Socialist approach to sex workers

[BobKKKindle$]

I want to discuss how we, as radicals aiming to liberate women from all forms of sexist oppression and abolish wage-labour, should approach sex workers. I've been thinking about this issue recently, after reading an article (http://www.afed.org.uk/org/org59.pdf) in Organise which included interviews with a professional dominatrix, and an activist working to organize sex workers.

I am of the opinion that, although there are many different forms of sex worker (ranging from women who periodically provide escort services in order to fund higher education or supplement their main income, to women who are engaged in bonded labour in developing countries) women generally enter sex work because they have no other form of work available. In this respect, I disagree with the argument put forward by some Anarchist groups - that women make a choice, and voluntarily enter into the sex trade, because the concept of "choice" only has meaning when other viable alternatives exist.

Sex work can sometimes take the form of wage labour, when women are employed by a brothel, or an authority figure who manages their appointments and negotiates the transaction with clients (commonly known as a "pimp") In such cases, like all other proletarians, sex workers are exploited - they are paid less than the value of their labour.

As our ultimate objective, we should therefore aim to eradicate exploitative sex work (that is, sex work where a wage-labour transaction exists) although it may be desirable to provide sex with no attached conditions for those seeking sexual gratification in a socialist society. However, in the transitional period, we should push for the complete legalization of sex work regardless of the service provided. When sex work is legal, women who are abused will be able to bring charges against the abuser without fear of negative legal repercussions, form unions in order to negotiate improvements in their working conditions and remuneration, and draw attention to the problems that they face. Sex work is closely connected with another issue of concern for socialists - immigration - as illegal immigrants are often employed in the sex trade (relative to the legal resident population) and those caught offering sex as a commodity are often deported to their countries of origin. Police have, in several cases, used cards displayed in phone booths to track down prostitutes by posing as clients, and, once they have located a prostitute working from home, force landlords to evict sex workers with the threat of legal punishment.

Clearly, then, legalizing sex work is a matter of the utmost importance for Socialists, and should be a demand of equal importance to removing restrictions on abortion. I would be interested to see whether anyone would actually argue for the continued restriction of sex work.

[jake williams]

I basically agree with your perspective here. We have to deal with a lot of immediate problems for women, and we shouldn't ever forget the complex societal implications of sex work (which are of course dependent on many factors of the general society), but I think it would almost certainly be an important societal function.

[Redmau5]

I would agree with your analysis, particularly with regards to the issue of choice. I highly doubt that most women would willingly choose to enter the sex industry if given a viable choice, and most are forced into prostitution primarily for economic reasons.

This has always been an issue of great interest for me, particularly as it seems to get very little coverage or analysis on the left.

[Coggeh]

I want to discuss how we, as radicals aiming to liberate women from all forms of sexist oppression and abolish wage-labour, should approach sex workers. I've been thinking about this issue recently, after reading an article (http://www.afed.org.uk/org/org59.pdf) in Organise which included interviews with a professional dominatrix, and an activist working to organize sex workers.

I am of the opinion that, although there are many different forms of sex worker (ranging from women who periodically provide escort services in order to fund higher education or supplement their main income, to women who are engaged in bonded labour in developing countries) women generally enter sex work because they have no other form of work available. In this respect, I disagree with the argument put forward by some Anarchist groups - that women make a choice, and voluntarily enter into the sex trade, because the concept of "choice" only has meaning when other viable alternatives exist.

Sex work can sometimes take the form of wage labour, when women are employed by a brothel, or an authority figure who manages their appointments and negotiates the transaction with clients (commonly known as a "pimp") In such cases, like all other proletarians, sex workers are exploited - they are paid less than the value of their labour.

As our ultimate objective, we should therefore aim to eradicate exploitative sex work (that is, sex work where a wage-labour transaction exists) although it may be desirable to provide sex with no attached conditions for those seeking sexual gratification in a socialist society. However, in the transitional period, we should push for the complete legalization of sex work regardless of the service provided. When sex work is legal, women who are abused will be able to bring charges against the abuser without fear of negative legal repercussions, form unions in order to negotiate improvements in their working conditions and remuneration, and draw attention to the problems that they face. Sex work is closely connected with another issue of concern for socialists - immigration - as illegal immigrants are often employed in the sex trade (relative to the legal resident population) and those caught offering sex as a commodity are often deported to their countries of origin. Police have, in several cases, used cards displayed in phone booths to track down prostitutes by posing as clients, and, once they have located a prostitute working from home, force landlords to evict sex workers with the threat of legal punishment.

Clearly, then, legalizing sex work is a matter of the utmost importance for Socialists, and should be a demand of equal importance to removing restrictions on abortion. I would be interested to see whether anyone would actually argue for the continued restriction of sex work.
Yes i agree , I think its of a great deal of importance to adopt this approach during the transitional period for reasons already stated .

[FriedFrog]

I think that there is a lot to be said for the idea of a sex workers union. The IWW already has an IU (690) for sex workers that aims to give solidarity and support to all sex workers, just for like any other worker.
Liberation of such an oppressive trade can only be complete through organisation, I feel. Of course if we're talking about a transitional period then the legalisation of prostitution would certainly help, just like bobkindles suggests, but that still leaves workers vulnerable to exploitation from pimps and bosses.

[Raúl Duke]

Why would an anarchist say that most people (or sex workers specifically) have a choise in what to work?

For most that's impossible under capitalism.

There are material reasons that compel people to work, if not you starve.
Some jobs are easier for some, some pay more than others, etc. Some jobs are accessible to you and others aren't.

I do agree that sex work should be treated like any other work: that it can be unionized, etc.

[SouthernBelle82]

I think you're right. It would help protect the women who do choose to go into that field for whatever their reasoning. I also think they should able to be unions.

[SouthernBelle82]

While I see what you're saying sometimes people do have choices. However now days I would agree more with you.


Why would an anarchist say that most people (or sex workers specifically) have a choise in what to work?

For most that's impossible under capitalism.

There are material reasons that compel people to work, if not you starve.
Some jobs are easier for some, some pay more than others, etc. Some jobs are accessible to you and others aren't.

I do agree that sex work should be treated like any other work: that it can be unionized, etc.

[Red October]

The IWW has a sex workers union. Sex workers are just that - workers. Hence, they should be fought for and organized just like a factory worker or janitor deserves. However, I think it would be very hard to organize with illegal sex workers such as prostitutes (in places where prostitution is illegal) because the illegality of their work would make it very hard (if not impossible) to gain any sort of bargaining rights, etc. Maybe there's a way to work around that, but I can't think of one. Plus, I doubt many of the large crime organizations that run the illegal sex trade are too friendly to unions.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not all such people are workers, of course. There are also members of the the petty-bourgeoisie among the "escort/prostitute" milieu.

Another problem is that even many of those who are workers are in an informal sector and/or have conditions of life that promote individualism moreso than say, a workers in a fast food restaurant.

And then the whole thing is tied up in the question of the communist approach to the "sex industry" more generally. I think this points in the right direction: The Question of Prostitution (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?151)

[Xiao Banfa]

This is an important topic. While I don't agree with criminilization of prostitutes, I get infuriated when some fucking anarchist tries to outdo me in social liberalism by saying there is absolutely no difference between someone packing shelves or someone opening their legs for someone they've never met before.

Sex is very personal, and as Bob Kindles said- where are the viable alternatives?

I believe in criminalising organised prostitution where surplus value is made but allowing individual acts of prostitution.

Legalised pimping is about as exploitative as you can get.

But you know it's cool to be really permissive, even to the detriment of someones personal dignity.:blackA:

[Marsella]

I believe in criminalising organised prostitution where surplus value is made but allowing individual acts of prostitution.Because individual acts of prostitution do not result in 'surplus value?!'


Legalised pimping is about as exploitative as you can get.

Exploitation is not a moral term.

So don't make it one.

[BobKKKindle$]

Because individual acts of prostitution do not result in 'surplus value?!'

Technically, no - "individual" prostitutes (that is, those that work independent of a pimp or brothel) are not engaged in the production of a commodity for a capitalist and do not sell their labour power - they sell a commodity in the form of a sexual service and so there is no "profit" involved. This transaction can be expressed as a basic circulation of commodity - C-M-C - the sex worker has a commodity (the sexual service which she is able to provide with her body) which she sells, in exchange for a sum of money (signified m) which she can use to purchase other commodities. This is distinct from capitalist production M-C-C'-M'

I agree, however, that there is no reason to draw a distinction between "organized" prostitution and "individual" prostitution - the lack of viable alternatives and the demand for sexual satisfaction means that "organized" prostitution will continue to exist despite its illegal status, and it's better for the women working in this industry if they are legal workers.

[Marsella]

Technically, no - "individual" prostitutes (that is, those that work independent of a pimp or brothel) are not engaged in the production of a commodity for a capitalist and do not sell their labour power - they sell a commodity in the form of a sexual service and so there is no "profit" involved. This transaction can be expressed as a basic circulation of commodity - C-M-C - the sex worker has a commodity (the sexual service which she is able to provide with her body) which she sells, in exchange for a sum of money (signified m) which she can use to purchase other commodities. This is distinct from capitalist production M-C-C'-M'

Which was why I said 'surplus value.'

My question was why we should be for banning prostitution when it creates surplus value, but when someone prostitues themselves we should argue for its legality.

How does this separate it? Do we call for the banning of McDonalds?

What do you mean about 'the lack of viable alternatives'? Viable alternatives meaning jobs?

[R_P_A_S]

so would there still be Pimps and Madams? you know or would this people be obsolete once sex work is legalized and unionized?

[R_P_A_S]

also an other question. lets say in the next few years.. a state of a country gets a governor that's able to push for the legalization of sex workers... obviously we would still be under capitalism and such. hmmm.. what would be the initial steps.. what would change etc?

[R_P_A_S]

what do you guys make of these comments by a girl-friend of mine. regarding the issue..

I just think that all sex workers, prostitutes, porn stars, escorts its just an easy way to make money. Get a real job. or two jobs whatever its necessary. but damn! have some self respect!

Why would I, as a woman want to legalize something that's so degrading? Men already think they can buy woman! Let's just make it legal then??? Then we can all come to realize that woman are JUST like pieces of meat!

Prostitutes chose to put themselves in this positions. so if they get slapped and abused by their pimps or customers they don't deserve help or support. they wanted to be in that situation. I cant feel bad for them. get a real job!

Obviously she is not like a socialist or looking at it the way we do. but this is the way a lot of woman think... sadly. what can we say?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Read the essay I linked to earlier and approach the issue from that (communist) direction.

[R_P_A_S]

thanks im reading it as we speak...

Now it seems to me that many people, Men and Women all believe that most of these women (prostitutes) chose this life style.. like they planned to sell their body and wouldn't have it other way. Obviously I find that hard to believe. But then again I, like you all. look at this from a communist point of view. And they are just obviously not.

I've met some prostitutes female and trans-gender. while i was held in police custody. And they opted to prostitute as opposed to making $6.75 an hour at a fast food restaurant. OK. Is that really the only reason? I mean there are jobs. shitty ones, low paying ones... but can it just be MONEY that drives a person to become a prostitute?

I mean we can go to the fucking ghettos and probably find many young girls working those shit jobs. How come they aren't prostitutes?
Better upbringing?
"Self respect" I hear this "self respect" thing a lot

Im just fucking confused.

[BobKKKindle$]

Lots of questions RPAS. As for the comments made by your friend, she is right in saying that prostitution is degrading, as sex workers often suffer abuse at the hands of their clients, but clearly she does not understand why women actually decide to enter the sex industry - it's not because they don't want to search for alternative employment or because they don't care about how society perceives women, rather, it's because they have no other choice. Making prostitution illegal will not change the sexist perceptions of women that are common in contemporary society, because prostitution will continue to exist in the form of an illegal industry, and these perceptions are, in any case, not formed solely by prostitution - men posses sexist attitudes as a result of their exposure to a wide range of influences, including advertising. It is precisely because the sex industry is so degrading that we need to legalize prostitution and organize workers, so they are able to reclaim their dignity.

I'd be interested to know whether your friend feels the same way about other professions that could be regarded as degrading, such as pornography.

If we want to help people understand prostitution, we need to encourage sex workers to speak about how they became prostitutes and the problems they face as workers in an illegal industry. We should try and provide them with the means to express their views through our political media and events - for example, by inviting them to speak at socialist discussion groups.

Maybe you could direct your friend to the article I specified in my opening post? I thought it was pretty good. Or maybe even show her this thread.


also an other question. lets say in the next few years.. a state of a country gets a governor that's able to push for the legalization of sex workers... obviously we would still be under capitalism and such. hmmm.. what would be the initial steps.. what would change etc?

There are already several countries (and US states) in which prostitution is legal - the most famous of which is the Netherlands.

[R_P_A_S]

Lots of questions RPAS. As for the comments made by your friend, she is right in saying that prostitution is degrading, as sex workers often suffer abuse at the hands of their clients, but clearly she does not understand why women actually decide to enter the sex industry - it's not because they don't want to search for alternative employment or because they don't care about how society perceives women, rather, it's because they have no other choice. Making prostitution illegal will not change the sexist perceptions of women that are common in contemporary society, because prostitution will continue to exist in the form of an illegal industry, and these perceptions are, in any case, not formed solely by prostitution - men posses sexist attitudes as a result of their exposure to a wide range of influences, including advertising. It is precisely because the sex industry is so degrading that we need to legalize prostitution and organize workers, so they are able to reclaim their dignity.

I'd be interested to know whether your friend feels the same way about other professions that could be regarded as degrading, such as pornography.

If we want to help people understand prostitution, we need to encourage sex workers to speak about how they became prostitutes and the problems they face as workers in an illegal industry. We should try and provide them with the means to express their views through our political media and events - for example, by inviting them to speak at socialist discussion groups.

Maybe you could direct your friend to the article I specified in my opening post? I thought it was pretty good. Or maybe even show her this thread.



There are already several countries (and US states) in which prostitution is legal - the most famous of which is the Netherlands.

thank you camarada! i always enjoy your post and views! and I think I will try that on my group meetings. I will try to bring in some prostitutes.

[jake williams]

I feel it only appropriate to mention the analogies and contrasts between "prostitution" and the traditional institutions of marriage.

[Raúl Duke]

This is an important topic. While I don't agree with criminilization of prostitutes, I get infuriated when some fucking anarchist tries to outdo me in social liberalism by saying there is absolutely no difference between someone packing shelves or someone opening their legs for someone they've never met before.

Sex is very personal, and as Bob Kindles said- where are the viable alternatives?

I believe in criminalising organised prostitution where surplus value is made but allowing individual acts of prostitution.

Legalised pimping is about as exploitative as you can get.

But you know it's cool to be really permissive, even to the detriment of someones personal dignity.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/BlackA.gifWho said I'm being "permissive, even to the detriment of someone's dignity"?

After all, I call for unions and legalization just so that prostitutes can at least have a means to fight for better conditions just like any other worker. Or do you prefer to let it stay "illegalized", which would do nothing to eliminate it, as long as capitalist monetary relations exist, thus depriving them and allowing them to be in a more easier position to be exploited even more?

Sex work, when you get down to it, is like any work: We are exploited either way and have someone telling us what to do or we don't get paid/eat.

Unless you are one of those petit-bourgoeisie prostitutes that CDL mentioned.

If to you prostitution is "shameful"; than so should all wage slavery be. We are the capitalist's "whores" doing what they want, getting exploited from our labor, because if not we die.

In the end, "shame" is a revolutionary emotion.

Although I too, believe that "pimps", etc should be eliminated; but, criminalization does nothing to eliminate that (i.e., in the US it's illegal but we still have both!). Only the abolishment of wage-slavery will.

SO the question is: Do you really think the criminalization of prostitution is going to solve the "prostitution question" (whether in a capitalist or "socialist" society?)?

[BobKKKindle$]

I feel it only appropriate to mention the analogies and contrasts between "prostitution" and the traditional institutions of marriage.

Interesting point - arguably, marriage is similar to prostitution, as it derives (at least in part, and to varying degrees) from economic necessity, especially in societies where women are unable to find work outside the home. Or, as Emma Goldman put it:


Marriage is primarily an economic arrangement an insurance pact. It differs from the ordinary life insurance agreement only in that it is more binding, more exacting. Its returns are insignificantly small compared with the investments. In taking out an insurance policy one pays for it in dollars and cents, always at liberty to discontinue payments. If, how ever, woman's premium is a husband, she pays for it with her name, her privacy, her self-respect, her very life, "until death doth part." Moreover, the marriage insurance condemns her to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social. Man, too, pays his toll, but as his sphere is wider, marriage does not limit him as much as woman. He feels his chains more in an economic sense.

[Dr Mindbender]

I'm probably going to attract a lot of flak here, but arent the motives and opportunities for work in the sex industry provided by capitalism?

That is to say, that without capitalism, it's unlikely that people would choose to enter those professions. At the risk of sounding elitist, I'd like to think that the motives for prostitution, stripping, porno acting etc would eventually ''die off'' in a post revolutionary scenario.

[Colonello Buendia]

I think prostitution is one of the most degrading things, however if done individually to keep your house and keep paying the bills etc. in an Ideal world there would be no selling of ones body but we're not in an ideal world therefore we need to work with what we've got. did you guys see footage of dutch prostitutes protesting under the "SEX WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!" posters? That brings me to my next point, prostitutes strippers etc. are workers and thus fall under our blanket they deserve the protection Industrial staff get.

[jake williams]

I'm probably going to attract a lot of flak here, but arent the motives and opportunities for work in the sex industry provided by capitalism?

That is to say, that without capitalism, it's unlikely that people would choose to enter those professions. At the risk of sounding elitist, I'd like to think that the motives for prostitution, stripping, porno acting etc would eventually ''die off'' in a post revolutionary scenario.
No, I think it's a valid consideration, even a strong possibility. This might be something we have to deal with. I will say though that I'm sure there are plenty of sex workers, especially in porn but not exclusively who enjoy their jobs. Porn differentiates from prostitution in two ways - first one need not actually interact with the consumer (and it's just plain less work), and second it can be reproduced indefinitely, especially with the internet. The production need not go up with the demand, so to speak, as much work is needed to provide for three people as is needed to provide for a billion (save basically trivial network access and computer system costs - we're talking about the woman, and again it's worth remembering, occasionally the man I'm sure).

Also, while capitalism might necessitate sex work, is it not possible that other societal factors one might(/should) want to get rid of cause the demonization of, and perhaps, hence aversion from it?

[BobKKKindle$]

Also, while capitalism might necessitate porn, is it not possible that other societal factors one might(/should) want to get rid of cause the demonization of, and perhaps, hence aversion from it?

Capitalism does not "necessitate" porn - erotic imagery, showing couples engaged in a range of sexual positions, dating to ancient civilization has been found through archaeological surveys. It's only recently that porn has become more widely available, for every social group. This should not surprise us and is certainly not a bad thing - sexual desire is an urge experienced by every human being. People will continue to demand erotic images in a post-revolutionary society and I think it will be viable to provide such a good without forcing anyone to engage in the production of pornographic media - even in a capitalist society, amateur pornography is produced and made available to anyone with an internet connection, with the full knowledge of the participants, despite the lack of financial reward.

[Pawn Power]

Another problem is that even many of those who are workers are in an informal sector and/or have conditions of life that promote individualism moreso than say, a workers in a fast food restaurant.

That is not entirely true. Most evidence points to failry strong social networks between sex workers in which they communicate and share stories and experiences on a regular basis.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Would you care to source this evidence?

Competition between, for example, dancers at a strip club is obviously much more intense than competition between cooks at a McDonald's.

[jake williams]

Capitalism does not "necessitate" porn - erotic imagery, showing couples engaged in a range of sexual positions, dating to ancient civilization has been found through archaeological surveys. It's only recently that porn has become more widely available, for every social group. This should not surprise us and is certainly not a bad thing - sexual desire is an urge experienced by every human being. People will continue to demand erotic images in a post-revolutionary society and I think it will be viable to provide such a good without forcing anyone to engage in the production of pornographic media - even in a capitalist society, amateur pornography is produced and made available to anyone with an internet connection, with the full knowledge of the participants, despite the lack of financial reward.
It was just a brain slip - I meant to say "capitalism might necessitate [otherwise unwanted] sex work". I agree completely with what you're saying here.

[RedDawn]

No, prostitution should not be legal! We should train prostitutes in other jobs.

Engels wrote to imagine an entire generation that has never known the possibility to buy the love of a woman. Truly that is a beautiful thing. We must not make sex a commodity. That is alienation, that is literal prostitution of your labor. The Soviet Union sought to train women in new jobs, just as we should. Checkout the work of revolutionary fighter Alexandra Kollantai:

"Kollantai was anxious that once the war was over, women should not just go back into the isolation of the family unit. For her the Zhenotdel had a crucial role to play in raising consciousness and drawing women into the running of society, as well as representing their interests within the party and the government. The work of the Zhenotdel was extremely diverse covering issues such as childcare, housing and public health. As a result of the pressure that it was able to exert, the soviet government in 1920 legalized abortion in state hospitals. It was also involved in fighting prostitution, a social problem that had begun to disappear immediately after the 1917 revolution but was growing due to desperate economic conditions exacerbated by the civil war.
Kollantai had written a series of articles on this issue in 1910 while in exile. Prostitution, she wrote, reduced women to "a simple instrument of pleasure". However, she opposed any legal sanctions. Prostitutes were victims of economic and social conditions, she argued. The revolutionary government had to concentrate on providing alternatives for women, encouraging them to train for jobs and develop their self-esteem as well as providing health care for those who required it.
The Zhenotdel used various measures to involve women in the party and in the running of society. These included delegate conferences of working-class and peasant women. Women were seconded to government departments and party work. Some would get permanent jobs while others would go back to use their experiences to raise the consciousness of other women. Young, literate, working-class women who had enthusiasm and energy were employed as volunteers to do 'outreach work' with other women in the countryside and remote parts of the country.
Although the Zhenotdel produced publications such as the newspaper 'Rabotnista' (woman worker) and the theoretical journal 'Kommunista', most women were illiterate, so discussions, exhibitions, slide shows, etc, were more effective in reaching women, especially peasants. Agit-trains, agit-boats and even agit-tents in the desert were used to spread the word.
There were particular problems with regard to reaching Muslim women in Central Asia. Volunteers were attacked by men with wild dogs and boiling water and some were even hacked to death. Zhenotdel workers had to adapt to this dangerous situation by meeting women secretly in bathhouses."


http://socialistalternative.org/publications/women/


When the Soviet Union collapsed, there was suddenly an overnight flood of prostitutes in Russia and the Eastern bloc due to the lack of jobs created by capitalism.


As for an ad-hoc solution under capitalist, women should be brought out of prostitution and be given better jobs and we should fight for them. If that is not an option, yes they should be unionized, whether prostitution is legal or not.


As for under socialism, there is no way that prostitution should be legal.

[Dros]

I'm probably going to attract a lot of flak here, but arent the motives and opportunities for work in the sex industry provided by capitalism?

That is to say, that without capitalism, it's unlikely that people would choose to enter those professions. At the risk of sounding elitist, I'd like to think that the motives for prostitution, stripping, porno acting etc would eventually ''die off'' in a post revolutionary scenario.

I disagree. A lot of people go in to porn for fun. I don't see any reason why prostitution/sex work needs/will go away under socialism. The difference will be that the economic factors that drive people there will go away. Some people enjoy it and I don't think there is anything wrong with sex work in and of itself. It only becomes degrading/exploitative under capitalism and that is true for ALL work.

[R_P_A_S]

what if some woman want to make a living by having sex? even if we do offer them training and jobs.??

[Cold]

Why not just give them the freedom of choice? I believe some services should be provided to help those who want to get out of the sex industry. Like someone else said, its mainly due to economic reasons.

[careyprice31]

I disagree with the argument put forward by some Anarchist groups - that women make a choice, and voluntarily enter into the sex trade, because the concept of "choice" only has meaning when other viable alternatives exist.

As our ultimate objective, we should therefore aim to eradicate exploitative sex work (that is, sex work where a wage-labour transaction exists) although it may be desirable to provide sex with no attached conditions for those seeking sexual gratification in a socialist society. However, in the transitional period, we should push for the complete legalization of sex work regardless of the service provided. When sex work is legal, women who are abused will be able to bring charges against the abuser without fear of negative legal repercussions, form unions in order to negotiate improvements in their working conditions and remuneration, and draw attention to the problems that they face. Sex work is closely connected with another issue of concern for socialists - immigration - as illegal immigrants are often employed in the sex trade (relative to the legal resident population) and those caught offering sex as a commodity are often deported to their countries of origin. Police have, in several cases, used cards displayed in phone booths to track down prostitutes by posing as clients, and, once they have located a prostitute working from home, force landlords to evict sex workers with the threat of legal punishment.

Clearly, then, legalizing sex work is a matter of the utmost importance for Socialists, and should be a demand of equal importance to removing restrictions on abortion. I would be interested to see whether anyone would actually argue for the continued restriction of sex work.

I am sorry but I diagree so much with this? Forming trade unions?

That is not fighting for the total end of conditions that force a woman to sell her body but for better conditions within her enslavement. That is not revolutionary transformation, it is reform; not abolish.

[BobKKKindle$]

That is not fighting for the total end of conditions that force a woman to sell her body but for better conditions within her enslavement. That is not revolutionary transformation, it is reform; not abolish.All wage slavery is a form of "enslavement" although the form and intensity of oppression may differ, depending on occupation. We should not consider prostitution as a form of wage labour that is separate from legal employment. If you argue for the continuation of prostitution's current illegal status on the grounds that we should not be concerned with fighting for reforms within the framework of capitalism, then, by implication, socialists should not encourage other workers to demand improvements in their conditions or take strike action through trade unions, as this could also be considered "reformism" since these forms of struggle are not political in nature. This is an unrealistic and harmful ultra-left position - the struggle for reforms is a perquisite for revolution..

[BobKKKindle$]

As for an ad-hoc solution under capitalist, women should be brought out of prostitution and be given better jobs and we should fight for them.

Who will provide these jobs? Most Prostitutes live in the developing world, where governments barely have sufficient resources to meet the basic needs of their people, due to the debt burden which demands that governments use their budgets to meet interest payments, and so it is idealistic to think that governments would have the means (or, for that matter, the motivation) to provide alternative employment that offers the same financial reward as prostitution.


If that is not an option, yes they should be unionized, whether prostitution is legal or not.

Surely unionization will be easier, and will yield better results, if prostitution is legal? If so, why not press for legalization?

[careyprice31]

All wage slavery is a form of "enslavement" although the form and intensity of oppression may differ, depending on occupation. We should not consider prostitution as a form of wage labour that is separate from legal employment. If you argue for the continuation of prostitution's current illegal status on the grounds that we should not be concerned with fighting for reforms within the framework of capitalism, then, by implication, socialists should not encourage other workers to demand improvements in their conditions or take strike action through trade unions, as this could also be considered "reformism" since these forms of struggle are not political in nature. This is an unrealistic and harmful ultra-left position - the struggle for reforms is a perquisite for revolution..

I see the truth in your statements here. I dont believe it should be criminalized either and made illegal. It leads to more women being charged and saddled with criminal records. I'd say probably 100% of prostitutes would say they would choose it if they could make a decent living any other way. Criminal records just would hold them back even more.

All workers should seek improvements in their lives.

[LSD]

No, prostitution should not be legal! We should train prostitutes in other jobs.

Engels wrote to imagine an entire generation that has never known the possibility to buy the love of a woman.

Interesting isn't it that that "entire generation" would be entirely male. Seems that Engels was primarily concerned with the "wholesomness" of his descendents' sexual encounters, that's mighty charitable of him, but politically irrelevent.

The era in which Marx and Engels wrote was called the Romantic era for a reason. There were a great many misconceptions going around regarding human sexual relations, the strongest of which still persists to this day.


We must not make sex a commodity.

Why not?

Strippers and prostitutes may not produce tangible products, but they certainly produce capital. If they are working for a boss, as most of them are, they are producting surplus value (in the form of "agency" or "house" fees) which the boss takes; if they are self-imployed than they keep/re-invest the profits as functional petty-bourgeois "businesswomen".

In either case, though, there is a production of capital and hence work being done.

Besides, how would you apply this approach of yours to other, less controversial service occupations?

Neither a janitor nor a flight attendant produce any tangible products, indeed, like a prostitute, both merely perform service occupations, moving, re-aranging, and distributing pre-existing products.

It would be illogical, however, to suggest that flight attendants are somehow "more oppressed" than factory workers. Both are workers and both are oppressed. The question of "who's the more oppressed" would tend to depend on specifics; there is certainly no category difference between the two.

That is, I would accept that in some cases prostitutes are more exploited than your standard assemblyman; but you must likewise accept that the reverse is often true.

There is simply no "great wall" between prostitute and assemblyman; between escort and janitor.

It is the production of surplus value that defines the worker; not the physical nature of the job that produces said labour. Junking that definition means junking basic Marxism and, functionaly, leads to an economic framework with a massively overrepresented petty-bourgeoisie.


Prostitution, she wrote, reduced women to "a simple instrument of pleasure".

Really? How?

People love to throw that phrase around -- "objectification of women" -- but what does it actually practically mean?

Does wanting to fuck a woman "objectify here"? By the same token, does her wanting to fuck you, "objectify" you?

Doesn't all sex that isn't "emotional" or "loving" constitute, to some degree, "obejctification" by both parties involved? It doesn't mean that either person "disrespects" the other person involved, but when they have anonymous physical sex (and I'm talking in their personal lives here, with no moneys exchanged), they are clearly "using" the other person for their own sexual gratification?

Well ...so what?

When two people play football, aren't they, in a manner of speaking, "using" the other person for physical enjoyment? If they're not actually friends and just meet to kick the ball around, isn't "objectification" occuring? ...actually, yes, but it doesn't matter.

'Cause that what human relations are about. Not every relationship has to be a "meaningful" one and that includes sexual ones.

So does the existance of sex workers "objectify" women? Not really, at least not any more than the existance of professional football players "objectifies" football players.

Prostitutes aren't the problem, patriarchy is and liberal sexuality is not pillar of patriarchy. On the contrary, the less repressed a society's views on sex, the less sexist it is liable to be. Traditional "moralities" go hand in hand.

So while attacking sex workers for "demeaning themselves" is the politically correct bourgeois approach, it doesn't actually do anything to help the real victims of sexism. All it does is further intrench this antiquated patriarchal notion that sexuality is a "male thing" and that any expression of female sexuality "must" be exploitation.

Now obviously prostitution is exploitation, it's the exploitation of capitalism, but no one goes around calling flight attendents names because they're "objectifying women" by working for a wage.

But in every way that counts, the two jobs are indistinguishable.


I am sorry but I diagree so much with this? Forming trade unions?

That is not fighting for the total end of conditions that force a woman to sell her body but for better conditions within her enslavement. That is not revolutionary transformation, it is reform; not abolish.

Well, capitalism has pervaded all aspects of life. Turning a blind eye to that fact doesn't make it any less true, and neither does punnishing strippers or prostitutes because their existence reminds you of the pervasiveness of capitalism.

And, honestly, do you really think that patriarchy comes out of strip clubs and brothels?

It's rather remarkable then, isn't it, that some of the most patriarchal people out there are the ones crusading for these places to be shut down.

Don't get caught up in the moralistic bullshit. You may not like what capitalism does to sexuality, but the choice here isn't between the "commodifcation" of sex and some type of hippy utopian "free love". It's between liberal sexuality and repression.

And the less open that sexuality becomes, the more that strip clubs and escort services are shut down or pushed out, the weaker women become.

There's a reason that the explosion of "selling sex" coincided directly with the women's movement. After all, if capitalism's pushing it, it means that people are discussing it. And the more that sex is openly discussed the better for everyone, especially women.

The alternative, of course, being rolling the clock back 50 years and pushing it all back into the bedroom where men really did have a free hand to do virtualy anything they wanted.

If something's in demand, capitalism dictates that someone's going to try and sell it. That isn't "good" per se, but it's unavoidable. Trying to "outlaw" sexually charged materials and occupations won't stop that effect, it will only strike a blow for conservatism in its constant war against the liberalization of sexuality.

[careyprice31]

point taken, LSD. :)