Prostitution

[Rosa Partizan]

Prostitution is a highly sensitive and controversial topic over here with German feminists. There is one side longing for its ban, but only punishing the pimps, slave traders and johns while supporting the prostitutes, and on the other side there are the feminists claiming it's a fundamental woman's right to prostitute herself. The background of this conflict is a law enforced in 2002 making prostitution legal, which made Germany kind of a paradise for slave traders and pimps. Sounds illogical, but when prostitution became legal, the demand for women almost exploded. I'm really looking forward to your answers and positions and I will also write something about my point of view.

[Bostana]

Last time I recall we had a thread like this it was very controversial as well. Prostitution is not the first option for 99.9% of the women who are considered prostitutes. It was a lifestyle they were forced into by abusive older pimps when they were young, or when they're older and become so broke they become prostitutes in order to make ends meet. The hole social idea of a women who was forced to sell her body because she has no other option is wrong. I am not really an expert on the issue but this is my opinion

[Sinister Intents]

Prostitution is a highly sensitive and controversial topic over here with German feminists. There is one side longing for its ban, but only punishing the pimps, slave traders and johns while supporting the prostitutes, and on the other side there are the feminists claiming it's a fundamental woman's right to prostitute herself. The background of this conflict is a law enforced in 2002 making prostitution legal, which made Germany kind of a paradise for slave traders and pimps. Sounds illogical, but when prostitution became legal, the demand for women almost exploded. I'm really looking forward to your answers and positions and I will also write something about my point of view.

I find that highly disturbing that demand increased... I'm not very knowledgeable in this area. Prostitution disgusts me, I can't stand the shit women are forced to endure in society! Earlier in the summer I worked with a man who was pro prostitution, and what he wanted to put through women was disgusting. He talked of starting a brothel as a business where he would sell women as commodities to men, so that they could do their bidding to the women. He essentially wanted to enslave women in the area so that they could be bought, sold, traded, destroyed, et cetera. I fired him from the business for his reactionary bullshit and white nationalist garbage.

[Future]

So, I have nothing against prostitution in a vacuum. If men or women enjoy providing sexual favors for other people, I think they have every right to do so. I'm an anarchist, so I believe everyone has an innate right to do what they enjoy, and in an anarcho-communist society prostitution would only be undertaken by those who truly enjoy the work - there would no longer be the need for people to prostitute themselves in order to make a living. Most prostitution in modern society however is carried out as a consequence of capitalism, and so many who undertake such occupations do so for the money at the expense of their dignity.


I despise modern prostitution as an industry for that reason, but I still don't have a problem with a person's "choice" to be a prostitute under capitalism and I believe it is not an occupation to be ashamed of in any way - the shame falls on the slave system of capitalism. However, I have a very strong aversion to pimps who are nothing more than slave masters, abusers, and expoliters of many stripes. I am completely against sex trafficing and the pimp industry as I view it as nothing more than an immoral authoritarian corporation.


So, I support prostitution when the person is self-managed or belonging to a non-hierarchical co-operative and doing the job for sexual enjoyment. I believe that prostitutes have nothing to be ashamed of at all, but I believe that capitalism, the state, and the pimp industry make it shameful as so many women are forced into such occupations when they don't enjoy it and it's not out of true voluntary choice. Modern day prostitution is a reaction to the authoritarianism of capitalism, so I can hate the modern sex industry while still respecting the prostitutes (and pornographic actors) themselves.

In my ideal world, the sex industry would be a collection of freely associated people who do this work out of personal desire alone.

[Tenka]

Prostitution is a problem that cannot be solved so long as we live in an economic system based on value and exchange. Legislating against prostitutes is grossly counter-productive, and though I would like to see pimps and johns locked away, the latter I fear will be more likely to kill prostitutes if buying sex is illegal.

There is really nothing to be done about it in Capitalism, except to mitigate it; crack down on sex traffickers (who, I hear, actually supply legal brothels), ensure that women in general are allowed economic independence equal to that of men (we're nowhere near that as it stands), fund abuse shelters and so on. Even some of these things that are possible in capitalism are unlikely to really come about within it. There are, after all, profits to be made, and women (and men) of whom a use value is demanded in an increasingly contradictory economic climate.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

My personal view:

I in no way view prostitution (or sex work in general) to be in anyway unethical or immoral. All work is prostitution. Sex work is in no way superior or inferior to any other occupation in the capitalist system.

Prostitutes, male and female and otherwise, are workers. And like all workers, their labor is exploited for a capitalist's profit. Therefore they should be allowed to ply their trade without any kind of hassling from bourgeoisie liberals or puritanical busybodies. The profession itself should be legalized, so as to allow sex workers to unionize and agitate for better working conditions.

Same goes with people in the porn industry.

......But pimps? Those guys are scum.

[DOOM]

As I like to say: When capitalism and the Patriarchy would get a child, it would be called prostitution.
Prostitution shows us how capitalism perverts our image of humans as just being a commodity (e.g. workers or prostitutes).
In my opinion no true feminist and communist can support prostitution.

[Rosa Partizan]

Okay, here's my two cents on this topic, I have thought about and observed all of this for years.

The discussion in Germany deals almost exclusively with the question if the prostitutes do it by choice or not. First question that arises: what does "by choice" mean? Is it a choice to have to earn as much money as possible to support your family in Eastern Europe and to pay back all the debts that your travel to Germany caused? Sounds kind of oversimplified, huh? Well, it's not.

Stories like these have become very common since the legalization back in 2002. Brothels are opened all over Germany, some are advertised as "wellness paradises", others are called flatrate brothels which means that you pay an amount like 100 bucks and then it's "all you can fuck". And for all of this, women in a very high number are needed. The "market" demands fresh faces and bodies all the time, which is no wonder when the women are "consumed" very quickly at the same time.

Germany has about 81 Mio. inhabitants, it's estimated that 400k women work as prostitutes and that daily 1 Mio. men visit prostitutes. On the one hand there is explicitly forced prostitution, which means that physical or psychic violence or blackmail is applied (in most cases by a pimp) to make the women prostitute themselves. On the other hand there is prostitution due to poverty, due to not speaking German, due to having no education. If you look up some brothel homepages and look at the girls, about 80-90% of them are non-German, mostly from Eastern Europe. So, is this not some kind of coercion?

Some very reputable police officers estimate the percentage of women not doing this by choice, but because of poverty or force is about 90%. But, well, the prostitution lobby in Germany is kind of very strong. People approving of prostitution say that the anti-folks is prude, conservative etc. A lot of talkshows in TV dealt with this topic. Every time, prostitutes were invited. But, guess what, it was always the same 2 or 3, all of them not only prostitutes, but owning their own brothels and making profit of other women. If it wasn't that serious, I'd be like --> :laugh:

But the discussion about choice is a very onesided for me. There are other aspects. Why does no one ask the johns about it?! I mean, the whole business exists because of them and their needs, right? What image of women and of sexuality does it take to pay for sex? To pay for sex with someone whose sexual desires and wishes you totally don't give a fuck about? What feeling is it when sex is not a mutual thing? How can you enjoy it, knowing that your partner doesn't even want it, doesn't feel it?

I am very liberal when it comes to female sexuality, and this is why I am ANTI-prostitution. Prostitution marginalizes female sexuality, putting male sexuality on a pedestal, making female bodies a commodity, existing for the purpose of pleasing men and block out one's own satisfaction and sexual fulfillment. A man who cares about a woman and her sexuality, who respects her, will NEVER EVER pay her for sex, take this as a fact. So in order to erase prostitution, you have to start with the side representing the demand, not with the side "offering the goods".

This is a very short, summarized posting of my point of view, but it's a fairly decent representation of my chain of thoughts.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

prostitution is only a question in a capitalistic context. why would a human being consider selling their body if they lived in a society that was based on need rather than profit?

for those who say "because they enjoy it", i wonder how many prostitutes you know on a personal basis. remember that sex work is like any other work and is based on production, consumption and the accumulation of capital.

as it stands, sex workers need and deserve the same rights and protection as any other worker and they should be a part of the broader struggle. sex work is like any other work, objectively, as it functions to serve capitalism. hopefully, in a socialist society, sex-work would disappear with many other types of oppressive and unnecessary labour, which are incomprehensible if you take away the profit-motive. some people say that people will always want to pay for sex but i disagree with this. there is no evidence. people desire sex, yes, but how many people do you think actively pay for it out of desperation alone? the sex workers i know generally deal with married men who have specific kinks - the workers hate the acts themselves but do it for the money. some people flip burgers and hate it, because they have to give up their labour power in the name of capital. sweeping statements i know, but i really think that sex-work is as undesirable as other forms of "degrading" labour (a loose term which assumes that some labour is more noble than others) and that we should challenge the conceptions that its the "oldest profession", "natural" and that sex-workers do it for fun and out of choice. i'm sure there are exceptions, but if we were to round up all of the world's sex workers and ask them whether they do it for the fun of it or alternatively for the money, i'd bet that the majority would pick the latter.

i know prostitutes in soho whose work consists of satisfying the kinks of rich, married city banker types. most of them are here illegally and are working to pay off a debt to which ever parasitic gang that brought them obver.

the worst aspect of capitalism perhaps, except for slavery, even though the kind of sex-work i am talking about here is technically a form of slavery. i know that the industry varies from region to region, but sex-work in itself is never anything other than capitalism at its lowest ebb. even so-called "high-class" escorts are a part of the same game, which might seem glamorous on one front, but in reality comes down to wealth-extraction in its most intimate form, in which the body itself is commodified in the extremely literal sense. its a terrible shame and i feel deep sympathy for sex workers - imagine the hell of having to serve multiple clients, despite your preference, despite your taste, for many hours a day, most days a week and for most months in a year, just to be able to pay back the gangsters who smuggled you in under false pretenses. or otherwise, doing it to feed a drug addiction which you developed after a miserable
and abusive upbringing. imagine it as best you can, as a high class sex-worker, maybe even a porn-star, but remember that there is a darkness behind the glamour and that, even if you are truly happy and healthy (i haven't seen one example of this being the case - please show me one), you are a part of capitalism's ability to commodify anything, including sexual organs. also notify the inherent sexism within the sex industry, which deserves a thread in itself.

in the mean time, as with all workers, sex workers need to organize and get the best possible conditions available under capitalism. as we know, though, unions merely soften the process of labour - what's really needed is a revolution and sex-workers should be an integral part of the struggle, as they are some of our most adversely affected brothers and sisters.

[Rosa Partizan]

I would like to point out that prostitutes should get as much protection as possible. I totally respect them, there is nothing like contempt or whatever when thinking about them. Has anyone of you read Laurie Penny's meat market? It's a rather slim book dealing exactly with female bodies and female sexuality in capitalism. However, I do believe, that also in this permanently consuming world, you can abstain from buying sex by developing respect for women and their needs.

[Sasha]

the problem with the prostitution discussion among libertarian leftist is that they completely focus on the question "is prostitution a good or a bad thing?" and forget that at least under capitalism the discussion should be first "is it going to disappear with prohibition?" and then "is full on prohibition of prostitution beneficiary or harmful to prostitutes?".

i think the answer to those question is that its not going to disappear and that full prohibition is harmful, and thus, as with drugs and all the other topics where morality muddles the waters the next question should be, "how can prostitution be regulated in such ways that exploitation is minimised and the women in question are most empowered?", and not surprisingly the answer to that would be for them to form legal workers collectives (and possibly ban pimping).

sex work is in the end nothing more than an extreme form of work and the capitalist exploitative sex industry is an extreme form of exploitative capitalism, and the same leftist answers apply, revolution would be best but lets start with some serious reformism because the victims cant afford to wait for that revolution.

[DOOM]

I would like to point out that prostitutes should get as much protection as possible. I totally respect them, there is nothing like contempt or whatever when thinking about them. Has anyone of you read Laurie Penny's meat market? It's a rather slim book dealing exactly with female bodies and female sexuality in capitalism. However, I do believe, that also in this permanently consuming world, you can abstain from buying sex by developing respect for women and their needs.

To a certain degree, yes.
But we can't forget that capitalism and the patriarchy are ultimately linked to each other. To abolish one, we need to abolish the other,

[Diirez]

Here's my approach on the issue. I look at it as there will always be prostitution. If you make it illegal, then prostitution becomes a dirty, disgusting, act of sex where the woman or man is exploited and then have their money stolen.

However, if you legalize it and regulate the business heavily then you can expect the conditions to change. Men and women prostitutes will get a steady, yearly salary, health benefits...etc. They will have access to clean supplies and protection. I think there will be men and women who become prostitutes as a valid career choice in a prostitution legalized society.

[DOOM]

Here's my approach on the issue. I look at it as there will always be prostitution. If you make it illegal, then prostitution becomes a dirty, disgusting, act of sex where the woman or man is exploited and then have their money stolen.

However, if you legalize it and regulate the business heavily then you can expect the conditions to change. Men and women prostitutes will get a steady, yearly salary, health benefits...etc. They will have access to clean supplies and protection. I think there will be men and women who become prostitutes as a valid career choice in a prostitution legalized society.

How would someone choose to be a commodity and sell his/her sexuality with someone that he/she doesn't even want to?
How is that a career?

[Sinister Intents]

Here's my approach on the issue. I look at it as there will always be prostitution. If you make it illegal, then prostitution becomes a dirty, disgusting, act of sex where the woman or man is exploited and then have their money stolen.

However, if you legalize it and regulate the business heavily then you can expect the conditions to change. Men and women prostitutes will get a steady, yearly salary, health benefits...etc. They will have access to clean supplies and protection. I think there will be men and women who become prostitutes as a valid career choice in a prostitution legalized society.

Excuse me? Could you explain this to me what you're saying? Are you looking at this from how things are in capitalism? Or is this your view in socialism? Perhaps you need to do a bit more reading: The Traffic in Women (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1910/traffic-women.htm) This is by Emma Goldman.

[Rosa Partizan]

Here's my approach on the issue. I look at it as there will always be prostitution. If you make it illegal, then prostitution becomes a dirty, disgusting, act of sex where the woman or man is exploited and then have their money stolen.

However, if you legalize it and regulate the business heavily then you can expect the conditions to change. Men and women prostitutes will get a steady, yearly salary, health benefits...etc. They will have access to clean supplies and protection. I think there will be men and women who become prostitutes as a valid career choice in a prostitution legalized society.

I don't think so. The few countries in Europe that legalized prostitution had to face massive problems with human trafficking and police can do shit about it. They check the brothels, but as soon as a woman says "Yeah I'm here by choice", the police has no chance to do whatsoever about it, they have to let it go. As I already said, Germany is the best adress for human trafficking by now. Women in brothels pay about 200 bucks rent A DAY, this means they have to serve 2-3 men on a daily basis just to pay the room. There is no food, no paid bills, no insurance, no family assistance whatsoever, just the fucking room for one fucking day. This is a scandal that no one gives a fuck about. So, in order to make a living, you have to have much more than 2-3 clients a day.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I support sex workers but not pimps and so on but I also think its a woman (and a mans) right to do with her body as she deems appropriate. I've done it in the past.

[Remus Bleys]

Alexandra Kollontai wrote a rather good piece on prostitution here. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1921/prostitution.htm

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

I support sex workers but not pimps and so on but I also think its a woman (and a mans) right to do with her body as she deems appropriate. I've done it in the past.
you're assuming that prostitution is usually an outcome of choice, which is a dangerous assumption.

in fact, you'll find that most labour comes out of necessity first and foremost, with choice itself playing a very minor role in the end. selling your body is the extreme of this phenomenon.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

you're assuming that prostitution is usually an outcome of choice, which is a dangerous assumption.

in fact, you'll find that most labour comes out of necessity first and foremost, with choice itself playing a very minor role in the end. selling your body is the extreme of this phenomenon.

No, I'm absolutely not and I know first hand doing virtually everything out of necessity. It wasn't like I got bored one day and said, "u kno what I should do?" or something. My parents had to many kids and were addict criminals who couldn't even feed themselves or had a pot for their own piss and my grandparents, tho hardworking and upright, were poor as shit so I learned how to hustle. This being said I'm not going to place 'shame' or negativity on sex work either on a fundamental level. It's circumstantial and should be judged case by case, circumstance by circumstance.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

No, I'm absolutely not and I know first hand doing virtually everything out of necessity. It wasn't like I got bored one day and said, "u kno what I should do?" or something. My parents had to many kids and were addict criminals who couldn't even feed themselves or had a pot for their own piss and my grandparents, tho hardworking and upright, were poor as shit so I learned how to hustle. This being said I'm not going to place 'shame' or negativity on sex work either on a fundamental level. It's circumstantial and should be judged case by case, circumstance by circumstance.
you're missing the point entirely, although you have ironically illustrated the point.

"hustle" is the key word here. why do people hustle? because they have to make money, because capitalism runs on profit. the circumstance is survival and, under capitalism, the remedy is money, hence sex-work and hence any other kind of work.

there's nothing noble about it - capitalism is capitalism and workers are workers.

take as many "case by case" cases as you like but, remember, people go into any kind of labour for the purpose of profit.

[Art Vandelay]

hopefully, in a socialist society, sex-work would disappear with many other types of oppressive and unnecessary labour, which are incomprehensible if you take away the profit-motive.

If prostitution is present within a society, wouldn't that necessitate some sort of market to facilitate the exchange? In this sense, I don't see how prostitution could exist in a socialist society. So as you said, this is a question which can only be understood in a capitalistic context.

[Sasha]

Its completely naive to think that in a post revolutionary society there will be no trade what so ever anymore. Humans will be humans and in a post revolutionary society we will still be building alliances etc. People will still have stuff that other people will need, a vote in the comunual meetings or whatever. and there will still be people willing to trade acces to their bodies for that. But prostitution as a job will probably dissapear (unless maybe more in a sexual therapy kind of a way)

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Its completely naive to think that in a post revolutionary society there will be no trade what so ever anymore. Humans will be humans and in a post revolutionary society we will still be building alliances etc. People will still have stuff that other people will need, a vote in the comunual meetings or whatever. and there will still be people willing to trade acces to their bodies for that. But prostitution as a job will probably dissapear (unless maybe more in a sexual therapy kind of a way)

This is what I'm saying. I'm also a stronger supporter of the idea of sex therapy and also of it being a kinda of social service, like for those with disabilities and so on.


you're missing the point entirely, although you have ironically illustrated the point.

No, because I'm not sure I ever explicitly disagreed with you in any real sense though I will point out a professional pornographic actor in Beverly Hills driving a Benz and such or VIP escort wining and dining Senators in DC is much different than say human trafficking and sex slavery in the third world or cocaine fiends in the slums of Demoine, like that's why I said its case by case. There are upper class sex workers who are bosses and so on. The bunny ranch women in Reno make pretty good money. We have to view this objectively in its totality under capital before we can analyze it abstractly as a massive social phenomena.

[Tenka]

This is what I'm saying. I'm also a stronger supporter of the idea of sex therapy and also of it being a kinda of social service, like for those with disabilities and so on.


For my part, I am not a believer in sex therapy in any context. Naturally there will be people willing to have sex with those who cannot easily have sex for some reason or another (whether disabled--though I personally do not know what is inherently repugnant about disabled people--or deemed simply too ugly by whatever popular standards manifest in Communism), but I would consider this an extreme personal altruism if they are not emotionally involved with the person, or a kind of panamory. There would be nothing material to gain by the sex (supposing Communism).

[Diirez]

How would someone choose to be a commodity and sell his/her sexuality with someone that he/she doesn't even want to?
How is that a career?
I've known quite a lot of people who would offer sex for money. Both male and female.

[Rosa Partizan]

For my part, I am not a believer in sex therapy in any context. Naturally there will be people willing to have sex with those who cannot easily have sex for some reason or another (whether disabled--though I personally do not know what is inherently repugnant about disabled people--or deemed simply too ugly by whatever popular standards manifest in Communism), but I would consider this an extreme personal altruism if they are not emotionally involved with the person, or a kind of panamory. There would be nothing material to gain by the sex (supposing Communism).

yeah, this is a great point when it comes to all this sex therapy for disabled people stuff. Allowing prostitutes for these people or even prescribing it provides this feeling of "you couldn't get this any other way". Isn't this kind of humiliating? In a more altruistic, less shallow world, I guess this would be pointless.

[Sabot Cat]

How would someone choose to be a commodity and sell his/her sexuality with someone that he/she doesn't even want to?
How is that a career?

Actually, sex workers aren't "making themselves commodities", they're offering a service they're remunerated for like other forms of physical labor. In the IWW, sex workers are a part of Industrial Union 690, and if an anti-capitalist revolution were to occur, they would continue to work; the critical difference being that they get the full value of their labor.

[tallguy]

Prostitution is a highly sensitive and controversial topic over here with German feminists. There is one side longing for its ban, but only punishing the pimps, slave traders and johns while supporting the prostitutes, and on the other side there are the feminists claiming it's a fundamental woman's right to prostitute herself. The background of this conflict is a law enforced in 2002 making prostitution legal, which made Germany kind of a paradise for slave traders and pimps. Sounds illogical, but when prostitution became legal, the demand for women almost exploded. I'm really looking forward to your answers and positions and I will also write something about my point of view.
As much as I dislike prostitution because of the underlying economic reasons for it's existence, I think the banning of it would be impossible to do. It is probably as old as humans have existed and is certainly as old as human civilisation. In short, I am suggesting prostitution is an effect, not a cause. The cause being poverty and oppression. There may, of course, be a minority of women who have no economic or culturally/psychologically oppressive imperative for engaging in prostitution, but merely choose to do so for material gain and I suppose they should not be hindered in that if it's what they want to do. However, I think such women will by tiny in number compared to those that do it for the other reasons I have outlined.

[Remus Bleys]

Actually, sex workers aren't "making themselves commodities", they're offering a service they're remunerated for like other forms of physical labor. In the IWW, sex workers are a part of Industrial Union 690, and if an anti-capitalist revolution were to occur, they would continue to work; the critical difference being that they get the full value of their labor.

Other forms of physical labor is also a commodity in capitalism. So yeah prostitutes do make themselves a commodity. Of course such phrasing is problematic because it suggests they chose this. But all workers are forced to make their work a commodity, prostitutes differ in that the entire body becomes a commodity. That's not a judgement of prostitutes is simply how it is.

[Sabot Cat]

Other forms of physical labor is also a commodity in capitalism. So yeah prostitutes do make themselves a commodity. Of course such phrasing is problematic because it suggests they chose this. But all workers are forced to make their work a commodity, prostitutes differ in that the entire body becomes a commodity. That's not a judgement of prostitutes is simply how it is.

You could argue the technical definition of commodity, but I think this conception of sex work suggests that there isn't any "actual" labor involved, when there is. And how does any other job not require one's whole body to be present and used by one's employer? Can parts of it be detached at any point? Sex work is not unique in that regard.

[Remus Bleys]

You could argue the technical definition of commodity, but I think this conception of sex work suggests that there isn't any "actual" labor involved, when there is. And how does any other job not require one's whole body to be present and used by one's employer? Can parts of it be detached at any point? Sex work is not unique in that regard.

Where did I argue that? The entire labor of all work is a commodity, so I don't know where you got the idea I was arguing that sex work is a commodity whole all other work isn't. All work including sex work is a commodity. That is the argument, so I fail to see how it suggests or implies that there is no real labor involved.
But to answer your question, how many other jobs involve using one's genitalia? Prostitution is simply any other job under capitalism except or takes it to a revolting extreme.

[RedWaves]

Prostitution is like pornography, sex toys, and other things that are sold to capitalize on exploitation of sex and of course, the profit from it.

[Sabot Cat]

Where did I argue that? The entire labor of all work is a commodity, so I don't know where you got the idea I was arguing that sex work is a commodity whole all other work isn't. All work including sex work is a commodity. That is the argument, so I fail to see how it suggests or implies that there is no real labor involved.

I know you didn't say it exactly like this, and I'm not accusing you of anything in light of your broad use of the term commodity; I'm simply stating that there is a strong connotative difference between "Selling one's body" and "working in the sex industry" and that's one of agency.


But to answer your question, how many other jobs involve using one's genitalia? Prostitution is simply any other job under capitalism except or takes it to a revolting extreme.

Although there are certainly large swaths of the sex work industry that have extremely poor conditions for those employed in them, I'm hesitant to say that sex work itself is revolting. It's much easier to say this about the bourgeois who profit from exploited sex workers.

[Remus Bleys]

I know you didn't say it exactly like this, and I'm not accusing you of anything; I'm simply stating that there is a strong connotative difference between "Selling one's body" and "working in the sex industry" and that's one of agency.



Although there are certainly large swaths of the sex work industry that have extremely poor conditions for those employed in them, I'm hesitant to say that sex work itself is revolting. It's much easier to say this about the bourgeois who profit from exploited sex workers.
1. Do you really want to bring philosophical nonsense info this? What does that even mean one of agency? under capitalism no work is a choice, all work is done simply because it makes someone profit. There can be no individual choices devoid of context in any society, especially under capitalism. Why do you bring agency into this? The man or women given no choice but sex labor, and are not obviously forced by some group into sex labor, are they free? No of course not. You gotta do what you gotta do, capital forces us to have to do this.
2. I do not find sex workers revolting, such an opinion is reactionary and against every one of my principles. The mere fact that someone must sell there body in order to live, however, should revolt everyone.

[Sabot Cat]

1. Do you really want to bring philosophical nonsense info this? What does that even mean one of agency? under capitalism no work is a choice, all work is done simply because it makes someone profit. There can be no individual choices devoid of context in any society, especially under capitalism. Why do you bring agency into this? The man or women given no choice but sex labor, and are not obviously forced by some group into sex labor, are they free? No of course not. You gotta do what you gotta do, capital forces us to have to do this.

Agency in a feminist context, not the metaphysical or economic sense.


2. I do not find sex workers revolting, such an opinion is reactionary and against every one of my principles. The mere fact that someone must sell there body in order to live, however, should revolt everyone.

This is the kind of phrasing I dislike, and I'll explain what I mean by agency: I'm not suggesting that sex workers in a capitalist system are autonomous, just that they are not self-sold objects; they are people who are working at a job. Furthermore, I find the fact that the employing class is exploiting these members of the proletariat to be more revolting, and it should be the main source of our contention.

[Remus Bleys]

Agency in a feminist context, not the metaphysical or economic sense.



This is the kind of phrasing I dislike, and I'll explain what I mean by agency: I'm not suggesting that sex workers in a capitalist system are autonomous, just that they are not self-sold objects; they are people who are working at a job.

Yes and that job is that they must sell their genitalia and anything else related to sex (their whole body) to someone to do however they please, regardless of if the sex worker liked this sex, kink, or fetish.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

yeah, this is a great point when it comes to all this sex therapy for disabled people stuff. Allowing prostitutes for these people or even prescribing it provides this feeling of "you couldn't get this any other way". Isn't this kind of humiliating? In a more altruistic, less shallow world, I guess this would be pointless.

Let's not focus on one example, to offer another it could be for those who suffer from severe social anxiety and are super neurotic. Or there could be nothing just more they like kinky fuckery. Or they like sex a whole, whole lot (the hyper sexual). Could cover a whole list of causations in the clientele. I just mentioned the disabled as I'm aware of social programs I believe in the Netherlands were they were given a specific allotment from the government per month or year for sex services. Offering these services to the general public should not cast negative judgement on the ppl whom opt for just as anything involving someone personal healthcare in general shouldn't. Das way lame and so not what I mean.


For my part, I am not a believer in sex therapy in any context. Naturally there will be people willing to have sex with those who cannot easily have sex for some reason or another (whether disabled--though I personally do not know what is inherently repugnant about disabled people--or deemed simply too ugly by whatever popular standards manifest in Communism), but I would consider this an extreme personal altruism if they are not emotionally involved with the person, or a kind of panamory. There would be nothing material to gain by the sex (supposing Communism).

There would be nothing to gain from a great number of social service, such is the nature of intangibles. What's your point?

[Sabot Cat]

Yes and that job is that they must sell their genitalia and anything else related to sex (their whole body) to someone to do however they please, regardless of if the sex worker liked this sex, kink, or fetish.

If they were literally selling their body, the other person would own it at the end of the exchange, while the sex worker would get all of the money. This is not what happens, so this is not even a remotely accurate way of phrasing it. And I reiterate my contention with it because of how it denies agency.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Yes and that job is that they must sell their genitalia and anything else related to sex (their whole body) to someone to do however they please, regardless of if the sex worker liked this sex, kink, or fetish.

That's not true. In more liberal situations where the sex worker has full control over his or her labour they don't have to do anything they don't want too or do any scene they don't want to or expose what they don't want to have seen and so on. Again, we have to view this pretty broadly. Drop the middle class moralist shyte too mate, I see what you're doing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Women also could see specific male sex workers of their choosing if they wanted to have a baby but didn't want the "relationship" with another person too. Sex is an art. Being able to fuck and fuck well is a high valued skill essential to any overall work force not to mention sex and reproduction are vital to the overall health of the species.

[Rosa Partizan]

Well, but what about the imbalance between male and female sex workers?

In this society, men are the "hunters" and women the "prey". What about a society without this sexism, without this "logic" that guys with a lot of girls are players and cool and stuff and women with a lot of guys are sluts etc? In a society without these stupid "girls have to be conquered"-games, what would this change about sex work in general?

[Sabot Cat]

Well, but what about the imbalance between male and female sex workers?

In this society, men are the "hunters" and women the "prey". What about a society without this sexism, without this "logic" that guys with a lot of girls are players and cool and stuff and women with a lot of guys are sluts etc? In a society without these stupid "girls have to be conquered"-games, what would this change about sex work in general?

It would probably mean a more open and equitable sex industry? I'm not sure if you're offering this as a counterpoint.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Well, but what about the imbalance between male and female sex workers?

In this society, men are the "hunters" and women the "prey". What about a society without this sexism, without this "logic" that guys with a lot of girls are players and cool and stuff and women with a lot of guys are sluts etc? In a society without these stupid "girls have to be conquered"-games, what would this change about sex work in general?

I assume very little if not at all considering promiscuous sexual behavior, masturbation, etc. has been observed in other primate species too. Hoomans just like to fuck. It feels good, it is good, so what's thè problem? Change the variables, change the entire situation.

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lin6rlCFkg1qzfi5eo1_500.gif

[Rosa Partizan]

well, let's add something different...what about a society in which you only wanna sleep with people who want you, too? Meaning that you consider sex a mutual thing and that you find the thought of someone sleeping with you who is not desiring you disgusting. The men I know who reject going to prostitutes, reject it because of these reasons. And this is an attitude that can be acquired even in capitalist societies.

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Women also could see specific male sex workers of their choosing if they wanted to have a baby but didn't want the "relationship" with another person too. Sex is an art. Being able to fuck and fuck well is a high valued skill essential to any overall work force not to mention sex and reproduction are vital to the overall health of the species.
do you think that this happens in any other context other than your imagination?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

do you think that this happens in any other context other than your imagination?

Aside from high paid escort services, professional porn, professional VIP sex workers where it is legal, etc. come on.

[tallguy]

There will never be an equal and equitable sex industry even if all patriarchy. misogyny and straightforward male oppression were utterly abolished. And the reason for that is the difference between eggs and sperm. The consequences of copulation for a male are, all other things being equal, the few calories it takes to make the sperm. The consequences for females are, all other things being equal, several months of pregnancy and the several years it then takes to take a potentially resultant offspring to maturity. This, then, leads to entirely different evolutionary strategies for achieving the same ends; namely that of genetic reproduction. For males, there is a tendency to play the "throw enough mud against the wall and some of it will stick" strategy. For females, a far more cautious approach is generally adopted. One in which a great deal more psychological investment must be made. In turn leading to greater psychological costs being incurred. This is not true for all women, of course. But it is true for most.

Sex for women and sex for men, psychologically speaking, will never be the same. Several decades of contraception and just a few decades of only very partial and, globally, very patchy female emancipation cannot change that.

Most, (but not all) men really do think with their dicks unless they are specifically culturally conditioned to not do so.

All of the above will always mean that any sex industry is always going to be gender-biased no matter what.

[tallguy]

It should be like we have it in Sweden where it is illegal to buy but not to sell, it seems to work well here we have very low prostitution rates and the people who sell don't have to worry getting caught for something they are forced to do in some cases
I would suggest the primary reason for your relatively low levels of prostitution is more likely related to your relatively progressive taxation system which does not allow too great a disparity between rich and poor as compared to many other countries.

[Bostana]

That's not true. In more liberal situations where the sex worker has full control over his or her labour they don't have to do anything they don't want too or do any scene they don't want to or expose what they don't want to have seen and so on. Again, we have to view this pretty broadly. Drop the middle class moralist shyte too mate, I see what you're doing.

I wouldn't say that for the majority of prostitutes. What about women who are kidnapped and pimped out and have no other option but to sleep with men/women even the ones they don't want to have sex with? And the majority of prostitutes (at least in the U.S.) are victims of pimps. Essential they are forced to have sex which is, in a form, rape.

[tallguy]

I wouldn't say that for the majority of prostitutes. What about women who are kidnapped and pimped out and have no other option but to sleep with men/women even the ones they don't want to have sex with? And the majority of prostitutes (at least in the U.S.) are victims of pimps. Essential they are forced to have sex which is, in a form, rape.
I agree

[Sabot Cat]

People, there's a difference between sexual slavery and sex work.

[tallguy]

People, there's a difference between sex slavery and sex work.If men and women were psychologically wired the same, psycho-sexually speaking, I would agree completely. But, they are not and so I can't. Or, at least not completely. Though, I do concede there is a very considerable difference in degree of direct coercion from one end of the sex industry to the other.

I guess what I am saying is that some men will buy sex if they can whereas most women who sell sex will do so only because they have to. All of which is to put to one side, of course, the underlying evolutionary economic bargain that goes on between men and women in the course of normal human intimate relationships.

[Tenka]

These threads are confusing. I never know whether we're talking about general prostitution as it is now, or what would satisfy the same human desires in Communism, or some bourgeois liberal high-class prostitution as it is now.

My point earlier was basically that sex work in communism would be purely amateur, as would all little remaining work people personally engage in; i.e., not done for any material manner of recompense. But I suppose that's obvious. My first post in this thread sums up my thoughts on prostitution as it is now, though I do not touch on the higher class form of it. Not sure I want to.

[Sabot Cat]

If men and women were psychologically wired the same, psycho-sexually speaking, I would agree completely. But, they are not and so I can't. Or, at least not completely. Though, I do concede there is a very considerable difference in degree of direct coercion from one end of the sex industry to the other.

I guess what I am saying is that some men will buy sex if they can whereas most women who sell sex will do so only because they have to. All of which is to put to one side, of course, the underlying evolutionary economic bargain that goes on between men and women in the course of normal human intimate relationships.

I think you're essentializing gender and consequently, constructing a vast dichotomy of behavior that doesn't actually exist.

[tallguy]

I think you're essentializing gender and consequently, constructing a vast dichotomy of behavior that doesn't actually exist.
Please elaborate

[Sabot Cat]

Please elaborate

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I believe that you are claiming that (1) most men are willingly engaged in sex for money, and (2) most women are not, (3) thus sex work is inherently coercive. Further, you argue that this is because of how women and men essentially are, by their "wiring". This requires a strong dichotomy of behavior between women and men that has not been empirically demonstrated, and an argument that often services as a foundation for reactionary views on gender relations.

[tallguy]

Correct me if I'm misrepresenting your position, but I believe that you are claiming that (1) most men are willingly engaged in sex for money, and (2) most women are not, (3) thus sex work is inherently coercive. Further, you argue that this is because of how women and men essentially are, by their "wiring". This requires a strong dichotomy of behavior between women and men that has not been empirically demonstrated, and an argument that often services as a foundation for reactionary views on gender relations.
Regarding (1) and (2)

I am not arguing that most men will willingly pay for sex. I am arguing that of those people who would willing pay for sex, they are far more likely to be men than women. This argument is born out by the facts on the ground of the larger proportion of prostitutes being women. In other words, supply and demand.

Regarding (3)

I am indeed suggesting that most sex work is, either directly or indirectly, coercive. Note that I said, "most". I am more than willing to concede that some women will engage in sex work for entirely non-coercive, economic reasons. But, I would suggest that these will be very small in number. This argument is, again, born out by the facts on the ground of the demographics of the vast majority of female prostitutes being that of poor women operating in poor neighbourhoods.

Regarding my arguments about the psycho-sexual wiring of women and men being different; please read my previous post outlining the evolutionary reasons for this. I should also note this has been extensively studied in both humans and non-human primates and other mammals and is seen as a common underlying basis for the differing reproductive strategies of males and females across many such species and that there are specifically comparable patterns across other social mammalian species such as ours.

[Bostana]

People, there's a difference between sexual slavery and sex work.

So when a 13 your old girl is kidnapped and pimped out or when a jobless mother has no other option but to sell her body even though she doesn't want to thats not a form of sex slavery or rape?

[Sabot Cat]

Regarding (1) and (2)

I am not arguing that most men will willingly pay for sex. I am arguing that of those people who would willing pay for sex, they are far more likely to be men than women. This argument is born out by the facts on the ground of the larger proportion of prostitutes being women. In other words, supply and demand.

Regarding (3)

I am indeed suggesting that most sex work is, either directly or indirectly, coercive. Note that I said, "most". I am more than willing to concede that some women will engage in sex work for entirely non-coercive, economic reasons. But, I would suggest that these will be very small in number. This argument is, again, born out by the facts on the ground of the demographics of the vast majority of female prostitutes being that of poor women operating in poor neighbourhoods.

Regarding my arguments about the psycho-sexual wiring of women and men being different; please read my previous post outlining the evolutionary reasons for this. I should also note this has been extensively studied in both humans and non-human primates and other mammals and is seen as a common underlying basis for the differing reproductive strategies of males and females across many such species and that there are specifically comparable patterns across other social mammalian species such as ours.

It's well and good to assert all of this, but I would like to see what sources you're employing when you make these claims. Especially with the sex worker statistics, considering the methodological difficulties in attaining that data.

And then I would like to know whether or not you can demonstrate that it's more or less coercive in places where it's legal, if you're making this argument as one in favor of a prohibition of sex work; I'd argue that where it's prohibited, it's more coercive, because sex workers have less resources and ability to get help in bad situations, or to push their employer for redress of their grievances.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I wouldn't say that for the majority of prostitutes. What about women who are kidnapped and pimped out and have no other option but to sleep with men/women even the ones they don't want to have sex with? And the majority of prostitutes (at least in the U.S.) are victims of pimps. Essential they are forced to have sex which is, in a form, rape.

I don't understand why you guys keep focusing on select examples and then present it to me as if it accurately reflects all of sex work. Percentage wise and statistically I think this would be inaccurate though obviously in cases where that is the case something should be done. We're talking about all of sex work, not examples.

But I guess if you want to set em up and knock em down as you see fit, by all means friend.

[Rosa Partizan]

so, who of you lives in countries where sex work is completely legal?

Almost every time in discussions like these, I read stuff like "if you make it illegal, the prostitutes are gonna have a really bad time". Well, actually, they're having a bad time with prostitution being legalized. As I already mentioned, the demand exploded with legalization, every day, new brothels are opening. So, what does this mean? This means a lot of competition for the ladies. The johns have quite a huge choice, so the question is, which lady is ready to do the most for the fewest bucks? "No anal sex for 50 bucks? Awwww too bad, the other chick is offering it for 40 bucks, k thx bye"

With prostitution being legal, the police has less chances of finding out about coerced prostitution. As soon as the woman says "I'm here by choice", the policemen's work stops here. They can do shit for a woman with a pimp, which is rather the rule than the exception in those big brothels. 400k women in Germany are said to prostitute themselves, guess how many of them have social insurances, which means unempolyment insurance, retirement insurance, blah blah stuff? 44. Not 44k, no, 44. A EU study proved that in every european country that legalized prostitution, trafficking exploded. So all these countries are now working on new legislations.

[Lily Briscoe]

This isn't a discussion I'm really interested in getting involved in beyond this one post. I just wanted to address a point made on the first page of the thread, though:
...even if you are truly happy and healthy (i haven't seen one example of this being the case - please show me one), you are a part of capitalism's ability to commodify anything, including sexual organs.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_barista) type of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/bikini-baristas-strip-shows_n_2733351.html) thing (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21253054-three-bikini-baristas-arrested-at-washington-espresso-stand?lite) is very popular in the Seattle area and in the Puget Sound region more generally. I know a few people who work at these kinds of stands, and they aren't any less 'happy' or 'healthy' than other people. In fact the only thing about them that stands out is that they make better money than any of the other women in my social circle... Whether or not people choose to believe it, there are actually women who do this sort of work, not because they are kidnapped and forced to at gun/knife point or because they are desperate homeless drug fiends or whatever trope people lap up, but because it's easier work and better paying than whatever unskilled minimum-wage shit job they'd be stuck with otherwise. Assuming they can deal with the stigma, that is.. And actually, I think to the extent that sex work often is 'exceptional' in a negative sense (e.g. psychologically taxing, dangerous etc.), that it isn't so much due to the nature of the work itself but rather is a product of the stigma attached to it, where - by virtue of the fact that it is associated primarily with women and involves sexual services - it's regarded as something inherently shameful/degrading/profane/morally wrong (a stigma that a lot of people in this thread seem happy to reproduce, even if they try to dress it up with stuff about 'commodification' and 'the patriarchy' etc.) so it basically exists in the shadows.

I agree with Vox Populi that it's pretty dumb to make generalizations about 'prostitution' and the circumstances of sex workers, though, because these are extremely broad terms that encompass all sorts of different work by people in varying situations (and making a single distinction between drug-addicted homeless sex slaves and wealthy high-class escorts and madams isn't much better; there are people involved in sex work who aren't really any different than anybody else, as shocking as that must be to some people).

[Os Cangaceiros]

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_barista) type of (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/bikini-baristas-strip-shows_n_2733351.html) thing (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/30/21253054-three-bikini-baristas-arrested-at-washington-espresso-stand?lite) is very popular in the Seattle area and in the Puget Sound region more generally.

Wow that's interesting. There's a place like that in the neighborhood I live in, I always thought it was weird and gimmicky.

Under the broad umbrella of "sex work", I've met strippers (off the clock) who seemed to be quite content with their occupation, esp. the amount of money they were making. Whether they were "truly happy" is a matter of speculation I suppose, but those were my impressions.

[Bostana]

I don't understand why you guys keep focusing on select examples and then present it to me as if it accurately reflects all of sex work. Percentage wise and statistically I think this would be inaccurate though obviously in cases where that is the case something should be done. We're talking about all of sex work, not examples.

But I guess if you want to set em up and knock em down as you see fit, by all means friend.

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. 85% of prostitutes (http://www.womenslaw.org/simple.php?sitemap_id=148) in the U.S. are raped and controlled by pimps. In that case something need to be done. While, I do respect a woman's or a man's right to do what they want with there body so long as no one is harmed. However in the U.S. the majority of women are forced into prostitution by due to the majority of that group eventually become victims of pimps. Be assured it is, 'percentage and statistical wise (https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/trafficking.pdf)' that most sex workers are forced against their will (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_prostitution#USA)

[Futility Personified]

Personally, if I was low enough emotionally? I probably would pay for sex. It is not desirable that the circumstances that would put me so low as to do so exist, but if they did, aside from revolution, what could I do about it? If an individual chooses to commodify themselves to that extent, whilst it is lamentable (for the mental strain that such a vocation would appear to place), it is their choice. Ideally, the post-capitalist society would be as such that this issue would not surface, though I feel that that is some sort of intellectual cop-out.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Under the broad umbrella of "sex work", I've met strippers (off the clock) who seemed to be quite content with their occupation, esp. the amount of money they were making. Whether they were "truly happy" is a matter of speculation I suppose, but those were my impressions.

Coincidentally my bestest best beastie friend, sister, roommate, general life coach, shrink and more of a twin to me than my real twin, happens to strip and I can say with certainty she loves it and its something I've berated her with questions about a lot. The money is big and I've seen her make like 800-1,000 in one night and shed much rather do that then wait tables or go to school and shit. She could totally do something else but she's lazy as shit like me and rather do that and tbh I couldn't blame her. This being said she doesn't share the same "humanitarian," view of sex work like I do as views her patrons as idiots and marks who she attempts to "work over," as much as humanly possible "cause why would anyone pay to see my ass idk." She also comes from a basically poor but not poor poor and über stable background. So, that's my point of reference for what it's worth.

[tallguy]

It's well and good to assert all of this, but I would like to see what sources you're employing when you make these claims. Especially with the sex worker statistics, considering the methodological difficulties in attaining that data.

And then I would like to know whether or not you can demonstrate that it's more or less coercive in places where it's legal, if you're making this argument as one in favor of a prohibition of sex work; I'd argue that where it's prohibited, it's more coercive, because sex workers have less resources and ability to get help in bad situations, or to push their employer for redress of their grievances.If you'd read my previous posts in this thread, you would already know that I have argued that it is always going to be more or less impossible to ban sex work and so we shouldn't even try to. What I have argued (again, if you had read my previous posts on this thread, you would know this), is that instead of concentrating on the symptom of prostitution, all efforts should be concentrated on its cause. Namely poverty and lack of female economic power.

[tallguy]

so, who of you lives in countries where sex work is completely legal?

Almost every time in discussions like these, I read stuff like "if you make it illegal, the prostitutes are gonna have a really bad time". Well, actually, they're having a bad time with prostitution being legalized. As I already mentioned, the demand exploded with legalization, every day, new brothels are opening. So, what does this mean? This means a lot of competition for the ladies. The johns have quite a huge choice, so the question is, which lady is ready to do the most for the fewest bucks? "No anal sex for 50 bucks? Awwww too bad, the other chick is offering it for 40 bucks, k thx bye"

With prostitution being legal, the police has less chances of finding out about coerced prostitution. As soon as the woman says "I'm here by choice", the policemen's work stops here. They can do shit for a woman with a pimp, which is rather the rule than the exception in those big brothels. 400k women in Germany are said to prostitute themselves, guess how many of them have social insurances, which means unempolyment insurance, retirement insurance, blah blah stuff? 44. Not 44k, no, 44. A EU study proved that in every european country that legalized prostitution, trafficking exploded. So all these countries are now working on new legislations.
I pretty much agree with all of this. However, in terms of banning it, I see this as very difficult to achieve, as much as I want to see the women involved being protected. Something along the lines of making it illegal to pimp and making it illegal to buy, but leaving the women themselves out of the judicial/criminal system seems to be the least worst option, I suppose. Though, I am not too comfortable about different laws for different people either.

In the end, though, all of the above is dealing with effects. The cause is poverty and lack of female cultural/psychological power in certain sections of society (though, these last two will tend to flow from an underlying economic reality). Mostly, though, its simply about poverty. Most prostitutes are poor women...surprise, surprise

[Rosa Partizan]

I pretty much agree with all of this. However, in terms of banning it, I see this as very difficult to achieve, as much as I want to see the women involved being protected. Something along the lines of making it illegal to pimp and making it illegal to buy, but leaving the women themselves out of the judicial/criminal system seems to be the least worst option, I suppose. Though, I am not too comfortable about different laws for different people either.

In the end, though, all of the above is dealing with effects. The cause is poverty and lack of female cultural/psychological power in certain sections of society (though, these last two will tend to flow from an underlying economic reality). Mostly, though, its simply about poverty. Most prostitutes are poor women...surprise, surprise

This should be self-evident and this is the way Sweden has reinforced this law. Any law punishing the prostitute is not feminist but reactionary and conservative. I do not reject prostitution due to moralistic reasons and "good manners", this would be a totally wrong way to start.

[tallguy]

This should be self-evident and this is the way Sweden has reinforced this law. Any law punishing the prostitute is not feminist but reactionary and conservative. I do not reject prostitution due to moralistic reasons and "good manners", this would be a totally wrong way to start.
I agree about Sweden's laws. However, I do not think that these laws are the main reason for such low levels of prostitution in Sweden. I think the reason for that is the low levels of poverty there. These laws, then, merely serve (if only partially) to protect those women who are still engaged in prostitution as a consequence of possibly slipping though the economic safety net of an otherwise relatively more progressive economic system.

In other words, a change to the underlying economics of poor women's lives is the primary solution and the laws mentioned above merely (but necessarily) serve to protect those women who are still left at the margins. In short, the reason Sweden’s approach works is because it is both a belt (underlying economics) and braces (legal protection) approach. One, without the other, will always be of only limited success.

[tachosomoza]

Legalize, regulate, tax, collectivize, lock up pimps.

[Remus Bleys]

That's not true. In more liberal situations where the sex worker has full control over his or her labour they don't have to do anything they don't want too or do any scene they don't want to or expose what they don't want to have seen and so on. Again, we have to view this pretty broadly. Drop the middle class moralist shyte too mate, I see what you're doing.

Where is my middle class moralism vox? I'm not condemning prostitutes nor acting like prostitution is some special thing that's worse than other jobs (I'm simply pointing out that sex work is an extreme form of the fact that workers become themselves a commodity).

Now if we wanna talk middle class shit let's talk about how sex is somehow an art. Yes people rubbing up against eachother for the purpose of sedating an urge programmed into them for the purpose of reproducing the species is so artful, what are you some post modern grad student?
Or if I'm a middle class moralist what does it make you? You did claim that some sex workers have full control of their of their labor, do you seriously believe that under capitalism work (any work) is not forced? Do you really want to act like sex workers have "full control"? Accounting is just as forced as this nice version of prostitution.
Or how about the fact that you take some nice version of prostitution and use it to attack the view that I supposedly have. Which I don't. Maybe if you weren't on some crusade you would see that the argument I had presented was that prostitution, as a whole involves an individual selling their body, and all work under capitalism is forced. Yes some conditions are certainly nicer (and isn't it middle class to take good conditions and treat it as a norm?) But this is besides the point isn't it? The prostitute had no choice besides prostitution, nor the accountant, nor the miner. And if they have decided that no they like this job it is still forced. Bourgoisie ideology is not caused by the states propaganda but by living in this bourgeois society it develops. This is the division of labor imbued into an individuals head. This I do what I love crap is meaningless, the only reason it is loved is because they are conditioned to it (and is obvious that you don't understand this concept so tell me so I'll remind you this does not have to be a conscious effort on anyone's part). Prostitutes are slaves just like the accountant, waiter, miner, etc. I don't care if the conditions are nice, they get am okay contract, or if they live their job: they are still slaves.
Oh to live in the world of vox where you can win every thread by calling people middle class and post image macros (which is just annoying and distracts from serious discussion. It makes you look like a child who sees it as her mission to spread the world of tumblr).

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

Aside from high paid escort services, professional porn, professional VIP sex workers where it is legal, etc. come on.
take a look into those worlds, its not as glamourous and safe as you like to believe.

[Alan OldStudent]

well, let's add something different...what about a society in which you only wanna sleep with people who want you, too? Meaning that you consider sex a mutual thing and that you find the thought of someone sleeping with you who is not desiring you disgusting. The men I know who reject going to prostitutes, reject it because of these reasons. And this is an attitude that can be acquired even in capitalist societies.
Speaking as a celibate heterosexual male with normal desires, that's one of the main reasons I don't use the services of a prostitute.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra

[tallguy]

Speaking as a celibate heterosexual male with normal desires, that's one of the main reasons I don't use the services of a prostitute.

Regards,

Alan OldStudent
The unexamined life is not worth living—Socrates
Gracias a la vida, que me ha dado tanto—Violeta Parra
Speaking as a man, and trying to think how I would psychologically fare in later life without close physical intimacy with a woman I can understand that is a hard call mate. Good on you. I would hope, if ever in the same situation, to be the same as you. Then again, this thinking-with-my-dick thing may have withered on the vine by then. I certainly hope so. It's a pain in the arse.

[Bea Arthur]

How can somebody doubt that prostitution is exploitative? Women do not willing sell their bodies to me. In cases where they are no forcibly coerced into it by men, they do it because they are convinced by a sexist patriarchal society that they are only valuable because of their sexuality. Revolutionaries oppose the objectification of women, and they oppose prostitution!

[Sabot Cat]

How can somebody doubt that prostitution is exploitative? Women do not willing sell their bodies to me. In cases where they are no forcibly coerced into it by men, they do it because they are convinced by a sexist patriarchal society that they are only valuable because of their sexuality. Revolutionaries oppose the objectification of women, and they oppose prostitution!

So your argument is based on the conjecture that all women who willingly engage in sex work are brainwashed by a patriarchal society and don't realize they're being exploited... because sex work is inherently patriarchal because all women who willingly engage in sex work are brainwashed by a patriarchal society and...

I believe this is circular reasoning; I also have already iterated objections to the "sell their bodies" phrasing, considering that it not only contradicts the way you're phrasing the issue to cast blame on the women and not the exploiters, but because it presents sex work as a passive transaction.

[Comrade Chernov]

Support the actual prostitutes as much as possible. Hell, I'd even say that there should be shelters for ex-prostitutes, similar to how there are shelters for women who suffered through domestic violence, homeless shelters, shelters for LGBT youth, etc.

Also, encourage the prostitutes to keep records of how many clients they've been with, then sue their pimps/johns/etc for that number counts of rape. I suspect the majority of prostitutes aren't there of their own desire to do so - and I use the word "desire" because it is, in my mind, distinct from "will" (desire being consciously seeking out opportunities to engage in something, and will simply doing something without making much of a fuss out of it) - and because of that, because of their being coerced into the position they're in, it ought to count as rape.

Of course, the final decision to press charges or not will be up to them. Respecting their wants and their choices is also a priority, after all.

[Ember Catching]

I also have already iterated objections to the "sell their bodies" phrasing, considering that it not only contradicts the way you're phrasing the issue to cast blame on the women and not the exploiters, but because it presents sex work as a passive transaction.
The most fundamental objection to that phrasing is that most sex workers today "[place] it [their labor-power] at the disposal of the buyer temporarily, for a definite period of time" ('Capital' Vol. 1, Chapter 6), retaining freedom — ownership — of their labor-power and their bodies, and thus avoiding becoming commodities — slaves — themselves, which is precisely what separates the present majority laboring stratum from all previous iterations, and which makes the sale of the body an entirely ahistorical analysis of free sex work (as in free labor: i.e. no pimp indefinitely owning the sex worker's labor-power, having it at their full disposition by means of coercion, which is another question entirely).

Unless the roles of employer (buyer of labor-power) and client overlap, the client merely constitutes the object of labor and participates in no sale of any sort with the sex worker — the exchange relationship in sex work thus remains the same as in all work: between worker and employer, capitalist. Sex work isn't inherently unfree or non-consensual owing to the fact of a sale alone, as it is precisely the temporally-limited sale of one's own labor-power which differentiates free labor from all historical and present forms of unfree labor.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Okay, here's my two cents on this topic, I have thought about and observed all of this for years.

The discussion in Germany deals almost exclusively with the question if the prostitutes do it by choice or not. First question that arises: what does "by choice" mean? Is it a choice to have to earn as much money as possible to support your family in Eastern Europe and to pay back all the debts that your travel to Germany caused? Sounds kind of oversimplified, huh? Well, it's not.

Stories like these have become very common since the legalization back in 2002. Brothels are opened all over Germany, some are advertised as "wellness paradises", others are called flatrate brothels which means that you pay an amount like 100 bucks and then it's "all you can fuck". And for all of this, women in a very high number are needed. The "market" demands fresh faces and bodies all the time, which is no wonder when the women are "consumed" very quickly at the same time.

Germany has about 81 Mio. inhabitants, it's estimated that 400k women work as prostitutes and that daily 1 Mio. men visit prostitutes. On the one hand there is explicitly forced prostitution, which means that physical or psychic violence or blackmail is applied (in most cases by a pimp) to make the women prostitute themselves. On the other hand there is prostitution due to poverty, due to not speaking German, due to having no education. If you look up some brothel homepages and look at the girls, about 80-90% of them are non-German, mostly from Eastern Europe. So, is this not some kind of coercion?

Some very reputable police officers estimate the percentage of women not doing this by choice, but because of poverty or force is about 90%. But, well, the prostitution lobby in Germany is kind of very strong. People approving of prostitution say that the anti-folks is prude, conservative etc. A lot of talkshows in TV dealt with this topic. Every time, prostitutes were invited. But, guess what, it was always the same 2 or 3, all of them not only prostitutes, but owning their own brothels and making profit of other women. If it wasn't that serious, I'd be like --> :laugh:

But the discussion about choice is a very onesided for me. There are other aspects. Why does no one ask the johns about it?! I mean, the whole business exists because of them and their needs, right? What image of women and of sexuality does it take to pay for sex? To pay for sex with someone whose sexual desires and wishes you totally don't give a fuck about? What feeling is it when sex is not a mutual thing? How can you enjoy it, knowing that your partner doesn't even want it, doesn't feel it?

I am very liberal when it comes to female sexuality, and this is why I am ANTI-prostitution. Prostitution marginalizes female sexuality, putting male sexuality on a pedestal, making female bodies a commodity, existing for the purpose of pleasing men and block out one's own satisfaction and sexual fulfillment. A man who cares about a woman and her sexuality, who respects her, will NEVER EVER pay her for sex, take this as a fact. So in order to erase prostitution, you have to start with the side representing the demand, not with the side "offering the goods".

This is a very short, summarized posting of my point of view, but it's a fairly decent representation of my chain of thoughts.

I see exactly why you call me your virtual bff. This subject hits pretty damn close to the bone for me (for reasons I'm not sure I want to discuss here) but I am opposed to legalization of prostitution (or more accurately I'm against legalizing of pimping) I support criminalizing pimps and I would not be opposed to criminalizing the johns. My problem is with the criminalization of prostitutes. I believe with community outreach and programs that offer more and better opportunities enacted by the community for the community (as opposed to being enacted by a power structure) I feel the problem may be more easily dealt with. Another part of this plan would be providing the means for justice in the cases of coercion also enacted by the community. I was recently inspired by part of the movie Libertarias where Las Mujeres Libres shut down a brothel and gave the prostitutes a way out. Call me idealistic but I think all this is possible and could work quite well and would make the world a better place. I don't think such things could be achieved through law or law enforcement. As one of my favorite phrases goes "Disarm cops, arm feminists!"

[Rosa Partizan]

you're so fucking spot on it almost hurts :wub:

[Futility Personified]

My 2 cents (or £60 per paragraph, (£5 for reading this bit) depending on how you look at it)

For a long time me and my friends have said about going to Amsterdam when there's a bit of money kicking around, and for a long time there's always been the ongoing joke of who will end up with a prostitute. As someone who is reasonably honest, I have given up the inner dialogue with myself of will I, won't I, because once you have a few cans or whatever, you will at some point revert to a stumbling mass of instincts just lucky enough to be on hind legs.

Why would I do this heinous thing?
My sex life is up and down (sorry, couldn't resist) at the best of times, inconsistent due to my own hangups and living arrangements. As a human being with a modest drive, this is frustrating and does me no good whatsoever. When it has been a pretty long while, you -do- start to objectify women and in the back of your mind, you will start to fancy your odds with near enough everyone. This is not a nice way to view the world.

Now, I would not liaise with a sex worker in my own country because there is a legitimate chance that they've been trafficked or are under the thumb of someone, but also because it is where I live. As an addictive personality, paying for sex is something that would be extremely unwise to cultivate in a familiar environment. Would I pay for sex knowing that the individual will receive very little of their money and be subject to abuse? No.

To a woman who has a high libido, enjoys what she does and retains all the money she makes (which is to say, is not pimped), I see no reason to feel guilt. Perhaps shame, yes, for being such an awful bastard that I can't get laid, but no guilt.

I know someone who decided to do sex work, for financial reasons. This freaked me out immensely, mainly because i'd seen a few pictures of her floating around the internet which were extreme to say the least. So I asked her about it. She said it was so support her income so she could start anew somewhere else, take care of her sex drive and also to increase her self esteem, to feel desired and wanted. Human sexuality is so complex and broad, the motives of many might be similar. Some nights she was glad to be whipped, and other nights she was happy simply to hold.


I doubt that prostitution, or the commodification of an individual's sexuality, will be completely eradicated. Maybe for capital, yes, but not for favors or other motives. An immediate goal to be forced would be removal of pimps to empower the workers. There are lots of psychological issues that come into play before and after someone takes the plunge to do sex work, many to do with abuse and low self esteem. Revolutionary society would not be worth a damn if it wasn't addressing the conditions that cause these issues.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't know why the quote function doesn't work again, but I was going to pick up only one part of your post anyway, the one with the self-esteem. Sleeping with someone for getting attention and gaining self-esteem is wrong. Always. No matter if money's involved or not. This is a way that somehow just keeps the symptoms down, because it's a very superficial way to deal with self-esteem problems. I've never slept around big time (and even if so, who gives a fuck), but when I was younger, I caught myself feeling awesome for having ended up with some really attractive guy. In the end, it didn't help me in the long run. Your self-esteem has to come by yourself, otherwise it can be very easily shattered, i.e. when you fail to score with a certain person. I'm not saying loving yourself comes easily, it's a process, a hard one. Sleeping around for self-esteem will get you nowhere, you'll remain unhappy with who you are, because you avoid the conflict with yourself.

[synthesis]

I don't know why the quote function doesn't work again, but I was going to pick up only one part of your post anyway, the one with the self-esteem. Sleeping with someone for getting attention and gaining self-esteem is wrong. Always. No matter if money's involved or not. This is a way that somehow just keeps the symptoms down, because it's a very superficial way to deal with self-esteem problems. I've never slept around big time (and even if so, who gives a fuck), but when I was younger, I caught myself feeling awesome for having ended up with some really attractive guy. In the end, it didn't help me in the long run. Your self-esteem has to come by yourself, otherwise it can be very easily shattered, i.e. when you fail to score with a certain person. I'm not saying loving yourself comes easily, it's a process, a hard one. Sleeping around for self-esteem will get you nowhere, you'll remain unhappy with who you are, because you avoid the conflict with yourself.

I do think there's a pretty big gap between it being unfulfilling and it being wrong, per se. But maybe I'm not interpreting you correctly. Saying it's "wrong" usually entails passing judgment or some sort of "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude.

I guess I'm also not sure why you don't think you should have felt awesome about hooking up with someone attractive. It's a pretty common thing to feel awesome about. It seems like you might be conflating the sex part with the "basing your self-esteem on other people" part, but, again, I can't presume to know your individual experience.


I was recently inspired by part of the movie Libertarias where Las Mujeres Libres shut down a brothel and gave the prostitutes a way out. Call me idealistic but I think all this is possible and could work quite well and would make the world a better place. I don't think such things could be achieved through law or law enforcement. As one of my favorite phrases goes "Disarm cops, arm feminists!"

So kind of a feminist "Taxi Driver"? I like that idea.

[blake 3:17]

Full decriminalization. At present Canada has no laws regarding prostitution, and we'd like to keep it that way.

Selling sex hasn't been a crime, but solicitation, keeping a bawdy house, and living off the avails have been. Those leave pros to all sorts of dangers.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I do think there's a pretty big gap between it being unfulfilling and it being wrong, per se. But maybe I'm not interpreting you correctly. Saying it's "wrong" usually entails passing judgment or some sort of "hate the sin, love the sinner" attitude.

I guess I'm also not sure why you don't think you should have felt awesome about hooking up with someone attractive. It's a pretty common thing to feel awesome about. It seems like you might be conflating the sex part with the "basing your self-esteem on other people" part, but, again, I can't presume to know your individual experience.
I found the wording came off a little odd, but if the word "wrong" was simply replaced with "ridiculous" it would personally make perfect sense to me.



So kind of a feminist "Taxi Driver"? I like that idea.
Never seen Taxi Driver...

[Comrade Jacob]

I don't think that making prostitution illegal will do anything it will just imprison the worker. But to hell with the pimps, just like all capitalists.
Offer the sex-workers more self respecting jobs if they want.

[Rosa Partizan]

I'm not a moralist, so I don't use wrong in that way. You could replace it with fucked up, not helpful in the long run or whatsoever.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'm not a moralist, so I don't use wrong in that way. You could replace it with fucked up, not helpful in the long run or whatsoever.

Fucked up actually sounds cool, I should use that term more often. But yeah, you normally don't come off as a moralist, that was why it was a wtf moment.

[Dictator]

Prosecution of Johns only, and not the female sex-worker, is the absolute definition of discrimination itself.

It's either legal or not.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Prosecution of Johns only, and not the female sex-worker, is the absolute definition of discrimination itself.

It's either legal or not.

lol wut? How would only prosecuting the johns and not the prostitute "discrimination"?

Both johns and pimps contribute to the abuse of prostitutes. Have you ever fucking had a pimp or had to deal with fuckin sleaze-ball johns? Did you? If you had, you'd know better than to think that johns (or pimps for that matter) are in anyway on the same level on the same level.

I have had a pimp, I have experienced his abuse, I have experienced the abuse at the hands of the johns.

Also, how can you consider yourself a leftist and not look at the exploitation factor from an economic and dialectical perspective. Aside from the fact that it is a particular abusive form of exploitation, it is still exploitation in the plain economic sense too. The pimp is the boss, the john is the consumer and the prostitute is the worker. Except in this economic relationship the pimp controls all the money.

So are you anti-worker?

[Dictator]

I didn't actually mention pimps in my post - but when we consider the John, he is of course the customer.

So how can the sex worker have any kind of job at all if her customer is made into a criminal?

[Slavic]

I didn't actually mention pimps in my post - but when we consider the John, he is of course the customer.

So how can the sex worker have any kind of job at all if her customer is made into a criminal?

Most sex workers do not willingly sell their bodies, it is usually out of an act of necessity, slavery, or fear. The customer creates a market for sex slavery based on threats and violence, not the workers.

[Dictator]

Absolute garbage, you've obviously never been to Thailand or checked out some of the 'higher class' establishments in Europe.

Many women prefer to work in those places for WAY bigger bucks than a more regular job - no force or fear required , just the allure of money.

And if the women does not want this work, then why not look for alternative means?

[Sinister Intents]

Absolute garbage, you've obviously never been to Thailand or checked out some of the 'higher class' establishments in Europe.

Many women prefer to work in those places for WAY bigger bucks than a more regular job - no force or fear required , just the allure of money.

And if the women does not want this work, then why not look for alternative means?

What the honest fuck????

[human strike]

I don't think my opinion on the matter is all that important; after all, I'm unlikely to ever be a sex worker. All the same, I think this article is pretty good: Let's Call Sex Work What It Is: Work (http://www.thenation.com/article/178683/lets-call-sex-work-what-it-work). Selma James and Kathi Weeks are both referenced in that and they both have very enlightening things to say about sex work. Selma James (who has organised with many sex workers over the course of several decades now) actually spoke at the Dublin Anarchist Bookfair recently on sex work as part of a panel that included sex workers - the people we should be listening to, not middle class activists. There's a recording available here but the sound quality is poor: www.mixcloud.com/workerssolidarity/sex-work-as-work-a-conversation-with-selma-james-at-the-dublin-anarchist-bookfair/ (http://www.mixcloud.com/workerssolidarity/sex-work-as-work-a-conversation-with-selma-james-at-the-dublin-anarchist-bookfair/)

[Bala Perdida]

Absolute garbage, you've obviously never been to Thailand or checked out some of the 'higher class' establishments in Europe.

Many women prefer to work in those places for WAY bigger bucks than a more regular job - no force or fear required , just the allure of money.

And if the women does not want this work, then why not look for alternative means?
How can you even be on this website saying shit like this. The "allure of money" is economic force. The fact that a women would come to prostitution just as a means of making money is a horrible problem.
Most women that become prostitutes are usually forced in because they're out of alternatives. Either that or they are forced to stay prostitutes by a pimp or boyfriend or criminal organization.
At that point finding another alternative seems like a death trap. How else will you feed your untreated drug addiction? How do you think your "boss" will respond to it? Why not just ask slaves why they don't "look for alternative means"?

[Lily Briscoe]

Ugh.

[#FF0000]

Absolute garbage, you've obviously never been to Thailand or checked out some of the 'higher class' establishments in Europe.

Many women prefer to work in those places for WAY bigger bucks than a more regular job - no force or fear required , just the allure of money.

And if the women does not want this work, then why not look for alternative means?

Those places don't account for the majority of sex work, though.

[Dictator]

The "allure of money" is economic force. The fact that a women would come to prostitution just as a means of making money is a horrible problem.
So, you are anti-work then - an anarchist perhaps?

Most women that become prostitutes are usually forced in because they're out of alternatives. Either that or they are forced to stay prostitutes by a pimp or boyfriend or criminal organization.

Those who are literally forced are a separate topic, but for those who have a choice? well, it's either do the work or find an alternative. And the Johns being prosecuted but the women not - that does not make sense as it's still illegal. Rather like being allowed to sell coffee but illegal to buy - a non-sequitur.

How else will you feed your untreated drug addiction?
Give up or go to rehab.

[Sinister Intents]

So, you are anti-work then - an anarchist perhaps?


Those who are literally forced are a separate topic, but for those who have a choice? well, it's either do the work or find an alternative. And the Johns being prosecuted but the women not - that does not make sense as it's still illegal. Rather like being allowed to sell coffee but illegal to buy - a non-sequitur.

Give up or go to rehab.

Anarchists aren't anti worker..... At least the real anarchists...

I'm not gonna debate you fuck off.

[Dictator]

Those places don't account for the majority of sex work, though.

The same principle applies, world over - assuming the woman is not forced.

[#FF0000]

Those who are literally forced are a separate topic, but for those who have a choice?

I don't agree. Rates of human trafficking are far higher in countries with legalized or decriminalized prostitution than in countries with certain barriers to it, e.g. criminalizing Johns. These things are very obviously linked, especially when easy access to prostitution ends up increasing demand.

[Dictator]

Anarchists aren't anti worker..... At least the real anarchists...

I'm not gonna debate you fuck off.

Good idea, because you know you would lose.

[Sinister Intents]

Good idea, because you know you would lose.

Oh yeaH???? Chanllenge fucking accepted :cursing:

So you think women deserve to go into prostitution, to be forced itno it? Or as you say they're attracted by money, when that is obciously not the case you sexist fuck.

[Dictator]

I don't agree. Rates of human trafficking are far higher in countries with legalized or decriminalized prostitution than in countries with certain barriers to it, e.g. criminalizing Johns. These things are very obviously linked, especially when easy access to prostitution ends up increasing demand.

Go after the traffickers then and let the real workers do their jobs.

[#FF0000]

Oh yeaH???? Chanllenge fucking accepted :cursing:

yo disengaging is a good idea, tbh.

[Ele'ill]

fuck work and fuck bosses

[Sinister Intents]

yo disengaging is a good idea, tbh.

Sure. I'll take you're word, because I'll probalby get too pissed and infracted for being/saying violent things

[Dictator]

Oh yeaH???? Chanllenge fucking accepted :cursing:

So you think women deserve to go into prostitution, to be forced itno it? Or as you say they're attracted by money, when that is obciously not the case you sexist fuck.

I said to keep those who were forced into it, as a separate topic.

And sure, many are attracted by the money - who wouldn't rather earn 100+bucks an hour than 7/hr?

[Hermes]

The same principle applies, world over - assuming the woman is not forced.

why do you keep dismissing off-hand those that are forced into the work? isn't it pretty obvious that they should be the focus of the discussion, rather than those that freely choose to do so?

and, arguing that economic pressures force people into going into work they otherwise wouldn't isn't 'anti-work' in the least, though I have nothing against 'anti-work' itself. the claim is ridiculous.

--

I guess it seems, to me, like a really dumb rehashing of the liberal idea that it's more important for a minority to have their ~freedom~ or whatever then to actually protect the people who are in danger.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Ok I'm gonna throw in my two cents real quick.

Prostitution can only exist under capitalism because of monetary incentive. No money, no prostitutes. Yeah you can set up official sex appointments or something. Still not prostitution.

I used to agree with criminalizing the buyers ("john" is a REALLY stupid word) but I think that's silly. Won't do any good. What needs to be done in a capitalist setting is a harsh totalitarian crackdown on pimps. And only pimps. Them along with sex traffickers. I would say the death penalty and seizing all their assets.

[Dictator]

Hermes: So why aren't you railing against office workers who earn $20/hr - where are you clamoring against their 'exploitation'?

[#FF0000]

Go after the traffickers then and let the real workers do their jobs.

They do, though, and hardly put a dent in trafficking. Not to mention, it's a whole lot easier and effective to criminalize Johns.

This issue is way more nuanced and difficult than most people seem to treat it. I used to think 'welp legalize it and life will be better for the prostitutes" but that isn't necessarily true when increased demand means more women coerced into the trade because of economic situation or by force.

At the same time, criminalizing prostitution puts these women in a hella precarious position and even criminalizing the act of buying sex can end up being incredibly invasive for women in sex work.

The best option, I think, is to fight for higher wages, better benefits in general and wages for housework. It seems to me at this point that fighting prostitution is fighting a symptom, and not the disease.

[Dictator]

I used to agree with criminalizing the buyers ("john" is a REALLY stupid word) but I think that's silly. Won't do any good. What needs to be done in a capitalist setting is a harsh totalitarian crackdown on pimps. And only pimps. Them along with sex traffickers. I would say the death penalty and seizing all their assets.

So you are fine with freelancer girls and their Johns then?

[Dictator]

They do, though, and hardly put a dent in trafficking. Not to mention, it's a whole lot easier and effective to criminalize Johns.

So you agree with sexual discrimination I see (against men), how tolerant of you.:rolleyes:

wages for housework.

separate topic, but seriously, WTF?

[Sinister Intents]

So you agree with sexual discrimination I see (against men), how tolerant of you.:rolleyes:


separate topic, but seriously, WTF?

I'm so confused by you, are you being sarcastic? Do you support MRA (Men's rights activism)

[human strike]

Ok I'm gonna throw in my two cents real quick.

Prostitution can only exist under capitalism because of monetary incentive. No money, no prostitutes. Yeah you can set up official sex appointments or something. Still not prostitution.

I used to agree with criminalizing the buyers ("john" is a REALLY stupid word) but I think that's silly. Won't do any good. What needs to be done in a capitalist setting is a harsh totalitarian crackdown on pimps. And only pimps. Them along with sex traffickers. I would say the death penalty and seizing all their assets.

What do you make of the argument that pimps acting as a go-between allows workers to maintain a certain level of anonymity which may in fact be desirable for some workers?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

So you are fine with freelancer girls and their Johns then?

Am I fine with it? That's a complicated question. I am the kind of person who goes with the philosophy of "don't fucking tell me what to do and don't exploit others." I actually know a girl who is a sex worker (legally) and she does not appreciate people saying that all prostitutes are forced into it and it's degrading etc etc.

That being said, it is an exploitative system. It can ONLY exist under capitalism and I think that says something. Most prostitutes are forced into it and most buyers and sleazy little pieces of shit. So fuck the buyers and I feel sorry for the prostitutes unless they enjoy doing it which are few and far between.

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

What do you make of the argument that pimps acting as a go-between allows workers to maintain a certain level of anonymity which may in fact be desirable for some workers?

Pimps are abusive as shit and sexist. Enough said. Fuck them to hell.

Plus they claim these women as their personal property which is fucking awful.

[#FF0000]

So you agree with sexual discrimination I see (against men), how tolerant of you.:rolleyes:

Hey now, are you saying that women don't buy prostitutes sometimes?

Of course that's pretty rare but... hey... why is it that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are women? Hmmmmmm...


separate topic, but seriously, WTF?

Housework and childcare is the basis of all social reproduction, dogg. Capital depends upon housework. :cool:

[Hermes]

Hermes: So why aren't you railing against office workers who earn $20/hr - where are you clamoring against their 'exploitation'?

first, I'm not 'railing against' prostitutes, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

if you're asking where I'm 'clamoring against their 'exploitation'', then, uh, pretty much everywhere. the abolition of wage slavery is pretty essential, whether it's for prostitutes or office workers.

to act like the problems facing office workers and the problems facing prostitutes are the same is kind of silly, though, isn't it?

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So you agree with sexual discrimination I see (against men), how tolerant of you.:rolleyes:

Oh boo hoo reverse sexism! Lets cry our eyes out, right? Dude, go fuck yourself!

I was radicalized as a feminist because, the grrrls who are forced into prostitution? Yeah, I was one of them. I have an ex who pimped me out against my will. You don't think that is common? Think a-fucking-gain. Do you have any idea how I felt the first time some cockroach motherfuckerfucker paid him so he could rape me? He didn't have to keep me locked up, he kept me in fear. Do you know what I felt the first time he beat me senseless? Or the first time he shot me up with boy to fucking sedate me? Do you know what I felt when he'd put a knife to my throat? No you clearly don't. But my experiences are not unique to me. You want to come into this talking shit about shit you don't even fuckin know a motherfucking thing about, but you know what I do so back the fuck off! I didn't choose it! You know what? I wish I had the sense to leave him earlier or not to have ended up with that piece of shit pimp in the first place. But it was too late and it would have been even worse if someone hadn't given me a way out.

So go eat shit you misogynist motherfucker!

[Sinister Intents]

Could you put a trigger warning on that for me....

[Lily Briscoe]

So you think women deserve to go into prostitution, to be forced itno it? Or as you say they're attracted by money, when that is obciously not the case you sexist fuck.
I realize that people on here really, really dig the "fallen women" stereotypes, but have you considered the possibility that it actually is the case for some sex workers?


to act like the problems facing office workers and the problems facing prostitutes are the same is kind of silly, though, isn't it?

It's 'silly' to act like 'the problems facing sex workers' are the same. To restate a point I made earlier in the thread, 'prostitution' encompasses lots of different kinds of work done by people in wildly varying situations. And saying "most sex workers are x", "most sex workers are in this line of work because y" is pretty absurd, considering how impossible it is to get accurate statistics on "most sex workers" when their line of work is illegal and they are operating underground. But not everyone is some desperate, vulnerable thing living on the streets, stumbling from one abusive relationship to the next, trying to "feed" their drug addiction, held captive by some pimp, [insert trope], etc. etc. There are sex workers who are as 'normal' as anyone else doing any other 'normal' kind of job.

None of this is meant in defense of the user "Dictator", by the way, who is a pretty lame troll.

[Dictator]

I'm so confused by you, are you being sarcastic? Do you support MRA (Men's rights activism)

I just support N - ie: Normal.

Let a woman work if she wants - you're supposed to be pro-worker, are you not?

[Dictator]

What needs to be done in a capitalist setting is a harsh totalitarian crackdown on pimps. And only pimps. Them along with sex traffickers. I would say the death penalty and seizing all their assets.

How about foremen and hiring managers - should they be put down as well:rolleyes: - what makes sex such a special commodity anyhow?

[Dictator]

Am I fine with it? That's a complicated question. I am the kind of person who goes with the philosophy of "don't fucking tell me what to do and don't exploit others."
That being said, it is an exploitative system. It can ONLY exist under capitalism and I think that says something. Most prostitutes are forced into it and most buyers and sleazy little pieces of shit. So fuck the buyers and I feel sorry for the prostitutes unless they enjoy doing it which are few and far between.

So, would you be prepared to ban the trade, based on your opinions?

[Dictator]

Hey now, are you saying that women don't buy prostitutes sometimes?

In that case, I guess you are fine with prosecuting those female johns, but not the men obviously.........no, thought not


Housework and childcare is the basis of all social reproduction, dogg. Capital depends upon housework. :cool:

Who will pay the housework wage - the taxpayer, husband or what?

[Hermes]

I realize that people on here really, really dig the "fallen women" stereotypes, but have you considered the possibility that it actually is the case for some sex workers?


It's 'silly' to act like 'the problems facing sex workers' are the same. To restate a point I made earlier in the thread, 'prostitution' encompasses lots of different kinds of work done by people in wildly varying situations. And saying "most sex workers are x", "most sex workers are in this line of work because y" is pretty absurd, considering how impossible it is to get accurate statistics on "most sex workers" when their line of work is illegal and they are operating underground. But not everyone is some desperate, vulnerable thing living on the streets, stumbling from one abusive relationship to the next, trying to "feed" their drug addiction, held captive by some pimp, etc. etc. There are sex workers who are as 'normal' as anyone else doing any other 'normal' kind of job.

None of this is meant in defense of the user "Dictator", by the way, who is a pretty lame troll.


no, I definitely agree (both in 'all sex workers are not under the same conditions' and that dictator is a troll - this thread, his username, the non-white woman fetish thread).

I think I'd have to agree largely with #FF0000 that (and if this paraphrase isn't your view at all, I'm really sorry, please say so) the best way to fight prostitution - in this case, of those sex workers who are not as 'normal', to use your phrasing - is really to fight capitalism, and those systems that reproduce it.

iunno. in a way, I'm still really tempted to say that those who are less 'normal' should be protected, even at the expense of those who are, but the only route that seems to be available is by using the state apparatus to do so, which will obviously always be imperfect/detrimental whether you go the route of legalization or criminalization.

--


I just support N - ie: Normal.

Let a woman work if she wants - you're supposed to be pro-worker, are you not?

I really don't think you have any idea what any of our conceptions of work are, or its critiques.

[#FF0000]

I just support N - ie: Normal

What's "Normal" now isn't especially friendly to workers, women, or ethnic minorities though, is it?


How about foremen and hiring managers - should they be put down as well:rolleyes:

We're communists.

[Dictator]

to act like the problems facing office workers and the problems facing prostitutes are the same is kind of silly, though, isn't it?

A woman earning 100 bucks/hr on the street is less exploited than one earning 15hr in the office.

[Hermes]

A woman earning 100 bucks/hr on the street is less exploited than one earning 15hr in the office.

I find it a little difficult to believe that you actually think that. It's like the argument that there are homeless out there making billions because they get so much money each day, right?

The cost of living is much higher if you aren't economically stable. Getting a $15/hr job at an office is pretty nice. I'd find it difficult to believe that you could get that job while sleeping in the alley behind the office.

(and, even disregarding that, '$100/hr' working on the street is a really dubious assertion, which also doesn't take into account any hazards, etc)

[Dictator]

I wish I had the sense to leave him earlier

So why didn't you then?


So go eat shit you misogynist motherfucker!

I"m surprised personal attacks of such nature are allowed.

[#FF0000]

In that case, I guess you are fine with prosecuting those female johns, but not the men obviously.........no, thought not

What makes you think female johns would be excluded? You should try to address what's being said by the person you're discussing with, and not the one in your head.


Who will pay the housework wage - the taxpayer, husband or what?Oh, it'd be provided by the state -- the same as any other social program or social wage.


A woman earning 100 bucks/hr on the street is less exploited than one earning 15hr in the office.

That's not how exploitation works, in a Marxist sense. (◕◡◕✿)

[Dictator]

no, I definitely agree (both in 'all sex workers are not under the same conditions' and that dictator is a troll - this thread, his username, the non-white woman fetish thread).



Calling someone a troll, based on a difference of opinion and choice of username, is hardly a coherent argument.

[Rosa Partizan]

you, Dictator, are the most disgusting dickhead I've read so far on this board, and I knew that right when I read your whining about "selfish western feminists", you sounded like one of those MRA morons or at least one of those guys that flies to south eastern Asia cause the women there "still know what real femalehood is", cause they can only score with obedient, financially dependent women. So fucking wrong and gross. So I'm not surprised at all that you're into prostitution, an institution that like no other trade deepens and strengthens patriarchal structures, with women having to deny their own sexual desires and preferences in order to satisfy disgusting sleazebags like yourself. Everything I have to say about prostitution I wrote months ago in this thread, so I won't get started over it again. I sick of living in a country where 400k prostitutes are, but only 44 of them actually do have insurances and healthcare, cause the huge majority of them got here by being trafficked or because of lack of any alternatives. You know who the happy prostitutes here are? I've seen them, cause they go on every talk show here. They are the women that have other women work for them, too, so profiting off of other prostitutes. I've read about some undercover female journalists going into those "high class wellness" brothels and pretend they wanna work there...know what? Exactly the same shit as every brothel, with the exact same abusive pimps and johns. The most successful brothel chain here doesn't allow fellatio with condoms, right? Great job having to put your health at risk every fucking day and have to serve 3 johns at least a day only to pay the rent for the brothel room. Go and do humanity a favor and kill yourself, you pathetic motherfucker.

[Dictator]

Oh, it'd be provided by the state -- the same as any other social program or social wage.



IOW: Welfare.

Doesn't that happen anyway, in todays liberal democracies - no work = welfare.

How would your version be any different?

And, do you think prostitution should be banned?

[#FF0000]

IOW: Welfare.

I don't think social wages like the minimum guaranteed wage are the same as welfare, no.


Doesn't that happen anyway, in todays liberal democracies - no work = welfare.

You can get welfare while employed as well.


How would your version be any different?


It would be a wage for labor that was previously unpaid and considered part of the marriage contract.


And, do you think prostitution should be banned?

I think I've made my position very clear. Criminalizing prostitutes is obviously totally counter-productive and does nothing to protect women. Criminalizing johns might be the next best thing but even then can be very invasive and harmful to the women involved. The best immediate goal to fight for, then, would be higher wages, better benefits, and a wage for housework.

[Dictator]

I am now going to start a thread on the 'wages for housework' idea - one of the most preposterously bourgeoisie ideas out there - so, let's see.

I will plant it in the 'Discrimination' section - hope to see some of you there.

But back to this topic - higher wages? Well, until they reach 50bucks an hr for working MacD's - can't see that making any dent whatsoever to the vice game. And pretty sure prostitution was BIG in Cuba not so long ago, and Vietnam - no, it's an activity based around human sexuality, that will never go away.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Could you put a trigger warning on that for me....

Sorry, I get emotional I've cooled down for now.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I am now going to start a thread on the 'wages for housework' idea - one of the most preposterously bourgeoisie ideas out there - so, let's see.

I will plant it in the 'Discrimination' section - hope to see some of you there.

But back to this topic - higher wages? Well, until they reach 50bucks an hr for working MacD's - can't see that making any dent whatsoever to the vice game. And pretty sure prostitution was BIG in Cuba not so long ago, and Vietnam - no, it's an activity based around human sexuality, that will never go away.

Prostitution was still big in Cuba 12 years ago, I don't know about since then.

[Gawd]

I would prostitute my body for money, im a boy.

Pimps, are managers and so are slave traders; basically the same person that works at McDonald's, has the same credentials and monetary experience a pimp does and I would go as far as to say would be even more qualified than the average pimp. Besides the brutality and brainwashing of course. This also excludes the drugging, bribery and political danger.

Honestly it's controversial to the white hat's, but it's a pretty natural thing to solicit sex. I mean, way back when god didn't give a fuck; people had sex with anything that would stay next to them long enough.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

So why didn't you then?
I am absolutely certain that you A) wouldn't understand and B) wouldn't even try to understand. You clearly don't understand the mindset of the abused.



I"m surprised personal attacks of such nature are allowed.
I am quite surprised you ain't banned yet.

[Ven0m]

i highly doub't that a women would ever protutute herself for the fun of it. so prostitution must generally be seen as part of systematic oppression.

as a gay male i have willingly prostituted myself and enjoyed it and i know a lot of my friends have too. in the gay community prostitution can be a fantasy. though i've seen straight drug addicts prostituting themselves to older men for money which is incredibly sad.

[#FF0000]

i highly doub't that a women would ever protutute herself for the fun of it. so prostitution must generally be seen as part of systematic oppression.

as a gay male i have willingly prostituted myself and enjoyed it and i know a lot of my friends have too. in the gay community prostitution can be a fantasy. though i've seen straight drug addicts prostituting themselves to older men for money which is incredibly sad.

Well, there are women who willingly enter into prostitution and make a good amount of money in it, to be accurate here.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

Ven0m: I am sure there are probably a few female prostitutes that do it as a sexual fantasy, but the vast majority aren't.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

i highly doub't that a women would ever protutute herself for the fun of it.
I know women sex workers who enjoy their work. Granted, they're not working on the lower levels of sex work, haven't been trafficked, etc.

[Quail]

Ugh, don't have time to deal with this properly right now, so just going to issue a verbal warning:
General verbal warning to refrain from personal attacks.

[Dictator]

Why can't a woman just do as she likes with her body - why do so many posters want to deny her choice of work?

[Dictator]

Ugh, don't have time to deal with this properly right now, so just going to issue a verbal warning:
General verbal warning to refrain from personal attacks.

Hallelujah!:)

Dictator has been subjected to many personal attacks already.

I believe if people cannot discuss a sensitive topic in a rational and adult manner, then they should avoid the thread.

[Jemdet Nasr]

Why can't a woman just do as she likes with her body - why do so many posters want to deny her choice of work?

The point that many are trying to make is that prostitution is very often not a choice, and that we shouldn't reduce this to a discussion solely about those who do have some amount of freedom to make that choice.

[Ven0m]

The point that many are trying to make is that prostitution is very often not a choice, and that we shouldn't reduce this to a discussion solely about those who do have some amount of freedom to make that choice.

for female prostitutes i would wager this is the case 99% of the time.

[Dictator]

I don't think you should bet - you will lose a lot of money

[Rosa Partizan]

Some very reputable police commissioner here who has worked over 20 years in this prostitution setting said that according to his experience over 90% of prostitutes don't work by choice there. It is some kind of force, either direct force like a pimp or slave trader or the force of having to make as much money as possible, i.e. paying off traveling and (fake) I.D. costs for coming to Germany, room rent and having to support your family, mostly in Eastern Europe. Sounds like a pretty cool life, huh. It's no coincidence that according to a worldwide study from turn-of-the-millennium two thirds of the questioned women have the same post-traumatic disorders that are seen in war veterans.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The point that many are trying to make is that prostitution is very often not a choice
And people work in mines by choice?

[synthesis]

Some very reputable police commissioner here who has worked over 20 years in this prostitution setting said that according to his experience over 90% of prostitutes don't work by choice there. It is some kind of force, either direct force like a pimp or slave trader or the force of having to make as much money as possible, i.e. paying off traveling and (fake) I.D. costs for coming to Germany, room rent and having to support your family, mostly in Eastern Europe. Sounds like a pretty cool life, huh. It's no coincidence that according to a worldwide study from turn-of-the-millennium two thirds of the questioned women have the same post-traumatic disorders that are seen in war veterans.

Might that have something to do with the "subset" or subcategories of prostitutes that he tends to encounter in his line of work? Obviously the more that any given sex workers are exposed to violence or organized crime, the more they are going to factor into his "statistics."

(Hypothetical question, I mean, I know it does, but I'm still curious to hear your take on it.)

[DOOM]

And people work in mines by choice?
That's a fallacious analogy
You're affected by capitalism in both cases, selling your labor for someone. However, by selling your sexuality, one isn't just being affected by capitalism, as the patriarchal society coerces prostitutes into sex-labor.

[synthesis]

The point that many are trying to make is that prostitution is very often not a choice, and that we shouldn't reduce this to a discussion solely about those who do have some amount of freedom to make that choice.

for female prostitutes i would wager this is the case 99% of the time.

I'm sorry but that is absurd. Remove all the abused, the abjectly destitute and the addicts at rock bottom from a "statistical sample" and there will still be a sizable minority of sex workers who are self-employed and prefer sex work to other jobs in the service sector and/or the unpaid sex work that often comes with being financially dependent on a boyfriend or husband. I have heard at least half a dozen different sex workers, both personally and in interviews, say - almost verbatim - that they used to work as a waitress and that it was many times more degrading than anything they had to do in the profession of sex work. (I'd wager this probably applies to other jobs they worked in the service sector, but for some reason it is always waitressing that I hear it being compared to, unfavorably.)

[Rosa Partizan]

Might that have something to do with the "subset" or subcategories of prostitutes that he tends to encounter in his line of work? Obviously the more that any given sex workers are exposed to violence or organized crime, the more they are going to factor into his "statistics."

(Hypothetical question, I mean, I know it does, but I'm still curious to hear your take on it.)

oh no, one would expect it, but he was like "I also had to deal with charges that came from high class escorts, they also happened to encounter brutal johns, just with more money than the average joe". As a prostitute, no matter in which "league" you "play", you are always put at such risks. There are many female students doing this escort stuff, having to pay fees, rent and stuff. This is not as dramatic as the force that brothel prostitutes go through, but still, you encounter way higher risks than working in a supermarket, office or stuff.

[Rosa Partizan]

That's a fallacious analogy
You're affected by capitalism in both cases, selling your labor for someone. However, by selling your sexuality, one isn't just being affected by capitalism, as the patriarchal society coerces prostitutes into sex-labor.

I'm really sick of explaining why sex work in a patriarchal society is still very different from other shitty jobs, but yeah, so be it. Yawn.

[synthesis]

I'm really sick of explaining why sex work in a patriarchal society is still very different from other shitty jobs, but yeah, so be it. Yawn.

My problem is with categorical statements like this, that are almost metaphysical when universalized to every single sex worker on the planet. Again, how is paid sex work different from the unpaid sex work that defines many women's experiences with being financially dependent on a husband or boyfriend?

[Rosa Partizan]

apart from the chance of having health care and social insurance, the chance of getting another job (which a majority of sex workers can't just like that, often because of language barriers), the chance of getting sexual satisfaction and self-determination, the chance of leaving whenever you want, it's totally the same. Right.

Goddamn :rolleyes:

Anyway, I don't advocate for women being financially dependent, either, no matter if it's a husband or boyfriend. A great deal of emancipation is defined to me by being able to pay your rent and bills by your own.

[synthesis]

oh no, one would expect it, but he was like "I also had to deal with charges that came from high class escorts, they also happened to encounter brutal johns, just with more money than the average joe". As a prostitute, no matter in which "league" you "play", you are always put at such risks. There are many female students doing this escort stuff, having to pay fees, rent and stuff. This is not as dramatic as the force that brothel prostitutes go through, but still, you encounter way higher risks than working in a supermarket, office or stuff.

Well, but now you're shifting the goalposts. You were using his anecdotal evidence (which I am not discounting, of course) to show that "over 90% of prostitutes don't work by choice." Now it's the percentage that have to deal with violent clientele. The point was never that his sample size would only include those sex workers lowest on the economic ladder.

Again, his anecdotal data will largely ignore the sex workers who are "lucky enough" - and I can't stress those scare quotes enough - to be able to exercise some degree of discretion over who they take on as clients, to be able to refuse clients who give them a bad feeling, and so on.

In large part these "privileges" are a direct result of a lack of coercion and immediate economic necessity, which are the primary factors involved when sex workers have more leeway in deciding who to take on as clients; some - again, a sizable minority, but still a minority - will only work with two or three men in their entire career. These sex workers will obviously rarely factor into his analysis. This is the perfect example of "the fallacy of silent evidence."

Finally, I have to ask: is there a reason you insist on the term "prostitute" rather than "sex worker"? If it's just a personal choice that's obviously fine but I wanted to know if it's a conscious decision on your part.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

That's a fallacious analogy. In both cases you're affected by capitalism, selling your labor for someone. However, by selling your sexuality, one isn't just being affected by capitalism, as the patriarchal society coerces prostitutes into sex-labor.
I don't see sex labor as fundamentally different than other forms of labor.

[Rosa Partizan]

Well, but now you're shifting the goalposts. You were using his anecdotal evidence (which I am not discounting, of course) to show that "over 90% of prostitutes don't work by choice." Now it's the percentage that have to deal with violent clientele. The point was never that his sample size would only include those sex workers lowest on the economic ladder.

Again, his anecdotal data will largely ignore the sex workers who are "lucky enough" - and I can't stress those scare quotes enough - to be able to exercise some degree of discretion over who they take on as clients, to be able to refuse clients who give them a bad feeling, and so on.

In large part these "privileges" are a direct result of a lack of coercion and immediate economic necessity, which are the primary factors involved when sex workers have more leeway in deciding who to take on as clients; some - again, a sizable minority, but still a minority - will only work with two or three men in their entire career. These sex workers will obviously rarely factor into his analysis. This is the perfect example of "the fallacy of silent evidence."

Finally, I have to ask: is there a reason you insist on the term "prostitute" rather than "sex worker"? If it's just a personal choice that's obviously fine but I wanted to know if it's a conscious decision on your part.

that's why I elaborated shortly on a milder form of "force", namely being able to pay fees and stuff. And again, as I wrote like 300 times in this thread, to me it's not only about coercion or not, it's about patriarchy and in how far prostitution reflects patriarchy, so from a normative and not only a descriptive point of view. Why are almost all prostitutes females? Why do men feel it's okay to pay for sex and ignore female sexuality? Why is the only question about prostitution if it's forced or not? Why don't we ask ourselves if we even want prostitution to be socially accepted from this patriarchal point of view, from the point of view that men feel entitled to women's bodies when they pay for them? That's why I refuse to use sex work. To a vast amount, prostitution is modern slavery and huge factor for human trafficking, so I refuse to call it work. Not to degrade the ladies working in it, but to take away the normality and banality that those guys feel about going to prostitutes. I don't want prostitution to become acceptable, although unfortunately it is, and this is why the situation in Germany has become so dramatic.

[synthesis]

apart from the chance of having health care and social insurance,

So unpaid sex work with a husband or boyfriend is preferable to paid sex work with clientele in part because... that husband or boyfriend might buy you healthcare and social insurance? What about the possibility of just being able to pay for it yourself?


the chance of getting another job (which a majority of sex workers can't just like that, often because of language barriers),

This has nothing to do, intrinsically, with being a sex worker; it is a problem that afflicts many immigrants and is a related but distinct issue that should not be conflated with sex work.


the chance of getting sexual satisfaction and self-determination,

You seem to think that there are no men whose fantasies involve satisfying a woman or that there are no escorts who can opt out of doing things they're not into. (Again, a minority, but they both are out there.) And self-determination is a point I think I've already dealt with.


the chance of leaving whenever you want,

Again... I just fail to see how you think this is an acceptable response. Literally the exact same problems can afflict a woman who is financially dependent on a husband or boyfriend as one who is financially dependent on sex work. The latter can "leave whenever they want," as well, inasmuch as any worker can "leave whenever they want" under capitalism. There are abusive relationships and economic necessities that become obstacles in either direction.


it's totally the same. Right.

Goddamn :rolleyes:

Hey, don't make sweeping statements about a large group of people if you don't want people to challenge them. As long as you (or any other poster) is making categorical statements about sex work that I consider to be patently false and even somewhat demeaning to that minority that does it with as much choice as any female worker has under capitalist-patriarchal relations, I reserve the right to bring up arguments to the contrary, preferably with responses in good faith.


Anyway, I don't advocate for women being financially dependent, either, no matter if it's a husband or boyfriend. A great deal of emancipation is defined to me by being able to pay your rent and bills by your own.

Well, I hope to see you advancing these exact same arguments, categorically, if the subject of the "housewife" comes up, some of whose unpaid labor includes sex work; otherwise I think it is reasonable to conclude that your positions result from a very conservative outlook on the subject.

[Rosa Partizan]

Sorry I gotta leave and can't deal with your bullshit instantly, but have to delay it. Will be a pleasure to read that again and answer to it.

btw, this will be my last time and thread I discussed about prostitution. Really pointless when you gotta make the same points a dozen of times every three or four weeks or so.

[synthesis]

that's why I elaborated shortly on a milder form of "force", namely being able to pay fees and stuff. And again, as I wrote like 300 times in this thread, to me it's not only about coercion or not, it's about patriarchy and in how far prostitution reflects patriarchy, so from a normative and not only a descriptive point of view. Why are almost all prostitutes females? Why do men feel it's okay to pay for sex and ignore female sexuality? Why is the only question about prostitution if it's forced or not? Why don't we ask ourselves if we even want prostitution to be socially accepted from this patriarchal point of view, from the point of view that men feel entitled to women's bodies when they pay for them? That's why I refuse to use sex work. To a vast amount, prostitution is modern slavery and huge factor for human trafficking, so I refuse to call it work. Not to degrade the ladies working in it, but to take away the normality and banality that those guys feel about going to prostitutes. I don't want prostitution to become acceptable, although unfortunately it is, and this is why the situation in Germany has become so dramatic.

So what do you think will happen if johns are criminalized and sex workers' income goes down? Will gangsters just stop trafficking in women? Or will they work the women that they do exploit twice as hard and twice as brutally and in significantly worse conditions? I get the feeling that these agendas - not you specifically, but in general - are more about trying to end prostitution than they are about improving conditions for prostitutes and vulnerable women in highly trafficked regions, which is sort of fucked up if you think about it.

[synthesis]

Sorry I gotta leave and can't deal with your bullshit instantly, but have to delay it. Will be a pleasure to read that again and answer to it.

btw, this will be my last time and thread I discussed about prostitution. Really pointless when you gotta make the same points a dozen of times every three or four weeks or so.

I don't say this with any hostile intentions, I actually think this is kind of funny, but I've noticed that you make the point about making the same points probably more often than you make the original points to begin with. In debates it is generally customary to adapt your arguments to your counterpart's responses rather than just making the same arguments repeatedly. (So Now You Know™)

[Rosa Partizan]

So what do you think will happen if johns are criminalized and sex workers' income goes down? Will gangsters just stop trafficking in women? Or will they work the women that they do exploit twice as hard and twice as brutally and in significantly worse conditions? I get the feeling that these agendas - not you specifically, but in general - are more about trying to end prostitution than they are about improving conditions for prostitutes and vulnerable women in highly trafficked regions, which is sort of fucked up if you think about it.

I wrote about that also like 20 times, but hey, I love to repeat myself, you know?! I'm all for programs and plans for these women, language courses, education, living permissions here in Germany and stuff. There have to be valuable alternatives for these women and not just, so fuck off, you're not working as prostitute anymore. This is a matter of course in a feminist way of solving this problem. No woman should be left to herself. And in the same way that johns are criminalized, traffickers, brothel owners etc should be, too. Just all the people that make profit off of those women.

[Rosa Partizan]

btw, synthesis, if you don't believe me, look up my posts in this thread or search for my posts that involve the word prostitution. And then go fuck yourself.

[synthesis]

I wrote about that also like 20 times, but hey, I love to repeat myself, you know?! I'm all for programs and plans for these women, language courses, education, living permissions here in Germany and stuff. There have to be valuable alternatives for these women and not just, so fuck off, you're not working as prostitute anymore. This is a matter of course in a feminist way of solving this problem. No woman should be left to herself. And in the same way that johns are criminalized, traffickers, brothel owners etc should be, too. Just all the people that make profit off of those women.

Then why aren't these programs the first thing you mention when the subject comes up, rather than just something explained grudgingly after the criminalization element has been exhausted? Which side of this solution do you think the bourgeois state is more likely to pursue? I don't think it's the side that will expand welfare for immigrant women forced into the lumpenproletariat; I think it will be the side that will expand the powers of the police.

I think we could have these programs without the criminalization and get some pretty positive results, whereas I get the impression that if you had to choose you'd go with criminalization - by all means correct me if I'm wrong - which might satisfy a certain social agenda but would leave a lot of women in an even more precarious situation. Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so of course if you'd like you can explain which one you'd choose and why.

edit:


btw, synthesis, if you don't believe me, look up my posts in this thread or search for my posts that involve the word prostitution. And then go fuck yourself.

Oh, wow. Okay.

[Rosa Partizan]

btw, why don't you answer to my patriarchy and entitlement stuff? Why don't we educate men to not find it okay to pay for sex? Why don't we question the john's reasons? Why is this whole discussion led without male perspective? Why don't we choose some normative approach to this discussion, like, what world do we wanna live in, what female image do we wanna provide? Why is it all about, do women do it by force or not when the whole mindset of paying for sex goes way deeper. I'll continue later, gotta leave now.

[Rosa Partizan]

Then why aren't these programs the first thing you mention when the subject comes up, rather than just something explained grudgingly after the criminalization element has been exhausted? Which side of this solution do you think the bourgeois state is more likely to pursue? I don't think it's the side that will expand welfare for immigrant women forced into the lumpenproletariat; I think it will be the side that will expand the powers of the police.

I think we could have these programs without the criminalization and get some pretty positive results, whereas I get the impression that if you had to choose you'd go with criminalization - by all means correct me if I'm wrong - which might satisfy a certain social agenda but would leave a lot of women in an even more precarious situation. Again, I don't want to put words in your mouth, so of course if you'd like you can explain which one you'd choose and why.

I can't choose one without the other. If I really, really had to choose, I'll choose these programs, but this is just not enough and doesn't change anything about patriarchy and the way we see female bodies. You need a strong signal that goes hand in hand with male education on female matters. this is not like, picking ONE aspect and everything will be fine.

[synthesis]

btw, why don't you answer to my patriarchy and entitlement stuff? Why don't we educate men to not find it okay to pay for sex? Why don't we question the john's reasons? Why is this whole discussion led without male perspective? Why don't we choose some normative approach to this discussion, like, what world do we wanna live in, what female image do we wanna provide? Why is it all about, do women do it by force or not when the whole mindset of paying for sex goes way deeper. I'll continue later, gotta leave now.

I don't respond because I'm not sure I have anything meaningful to say about it at the present time. I generally only post on the topic of prostitution when I see quotes like (paraphrased) "99% of female prostitutes have absolutely no choice in the matter" because I know on every level that it's not true and that it reflects a mindset with which I am familiar and for which I have some distaste.

Obviously there are a lot of problematic aspects of prostitution, even that which is as voluntary as it gets, but I try to stick with what I know, which is that there are sex workers for whom sex work is no different from other forms of service work or even preferable to such, and reducing their decisions to "brainwashing by the patriarchy" or a more palatable phrasing of such just strikes me as the left-liberal flip side of Christian social mores about female sexuality. (Of course there are also certain parallels with patriarchal tropes in the "sex-positive" canon as well; it's a tough balancing act to try to base a political agenda around.)

[human strike]

Maybe I've missed it and sorry if that's the case, but it concerns me, Rosa, that your argument seems to refer little to what sex workers themselves say. It feels as if you're talking of saving these "poor women" without actually talking to them about what they want. I hope I'm wrong. In fact, it's exactly what the problem in Germany seems to be; neither the legislatures nor many feminist activists are talking with sex workers themselves. The power to make these decisions should be in the hands of those people; anything else is dis-empowering.

The sex workers I known and have spoken to describe it as little different from any other job (I don't think they represent all sex workers by any means though). Often workers move between other non-sex work jobs in the service sector. It kinda feels like your argument is based on assumptions and a popular imaginary of sex work that is essentially a myth - which isn't to say that a lot of the things you're describing aren't necessarily true, but our approach should be empirical, no?

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't respond because I'm not sure I have anything meaningful to say about it at the present time. I generally only post on the topic of prostitution when I see quotes like (paraphrased) "99% of female prostitutes have absolutely no choice in the matter" because I know on every level that it's not true and that it reflects a mindset with which I am familiar and for which I have some distaste.

Obviously there are a lot of problematic aspects of prostitution, even that which is as voluntary as it gets, but I try to stick with what I know, which is that there are sex workers for whom sex work is no different from other forms of service work or even preferable to such, and reducing their decisions to "brainwashing by the patriarchy" or a more palatable phrasing of such just strikes me as the left-liberal flip side of Christian social mores about female sexuality. (Of course there are also certain parallels with patriarchal tropes in the "sex-positive" canon as well; it's a tough balancing act to try to base a political agenda around.)


Maybe I've missed it and sorry if that's the case, but it concerns me, Rosa, that your argument seems to refer little to what sex workers themselves say. It feels as if you're talking of saving these "poor women" without actually talking to them about what they want. I hope I'm wrong. In fact, it's exactly what the problem in Germany seems to be; neither the legislatures nor many feminist activists are talking with sex workers themselves. The power to make these decisions should be in the hands of those people; anything else is dis-empowering.

The sex workers I known and have spoken to describe it as little different from any other job (I don't think they represent all sex workers by any means though). Often workers move between other non-sex work jobs in the service sector. It kinda feels like your argument is based on assumptions and a popular imaginary of sex work that is essentially a myth - which isn't to say that a lot of the things you're describing aren't necessarily true, but our approach should be empirical, no?

So, I calmed down a bit and wanna write some more detailed post, probably one of my last ever on this topic, because I noticed that I'm really too weak on nerves when it gets to this topic and that I feel like punching everyone of you in the face, sorry. I also wanna say sorry beforehand for all the grammar and vocab mistakes I'm about to make.

No one of us will find exact numbers for prostitution when it comes to coercion, safety and stuff. But you can make some logical assumptions from what you know about brothels i.e. I've never been to one, but from the Aids center I work for I know some prostitutes and I got contact to some social workers that have some kind of "help centers" for these women, like, they help them where to get medical checks, offer them warm food (cause in the brothels they work, this is expensive as hell and they aren't allowed to bring their own food) and help them with abortions and stuff. And yeah, I read a ton about this stuff, about women going undercover to brothels claiming they wanna work there. The brothels they went to and the brothels these needy women come from are mostly brothels that are either very big and popular (like, maybe you heard of it, the Pascha in Germany, which is the biggest chain here) or that are advertised as wellness paradises and stuff, with only the finest premium ladies and services. No run-down shabby venues. I could write a ton about the working conditions there, be it that fellatio with condoms is not allowed, be it that the room rent is expensive as hell, be it that the vast majority of those women is not able to speak German fluently. You can choose to believe me or you can choose to not believe me and start your own research, which will be kinda difficult because most reports on that are in German, since this is a huge problem in this country. So, applying some logic, when in those "great" established places the working conditions are awful, the working conditions in shabby, less controlled places surely won't be better.

Ladies working in brothels represent the majority of German prostitutes, this is for sure, they are the no. 1 place to go for pimps and traffickers. Let's not even talk about ladies that work on the street, cause this is the total bottom of working conditions, and I don't even wanna tell how much fellatio near the East German border costs, cause this insanity would blow your mind. Obviously, if you apply further logic, the vast majority of prostitutes works under total shitty conditions. A big amount of those happy prostitutes that tells everyone how great this job is has other women working for them, i.e. when they own some domina studio or "erotic room renting", as they often euphemize their brothels. It's not only men that make profit off of other women, just for the record. And to me, this is the point when I find that mentioning the happy, let's say, 5%, just waters down the huuuuge majority of women that works for pimps, that has no job alternatives, that is not able to speak proper German, that has to pay off debts, that has to care for family somewhere else and stuff. These 5% of lucky prostitutes get every time a disproportionate amount of attention so just that you can say that not every prostitute has a hard time. They sometimes get even more attention than the 95%. Why is it like that? When we talk about patriarchy, we don't say every time that "not all men...", we just say "men" and no one's angry about it, at least not on revleft, because everyone knows that we talk about structures. And this is just the descriptive part of the whole prostitution discussion.

When it comes to the normative part, things are even more clear. The questions about normativity I asked somewhere above. Why is no one talking with the johns? Oh excuse me, some feminist magazine did it. They portrayed them in some photo article. Their motives were "I like that I can do with the woman whatever I want", "here I can get ladies that I wouldn't get usually", "it's exciting to pay for it" and many more. Why don't we concentrate on the johns? Right, because a huge amount of disdain for women would show. At least a huge disdain for what women desire sexually, for their freedom to choose what kind of sex they want and with whom. Why don't we talk about why almost every prostitute is female and even more johns are male (also the homosexual ones)? Why don't we talk about all that stuff that derives from patriarchy and why is 99% of all those discussions if they do it by choice or not when the roots for prostitution are so much deeper? Why is it that many men say "I don't want to sleep with someone that actually doesn't want to sleep with me"? Why don't we wanna push THAT attitude instead of just be like "let's improve working conditions" and that this is like solving everything about prostitution, when in reality, this is just fighting a symptom in a sick society that feels entitled to women's bodies as long as they pay for them? I'm totally done with that shit and all that relativizing and stuff. The problem are men willing to pay for sex, full stop.

[human strike]

So, I calmed down a bit and wanna write some more detailed post, probably one of my last ever on this topic, because I noticed that I'm really too weak on nerves when it gets to this topic and that I feel like punching everyone of you in the face, sorry. I also wanna say sorry beforehand for all the grammar and vocab mistakes I'm about to make.

No one of us will find exact numbers for prostitution when it comes to coercion, safety and stuff. But you can make some logical assumptions from what you know about brothels i.e. I've never been to one, but from the Aids center I work for I know some prostitutes and I got contact to some social workers that have some kind of "help centers" for these women, like, they help them where to get medical checks, offer them warm food (cause in the brothels they work, this is expensive as hell and they aren't allowed to bring their own food) and help them with abortions and stuff. And yeah, I read a ton about this stuff, about women going undercover to brothels claiming they wanna work there. The brothels they went to and the brothels these needy women come from are mostly brothels that are either very big and popular (like, maybe you heard of it, the Pascha in Germany, which is the biggest chain here) or that are advertised as wellness paradises and stuff, with only the finest premium ladies and services. No run-down shabby venues. I could write a ton about the working conditions there, be it that fellatio with condoms is not allowed, be it that the room rent is expensive as hell, be it that the vast majority of those women is not able to speak German fluently. You can choose to believe me or you can choose to not believe me and start your own research, which will be kinda difficult because most reports on that are in German, since this is a huge problem in this country. So, applying some logic, when in those "great" established places the working conditions are awful, the working conditions in shabby, less controlled places surely won't be better.

Ladies working in brothels represent the majority of German prostitutes, this is for sure, they are the no. 1 place to go for pimps and traffickers. Let's not even talk about ladies that work on the street, cause this is the total bottom of working conditions, and I don't even wanna tell how much fellatio near the East German border costs, cause this insanity would blow your mind. Obviously, if you apply further logic, the vast majority of prostitutes works under total shitty conditions. A big amount of those happy prostitutes that tells everyone how great this job is has other women working for them, i.e. when they own some domina studio or "erotic room renting", as they often euphemize their brothels. It's not only men that make profit off of other women, just for the record. And to me, this is the point when I find that mentioning the happy, let's say, 5%, just waters down the huuuuge majority of women that works for pimps, that has no job alternatives, that is not able to speak proper German, that has to pay off debts, that has to care for family somewhere else and stuff. These 5% of lucky prostitutes get every time a disproportionate amount of attention so just that you can say that not every prostitute has a hard time. They sometimes get even more attention than the 95%. Why is it like that? When we talk about patriarchy, we don't say every time that "not all men...", we just say "men" and no one's angry about it, at least not on revleft, because everyone knows that we talk about structures. And this is just the descriptive part of the whole prostitution discussion.

When it comes to the normative part, things are even more clear. The questions about normativity I asked somewhere above. Why is no one talking with the johns? Oh excuse me, some feminist magazine did it. They portrayed them in some photo article. Their motives were "I like that I can do with the woman whatever I want", "here I can get ladies that I wouldn't get usually", "it's exciting to pay for it" and many more. Why don't we concentrate on the johns? Right, because a huge amount of disdain for women would show. At least a huge disdain for what women desire sexually, for their freedom to choose what kind of sex they want and with whom. Why don't we talk about why almost every prostitute is female and even more johns are male (also the homosexual ones)? Why don't we talk about all that stuff that derives from patriarchy and why is 99% of all those discussions if they do it by choice or not when the roots for prostitution are so much deeper? Why is it that many men say "I don't want to sleep with someone that actually doesn't want to sleep with me"? Why don't we wanna push THAT attitude instead of just be like "let's improve working conditions" and that this is like solving everything about prostitution, when in reality, this is just fighting a symptom in a sick society that feels entitled to women's bodies as long as they pay for them? I'm totally done with that shit and all that relativizing and stuff. The problem are men willing to pay for sex, full stop.

It's not really a question though of whether to believe you or not (which I do btw), but rather one of what do sex workers want and what's a practical way of achieving that (or something as close to it as possible).

[Rosa Partizan]

There is not ONE voice for sex workers, but I can give you some provocative example...people will jump all over me, but it's fine...

there was some protest in another city by people from unions demanding that haircutter ladies (don't know the exact word) had to earn more and that 5-6 Eur/per h salary is just a joke. Some of those women went out of the salons and claimed that it's fine by them and that they like to work for that money. Now do the math...

[Lily Briscoe]

There is not ONE voice for sex workers, but I can give you some provocative example...people will jump all over me, but it's fine...

there was some protest in another city by people from unions demanding that haircutter ladies (don't know the exact word) had to earn more and that 5-6 Eur/per h salary is just a joke. Some of those women went out of the salons and claimed that it's fine by them and that they like to work for that money. Now do the math...

And yet you seem to be completely against recognizing the parallels between sex workers and workers like "haircutter ladies" in any other way, refusing to even recognize the former as workers, and basically seeing the 'appropriate response' to things like poor working conditions for sex workers as resting, not in working class struggle, but in state initiatives to end prostitution under capitalism... So this analogy seems particularly ironic.

[synthesis]

So, I calmed down a bit and wanna write some more detailed post, probably one of my last ever on this topic, because I noticed that I'm really too weak on nerves when it gets to this topic and that I feel like punching everyone of you in the face, sorry. I also wanna say sorry beforehand for all the grammar and vocab mistakes I'm about to make.

No one of us will find exact numbers for prostitution when it comes to coercion, safety and stuff. But you can make some logical assumptions from what you know about brothels i.e. I've never been to one, but from the Aids center I work for I know some prostitutes and I got contact to some social workers that have some kind of "help centers" for these women, like, they help them where to get medical checks, offer them warm food (cause in the brothels they work, this is expensive as hell and they aren't allowed to bring their own food) and help them with abortions and stuff. And yeah, I read a ton about this stuff, about women going undercover to brothels claiming they wanna work there. The brothels they went to and the brothels these needy women come from are mostly brothels that are either very big and popular (like, maybe you heard of it, the Pascha in Germany, which is the biggest chain here) or that are advertised as wellness paradises and stuff, with only the finest premium ladies and services. No run-down shabby venues. I could write a ton about the working conditions there, be it that fellatio with condoms is not allowed, be it that the room rent is expensive as hell, be it that the vast majority of those women is not able to speak German fluently. You can choose to believe me or you can choose to not believe me and start your own research, which will be kinda difficult because most reports on that are in German, since this is a huge problem in this country. So, applying some logic, when in those "great" established places the working conditions are awful, the working conditions in shabby, less controlled places surely won't be better.

Ladies working in brothels represent the majority of German prostitutes, this is for sure, they are the no. 1 place to go for pimps and traffickers. Let's not even talk about ladies that work on the street, cause this is the total bottom of working conditions, and I don't even wanna tell how much fellatio near the East German border costs, cause this insanity would blow your mind. Obviously, if you apply further logic, the vast majority of prostitutes works under total shitty conditions. A big amount of those happy prostitutes that tells everyone how great this job is has other women working for them, i.e. when they own some domina studio or "erotic room renting", as they often euphemize their brothels. It's not only men that make profit off of other women, just for the record. And to me, this is the point when I find that mentioning the happy, let's say, 5%, just waters down the huuuuge majority of women that works for pimps, that has no job alternatives, that is not able to speak proper German, that has to pay off debts, that has to care for family somewhere else and stuff. These 5% of lucky prostitutes get every time a disproportionate amount of attention so just that you can say that not every prostitute has a hard time. They sometimes get even more attention than the 95%. Why is it like that? When we talk about patriarchy, we don't say every time that "not all men...", we just say "men" and no one's angry about it, at least not on revleft, because everyone knows that we talk about structures. And this is just the descriptive part of the whole prostitution discussion.

I think Strix really captured what is problematic about recognizing the poor conditions of sex workers without even recognizing them as workers, which is a means of keeping them marginalized just as much as criminalizing prostitution itself. Well, maybe not just as much, but I wonder what would happen if activists started working to unionize sex workers and provide a network and resources to current and future sex workers who for whatever reason don't express a desire to quit sex work, rather than restricting this assistance to only sex workers who wish to leave the industry. (See the essay at the bottom of this post.)


When it comes to the normative part, things are even more clear. The questions about normativity I asked somewhere above. Why is no one talking with the johns? Oh excuse me, some feminist magazine did it. They portrayed them in some photo article. Their motives were "I like that I can do with the woman whatever I want", "here I can get ladies that I wouldn't get usually", "it's exciting to pay for it" and many more. Why don't we concentrate on the johns? Right, because a huge amount of disdain for women would show. At least a huge disdain for what women desire sexually, for their freedom to choose what kind of sex they want and with whom. Why don't we talk about why almost every prostitute is female and even more johns are male (also the homosexual ones)? Why don't we talk about all that stuff that derives from patriarchy and why is 99% of all those discussions if they do it by choice or not when the roots for prostitution are so much deeper? Why is it that many men say "I don't want to sleep with someone that actually doesn't want to sleep with me"? Why don't we wanna push THAT attitude instead of just be like "let's improve working conditions" and that this is like solving everything about prostitution, when in reality, this is just fighting a symptom in a sick society that feels entitled to women's bodies as long as they pay for them? I'm totally done with that shit and all that relativizing and stuff. The problem are men willing to pay for sex, full stop.

Of course this is a problem. But even in a world where men, both gay and straight, didn't feel entitled to sex, as long as there is capitalism there will still be prostitution. There will still be disabled men who can't find sexual partners and more importantly there will still be women (and men) who prefer sex work to other jobs in service work.

Challenging and changing patriarchal attitudes is obviously a necessity, but it represents somewhat nebulous gains relative to those that could be achieved by treating sex work as work and sex workers as workers who deserve the same protections that other workers get from unions and the legal system.


There is not ONE voice for sex workers, but I can give you some provocative example...people will jump all over me, but it's fine...

I don't know why you insist that there "is not ONE voice for sex workers." I provided you with one in this very thread:



Shut Up About How I Should Talk About My Sex Work

Often, when I tell someone new that I’m a phone sex operator, they say, “Oh! How long did you do that?” Notice the the use of past tense. The assumption is, of course, that my time in phone sex was in the past, that I am no longer doing it, that I have left it behind and moved on to my obviously successful and lucrative career in playwriting and solo performance.

Pause for laugh break.

Yes. I find that hilarious, too.

I am glad that my profile and branding and visibility is high enough at this point that people think I must doing well, but really… it’s mostly PR. I need to make people think that I’m already big news, so they don’t want to miss me, so they want to book me. This isn’t marketing hyperbole, as much as it is simply my M.O.: I fake it ’til I make it. I am sure a lot of emergent performers do this, putting out their hype just slightly ahead of their performance curve, and stepping up to the plate with a prayer on every slightly shallow breath.

I am also quite sure that my colleagues in performance, those of us hovering around the same level of visibility and exposure and gig income… most of us have second jobs. Maybe even third jobs, but definitely second ones. Whether it’s the time-honored food-service position, or consulting gigs in tech writing, or office jobs, or arts administrators at various levels, or yes, phone sex… we have to make money somehow while we are striving to make money in some other way.

But not all of these second jobs are treated the same way. People accept without comment that actors might perform and continue to wait tables, or that playwrights would write in the evenings, after they’ve left the office. What is it about phone sex, and sex work in general, that makes it so hard to reconcile with other aspirations?

I don’t have all the answers, I never do. I just have thoughts, and they are these:

First of all, it is a not-unheard-of approach for writers to dip into some exotic field or lifestyle and then dip right back out when they’ve got enough material. I wonder if people assume that naturally I’d have followed that trajectory, because my first play Phone Whore is about phone sex, and, you know… Why would I still be doing phone sex, if I got what I needed from it, i.e. grist for the mill?

Oh, wait. What if I wasn’t doing it for the research? What if I needed the actual money? What if I still need the money? What if this option is, in fact, preferable to other paying-the-bills options?

Okay. It has become kind of okay to say, in some circles, that you did a little sex work, if you put it down to fun or research or empowerment. If you did sex work strictly for the money, you can only really admit it if you put it in the past, and remove any element of choice about it, as much as possible. To buy nice clothes? Not desperate enough. We’re talking paying for college, making money after a layoff, getting off the streets. In the past. In the popular cultural understanding, sex work is a last resort, and if it happened in the past, it means that you boot-strapped your way out of a terrible situation and props to you, and now you can leave that all behind you. We can only talk about “degrading situations” if we’ve triumphed over them, or if we’re actively working on getting out. That is the way a feel-good narrative works.

But saying out loud, in a broad-daylight way, that one does sex work for money, that one is currently doing it, that one has no immediate, focused, near-future plans for not doing it… that looks, to the outside eye, suspiciously like “giving up on ourselves”. “Undervaluing ourselves.” Obviously “not motivated enough”. Bleah. You know what? I felt a lot less valued in the office job I got laid off from in 2009, and I was getting a lot less of my own creative work done. But people think “sex work” = “unmotivated”, which doesn’t mesh with how they see me. Not that I need to break stereotypes, but…

POW. Did that hurt when your brain blew out sideways?

The truth is, there are many reasons why sex workers are doing the work we do, and as with any profession, some of us desperately want out, some love it, or are just fine with it, and some are doing it, with greater or lesser degrees of enthusiasm, until our other plans pan out.

I fall in this last category, for sure. I do want to make my living writing and performing. But I don’t see what I’m doing as “rescuing myself”. I’m working toward success in performance, not away from some tragically wasted life in phone sex, boo hoo. No. I still do phone sex, and I’m really, really good with doing phone sex right now, and I’m in no particular rush to leave it, BELIEVE IT.

When I “make it”, when I get to the point that I make all my living in performance, I will tell people the periods of my employment in phone sex, if it’s relevant, but I won’t hide this life, or refer to it as a wacky little phase, or a terrible time that I got through. This is a decent fucking job that I’ve held for four years. It can be isolating as hell, and it’s a little marginal right now, but it’s easier on my feet than food service. And doing phone sex does more than pay the bills. It inspired my first play, and feeds my soul and my mind in a way that no other job ever has.

So my question to you is: why should I be so eager to leave that?



Cameryn Moore is an award-winning playwright/performer, as well as a sex activist, writer, sometimes educator, and …

[Црвена]

When it comes to sex I'm quite permissive, but I do oppose prostitution. I see selling the body as something done when a person is so desperate as to have nothing to offer but their sexual organs, because society hasn't helped them and given them enough opportunity for them to have something else to sell, and no one should never be in such circumstances. If someone is unable to do anything but prostitution as a career, it's because society hasn't properly educated them and given them skills, which is a waste of their capacity to learn, achieve and benefit society. Also, I think sex is precious - I'm not against sex outside of marriage, but I do think it should be between two people in love. If it's a job it will lose what makes it special.

[Rosa Partizan]

I mean one unified voice, sorry for my poor language skills, I thought this was obvious anyway.

[synthesis]

When it comes to sex I'm quite permissive, but I do oppose prostitution. I see selling the body as something done when a person is so desperate as to have nothing to offer but their sexual organs, because society hasn't helped them and given them enough opportunity for them to have something else to sell, and no one should never be in such circumstances. If someone is unable to do anything but prostitution as a career, it's because society hasn't properly educated them and given them skills, which is a waste of their capacity to learn, achieve and benefit society. Also, I think sex is precious - I'm not against sex outside of marriage, but I do think it should be between two people in love. If it's a job it will lose what makes it special.

Read the essay in spoiler tags in the post of mine directly above this one.

[Rosa Partizan]

I think it's kinda ableist to suppose that in some "better" society, handicapped people wouldn't find sexual partners. It's even possible nowadays, there are disabled people having found someone they share their sexuality with without having to pay for it. You sound like it's something hideous so they couldn't find anyone in an "ordinary" way. And I don't think that prostitution could exist as soon all men accept women's sexuality, freedom of sexual choice and her right of sexual self-determination. There are even non-feminist guys that wouldn't want to sleep with a woman, knowing she does it only because of the money. And there are even plenty of them. So I really don't get why such an attitude would be impossible in a more enlightened society.

[synthesis]

I mean one unified voice, sorry for my poor language skills, I thought this was obvious anyway.

I don't know who you think does have "one unified voice," but I can't see how this wouldn't be improved by treating sex workers as workers, their work as legitimate (legally speaking) and deserving of the same legal protections as other forms of service work. Surely by seeking to improve the actual conditions of all current sex workers, rather than strictly those who want out, it would help to give them a voice of some sort? What if feminists agitated for sex workers to have a "unified voice" - say, a union - that isn't contingent on renouncing sex work? How can you criticize the profession for not having a unified voice when your agenda doesn't allow for one, at least one that does not involve disavowing all past and present work in the field?

[synthesis]

I think it's kinda ableist to suppose that in some "better" society, handicapped people wouldn't find sexual partners. It's even possible nowadays, there are disabled people having found someone they share their sexuality with without having to pay for it. You sound like it's something hideous so they couldn't find anyone in an "ordinary" way.

I was referring specifically to the disabled men in Britain for whom the government funds sex tourism in the Netherlands - not that I don't think that's sort of ridiculous and evidence for your point that men feel entitled to sex, such that some consider it a "human right." It's clearly not a blanket statement about all handicapped men, but on average they do tend to have a more difficult time when seeking casual sex.

I think this is all a bit of a distraction, though; that was just the first example of men who might still be customers of sex workers that came to mind, because of a documentary I saw on the subject.


There are even non-feminist guys that wouldn't want to sleep with a woman, knowing she does it only because of the money. And there are even plenty of them. So I really don't get why such an attitude would be impossible in a more enlightened society.

It is obviously not impossible today. But, again, even in your perfect society - which is still capitalist for some reason - if there are men who, for whatever reason (perhaps convenience and a lack of strings attached) want to pay for sex, and there are women who prefer sex work to other forms of service work, there will still be prostitution.


And I don't think that prostitution could exist as soon all men accept women's sexuality, freedom of sexual choice and her right of sexual self-determination.

I don't see how you're not denying these things as well. Again, even in a world where all men are perfectly feminist, if people still need to work to survive then there will be women who prefer sex work to other forms of service work and there will be men who, for whatever reason, will be their customers.

[Rosa Partizan]

I don't know who you think does have "one unified voice," but I can't see how this wouldn't be improved by treating sex workers as workers, their work as legitimate (legally speaking) and deserving of the same legal protections as other forms of service work. Surely by seeking to improve the actual conditions of all current sex workers, rather than strictly those who want out, it would help to give them a voice of some sort? What if feminists agitated for sex workers to have a "unified voice" - say, a union - that isn't contingent on renouncing sex work? How can you criticize the profession for not having a unified voice when your agenda doesn't allow for one, at least one that does not involve disavowing all past and present work in the field?

Well, I'm gonna tell you something about the German organizations here. There are some, I don't know how I would call them, they are some kind of lobbies for prostitutes or something, advocating for the right to work in this business, advocating for prostitutes' rights or stuff, and also for the right to quit, finding alternatives, really don't know how to put that adequately in English. I know several cases, and one even from my own experience (having been told about that one by a prostitute here at the Aids center) where women with negative "requests" were told total bullshit. Those were different organisations, so you can't say it was some unlucky coincidence or that this unique organisation sucks. Some women went to these organisations and wanted to get help to quit, they were given the advise to go visit a psychologist and return to work as soon as they felt better. The prostitute I know went there because she had some self-esteem issues because of her work. She wanted to quit, she had an emotionally abusive pimp, but didn't know how. They told her to visit some "self-marketing course" that would help her to advertise herself in a better way and by that gaining self-confidence. I puked all over the room when the told me this story. The problem with these organisations is that the women with power there are not interested in women quitting this job. Those are the same women that profit off of women, so why should they confess now "hey you're right, this job can be fucked up". I think you can stop stigmatizing prostitutes without legalizing this thing, legalization has not worked in ANY country so far, everywhere the numbers of trafficking exploded and police had a harder time finding out who these women that were forced are.

[Rosa Partizan]

I was referring specifically to the disabled men in Britain for whom the government funds sex tourism in the Netherlands - not that I don't think that's sort of ridiculous and evidence for your point that men feel entitled to sex, such that some consider it a "human right." It's clearly not a blanket statement about all handicapped men, but on average they do tend to have a more difficult time when seeking casual sex.

I think this is all a bit of a distraction, though; that was just the first example that came to mind because of a documentary I saw on the subject.



It is obviously not impossible today. But, again, even in your perfect society - which is still capitalist for some reason - if there are men who, for whatever reason (perhaps convenience and a lack of strings attached) want to pay for sex, and there are women who prefer sex work to other forms of service work, there will still be prostitution.



I don't see how you're not denying these things as well. Again, even in a world where all men are perfectly feminist, if people still need to work to survive then there will be women who prefer sex work to other forms of service work and there will be men who, for whatever reason, will be their customers.

when there are no johns, there will be no prostitutes, it's as simple as that. A perfectly feminist guy will not buy sex, full stop, this is absolutely impossible. Being a male feminist means respecting female sexuality and female desires and such an attitude doesn't allow buying sex "for convenience", come on, you yourself know that. I know not a single feminist nor have I ever heard of one that for himself buying sex found in any way acceptable or even the thought of it bearable.

[human strike]

when there are no johns, there will be no prostitutes, it's as simple as that. A perfectly feminist guy will not buy sex, full stop, this is absolutely impossible. Being a male feminist means respecting female sexuality and female desires and such an attitude doesn't allow buying sex "for convenience", come on, you yourself know that. I know not a single feminist nor have I ever heard of one that for himself buying sex found in any way acceptable or even the thought of it bearable.

I used to have a partner who asked me to pay her to sleep with me as part of a kink of her's. It did nothing for me personally but she got a real kick out of it so I didn't mind doing that for her, I had a lot of respect for her desires.

[Rosa Partizan]

I used to have a partner who asked me to pay her to sleep with me as part of a kink of her's. It did nothing for me personally but she got a real kick out of it so I didn't mind doing that for her, I had a lot of respect for her desires.

but you know that this is not really prostitution, right? Would she have slept with you without you having to pay for it? If the answer is yes, we don't need to discuss that further.

[Remus Bleys]

but you know that this is not really prostitution, right? Would she have slept with you without you having to pay for it? If the answer is yes, we don't need to discuss that further.

Why would it have to be "future discussed" if the answer was "no." Are you the fetish police? I'm not even using that whole consent thing (there was a thread somewhere that debunked that silly liberal concept) but how is this fetish bad in any way? Because it doesn't fit your predetermined bourgeois-feminist morals?

[Rosa Partizan]

oh yeah, the well-known way to try to silent "sex-negative" feminists...just going ahead and call them bourgeois, moralist, trying to play police or sometimes even prudish and uptight. Not gonna fall for that bullshit. Did I call anyone here misogynist or anything, just because he wasn't as anti-prostitution as me? My stance has nothing to do with moralism or with playing police, and it's def not my problem if you don't get it and I don't feel the need to justify to guys like you that use those same old catchwords to discredit feminists that aren't all over that "sex work is fine"-bullshit.

[Lily Briscoe]

I realize the above wasn't in response to me, but I want to be clear about something in case it isn't clear.

My position is not that "sex work is fine" or that "plenty of sex workers love their jobs"; I don't think that "work" is fine, and I don't think that many workers love their jobs. My position is that sex work is work, that a large proportion of people involved in sex work are members of the working class, and that sex work is not - by virtue of involving sex - inherently more degrading than all other kinds of work. Is working in a strip club more 'degrading' than changing geriatric diapers or cleaning Walmart toilets all day? Is working in a brothel more 'degrading' than working in a slaughterhouse? Personally, in both of those scenarios, I know which one I would most likely prefer. I think there is a tendency for the sort of people who single out sex work as some exceptional horror to be really ignorant of the conditions of wage workers more generally.

[blake 3:17]

More Conservative garbage


Ottawa unveils new prostitution law targeting those who buy sex

By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Jun 04 2014
OTTAWA—The federal Conservative government will try to abolish the sex trade by targeting “johns” who purchase sex and anyone else who profits from or advertises the sexual services of others, all the while trying to persuade prostitutes to quit selling their bodies.
A bill tabled Wednesday to overhaul Canada’s prostitution laws views the sex trade as an illicit activity practiced by women who have no options. “The bill . . . recognizes that the vast majority of those that sell sexual services do not do so by choice. We view the vast majority of those involved in selling sexual services as victims,” said Justice Minister Peter MacKay.
It sets a high penalty for an offender who pays for sexual services — up to five years in jail, or 10 years in the case of prostitutes under age 18. Fines could range from $1,000 to $4,000, with more severe penalties levied in cases where the exchange happens in public places, in parks or near schools.
Despite the government’s claim it wants to protect vulnerable women and target only at those who profit from victimizing them, the Conservative bill takes aim at prostitutes, too, depending on where and how they practice their trade.
The bill criminalizes the act of selling sex in public places or places “where children could reasonably be expected to be present,” in MacKay’s words. It bans the advertisement of sex for sale online, as well as targeting anyone who receives a “material benefit” as a result of an “exploitive relationship” with prostitutes, he said.

He said the aim is not to arrest physicians or cab drivers who might interact with prostitutes. However, when asked about drivers or bodyguards hired by prostitutes for personal security reasons, MacKay said the test for a court would be the existence of an exploitative relationship.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/04/ottawa_unveils_new_prostitution_law_targeting_thos e_who_buy_sex.html

[blake 3:17]

More Conservative garbage


Ottawa unveils new prostitution law targeting those who buy sex

By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Jun 04 2014
OTTAWA—The federal Conservative government will try to abolish the sex trade by targeting “johns” who purchase sex and anyone else who profits from or advertises the sexual services of others, all the while trying to persuade prostitutes to quit selling their bodies.
A bill tabled Wednesday to overhaul Canada’s prostitution laws views the sex trade as an illicit activity practiced by women who have no options. “The bill . . . recognizes that the vast majority of those that sell sexual services do not do so by choice. We view the vast majority of those involved in selling sexual services as victims,” said Justice Minister Peter MacKay.
It sets a high penalty for an offender who pays for sexual services — up to five years in jail, or 10 years in the case of prostitutes under age 18. Fines could range from $1,000 to $4,000, with more severe penalties levied in cases where the exchange happens in public places, in parks or near schools.
Despite the government’s claim it wants to protect vulnerable women and target only at those who profit from victimizing them, the Conservative bill takes aim at prostitutes, too, depending on where and how they practice their trade.
The bill criminalizes the act of selling sex in public places or places “where children could reasonably be expected to be present,” in MacKay’s words. It bans the advertisement of sex for sale online, as well as targeting anyone who receives a “material benefit” as a result of an “exploitive relationship” with prostitutes, he said.

He said the aim is not to arrest physicians or cab drivers who might interact with prostitutes. However, when asked about drivers or bodyguards hired by prostitutes for personal security reasons, MacKay said the test for a court would be the existence of an exploitative relationship.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/04/ottawa_unveils_new_prostitution_law_targeting_thos e_who_buy_sex.html

[4thInter]

Its misogyny, the only difference between a prosttiute and a sex doll is that one can try to cock block. But i think in the perfect society this convo will be useless, has i see prostitiuion a symptom of capitalism. It being a symptom of the capitalist system enslaveing the worker, and so they can stay afloat they sell themselves.:glare:

[Lily Briscoe]

More Conservative garbage

Ottawa unveils new prostitution law targeting those who buy sex

By: Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau reporter, Published on Wed Jun 04 2014
OTTAWA—The federal Conservative government will try to abolish the sex trade by targeting “johns” who purchase sex and anyone else who profits from or advertises the sexual services of others, all the while trying to persuade prostitutes to quit selling their bodies.
A bill tabled Wednesday to overhaul Canada’s prostitution laws views the sex trade as an illicit activity practiced by women who have no options. “The bill . . . recognizes that the vast majority of those that sell sexual services do not do so by choice. We view the vast majority of those involved in selling sexual services as victims,” said Justice Minister Peter MacKay.
It sets a high penalty for an offender who pays for sexual services — up to five years in jail, or 10 years in the case of prostitutes under age 18. Fines could range from $1,000 to $4,000, with more severe penalties levied in cases where the exchange happens in public places, in parks or near schools.
Despite the government’s claim it wants to protect vulnerable women and target only at those who profit from victimizing them, the Conservative bill takes aim at prostitutes, too, depending on where and how they practice their trade.
The bill criminalizes the act of selling sex in public places or places “where children could reasonably be expected to be present,” in MacKay’s words. It bans the advertisement of sex for sale online, as well as targeting anyone who receives a “material benefit” as a result of an “exploitive relationship” with prostitutes, he said.

He said the aim is not to arrest physicians or cab drivers who might interact with prostitutes. However, when asked about drivers or bodyguards hired by prostitutes for personal security reasons, MacKay said the test for a court would be the existence of an exploitative relationship.http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/04/ottawa_unveils_new_prostitution_law_targeting_thos e_who_buy_sex.html

Pretty typical example of what it means for the state to "help" sex workers. Also funny how some of MacKay's language is almost identical to things people have said in this thread.

I mentioned in an earlier post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2716748&postcount=64) the "bikini barista" phenomenon that is a big deal around here, and a significant part of the justification/impetus for some of the recurring police crackdowns in my city has been the hysteria about children being nearby. So if this bill goes through in Canada, I wouldn't be surprised at all if that particular part of it ends up putting a lot of sex workers in jail, particularly considering how broad "places where children could reasonably be expected to be present" is.

Also, from another part of the article that Blake 3:17 linked to:


But prostitutes and their legal advocates were aghast, saying the bill is actually worse than what existed before the high court struck down communications and brothel laws.

“I’m devastated and heartbroken,” said Caroline Newcastle, a 25-year-old escort who works as a prostitute in Ottawa while she does doctoral studies. “It’s essentially full re-criminalization,” she said, pointing to the provisions that will ban her from advertising on a website her services or communicating online with clients regarding safe sex practices or fees for service.

However, the text of the bill appears to provide an exemption or immunity from liability for those who advertise or derive material benefit from the provision of their own sexual services.

Newcastle is not looking for programs to help her “exit” the trade, saying it is her choice and the government’s approach was patronizing. “It’s making the assumption that sex work is bad. And it’s not necessarily bad.

“We all need to pay rent . . . . We all do things to make ends meet when it comes to finances, and limiting where and how we can work does nothing to help us as sex workers. Limiting the circumstances under which we can work, how we can communicate about our work, how we can attract clients . . . . I have no idea how a public place is going to be defined . . . . Is the Internet considered a public place?

“It is recriminalizing the communicating (of prostitution services),” said Newcastle, who said she represents a group called POWER (Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau, Work, Educate, Resist).

Valerie Scott, a sex worker who was one of the original three prostitutes behind the Bedford challenge to the Canadian laws and got back into the trade after the Supreme Court ruling, said the bill would further drive prostitution into dark corners to practice their trade. “This is a huge gift to sexual predators.”

“We’re allowed to work indoors but not tell anyone. Clients are going to be terrified to identify themselves to us, thinking we’re the police, so we’re going to have to accept calls and book clients from blocked numbers.” As for advertising, she said prostitutes will have to pay huge fees to websites hosted out of the country “like the girls in Sweden do.”

Katrina Pacey, of Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society, predicted the worst outcome.

“We will see more missing and murdered women in my view as a result of this legislation,” she said.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

when there are no johns, there will be no prostitutes, it's as simple as that. A perfectly feminist guy will not buy sex, full stop, this is absolutely impossible. Being a male feminist means respecting female sexuality and female desires and such an attitude doesn't allow buying sex "for convenience", come on, you yourself know that. I know not a single feminist nor have I ever heard of one that for himself buying sex found in any way acceptable or even the thought of it bearable.

I knew a female feminist who once said she would buy sex from a prostitute. She turned out to be not a very good feminist. Like justify male violence towards womyn bad.

[RedRev]

I knew a female feminist who once said she would buy sex from a prostitute. She turned out to be not a very good feminist.

What a surprise

[mindsword]

prostitution is the most degrading, unhealthy, dangerous, product of the capitalist macho-patriarchic system.. it needs to be fought & educated against at any possible opportunity.

[pigman]

I am sorry for the missing paragraphs. I add them but they are not there after. I am disabled. It does not matter what it is or how it happened. Some of you would judge me for that too. If you saw me I promise nine out of ten would look away as a reflex. I am also a human. The most important human need after food, water, shelter, air? Is touch. Some loners think they do not need touch. They lie to themselves. Babies that are not held do not thrive. Touch is so important when we do not get it we do not even develop as normal humans. Knowing this is not the same as feeling entitled to sex. What kind of sick mind makes that connection? What kind of sick mind says a homeless person feels entitled to shelter? Humans have needs. Even you ones who think you are happy loners. You have needs too and you are not acting entitled when you express them. My mother held me. That is why I developed a normal need for touch. I did not get it after I was disabled. I was too much a good boy to have sex before that. Then it was too late. And then I became a lonely miserable person. I was suicidal. I am still lonely but less miserable. It is because I found a woman who would touch me for money. I do not care what you think about our arrangement. I am less miserable. And I am not hurting her or anyone else. I did not lose my virginity to the first escort I found. I arranged visits with lots. I paid them for their time and we talked. I was honest about what I wanted. I wanted to be touched and held. I wanted to be lied to and I wanted to pretend it was real. And yes I wanted to have sex at some time. Most were nervous soon as they saw me. I waited for the one in ten who was not. I asked her why. She said this is what she gets paid for and she felt sorry for me. I found a woman who will look at me, but to touch me has a price. I knew it when I called. And I am less miserable. I do not say women who sell their sex are not exploited lots of the time. It is true. I would never hire a drug addict for this. I want them to be saved. I took actions to avoid women who need to be saved. But not all escorts are like that. Some are very in control of their life and they take no shit. I found one like that. She does not feel exploited. I ask her often because I care about that. She might lie because I pay her but I really doubt it. She told me how she started. She is an older lady, forties. Her kids are gone. She is not broke. She had a career. She gave it up to do this. It makes her feel powerful. She told me this. You can say I lie. I know the truth. You think I should be miserable. You will deny it. You will pretend to care. Or you will laugh. Or you will condemn. Or you will say the problem is capitalism, under socialism I would not feel miserable being alone and untouched. I would be human somehow even without a basic human need. You will try to tell me this, that I would have other things to focus on. That is a lie. People will always need to be touched and held. And they will always recoil from the disabled. I would be as miserable under socialism. Unless someone would take pity on me. Would socialism have charity? You say no, but I can no longer contribute. What can I offer in exchange for companionship? Nothing, so I would be forgotten, just like capitalism. But no option like I have now. Maybe there would be socialist colonies for the disabled to mingle? I tell you, they do not work under capitalism. I am beneath the disabled women at my local group. Yes I know I am an evil sexist pig. I know you think it. But it makes me want socialism less if it means I would never be allowed human touch. Maybe you would let me have a puppy. Hooray. Now you can start making fun of me and calling me a woman hater. But I know I love women so much I could not live anymore without being close to one.

[Tenka]

pigman:
I have heard that sobbing is somehow evolved to draw the touch of another human. Sex is not the same thing as touch though, nor is sex a need. Even if one does not masturbate, one still can generally find release in wet dreams. Your disability does not entitle you to sex--no, but your money does under Capitalism. That's why I view prostitution as rape--a career defined by being raped with money as coercion (except in those cases of women doing prostitution for the simple joy of it, which is really, really uncommon. And of course not all prostitutes are paid equally; far from it).

I can't say there's anything wrong with a male wanting to fuck females, but having women paid to be fucked by you--either with your money, or the state's as some places do for the disabled--falls under my definition of rape, as I have said, and sob stories about no women finding you attractive will not change what you are doing.

Welcome to the forum, I guess.

[Sea]

when there are no johns, there will be no prostitutes, it's as simple as that. A perfectly feminist guy will not buy sex, full stop, this is absolutely impossible. Being a male feminist means respecting female sexuality and female desires and such an attitude doesn't allow buying sex "for convenience", come on, you yourself know that. I know not a single feminist nor have I ever heard of one that for himself buying sex found in any way acceptable or even the thought of it bearable.One time I tried to sign up for john school but the officer said that it's not open to the general public. I asked him how much for a rimjob and he just rolled his eyes and walked away.
Its misogyny, the only difference between a prosttiute and a sex doll is that one can try to cock block. But i think in the perfect society this convo will be useless, has i see prostitiuion a symptom of capitalism. It being a symptom of the capitalist system enslaveing the worker, and so they can stay afloat they sell themselves.:glare:Except for:

1. pimps usually are not very fond of cockblocking

and

2. if you can't support your diagnoses you can go back to selling elixerhol at the circus

Prostitution is a direct consequence. "Symptom" has nothing to do with it.

I am sorry for the missing paragraphs. I add them but they are not there after. I am disabled. It does not matter what it is or how it happened. Some of you would judge me for that too. If you saw me I promise nine out of ten would look away as a reflex. I am also a human. The most important human need after food, water, shelter, air? Is touch. Some loners think they do not need touch. They lie to themselves. Babies that are not held do not thrive. Touch is so important when we do not get it we do not even develop as normal humans. Knowing this is not the same as feeling entitled to sex. What kind of sick mind makes that connection? What kind of sick mind says a homeless person feels entitled to shelter? Humans have needs. Even you ones who think you are happy loners. You have needs too and you are not acting entitled when you express them. My mother held me. That is why I developed a normal need for touch. I did not get it after I was disabled. I was too much a good boy to have sex before that. Then it was too late. And then I became a lonely miserable person. I was suicidal. I am still lonely but less miserable. It is because I found a woman who would touch me for money. I do not care what you think about our arrangement. I am less miserable. And I am not hurting her or anyone else. I did not lose my virginity to the first escort I found. I arranged visits with lots. I paid them for their time and we talked. I was honest about what I wanted. I wanted to be touched and held. I wanted to be lied to and I wanted to pretend it was real. And yes I wanted to have sex at some time. Most were nervous soon as they saw me. I waited for the one in ten who was not. I asked her why. She said this is what she gets paid for and she felt sorry for me. I found a woman who will look at me, but to touch me has a price. I knew it when I called. And I am less miserable. I do not say women who sell their sex are not exploited lots of the time. It is true. I would never hire a drug addict for this. I want them to be saved. I took actions to avoid women who need to be saved. But not all escorts are like that. Some are very in control of their life and they take no shit. I found one like that. She does not feel exploited. I ask her often because I care about that. She might lie because I pay her but I really doubt it. She told me how she started. She is an older lady, forties. Her kids are gone. She is not broke. She had a career. She gave it up to do this. It makes her feel powerful. She told me this. You can say I lie. I know the truth. You think I should be miserable. You will deny it. You will pretend to care. Or you will laugh. Or you will condemn. Or you will say the problem is capitalism, under socialism I would not feel miserable being alone and untouched. I would be human somehow even without a basic human need. You will try to tell me this, that I would have other things to focus on. That is a lie. People will always need to be touched and held. And they will always recoil from the disabled. I would be as miserable under socialism. Unless someone would take pity on me. Would socialism have charity? You say no, but I can no longer contribute. What can I offer in exchange for companionship? Nothing, so I would be forgotten, just like capitalism. But no option like I have now. Maybe there would be socialist colonies for the disabled to mingle? I tell you, they do not work under capitalism. I am beneath the disabled women at my local group. Yes I know I am an evil sexist pig. I know you think it. But it makes me want socialism less if it means I would never be allowed human touch. Maybe you would let me have a puppy. Hooray. Now you can start making fun of me and calling me a woman hater. But I know I love women so much I could not live anymore without being close to one.1. You already are human (or you are Eugene Goostman's older sibling) so don't say "I would be...". That's stupid.

3. Most of us here are not good at reading big blocks of text, FYI. That's also stupid but that's our fault.

2. You have no idea what socialism is. Or apparently what charity is under capitalism. How much Marx have you read? None?

4. Nobody ever made fun of you. Nobody ever will here. Actually, let me rephrase that. People will make fun of you no differently than they make fun of all the able-bodied people. Nobody ever called you a woman hater. If you're used to people calling you a woman hater that's probably because you are. Have you ever been called a woman hater in real life?

5. This is an anecdote and has no place in discussion of prostitution in general. http://doaj.org/ would be a good place to start if you wanna make some contributions.

[Lily Briscoe]

prostitution [...] needs to be fought & educated against at any possible opportunity.

And what exactly does 'fighting' and 'educating against' prostitution entail?

As long as we live in capitalism, there is going to be a market for sex. It isn't something you're going to eliminate with legislative restrictions and ideological initiatives. You'd think this would be pretty apparent by now.

[synthesis]

I don't have any responses to previous posts in this thread, I just wanted to provide an example that illustrates what happens when you let your policies on sex work become dictated by petit-bourgeois quasi-conservative moralism, seeing "sex work" as something to be abolished independently of all work, instead of treating sex workers as workers* and their conditions as intrinsically connected to those of the entirety of the working class:


The first Magdalen institution was founded in late 1758 in Whitechapel, England. It was so successful, it led to "the establishment of a similar institution in Ireland" by 1767. Magdalen asylums were not unique to the United Kingdom, however. In the United States, for example, the first such institution, the Magdalen Society of Philadelphia, was founded in 1800; many other North American cities, including New York, Boston, Chicago, and Toronto, quickly followed Philadelphia's example and opened their own Magdalen facilities for "fallen" women.

What began as homes to rehabilitate prostitutes by the early 20th century, had been expanded to care for unwed mothers and other young women considered to be wayward. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, Magdalen asylums were common all around the world. By 1900, there were more than 300 institutions for "fallen" women in England, and more than 20 north of the border in Scotland. Jonas Hanway, the first chairman of the London house, and other backers, were merchants of the influential Russia Company who had worked all over Europe, and seen initiatives there. Mary Peace argues that the Magdalen marked the high point of a 'whiggish sentimentality', successfully reassuring the public that even the most destructive of commercial appetites were really only the result of misunderstanding and miseducation.

more (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdalene_asylum)*Generally speaking; some would be better described as petit-bourgeois and others as, indeed, slaves, but I am referring specifically to those who have their labor exploited but are also able to pursue other forms of wage labor without the threat of physical force during or after departure.

Even a social democrat should be able to see that the best policies for improving the conditions of sex workers within the confines of a bourgeois state lie in affording sex workers the same protections as other workers, not in taking money out of their pockets and increasing the ability of that same state to intrude into their lives.

[VCrakeV]

Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but after seeing all the prostitution threads after a search, I didn't think it would be appropriate to create yet another one. I have been wondering about prostitution in Communism for a while now. The arguments against are obvious and plentiful; I have no questions on those. But in a society with prostitution abolished (or, in an ideal world, a society in which no one needs to and no one wants to prostitute themselves), what of those "Johns"? Yes, many of them in today's society cheat on their wives/girlfriends, and those men would be perfectly well off in this new society (well, these cheaters would hopefully not exist, and rather there would be more honest men who respect their sexual partners). But the group I want to talk about is more of a minority: those who either can't form an intimate relationship, or aren't interested in the complexities that come with intimate relationships.

Before I go any further, I would like to point out that I am more interested in the basic human rights of women (such as not *having* to please a man sexually) than the "right" to sex. I just want to know, is it possible to make everyone happy? I have never used a prostitute's service before, but I know that other people do so because they are lonely. In fact, I probably would engage in such services, if I weren't forced to pay for my education, which should be a human right... but I digress.

So, in an ideal Communist society, in which no one is obliged to prostitute themselves, and no one wants to, what would happen to the "respectable Johns" (the non-cheating ones who now can't have sexual interactions now)? Am I fair to assume that no one would want to be a prostitute? Or is there a select few who enjoy sex/fetish work? Is there some other solution I am missing?