More boxes
I'm at the awkward stage of moving where nearly everything is sealed in boxes. The first dozen or so boxes were neatly sorted and labeled. The last dozen are unlabelable, although I suppose I could write "Stuff that didn't fit in the other boxes."
I've got to make one more run to Goodwill and probably one more run to the liquor store (for more boxes -- the place looks like I'm running some kind of black market bootleg and office-supply operation). A younger me once said that if you need to hire movers then you've either got too much stuff or too few friends. Or both. I've hired movers, but I'm starting to think the younger me was right.
Moving: Not fun.
All of which is a partial explanation/apology for the more-sporadic-than-usual blogging here, and for why I didn't get around to posting the following until after the news spotlight had moved on to other things ...
* * *
In the wake of Elliott Spitzer's implosion, Amanda Marcotte explored the idea of legalizing prostitution and finds it wanting:
Prostitution is a unique labor market. Most labor markets, the value of the labor can be separated in some sense from the mistreatment of the workers. ... But when degradation and harm are the work itself, struggling over labor standards becomes confusing.
She commends this Nicholas Kristof column in which he writes favorably about Sweden's approach:
Sweden experimented in 1999 with a radically different approach that many now regard as much more successful: it decriminalized the sale of sex but made it a crime to buy sex. In effect, the policy was to arrest customers, but not the prostitutes. ... No approach is going to work perfectly. But the Swedish model seems to have worked better than any other.
Let me suggest, for what it's worth, that this Swedish model might also be, well, biblical.*
For a class back in seminary, my friend Dwight Ozard conducted a long study of prostitution in the Bible. Take away the prostitution-as-metaphor stuff, he said, in which those unfaithful to God were condemned for acting like spiritual prostitutes, and the Bible was remarkably consistent on the topic. The johns -- the customers, the men -- were uniformly condemned as sinners. The prostitutes themselves never were.
I can't say that I've retraced all of Dwight's scholarship on the point, but ever since then I've been on the lookout for counter-examples. I haven't found any.
That makes sense in light of the central theme, the broad stream running throughout the scripture, of condemning oppressors but not the oppressed, condemning the exploiters but not the exploited. That seems to me to be a wise and useful principle completely apart from any sectarian basis for it. Whether you're an ancient biblical prophet or a contemporary, secular lawmaker, punishing the exploited is unjust and does little to reduce exploitation.
* * *
So a week ago Sunday the paper ran a "Five years after the invasion" story on the front page. That story, the first story on Iraq on A1 in a long time, pondered why it might be that the occupation of Iraq seems to have receded from the forefront of public concerns.
Yes, that's right, after burying every story about Iraq for the past year, we went out front with a feature package musing on the lack of attention that the public seems to be giving to the story we're not paying any attention to.
This swallowing of one's own tail is what passes for introspection in American journalism. It reminds me of the way all those stories about Britney Spears were followed by all those stories about all those stories. When you end up covering your own coverage, you might as well just run a headline that reads, "Sorry folks, we couldn't come up with a legitimate angle."
I'd like to see just how high we can stack this Jenga tower. For the next layer we could do a round of double-meta stories examining whether there have been too many stories about there being too many stories about Britney. And maybe another layer of stories musing why readers don't seem emotionally connected to our stories about their lack of an emotional connection to the occupation of Iraq.
On top of those we could add yet another layer -- although describing what that level of perverse abstraction would look like would require too many prepositional phrases strung together for me to keep track of.
Anyway, I've decided to interpret all this navel-gazing as instructions to begin posting wire stories on Iraq along with all the locally produced stories I post each night to the paper's Web site. That kind of goes against the chain's "ultra-local" mantra du jour, but I've never really understood the logic of this latest interpretation of "local" news. They take this to mean news that is exclusively local. A house fire in your town is considered a local story. A Vogon spaceship heading toward Earth and about to destroy the entire planet, including your town, would not be, according to this model, of local interest.
I don't get that approach. I tend to think the occupation of Iraq, not to mention the $3,000+ per second it costs taxpayers, is an immensely important story for every locality. The blowback and repercussions from it will likely make headlines for decades to come.
* * *
Last week was also "Sunshine Week" in the Ga ... er, Grommett newspaper chain.
When I attended Eastern College, we had an annual tradition called "Spiritual Emphasis Week." Tony Campolo, our semi-famous sociology professor, called it "Be Kind to God Week," and compared it to the annual ritual of making, and breaking, New Year's resolutions.
That's kind of like what "Sunshine Week" is for the chain. We take a week to congratulate ourselves on our fervent devotion to the First Amendment, the Bill of Rights and Open Government. Then we go back to ignoring Guantanamo and refusing to question the Bush administration's preposterous rationales for the institutionalization of torture, warrantless wiretapping, executive "signing statements" and making habeas corpus an optional privilege rather than a right.
One week of sunshine, 51 weeks of clouds and fog. It's like Seattle.
- - -
* Standard, redundant disclaimer: I suppose I need here to remark yet again, for the umpteenth time, that saying that an idea or policy is supported by biblical values does not, in itself, mean that such an idea would be good, or sound, or acceptable, as public policy. Sectarian arguments need to be translated into nonsectarian arguments. Those that cannot be don't need to be considered by anyone outside of the sect.
Though it being legal would also help with that, since they're not worried about being thrown in jail for reporting something.
Any system that didn't treat the prostitutes as criminals would have that benefit. Both the Swedish model and legalization give the prostitutes the additional protection of being able to report without being treated as criminals. Legalization gives additional protection to the johns.
Posted by: ako | Mar 25, 2008 at 11:36 PM
I know some teachers try to encourage students with "There's no such thing as a stupid question," but honestly they haven't heard this one.
In a transaction involving two (adult) parties, how can we make it illegal for one of the parties and not the other? It is illegal to buy drugs, and to sell drugs. It is illegal to offer a bribe, and to accept a bribe. How can it be illegal to buy sex, but legal to sell it?
Seriously. I just can't understand the basic law. I *do* understand about differential enforcement and penalties, and I am aware that at present we (in the USA) enforce laws against prostitutes and not against johns, but is it not the case even today that the johns are at least technically in violation of the laws? Or am I hopelessly sheltered and/or hopelessly confused?
Under the proposed law (or Swedish law today, I suppose), if a man gives a woman (or vice-versa, or man/man or woman/woman etc.) money for sex he (or she) commits a crime with not just the consent of, but the active participation of, another *non-criminal* party. Right? (And thus, hypothetically, the latter party is in a position to extort the former with threats of disclosure, which is surely not a desired outcome.)
How can this be so, unless it is assumed that all prostitutes are innately incapable of consent, that they are the equivalent of minors or what we used to call "mental defectives"? Is that the rationale?
Please, please, please do NOT assume that in asking these foolish questions I am implying any particular view as to the role of prostitution in society or the role of legislation in dealing with it. I honestly can't figure out whether the Swedish model, or some variant on it, is a good way of dealing with the acknowledged problems of sex work as it exists in the USA today - but that is at least in part because I don't understand how it operates.
Sorry to be so dumb - but if you can't be stupid on the internet, what good is it?
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:23 AM
In other words, I see the Swedish solution, as well as your entire approach -- "reducing harm" -- as a sort of cough syrup. Sure, it will work in the short term, but it doesn't really solve the underlying problem. I see legalization as an antibiotic.
This is nominally true, but hardly relevant, IMO. Few illegal jobs are seen as respectable (at least, here in the US); criminal status tends to erode respect quite a bit. Additionally, there are plenty of jobs on the market today that are seen as respectable, but not particularly desirable. Working retail, waiting tables, performing data entry, digging ditches... Few people dream of doing these things, yet many end up doing them anyway; and, while their working conditions aren't as great as those of, say, an average CEO, they're still pretty decent (*).You're right that "sex is dirty" is a major reason why prostitutes are seen as degraded, but I think that a major reason for this perception is that sex is performed secretly, in back alleys, by criminals. Millennia of oppressive monotheism are another big reason, so I agree with you there.
I think that's a fairly biased way to look at things. Legalization does more than give additional protection to the "johns" (more on this below); it also brings with it minimal wage, quality control, unionization, a pension plan, medical care (which, in the US, is not that great, but that's a different story), a host of other benefits... and, unfortunately, taxation, but I believe it's a fair tradeoff.Ultimately, I find the Swedish system you favor to be hypocritical at a basic level. You're basically saying, "prostitution is inherently abusive and degrading, and therefore a crime, but we'll look the other way at women who provide it, because we want to punish men more". So, a brothel madam, or a pimp (even a male pimp, if I read the description of the Swedish law correctly) would be free to do what they wanted to their "employees", but their customers (or "johns", as you would put it, implying that all of them are inherently despicable) would get arrested regardless of their conduct. I realize that this approach will reduce prostitution, as is your goal, but I don't think it's morally sound.
(*) But still in need of improvement. Don't vote Republican.
Posted by: Bugmaster | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:24 AM
Bah ! Someone beat me to the punch again, only this time they have even fewer characters in their handle. Bah ! Curse my human-readable multi-character handle !
Posted by: Bugmaster | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:26 AM
The reason I have so few characters in my handle is because I'm often too stupid even to figure out how to sign in on this blog. Curse my technoklutzery!
I wrote the lengthy screed posted at 1:23
dr ngo
Posted by: dr ngo | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:50 AM
g: I am so sorry I misspelled your name! :-(
Hapax: I do not want laser nipples. Think of the embarrassment factor if they got accidentally switched on, which I feel would be more likely than not.
I would, however, like a sonic thumb.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 04:17 AM
Dr Ngo: Please, please, please do NOT assume that in asking these foolish questions I am implying any particular view as to the role of prostitution in society or the role of legislation in dealing with it. I honestly can't figure out whether the Swedish model, or some variant on it, is a good way of dealing with the acknowledged problems of sex work as it exists in the USA today - but that is at least in part because I don't understand how it operates.
I did provide a link to a linky site upthread. From that site: " A person who obtains casual sexual relations in exchange for payment shall be sentenced - unless the act is punishable under the Swedish Penal Code - for the purchase of sexual services to a fine or imprisonment for at most six months." So the legislation is gender-neutral, contrary to Bugmaster's claim: a woman who pays a man to have "casual sexual relations" with her will also be fined or imprisoned. We live in a patriarchal society: men believe they are entitled to have sex, whether or not they can make themselves sufficiently appealling that someone will want to have sex with them, whereas women have no such sense of entitlement.
The problem with the Swedish model, so sex workers say, is that while at least you don't get the situation you get in countries where prostitution is illegal, where the punters are let go while the sex workers are prosecuted, you do get a situation where the punters, who are the ones with the real power in the transaction, want to ensure they are not arrested, and so insist that the sex workers make themselves available in areas and at times where the sex workers won't have police protection and the punters won't get arrested - whether for just having sex or for anything worse: rape, battery, robbery, murder.
It was worth trying: I'm all in favor of trying different approaches to dealing with the problem of men who want to pay money to have sex. At least the Swedish system acknowledges that the social problem is caused by the punters, not by the sex workers.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 07:04 AM
I'd be interested in hearing your views, McDuff, if you get a burst of energy. I've been trying to read them on Pandagon, but it doesn't scroll properly on my computer...
Good luck with the move, Fred. Hope it's not too dreadful. :-)
Posted by: Praline | Mar 26, 2008 at 07:59 AM
> "Stuff that didn't fit in the other boxes."
Ah, yes. "STDFITOB" or, in Latin, "Misc."
> I'd like to see just how high we can stack this Jenga tower.
A blogger could blog about journalists reporting about not reporting. A commenter could comment about a blogger blogging about journalists reporting about not reporting. A troll could troll a commenter about commenting about a blogger blogging about journalists reporting about not reporting. Jenga!
> So, a brothel madam, or a pimp would be free to do what they wanted...
I don't know how criminalized prositution is in Italy, but there is a separate offence, "Living off the earnings of a prostitute", just for the pimps.
> But when degradation and harm are the work itself, struggling over labor standards becomes confusing.
Work is allowed to be both degrading and harmful (at least in America, and most of the developing world.) I had one boss who made sure that no matter how interesting the work, or how highly compensated the employee, degradation would ensue. For harm, look at coal miners. MSHA enforces helpful regulations about safety equipment, and they inspect mines for certain violations, but mining is by no means "safe". Neither is commercial fishing (a very dangerous job). Some jobs (chicken plucker) aren't even "risk of harm", they are "practically certain to do harm, a little bit, everyday". Our labor laws balance harming little people against profit (most of which does not accrue to the little people).
Posted by: indifferent children | Mar 26, 2008 at 08:27 AM
wow! I feel like I've jumped right back into the same flamewar that was going on when I left!
(apologies for typos--I'm typing one-handed today)
Posted by: cjmr | Mar 26, 2008 at 09:01 AM
"One week of sunshine, 51 weeks of clouds and fog. It's like Seattle."
Yep. It rains all summer. Stay where you are because it's miserable here!
Posted by: zzyzx | Mar 26, 2008 at 09:20 AM
wow! I feel like I've jumped right back into the same flamewar that was going on when I left!
We restarted it, just for you!
Marshmallow?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 09:32 AM
Dwight Ozard conducted a long study of prostitution in the Bible
Sounds just like something he'd do! Damn but I miss him.
Posted by: patter | Mar 26, 2008 at 09:50 AM
Leviticus 19 explicitly prohibits parents from selling their daughters into prostitution, harlotry in the JPS translation, because otherwise the entire land would fall into haroltry. This law seems to indicate that God believes its those who sell people into prostitution and those who control prostitutes, madames and pimps, and use prostitutes are the wrong doers. Nowhere in the Torah does God imply that the prostitutes themselves are wrongdoers. So, I'd say that Sweeden's approach is at least Torah approved. There is a similar statement somewhere in the Qu'Ran, so the Sweedish policy is consistent with all the Abrahamic religions.
I like the Sweedish policy on prostitution and think it makes a good deal of sense. It avoids the criminal prosecution of people, prostitutes, who do not deserve such prosecution but it does not lead to the problems of legalized prostitution. I think drugs should be treated in a similar manner. It should be legal to buy, make, and use drugs but selling should be strictly illegal.
Posted by: Lee Ratner | Mar 26, 2008 at 10:08 AM
Hello cmjr ! How was Lent ?
Sad you had to come at such a time, but then coming on so close to Thursday you were a bit asking for it.
I wouldn't describe this as a flamewar yet though. Jesu vs Jeff and Bug was starting to get warm but then they started answering other people instead of each other.
Posted by: Caravelle | Mar 26, 2008 at 10:09 AM
"straight male prostitutes are, from what I've heard, fairly rare and relatively unlikely to be subjected to abuse" says ako.
I have no idea what the ratio of straight male prostitutes to gay male prostitutes and straight female prostitutes is. However, I do know that men in general tend to report sexual abuse much less frequently than women in general. This does not imply, however, that men are not being sexually abused. I believe the most recent numbers in the States is something like 1 in every 33 men [have been sexually abused] (with something like a 30% reporting rate), compared to 1 in 6 women (which is atrocious, but still better than the 1 in 3 of the 1970s) (And the reporting rate has gone up from 40% to 60%). So, perhaps "relatively" is exactly the right word to describe the unlikelyhood of abuse - but it should not be assumed that "unlikely" means "no abuse".
Posted by: mike timonin | Mar 26, 2008 at 10:51 AM
Kristy: I'm with you.
Well, sort of. I wouldn't actually do well as a prostitute for the same reason I never did well in customer service--I do not like people, by and large, and pretending that I do, or that dishing out lunch meat or blowjobs to J. Random Dude made me happy, is not something I do well. But if I did--and there are people who do like customer service jobs, much as I find it baffling and alien--and could be assured of my safety, I'd see prostitution as a viable way to earn some extra cash.
(Hell, I *did* work in porn over one summer, when I was in college and broke. It's not something I regret, and it was better than McDonald's--hey, $100 an hour for dealing with *one* asshole rather than $7.50 for dealing with fifty of 'em and also cooking fat.)
Sex is...just sex. You insert Tab A into Slot B, repeat a few times, and you're done. It can be *better*, yes; it can have more emotional significance. But it doesn't have to, and there's nothing wrong if it's just scratching an itch. And as long as you respect the person you pay to scratch that itch, treat them well, and don't comport yourself like someone who should appear on customers_suck, there's nothing wrong. No different from paying someone to rub your back or trim your toenails, when all's said and done--at least in principle. And I don't think I'm unethical for getting the occasional pedicure.
The way our society treats sex can, and does, often fuck things up. But I think the solution to that is reform--legalization, destigmatization, and safety guidelines--rather than condemning the whole thing.
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Are the madames and pimps inevitable with all prostitution or simply with illegal prostitution? Is it possible to legalize and regulate prostitution to do away with the exploitative controllers, where the prostitutes themselves are like individual contractors? While I agree with Lee about not wanting to criminalize the prostitutes, I see the larger issue as eliminating the exploitation.
Posted by: Tonio | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Jesurgislac:
different approaches to dealing with the problem of men who want to pay money to have sex.
So I'm trying to get down to what exactly it is that I'm disagreeing with on this issue, and I guess it comes down to two questions: why is that the way to frame the problem we're dealing with, rather than, say, "women (and more rarely men) being victimized in economic, emotional, and physical ways by the people they interact with in the course of prostitution"? And why are "we" the people trying to solve it, rather than supporting the implementation of solutions presented by women involved in sex work?
To me, unionization backed by legal remedies seems like a powerful tool for reducing or eliminating a lot of the actual, specific day-to-day problems faced by women performing sex work, and this seems to be the tack taken by sex work advocacy groups. I don't see how going after johns (with the presumable intent of driving them off) is beneficial if it requires giving up the former.
(The act of paying someone for sex is tied up in male privilege and entitlement, the objectification of women, the perversity of inescapable capitalistic monetezation, and other cultural factors that keep it from ever being "just" an exchange of services between consenting adults, certainly. The solution to that is ultra-long-term, because it's ultimately going to come down to "get rid of patriarchy," so I definitely agree that nothing being discussed here is going to be a quick panacea no matter what...)
Posted by: charlequin | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:07 AM
cjmr! Woohoo! Welcome home. ^_^
Posted by: Nenya | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Ultimately, I find the Swedish system you favor to be hypocritical at a basic level. You're basically saying, "prostitution is inherently abusive and degrading, and therefore a crime, but we'll look the other way at women who provide it, because we want to punish men more".
No. Ako and the Swedish system are basically saying "prostitution is degrading and abusive to the PROSTITUTE, and therefore a crime on the part of the JOHN. We won't punish the women who provide it because we're only interested in punishing those who exploit other people, and prostitutes aren't doing that."
It's exactly the same as punishing sweatshop owners and not the sweatshop workers. The idea that it's hypocritical makes no sense. I have no idea how effective the Swedish model is--I've heard good things about it but am no expert--but it's not hypocritical.
I think it's theoretically possible to make prostitution a safe and free job that nobody was ever forced into by economic circumstance or drugs or violence, and that only had a very rate of abuse. But I suspect that in such a world there would be very little prostitution at all, and what little existed would look nothing like even the most high-class sex workers that exist in our society. From everything I've read and observed, sexism is a large part of what drives both supply and demand in prostitution.
Posted by: LadyVetinari | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:15 AM
charlequin: hy is that the way to frame the problem we're dealing with, rather than, say, "women (and more rarely men) being victimized in economic, emotional, and physical ways by the people they interact with in the course of prostitution"?
If you are looking at root causes, the root cause of prostitution is men thinking they're entitled to have sex, and the corollary in a heterosexist culture, that women can be expected to provide sex, and the corollary to that - women who are selling sex to men who think they're entitled to it, are culturally despised and disregarded as equal human beings. You cannot fix the problem of cultural despite/disrregard, or change the economic power that punters have over sex workers, by legalizing or decriminalizing either buying or selling sex. The long term goal to eliminate most sex work is to eliminate poverty, to improve women's education and women's rights, and children's rights. (Improving transgender rights, especially employment and provision of goods and services, and provision of health care, would go far to eliminate the problem that many trans women can only earn the money they need to progress with their transition by sex work.)
So, the long term goal is: improve human rights in practical ways, and establish legislation to penalize men who figure they can take advantage of differentials in human rights and poverty by visiting other countries where they can easily buy sex from a much poorer and more helpless woman.
And, the short term goal: improve the situation for sex workers as best we can, bearing in mind that the first principle is to ensure that new legislation does no further harm to sex workers.
And why are "we" the people trying to solve it, rather than supporting the implementation of solutions presented by women involved in sex work?
See point three (corollary two): women involved in sex work are culturally despised and disregarded.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:22 AM
It's curious how many people can look at prostitution as being something that women (or anyone) choose, and for that matter, assume that all prostitutes are somehow getting rich because it pays so well, etc. etc.
Never mind that in probably every country on this planet, human trafficking is so integrated into prostitution that they aren't always separable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rhHc3-_OzE
Additionally check out International Justice Mission about this topic. That organization in particular (among other things) goes into places to rescue people out of prostitution (often young, young children), and rehabilitating them and getting them on their own feet. Truly amazing work, and in almost all cases, challenges the paradigm that prostitution is always a choice.
Even the fundies don't think a 6 year old girl chose that path.
Posted by: Peter Boysen | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:28 AM
And as long as you respect the person you pay to scratch that itch, treat them well, and don't comport yourself like someone who should appear on customers_suck, there's nothing wrong.
Basically, I agree with you, Izzy. But -- and HUGE disclaimer here, I've never engaged in sex work myself, as either a provider or customer, so I'm going on the evidence on the two friends I have who have been sex workers, and the numerous autobiographical accounts I've read, when researching a (abandoned) novel -- you can't make a living doing what you're talking about.
What it comes down to is that men (and it IS 99.999% men) don't want to pay for safe, consensual, healthy, respectful vanilla sex -- "itch scratchin'". Regular customers of prostitutes are LOOKING for degradation, humiliation, and danger.
Now it is possible to make a good living as a dominatrix -- I know someone who did. And that is a relatively safe specialty, because a) the sex provider was in control, and b) she knew what she was doing -- she had a very good "people" sense and knew how to tell when things might get dangerous, carefully inspected her toys, and had big strong male backups in case the customer turned violent. She didn't enjoy the sex -- any more than a server enjoys clearing tables -- but she was professional and took pride in doing her work well.
But I don't think there is any way to have a safe healthy career catering to the other major kinks that men generally pay for. Even in the Elliott Spitzer case, if you recall, he was in fact seeking what he KNEW to be unsafe sex.
The idea that legalizing prostitution will force johns to use condoms, to abandon underage children, to eschew violence, to treat the prostitute with "respect" is a fantasy. It will just mean that these men will seek out illegal prostitutes they can abuse. And the legal sex workers will have to cut their rates and accept increasingly unsafe and degrading conditions just to compete.
And those who think that our "moral sense" will kick in, "because everyone knows it's wrong to beat up your waitress" -- my goodness, you have never worked in customer service, have you? I assure you, there are plenty of people who think that receptionists, sales clerks, servers, etc. are "fair game" for the most horrific abuse, because that's what service workers are FOR.
I don't know the answer. I don't know if there IS an answer. I think de-criminalization would help; I think a national health service, so sex workers could receive disease protection and no questions asked emergency care, would help more.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Oh my gosh, how did I miss it? Yay, cjmr is back!
Posted by: hapax | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:41 AM
I don't believe anybody but a blithering idiot would say that prostitution is always a choice.
I don't believe anybody but a blithering idiot would say that prostitution is never a choice.
People have been kidnapped (historically and for all I know right now) and used as slave labour in fields and mines and factories. I don't believe that is a good argument for abolishing fields and mines and factories.
And for the record I for one don't believe that I have a right to have sex. And reality seems to agree that, no actually, I don't....
Posted by: Michael Cule | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:43 AM
I don't believe that is a good argument for abolishing fields and mines and factories.
Fields and mines and factories produce stuff that we all actually need - or at least that we all actually want, you know, the latest stereo, etc.
A man buys sex not because he needs or wants sex, but because he thinks he's entitled to have sex with someone, regardless of what that "someone" would themselves prefer.
My point is that rather than "abolishing prostitution", we should work to abolish the circumstances under which most people end up "choosing" prostitution, while doing our best to ameliorate the circumstances of sex workers. Where people have better options than sex work, they usually take those options.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 11:56 AM
Hapax, you make a very good point there. I do know men who've gone to prostitutes as vanilla one-offs--they were too busy or socially unsuccessful to pick up women, or were not in an emotional place to have a relationship and wanted to maintain their own boundaries--but no regular customers. And one-time customers probably are not going to get you a living in any industry. (Also, I have to admit that any job that involves you being alone, in private, with a stranger is going to be a *damn risky* job.)
And those who think that our "moral sense" will kick in, "because everyone knows it's wrong to beat up your waitress" -- my goodness, you have never worked in customer service, have you? I assure you, there are plenty of people who think that receptionists, sales clerks, servers, etc. are "fair game" for the most horrific abuse, because that's what service workers are FOR.
Oh, yeah, I'm with you there. Fully-paid-up member of c_s here. I fully believe that most of the entitlement-bitch types who appear in that community's stories would escalate to physical violence if they were in private--hell, when I was a cashier, I had a guy throw coins at my face with ten or twelve other people in the store.
I don't know the answer. I don't know if there IS an answer. I think de-criminalization would help; I think a national health service, so sex workers could receive disease protection and no questions asked emergency care, would help more.
Definitely. If possible, I'd love to see some way of flagging "problem customers" in an accessible database as well. Useful for the prostitutes themselves, also useful for law enforcement.
Part of me also wonders whether the situation you describe would be better if our society didn't stigmatize both prostitutes *and* customers: when paying for sex has an implicit value of "you're bad and wrong and pathetic," it's less likely that prostitutes will get plain-vanilla regular customers, more likely that the johns will take their own self-esteem issues out on them, etc. But I am not a shrink (damn good thing for everyone, really).
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:17 PM
Yay, cjmr is back!
It'll probably take me a couple weeks to catch up just on the LB threads--looks like I've got a few thousand comments to read.
Anyone have any suggestions which other threads are must reads?
----
FWIW, the bottom of my list of jobs I'd only take to keep from starving (from more likely to less likely) goes something like:
telemarketer--help line
sewage worker
telemarketer--solicitation
porn
prostitution
Posted by: cjmr | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:24 PM
I can guarantee you that the overwhelming majority of men (and even women !) who hire farm workers or party clowns don't spend their time looking for farmers or party clowns who really, really enjoy their work. Most of the time, they just look for the best value for the money. They feel that, once they've put down the cash, they're entitled to the labor.
Actually, in this case, the analogue would be to punish the pimps, not the johns. I bought a new pair of shoes last month; as far as I know, they didn't come from a sweatshop, but they might have. Should I be thrown in jail if that is the case ?I think hapax makes a much more coherent argument:
If this is the case, then legalizing prostitution won't eliminate the demand for these services, nor will it eliminate the supply. There are plenty of other harmful activities where this is the case: drug use, the aforementioned sweatshops, cage fighting, whatever. These activities are illegal, and they should be. However, in each case there's a gamut of quality. Some of the harder drugs are illegal (and, I think, should remain so) and universally harmful, but alcohol, tobacco, and, recently, marijuana (almost) are not. Sweatshops are illegal, but assembly lines in general are not. No-holds-barred bumfights are illegal, but boxing is not.What you and Jesu are arguing here is that sex work is unique: there's no gamut of quality involved in it. All of it is, by definition, degrading, humiliating, and horrible. I don't think this claim is credible -- especially in light of the actual sex workers who've posted to this thread, and described their experiences as, if not exactly enjoyable, then at least as tolerable as McDonalds work.
If I tried to beat my waitress senseless for bringing me undercooked eggs or something, I'd find my ass in jail about as fast as you can say "911". I do feel entitled to customer service when I come to a restaurant -- that's what I pay them for, after all -- but that doesn't mean that anything and everything is permissible. When I put my car in the repair shop, I do feel entitled to the mechanic's labor, but that doesn't mean that I can just turn around and shoot him if he doesn't align the wheels just right. When my mechanic hires me to patch his website, he feels entitled to having a working website, but he's not going to tie me up in his basement if I miss a CSS tag somewhere. Legal employment is the great equalizer.Posted by: Bugmaster | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Heh. Mine is not quiite reversed:
Porn
Help Line
Prostitution
Sewage Worker
Horrible Medical Experiment Guinea Pig
Drug Dealer
Selling My Organs on the Black Market
Telemarketer--Solicitation
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Oh hey, cjmr is back ! Welcome back.
I'd probably go for the "Horrible Medical Experiment Guinea Pig" before I go for telemarketing, but who knows... I've already worked for lawyers in the past, and I somehow was able to stomach it...
Posted by: Bugmaster | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Also, welcome back!
Bugmaster: If I tried to beat my waitress senseless for bringing me undercooked eggs or something, I'd find my ass in jail about as fast as you can say "911".
Hopefully, yeah. But if you tried to beat your waitress senseless, odds are you'd be around other people while you did it. And even if you weren't, people would have seen her serving you. Eyewitnesses are really helpful to a court case; eyewitnesses are even *more* helpful to a murder case. And people tend to behave better, in general, when they're being watched.
Prostitution is, and this is one of the problems I don't see much of a way around, the only profession I can think of that involves spending a substantial time alone with strangers--strangers who, very often, aren't public about hiring you. This is one of the reasons that serial killers tend to choose prostitutes as victims. Legalization may help, but the basic problem is still there.
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:48 PM
I forgot all about 'medical guinea pig'--although I wouldn't mind participating in an allergy study if it meant I didn't have to take allergy medicine that gives me nosebleeds for the rest of my life. Or go live in a hermetically-sealed environment.
I've already worked for lawyers in the past, and I somehow was able to stomach it...
I didn't mind the lawyer my mom and I worked for. Maybe because he was an immigration specialist, so he was one of 'the good guys'?
Posted by: cjmr | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:50 PM
The idea that legalizing prostitution will force johns to use condoms, to abandon underage children, to eschew violence, to treat the prostitute with "respect" is a fantasy. It will just mean that these men will seek out illegal prostitutes they can abuse. And the legal sex workers will have to cut their rates and accept increasingly unsafe and degrading conditions just to compete.
I agree, from my readings, most countries with legal prostitutions still have very large black markets for kinks that can not be satisfied legally and all the associated problems.
Posted by: Lee Ratner | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:53 PM
Posted by: Bugmaster | Mar 26, 2008 at 12:56 PM
There are also some jobs, such as veterinarian and zoo keeper, where the worker has to spend time alone with ravenous inhuman beasts (which are almost as bad as men, if I understand Jesu correctly). All of these jobs have been made relatively safe, so we know that it's at least possible.
Well, if you make the 'john' sit in a cage, it kinda defeats the purpose of the transaction--unless they're into that kind of thing. OTOH, a small pistol equipped with a tranquilizer dart would probably be a good addition to any woman's defense kit.
Posted by: cjmr | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:01 PM
This swallowing of one's own tail is what passes for introspection in American journalism. It reminds me of the way all those stories about Britney Spears were followed by all those stories about all those stories. When you end up covering your own coverage, you might as well just run a headline that reads, "Sorry folks, we couldn't come up with a legitimate angle."
It's Not News It's Fark does a good job of describing this and other forms of not-news in the media (albeit with a certain amount of cynicism). You don't even have to be familiar with Fark.com to get into the book, though it helps.
Posted by: Dylan | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Yeah, but all of those professions, except maybe for park rangers. take place in public buildings--ones with many people running around, most of whom would hear a yell--and doctors and vets at least have assistants in the room most of the time.
Hm. It's possible that the whorehouse/brothel model of prostitution is the best way to go: you get bouncers, you know who's caused trouble for your colleagues, etc. But I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject, so I can't say with any certainty.
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:05 PM
Izzy, aforementioned abandoned novel was set in a brothel (of a sort) run by the prostitutes, so I agree with you.
In all cases, however, as Jesurgislac will remind us, it's a matter of who is in control, and how they maintain their power.
Posted by: hapax | Mar 26, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Welcome back, cjmr! Whooo hooo!!!!
On the "degrading vs illegal" question, I think we can look at modern societies attitudes towards sex workers. We could look at perception of sex workers in Denmark and Amsterdam, for example, where sex work (porn and stripping in Denmark, and pretty much anything in Amsterdam) is legal, and has been legal for some time. The next group would be Mexico, where prostitution is, IIRC, somewhat legal, but restricted.
Most societies that have accepted prostitution have made at least a bit more safe by having the private area part of a public one (a single hotel, or a brothel, or whatever), so that others know when a worker is engaged, and to whom.
If we believe that the acts that are most common in prostitution are those that are most common in porn (and I see no reason they wouldn't be), most of it is going to be very "vanilla": the sex is the same, but with someone much more attractive (from the client's point of view). Jena Jameson, one of the more visable and marketable porn stars around, doesn;t do anything **but** vanilla.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2008 at 02:08 PM
I don't know that you necessarily have to follow a brothel model. At least not in the conventional sense.
There's no reason that - in a world in which prostitution is legal, obviously - a prostitute couldn't be an "independent contractor" who simply leases space in a building that provides security as part of the lease agreement. If she/he is doing a brisk business, or is in a partnership, private security and reception personnel could be put on the payroll as well, adding another layer of security without really following the standard brothel model.
I'm sure the cost of rent would be considerably less than the standard cut taken by a madam/pimp.
Just out of curiosity, does anyone know what the statistics are for vice stings that target Johns versus stings targeting prostitutes are like? What's the ratio? (If I weren't at work, I'd do some Googling to find out). I just wonder, given the apparent assumption in this thread that in the US the prostitutes are almost exclusively the target of prosecution, with the Johns getting a free pass. Over the years I've seen plenty of news items talking about initiatives to focus attention on the Johns. Lots of sting operations, plastering the faces of the Johns' caught in such stings all over the six o'clock news, etc.
I'm not disputing that the prostitutes are the ones taking all or most of the legal heat, just curious about the actual numbers.
Posted by: Jon | Mar 26, 2008 at 02:23 PM
Holy hell, I went home for the night and when I came back there were nipple lasers! Nice!
No, I'm not "joining the argument that says 'degradation and harm' is measured by the amount of money a woman is being paid, and not by what is actually being done to her." I am, quite specifically, claiming instead that that is not the argument being made. Although it bears some superficial similarities.
I agree that there are many things that are so degrading and intrinsically harmful that no amount of reward can outweigh that. It may surprise you to know that to me, very few of them have to do with sex. (I'm not being facetious when I make the customer service analogy here. A CSR is paid to, among other things, put up with verbal and emotional abuse with a smile. It is inherently damaging to the psyche; I couldn't do it for more than a couple years, no matter how much I was paid.) True, there are some purely physical acts that I would just never be comfortable with, but I also know enough people who, er, walk their own path to know that my boundaries are by no means universal, and to know that however intrinsically degrading you may find a certain sex act, there's SOMEONE out there who'll do it gladly. So.
If sex - the physical act of sex - isn't intrinsically degrading, what makes rape and sexual abuse degrading? I don't like to make sweeping generalizations here, but I do think a large part of it has to be the feeling of loss of control, the feeling that someone else is doing something to your body that you have no say in. That's why rape can occur even between husband and wife - even if a woman normally enjoys having sex with her husband, if she feels like she couldn't stop him if she wanted to, that can turn an ordinarily good experience into something frightening and humiliating. So, at its barest, most basic level, you could say that the difference between sex being degrading and not is the ability to say no.
In our society, we tend to associate money with power and freedom. Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that if you're well-off, you have more choices open to you. Thus, while we pity the whore on the corner giving $20 blowjobs, afraid that if she turns down a client her pimp will beat her, we don't really think the Vegas callgirl is in the same situation. That anyone bringing in that kind of money has the luxury of refusing a client if she thinks he's going to be too unpleasant (granted, if her standards are too high she may be in the wrong business, but that's neither here nor there) and/or of setting terms to establish beforehand what's acceptable and what's not. If this is in fact the case, then the woman does have control over what's being done with her body, and therefore it's probably not really degrading or harmful.
I'm not saying that this is my argument. I think a lot of it is pretty sound, but there are some assumptions near the end that I just don't know enough about the sex trade to judge if they're valid or not. What I am saying is that this, in an incredibly large and rambling nutshell, is the argument I believe Jeff was trying to make, waaay back further up the page when this first came up. There's room to attack that argument, if you truly think it's invalid, but please, attack the argument he's making! Don't set up a straw man of "oh, so it's ok to degrade women if you pay them enough?" and attack it instead.
Oh, and on a side note: "Most people who like sex generally mean they like sex with a person they are attracted to, at a time when they feel sexually aroused." Yes, you're right. I should have been more clear. When I say I like sex, I mean that there are very few people to whom I am not or could not become sexually attracted, at least for a short period of time, and that a state of sexual arousal is very easy for me to attain. (Didn't really intend to get that personal, I kinda thought my comment spoke for itself, but apparently it needed clarification.) Assume for a moment I'm a sex worker in the abovementioned magical feminist utopia: worst-case scenario, where just the person and the mood and the timing are all wrong, at worst it might be a chore - but even then, hardly the worst chore imaginable, and better than many. I think I'd be more afraid of boredom than degradation. (Granted, Karl Rove might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe if I wasn't required to talk to him afterwards?) And I don't think I'm the only person in the world who might feel that way, given that in the circles I run in, I'm considered fairly straightlaced.
And no, I don't think Bugmaster has magical feminist-utopia-creating powers (although if I'm wrong on this, man, you let me know, k?), and I don't think that legalization is the magic bullet that will solve ALL the issues that exist with prostitution today, but I do think it would be a huge honking step in the right direction. It would take care of some of the problems, make the reforms to take care of other problems much more feasible, and it'd be a heck of a lot better than sitting on our hands going "Well, let's just keep doing what we've been doing, and hope this is the week it'll finally work," which is apparently our current policy.
(and as an aside to Bugmaster: "Anyway, a proponent of the Swedish school of thought would probably say that, since trading sex for money is an inherently immoral and degrading act, the fact that you'd be willing to engage in it means nothing. Just because you'd be willing to debase yourself, doesn't meant that it's the right thing to do." Well, and those people can blow me. If you're trying to tell me "I'm better qualified to make decisions about what's good for you than you are," and you're not my doctor - mind your business.)
Posted by: Kristy | Mar 26, 2008 at 03:16 PM
Actually, in this case, the analogue would be to punish the pimps, not the johns. I bought a new pair of shoes last month; as far as I know, they didn't come from a sweatshop, but they might have. Should I be thrown in jail if that is the case ?
If the sweatshop laborer was right there in the store when you bought it, then sure. Your degree of remove from the abused worker is important. In prostitution, the worker's body is the commodity sold to the customer (unlike in sweatshops, where shoes or clothes are the main commodity sold to the customer) so there is no remove and total complicity.
Posted by: LadyVetinari | Mar 26, 2008 at 03:33 PM
Fortunately, programming is a legal occupation, and thus my boss can't beat me upside the head if I miss a deadline.
That is part of my point - if prostitution were legalized, the prostitutes would have the same protection as workers in any other legal profession. Not absolute protection, of course, but certainly much better than the current situation. Right now, prostitutes cannot report abuse from pimps or johns without being charged with crime themselves.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 at 03:42 PM
That was me at 3:42 p.m.
Posted by: Tonio | Mar 26, 2008 at 03:56 PM
LadyVetinari:
It's exactly the same as punishing sweatshop owners and not the sweatshop workers.
But what defines a sweatshop isn't the work being performed; it's the conditions in which it's performed and the pay awarded for it. Action against sweatshops isn't intended to prevent workers from sewing clothes, but from sewing clothes in a specific negative environment. The arguments about prostitiution cast the fundamental nature of the exchange itself as unacceptable, which at very least makes it not analogous to sweatshop labor.
(Someone else also pointed out that pimps are more analogous to sweatshop owners.)
Jesurgislac:
You cannot fix the problem of cultural despite/disrregard, or change the economic power that punters have over sex workers, by legalizing or decriminalizing either buying or selling sex.
I agree with this in the former case unambiguously. Why can't legalization plus forms of regulation alter the economic arrangement, though? Because any restrictions would be undercut by sex workers seeking to work outside the system due to desperation? In that case, why not combine a regulated structure that includes the possibility of unionization and legal protection, with criminalization of the johns who buy sex work outside that framework (but not of the prostitutes)?
See point three (corollary two): women involved in sex work are culturally despised and disregarded.
Why does that privilege the perspective of individuals who are not sex workers over that of individuals that are? As best as I can determine, advocacy groups for and composed of sex workers overwhelmingly favor forms of legalization that would allow for unionization. It seems unreasonable to me to dismiss this viewpoint by arguing that its holders aren't qualified to speak on the matter or that as sex workers they require rescue from degradation regardless of their stated opinions.
I basically feel like there's a nexus here between the ideas of "what's wrong with work" and "what's wrong with sex" that's producing a problem here. The capitalist employee model is inherently degrading to some degree regardless of the work you engage in. The capitalist purchase model inherently produces entitlement; the ability to purchase any good or service through nothing else but money leads to the commodification of all goods and services. But I'm not sure why physical sexual contact crosses a line beyond which this inherently degrading aspect of capitalist society simply cannot stand, while for both jobbs with far fewer power issues in play (retail clerk) or those that border quite closely on prostitution (pornography, phone sex work, etc.) it's worthwhile to use pro-worker tools (unionization, labor laws, etc.) to improve the lot of those employed in the field.
Posted by: charlequin | Mar 26, 2008 at 04:17 PM
That anyone bringing in that kind of money has the luxury of refusing a client if she thinks he's going to be too unpleasant (granted, if her standards are too high she may be in the wrong business, but that's neither here nor there) and/or of setting terms to establish beforehand what's acceptable and what's not.
Someone who's making $5,000 per hour (or even half that, with the other half going to "the house") has much more leeway turning down clients. She's also much more likely to be independent or semi-independent (if conditions are bad, she can likely take her clients to another agency, or go it alone). By pooling resources with other women (as it appears Spitzer's worker did), she can have even more independence and security.
This is **not** to say that no women who charges $5000 an hour is degraded or hurt; just that the odds are much more against it than the woman who charges $20 an hour.
[A comparison is the situation in Mexico: Most workers have a public point of contact with the client (a Zona Roja bar), an established private area with other people near-by, is licensed and regulated by the government -- in short, has several protections from degradation and harm. However, some women, for various reasons (almost none of which are likely to do with choice), walk the streets. They make less money, are far more likely to meet with degradation and harm, much of it from the police. (Their clients are also more likely to be hassled, or arrested, by the police.)]
As with any job, the more you make, the easier it is to walk away from bad working conditions.
=====================
There are many professions that are degrading and harmful (and those forced into those jobs do tend to be looked down on -- migrant worker is a prime example). As we work to reduce the degradation and harm in those professions, there's nothing keeping us from making **all** prostitution more "uplifting" and safer.
Posted by: Jeff | Mar 26, 2008 at 04:23 PM
Kristy: (I'm not being facetious when I make the customer service analogy here. A CSR is paid to, among other things, put up with verbal and emotional abuse with a smile.
So is a sex worker, Kristy. Not only with a smile, but often with a convincing fake of rapturous enjoyment. You think that having sex with the person who is verbally and emotionally abusing you would make that less inherently damaging to the psyche? Or are you under the impression that punters are always nice and polite to sex workers?
Charlequin: In that case, why not combine a regulated structure that includes the possibility of unionization and legal protection, with criminalization of the johns who buy sex work outside that framework (but not of the prostitutes)?
Because when you attempt to criminalize the people who have all the economic and social power, they find a means of getting what they want anyway. Or so the experience of sex workers in Sweden strongly suggests.
Keep your eye on the root motivation: a man has sex with a sex worker because he thinks he's entitled. By definition, a punter is entering the transaction because he does not want to make himself sufficiently appealling that anyone would want to have sex with him: he wants sex on terms where he does not have to care or think about the sexual feelings of his partner: where his partner is being paid to make him believe that she is enjoying giving him pleasure.
You cannot actually make that transaction into anything good or positive: it isn't. It's an ugly, shitty thing that people - mostly men - do to people - mostly women - who have far less economic and social power than they do.
I would be interested to hear what McDuff has to say (been reading her comments on Pandagon with interest, but they're spread across a lot of threads) and after all, if things get too exhausting, here she'll have several men ready to stand up and declare that they think buying sex from a woman is just fine.
charlequin: Why does that privilege the perspective of individuals who are not sex workers over that of individuals that are?
Is this a trick question? It does because it does. For a corollary, it was over 30 years from decriminalization of sex between men in the UK to the formal acknowledgement of some LGBT groups as political advisers giving feedback on legislation.
I don't know what the right solution is. I doubt there is one. (No-arrest zones in cruising areas seem to have worked for some cities in the UK, though.) The parallel between LGBT people and sex workers will take you only so far: the long-term goal of LGBT equality is to make LGBT people accepted as normal, while the long-term goal of feminism is to wipe punters, without whom sex work would not exist, out of existence - to bring up a generation of men who do not regard sex as an entitlement and who would no more go to a sex worker than they would fricasse a kitten: and the shorter-term, to ensure that no woman lives such a shitty life that she ends up with the best "choice" available to her being sex work.
Posted by: Jesurgislac | Mar 26, 2008 at 04:53 PM
You think that having sex with the person who is verbally and emotionally abusing you would make that less inherently damaging to the psyche? Or are you under the impression that punters are always nice and polite to sex workers?
I don't think anyone is under that impression. However, there are plenty of jobs where the workers are expected to do that. Prostitution is the only one where a majority of people are saying it should be illegal, or that people who use that particular service are innately bad. The fact that some people call CSRs and abuse them, or that the obnoxious "the customer is always right" people make idiots of themselves regularly, doesn't make CSR a morally wrong industry, or me a bad person for calling a help line when my computer fries.
By definition, a punter is entering the transaction because he does not want to make himself sufficiently appealling that anyone would want to have sex with him: he wants sex on terms where he does not have to care or think about the sexual feelings of his partner: where his partner is being paid to make him believe that she is enjoying giving him pleasure.
Okay, yeah.
But, again, this applies to a whole lot of jobs. I don't want to cut my toenails myself--and I wouldn't think of asking my boyfriend to do it, nor would I do it for him, because...ew--so I pay someone to do it, to be polite during the process, and to say "Thank you, have a nice day!" when he or she is done. I don't want to cook for myself, or to socialize with a friend/boyfriend/other person who might make me dinner, so I order out or go to a restaurant where the waiter, again, acts like it's his pleasure to serve me.
I don't need all these things. Or any of them. But if guys who pay for sex think they're entitled to sex, then I probably do think I'm entitled to a pedicure, or Chinese takeout, or any other service I pay for. I don't think this is unethical, and I don't see how sex is different. Riskier, yes; perhaps requiring even more annoying faking it than retail, sure; but not, morally speaking, different.
I mean, I'm all in favor of setting up an economic system where nobody needs to do work they find horrifically distasteful. But there are lots of jobs that people hate doing; there are lots of jobs that involve a certain amount of risk; there are lots of jobs that require you to fake an attitude you don't feel. Why is stimulating a relevant appendage and/or orifice special?
Posted by: Izzy | Mar 26, 2008 at 05:15 PM