will be a prostitution revolution, would you be down for the cause? Would you be willing to fight for our rights and freedoms and what's right? Would you be willing to fight for our right to make a choice?

Evidently, though I wouldn't call that a "revolution". It is an absolute shame that a country that calls itself a "democracy", and even intends to be the vanguard of democracy in the world has such medieval legislation concerning prostitution.

Luís Henrique

Os Cangaceiros

8th March 2011, 18:38

"prostitution revolution"?

A Revolutionary Tool

9th March 2011, 02:15

"prostitution revolution"?
This obviously means the most exploited workers among us(prostitutes) will lead the struggle for proletarian revolution. Act as sort of a "vanguard" if you will.

But seriously Nevada is the only state that allows prostitution of any kind, Nevada is alright right?

gorillafuck

9th March 2011, 02:17

I hope that prostitutes rise up with the rest of workers.

I dunno what the heck this "prostitution revolution" thing is though.

Os Cangaceiros

9th March 2011, 02:27

The phrase sounds awesome. Two four-syllable words that rhyme? Damn.

LuÃs Henrique

9th March 2011, 03:20

I dunno what the heck this "prostitution revolution" thing is though.

Reading from the OP, it looks like he meant a series of legal reforms (or a popular movement to foster legal reforms) to abolish the most ridiculous legislation against sex workers in the United States.

Luís Henrique

Pretty Flaco

9th March 2011, 03:28

gorillafuck

9th March 2011, 03:32

And honestly, when you hear of places where prostitution is rampant, it's typically a sign that the conditions there are dire. Don't really know why, but it's often true. You don't hear about the dirty Beverly Hills girls.Because well off people don't become prostitutes.

Pretty Flaco

9th March 2011, 03:44

Because well off people don't become prostitutes.
But what about fancy "escorts".

LuÃs Henrique

9th March 2011, 14:31

Because well off people don't become prostitutes.

Well off people also don't become janitors, elementary school teachers, security guards, bank clerks, welders, or cab drivers. Should we take that where these activities are "rampant" the conditions are "dire"?

Or perhaps we should rethink our prejudices on prostitution?

Luís Henrique

Princess Luna

9th March 2011, 15:03

Because well off people don't become prostitutes.
actually Prostitutes at high-end brothels in places were prostitution is legal offen make shit loads of money

jseaman0

10th March 2011, 04:05

But seriously Nevada is the only state that allows prostitution of any kind, Nevada is alright right?

No Nevada is not alright. First, prostitution is only legal in brothels in certain small counties throughout Nevada with a population of less than 100,000. Which means it's not legal in Vegas, Reno, or Carson City. Also the women at those places charge outrageous prices and the quality is crap. They charge $400, $800, or even $1200 and up just for one hour. I think it's safe to say that most people in the proletariat can't afford to pay that on a regular basis. It's especially unjust to charge that much when it's much cheaper in other countries.

jseaman0

10th March 2011, 04:08

Reading from the OP, it looks like he meant a series of legal reforms (or a popular movement to foster legal reforms) to abolish the most ridiculous legislation against sex workers in the United States.

Luís Henrique

Yes but not only legal reforms to protect sex workers, but johns also. Legal reforms to give people the right to choose what they want to do with their money and their bodies with other consentual adults in private.

jseaman0

10th March 2011, 04:15

I don't think that the US really enforces laws against prostitutes very often.

And honestly, when you hear of places where prostitution is rampant, it's typically a sign that the conditions there are dire. Don't really know why, but it's often true. You don't hear about the dirty Beverly Hills girls.

Actually the police conduct sting operations quite a bit. Each police dep. has an entire vice unit dedicated to this sort of thing. They close massage parlors if suspected of selling sex. They also fine suspects, make them take a class about the "evils" of prostitution, and humiliate them. It's not just the prostitutes that are the victims, the johns are too.

A Revolutionary Tool

14th March 2011, 07:40

No Nevada is not alright. First, prostitution is only legal in brothels in certain small counties throughout Nevada with a population of less than 100,000. Which means it's not legal in Vegas, Reno, or Carson City. Also the women at those places charge outrageous prices and the quality is crap. They charge $400, $800, or even $1200 and up just for one hour. I think it's safe to say that most people in the proletariat can't afford to pay that on a regular basis. It's especially unjust to charge that much when it's much cheaper in other countries.
Well I used to live in Carson City. If you wanted to visit a brothel you just drove a few minutes outside of town. Literally the Bunny Ranch is right outside of town. But yeah I've never actually been to one but my dad went for his birthday once to check it out and said they wanted $100+ just for a handjob :lol:; yeah right. I've been asked plenty of times outside of casinos if I want a little something so I know there's like a underground market for that shit. But what I was saying is that we have legalized prostitution(yes to an extent only in brothels) and our society has not collapsed like conservatives act like it would. Hell if you go to Nevada how many people's lives have been ruined because of prostitution compared to how many have been ruined because of gambling there?

I used to live a very small town in Nevada where the school lunches were financed by the person who ran the brothel in the town, so I'd argue it was good for everybody, even us kids :D

NGNM85

16th March 2011, 07:08

I fully support the legalization of prostitution. However, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Wolfshadow

15th April 2011, 03:51

I used to live a very small town in Nevada where the school lunches were financed by the person who ran the brothel in the town, so I'd argue it was good for everybody, even us kids :D
:D I had to laugh at this

I too feel it could be better for all involved if legalized,it would put a serious damper on things like the 8 bodies in NYC and 4-5 in atlantic city they found.All where working girls that fell through the cracks and while the numbers keep adding up the police seem to be doing very little and the same for the media :thumbdown:

MagÃ³n

15th April 2011, 04:05

Princess Luna

15th April 2011, 04:20

pranabjyoti

15th April 2011, 04:25

StalinFanboy

15th April 2011, 05:48

If prostitution is some kind of "work", then can anybody tell how we can mechanize it and what is the way to increase "productivity" of "workers". Another question is what can be the possible division of labor?

What is prostitution if not work? Also, your attempts to ask "legitimate" questions do very little to hide your bigotry. Did it not cross your mind at least once that prostitution is itself a product of a larger division among the working class? That division being production and reproduction. Or are you going to discount the necessity of unpaid reproductive labor that women do all over the world, ranging from house keeping to keeping their partners happy so they can go to work and feel rejuvenated (by this I mean sex).

pranabjyoti

15th April 2011, 08:23

What is prostitution if not work? Also, your attempts to ask "legitimate" questions do very little to hide your bigotry. Did it not cross your mind at least once that prostitution is itself a product of a larger division among the working class? That division being production and reproduction. Or are you going to discount the necessity of unpaid reproductive labor that women do all over the world, ranging from house keeping to keeping their partners happy so they can go to work and feel rejuvenated (by this I mean sex).
Well, my question is regarding consideration of prostitution as "work". You may call it a profession, but how that can be "labor". I clearly want to mean that labor is something, any production/service, productivity of which can be increased by use of automation. But, can you show any scope of modernization in this "labor". NO.
And as per your definition, women (mostly married) don't do sex for fun and satisfaction of themselves but to pleas their male partner i.e. they are just passive "service providers" and they don't have sex urge. Am I right?

Arilou Lalee'lay

15th April 2011, 20:41

Prostitution is illegal? Last I checked, it was institutionalized, they just call it "marriage".

(not that ALL marriages are like that, of course, just the American heteronormative ones).

graymouser

15th April 2011, 20:47

Bad Grrrl Agro

15th April 2011, 21:25

I've had sex or done sexual favors in exchange for money (I also have done it in exchange for drugs)

It's not glorious but we all do what we have to do. Should someone be charged with anything simply for turning tricks? Of course not.

If the intention was to get people to not be sex workers, the best method would be providing incentive (and the means) for a different line of work.

I think the most important goal should be on the job safety, to ensure that sex workers are protected, a way out for those who don't want to do it anymore and preventing the spread of STDs.

StalinFanboy

16th April 2011, 01:48

Well, my question is regarding consideration of prostitution as "work". You may call it a profession, but how that can be "labor". I clearly want to mean that labor is something, any production/service, productivity of which can be increased by use of automation. But, can you show any scope of modernization in this "labor". NO. I actually define "work" as that which is exploitative and alienating. I define "workers" as people who engage in "work."

And as per your definition, women (mostly married) don't do sex for fun and satisfaction of themselves but to pleas their male partner i.e. they are just passive "service providers" and they don't have sex urge. Am I right?

No, go back and read. I'm saying that women are relegated to the reproductive sphere, where their role in capitalism is to reproduce workers and the working class. Some workers genuinely enjoy their job, doesn't change the fact that they are still commodities and are still exploited and alienated.

pranabjyoti

16th April 2011, 08:53

I actually define "work" as that which is exploitative and alienating. I define "workers" as people who engage in "work."
As per Marxist terminology, a worker is a person, who sells his/her power to do labor in exchange of salary and he/she must be provided with some tools/machinery/gadget to do the work. The whole human history is basically the improvement of the tools and its evolution to present machinery. But, "sex work" being the "oldest profession" haven't seen such development since its starting with the class based society. By doing some work doesn't make anyone worker in a proper scientific/Marxist terminology.

No, go back and read. I'm saying that women are relegated to the reproductive sphere, where their role in capitalism is to reproduce workers and the working class. Some workers genuinely enjoy their job, doesn't change the fact that they are still commodities and are still exploited and alienated.
The problem is like all the species on Earth, human females are also made of to enjoy sex. While "working" can only be found in human species. In short, it is highly unlikely for a woman not to enjoy sex while at the same time a worker to enjoy "working". Human species is made to enjoy sex, not work. So the comparison just don't match.

Gorra Negra

17th April 2011, 01:29

Bad Grrrl Agro

19th April 2011, 22:30

After the revolution there shouldn't be any prostitution.

The desire for sex is normal and human but getting sex by paying money it is not. Having to sell ones body to make ends meet is pure exploitation and a result of capitalism. Prostitution has always existed under different systems but under the capitalist system this has increased greatly. Porn industries, brothels, strip-clubs etc..
And how would you propose stopping all prostitution?Throwing us in prison?

You want to make that line of work easier to get out of? That would be great. Want to improve conditions of work as far as protecting sex workers from violence? I encourage that.
Want to provide condoms to sex workers to help stop the spread of STDs? I encourage that as well.

But you cannot legislate morality. And as women, we get victimized all too often in monogamous marriages and we are exploited by patriarchy. Moralistic anti-prostitution laws would only reinforce patriarchy.

Red Future

19th April 2011, 22:40

But what about fancy "escorts".

This is actually a matter of debate if "Courtesans" are oppressed

Gorra Negra

20th April 2011, 02:14

Like I said:
Having to sell ones body to make ends meet is pure exploitation and a result of capitalism.

No one here is saying anything about throwing people in prison except you.

Bad Grrrl Agro

20th April 2011, 07:06

Like I said:

No one here is saying anything about throwing people in prison except you.
And if some of us still turn tricks? You know, after your revolution?

StalinFanboy

20th April 2011, 07:23

As per Marxist terminology, a worker is a person, who sells his/her power to do labor in exchange of salary and he/she must be provided with some tools/machinery/gadget to do the work. The whole human history is basically the improvement of the tools and its evolution to present machinery. But, "sex work" being the "oldest profession" haven't seen such development since its starting with the class based society. By doing some work doesn't make anyone worker in a proper scientific/Marxist terminology.
It's not my fault that Marxism overlooks the role of women in capitalism. And it's not my fault that people who don't see the reproductive work of women as something other than work are chauvinists. It seems that the reproductive sphere is even more alienating and exploitative simply because it is unpaid and under-valued by the rest of society, so wonderfully demonstrated by your posts.

With sex work, the "machinery" is the sex workers body. Sex workers, who are primarily women, are commodified to an even greater degree than the rest of the proletariat.

The problem is like all the species on Earth, human females are also made of to enjoy sex. While "working" can only be found in human species. In short, it is highly unlikely for a woman not to enjoy sex while at the same time a worker to enjoy "working". Human species is made to enjoy sex, not work. So the comparison just don't match.
Yeahhh... except in the case of sex work, having sex becomes a means to survival, not a means to enjoyment. There's a pretty big fundamental difference between having to sell your body and your pleasure in order to survive, and getting it on with someone (or some people) special. I'm pretty sure this falls in line with Marx's concept of alienation, especially the way it is articulated in the Estranged Labor, what with the whole concept of human life being the labor power that we have, and capitalism taking that labor power and making it an end in its self, rather than a means to an end.

pranabjyoti

20th April 2011, 09:42

It's not my fault that Marxism overlooks the role of women in capitalism. And it's not my fault that people who don't see the reproductive work of women as something other than work are chauvinists. It seems that the reproductive sphere is even more alienating and exploitative simply because it is unpaid and under-valued by the rest of society, so wonderfully demonstrated by your posts.

With sex work, the "machinery" is the sex workers body. Sex workers, who are primarily women, are commodified to an even greater degree than the rest of the proletariat.
Well, human body is a part of labor in every kind of labor, but that has never been considered to a "machinery" itself. Machinery is something, that can be built and improved and that isn't the case about human body.
And problem with reproduction is it's a natural feeling and you can not expect any return for doing something for the survival of your own gene. At least, that's something not related to Marxian economy by any means.

Yeahhh... except in the case of sex work, having sex becomes a means to survival, not a means to enjoyment. There's a pretty big fundamental difference between having to sell your body and your pleasure in order to survive, and getting it on with someone (or some people) special. I'm pretty sure this falls in line with Marx's concept of alienation, especially the way it is articulated in the Estranged Labor, what with the whole concept of human life being the labor power that we have, and capitalism taking that labor power and making it an end in its self, rather than a means to an end.
Prostitution exists since the birth of class based society. In classless society (primitive communism), it's beyond idea and not found in areas where tribal life exists even today. But repeatedly you are pointing against "capitalism". At least I can not see German philosopher anywhere near you.
In a classless society, prostitution can not exist but that doesn't mean labor won't exist there.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th April 2011, 09:48

But seriously Nevada is the only state that allows prostitution of any kind, Nevada is alright right?

There was no law on the books against it in Rhode Island until recently.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th April 2011, 10:02

This article was written for and published in the Permanent Revolution magazine (winter 2006) by a PR supporter.

The recent murder of five women in Suffolk has underlined the vulnerability of sex workers, Helen Ward argues that those who see it as simply violence against women misunderstand fundamental features of women’s oppression under capitalism.

“Prostitution is only a particular expression of the universal prostitution of the worker”.(1) This quote from Marx might suggest that prostitution is a relatively straightforward issue for socialists, but instead it has proved a real challenge, with leftist positions ranging from advocating repression and abolition on the one hand, to decriminalization and union organisation on the other. Much of the current debate centres on whether prostitution can really be considered as work or whether it is best dealt with as a form of violence against women.(2)

The two positions lead to diametrically opposed strategies. If prostitution is work, then fighting for self-organisation and rights are a key part of the socialist response. If, on the other hand, prostitution is violence and slavery then the participants are victims who need rescuing. Kathleen Barry, organiser of an international feminist conference on trafficking in 1983, expressed the latter view when she refused to debate sex worker activist Margo St. James, arguing that “the conference was feminist and did not support the institution of prostitution . . . (it would be) . . . inappropriate to discuss sexual slavery with prostitute women”.(3)

More recently writer Julie Bindell has echoed this view, writing about the GMB decision to start a branch for sex workers, she argues, “how can a union on the one hand campaign against violence against women, but unionise it at the same time? Rather than society pretending it is a career choice, prostitution needs to be exposed for what it is – violence against women. Unionisation cannot protect the women in this vile industry”.(4)

Most recently the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP) has entered the fray and declared that prostitution is violence against women. A Marxist position on prostitution Prostitution is the exchange of sex for money. However, since there are other situations in which such an exchange occurs – in some forms of marriage, for example – most dictionary definitions go a little further. In the Oxford English Dictionary a prostitute is “a woman who offers her body to indiscriminate sexual intercourse especially for hire”.

A more extensive definition is offered by the Encyclopaedia Britannica, where prostitution is the “practice of engaging in sexual activity, usually with individuals other than a spouse or friend, in exchange for immediate payment in money or other valuables.” These definitions add “indiscriminate” or “other than a spouse” to try and encapsulate what we all intrinsically understand – prostitution is sex outside of those relationships where sex is usually permitted. The term prostitution appears to unify many different people and relationships over time. The hetaerae of ancient Greece, the Japanese geisha, the European courtesan, the street walkers of Soho and the brothel workers of Mumbai, all share the label of prostitute.

This appearance of a timeless occupation, contained in the cliché of the “oldest profession”, shields many different social relations. The thing these women share is that they perform sex outside of the private family sphere where sex is linked to reproduction and maintenance of a household. This is important since it gets to the heart of the matter – prostitution can only be understood at all in relation to monogamous marriage.

As Engels put it, “Monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society”.(5) Bebel, writing on women and socialism in the 1880s explained, “Prostitution thus becomes a necessary social institution of bourgeois society, just as the police, the standing army, the church and the capitalist class”.(6) To understand this dialectic, the “interpenetration of opposites”, we need to look first at the essence of prostitution in capitalism, consider how it varies according to the mode of production, and then return to explore the relationship between private and public sex and the oppression of women.

Prostitution: the commodity

Like most commercial transactions under capitalism, prostitution is based on the sale and purchase of a commodity. In common parlance, a prostitute “sells her body”. But this is a misnomer, since at the end of the transaction the client does not “own” the prostitute’s body. What the client buys is a sexual service. Some feminists and socialists object to the idea that the women sells a service rather than her body, but, recognising that it is temporary, describe it as the sale of the use of her body for their sexual pleasure.

But even that is misleading. If you go to any place where prostitution takes place, whether it is on the streets, in a brothel or through an agency, there will be a tariff. It is not generally written down because of legal restrictions, but it is clear: there is a price for masturbation, usually higher prices for oral, vaginal or anal sex. Some escorts will charge by the hour, but will also clearly state what sexual services are, and which are not, included in that fee. The commodity is sex – or rather a particular sexual service.

Turning sex into a commodity is regarded by many people as the fundamental “sin” of prostitution. Mhairi McAlpine from the SSP writes, “prostitution is the commodification of sexual relations, taking it out of the sphere of mutual pleasure and into the domain of the market.”(7) I have had similar discussions with many comrades over the years – surely such an intimate behaviour should never be turned into an alienable thing to be bought and sold? This rather romantic view of sex as mutual pleasure is itself an abstraction from social relations. Under capitalism, and previous class societies, sex is highly regulated and has an economic dimension. The regulation is based on the need to defend private property through inheritance.

In the Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels outlined how monogamy (for women) arose alongside private property. The monogamous family “develops out of the pairing family . . . It is based on the supremacy of the man, the express purpose being to produce children of undisputed paternity; such paternity is demanded because these children are later to come into their father’s property as his natural heirs.”(8)

The exact form of the family has changed through different forms of class society, but the centrality of female monogamy has not, which explains the extensive and consistent laws, religions and customs that ensure its defence. It was not prostitution that took sex “out of the sphere of mutual pleasure” but the monogamy required to defend private property. Daughters became property to be bought and sold for their capacity to produce heirs in return for deals of land, cattle or cash.(9) Prostitution emerged from the same process, since no society yet has been able to enforce monogamy for men as well as women. Demosthenes, a Greek orator, summed up the attitude to women in the slave society of Athens, “We resort to courtesans for our pleasure, keep concubines to look after our daily needs, and marry wives to give us legitimate children and be the faithful guardians of our hearth.”(10)

But is this view not outdated? Surely in the 21st century sex is predominantly for mutual pleasure rather than production of heirs or transfer of cash? There has been considerable sexual liberalisation over the past 40 years, due to changes in the social position of women and the development of effective contraception, and prostitution is not the only form of non-marital sex. However, social structures still favour monogamous heterosexual relationships in relation to property, and women worldwide are still condemned as whores and sluts if they openly seek non-monogamous sex.

The class structure of prostitution

On the surface prostitution does not appear to fit into standard economic categories. One historian writes:

“. . . the prostitute does not behave like any other commodity; she occupies a unique place, at the centre of an extraordinary and nefarious economic system. She is able to represent all the terms within capitalist production; she is the human labour, the object of exchange and the seller at once. She stands as worker, commodity and capitalist and blurs the categories of bourgeois economics in the same way as she tests the boundaries of bourgeois morality . . . As a commodity, therefore, the prostitute both encapsulates and distorts all the classic features of bourgeois economics.”(11)

While it is wrong to suggest that a single prostitute can represent all the elements of capitalist production, it does point to the many different roles that prostitutes can play. They can indeed appear as worker, commodity, seller and even capitalist, but this is because different prostitutes can have different relationship to the commodity they sell.

Commodities have both a use value and an exchange value. The use value in prostitution is satisfying the client’s desire, the provision of sexual pleasure. The exchange value is the social labour embodied in that commodity, that is, the physical and mental labour involved in providing the sexual service. This is equivalent to what the sex worker needs to reproduce herself under socially average conditions for the industry.

Like many service and some productive industries under capitalism, prostitution takes place in a variety of ways, with the prostitute having a different relation ship to the means of production and to the purchaser in each. Many prostitutes are wage labourers: they are employed by an individual or business and required to work certain hours. This is the case for millions of women working in brothels, saunas and bars across the world. They are paid a wage based on the hours worked or on the numbers of clients seen.

In this case they are not selling the sexual service directly to the client – they sell their labour power to the boss. This boss (a pimp, madame, brothel or bar owner) takes money from the clients and passes a proportion back to the sex worker (or requires a proportion of the sex workers’ fee to be handed over to them). It is actually in this sense that the sex worker, like all other wage labourers, can most be said to “sell their body” in that they sell their capacity to labour. However, as Marx explains in Volume 1 of Capital, this is not the same as selling oneself: “. . . the owner of the labour power [worker – HW] should sell it only for a definite period, for if he were to sell it rump and stump, once for all, he would be selling himself, converting himself from a free man into a slave, from an owner of a commodity into a commodity.”(12)

There are indeed sex workers who exist in such conditions of slavery – where they are sold and bought as commodities themselves, and then put to work for the slave-owners. The revival of this modern slavery, mostly reported in relation to trafficking of people, is not exclusive to prostitution but exists in domestic work and other menial tasks. The fact that slavery exists in some parts of the sex industry should not blind us to the fact that far more prostitution takes place in the more common condition of wage slavery.

Most sex workers are neither slaves nor wage labourers – largely because legal restrictions on prostitution have impeded the expansion of a “legitimate” industry and have kept it in the shadows of the black market and criminal economy. Many sex workers are direct sellers; they do not work for anyone but trade directly with the client. In this situation they are still selling a commodity, but this time it is not their labour power but the commodity in which their labour is incorporated, i.e. the sexual service, and they sell this directly to the purchaser. They are, in effect, self-employed, although in most countries they cannot be legally registered as such. Some have resources and own or rent their means of production – the premises, phones and other tools of the trade. They are classic petit bourgeois.

But most women in this situation are far from the image of the middle class, self-employed business person. Most of them are poor with few resources, and for some the trade is more akin to a primitive form of barter. For example when sexual services are traded directly for subsistence, such as food and shelter, or for drugs. These people are only peripherally involved in the capitalist economy – they are part of what Marx would have called the lumpenproletariat. And then there are prostitutes who employ others to work for them. Some sex workers go on to run their own businesses, as madames and brothel owners. As bosses they own the means of production and exploit the labour of others, while often continuing, for a while, to sell sex themselves. Thus some prostitutes are workers, some are slaves, most are petit bourgeois, and a few are capitalists.(13)

Exploitation or oppression?

It is at this rather high level of abstraction – of commodities, use values and exchange values – that Marx identified the nature of exploitation. Workers are exploited by capitalists not through deceit or trickery, but by the nature of wage labour itself: workers exchange a commodity for a wage. The commodity is not the product of their labour but their capacity to labour, their labour power.

The exploitation exists in the difference between the value of that labour power and the value of the commodities they produce during the time their labour power is used by the capitalist. Exploitation results from the fact that the worker does not own the product of their labour but merely their capacity to labour. Even when the wage is paid at the full value of the labour power, a fair exchange in capitalist terms, the worker is exploited. Roberta Perkins, writing about the sex industry in Australia, provides a useful description of how this operates in sex work businesses:

“Brothels, or parlours (bordellos, bagnios, stews, seraglios) are the equivalent in structure to a small to medium sized factory, a hotel, or other building used solely as a workplace, involving large capital expenditure, high overheads and a large regular profit. The ‘owner of the means of production’ may be an individual, a partnership, or a company of shareholders, who employ auxiliary salaried staff, such as managers, receptionists, barmaids, or cleaners and commissioned staff, or the prostitutes.

The prostitutes here work in the proletariat tradition in which their labour is hired and exchanged for cash. The prostitute’s exchange-value is usually half the exchange value of the goods (sex) purchased by the client (customer or consumer). This is her commission [or wage – HW] in a shared arrangement with the owner, whose share is a surplus value from which wages for auxiliaries, rent, power, telephones, advertisements and other overheads, and capital for re-investment into the business (for example, improvements or expansion) must be extracted. The balance of this surplus value is the profit for the owner(s).”(14)

As with other wage labourers, exploitation and profit lies in the difference between what it costs to employ the sex worker and the income she can generate through the commodity she delivers. For the petit bourgeois there is no exploitation in that sense, and profit comes from raising the price above the costs of the business.

This analysis is rejected by feminists who argue that the client also directly exploits the sex worker. Certainly in the prostitute-client relationship, the client is almost always in a privileged economic position, but he is not exploiting the prostitute. His role in the relationship is that of consumer. There are many others who exploit her – the employer who may be a pimp, a business or a madame – but in economic terms it is not the client.(15) Here Engels’ analogy about prostitution and monogamy is relevant. In the family the husband has many advantages over his wife in terms of power within the household, disposable income and freedom from many mundane tasks. But he has not in general achieved this through economic exploitation of his wife – he has “inherited” this from the general position of men and women within capitalism.(16)

To say that prostitutes are not exploited by clients is not the same as saying they are not oppressed by them. Many sex workers are brutally oppressed by clients who treat them in a degrading and often violent way. The state also treats sex workers in this way, often denying them basic human and legal rights. For example, until recently in the UK, a woman who had previous convictions for soliciting was labelled a “common prostitute”. Once this was on her record she had fewer rights that anyone else. Future convictions did not require the evidence of two witnesses but could be obtained on the statement of a single police officer, and her previous record was brought up in court.

In many countries, women with prior convictions for prostitution have restrictions on their rights to travel, they are often denied custody of their children, and today in England street working women are served with anti-social behaviour orders which lead to effective curfews for an activity that is not actually a crime. More extreme examples of the oppression of prostitutes include the high rate of murder and violent assault, and the vicious way in which prostitutes are treated in the press. Women who are “outed” as prostitutes can find themselves cast out by families and friends, can lose their children and can never move into “straight” jobs. They become outlaws.

These legal and social sanctions not only affect women working on the street; they extend to any woman found to be a “whore”. But it is clearly the most vulnerable women – those with no money, poor education and little social support – who suffer most. They are reviled from all sides. It is unsurprising that many of them develop drug or alcohol addictions and other mental health problems. But the popular stereotype of women who were abused as children being driven into prostitution to “feed” a drug habit is not the most common story.

There is usually a combination of circumstances that lead women to start sex work, and the common denominator is not drug addiction or abuse, although these are factors, but lack of money. The lack of money may be absolute or relative – many women find the sex industry to be a better option than the low paid, highly exploited jobs available to them in the formal sector.

The situation is no different in other countries. Sex workers in India produced a manifesto in 1997 that includes this statement about why women take up sex work:

“Women take up prostitution for the same reason as they may take up any other livelihood option available to them. Our stories are not fundamentally different from the labourer from Bihar who pulls a rickshaw in Calcutta, or the worker from Calcutta who works part time in a factory in Bombay. Some of us get sold into the industry. After being bonded to the madam who has bought us for some years we gain a degree of independence within the sex industry. [We] end up in the sex trade after going through many experiences in life, often unwillingly, without understanding all the implications of being a prostitute fully. But when do most of us women have access to choice within or outside the family? Do we become casual domestic labourer willingly? Do we have a choice about who we want to marry and when? The ‘choice’ is rarely real for most women, particularly poor women.”(17)

Public and private

This Marxist analysis demonstrates that prostitution developed as the other side of the coin of monogamy which exists to defend private property, and that sexual relations cannot be fully separated from economic relationships in class society. Women’s oppression is rooted in the separation of private domestic toil and reproduction from social production and social life.

Prostitution poses a threat to society because it threatens to blur this sharp distinction – taking sex out of the home and into the market. Secondly it shows that under capitalism prostitutes are not a single class. Our programme on prostitution should reflect this understanding, and be based neither on our own romantic ideas about what sex should represent, nor on our horrors at the most extreme exploitation of sex workers.

Sex workers organise

Over recent years there has been a huge growth in organisations of sex workers. In North America and Europe many of these organisations grew out of women’s groups and other social movements, but have had to break with feminist positions on sex work in order to campaign for their rights. Many feminists want to abolish prostitution, regarding it simply as violence against women. They argue that it must be eliminated through sanctions against managers and clients and rescue missions to save prostitutes. Indeed many will not talk of prostitutes, let alone sex workers, but use the term “prostituted women”. This particular form of patronising language reveals their attitude – they regard sex workers as dupes, and accord them no role in liberating themselves from any oppression or exploitation they endure.

So sharp is this dispute between the feminist saviours and the sex workers’ rights groups that they will rarely share a platform. The Women’s Library in London recently organised an exhibition on prostitution, and did not allow any representations from sex workers’ organisations, leading to protests outside from the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW).(18) The most extreme position is taken by the writer Julie Burchill, who wrote, “Prostitution is the supreme triumph of capitalism. When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women, for the moral tarring and feathering they give indigenous women who have had the bad luck to live in what they make their humping ground.”(19)

Sex workers’ organisations have been criticised for romanticising prostitution, and representing only the middle class “professionals”. But in India, a mass organisation of sex workers exists and takes exactly the same positions. The Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee (or “Durbar”, which in Bengali means unstoppable or indomitable) is based in West Bengal, India, and grew out of the Sonagachi AIDS prevention initiative. Durbar has 65,000 members, working in some of the poorest areas of the country:

“Durbar is explicit about its political objective of fighting for recognition of sex work as work and, of sex workers as workers and for a secure social existence of sex workers and their children. Durbar demands decriminalisation of adult sex work and seeks to reform laws that restrict the human rights of sex workers, that tend to criminalise them and limit their enfranchisement as full citizens.”(20)

Their 1997 manifesto, cited earlier, reveals an understanding of sexual oppression that would put many *socialists to shame:

“Ownership of private property and maintenance of patriarchy necessitates a control over women’s reproduction. Since property lines are maintained through legitimate heirs, and sexual intercourse between men and women alone carry the potential for procreation, capitalist patriarchy sanctions only such couplings. Sex is seen primarily, and almost exclusively, as an instrument for reproduction, negating all aspects of pleasure and desire intrinsic to it . . . The young men who look for sexual initiation, the married men who seek the company of ‘other’ women, the migrant labourers separated from their wives who try to find warmth and companionship in the red light area, cannot all be dismissed as wicked and perverted. To do that will amount to dismissing a whole history of human search for desire, intimacy and need.”

Organisations of sex workers are a key to fighting exploitation and oppression. Given the class divisions within prostitution these organisations need to be run for and by those sex workers who are employed or who work for themselves, and not be left to be recruiting grounds for those who want to employ and exploit others.

The unions and community organisations of sex workers need to have strong links with other workers’ organisations – as part of a united and strong workers’ movement they will be better able to fight against widespread prejudice.

Over the past decade several unions have agreed to organise and represent sex workers. In the UK, the International Union of Sex Workers (IUSW) persuaded the general union the GMB to form a sex industry branch in Soho, and it has successfully unionised a brothel and negotiated recognition agreements in lap dancing clubs. Sex workers are also included in general unions in German (Verdi) and the Netherlands (FNV).(21)

Prostitution and socialism

The life of sex workers is often hard and dangerous, not least because it is criminalised and repressed exposing sex workers to abuse from pimps and clients. Many sex workers are unhappy with their work and would like to leave if there were realistic alternatives. But is a form of alienated labour like others under capitalism.

Prostitution, in this form, would not exist in a socialist society, neither would the family nor work in their current form. There may well be specialist sexual entertainers and experts, but freed from the links with private property and state sanctified or enforced monogamy, sexual relations will evolve in ways that we can only speculate about. The key thing is that the distinction between public and private, in the sense of public social work and private reproduction, will have to dissolve and in that process women will be truly liberated.

About the author

Helen Ward, a PR supporter, is a public health doctor and researcher who has worked with sex workers in London and Europe for over 20 years. Together with anthropologist Sophie Day she has researched HIV and other health risks, occupational mobility and life course in sex work, and established one of the largest projects for sex workers in the UK. She is a supporter of the International Union of Sex Workers.

Endnotes
1. Marx K. Economic and philosophical manuscripts, 1844. This and the other classic texts are available on www.marxists.org
2. In the article I use the terms prostitution and sex work. There has been extensive debate about which is preferable, and sex work is generally preferred by activists and refers to a wider group of people involve in the sex industry. However, historical, and current debates about the role of commercial sex in society have tended to refer to prostitution (exchange of sex rather than sexual imagery, for example) and therefore I think it important to continue to use it. I also refer exclusively to female sex workers and
male clients when discussing the general features of prostitution. This is because this is the dominant form and most closely linked to general sexual oppression. However, this is not to deny that a large number of men also sell sex. The UK government estimates there are 70,000 sex workers in Britain today.
3. RS Rajan, “The prostitution question(s). (Female) Agency, sexuality and work”, in Trafficking, sex work, prostitution, Reproduction 2, 1999
4. J Bindell, Guardian, 7 July 2003
5. F Engels, The origin of the family private property and the state Section II part 4, Lawrence and Wishart, 1972
6. A Bebel, Woman under socialism, Schocken Books, 1971
7. Scottish Socialist Party Women’s Network, “Prostitution: a contribution to the debate”, 2006, at www.scottishsocialistparty.org/pages/prostitution.html
8. F Engels, op cit
9. Movement for a Revolutionary Communist International 1986, “The origin and changing nature of women’s oppression”, In Theses on women’s oppression, at www.permanentrevolution.net/?view=entry&entry=375
10. JA Symonds, “A problem in Greek Ethics”, 1901, at www.sacredtexts.com/lgbt/pge/pge00.htm
11. S Bell S, Reading, writing and rewriting the prostitute body, Indiana University Press, 1994
12. K Marx, Capital, Volume 1, Penguin, 1976 (emphasis added).
13. This class heterogeneity is not unique to prostitution. One can make an analogy with the peasantry, who can range from serfs tied to the land, through small farmers relying on their own labour alone (plus family) selling their products, to richer farmers employing others.
14. R Perkins, Working girls: prostitutes, their life and social control, Australian Institute of Criminology, 1991
15. Of course, clients can and do rip off prostitutes by refusing to pay for the sexual service they have had, but this is theft not exploitation.
16. The exception to this is where the family is a productive unit, most commonly in peasant and early industrial societies, where the husband is both head of the household and head of the business, exploiting the work of his wife and children.
17. Sonagachi Project, Sex workers’ manifesto, Calcutta, 1997, at www.bayswan.org/manifest.html
18. For details of the exhibition, which runs until the end of March 2006, see http://www.londonmet.ac.uk/thewomenslibrary/whatson/prostitution.cfm
19. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Julie_Burchill
20. Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee www.durbar.org
21. G Gall, Sex Worker Union Organising, Palgrave Macmillan, 2006

Further reading

August Bebel on prostitution
www.marxists.org/archive/bebel/1879/woman-socialism/ch12.htm

Sex worker rights organisations/unions

International Union of Sex Workers
www.iusw.org

International Centre for Trade Union Rights, special newsletter on sex worker union organisation (2005)
www.ictur.org/IUR124.pdf

International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers In Europe
www.sexworkeurope.org

Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee
www.durbar.org

***

Policies on sex work

* Prostitution must be decriminalised and those who sell or buy sex should not be prosecuted. Remove all laws specifically on sex work. This is not the same as legalising prostitution which would mean creating a specific legal regulatory framework, such as toleration zones or a lists of registered workers. Such regulation is not designed to protect workers but to protect "polite society" from such workers. We opppose such "sex worker" specific regulation as it gives the state the power to control sex workers, forcing them to have health checks, for example, in ways that would not be tolerated in other industries. Where state control of sex work exists, as in Austria and Greece where registered workers are required to have tests and certificates, this formal of legalisation perpetuates hidden sex work and state harassment. Forms of regulation designed to protect sex workers from criminals, violence and so on, can and must be developed, as they have been in other industries, by unions representing sex workers once their work has been decriminalised.

* There must be no toleration of exploiters and abusers. Unions of sex workers along with equal rights with other workers will allow sex workers to challenge their exploiters. While they remin on the fringes of legality or are actually criminalised they will hae no effective recourse to the law.

* For free movement of labour across borders; no immigration controls. This is the only way to undermine the power of the sex traffickers. No enforced sex work; within a decriminalised framework sex workers themselves can ensure under-age and vulnerable adolescents are not exploited.

* We need campaigns against the hypocrisy surrounding sex work - with sex workers in general unions this will become easier within the working clas, but we also need to tackle the vile position of press and the state.

* We reject the forced testing of sex workers for HIV and other STDs, and the detention of sex workers found to be infected. For women, men and children who work as sex workers, HIV and other infections are an occupational risk, and they must not be punished. Education for sex workers and clients should promote the use of condoms and safe sex.

* Recreational drugs should be legalised, with their distribution regulated and made safe. Hard drug use and dependency should be treated as a medical/social problem. This will underm,ine the drug crime that is linked to much of the violence around prostitution.

* We need to challenge the double standard that tries to dey women the right to free sexuality while encouraging it to young men. This is part of the fight against sexism.

* Any campaign for sex worker rights should be linked to improving the education and training of young women and providing decent jobs and wages.

Johnny Kerosene

25th April 2011, 02:31

I would totally support the legalization of prostitution. In fact, I just wrote around 3 pages about why I think it should be legal as a part of my Human Sexuality term paper the other day.

Blackscare

25th April 2011, 03:18

actually Prostitutes at high-end brothels in places were prostitution is legal offen make shit loads of money

Someone else:

But what about fancy "escorts".

It said well off people don't become prostitutes. No one said that it can't, in a minority of circumstances when you take the whole world of prostitution as a whole, be a job that pays well. But if you're already well-off or have a trust fund you usually don't opt to sell your ass.

Most people who seem to pick the job of prostitute, and someone correct me if there's a stat that refutes this, usually have drug problems. At least the people I've known who've gone down that route. When you see a young girl, maybe 18, hitting the streets for the first time you tend to notice that they rapidly "go downhill", so to speak, begin to look skinny and have scratches on their faces, etc, that make them less of a "hot" commodity. So for most women, being (or at least remaining) a high-end call girl is sort of impossible given the circumstances that cause them to get into that line of work, drugs.

I'm a fan of the Icelandic model, legalize prostitution and keep paying for sex illegal.

NoOneIsIllegal

25th April 2011, 03:32

Prostitutes should Democratically Unionize all across the US, thus kicking out their Pimp bosses, and leading themselves to whatever it is they're shooting for.

Also, they need a name, or names, for their Union(s). Start thinking people!
I'm pretty sure the IWW in their early years attempted to unionize prostitutes. It's been mentioned in several books I've read, but nothing that is too in-depth so I'm not positive if they made any headway.

The Red Next Door

25th April 2011, 04:04

What the fuck is wrong with you motherfuckers, we should encourge people not to do that, fuck you people, make me fucking sick!!!

agnixie

25th April 2011, 06:10

Someone else:

I'm a fan of the Icelandic model, legalize prostitution and keep paying for sex illegal.

It doesn't work, it throws sex workers back into clandestinity and enables pimps. If I was the kind of person to have horrible bad faith, I'd say bourgeois feminists are the best friends of pimps.

It's a ridiculous solution which many sex workers' groups have complained about. It doesn't change underlying conditions, it doesn't change sexism, it doesn't, in fact, change anything but make life harder for both sex workers and victims of trafficking.

But clearly I know nothing about it, despite having been one, having listened to others, with opinions about whether they thought it could or couldn't be improved. So I'll let you guys go on being white knights.

Sword and Shield

25th April 2011, 20:48

There's something I just don't understand about prostitution. If sex is something that one should pay for, why is it always one person paying another. Shouldn't they pay each other and end up even?

graymouser

25th April 2011, 21:04

What the fuck is wrong with you motherfuckers, we should encourge people not to do that, fuck you people, make me fucking sick!!!
Does that mean you are for prostitution remaining illegal? Much like drug prohibition, this does not mean there is no prostitution, just that prostitutes and clients exist outside of the legally sanctioned system and therefore are vulnerableto criminality and abuse. Just because no self-respecting feminist man should use the services of a prostitute, doesn't mean we should not support the right of existing prostitutes to organize and work in safe conditions free of physical abuse to the extent possible.

Or does cursing make problems go away?

Sword and Shield

25th April 2011, 21:10

doesn't mean we should not support the right of existing prostitutes to organize and work in safe conditions free of physical abuse to the extent possible.

So shoot the pimps and arrest the johns.

☭The Revolution☭

25th April 2011, 21:15

graymouser

25th April 2011, 21:27

Prostitution is a direct product of Capitalism-caused poverty. Many prostitutes are single mothers whom are desperate to make ends meet, so they subject their bodies to disgusting perverts with the intent of using them for pleasure. So they have sex with hundreds of men and most of the time acquire STDs and are branded forever with sickness because of the corrupt system. Legalizing Prostitution? I'd rather die for the rights of women rather than support the legalization of that dreadful and sad trade of last resort.
It's all well and good to rant about how you hate prostitution. And while prostitution is a sexist practice, and overall I think it should end, if it's going to exist we should insist that the women who find themselves having no other choices should have full rights as workers and not be criminalized by the legal system or exploited by pimps. A healthy society probably would not have prostitution at all, but the fact is that we live in a deeply sick society and it's best to handle it in a way that will do the least harm until we can get rid of it through consistent education and the end of poverty. Criminalization has always failed.

agnixie

25th April 2011, 22:40

Prostitution is a direct product of Capitalism-caused poverty. Many prostitutes are single mothers whom are desperate to make ends meet, so they subject their bodies to disgusting perverts with the intent of using them for pleasure. So they have sex with hundreds of men and most of the time acquire STDs and are branded forever with sickness because of the corrupt system. Legalizing Prostitution? I'd rather die for the rights of women rather than support the legalization of that dreadful and sad trade of last resort.

Well, it will be die, then, because banning it in times of desperation probably kills more people than not, and banning it does nothing to solve these problems except some sort of smug white knighting.

Also, a lot of what you're saying is bad in prostitution is only exacerbated by prohibition. In fact, some of this can easily be put down to prohibition, especially health issues.

The Red Next Door

26th April 2011, 01:55

Does that mean you are for prostitution remaining illegal? Much like drug prohibition, this does not mean there is no prostitution, just that prostitutes and clients exist outside of the legally sanctioned system and therefore are vulnerableto criminality and abuse. Just because no self-respecting feminist man should use the services of a prostitute, doesn't mean we should not support the right of existing prostitutes to organize and work in safe conditions free of physical abuse to the extent possible.

Or does cursing make problems go away?

That like asking if abortion should be iilegal and no, but we should not encourge people to fuck for money that just self degrading, we should dicuss also how to encourge them to finding self respecting aways of doing stuff.
I mean you are not a fucking feminist if you are just dicussion legalizing it
fuck you people.

agnixie

26th April 2011, 06:25

NoOneIsIllegal

26th April 2011, 06:53

Prostitution is a direct product of Capitalism-caused poverty. Many prostitutes are single mothers whom are desperate to make ends meet, so they subject their bodies to disgusting perverts with the intent of using them for pleasure. So they have sex with hundreds of men and most of the time acquire STDs and are branded forever with sickness because of the corrupt system. Legalizing Prostitution? I'd rather die for the rights of women rather than support the legalization of that dreadful and sad trade of last resort.
...wut? Prostitution wasn't a career born from capitalism, it's the world's oldest occupation. But as long as capitalism exists, safe-prostitution may as well be encouraged, and have strong feminist unions and stand up to the pseudo-bourgeoisie (pimps). It's certainly not going to disappear overnight.

graymouser

26th April 2011, 11:31

That like asking if abortion should be iilegal and no, but we should not encourge people to fuck for money that just self degrading, we should dicuss also how to encourge them to finding self respecting aways of doing stuff.
I mean you are not a fucking feminist if you are just dicussion legalizing it
fuck you people.
No one has been talking about "encouraging" prostitution, and it's certainly putting words into my mouth to say so. However, legitimate feminist discourse has been trying to figure out whether a harm reduction or workers' rights approach to prostitution is possibly more viable than the status quo of criminalization. You aren't contributing to the conversation by running your mouth off cursing.

Sword and Shield

26th April 2011, 16:16

No one has been talking about "encouraging" prostitution, and it's certainly putting words into my mouth to say so. However, legitimate feminist discourse has been trying to figure out whether a harm reduction or workers' rights approach to prostitution is possibly more viable than the status quo of criminalization. You aren't contributing to the conversation by running your mouth off cursing.

I don't think anyone here supports arresting prostitutes (at least I hope not). I personally say we shoot the pimps and arrest the johns.

graymouser

26th April 2011, 16:22

I don't think anyone here supports arresting prostitutes (at least I hope not). I personally say we shoot the pimps and arrest the johns.
Yeah, let me know how that goes for you.

The Red Next Door

26th April 2011, 18:40

I don't think anyone here supports arresting prostitutes (at least I hope not). I personally say we shoot the pimps and arrest the johns.

Johns are not bad people, they people like me who do not seem to have hopes in finding someone, but my feminist values prevents me from even thinking about doing it.

agnixie

27th April 2011, 01:17

Johns are not people, they people like me who do not seem to have hopes in finding someone, but my feminist values prevents me from even thinking about doing it.

Stop draping yourself in bourgeois feminism damnit. I'm a feminist, I've also been a whore. People like you don't help us. People like you empower pimps because they'd rather treat it "out of sight out of mind" (which is exactly what the scandinavian model for prostitution legislation is about).

The Red Next Door

27th April 2011, 04:15

Stop draping yourself in bourgeois feminism damnit. I'm a feminist, I've also been a whore. People like you don't help us. People like you empower pimps because they'd rather treat it "out of sight out of mind" (which is exactly what the scandinavian model for prostitution legislation is about).

People like me? LADY, I said I do not support making Positution Illegal and yes it should not be, but i think we should encourge people not to be whore, the fucking condom does not work all the time. I am not bourgeoise so go shove tempon in your mouth. I am cursing because crackers keep on putting words in my mouth and it annoy the fuck our of me.

southernmissfan

27th April 2011, 06:27

People like me? LADY, I said I do not support making Positution Illegal and yes it should not be, but i think we should encourge people not to be whore, the fucking condom does not work all the time. I am not bourgeoise so go shove tempon in your mouth. I am cursing because crackers keep on putting words in my mouth and it annoy the fuck our of me.

Your posts rarely, if ever, are coherent. You make no sense most of the time and it's a challenge just to figure out what the hell you are talking about usually.
Your cursing and flaming is not necessary and is counter-productive.
You have been reported for flaming and use of sexist language (not to mention your regular shtick about "crackers").

Sentinel

27th April 2011, 11:08

People like me? LADY, I said I do not support making Positution Illegal and yes it should not be, but i think we should encourge people not to be whore, the fucking condom does not work all the time. I am not bourgeoise so go shove tempon in your mouth. I am cursing because crackers keep on putting words in my mouth and it annoy the fuck our of me.

This kind of language, which constitutes flaming/trolling, isn't permitted on the forums. I'm issuing a verbal warning to The Red Next Door, and also requesting an infraction from a global moderator/admin as they have already been both verbally warned and infracted before.

alphshuffel

27th April 2011, 14:02

We can speak a lot about this issue but the major and important thing is that this is an illegal act in the society and leads the society to the wrong side. So it should be banned but it can not be banned completely because there are some elements in each society which needs them. That is why this industry is neither grown nor vanished completely. It have ups and downs. But it is still there where it is decades ago.

We should raise our voice against it, because it is against basic humanity.

Franz Fanonipants

27th April 2011, 16:56

agnixie

27th April 2011, 17:08

Franz Fanonipants

27th April 2011, 17:18

Prohibition has done nothing to stop it, either. It's just made things worse because those women who are put into sex slavery (I'll question your "most") are now seen as criminals. Even using the swedish model, it only pushes the pimps deeper underground and makes things even worse to find people who are victims of trafficking.

who said anything about supporting prohibition?

Sword and Shield

27th April 2011, 17:29

LuÃs Henrique

1st May 2011, 22:37

So shoot the pimps

After you, genius...

and arrest the johns.

Arrest the johns, who? We, or the police?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

1st May 2011, 22:40

fuck you people.

Well, yes.

But what's the price?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

2nd May 2011, 00:34

sorry bros but most prostitutes exist in a condition of slavery.

and like literally slavery not wage slavery or w/e.

i'm pro-sex worker organization and everything, but the realities of prostitution are pretty fucked up and legalization would pretty much do nothing to stop it.

unless you REALLY think capitalism is capable of regulating itself well, which...

There are a lot of myths about prostitution.

That it equates to slavery, for instance. Or that most prostitutes are drug addicts, and this is the reason they are prostitutes.

The truth is much more simple. Prostitution allows people to earn much more money in a much shorter time than "proper" labour. This is the reason why it is so stigmatisated: if there were no legal and/or ideological barriers against it, why would people destroy themselves eight hours a day in "honest" jobs, when they could earn the same destroying themselves only one hour or two a night? Thence prohibition or (which is actually much more widespread than mediaeval American prohibition) semilegality and moral stigmatisation. But prohibition (and, to a lesser extent, semilegality) fulfills the prophesies about slavery and degradation: because it is not an activity fully protected by police and courts, pimps and brothels and illegal organisations step in and provide safety against dishonest johns (and against police itself, in the end), but only at a price. Thence slavery, semi-slavery, human trafficking, etc.

Repealing laws that forbid prostitution, and better even, making police and courts actually uphold prostitutes rights - towards johns, towards landlords, towards pimps - is the only actual way to minorate degradation of prostitutes. "White knights" only reinforce social and moral stigmas and help the oppression of those they want to liberate.

Luís Henrique

agnixie

2nd May 2011, 03:00

Exactly. Netherlands is proof of that. Prostitution is legal there, and it's also one of the top destination countries for human trafficking in Europe.

We already pointed out that the swedish state study you linked to in discrimination had been soundly criticized and lacked any sort of methodology whatsoever apart for wishful thinking.

RedSunRising

2nd May 2011, 03:10

We already pointed out that the swedish state study you linked to in discrimination had been soundly criticized and lacked any sort of methodology whatsoever apart for wishful thinking.

Yeah there is a lot of pro-john crap out there.

This is a pretty sensitive women's issue. Prostitution is an issue that effects many working class women and girls across the globe, and yes left a lot of women burned out and husks of who they could have been.

agnixie

2nd May 2011, 03:57

Yeah there is a lot of pro-john crap out there.

This is a pretty sensitive women's issue. Prostitution is an issue that effects many working class women and girls across the globe, and yes left a lot of women burned out and husks of who they could have been.

:rolleyes:
Indeed, it effects a lot of working class women, however, I have the impression that you're not one of those affected. I am, have been, know people who have, have worked with people who have, have known people who got out of it burned out and worse... And none of this bullshit your side is suggesting helps. The approach your side suggests is bourgeois feminism with a slight veneer of left wing respectability. Sorry, no thanks. If you're going to call it pro-john, then I'll be honest: the swedish approach is pro-pimp. The swedish model might as well be a gift from the bourgeois feminists to the pimps for what it's worth, as it makes it almost impossible to know what's going on in Sweden. It's not merely pro-pimp. It has been panned by a lot of academic researchers. By 2010, none of the trends they predicted had materialized, and they figured out that it hadn't gone down, it had merely gone underground. And by going underground, it makes it even harder for the women who end up being sex workers to have control over their lives, it only empowers pimps. Well, it probably also empowers a few bourgeois feminists who like these sort of hollow victories.

The only options are not, however, pimp vs legal brothels. It's possible for workers to organize and keep control over themselves. That also extends to sex workers.

RedSunRising

2nd May 2011, 04:35

:rolleyes:
Indeed, it effects a lot of working class women, however, I have the impression that you're not one of those affected. I am, have been, know people who have, have worked with people who have, have known people who got out of it burned out and worse... And none of this bullshit your side is suggesting helps.

Oh really? The Indian people's war suggests otherwise.

School books and uniforms have to be paid for, etc but the idea that fucking often unattractive and arrogant men who look on you as scum is something nice or fun or without emotional and psychological damage is bullshit.

Sir Comradical

2nd May 2011, 05:00

agnixie

2nd May 2011, 18:07

Oh really? The Indian people's war suggests otherwise.

School books and uniforms have to be paid for, etc but the idea that fucking often unattractive and arrogant men who look on you as scum is something nice or fun or without emotional and psychological damage is bullshit.

I never said any such thing, get off the fucking high horse and stop with the strawmen. Also, the indian revolution proves this how? Data, or just random allegations and snide attacks again?

The Red Next Door

2nd May 2011, 18:19

Well, yes.

But what's the price?

Luís Henrique

The hell i will do that, you probably ugly like most johns.

RedSunRising

2nd May 2011, 18:43

I never said any such thing, get off the fucking high horse and stop with the strawmen.

Its not a straw man, prostitution involves having sex with men you dont find attractive often, men who are arrogant often and often expect the woman or girl to act like some pornographic actress in a porn film. Doing that can only be emotionally damaging. But lets play pretend its wonderful, empowering and liberating which is typical of first world pseudo-feminism.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd May 2011, 19:11

The hell i will do that, you probably ugly like most johns.

And you must be devoid of sexual imagination like most prudes.

Luís Henrique

agnixie

2nd May 2011, 19:18

Its not a straw man, prostitution involves having sex with men you dont find attractive often, men who are arrogant often and often expect the woman or girl to act like some pornographic actress in a porn film. Doing that can only be emotionally damaging. But lets play pretend its wonderful, empowering and liberating which is typical of first world pseudo-feminism.

Dude, I've been a pro, you're not fucking teaching me anything. The strawman was the

something nice or fun or without emotional and psychological damage is bullshit.

And you know what, it's a strawman both ways. Some people handle it fine. People who choose it often do, or burn out. The truth is, most lines of work tend to burn people out if it's treated as something they should be ashamed of and driven to clandestinity. Especially when putting bread on the table is involved.

Considering some of your arguments in other threads, I have the impression that you'd label promiscuous sex lives as emotionally damaging as well anyway, which is why I have no remorse considering you a borderline bourgeois feminist until proven otherwise. You have yet to prove otherwise.

Going after the johns and the pimps doesn't end the conditions which make prostitution seem like a more survivable option than glorious factory fetishism or minimum wage shit elsewhere, so yes, it's as bad as going after the sex workers, because it drives them even deeper underground, where johns and pimps have even more control. Sorry if thinking beyond the open, visible side of society doesn't fit your conceptions.

RedSunRising

2nd May 2011, 22:29

Considering some of your arguments in other threads, I have the impression that you'd label promiscuous sex lives as emotionally damaging as well anyway, which is why I have no remorse considering you a borderline bourgeois feminist until proven otherwise. You have yet to prove otherwise.

You are being silly, its clear that you are some sort of "third wave" fashionista who is quite happy to go along with patriarchal society and side with it against genuine threatening woman thinkers like Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin who refuse to go with the flow and seriously critique this society. Stop pretending that supporting the mainstream is somehow radical and opposing it is "bourgeois".

agnixie

2nd May 2011, 22:56

You are being silly, its clear that you are some sort of "third wave" fashionista who is quite happy to go along with patriarchal society and side with it against genuine threatening woman thinkers like Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin who refuse to go with the flow and seriously critique this society. Stop pretending that supporting the mainstream is somehow radical and opposing it is "bourgeois".

Daly? That racist, transphobic piece of shit? :laugh:
She knew fuck all about anything. She was a theologian and little else.

I'm no fashionista, sorry. I also like threatening thinkers. Daly wasn't threatening at all, sorry. She felt threatened, though, regularly, as shown by her regular belittling of Audrey Lorde. If you think Daly or Dworkin threatening, you have to be pretty damn bourgeois.

Supporting the legalization and collectivization of sex workers is not mainstream. The mainstream is to hide it, get rid of it. The mainstream is that we, whores or formerly so, are fallen women, and that once a whore, always a whore. The mainstream is moralistic crap, and self-proclaimed moralistic crusaders talking over the voices of these fallen women who are unable to talk for themselves, and that these fallen women make all women look bad, which is about as true as saying that transgender people reinforce gender stereotypes, but it's a convenient moralistic excuse to give oneself a veneer of activist respectability. Swedish style NIMBY is the mainstream. You are the mainstream.

Franz Fanonipants

3rd May 2011, 16:11

There are a lot of myths about prostitution.

That it equates to slavery, for instance. Or that most prostitutes are drug addicts, and this is the reason they are prostitutes.

The truth is much more simple. Prostitution allows people to earn much more money in a much shorter time than "proper" labour. This is the reason why it is so stigmatisated: if there were no legal and/or ideological barriers against it, why would people destroy themselves eight hours a day in "honest" jobs, when they could earn the same destroying themselves only one hour or two a night? Thence prohibition or (which is actually much more widespread than mediaeval American prohibition) semilegality and moral stigmatisation. But prohibition (and, to a lesser extent, semilegality) fulfills the prophesies about slavery and degradation: because it is not an activity fully protected by police and courts, pimps and brothels and illegal organisations step in and provide safety against dishonest johns (and against police itself, in the end), but only at a price. Thence slavery, semi-slavery, human trafficking, etc.

Repealing laws that forbid prostitution, and better even, making police and courts actually uphold prostitutes rights - towards johns, towards landlords, towards pimps - is the only actual way to minorate degradation of prostitutes. "White knights" only reinforce social and moral stigmas and help the oppression of those they want to liberate.

Luís Henrique

Repeal of prohibition of prostitution won't repeal capitalism.

end fucking thread and go home.

LuÃs Henrique

4th May 2011, 18:48

Repeal of prohibition of prostitution won't repeal capitalism.

end fucking thread and go home.

Nor would the end of child labour end capitalism. Nor has the end of unlimited work day ended capitalism.

Nothing can end capitalism, except a socialist revolution. So what? Socialist revolutions won't happen out of the air, they have to be built. A basic part of building them is to build solidarity between workers. Political positions that enhance competition and struggle between workers are therefore counter-revolutionary. And so political positions designed to make some workers feel good at the expense of other worker's living standards and ability to organise are counter-revolutionary. Including "white-knighting" for downtrodden workers such as prostitutes, garbage collectors, agricultural workers, etc.

Luís Henrique