European Parliament votes to criminalise buying sex

[Sentinel]

The Guardian two days ago reported the following:


MEPs vote to criminalise buying sex

European parliament backs the 'Nordic model' of prostitution, which legalises the selling of sex but criminalises buying it

Click 'show spoilers' or this link (http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2014/feb/26/meps-vote-criminalise-buying-sex-european-parliament) to view full article.

Maya Oppenheim
theguardian.com, Wednesday 26 February 2014 15.35 GMT

On Wednesday, 343 MEPs backed a report proposed by the London MEP and Labour spokeswoman for women in Europe, Mary Honeyball, which recommends the adoption of the "Nordic model" of prostitution that legalises selling sex but criminalises buying it. Some 139 MEPs voted against;105 abstained.

The yes vote formally establishes the EU's stance on prostitution and puts pressure on member states to re-evaluate their policies on sex work.

"Today's outcome represents a vital signal from MEPs that we cannot continue to tolerate the exploitation of women," Honeyball said. "Rather than blanket legalisation, parliament has backed the more nuanced approach already practised in Sweden as a means of tackling prostitution. This punishes men who treat women's bodies as a commodity, without criminalising women who are driven into sex work.

"The idea that prostitution is the oldest profession leads some to think we should accept it as a fact of life, that all we can do is regulate it a little better. This course of action leads to an increase in prostitution levels, normalising the purchase of sex and ingraining the inequalities which sustain the sex industry."

The issue was brought to the fore in January when MEPs voted in favour of a report from the European parliament's women's rights committee that argued prostitution and trafficking were a fundamental violation.

Sweden was the first country to criminalise the purchase of sex, in 1999. Since then the Nordic model has become increasingly popular across Europe. Norway and Iceland adopted the model in 2009, and in December 2013 France followed suit. The main alternative to the Nordic model is the Dutch-style legalisation championed by the Netherlands and Germany, which fully legalise prostitution.

The issue of criminalisation is contentious. Supporters of the Nordic model say prostitution is inherently exploitative and that the criminalisation of sex-buyers will lead to a reduction in prostitution. While they argue that the model will ensure the conviction of sex buyers and the protection of prostitutes, proponents of decriminalisation fear the opposite. They argue that criminalising prostitution will drive sex work underground and increase the vulnerability of prostitutes.

Honeyball maintains that many women who sell their bodies for sex have been trafficked or coerced into doing so. She argues that "very few women work in prostitution completely of their own free will, and choices made in conditions of being unequal cannot be considered free".

Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency, says women and girls constitute 96% of trafficked people. It adds that 91% of trafficking cases relate to sexual exploitation, while only 7% relate to labour exploitation and 2% to other forms.

Most of the victims of sexual exploitation are trafficked to countries where prostitution is legal and/or regulated, rather than countries which adopt the Nordic model, Europol says.

Myria Vassiliadou, the EU anti-trafficking co-ordinator, said: "If hundreds of thousands of women are trafficked, there will continue to be hundreds of thousands of customers. We must stop the demand and recognise the clear link between trafficking and prostitution … We need to create a culture where buyers are aware that the women they are buying services off might be victims of trafficking."

However, several anti-trafficking campaigners have criticised the proposal to criminalise prostitution. Some 450 civil society organisations and 45 researchers oppose the Nordic model.

Luca Stevenson, who co-ordinates the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe, said: "The criminalisation of clients is not only ineffective in reducing prostitution and trafficking, it is also dangerous for sex workers. It increases stigma, which is the root cause of violence against us. It is a failed policy denounced by all sex workers' organisations and many women's, LGBT and migrants' organisations, as well as many UN bodies."

Ana Mohr, who supports sex workers in Bucharest, and has been lobbying MEPs to vote against the EU resolution, said: "The Nordic model increases the vulnerability of prostitutes and pushes sex work underground. In essence, criminalisation leads to stigma, and stigma leads to harassment."

She added that women who were forced to give up prostitution would be left with few alternatives to make money.

A spokesman for Anti-Slavery International said the Nordic model did not go far enough. "A comprehensive range of legislation is needed to ensure the prevention of trafficking and the provision of victim protection," he said. "Women who are forced to become prostitutes via trafficking are examples of modern-day slavery."
Thoughts?

[tuwix]

That is another attempt to forbid something that is impossible to forbid.
There must be said clearly: as long there will be monetary system creating inequalities and poverty, as long there will be prostitution. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of money and private property.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, the situation for sex workers ain't great in places where prostitution enjoys varying degrees of legality like the Netherlands, Mexico or Israel, but it ain't great where prostitution is illegal, either. I've read that the Scandinavian model has had it's own problems, like prostitutes having a hard time finding anywhere to ply their trade due to landlords not allowing them to rent, due to risk of prosecution etc. To me personally the idea that something can be sold legally but bought illegally makes very little sense logically...if you want to tackle things like violence against prostitutes then you could probably do that through legalization combined with vigorous regulation & prosecution of abusive pimps or johns. But I'd have to see some statistics on the subject as admittedly I'm no expert on prostitution.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

How can it be legal to sell, but illegal to buy? That's incredibly stupid.

Personally, I think sex work should be completely legal. All these moralizers about the "exploitation of women" are essentially saying that women have no right to control their own bodies, while ignoring that all workers are exploited under capitalism.

[Sabot Cat]

That is another attempt to forbid something that is impossible to forbid.
There must be said clearly: as long there will be monetary system creating inequalities and poverty, as long there will be prostitution. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of money and private property.

But sex work can exist in a socialist society; they would just be given the full value of their labor in the resources distributed.

[The Feral Underclass]

How can it be legal to sell, but illegal to buy? That's incredibly stupid.

Because then it isn't sex workers who are the target of law enforcement. The idea being that people are forced into sex work by their circumstances so it should be those who use those services who are the targets of prevention, rather than people who are seen as being vulnerable.

[Rosa Partizan]

That is another attempt to forbid something that is impossible to forbid.
There must be said clearly: as long there will be monetary system creating inequalities and poverty, as long there will be prostitution. The only way to get rid of it is to get rid of money and private property.

No. The sentence has to be: As long as there will be gender inequality and women will be considered sexual prey, there will be prostitution. Why is it that plenty of men don't use this "service"? Improving the public image of women, their needs and desires will make prostitution unnecessary. P. only exists because there is demand by guys who don't give a fuck about women's sexuality and consensual desire.

[Sasha]

prostitution should be legal, visiting prostitutes should be legal (but with serious education etc), pimping and other forms of exploitation is the thing that should be criminalized to the fullest extent.
i have said it a thousand times, the biggest problem with the sex industry is the industry bit, the fact that the prostitution market is the ultimate free market is what doing the major harm, the government should support trafficking- and pimping free workers collectives, enforce minimum prices that support a more than living wage so that women dont need to turn trick after trick, provide subsidized, trained and vetted security to the women to prevent pimping, give education to both prostitutes and johns etc etc

[Tim Cornelis]

Generally, there's two categories of people: those that enjoy the profession they have and those that are compelled to do work they do not (particularly) enjoy by circumstance. With prostitution there's another category of forced labour. However, the first two categories should not be penalised as it is the same with wage-labour in any other industry.

Recently in the city of Utrecht in the Netherlands all prostitution licenses were suspended, which was protested by sex workers whom were deprived of their income. They started a sex workers cooperative and I see no reason why clientèle should be driven away from them. Wouldn't criminalising purchasing sex target those sex workers that work most openly and therefore most visibly to the law?

Additionally, this will do the image of the EU no good as it's seen as meddling with domestic affairs.


But sex work can exist in a socialist society; they would just be given the full value of their labor in the resources distributed.

Which is impossible. No one gets the full value of their labour in a socialist society.


No. The sentence has to be: As long as there will be gender inequality and women will be considered sexual prey, there will be prostitution. Why is it that plenty of men don't use this "service"? Improving the public image of women, their needs and desires will make prostitution unnecessary. P. only exists because there is demand by guys who don't give a fuck about women's sexuality and consensual desire.

Some women do give consent and do find the work they do enjoyable, others are compelled by their financial situation but perhaps prefer it over working minimum wage at McDonald's. Also, not every woman's sexuality is identical as you imply. Also, not every sex worker is a woman as you seem to suggest. How will improving the image of women, their needs and desire make male prostitution obsolete?

[bropasaran]

Not really connected directly with the topic, but not to open another thread, I'll post in this one.


Has anyone seen the text "Being paid for normal sex is akin to usury", by porn actress Valentina Nappi? I can't post links, but you can google it and find it on her website. If someone's read it, what do you think of it?

[consuming negativity]

I remember reading somewhere that poor women in Germany were being told they had to either accept "legitimate" jobs as prostitutes in brothels, or go without public benefits that they needed to survive. The shit disgusts me. Sex-positive liberal "feminism" is little more than a further legitimization of the commodification of the female body under the guise of women's rights. Anything that creates less demand for prostitutes is a step forward, even if it comes in the form of laws like this. Better now than before if you ask me. Half-measures and fumbling is the best we can expect from liberal democracy.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Sex-positive liberal "feminism" is little more than a further legitimization of the commodification of the female body under the guise of women's rights.
I'm a sex positive revolutionary feminist, and I think that if the only way I can pay my bills under capitalism is to engage in sex work, it's still my body and my choice. I've never had to do that, but pseudo-feminists who think they have a right to demand the state punish me if I make that choice can fuck right the hell off. Sex negative "feminism" is reactionary moralism.

[consuming negativity]

I'm a sex positive revolutionary feminist, and I think that if the only way I can pay my bills under capitalism is to engage in sex work, it's still my body and my choice. I've never had to do that, but pseudo-feminists who think they have a right to demand the state punish me if I make that choice can fuck right the hell off. Sex negative "feminism" is reactionary moralism.

I think where I misspoke was my implication that sex work was "illegitimate" work, which was not at all my intention. All I was trying to say was that I think it's particularly reprehensible for a woman's sexuality /and/ body to be reduced to a commodity against her will by the state; which is what I accuse the German government of doing.

Shaming or otherwise condemning women who engage in sex work is obviously, objectively terrible, regardless of their reasons for doing so. Although, it's nearly impossible in capitalist society for any sex worker to be there entirely without coercion. I would absolutely never support using the state to criminalize prostitution or otherwise punish women for doing what they want with their bodies. That would, indeed, be reactionary bullshit.

Hopefully that clears everything up?

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

All I was trying to say was that I think it's particularly reprehensible for a woman's sexuality /and/ body to be reduced to a commodity against her will by the state; which is what I accuse the German government of doing.
Do you any sources for that? I've never heard of a situation like that in a country where prostitution is legal.


Although, it's nearly impossible in capitalist society for any sex worker to be there entirely without coercion.
How are you defining coercion? Economic necessity could be defined as coercion, but that would be true of work in general under capitalism.


I would absolutely never support using the state to criminalize prostitution or otherwise punish women for doing what they want with their bodies. That would, indeed, be reactionary bullshit.

Hopefully that clears everything up?
Yes, it does.

[Loony Le Fist]

I am all for trying to reduce the number of people that would choose to enter the field of sex work because they are desperate to make money. The Nordic model put in place by the EU has good intentions and will work at fixing some of the problem, but sadly it doesn't fix underlying structural issues.

While this is a controversial subject, there are people that actually enjoy sex work. Not many, but some actually do. I'm sure the one's that do, didn't have to enter the field because of structural coercion. Additionally, it can be argued that while other sex workers might not enjoy their job that much, they don't dislike it anymore than other workers dislike their jobs. This is not of course to say that there aren't sex workers that are suffering in horrible conditions and abusive situations who are essentially modern day slaves.

Much of the motivation behind the criminalization of sex work has to do with reactionary castigation of women, minorities and the poor. This is evidenced by the history of laws explicitly banning it, which didn't exist prior to about 100 years ago in the US. It is very much like the drug war in that sense.

What makes me sad is that this law won't change how people view sex workers. It seems that they are treated as trash or treated as helpless. Both are dehumanizing, and it's about time they were treated as human beings with respect and dignity.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

The Nordic model put in place by the EU has good intentions and will work at fixing some of the problem, but sadly it doesn't fix underlying structural issues.
The Nordic model is problematic, and the UN-backed Global Commission on HIV and the Law concluded it failed in many respects in Sweden. Also, much of it is informed by the same "radical feminism" that is sex negative and transphobic.

[Tenka]

I only don't support the criminalisation of Johns in today's context because I fear it'll lead to more violence against the prostitutes. I would like some information on how the whole thing turned out in Sweden. Naturally, criminalisation of prostitution as such is reactionary shit.

I have heard that bourgeois legal brothels receive a lot of their supply from international sex traffickers. What I have said in another thread on this issue, though it is obvious, is that the problem of prostitution cannot be solved under capitalism. And it is a problem. Without capitalism, it simply would not exist; sex would be sex for sex's sake and would not be involved in any manner of exchange except perhaps in the realm of human psychology.

P.S. Regarding getting "the full value of one's labour" in sex work--leaving aside the fact that this has nothing to do with Socialism/Communism--how would that be estimated?

[Tenka]

Addendum: I said "without capitalism it simply would not exist", which is patently false, because it existed before full-blown capitalism. However, its existence does require the existence of some of the things that a Communist revolution shall abolish/nullify, such as exchange value and whatnot.

[Rafiq]

But sex work can exist in a socialist society; they would just be given the full value of their labor in the resources distributed.

Sex isn't a form of "labor" which creates value, or would you deny women their own sexual identity?

[radiocaroline]

I believe law enforcement should be focused on the vulgar souls, who exploit women sending them out to sell their bodies for cold, hard cash and keeping most of it out of their own greed.

This is still highly common in places where prostitution and sex work is actually illegal such as England, where many of these exploitative pimp cases are have appeared in my local area over the years.

As said, it is impossible to prevent this crime from happening in a capitalist society where the urban female working class is marginalised in their low wage careers and has to turn to prostitution in order to survive the constraints of life.

Laws will never be able to prevent these crimes in a capitalist society where the motive is solely for money, and most crimes in capitalist societies share the exact same motive.
I do believe it is important however to prevent implementing laws which could limit a woman's sexual and social liberation.

[DOOM]

But sex work can exist in a socialist society; they would just be given the full value of their labor in the resources distributed.

Why would a woman choose to sell her sexuality to men she doesn't even wan't to have sex with? This is quite odd.

[Rosa Partizan]

stop this super duper annoying bullshit like "sex negative, reactionary feminists", will you, for God's damn motherfucking sake? You make me wanna throw up in my mouth with this bullshit coming from sex "positive" feminists celebrating prostitution, pornography and any other pseudo empowering bullshit upholding patriarchal images and norms.

I am as sex positive as one can be, I enjoy sex a lot and I want other women to enjoy it, too, to express their sexuality, to not have to sleep with someone they don't want to in order to be able to pay their rent. Communer explained some stuff really nicely, however I don't know if I can make my point the same way I could make it in German, but I'll try anyway.

We live in a world where women are all about being desireable, being beautiful, while men are all about being strong, powerful, rich. This condition is SO fucking reflected in prostitution, what other reason could there be that about 95% of all sex workers are female? You know this Oscar Wilde-quote that goes "Everything in this world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power".

Even if you make the conditions for sex workers as fair as possible, men buying sex from women will always maintain a patriarchal female image, making the women the weaker part of this deal, since the one with the money is ALWAYS in the better position. You can give sex workers all rights there can be, in the end the message will be, women are the sexual prize and men are the hunters. This goes all together with this other bullshit like pick up artists, how to trick women into bed, blah blah. All this stuff has one thing in common: female sexuality and female desire will be marginalized. And MONEY is supposed to legitimate this marginalization.

But excuse me, fuck no?!?!?! I'm never ever gonna consent to this bullshit, because living your FREE sexuality, not having to pretend anything, not having to hide your own desires, not allowing anyone to ignore your sexual preferences because they fucking paid for that, this is the real deal. In true consent, in true lust, true desire, there is no money involved. As soon as there is money involved, the side getting paid for it will always have to compromise. And because I am such a TRULY SEX POSITIVE feminist, I don't buy this pro-sexwork bullshit. My own sexuality and the sexuality of my fellow gender is way too important to be SOLD to anyone.

[Sasha]

And criminalisering prostitution helps the fight against patriarchy how? And help prostitutes how?
No one is denying prostitution is a negative thing, so is heroin, I can still make a legitimate argument that legalization of heroin is better than criminalization.

[DOOM]

And criminalisering prostitution helps the fight against patriarchy how? And help prostitutes how?
No one is denying prostitution is a negative thing, so is heroin, I can still make a legitimate argument that legalization of heroin is better than criminalization.

There's a difference between getting yourself high and paying a woman, effectively coercing her, to have sex with you.

[Rosa Partizan]

In Germany, legalization made everything worse, human trafficking literally exploded, as well as it did in other European countries where it was legalized. I'm ALL for protecting and helping sex workers, be it female or male ones. Of course, as long as they do this job, it's all about keeping them safe and sane, having them get medical support, insurance, blah blah, all this shit they need to get along and to have their rights. But at least in Germany, there are huge social problems among prostitutes that are by no means erased by supporting their rights as sex workers. The huge majority of them is from foreign countries. Many of them have a low level of education and language skills, many of them have plenty of experience with domestic/sexual/emotional abuse, even BEFORE they started this job. In a study, 2/3 of the sex workers who were examined had post traumatic issues, the same as they were seen with war veterans. So, only creating a safe environment is just like treating a symptom, but not the root of this problem. Offer education to those who need it, language courses, psychological help, etc etc and so on. There are so many sex workers who would not do this job if there were legit alternatives.

[Sasha]

Obviously, and not visiting prostitutes should be an importanting thing for revolutionary leftists while not doing heroin should be a lot lower on the priority scale, but "we don't like it" shouldn't equal "the state should ban it", heck, even "but its harmful" shouldnt equal "the state should ban it" if the ban is even more harmful to the women involved.
Foodstamps are a bad thing, doesn't mean you should ban foodstamps, means you should spend your time and energy on making them obsolete, same with prostitution, you don't need to approve of prostitution to make it legal, maybe you can fight it even better when its legal.
People should make dicisions on whether legalize things on established facts on effectives and harm, not personal morals, that's the reactionaries game.

[Tim Cornelis]

Why would a woman choose to sell her sexuality to men she doesn't even wan't to have sex with? This is quite odd.

Why do you presume she doesn't want to have sex with him? For instance, I wouldn't mind being a self-directed sex worker if it weren't for the stigma, I imagine there's sex workers or women whom feel the same. I doubt they are a majority amongst sex workers though.


There's a difference between getting yourself high and paying a woman, effectively coercing her, to have sex with you.

Pushing this logic to its logical conclusion, I cannot consume any commodities since eating at McDonald's coerces the workers to make a hamburger for me, etc. All economic conduct in capitalism relies on "coercion" (I don't know if this is the correct word given the lack of direct force applied).

Again, there are women that enjoy having sex with random men and getting paid to do it is an added bonus -- they enjoy being a sex worker. For instance, I was discussing sex with a handicapped friend of mine and advised him to look up this particular brothel I read about years ago with sex workers being interviewed stating they found their work to be pleasurable. I don't see any reason why my advice to hire such a sex worker to my friend was wrong.

I also don't see why these women should be discouraged from doing sex work.

[Sasha]

all the back forth on wheter some sex-workers dont mind it is really besides the point, no one should deny that the mayority of sex-workers, esp those on the lower end of the wages, dont do it because its such a comfortable job, many are explicitely forced, almost all are coerced in some way or another, the point is that this is at least as bad in places where its illegal, and its pretty telling that even in this thread people who support criminalizing prostitution in some way only point towards the figures of coercion in countries that legalized and dont show other places do better.
yes, its still bad here, very bad, again, we, or at least I don't deny that in the slightest, but at least its out in the open, we can help prostitutes without that they feel they can get arrested, same with educating johns, yes, its still very very bad out there, but so is it over where its illegal, but at least we have some tools, some start to make it better.
over where its illegal, completely or "swedish" model "success" comes down to "as long as we dont see it it doesnt exist", fuck that.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

stop this super duper annoying bullshit like "sex negative, reactionary feminists", will you, for God's damn motherfucking sake?
What I see from most anti-sex work feminists is just a reactionary view dressed up in feminist jargon, and they typically are quite happy to ally themselves with the bourgeois state top advance their agenda.


You make me wanna throw up in my mouth with this bullshit coming from sex "positive" feminists celebrating prostitution, pornography and any other pseudo empowering bullshit upholding patriarchal images and norms.
There's nothing inherently patriarchal about, say, pornography. As feminists, we should be concerned about patriarchy when it's expressed through porn rather than porn itself. You're conflating two different things.


And because I am such a TRULY SEX POSITIVE feminist, I don't buy this pro-sexwork bullshit. My own sexuality and the sexuality of my fellow gender is way too important to be SOLD to anyone.
How nice of you to decide that on behalf of all women. My body, my choice. I don't care of you're a man or a woman, you have no right to tell me what to do with my body or sexuality, even if I do something out of economic necessity.

[Tenka]

I think the point is that it's mostly not a choice, and it subdues the sexuality of prostitutes whilst glorifying that of Johns, reproducing patriarchy (even if the prostitutes are male. The fact of the comparitively rare female John shan't be gone into here). I'm all for bringing the standards of general sex workers up to those of the other exploited labourers, but people who buy sex are scum (no matter that they can be "valuable customers" to the rare, empowered and privileged prostitute). Again, I would like some report as to how this worked out in Sweden (stats or analysis or something).

P.S. (forgive this atrocious way of writing, please) Buying pornography is by no means the same as directly buying sexual contact, which is akin to rape; though the majority of pornography reflects the same patriarchal attitudes toward sex.
edit: and of course, it is likely that only shameful middle-aged married men generally pay money for pornography since the internet became widely available.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I think the point is that it's mostly not a choice
If I'm economically forced to do sex work, it's still my decision to make. "No, dear, you can't do that with your body" is bullshit whether it comes from a man or a woman. I don't see a difference between Victorian moralists and anti-sex work feminists in that regard.


Buying pornography is by no means the same as directly buying sexual contact, which is akin to rape"If you give me money, I'll have sex with you" is consent. Now if we're talking about sex trafficking, where people are kidnapped and forced to do sex work, then there's no consent there.


though the majority of pornography reflects the same patriarchal attitudes toward sex.Yes, but that's not inherent to pornography.

[Sabot Cat]

"If you give me money, I'll have sex with you" is consent. Now if we're talking about sex trafficking, where people are kidnapped and forced to do sex work, then there's no consent there.

Obfuscating the distinction between those who see sex work as an okay gig among other choices, and others who are forced into sexual slavery is pretty much the centerpiece of the opponent's arguments. It's a type of equivocation I find especially disconcerting because there's a fine line between institutionalized rape and consensual sex for money.

[Rafiq]

Prostitution will always be a logical component of existing sexual relations - so long as they exist, as will prostitution. The dynamics of class and social power associated, or that are integrally a part of sex necessitate the control of female sexuality and the identification of 'submissive' roles in sex (be they male or female) with (bourgeois) femininity, social submission and slavery. But in such a dynamic way, that the female sexual identity is rendered obsolete and that as such, only men can enjoy sex, and the role of women is to regulate the magnitude from which men can engage in it. Even now, with modern bourgeois-liberalism, the 'sexual freedom' of women is an illusion (though, social conservatism is never an answer) in that it plays an integral role in the alienation of their sexuality.

But we should shed no tears for the pimps that fall victim to the state, or the traffickers of prostitution. The laws passed do not criminalize acts of sex workers, but their clients. I fail to see what is 'wrong' here.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But we should shed no tears for the pimps that fall victim to the state, or the traffickers of prostitution. The laws passed do not criminalize acts of sex workers, but their clients. I fail to see what is 'wrong' here.
I don't think the state should criminalize sex acts between consenting adults just because money is involved. I don't think anti-sex work feminists should ally themselves with the same bourgeois state that upholds the capitalist system which creates poverty in the first place.

[#FF0000]

And criminalisering prostitution helps the fight against patriarchy how? And help prostitutes how?

Everyone in this thread is talking about criminalizing prostitution but that's not what the issue is at all -- we're talking about criminalizing johns.

It's obvious (or should be) to everyone on every side of this discussion that making prostitutes criminals makes their lives much harder and that much more dangerous, and no one is suggesting that we do this.


Now if we're talking about sex trafficking, where people are kidnapped and forced to do sex work, then there's no consent there.

Except that rates of human trafficking are higher in countries where prostitution is legal.


Yes, but that's not inherent to pornography.Do you expect pornography that does not reinforce/reify patriarchal norms and roles to be anything but the exception in a patriarchal society?

EDIT: hooray for me for using "reify" in a sentence for the first time ever I hope I did it right *celebration*

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Except that rates of human trafficking are higher in countries where prostitution is legal.
Sex work and sex trafficking are linked, but they're not identical. Consent can be given by a sex worker, but that doesn't include those who have been kidnapped and forced to perform sex work.


Do you expect pornography that does not reinforce/reify patriarchal norms and roles to be anything but the exception in a patriarchal society?
The problem remains one of ideology and not one of pornography, and it again comes close to telling adults what they can and can't enjoy sexually. If someone wants to get off on watching other people consensually perform sex acts on video, is this a concern for the state or moralist busybodies?

My experience of anti-sex work feminists is they are also anti-sex in general, especially when women are choosing to have sex in ways the anti-sex feminists disapprove of. Also, they tend to be transphobic.

[Os Cangaceiros]

It must be hard as hell to prosecute johns, unless they're crudely hollering their intentions from a street curb or something. Most escorts know how to facilitate transactions in a way that minimizes risk of prosecution both for them and their customers, through coded language and such. National Geo had a program on prostitution in Las Vegas recently that was somewhat interesting.

[#FF0000]

Sex work and sex trafficking are linked, but they're not identical. Consent can be given by a sex worker, but that doesn't include those who have been kidnapped and forced to perform sex work.

Yes that is exactly what I said.


The problem remains one of ideology and not one of pornography, and it again comes close to telling adults what they can and can't enjoy sexually. If someone wants to get off on watching other people consensually perform sex acts on video, is this a concern for the state or moralist busybodies?
Uhhh I dunno if I'd say it's a matter of ideology, but I get what you're saying. In any case, no one is saying we ought to ban porn or criminalize sex workers though, like I said. But I think it's pretty obvious that porn as it exists now and in the context it exists in (patriarchal, image-oriented culture) is pretty fuckin' troublesome. I mean, yo, porn today is markedly more violent and overtly degrading to women than the porn of even a few decades ago.


My experience of anti-sex work feminists is they are also anti-sex in general, especially when women are choosing to have sex in ways the anti-sex feminists disapprove of. Also, they tend to be transphobic.And my experience with sex-positive feminists is that they are liberals who blah blah blah see how productive that is?

You should probably engage with the people you are talking to here and now.

EDIT: I think that talking about these problems in terms of legalizing/criminalizing is entirely too narrow, fwiw.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yes that is exactly what I said.
Then we're on the same page there.


no one is saying we ought to ban porn or criminalize sex workers though
No one on here, perhaps, but are we to limit the discussion to only things being advocated here on this board?


I mean, yo, porn today is markedly more violent and overtly degrading to women than the porn of even a few decades ago.
Some porn, for sure, but we also have feminist porn made by women, trans* porn made by trans people who reject the transmisogyny of mainstream porn that portrays trans people, etc.


You should probably engage with the people you are talking to here and now.
I am, but I'm also talking about larger patterns I've seen.

[#FF0000]

No one on here, perhaps, but are we to limit the discussion to only things being advocated here on this board?

Yeah we should probably address what people are saying within this discussion first.



Some porn, for sure, but we also have feminist porn made by women, trans* porn made by trans people who reject the transmisogyny of mainstream porn that portrays trans people, etc.

Yes but this is and will only ever be the exception in a patriarchal society.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Yeah we should probably address what people are saying within this discussion first.
How do we do that, considering we're discussing something taking place at the EU level?


Yes but this is and will only ever be the exception in a patriarchal society.
Yes, but that doesn't change what the root issue is. And it isn't pornography.

[#FF0000]

How do we do that, considering we're discussing something taking place at the EU level?

We could start by talking about what's actually taking place at the EU level, which is parliament voting to criminalize buying sex,as in johns, and not sex workers. Most posts in this thread act as if people are talking about laws targeting sex workers and that is not the case.


Yes, but that doesn't change what the root issue is. And it isn't pornography. Like I said earlier, pornography itself plays a role in the root issue by reifying patriarchal notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. I mean, like I said, I'll agree that the problem isn't just the concept of pornography, but that when we talk about pornography in general now, we're talking about images that are increasingly more violent and degrading to women, and images that are absolutely ubiquitous as long as one has an internet connection.

[Tim Cornelis]

We could start by talking about what's actually taking place at the EU level, which is parliament voting to criminalize buying sex,as in johns, and not sex workers. Most posts in this thread act as if people are talking about laws targeting sex workers and that is not the case.

Surely it does target sex workers. Less demand, less clientèle = less income. Less demand for open and transparent brothels = more demand for clandestine and obscure sex work. It does target sex workers in these ways.

[Per Levy]

And because I am such a TRULY SEX POSITIVE feminist, I don't buy this pro-sexwork bullshit. My own sexuality and the sexuality of my fellow gender is way too important to be SOLD to anyone.

good for you that you arnt in a situation where sexwork might be the only way to survive and to make a living. good that you can decide for anyone else what they should do with their body.
makeing things harder for sex workers, and yes criminalizing their income and therefore makeing it harder to make the money they need to live means makeing things harder for sex workers, without giving an alternative is pretty weak and idealist.

[#FF0000]

Surely it does target sex workers. Less demand, less clientèle = less income. Less demand for open and transparent brothels = more demand for clandestine and obscure sex work. It does target sex workers in these ways.

I meant targeting sex workers for prosecution.

Keep in mind less demand would also mean less human trafficking.

This point was kind of glossed over earlier but it's, uh, kind of important I think, because it would suggest that there's a lot more to guaranteeing the safety of women who are, voluntarily or (more often) otherwise, than just saying "well legalize it and give them blood tests every so often".

[#FF0000]

good for you that you arnt in a situation where sexwork might be the only way to survive and to make a living. good that you can decide for anyone else what they should do with their body.

Meanwhile you are literally here acting as if you speak for sex workers, advocating for something that most sex workers in the world do not want because most sex workers do not want to be sex workers.

[Per Levy]

Meanwhile you are literally here acting as if you speak for sex workers, advocating for something that most sex workers in the world do not want because most sex workers do not want to be sex workers.

and here you are acting like i dont know that, i know that very well. i know sex workers and none of them want to do this but need to in order to survive. and in makeing things harder for them wont make things better for them.

[#FF0000]

and here you are acting like i dont know that, i know that very well. i know sex workers and none of them want to do this but need to in order to survive. and in makeing things harder for them wont make things better for them.

"In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps (Raymond et al, 2002). "No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: "Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything.""

oh

also yeah i guess i forgot that take-home pay is the primary thing a victim of human trafficking is concerned with

[#FF0000]

holy shit are you guys really so dumb/prideful that you can't actually look at this issue and recognize "woah it's actually a little bit more complex than MAKE IT LEGAL or MAKE IT ILLEGAL"

[Rosa Partizan]

and here you are acting like i dont know that, i know that very well. i know sex workers and none of them want to do this but need to in order to survive. and in makeing things harder for them wont make things better for them.

Excuse me, but did u actually READ what I wrote? Did any of those guys attacking my posts?

I'm ALL like, give those women legit alternatives, perspectives, education, language etc. It's horrifying how many sex workers here cant speak German. haunting johns and not doing anything else will not work, obviously. Integrate them into society, thats the most important, I never claimed anything else.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

We could start by talking about what's actually taking place at the EU level, which is parliament voting to criminalize buying sex,as in johns, and not sex workers.
It targets sex workers indirectly, and argues in favor of the power of the bourgeois state, the defender of the very system that creates poverty and commodification in the first place. That's pure liberalism, the idea that the bourgeois state can fix problems created by the bourgeois system itself.

As I've said, if consent can be given in exchange for money, then those buying sex have committed no crime. A pimp or trafficker forcing women to have sex against their will isn't the same thing as a woman exchanging sex for money, even if done out of economic necessity.


Like I said earlier, pornography itself plays a role in the root issue by reifying patriarchal notions of sex, gender, and sexuality. I mean, like I said, I'll agree that the problem isn't just the concept of pornography
So the idea that humans can get aroused by watching other people have sex is part of the problem? What fucking prudery!


but that when we talk about pornography in general now, we're talking about images that are increasingly more violent and degrading to women, and images that are absolutely ubiquitous as long as one has an internet connection.
I think a lot of porn is sexist, but the problem is sexism not porn. That's like saying films and tv transmit bourgeois ideology, therefore the problem is films and tv.

[Rosa Partizan]

holy shit are you guys really so dumb/prideful that you can't actually look at this issue and recognize "woah it's actually a little bit more complex than MAKE IT LEGAL or MAKE IT ILLEGAL"

Marry me!

[Tim Cornelis]

I meant targeting sex workers for prosecution.

Keep in mind less demand would also mean less human trafficking.

I'm not sure if that's true. If all of the EU criminalises prostitution in the same way, human traffickers would still want money. Though perhaps presently they choose the countries with the most liberal legislation concerning sex work, but if these are evened out over almost an entire continent I imagine they would continue doing it on the same scale.


"In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps (Raymond et al, 2002). "No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: "Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything.""

oh

also yeah i guess i forgot that take-home pay is the primary thing a victim of human trafficking is concerned with

I don't see why the majority of opinion is valid because it's a majority. The majority of women in Chile are against abortion.

[Sabot Cat]

holy shit are you guys really so dumb/prideful that you can't actually look at this issue and recognize "woah it's actually a little bit more complex than MAKE IT LEGAL or MAKE IT ILLEGAL"

This is a pretty silly instance of the golden means fallacy, considering we're discussing the merits of a particular law that can only either be passed or not.

Also: would self-employed sex workers be prosecuted under this law?

[#FF0000]

This is a pretty silly instance of the golden means fallacy, considering we're discussing the merits of a particular law that can only either be passed or not.

I'd take this statement seriously if people were actually talking about the law which criminalizes johns and not the imaginary "put all sex workers in jail" law

(gonna say more when I'm not at work)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

"In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation
So an anti-sex work organization founded by sex-negative feminists conducted a study that came to conclusions that they already had. Amazing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I'd take this statement seriously if people were actually talking about the law which criminalizes johns and not the imaginary "put all sex workers in jail" law
If both parties to a sex act are consenting adults, why should one of them be criminalized?

I believe a sex worker has the ability to give meaningful consent. I believe sex work and trafficking may be linked, but they're not the same thing.

I have no issue with those trying to put an end to women being kidnapped, trafficked, and forced to perform sex work. I do have an issue with how they knowingly and deceitfully conflate all sex work and sex workers with trafficking and trafficking victims.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Groups like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, whose study was quoted in this thread, make no distinction between women being forced to perform sex work and women who choose to perform sex work.

This is problematic. If I choose to perform a sex act for money, they believe I have no right to make that decision about my own body. My own body.

And they ally themselves with the bourgeois state to achieve their goals. The same bourgeois state that defends the right of the owning class to exploit the working class.

Look into the roots of that group. They come out of groups in the 1980s that thought pornography was inherently bad. Their current board of directors includes a "radical feminist" who allied with the reactionary Reagan Administration to strip government health care coverage from trans people, and has repeatedly attacked trans women over the years.

[#FF0000]

So an anti-sex work organization founded by sex-negative feminists conducted a study that came to conclusions that they already had. Amazing.

wait wait wait wait

Are you suggesting that the majority of sex workers do sex work willingly?

(last post from work)

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

wait wait wait wait Are you suggesting that the majority of sex workers do sex work willingly?
I think the majority do it out of economic necessity, which is true of workers in general.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

No. The sentence has to be: As long as there will be gender inequality and women will be considered sexual prey, there will be prostitution. Why is it that plenty of men don't use this "service"? Improving the public image of women, their needs and desires will make prostitution unnecessary. P. only exists because there is demand by guys who don't give a fuck about women's sexuality and consensual desire.

I was going to write a long response comrade, but my internet messed up, so: Prostitution doesn't exist only (or even mainly) because of a culture of patriarchy (there are a lot of working class members [at least in my personal experience] who are aware of the equal realities and importance of female sexuality). Prostitution exists because the capitalist economic system which necessitates large numbers of reserve army of laborers, produces conditions which create a mass of starving, downtrodden desperate and mostly nasty people, who are willing to rent their bodies for whatever kind of humiliating labor to ensure their DNA's continuance. Whether the Ruling Class upholds traditions of the patriarchy or not, the masses of people who give our culture form, don't have much to say about it.

If you want to criticize today's "guys" who act like humanity's understanding of sexuality are still in the Middle Ages, I don't know to what extent you should waste your energy moralistically blaming those who work 9-5 and have probably never seen a university from the inside (although, for reasons of the advancing needs of the modern 'post-industrial' economy this is a declining, albeit, in my personal experience, significant social group). Much more important imo is to explain to them that the proletarian revolution is not only in their personal interest as workers, but a great cause for human liberation as well.

[Luís Henrique]

No. The sentence has to be: As long as there will be gender inequality and women will be considered sexual prey, there will be prostitution. Why is it that plenty of men don't use this "service"? Improving the public image of women, their needs and desires will make prostitution unnecessary. P. only exists because there is demand by guys who don't give a fuck about women's sexuality and consensual desire.

So, do you think that gender inequality can be abolished under the rule of capital?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

But we should shed no tears for the pimps that fall victim to the state, or the traffickers of prostitution.

We shouldn't be shedding tears for pimps, but we have to understand that it is the State that creates pimping, and that it creates them by not enforcing the trade rights of prostitutes. Since a prostitute cannot walk into a police station and demand the cops arrest a non-paying client (as commoplace commodity sellers can), the need for a parallel security system arises, and consequently the opportunity for exploitation.


The laws passed do not criminalize acts of sex workers, but their clients. I fail to see what is 'wrong' here.

That is what they seem to say in a superficial reading, but it we should be able to see that removing a person's livelihood is a way to punish them. In the case of the much touted "Swedish model", laws effectively forbid prostitutes from even renting a home, for the landlords are forced to evict them lest they be accused of "pimping". Also, prostitutes are effectively forbidden from working in teams where they take turns in selling service and keeping watch on the other, for the watcher is open to being accused of "pimping".

I also don't know how the Swedish State can gather evidence of "buying of sexual services" if they don't have cameras installed on private bedrooms - unless they rely merely on the previous record of prostitutes. I wonder what will happen when some smart guy hires a prostitute merely for talking with her while filming the event, and then sues back the State when it attempts to frame him as a "john".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

I think the majority do it out of economic necessity, which is true of workers in general.

Indeed.

The argument for criminalising the buying of sexual services is not only sexist, but also classist: it is founded on the thought that "our" jobs are "legitimate" while theirs is not. Instead of realising that we are all prostitutes of one kind of other, it fosters division, opposing "honest workers" to "illegitimate" ones.

*******************

It also relies on a very shaky understanding of "coercion": at times, economic pressure is coercion (and so makes the buying of sexual services "akin to rape"); but, when convenient, it is not (so that making the sale of a service impossible by criminalising its purchase, thus forcing the frustrated seller into either starving or doing something else - cleaning floors, collecting garbage, some other kind of menial, grunt, low-paid, socially stigmatised labour - is not "coercion"...)

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

wait wait wait wait

Are you suggesting that the majority of sex workers do sex work willingly?

Do you have any actual evidence that it is not so - at least on the same level that the majority of cotton pickers, sugar-cane cutters, house maids, garbage collectors, janitors, do their work "willingly"?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Meanwhile you are literally here acting as if you speak for sex workers, advocating for something that most sex workers in the world do not want because most sex workers do not want to be sex workers.

And you know that, exactly how?

And what does it mean, "do not want to be sex workers"? That they want to be cleaning ladies, tobacco pickers, kitchen helpers?

Luís Henrique

[Tenka]

Yes, all workers are in effect selling themselves. We're all prostitutes in that sense. But we don't all have to sell sex. I am not someone who would hold sex as something sacred (nothing is sacred), but there is a huge qualitative difference between being a cleaning lady or whatever and granting strangers use of your orifices and private parts in order to survive. Not to say these things are mutually exclusive....

And, as it stands, I view the criminalisation of the John as worthless, however obviously less completely reactionary than the criminalisation of prostitution.

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, all workers are in effect selling themselves. We're all prostitutes in that sense. But we don't all have to sell sex. I am not someone who would hold sex as something sacred (nothing is sacred), but there is a huge qualitative difference between being a cleaning lady or whatever and granting strangers use of your orifices and private parts in order to survive. Not to say these things are mutually exclusive....

I doubt very much that someone who works as a prostitute cannot find a job as a cleaning lady, if she wants so (and is OK with the huge loss of income it would entail). So why aren't prostitutes leaving the trade in throngs to work as cleaning ladies (or agricultural workers, or garbage collectors, etc)?


And, as it stands, I view the criminalisation of the John as worthless, however obviously less completely reactionary than the criminalisation of prostitution.

Yes, if we are going to build a scale of reactionarism, outright criminalisation of prostitution is worse.

In the case we are discussing, however, the options are, 1) indirect criminalisation and marginalisation of prostitutes via criminalisation of the purchase of sexual services, and 2) maintenance of the status quo (which is, for the most part, semi-legality). So outright criminalisation of prostitution is not under debate.

What we ought to discuss, so, isn't whether the criminalisation of johns is better or worse than outright criminalisation of prostitution, but whether it is better or worse than the legalisation/regulation we have in Germany/Netherlands, or better and worse than the semilegality we have in most of the rest of Europe. For my part, I have absolutely no doubt that, with all the problems associated with both the German-Dutch model and good, old, rancid semilegality, they are both lesser evils when compared to the Nordic model of marginalisation of prostitutes.

We can, of course, and probably should, discuss what other legal measures could be taken, that would be more progressive than semilegality and/or the German-Dutch model. For my part, I would support complete decriminalisation of the trade (police enforcement for the commercial rights of prostitutes included), freedom of organisation, and regulation limited to public health issues.

But for the moment, we must oppose the proposed bill if we don't want to be part of a reactionary offensive against the working class in Europe.

Luís Henrique

[Firebrand]

The criminalisation of any aspect of prostitution relies on a basic assumption that sex is something shameful. Aside from the basic stigma attached to ex there is really no difference between sex work and any other sort of work. If you take away the issues that arise from legal marginalisation, it isn't even a very dangerous job if common sense precautions are taken. This is basically a manifestation of the shameful/important status that sex holds in our society that exists as a method for the ruling class to control the reproductive potential of the working class.

It is worth noting that rich people don't have prostitutes they have mistresses, which is basically the same thing except totally legal because they are being paid in diamond necklaces and cruises, instead of cash to pay the rent.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

A Swedish sexworker on the criminalization of clients

7D7nOh57-I8

[Art Vandelay]

I don't think it can be denied that sex workers, make a living the way they do, due to coercion. Whether it is direct or economic coercion at play, only a fool would deny that sex workers tend to be socially, ethnically, and economically marginalized. Now, having said that, some sex workers do wish (for whatever reasons) to continue and perhaps even enjoy, their profession. While I think it is extremely important to analyse the societal factors which would lead an individual to make the choice to earn a living in such a fashion, the crux of the matter seems to be this: do the societal factors which influence one to become a sex worker, whatever they may be, override an individual's bodily autonomy? The only acceptable response, as far as I'm concerned, for a radical to give to this question, is no. Talk of power structures which exist and are tilted against the individuals in the sex industry (which manifests itself in the exchange process), seems to really miss the point. Power structures, within hetero-patriarchal society, will always be favored against women (who make up the overwhelming majority of sex workers), be it in regards to sex work or recreational sex, so I don't see how that brings much clarity to the discussion.

You cannot simply abstract (which inherently entails de-contextualizing), an aspect of an issue as multi-faceted and complex as this one, and use it to draw conclusions. When you abstract something, it must be abstracted as both a process in its own right, as well as a relation. Otherwise your analysis will be one sided and you will be unable to gain a greater understanding of the whole (the totality of the issue), from which you started. I think this has been happening quite often in this thread and is probably one of the reasons this discussion has seemed to consist of alot of people talking past one another.

As far as the Swedish model goes, I think while somewhat progressive, it obviously has some issues, alot stemming from its radical feminist baggage. One of the biggest problems with it, is that unless such a proposal is made in conjunction with an explicitly anti-capitalist/Marxist program, then it seems to be marred in a certain liberalism; its end goal to turn sex work into another profitable and viable capitalist venture, while our goal is the end of generalized commodity production and markets in their totality. On top of this, criminalizing demand but not supply, is an entirely contradictory approach. It also seems to have a negative (if not indirect) economic effect on sex workers. How someone could claim that criminalizing their demand, will not have a negative effect on their ability to make a living, is beyond me. I also think its important to touch on the fact, that I commented on above, that sex workers tend to be socially and ethnically marginalized. While 'brothels' (for lack of a better term) offer sex workers the opportunity to conduct their business in a safe environment, I think we need to keep in mind that not all sex workers will be able to work in such facilities, regardless of their legality. I recently watched a documentary, put out by the Canadian film board, called 'buying sex' and one of the former sex workers made this point. In essence what she said was don't fool yourself into thinking that the people I worked with down on hastings and main (a vancouver area known for its drugs and prostitution) will end up in these facilities. It is going to be white girls, with blonde hair and large breasts, who predominantly end up in them. The aboriginal women, and the others who are socially and ethnically marginalized, will still be on the streets. In Sweden, we've also seen the negative repercussions of sex workers being kicked from their places of residences, due to the fact that their landlords fear being prosecuted as pimps.

What it comes down to, and what is obvious to all of us as radicals, is that to effectively end prostitution, we need to destroy the market which facilitates its exchange. In the context of capitalist society, telling sex workers to find another way to make a living, is the equivalent of telling a worker to stop selling his labor power, after all the two are the same thing. From a Marxist standpoint, especially as an individual who upholds the transitional program, the only effective course of action for us is to fight for decriminalization in the short term, in conjunction with the explicit and open fight for the destruction of capital. Our job isn't to fight against sex work, due to it being inherently oppressive and exploitative, but rather to elucidate the fact that it is merely another form of selling labor power. Sex workers merely produce a commodity, which is used up as it is being produced, as all service workers do. We need to fight for improved conditions for sex workers, while simultaneously placing this struggle into the context and need for a socialist transformation of society, sharpening and concretizing the antagonistic realities of the capitalist mode of production in the process.