The War on Sex Workers

[DancingEmma]

Sex workers are workers and are usually women, but instead of standing in solidarity with them, too many feminists support the efforts of the capitalist state to criminalize and harass them. There was a really good article on this recently that provided an overview of the situation. The article discussed recent repressive efforts toward sex workers that have been endorsed by both feminists and religious conservatives.

One problem is this article was written in Reason magazine, which as many of you may know is a U.S. publication of the so-called "libertarian" pro-capitalist movement. As such, the article is lacking in radical analysis. I would still appreciate it if people give the article a chance, however, as in my opinion it pretty much sticks to the facts (which are important and informative) and eschews much overt pro-capitalist or reactionary propagandizing. Here's the link:

http://reason.com/archives/2013/01/21/the-war-on-sex-workers

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, in regards to Reason, it's a right-wing publication but it sometimes has good stuff on certain select issues, like drugs or abortion. They've also published some really good articles about the American prison system.

[feeLtheLove]

I always wondered what the leftist view on sex workers were?

[DancingEmma]

feeltheLove, there really isn't a single leftist view on sex workers. Just recently here on RevLeft there was actually a debate about what the appropriate leftist view toward sex workers is. Here's the link: http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-men-have-t177572/index.html (the debate doesn't start till several pages into the thread).

Basically, some leftists, such as myself, support either the decriminalization or legalization of sex work and also helping sex workers unionize so they can more effectively struggle to improve their working conditions. Others support the continued criminalization of either sex workers or their clients, as the poster Majakovskij argued in the link I provided. His perspective is often referred to as the "abolitionist" position.

[Ostrinski]

There have been some really heated and intense discussions on the subject on revleft before. It's a polarizing subject on the left it seems.

[Yuppie Grinder]

How the commodification of something as essential to the human experience as sexuality could be considered anything other than slavery I don't know. Prostitutes are among the most thoroughly dehumanized wage slaves. I know some well to do liberals who'll think they're clever for saying that things like prostitution can be empowering to women. Nobody says things like that after having put a lot of thought into it, they say them to come off as transgressive and intelligent, to get attention. Communism involves the abolition of the commodity, including the commodification of sexuality. Communists should be anti-Prostitution.
All that said, I don't think any reforms concerning prostitution will do anything for the prospects of revolution or whatever, only serve to distract from the root of the problem, which is that the commodification of sexuality exists. If it ever got liberalized in the states I'd probably have a brain aneurism tho.

[DancingEmma]

How the commodification of something as essential to the human experience as sexuality could be considered anything other than slavery I don't know. Prostitutes are among the most thoroughly dehumanized wage slaves. I know some well to do liberals who'll think they're clever for saying that things like prostitution can be empowering to women. Nobody says things like that after having put a lot of thought into it, they say them to come off as transgressive and intelligent, to get attention. Communism involves the abolition of the commodity, including the commodification of sexuality. Communists should be anti-Prostitution.
All that said, I don't think any reforms concerning prostitution will do anything for the prospects of revolution or whatever, only serve to distract from the root of the problem, which is that the commodification of sexuality exists. If it ever got liberalized in the states I'd probably have a brain aneurism tho.

First of all, "prostitution" is not the commodification of "sexuality;" it's the commodification of the labor time, effort, and skill of sex workers. As such, it's not essentially different from the commodification of any other worker's time, effort, and skill. Since I oppose capitalism I oppose all these forms of commodification very strongly. But this opposition to commodification doesn't lead me to support the efforts of the capitalist state to harass workers, whether we are talking about sex workers or any other type of worker. I stand in solidarity with all workers and support the rights of all workers to improve their conditions through unionization; I don't support labeling any workers "criminals."

[mew]

there are no feminists who are anti-sex workers. really you might be surprised that the majority of people who do the most good for sex workers are abolitionists.
the most effective model to make sex work better for women under capitalism is not legalism (has led to increased trafficking, among many other terrible things) but what's seen in this nordic model.

"r ‘the Nordic model (http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/)’, Sweden, Norway, and Finland have all adopted versions of this feminist approach to prostitution that decriminalizes prostitutes and criminalizes those who commit the violence: the pimps and johns. The model combines exiting services with an already strong welfare system and education programs for the police that teach them that prostituted women are not criminals. It isn’t simply a change in law, it’s a political vision that has gender and economic equality as a goal. As feminist lawyer Janine Benedet told me, (http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/index1.html) it’s “a state commitment to offer something better and not to use prostitution as a social safety net.” A Norwegian study (http://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-liaisons.pdf) looking at rates of violence against prostituted women under the Nordic model was recently released in English. It showed that, since 2008, reports of rape and other forms of physical violence against prostituted women has decreased (http://feministcurrent.com/7038/new-research-shows-violence-decreases-under-nordic-model-why-the-radio-silence/)."


http://theredfeminist.tumblr.com/post/42454598499/there-is-no-feminist-war-on-sex-workers

[DancingEmma]

there are no feminists who are anti-sex workers. really you might be surprised that the majority of people who do the most good for sex workers are abolitionists.

There are plenty of feminists who are anti-sex worker. And abolitionists have done very little to help sex workers, and much to harm them.


t"r ‘the Nordic model (http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/04/11/Nordic-Prostitution-Laws/)’, Sweden, Norway, and Finland have all adopted versions of this feminist approach to prostitution that decriminalizes prostitutes and criminalizes those who commit the violence: the pimps and johns.

"John" is a term that sex workers reject for a variety of reasons. For one, it implies that all of the clients of sex workers are men, which is not true. Some of the clients of sex workers are women. Secondly, it's used by abolitionists such as yourself to argue that the clients of sex workers are inherently violent. In fact, the clients of sex workers are no more inherently violent than the clients of hair dressers or plumbers. The reason that rates of violence against sex workers by clients are so high is, rather, in large part because sex work exists on the black or grey market (thanks in part to people like you). Jobs on the black or grey market always carry higher risks of violence. Another contributing factor for high levels of client violence is because most sex workers are women, and violence against women is very common in our society. Another reason is that sex workers endure particular negative social stigmas that lead people to think their lives are of little value. But none of this is changed by implementing the Nordic model, and you can't support a type of worker while at the same time criminalizing their clients, as the Nordic model does. In doing so, you are just depriving sex workers of the resources they need to make a living.


A Norwegian study (http://humboldt1982.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/dangerous-liaisons.pdf) looking at rates of violence against prostituted women under the Nordic model was recently released in English. It showed that, since 2008, reports of rape and other forms of physical violence against prostituted women has decreased (http://feministcurrent.com/7038/new-research-shows-violence-decreases-under-nordic-model-why-the-radio-silence/)."

The study showed no such thing. What you are talking about is a shoddy comparison made by abolitionists between two different Norwegian studies that used two completely different methodologies. The 2008 study asked sex workers whether they'd been victimized by violence during their entire lives as sex workers. The 2012 study asked sex workers about whether they'd been victimized by violence during the past three years alone. This is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not surprising that fewer sex workers should have been violated in just three years than in a lifetime; this does not equal a decrease in violence against sex workers. In other words, these studies do nothing to vindicate the Nordic model. Here's a link that further explains the flaw in your argument: http://feministire.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/no-new-research-does-not-show-that-violence-decreases-under-the-nordic-model/

[mew]

there are a lot of abolitionists who help sex workers get out of the business and otherwise help them. meanwhile there is evidence of a lot of sex worker rights groups being fronts for pimps or men who want to run brothels. in the link above there is talk about aboriginal street walkers who want prostitution to be abolished.
the legalization of prostitution in amsterdam has led to an increase in trafficking and other ills. the porn industry is legal and it's rife with violence and other forms of abuse.
i have experience as a sex worker and have contact with a lot of other sex workers and we all use the term "john", and no sex workers i know have ever talked about the desire to destigmatize johns. rather they were angry over the lack of legal retribution they had for abusive johns. there are women who go to sex workers but they are a very small percentage. and statistically many johns are abusive and men who are johns are more likely to commit other crimes. sex workers have the highest rate of sexual assault of ANY group. and it's MEN doing these things, not the very small percentage of female clients. anecdotally i worked in a legal bdsm dungeon and the place was rife with abuse. the same with girls i knew who worked in legal brothels in nevada.
the nordic model allows for women to report abusive johns without being arrested themselves.

[Luís Henrique]

In doing so, you are just depriving sex workers of the resources they need to make a living.

Ah, no. You are not just depriving sex workers of the resources they need to make a living.

You are also making it more difficult for them to actually choose clients and reject those who might be violent. You are also making it more difficult for them to report violence when it happens, because if they report a client to police, they will become known as snitches. You are also depriving them the right to have friends or lovers (the Swedish State has prosecuted and convicted men as johns without any actual evidence that there was any sex involved, except the fact there was a visit, and that the woman was previously known as a prostitute). And, of course, since the Swedish law also criminalises any kind of profiteering from prostitution, you are also forcing prostitutes into homelessness, as landlords are mandated to evict prostitutes, lest they are accused of being pimps.

It is a wonderful system, no doubt, and one of its greatest qualities is that it provides a way to support reactionary and sexually repressive bullying of prostitutes while using a "liberal" and even "leftist" vocabulary.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The study showed no such thing. What you are talking about is a shoddy comparison made by abolitionists between two different Norwegian studies that used two completely different methodologies. The 2008 study asked sex workers whether they'd been victimized by violence during their entire lives as sex workers. The 2012 study asked sex workers about whether they'd been victimized by violence during the past three years alone. This is like comparing apples and oranges. It's not surprising that fewer sex workers should have been violated in just three years than in a lifetime; this does not equal a decrease in violence against sex workers. In other words, these studies do nothing to vindicate the Nordic model. Here's a link that further explains the flaw in your argument: http://feministire.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/no-new-research-does-not-show-that-violence-decreases-under-the-nordic-model/

I wouldn't be surprised, though, if the reports of violence against prostitutes decreased since the adoption of the law. On the other hand, I am pretty sure that the law also prompted a decrease in the rate between reported violence and actual violence.

But yes, the way these people manipulate statistics (and then intend to shut up any dissent because statistics don't lie) is a shame.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

rather they were angry over the lack of legal retribution they had for abusive johns.

And why is that lack of legal retribution? Perhaps because the trade isn't fully legalised?

What you need is the right to go into a police precinct and tell the police officer "I work as a prostitute, Mr. John Doe has used my services, refused to pay, and beat me when I demanded my money", and then have the police going after the guy and arresting him for robbery, and the courts sentencing him for it.


the nordic model allows for women to report abusive johns without being arrested themselves.

But not without loosing their livelihood. Which is the reason they are now more afraid to report the johns than before.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Just to put my perspective out first, I think de-criminalization, is really the only demand that would benifit working class struggle. Get the cops away, destigmatize too and allow full health services for sex workers - this would take away some of the black market pressures that allow pimps and buyers to be cruel without fear of legal reprocussions (this is the same for all black market things pretty much from day-labor to drug-dealing - repressive law-enforcement only keeps people "in the shaddows" and allows them to be taken advantage of by pimps or smugglers or whatnot).

I do not think we should romanticize or push for legalization itself (unless this is the only thing on the table as opposed to criminalization). The main reason is that I don't think sex work is simply "just like any other exploitative labor".

First of all, "prostitution" is not the commodification of "sexuality;" it's the commodification of the labor time, effort, and skill of sex workers.Of course it's the commodification of sexuality - in fact different acts and even different physical types for sex-workers are broken down by price! Maybe I'm not using "commodification" correctly here, but while some sex workers may get paid to be a companion with no actual sex, they aren't being hired out to paint people's houses or fix a microwave... hence it's not simply "time" and "labor" that is being put on the market.

This argument is like saying art is not commodified under capitalism, only the artists time. All laborers time is sold on the market, so to describe sex-work on this level only is too abstract to have any meaning.


As such, it's not essentially different from the commodification of any other worker's time, effort, and skill. Since I oppose capitalism I oppose all these forms of commodification very strongly.I think that there is a difference though and I think our different viewpoints have to do with the question of exactly what is being put on sale in the market. Unlike other forms of labor where a service or commodity are created, sex work, because sex and the body becomes commodified and seperated up into profitable acts or even with porn where acts and body-parts are quantified, (figurativly) chopped up, and sold off to their niches like butchers creating different profitable bits from a whole cow or pig. Once a market puts a price on something, then that becomes that thing's "value" socially and the difference here is that that thing is the bodies of women and men to a lesser degree. If bodies are on the market, then - (most often in our culture women's) all bodies take on that market value regardless if they actually go "on the market" or not. And when bodies become commodities it also becomes possible to "steal" bodies or feel "owed" a sexual interaction in exhange for dinner or something.

In short this labor is different from other forms of labor because of the way it fit into a larger sexist framework of society where - most often women's - bodies are commodities there to serve men as baby-makers, sexual recipients, and so on.

Female sex-workers, induvidual pimps and so on are not the cause or source of this, capitalism puts a price on everything, but sex-work should not, IMO, be equated with general wage-labor because of the connections to power dynamics and sexism/homophobia in society.

One final thing that I think shows a difference is in ultimately what I think most of us would immagine would happen to sex-work after a revolution: it would quickly wither and cese to exist, replaced with mutual free sex.

If workers re-organize a fishary, they are still producing fish, but the profit-orientation has been replaced by a collective (mutual) management for the purpose of fufilling needs and want. If sex is re-organized on the same basis, then there is no such thing as "sex work," just sexual liberation.


But this opposition to commodification doesn't lead me to support the efforts of the capitalist state to harass workers, whether we are talking about sex workers or any other type of worker. I stand in solidarity with all workers and support the rights of all workers to improve their conditions through unionization; I don't support labeling any workers "criminals."Agreed and this should go without saying. However, aside from the general left and some tradditions within feminism where this sort of moralism may be more common, this moralistic view is probably only held by a tiny minority of contemporary revolutionary leftists.

While sex work is just a fact of society, I guess it would be up to the induvidual revolutionaries and groups if they thought that an induvidual struggle by sex-workers would, based on the conditions of the struggle, be something that helped the situation with the local class struggle or not. An effort to resist heavy-handed policing might be something benificial wheras, for example, but I don't think we should romanticize sex work or see it as socially equivalent to other work.

[Narodnik]

I live in a Second world country and we don't have stuff like that, the state criminalizes pimps, and treats sex workers as victims.

[Luís Henrique]

I live in a Second world country and we don't have stuff like that, the state criminalizes pimps, and treats sex workers as victims.

Yeah, this is how things are in Brazil, too. Or, more precisely, how things are in the books in Brazil, how things are mandated to be, how we pretend things are. In practice, prostitutes have no legal claim to their earnings, and so need pimps (or is the word "bawds"?) in order to ensure clients will pay. But pimps are criminals, and so prostitutes tend to live surrounded by illegal activities. Which, combined with the pervasive sexism of society in general and the peculiar mentality of the average cop, results in all kinds of policiac mistreatment of prostitutes - including, of course, arrests of very doubtful legality purported as "para averiguações" - for verifications.

It is called semi-legality, and it is the third or fourth most awful option (certainly not as bad as American criminalisation or Swedish reverse criminalisation, and debatably either a bit worse or a little less bad than Dutch "legalisation" - or, better saying, Dutch mandated pimpification).

The main problem remains the same: prostitution is an activity that is very difficult for capital to exploit, unless the State forbids the activity or mandates the existence of an ad-hoc layer of pimps (formally, as in the Netherlands, or informally, as in Brazil).

And so, of course, the State forbids prostitution or otherwise makes sure prostitutes cannot pass without pimps, so that no work is performed without paying tribute to capital.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

If workers re-organize a fishary, they are still producing fish, but the profit-orientation has been replaced by a collective (mutual) management for the purpose of fufilling needs and want. If sex is re-organized on the same basis, then there is no such thing as "sex work," just sexual liberation.

Just as the reorganised fishary is no longer "fish-work", but free human activity, something we do for love, because we like fish meat, because we know other humans similar to us also like eating fish, because we are free and like what we do, not because we have to do it in order to justify our partaking in socially created wealth. It is not only the profit orientation that is gone, it is also the wage orientation - if we are to take in serious the idea that our revolution is to abolish not only the bourgeoisie, but our own class as well...


see it as socially equivalent to other work.

We just can't stop taking pride in our own particular forms of enslavement, can we?

We are all whores: that is the ultimately reality of capitalism, which we have to confront in all sobriety. Not in the fashionable sence of Slut Walk, in which derogatory terms are "reclaimed" as badges of honour, but in the deep and old-fashioned sence, in that we are all forced to sell our bodies and minds for the most part of our awake lives, to do things we wouldn't do if we were free, so that we can minimally enjoy the product of our own labour and that of our brethren in slavery.

And now, I'm sorry, but I must lay down and take it up the arse. I mean, I have to sit and do paperwork for the Brazilian State, which no es lo mismo pero es igual.

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

The main problem remains the same: prostitution is an activity that is very difficult for capital to exploit, unless the State forbids the activity or mandates the existence of an ad-hoc layer of pimps (formally, as in the Netherlands, or informally, as in Brazil).

And so, of course, the State forbids prostitution or otherwise makes sure prostitutes cannot pass without pimps, so that no work is performed without paying tribute to capital.

Luís Henrique
Interesting theory. Shame there's very little proof for that. Why would prostitution be harder to exploit? And, ignoring the fact that your base assumption is most likely wrong, are you suggesting that self-employed in general exists in some realm beyond capitalism?

[Luís Henrique]

Interesting theory. Shame there's very little proof for that. Why would prostitution be harder to exploit? And, ignoring the fact that your base assumption is most likely wrong, are you suggesting that self-employed in general exists in some realm beyond capitalism?

Well, as we, Marxists, very well know, capitalist exploitation is only possible where the capitalists own the means of production, and can consequently hire the labour force of workers. But what are the "means of production" of prostitution, besides the body of the prostitute?

That's why exploitation of prostitute has almost inevitably to fall back into some kind of "formal subsumption of labour" (an idea that we Marxists shouldn't be foreign to, either). And given the advanced nature of capitalist relations of production nowadays, such kind of formal subsumption can only be the result of forces external to the "normal" functioning of capitalism - either enforced by the State as in the Netherlands (where in practice prostitutes are required to have a pimp in order to be licensed), or prompted by the illegality or semi-legality of the trade, as in the US, Sweden, or Brazil.

And you may note that I nowhere said that self-employment, be it in prostitution or elsewhere, exists in "some realm" beyond capitalism. But self-employment evidently exists, and self-employed people do not (directly, at least) pay tribute to capital, so it must be possible for some people, at least, to live firmly within the realm of capitalism without being directly exploited by capital, isn't it? We used to call them the petty bourgeoisie, remember?

(Evidently, in the past decades, capital has increased and perfected its means to exploit and oppress the petty bourgeoisie - but this usually involves debt and exploitation related to the possession of means of production, which again is difficult to impose into prostitutes.)

Luís Henrique

[Narodnik]

Prostitutes that work in brothels maybe are, but most of them are not employees, but basically slaves.

[Luís Henrique]

Prostitutes that work in brothels maybe are, but most of them are not employees, but basically slaves.

If they are slaves, who owns them, and how do they acquire such property?

Luís Henrique

[Crux]

Well, as we, Marxists, very well know, capitalist exploitation is only possible where the capitalists own the means of production, and can consequently hire the labour force of workers. But what are the "means of production" of prostitution, besides the body of the prostitute?

That's why exploitation of prostitute has almost inevitably to fall back into some kind of "formal subsumption of labour" (an idea that we Marxists shouldn't be foreign to, either). And given the advanced nature of capitalist relations of production nowadays, such kind of formal subsumption can only be the result of forces external to the "normal" functioning of capitalism - either enforced by the State as in the Netherlands (where in practice prostitutes are required to have a pimp in order to be licensed), or prompted by the illegality or semi-legality of the trade, as in the US, Sweden, or Brazil.

And you may note that I nowhere said that self-employment, be it in prostitution or elsewhere, exist in "some realm" beyond capitalism. But self-employment evidently exists, and self-employed people do not (directly, at least) pay tribute to capital, so it must be possible for some people, at least, to live firmly within the realm of capitalism without being directly exploited by capital, isn't it? We used to call them the petty bourgeoisie, remember?

(Evidently, in the past decades, capital has increased and perfected its means to exploit and oppress the petty bourgeoisie - but this usually involves debt and exploitation related to the possession of means of production, which again is difficult to impose into prostitutes.)

Luís Henrique
So being self-employed means living beyond capitalist relations and exploitation? Fascinating. And you believe, since it's about selling sexual services, the standard mode for prostitution, in a country where it would be legal, would be self-employment? You don't think the same criminal networks that run prostitution now would run them again but through legal means and proxies? Why not?

[Narodnik]

If they are slaves, who owns them, and how do they acquire such property?

Pimps. By force. They, like, sell them amongst each other.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Pimps. By force. They, like, sell them amongst each other.

Slavery was abolished, for the better. Prostitution, as the embodiment of sexual slavery, should therefore be abolished too.

Not by criminalising or penalising prostitutes themselves, but certainly we shouldn't accept this lifestylist bullshit that somehow it's okay to turn sex into a commodity. I'm not against people doing that to make ends meet, and it's fucking unacceptable that people fall into this slavery, but let's not hold prostitution up as something anything other than one of the most negative, sexualised, misogynistic and exploitative aspects of slavery which has continued to prevail across modes of production.

Prostitution is a by-product of situations of extreme poverty, whereby the most vulnerable are put in a position where they can be exploited in this way. It's not their fault, but prostitution is totally unacceptable in my eyes. Not for moral reasons wholly, but logically; prostitution is in theory the turning of sex into a commodity, and in practice the sexual form of slavery. No Socialist should support this.

[#FF0000]

Well, as we, Marxists, very well know, capitalist exploitation is only possible where the capitalists own the means of production, and can consequently hire the labour force of workers. But what are the "means of production" of prostitution, besides the body of the prostitute?

The boss would hire women to perform a service. Like literally any other business in the service industry. I don't think that's much of a stretch at all.

[Luís Henrique]

Pimps. By force. They, like, sell them amongst each other.

Sure, but since slavery and selling people is illegal in most countries, this requires an illegal network, isn't it true?

Luís Henrique

[Yuppie Grinder]

First of all, "prostitution" is not the commodification of "sexuality;" it's the commodification of the labor time, effort, and skill of sex workers. As such, it's not essentially different from the commodification of any other worker's time, effort, and skill. Since I oppose capitalism I oppose all these forms of commodification very strongly. But this opposition to commodification doesn't lead me to support the efforts of the capitalist state to harass workers, whether we are talking about sex workers or any other type of worker. I stand in solidarity with all workers and support the rights of all workers to improve their conditions through unionization; I don't support labeling any workers "criminals."

Services can be commodities. I'm not vilainizng prostitutes themselves, you have to have absolutely no understanding of their situation to do that. I just think that reforms to liberalize and regulate prostitution will only serve to perpetuate and strengthen the institution.

[Luís Henrique]

So being self-employed means living beyond capitalist relations and exploitation? Fascinating.

You ask this exactly after I explicitly say that it isn't the case? I am starting to give up hope in your reading comprehension skills.


And you believe, since it's about selling sexual services, the standard mode for prostitution, in a country where it would be legal, would be self-employment? You don't think the same criminal networks that run prostitution now would run them again but through legal means and proxies? Why not?

They would certainly try to. And if it is "legalised" like in the Netherlands - where the State in fact practically requires you to have a boss if you are to sell sexual services - then it is likely what is going to happen. Compared to the present situation where prostitution is directly or reversely criminalised, it would be an improvement. But I don't see why the State needs to require people being employed to allow them to sell sexual services. Instead, mandate the police to do the pimps' service - give legal protection to prostitutes, and frame johns who refuse to pay as thieves. Free the prostitutes from their condition of systematic victims of policiac prejudice and persecution, and why on earth would they need intermediaries in selling their services?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Services can be commodities.

They can, and indeed usually are. People seem to confuse this with the strange idea that when someone buys a service, they somehow buy the service provider too. That's clearly a complete lack of understanding of what is a commodity, or of what is a service, or of how services are sold and bought as commodities. People buy services all the time - services of lawyers, physicians, psychoanalysts, housemaids, teachers, seamstresses, locksmiths. The situation of these people is by no means determined by the fact that they sell services, as you can see from the difference in social status between lawyers and housemaids. They aren't slaves, and their social standing depends on many variables, but not on them being service sellers.


I'm not vilainizng prostitutes themselves, you have to have absolutely no understanding of their situation to do that. I just think that reforms to liberalize and regulate prostitution will only serve to perpetuate and strengthen the institution.

The "institution" hardly seems in any need of any kind of help in order to perpetuate itself. It is illegal and thriving in the United States; it is semilegal and thriving in Brazil; it is legalised and thriving in the Netherlands. And I guess it is thriving in Sweden, too, where it has been reverse-criminalised. If I was a pimp, indeed, I would probably consider investing in Sweden; at least there would be no risk of johns testifying against me in court, lest they be convicted too.

(And there is a good reason "abolitionists" would want it to keep it thriving, too - it is from the outrage on prostitution that their NGOs make money, so better not to actually abolish the trade, or their "coalitions" against prostitution would be "abolished" simultaneously, together with their income source. In other words, "abolitionists" are just a different kind of pimps, who live of prostitution, while also purporting to "protect" prostitutes.)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Prostitution, as the embodiment of sexual slavery, should therefore be abolished too.

Not by criminalising or penalising prostitutes themselves, but certainly we shouldn't accept this lifestylist bullshit that somehow it's okay to turn sex into a commodity.

And how, pray tell, do you abolish prostitution?

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

(And there is a good reason "abolitionists" would want it to keep it thriving, too - it is from the outrage on prostitution that their NGOs make money, so better not to actually abolish the trade, or their "coalitions" against prostitution would be "abolished" simultaneously, together with their income source. In other words, "abolitionists" are just a different kind of pimps, who live of prostitution, while also purporting to "protect" prostitutes.)

yo luis i usually disagree with you on a lot of things but I wouldn't say you post stupid things...

But this is such a stupid thing. Sort of disappointed.

[Jimmie Higgins]

They can, and indeed usually are. People seem to confuse this with the strange idea that when someone buys a service, they somehow buy the service provider too. That's clearly a complete lack of understanding of what is a commodity, or of what is a service, or of how services are sold and bought as commodities. People buy services all the time - services of lawyers, physicians, psychoanalysts, housemaids, teachers, seamstresses, locksmiths. The situation of these people is by no means determined by the fact that they sell services, as you can see from the difference in social status between lawyers and housemaids. They aren't slaves, and their social standing depends on many variables, but not on them being service sellers.
But again, what is fundamentally being commodified is not skill but the meat - otherwise sex work would not be broken up and sold by the type of person and the act, but the level of skill - a john who persued females would equally persue services done by men at the same skill level. True, prositution does seem to break down by "class" of prositute like resturants, but again, what is being sold is the guarantee of young women who don't look depressed to put it crudely, not people who can perform the best. In fact when sex work is broken up by skill it's "fetish" niche acts, not the best at common sex acts.

Finally, the brutal way this commodification of flesh works out is that while someone may secure the services of a privite doctor or a prostitute, generally doctors are not attacked and beat by those who hire them. By contrast this is a major danger for prostitutes - why? Because it's not their skills but themselves who are for sale: they have a "price" that other workers do not have and this is connected to a more generalized devaluation of the lives and bodies of women. Women's bodies are there for the service of men: to have babies, not abortions, to be objects for the enjoyment of men, etc.

And attacks and murders of prositutes crosses the "class" of the prositution market: street prostitutes are attacked and eliete prositutes are attacked. True, the black market nature of the work is a big part of this and drug dealers also have to worry about being robbed more than most folks, but buyers usually don't beat up their drug dealers for a power-trip that they feel they can get away with and they don't feel entitled to treat them badly just because they bought some pills from them.


The "institution" hardly seems in any need of any kind of help in order to perpetuate itself.This is very true.


(And there is a good reason "abolitionists" would want it to keep it thriving, too - it is from the outrage on prostitution that their NGOs make money, so better not to actually abolish the trade, or their "coalitions" against prostitution would be "abolished" simultaneously, together with their income source. In other words, "abolitionists" are just a different kind of pimps, who live of prostitution, while also purporting to "protect" prostitutes.)While there is a degree to which any sort of moralist charity work just becomes an end to itself rather than even a thought towards a possible real solution, I don't think this is really a major factor. Liberals can't do anything because they don't have any desire or clue about how to - as long as people need to sell themselves on the market to survive, prositution is an inherent possibility - in this way it is like any other work at a very basic level as folks have argued.

So I think our answer for prositution needs to come ultimatly for revolution and the abolition of these conditions, but short of a revolutionary movement, on a more immediate level, a "solution" isn't going to come from either liberal charity or a sort of Left-wing romanticization of prositution, but through a revived struggle for sexual liberation and women's liberation that can target mechanisms of systematic sexism such as wage inequality, devaluing work tradditionally done by women, for full heath coverage and so on.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

And how, pray tell, do you abolish prostitution?

Luís Henrique

If I knew that, then this whole discussion would be a lot easier!

Surely has to have something to do with eradicating poverty, though...

[Luís Henrique]

If I knew that, then this whole discussion would be a lot easier!

Surely has to have something to do with eradicating poverty, though...

I hope you are not under the dellusion that we can eradicate poverty without putting an end to capitalism?

And if, as I suppose, you aren't, then you would agree with me that the "abolition" of prostitution comes together with the "abolition" of wage labour in general?

And, consequently, that trying to "abolish" prostitution within a capitalist society is impossible at best, and, at worse, will lead to undesirable and unintended consequences?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

yo luis i usually disagree with you on a lot of things but I wouldn't say you post stupid things...

But this is such a stupid thing. Sort of disappointed.

Yes? Don't you think there is a material side for this "abolitionist" ideology?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

But again, what is fundamentally being commodified is not skill but the meat - otherwise sex work would not be broken up and sold by the type of person and the act, but the level of skill - a john who persued females would equally persue services done by men at the same skill level.

This is a better argument, but I don't think it holds. Otherwise models or actors would be slaves, too, which they usually aren't (and no, I don't mean they live in paradise either; I understand how much stressful and harmful the trade can be). After all, the physical appearance of models or actors is not irrelevant; it is difficult to imagine Whoopy Goldberg playing Snow White, or Leonardo Di Caprio in the role of Sojourney Truth.


True, prositution does seem to break down by "class" of prositute like resturants, but again, what is being sold is the guarantee of young women who don't look depressed to put it crudely, not people who can perform the best. In fact when sex work is broken up by skill it's "fetish" niche acts, not the best at common sex acts.

Well, I don't know; we would have to ask prostitutes what johns ask from them. Studies on johns don't seem to show them as peculiarly different from other men, except for the fact that they tend to travel long distance more often.


Finally, the brutal way this commodification of flesh works out is that while someone may secure the services of a privite doctor or a prostitute, generally doctors are not attacked and beat by those who hire them.

Of course not - if someone hires a private doctor and then proceeds to abuse him or her, the apparat of the bourgeois State can be (and is) set in motion to secure the doctor's position and punish the perpetrator.


By contrast this is a major danger for prostitutes - why? Because it's not their skills but themselves who are for sale: they have a "price" that other workers do not have and this is connected to a more generalized devaluation of the lives and bodies of women.

I disagree that this is the reason; to me it seems pretty obvious that this is a major danger for prostitutes because illegality or semi-legality (and the Swedish model, too, of course) puts them in a situation in which they cannot resort to the police if they are attacked.


Women's bodies are there for the service of men: to have babies, not abortions, to be objects for the enjoyment of men, etc.

Which is true (though sometimes it is "abortions not babies") and explains well why a capitalist society must still have two classes of women, the private ones and the public ones, even though capital continually erodes the distinction. But it cannot by itself explain violence against prostitutes. Otherwise it would also explain violence against wives; but we see that bourgeois legislation has changed from admitting violence against wives as a "normal" part of a marriage contract to persecuting it as a crime.


And attacks and murders of prositutes crosses the "class" of the prositution market: street prostitutes are attacked and eliete prositutes are attacked. True, the black market nature of the work is a big part of this and drug dealers also have to worry about being robbed more than most folks, but buyers usually don't beat up their drug dealers for a power-trip that they feel they can get away with and they don't feel entitled to treat them badly just because they bought some pills from them.

Well, drug dealers are in a very different position, aren't they? It looks much more probable that they would rob or murder their clients than the other way round. That's because it is an illegal trade; they cannot count on police or civil law to enforce their commercial contract, so they rely on their guns. The illegality of prostitution also forces prostitutes to resort to violence against their clients, which is the reason pimps exist. Which then brings the problem of pimp violence against prostitutes, which is again protected by law when it makes difficult for a prostitute to accuse them. The equivalent here would not be the client abusing the drug dealer, but the drug boss abusing the street vendor (which, yes, does happen, quite often, and in quite cruel ways).


So I think our answer for prositution needs to come ultimatly for revolution and the abolition of these conditions, but short of a revolutionary movement, on a more immediate level, a "solution" isn't going to come from either liberal charity or a sort of Left-wing romanticization of prositution, but through a revived struggle for sexual liberation and women's liberation that can target mechanisms of systematic sexism such as wage inequality, devaluing work tradditionally done by women, for full heath coverage and so on.

Sure, but it is difficult to engage in a revived struggle for sexual liberation and women liberation while at the same time upholding the police in framing people for having sexual relationships, don't you think so?

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sure, but it is difficult to engage in a revived struggle for sexual liberation and women liberation while at the same time upholding the police in framing people for having sexual relationships, don't you think so?
Yes, but I don't think leftists should argue for crack-downs - if anything decriminilaization. But I also don't think we can say it's the same as all other labor due to the connections with larger issues of de-legitmization of both homosexual relationships as well as female sexuality and a sense of male control over female bodies.

To me it would be a bit like saying minstral actors are just like any other actor. Of course we wouldn't want to demonize the (mostly black) blackface performers themselves necissarily, as they are probably just people trying to get acting work at a time when minstralry was a big piece of pop-culture, but we also can't ingnore the specific nature of that performance and its connection to larger issues of oppression.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, but I don't think leftists should argue for crack-downs - if anything decriminilaization. But I also don't think we can say it's the same as all other labor due to the connections with larger issues of de-legitmization of both homosexual relationships as well as female sexuality and a sense of male control over female bodies.

To me it would be a bit like saying minstral actors are just like any other actor. Of course we wouldn't want to demonize the (mostly black) blackface performers themselves necissarily, as they are probably just people trying to get acting work at a time when minstralry was a big piece of pop-culture, but we also can't ingnore the specific nature of that performance and its connection to larger issues of oppression.

Mkay. I see that we agree on the substantive side - we shouldn't support crackdowns or more stern legislation, is it?

Now let's see how this breaks down into effective struggle. Would your organisation accept prostitutes as members? And if so, would it "save" them as a requirement for membership? And what kind of political work would the organisation think its prostitute members do? Unionising work among their colleagues? Temperance work? Self-defence teams?

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

Mkay. I see that we agree on the substantive side - we shouldn't support crackdowns or more stern legislation, is it?

Now let's see how this breaks down into effective struggle. Would your organisation accept prostitutes as members? And if so, would it "save" them as a requirement for membership? And what kind of political work would the organisation think its prostitute members do? Unionising work among their colleagues? Temperance work? Self-defence teams?

Luís Henrique

Well other than the "war on drugs" I don't think drug use has any connection to oppression in the way that sex work does, but I would think that there are some safty issues if someone was in a revolutionary organization and selling drugs at the same time - especially if they were selling them to other members. I think the same would go with illegal sex work. But let's say someone was a stripper - if they are committed to revolution but that was really the only way they could pay the bills, then I don't see what the issue would be - if they felt the work was "empowering" and an answer to sexism, then that would just indicate a poltical disagreement.

If some sex workers were organizing, I think revolutionaries would have to determine if the struggle was something to support on the basis of if it would help move things forward. A campaign against police crack-downs or for health access in a destigmatized way (i.e. not cops rounding up street prostitutes and forcing them to get checked up) might be something to support. Other things might not like if it was an effort that would mostly go towards helping sex businesses gain some legitamacy in a petty-bourgroise way. For example, a lot of the initiatives around pot legalization in Oakland are not focused on ending harsh enforcement by cops (and the state-wide initiative argued to legalize pot to give the new tax revenue TO POLICE ENFORCMENT), but in helping the petty-bourgoise pot producers position themselves to become the Napa-vally of weed - I am also for the decriminalization of drugs, but not all efforts will do this in a way that will help undue the harm on workers that the war on drugs crusade has created.

Decriminalization, stopping police enforcement, helping destigmatize things to bring people "out of the shaddows", better access to healthcare, are all reforms that have some benifit for the class. I am opposed to the romanticization that's been going around in some circles as well as revolutionaries fighting specifically for legalization though unless the only choice happens to be legalization or prosecution.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I hope you are not under the dellusion that we can eradicate poverty without putting an end to capitalism?

And if, as I suppose, you aren't, then you would agree with me that the "abolition" of prostitution comes together with the "abolition" of wage labour in general?

And, consequently, that trying to "abolish" prostitution within a capitalist society is impossible at best, and, at worse, will lead to undesirable and unintended consequences?

Luís Henrique

I would normally agree with you, but no, slavery is not unique to capitalism and thus prostitution - as the de facto sexual-form of slavery - shares that characteristic. It existed before and exists during capitalism. Thus i'm not totally sure that the fate of prostitution is tied to that of capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

I would normally agree with you, but no, slavery is not unique to capitalism and thus prostitution - as the de facto sexual-form of slavery - shares that characteristic. It existed before and exists during capitalism. Thus i'm not totally sure that the fate of prostitution is tied to that of capitalism.

I can agree with you that we can have prostitution without capitalism - there was prostitution in feudalism, slave-based societies, or even "Asiatic" societies, after all. But I cannot agree that we can have capitalism without prostitution.

Luís Henrique

[#FF0000]

Yes? Don't you think there is a material side for this "abolitionist" ideology?

You can make the same claim for literally any group that opposes a thing, though. "Oh it'd be very inconvenient for this anti-war group if the war ended, wouldn't it! And these prison-abolitionists wouldn't have very much to talk about once prisons are closed down, would they?"

[Luís Henrique]

You can make the same claim for literally any group that opposes a thing, though. "Oh it'd be very inconvenient for this anti-war group if the war ended, wouldn't it! And these prison-abolitionists wouldn't have very much to talk about once prisons are closed down, would they?"

Evidently, and as leftists we should be quite aware that this is a quite real problem, certainly one of the causes of the systematic degeneration of leftist organisations at all times and places.

Once these things become modes of life, they tend to distile an ideology that protects their existence. A blind spot for this problem being certainly a central part of such ideologies.

Luís Henrique

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

How the commodification of something as essential to the human experience as sexuality could be considered anything other than slavery I don't know.

As opposed to say food? As opposed to capitalist food production?
On the other other hand, calling for an end to the exploitation of third world labour in industrial agriculture doesn't have the cultural cache of "We need to save the women!"

Wait, are you saying that sex-work is the only site where women experience the commodification of their bodies and sexuality? 'Cos, like, have you ever met a woman who works in the service industry?


Prostitutes are among the most thoroughly dehumanized wage slaves.

Wait, would you say that to a sex worker's face? Step back, and think about why or why not.


I know some well to do liberals who'll think they're clever for saying that things like prostitution can be empowering to women.

Yup, liberals are obnoxious. Cool story bro.


Communism involves the abolition of the commodity, including the commodification of sexuality. Communists should be anti-Prostitution.
All that said, I don't think any reforms concerning prostitution will do anything for the prospects of revolution or whatever, only serve to distract from the root of the problem, which is that the commodification of sexuality exists. If it ever got liberalized in the states I'd probably have a brain aneurism tho.

Yeah, because throwing sex workers and their clients in jail has proven a wildly effective means for ending the commodification of sexuality.
Further, communism involves the abolition of all commodities - but are you against all reforms which keep workers out of jail? Fuck it, let's just ask the state to step in and fuck with every workers' shit for their own good. Sounds like brilliant revolutionary strategy.

[DancingEmma]

there are a lot of abolitionists who help sex workers get out of the business and otherwise help them. meanwhile there is evidence of a lot of sex worker rights groups being fronts for pimps or men who want to run brothels. in the link above there is talk about aboriginal street walkers who want prostitution to be abolished.
the legalization of prostitution in amsterdam has led to an increase in trafficking and other ills. the porn industry is legal and it's rife with violence and other forms of abuse.
i have experience as a sex worker and have contact with a lot of other sex workers and we all use the term "john", and no sex workers i know have ever talked about the desire to destigmatize johns. rather they were angry over the lack of legal retribution they had for abusive johns. there are women who go to sex workers but they are a very small percentage. and statistically many johns are abusive and men who are johns are more likely to commit other crimes. sex workers have the highest rate of sexual assault of ANY group. and it's MEN doing these things, not the very small percentage of female clients. anecdotally i worked in a legal bdsm dungeon and the place was rife with abuse. the same with girls i knew who worked in legal brothels in nevada.
the nordic model allows for women to report abusive johns without being arrested themselves.

OK. I hear you that you and other sex workers you know use the term "johns." I certainly think it's your right to refer to your clients however you wish. I wasn't trying to "destigmatize" clients either. I agree that they are far more likely to be men and are also very likely to be abusive. I was just pointing out that, in my opinion, at least, nothing about being a client makes one automatically violent. Many clients are violent but some are not (as plenty of sex workers will testify to). And while decriminalization/legalization won't solve all of sex workers problems', I still maintain it's a better reflection of most sex workers' interests than the Nordic model.

[DancingEmma]

Jimmie, I've been away from my computer for a couple days so I've missed a lot of the comments. But I want to respond to the jist of your position. I'm certainly not trying to "romanticize" sex work. My entire perspective on this stems from the fact I see sex workers being oppressed and having to endure horrible shit. I feel very sad and angry as a result of this, and I feel driven to do whatever I can to stand in solidarity with them and assist them in improving their conditions. So yes, I recognize being a sex worker is a shitty situation for most people, and that sex workers have to suffer through lot of sexism and abuse, and this is why I'm committed to advocating for their rights and liberation.

There are a variety of fields where a woman worker's marketability and worth is highly determined by her appearance--not just sex work. The same principle holds for women models, actors, even waitresses. I'm well aware that many sexist clients view the act of paying for sex as paying for the woman, not just paying for her time. What I'm trying to do is fight against this idea. That's why I say over and over, no, they are NOT paying for the woman or her body, they are paying for her time, just like if they were paying for the time of a plumber or a psychiatrist. The woman doesn't become their slave. She retains the right to say no to their requests, to require they use a condom, and so on. The fact that many clients view the woman as becoming their temporary property is merely a result of their sexism and the negative stereotypes and stigma that are attached to sex workers in our society. These are things I oppose and fight against. But it doesn't help when people like you take the sexist misconceptions of some clients as not merely misconceptions but, in fact, reality.

Now I agree that prostitution as a category will no longer exist after the revolution. A great many jobs will not exist after the revolution in my opinion. There will no longer be janitors or dishwashers (because boring, menial tasks will be shared equally among everyone in the collective). There will no longer be nannies (because childcare will be done communally). There will no longer be factory workers who produce military equipment (because no militaries will exist). And so on. But I see all this as fairly irrelevant. I mean, where's the political movement to "abolish" janitorial work or "abolish" the work of nannies? Most people would recognize such projects as absurd. The point of political activism on these issues is to help janitors and so on in improving their working conditions. The ultimate goal may be that one day no one will have to scrub toilets in exchange for food and a roof over their head, but in the meantime, the thing to do is to ensure all workers enjoy respect, good wages, and safety from violence. This includes sex workers. And criminalizing sex workers impedes this struggle, and so does criminalizing their clients.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

In case anybody is curious, here are links to two sex worker / former sex worker led organizations for sex workers in the two cities I (interchangeably) call home:

Stella (Montreal) (http://www.chezstella.org)
Stepping Stone (Halifax) (http://www.steppingstonens.ca/)

I think this statement, from the Stepping Stone website (again, an organization led by current and former sex workers), is exemplary w/r/t the position that radicals ought to take:


We do not judge. We do not preach. A central philosphy at Stepping Stone is that we do not interfere with sex workers or attempt to stop them from working. Instead, we assist sex workers in making their life choices as safe and positive as possible. It is our non-judgemental approach in working with sex workers that contributes to the success of our organization. We understand the realities of sex work and strive to dispel common myths such as "all sex workers were forced into the trade."
Many sex workers in the Maritimes report that they chose to enter into sex work for economic reasons. Some of these choices are driven by poverty and other indicators such as a lack of affordable housing. When sex workers choose to transition out of sex work, we are there supporting them and providing solid options every step of the way. This continued support is crucial and is why we continue to work with individuals long after they have transitioned from sex work.

[feeLtheLove]

This what Marx and Engels had to say about it:



“Prostitution is only a specific expression of the general prostitution of the labourer, and since it is a relationship in which falls not the prostitute alone, but also the one who prostitutes — and the latter’s abomination is still greater — the capitalist, etc., also comes under this head.”

– Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844″

and


“And here is the answer to the outcry of the highly moral philistines against the ‘community of women.’ Community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it. Thus, communist society, instead of introducing community of women, in fact abolishes it.”

– Engels, “The Principles of Communism,” 1847

[cynicles]

Prostitution is tied to the larger issues of private property, not capitalism specifically, thus appearing in all private property societies. But what about sex work in relation to marriage? Didn't Marx have something to say about that? I have read the origins of private property in years.

[feeLtheLove]

Prostitution is tied to the larger issues of private property, not capitalism specifically, thus appearing in all private property societies. But what about sex work in relation to marriage? Didn't Marx have something to say about that? I have read the origins of private property in years.
Well Engels said:


“Marriage itself remained, as before, the legally recognized form, the official cloak of prostitution.”


I don't know what Marx said on it though. It would be nice to find it

[Crux]

In case anybody is curious, here are links to two sex worker / former sex worker led organizations for sex workers in the two cities I (interchangeably) call home:

Stella (Montreal) (http://www.chezstella.org)
Stepping Stone (Halifax) (http://www.steppingstonens.ca/)

I think this statement, from the Stepping Stone website (again, an organization led by current and former sex workers), is exemplary w/r/t the position that radicals ought to take:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stepping Stone website
We do not judge. We do not preach. A central philosphy at Stepping Stone is that we do not interfere with sex workers or attempt to stop them from working. Instead, we assist sex workers in making their life choices as safe and positive as possible. It is our non-judgemental approach in working with sex workers that contributes to the success of our organization. We understand the realities of sex work and strive to dispel common myths such as "all sex workers were forced into the trade."
Many sex workers in the Maritimes report that they chose to enter into sex work for economic reasons. Some of these choices are driven by poverty and other indicators such as a lack of affordable housing. When sex workers choose to transition out of sex work, we are there supporting them and providing solid options every step of the way. This continued support is crucial and is why we continue to work with individuals long after they have transitioned from sex work.
I am sorry but I can not agree with this concept of choice at all. If that were the case every shitty job ever under whatever conditions would fundamentally boil down to a choice made for economic reasons, like poverty. Using a bit of reducto ad absurdum here, but at least I wasn't forced into sanitizing asbestos without protection gear, as an illegal immigrant where I can be deported at any time and my boss treats me like shit, it was just a choice I made based on economic reasons. It's an inherently defeatist position.

[human strike]

First of all, "prostitution" is not the commodification of "sexuality;" it's the commodification of the labor time, effort, and skill of sex workers.

Why is it not both?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I am sorry but I can not agree with this concept of choice at all. If that were the case every shitty job ever under whatever conditions would fundamentally boil down to a choice made for economic reasons, like poverty. Using a bit of reducto ad absurdum here, but at least I wasn't forced into sanitizing asbestos without protection gear, as an illegal immigrant where I can be deported at any time and my boss treats me like shit, it was just a choice I made based on economic reasons. It's an inherently defeatist position.

Yeah, but for some reason, nobody is arguing for criminalizing burger-flippers. On the contrary, any radical I know who makes any sense at all is aiming at the self-organization of burger-flippers, immediately to improve their conditions, but also locating that project within a broader anticapitalist framework.
Why would that change if we were talking about sex workers?
Your example of workers without status is an interesting choice - a similar abolitionist line would translate in to, "We must prevent illegal immigrant labour, which is necessarily exploitative and abusive. Therefore, for their own good - tighter border controls!" Of course, the line being pushed by these workers themselves, through their organizations, is "Status for all!"
Obviously, the comparison isn't perfect, but the principle is roughly the same - we should aim at solutions that promote workers' autonomy, and not solutions that extend (bourgeois) state control.

[redredred]

I support going after the clients, so I guess I am an abolitionist, but I do have a problem with abolitionists who support criminalizing the sex workers. The sex workers are scapegoated for the crime.

I want it to stop, but I do not want sex workers harassed, they deal with enough dangers and are exploited enough just by doing what they do.

[RadARAinATL]

This article is ridiculously liberal. According to whoever wrote this, the sex industry = the individual women who work within the sex industry. Therefore, any attack on how violent/exploitive/degrading/dehumanizing the sex industry is an attack on women within the sex industry. Pure bullshit. This piece is an insult to feminists and women in the sex industry everywhere.