Republicans patronise "Eyes Wide Shut" S&M club

[jam.fuse]

...if "sex work" was not a degrading and dehumanizing occupation, why would so many (perhaps most) of these women have to be forced to engage in it? Why... must foreign -- usually desperate women -- need to be tricked, kidnapped and 'imported', to fulfill the market demand?

Women are forced into prostitution due to the huge sums of money they generate for their pimps and handlers.

Degrading and dehumanizing these women makes them more profitable from the pimp's point of view.

The profits are huge due to the criminalization of the industry, which minimizes supply and maximizes demand.

Legalize the industry and 'sex workers' will have...

...the rights to choose for themselves & not be the victims of those who will exploit, such as pimps or slave traders.

"Banning the sex industry" in plain english means only the filthy rich, powerful and connected will be able to hire prostitutes, who due to their 'banned' status, will become even more invisible, powerless, exploited, degraded and dehumanized.

[Joe Hillshoist]

When people point out the law students or pre-med women trying to work their way through school it's weird how they don't see how sexist that is. How many successful male lawyers, doctors, senators or hey, Presidents worked their way through college fucking in front of a camera or giving lap dances? Name one. Yet it's now supposed to be a "normal" career path for intelligent women.

If you are referring to what I said on page 3, actually that was my point. However, many of those successful men worked their way through college making less money, as did many successful women. My point was also there are better wages available to girls (or guys if there are male strip clubs) at uni, or anywhere, in some strip clubs than most other places. And wages in Australia are pretty good. I certainly didn't think it was "normal". I said women working in strip clubs made more money than people of either sex not working there. My point was it isn't the same as the most exploitative aspects of sex work. But also that its not actually normal or healthy.

Even tho the same clubs might have people working legitimately and trafficked people, at least here, the people working legitimately make more money than any people working any job without years of training and qualifications. Of either sex. How is that healthy or normal?

For any woman (or man) however intelligent?

Or is it a normal and healthy career path for unintelligent women?

[AlicetheKurious]

"Banning the sex industry" in plain english means only the filthy rich, powerful and connected will be able to hire prostitutes, who due to their 'banned' status, will become even more invisible, powerless, exploited, degraded and dehumanized.

And yet, where the "sex industry" is not at all criminalized, for example in some Asian and Eastern European countries and places like Israel, legally-sanctioned "sex work" is still very much associated with women too poor to have a choice or literally enslaved, degradation, drug addiction and violence. So whether it's legal or not, according to your logic, SM & jam.fuse, heads women lose, tails their exploiters win. But wait! You're artificially limiting the choice to either patriarchal countries where the law is selectively applied, in a context where government and law enforcement look the other way as long as certain powerful people benefit, directly or indirectly; or, on the other hand, countries where women's sexual organs are officially defined as marketable commodities, as though these were the only choices possible. I'm not familiar with the situation in Iceland, but I doubt that is the case there, especially with this government.

Also, it will be very interesting to see whether, as a result of this new policy, organized crime becomes more or less entrenched in Iceland, and, as you suggest, criminalizing the exploitation of women will cause Iceland to become a paradise for pimps and whether "prohibition is far more likely to increase than decrease" the number of imported sex workers. We can consider Iceland to be a test case for such self-serving hypotheses.

Meanwhile, don't you think it's telling that even this tiny country, with the population of many mid-sized towns, had to "import" foreign women to perform these 'jobs'? One would think, given your shining descriptions of the great pay for easy, safe, untaxing work, "in the depths of a major recession" no less, that the local women would be lining up for these cushy employment opportunities. When loving, concerned parents tell their children, "get a job!" they'd cut out Help Wanted ads for strippers. And yet, apparently not, for some reason that must seem inscrutable to you. Here's a clue: it's a safe bet that when foreign workers need to be imported from countries with very poor populations, it's almost never to fill jobs that are "safe", "well-paid" and "untaxing" as you put it, Stephen Morgan, even if we didn't know all that we know about about the sex trade.

As part of my research, I spent a couple of hours in the strip club where she worked, along with one of my best friends, Dave, who was there to take pictures for the article. That was the only time in my entire life I've been inside a strip club. I'll never forget it. The waitresses were all naked. The women on the stage were naked. I had stepped into a universe where all women, regardless of what they were outside, were dehumanized pieces of meat whose value depended solely on their physical attractiveness to the customers.

Advice: don't go to a naturist colony.

I won't, but you tell me: in a naturist colony, do people make a living by having to writhe in a contrived and artificial way calculated to arouse fully-clothed strangers who are 'customers'? Do tell. Because otherwise I don't see your point.

By the way, it's scary that you can't tell the difference between hard, honest work for pay, and so-called "sex work".

Feminists seem to think all women have the inherent right to a life akin to that of a privileged American university girl.

No, I'm a feminist and I think it's a government's job to ensure that all its members, men and women, regardless of their socio-economic status, have opportunities to earn a decent living in a way that contributes to the well-being of their society without having to display their naked bodies to the lust of strangers. And by the way, this has nothing to do with prudishness. As Blue said,

The thing people choose to muddy the waters with is the blurring of "sex work" and "sex" as if they are the same thing. No, they're not.

No, they're not. One is a counterfeit version of the other and, like all counterfeits, it is damaging because it exploits the value of the real thing in order to substitute something worthless or worse. Nudity can be an expression of profound intimacy and trust, or it can be used to humiliate and degrade. In some ancient societies, nudity was associated with slavery, and the lowest-status slaves were obliged to walk around naked while their masters and higher-status servants were allowed to cover up. Even in the first few decades of the 20th century, those who ran chain-gangs in the American South frequently forced the prisoners to work naked because they considered them to be animals, without the need for privacy. In Abu Ghraib, stripping the prisoners was devised as the most effective way to destroy their will and break them down. Strip clubs recreate that same dynamic, whether they use willing or unwilling "strippers" in order to build up the customer's sense of power, which is the real point, and the real attraction, rather than the cheap and toxic substitute for loving intimacy that they peddle.

Except in societies that have totally succumbed to the poisonous belief that human beings are either commodities or consumers, individuals who freely choose to put a price tag on their privacy and trade faux intimacy for money will always be a small minority: the vast majority will always have to be forced into it against their will, and must be deprived of alternatives. So much groundwork for accepting this dehumanized and degraded view of human beings as normal and acceptable and even admirable, has already been done culturally through the corporate media; yet even so, the global trade in sex "workers" is still forced to rely on scams and coercion to obtain enough captives to satisfy the market. That should tell you a great deal about both the "merchandise" and the "market" in question, and the far greater implications of such a trade.

[Stephen Morgan]

And yet, where the "sex industry" is not at all criminalized, for example in some Asian and Eastern European countries and places like Israel, legally-sanctioned "sex work" is still very much associated with women too poor to have a choice or literally enslaved, degradation, drug addiction and violence. So whether it's legal or not, according to your logic, SM & jam.fuse, heads women lose, tails their exploiters win. But wait! You're artificially limiting the choice to either patriarchal countries where the law is selectively applied,

You're artificially limiting to countries where nothing is really illegal because the government is for hire to the highest bidder. You conspicuously fail to mention the legalised harlotry in Nevada and Holland, marked successes. Of course Holland is a European country, not some third world hell hole. There's a difference between a country where legalisation means regulation and a country where you can do anything to anyone if you know who to bribe.

in a context where government and law enforcement look the other way as long as certain powerful people benefit, directly or indirectly; or, on the other hand, countries where women's sexual organs are officially defined as marketable commodities, as though these were the only choices possible. I'm not familiar with the situation in Iceland, but I doubt that is the case there, especially with this government.

They haven't stamped out the drug trade, the haven't cracked down on bankers (the government wanted to bail them out, but the poor dears were overruled by parliament resulting in a referendum). You desperately want to believe the lesbian prime minister is the only pure politician in an otherwise corrupt and heartless world of patriarchal despots, but she's the same as all the others.

Also, it will be very interesting to see whether, as a result of this new policy, organized crime becomes more or less entrenched in Iceland, and, as you suggest, criminalizing the exploitation of women will cause Iceland to become a paradise for pimps and whether "prohibition is far more likely to increase than decrease" the number of imported sex workers. We can consider Iceland to be a test case for such self-serving hypotheses.

Doesn't serve me. I oppose this mostly because I don't like laws and governments telling people what not to do, I'm an anarcho syndicalist at heart, but I've never indulged in any aspect of the sex trade. I'm straight laced, as I say. And cheap, too.

Meanwhile, don't you think it's telling that even this tiny country, with the population of many mid-sized towns, had to "import" foreign women to perform these 'jobs'? One would think, given your shining descriptions of the great pay for easy, safe, untaxing work, "in the depths of a major recession" no less, that the local women would be lining up for these cushy employment opportunities. When loving, concerned parents tell their children, "get a job!" they'd cut out Help Wanted ads for strippers. And yet, apparently not, for some reason that must seem inscrutable to you. Here's a clue: it's a safe bet that when foreign workers need to be imported from countries with very poor populations, it's almost never to fill jobs that are "safe", "well-paid" and "untaxing" as you put it, Stephen Morgan, even if we didn't know all that we know about about the sex trade.

I'm guessing they're being brought in for something more than just stripping, things in other words that banning strip clubs won't help with. Although, there is the element of consumer choice which may demand a certain variety of appearance not readily available in the ethnically homogeneous Icelandic population. You know, there might be demand for black girls and that.

By the way, it's scary that you can't tell the difference between hard, honest work for pay, and so-called "sex work".

I'm equally disturbed that you think there's a fundamental difference between a stripper and a soldier, or a stripper and a house cleaner, or a stripper and anyone else forced into a life of commercial whoredom.

No, I'm a feminist and I think it's a government's job to ensure that all its members, men and women, regardless of their socio-economic status, have opportunities to earn a decent living in a way that contributes to the well-being of their society without having to display their naked bodies to the lust of strangers. And by the way, this has nothing to do with prudishness.

I'm prudish, I'm against stripping. I'm also against making it illegal, though. I am a socialist and I believe the governments duty is to ensure a certain standard of living for all, the establish both a minimum and maximum standard of living, and to provide jobs for all on equitable terms. If there are people who don't mind performing naked for the wages offered by an employer (although, like Peregrine, I'm must more in favour of control by trade unions and democratic worker organisations, in trades related and unrelated to sex) they ought to be free to do so. If you think this Icelandic government can be relied upon to equitably apply this law, then why not make a law prohibiting the profiting from unwilling nudity, rather than all nudity? I mean, it'd be nice if they could all get well paying jobs elsewhere, but that's not a women's issue that's just an issue. When I say unwilling, I mean forced by force, not forced by market forces. Of course, they can't do that because rape, kidnapping and sexual assault are already illegal. So if you think these things go on in Icelandic strip clubs and their government is unable or unwilling to stop it, how will they stop it now?

No, they're not. One is a counterfeit version of the other and, like all counterfeits, it is damaging because it exploits the value of the real thing in order to substitute something worthless or worse. Nudity can be an expression of profound intimacy and trust, or it can be used to humiliate and degrade. In some ancient societies, nudity was associated with slavery, and the lowest-status slaves were obliged to walk around naked while their masters and higher-status servants were allowed to cover up. Even in the first few decades of the 20th century, those who ran chain-gangs in the American South frequently forced the prisoners to work naked because they considered them to be animals, without the need for privacy. In Abu Ghraib, stripping the prisoners was devised as the most effective way to destroy their will and break them down. Strip clubs recreate that same dynamic, whether they use willing or unwilling "strippers" in order to build up the customer's sense of power, which is the real point, and the real attraction, rather than the cheap and toxic substitute for loving intimacy that they peddle.

You seem to be saying you merely want to maximise the market value of your "authentic" product. Well I've never been to one of these clubs, but it seems likely that the performers are as fake as the smile I understand Americans affect when servicing people in retail establishments. On the other hand I basically believe people are as they act. Police acting brutally become inherently brutal. People feigning good cheer become cheerful. I don't know what that would mean for strippers. Anyway, even in the unlikely event that your naked-means-powerless viewpoint were true, if people volunteer to naked themselves, who cares?

Except in societies that have totally succumbed to the poisonous belief that human beings are either commodities or consumers, individuals who freely choose to put a price tag on their privacy and trade faux intimacy for money will always be a small minority: the vast majority will always have to be forced into it against their will, and must be deprived of alternatives.

Of course strippers ARE a small minority.

So much groundwork for accepting this dehumanized and degraded view of human beings as normal and acceptable and even admirable, has already been done culturally through the corporate media; yet even so, the global trade in sex "workers" is still forced to rely on scams and coercion to obtain enough captives to satisfy the market. That should tell you a great deal about both the "merchandise" and the "market" in question, and the far greater implications of such a trade.

Could be. Doesn't matter. Prostitution continues, no matter what Sisyphean efforts may be made to criminalise it. Amsterdam has healthy, safe prostitutes. Brussels has a reputation for the commercial sexual abuse of children. In one prostitution is open and above board, in the other it's a terrible crime against God and state. Replace God and state with womanly virtue and human dignity if you like, but no crime has ever been eradicated by any other method than legalisation, and this won't change now.

[AlicetheKurious]

You conspicuously fail to mention the legalised harlotry in Nevada and Holland, marked successes. Of course Holland is a European country, not some third world hell hole. There's a difference between a country where legalisation means regulation and a country where you can do anything to anyone if you know who to bribe.

The distinction is not between "European countries" and "third world hell holes" -- it's between societies where women's sexual organs are officially defined as marketable commodities and those in which they are not, regardless of how rich those societies are.

Those campaigning for the legalization of prostitution argue that prostitutes and their customers should be allowed to sell or buy sex for money. They argue further that prostitutes should be allowed to carry out their trade inside (example, brothels), since they see this as safer than being on the streets. This is a common assumption held by those who advocate for legalization of prostitution and brothels. They point out that brothels are equipped with hidden cameras in the rooms, as well as intercoms and panic buttons etc.

A 2003 University of London survey of prostitutes in the state of Victoria, Australia (which experienced brothels mired in organized crime, corruption and related crimes) found that “those working under these systems of legalization and regulation continue to feel coerced, forced and unsafe in the business” (De Santis 2004).

A similar sense of fear of violence among prostitutes was discussed in a University of Nevada 2005 Study of Violence and Legalized Brothel Prostitution – “fear of violence – which in and of itself constitutes a sense of danger and risk – is a critical component of legalized prostitution”. (Brents, Hausbeck, 2005, pp.270-295) 79% of women in prostitution indicated that they were in prostitution due to some degree of coercion.(Hughes, D.M. 2003) Another study of adults working in prostitution reported the following – 82% experienced physical assault, 83% experienced threats with a weapon, 68% were raped while prostituting, 84% experienced current or past homelessness. (Goswami, Schervish, 2002)

Prostitution which occurs through escort and massage services is also perceived as safe because it occurs indoors. But prostitution indoors primarily protects the owners of the establishments/services as the girls and women are kept under control indoors where they cannot be seen by the public or by the police. (Farley, Bindel & Golding 2009). The violence that takes place in these environments is usually not publicized unless the victims are murdered. ...

Many have looked at the legalization of prostitution in Amsterdam since 2000 as a possible model. Yet officials there are now re-thinking the law because legalization does not appear to be working. Initially, it was felt that through legislation, trafficking, child prostitution and organized crime could be controlled (Unanima International, 2006).

Over the years, more and more Dutch women have left the sex trade and the gap is being filled by women who are trafficked from Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. According to Unanima International in 1960, 95% of prostituted people in Holland were Dutch; currently 80% are immigrants, most from poor countries. At least 70% of prostituted people in the Netherlands are undocumented and buyers continue to be major perpetrators of violence against prostituted women and girls. In one study 85% of prostituted women surveyed, reported having been raped in prostitution. (Unanima International, 2006). Prostitution in general has its own inherent problems of violence. According to Farley (2006, pp.109-144), after prostitution was decriminalized in New Zealand in 2003, violence in prostitution continued as well as the stigma and shame. Street prostitution in the cities also increased. She further states that the Trafficking in Persons Report of the US State Department has noted that trafficking of women and children has become a reality since the decriminalization of prostitution. Indigenous Maori children are at highest risk for prostitution.

Although various studies can be cited to bolster one argument or another, it is difficult to continue to support the Amsterdam model which over time has proven not to be as safe for women as claimed due to organized trafficking, a larger parallel illegal prostitution trade and Amsterdam being a major destination city. The Swedish paradigm focuses on lessening demand, and research does suggest that “the arrest of the client is the single biggest specific deterrent”. (Wilcox, Christmann, Rogerson and Birch, 2009, p4) The Swedish model also incorporated social programs and police training. (Ekberg, 2004).

In 1999 Sweden criminalized the buying of sex and decriminalized the selling of sex. The rationale underpinning Sweden’s legislation was that prostitution is violence against women and children by men who exploit them thus creating barriers toward gender equality. The passage of this law accomplished what Sweden wanted. It protected the most vulnerable populations, including women, girls, boys, ethnic and racial groups and the poor. It reduced the number of women in street prostitution in Stockholm by 66 percent in the first five years, and drastically reduced the number of women and girls annually trafficked into Sweden (Ekberg, 2004; de Santis, 2004). As a result of their two-pronged legal strategy, the Swedish Government estimates that in the last few years only 200 to 400 women and girls have been annually sex trafficked into Sweden compared to the 15,000-17,000 females annually trafficked into neighbouring Finland which has not adopted this strategy. Link

[AlicetheKurious]

Also see:

Streets apart

In the eternal debate about prostitution, there are those, like the Dutch, who advocate legalising it, and those, like the Swedes, who want to get women off the streets by cracking down on customers and pimps. Next month sees the first overhaul of Britain's sex industry for 50 years. So which way will we go? Julie Bindel investigates ...

Link

And

Stripclubs According to Strippers:Exposing Workplace Sexual Violence

[Peregrine]

You know, looking over this thread, the impression I am getting is that women who choose to work in this profession are unintelligent, naive, don't know any better & "oh how sad".

I'm part of a sex positive forum elsewhere & I presented the article on Iceland, as well as a discussion on sex workers & feminism. The women who responded were women who work in the industry, from ages 25 to 60, most of who are activists & sex positive feminists. Some were strippers, pro doms/subs, phone sex operators, fetish models & escorts. The responses were intelligent & far from them feeling they were dehumanized in any way.

Some of the responses:
"One of the biggest and most common dangers regarding women's rights is falling into the trap of victimizing women and villifying men. Suggesting that any woman who engages in sex work is just too deluded and uneducated or oppressed to know that she's harming herself and her gender, is no different than some asshole telling his wife in 1950 to settle down because he is in charge of the money. It is boldy anti-woman to suggest that every single sex worker on earth is incapable of making sound decisions about her sexuality and her rights."

"the anti-pornography/sex feminists won't/can't hear what I or you or ANYone has to say about one's right to choose. I experienced it as a lesbian, stripper, and prodomme. It is a form of black/white, right/wrong, good/bad, polarizing thinking... And how funny that I am told, by "feminists," that I cannot be a feminist, given what feminism is supposed to mean."

The latter comment from a woman who has been in the industry for 30+ years. She hardly strikes me as someone who is naive or foolish. These women, as well as myself, work in a facet of the industry that is vastly different from the one that is being described in this thread.

The system (as Alice said much more eloquently than I) is dependent upon market demand and thinking that you are not part of the exploitation inherent in the system because you work "solo" is not being honest with yourself. Why does the market demand continue to push ALL girls and women into that sex class? Why is it absolutely necessary that women dress, groom, alter their body and behave in a pornified manner these days to get noticed?

Personally, I don't give a rats' ass what the market demands. I don't dress or groom a certain way & don't act in a "pornified" manner. I don't put on a "show" or "facade", I'm myself, I don't feel the need to be dishonest or phoney, I'd say I'm pretty damn classy. And so far that seems to be working pretty well for me.

Through familiarity I'm quite aware that women aren't of superior moral fibre, but there's more to them than sex, which really doesn't interest me.

Would you please expound on this? I think you've made some valid points here, but this strikes me as quite misogynistic. It seems pretty obvious from this statement that you are not fond of female company, other than for sexual purposes. What's the deal with that?

[norton ash]

Thanks for the view, Peregrine. Sex work is like show biz, politics, academia. Lots of monsters and victims, but the truly skilled or un-catchable can have fun with it.

[Blue]

I'm part of a sex positive forum elsewhere & I presented the article on Iceland, as well as a discussion on sex workers & feminism. The women who responded were women who work in the industry, from ages 25 to 60, most of who are activists & sex positive feminists. Some were strippers, pro doms/subs, phone sex operators, fetish models & escorts. The responses were intelligent & far from them feeling they were dehumanized in any way.

Here we go with the words devised to divide and conquer whenever this discussion arises. Honestly, how can you not see how the language "sex positive" is not dismissive at the least and misogynistic at the worst? That type of language inherently infers that women or men who object to the vast negative societal implications caused by the sex for sale class and the continuing pornification by mainstream media and culture by normalizing "it's just a job" are somehow SEX NEGATIVE.

It's the exact same language used by religious fundamentalists who have gotten "Pro Life" into the mainstream conversation thus implying Pro-Choice adherents are actually "Anti-Life" which is of course absurd. But it's all very related. If you haven’t noticed the US has been steadily eroding women’s control of their own bodies by even allowing pharmacists to not fulfill women’s birth control pill prescriptions. 87% of USA counties do not have an abortion provider yet abortion is Legal in the entire country.

I’m glad you enjoy your chosen profession and I’ve never said I want to take that right away from you to sell your body. However to resort to insinuations that people who see the larger picture as “sex negative” tells me you are part of the problem.

[Peregrine]

You know what Blue? I'm merely relaying a different viewpoint from the perspective of someone who works in the industry. I'm not trying to put a negative spin on folks who don't see my point of view & I never said anything about "sex negative", you are assuming that of me. You do not know me personally, have never met me or know how I conduct myself or my business. There's no point in trying to argue or debate, we obviously don't don't agree. I'm pretty much done & have added my two bits.

As for Alice, I've always enjoyed your posts & must admit this is the first time I've not seen eye to eye with you & that's totally cool with me, people can't agree on a subject all the time.

[MacCruiskeen]

Well. This whole issue is - or can become - really messily complicated, as soon as - or unless! (paradox!) - you get down to the actual details of what people are actually doing and why they're doing it and how they're living, and how their society forces them to live, and what that society proposes or permits or positively pushes as acceptable options or unavoidable necessities. Money is by far the the dirtiest word in 2010, or indeed in any year, and that's why it's never yet been mentioned in this thread.

Any attempt to talk about sexuality can easily sound creepy, especially on a message board, where time and space are limited and nobody really knows anybody. I just wanted to say to Peregrine, and to those who are criticising her directly or indirectly, that it's not a simple matter of objecting to someone having a sexual presence as such, and certainly not of objecting to anyone taking pleasure in it. That would be prudishness. (I say this as someone who has spent much of his life working in the theatre, and who has gone naked on stage more than once.) The point at issue, as ever, is money (apologies for the obscenity), and what money forces people to do while they convince themselves, often desperately, that they're doing it of their own sovereign free will.

[jam.fuse]

I am guessing one sufficiently wealthy and depraved could indeed purchase the actual sexual organs of another human; in the USA one could probably at some point legally purchase genitalia originally belonging to a slave or native american like some kind of trinket.

In asian countries one can purchase the sex organs of tigers and bears to use as an alleged sexual potency enhancer.

As such I find equating legal female prostitution with 'women's sexual organs... officially defined as marketable commodities' inaccurate and disingenuous.

Speaking of 'words devised to divide and conquer'

...

I’m glad you enjoy your chosen profession and I’ve never said I want to take that right away from you to sell your body. However to resort to insinuations that people who see the larger picture as “sex negative” tells me you are part of the problem.

Blue, you sound positively overjoyed for her.

...


from wikipedia.org, emphasis mine:

Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which was influential in the banning of drug use and was a major force in the prohibition of alcohol.

Ushering in vast, incalculably wealthy and powerful organized crime syndicates which, as prohibition of the sex, drug and gambling industries has grown, now arguably control the entire planet.

Legalize and regulate these industries and the Mafia, CIA and their ilk will vanish, imo.

...

"There is strong indication from the interview, document analysis, and ethnographic data presented here that legal brothels generally offer a safer working environment than their illegal counterparts. Regulated brothels offer particular ways of dealing with pragmatic safety issues and minimizing actual violence... Nevada brothels offer specific mechanisms to protect workers via the ways transactions are organized, the ways technology is ordered, the visibility of customers, the bureaucratic relationships among customers, managers, and workers, and the cooperation with police based on the mere fact of their legality. All of these mechanisms work to eliminate systematic violence and to discourage an atmosphere of danger and risk..."

- Barbara G. Brents, PhD, Associate Professor of Sociology, and Kate Hausbeck, PhD, Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Studies and Academic Affairs, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, in the Mar. 2005 Journal of Interpersonal Violence article "Violence and Legalized Brothel Prostitution in Nevada."

"Decriminalization would better protect people in the sex industry from violence and abuse ...Police cannot and do not simultaneously seek to arrest prostitutes and protect them from violence. Currently, under New York Criminal Procedure Law, sex workers who have been victims of sex offenses, including assault and rape, face greater obstacles than other victims. Indeed, women describe being told, 'What did you expect?' by police officers who refused to investigate acts of violence perpetrated against women whom they knew engaged in prostitution. The consequences of such attitudes are tragic: Gary Ridgway said that he killed prostitutes because he knew he would not be held accountable. The tragedy is that he was right – he confessed to the murders of 48 women, committed over nearly twenty years. That is truly criminal."

- Melissa Ditmore, PhD, Coordinator of the Global Network of Sex Work Projects, from the Feb. 28, 2007 article "Debating Legalized Prostitution" that was posted on the Washington Post's PostGlobal website.

"There is no doubt that deadly violence against sex workers is a recurring social pattern. Nor is there any doubt that serial killers know sex workers are afraid to seek protection from police; or that the public believe violence is part of a prostitute's job description. Until prostitution is legalized, these women will continue to toil down on the ocean floor, miles away from the light, in constant fear of predators."

Dec. 12, 2006 - Melanie Reid Nominee, Columnist of the Year, Scottish Press Awards, 2007; Journalist, The Times (Scotland); Former Columnist and Senior Assistant Editor, The Herald (Scotland).

"In fact, there is evidence that some systems of legalization provide a relatively safe working environment. Although no system is risk free, women working in legal brothels and window units in the Netherlands experience very little violence. Workers and managers have instituted elaborate procedures to respond to violent customers quickly and effectively. Similarly, in Nevada’s legal brothels, the risk of violence is very low."

- Ronald Weitzer, PhD, Professor of Sociology at George Washington University, in the July 1, 2005 journal Violence Against Women article "Rehashing Tired Claims About Prostitution"

...

Peregrine, I appreciate your honesty and perspective.

[MacCruiskeen]

from wikipedia.org, emphasis mine:

Quote:
Originally, prostitution was widely legal in the United States. Prostitution was made illegal in almost all states between 1910 and 1915 largely due to the influence of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union which was influential in the banning of drug use and was a major force in the prohibition of alcohol.

Ushering in vast, incalculably wealthy and powerful organized crime syndicates which, as prohibition of the sex, drug and gambling industries has grown, now arguably control the entire planet.

How is this analogous? Are you saying that whisky bottles and cigarettes and gambling chips are analogous to women? Are you saying they should all have equal rights?

To state the obvious: One of the things about heroin is that it never objects to being imported in airless containers, and it never worries about its life or its health or its wages or its children. The analogy makes no sense.

[barracuda]

Here we go with the words devised to divide and conquer whenever this discussion arises. Honestly, how can you not see how the language "sex positive" is not dismissive at the least and misogynistic at the worst? That type of language inherently infers that women or men who object to the vast negative societal implications caused by the sex for sale class and the continuing pornification by mainstream media and culture by normalizing "it's just a job" are somehow SEX NEGATIVE.

No, that is not what sex-positive means at all. It is meant as an oppositional viewpoint to the prevalent hegemonic view of sex as a problematic, dirty, disruptive and dangerous force in the world. It is certainly not well defined as supportive in anyway of activities which demean women or sexually oppress or objectify individuals. Quite the opposite. It is meant to have a defiantly celebratory quality by those who use it. I don't really see much about the concept which is misogynistic. I think you have to sort of accept the notion on its own terms, and the terms under which it is commonly understood and used, rather than invent your own meaning for it.

In general I think it is very safe to say that most people in this culture, and the culture itself, view sex negatively, and really, that has caused more harm to women than anyone one else.

I’m glad you enjoy your chosen profession and I’ve never said I want to take that right away from you to sell your body. However to resort to insinuations that people who see the larger picture as “sex negative” tells me you are part of the problem.

Not to really point this remark at you in particular, Blue, but this thread is another reminder to me that even a group of people with a fairly liberal view of social issues, such as those on this forum, can be ridiculously prudish when the subject of sex comes up. For some reason it always surprises me when I see it, but I guess it shouldn't. It's the way of the world.

[MacCruiskeen]

the prevalent hegemonic view of sex as a problematic, dirty, disruptive and dangerous force in the world

Barracuda, this is complete [ON EDIT: and utter] bullshit. We are not living in 1890, nor even in 1950. The "prevalent hegemonic view of sex" in 2010 is very, very, very obviously as an approved and legitimate source of truly gigantic amounts of money*.

*possibly triggering.





News front page

A rough trade: Martin Amis reports from the high-risk, increasingly violent world of the pornography industry