In her clear, concise argument in favor of legalizing prostitution Holly of The Pervocracy also said
I think a lot of objections to prostitution are really objections to capitalism. I’ve never sold my ass, but I sell my body five days a week—I do physical things I don’t enjoy and say things I don’t mean because I need the money to live. I risk violent assault and exposure to diseases at my job. I have to touch and be nice to strangers off the street with no right to refuse unpleasant ones. The vast majority of the money I take in is kept by my employer.
But I provide a socially valuable and economically productive service, and I’m in the same boat with most anybody with a job. (How I differ from hookers, other than the obvious: I have the ability to call the cops, to file an L&I claim, and to sue my employer. And because my employer knows this they provide safety systems. Legalization would save lives, people.) Doing un-fun things to meet survival needs is a condition of life outside the Garden of Eden, and I’m not convinced that selling sex is a uniquely horrible way of doing that.
While I agree with her overall argument (if you don’t then sorry, you’ve got blood on your hands) I don’t agree with her claim the real objection is to capitalism and not to sex.
Not least because the narratives around prostitution are so highly gendered. To hear most people talk you’d think nearly all prostitutes are women. Instead the only prostitutes activists generally discuss are women prostitutes. For most, including far too many people who imagine themselves feminist, what happens to gay male and, especially, trans prostitutes is irrelevant and immaterial to their little universes. Except, of course, to the extent their opinions of (almost exclusively) male customers are confirmed.
Instead most objections occur in the context of the “no-sex” class paradigm where it’s assumed that women naturally aren’t, and therefore mustn’t be, sexual. And, with that contradictory “aren’t and therefore shouldn’t be” construction (see also Rule #1) people take the position that women in prostitution are a) fragile, forced, feminine flowers and b) skulking trash who deserve what’s coming to them. Oh, unless they’re gay or trans in which case c) who cares what happens to the dirty faggots and women-wannabes.
Anyway, that reason and, I think, only that is why Holly’s ambulance/EMT work is considered different despite all the overt similarities. And thus I think it’s why the main objection is about the sex and not labor.
—-
Doh! Actually I realize it’s not an issue of sex, it’s an issue of gender! People who buy the patriarchal frame that women are essentially non-sexual will, of course, see sex work as an abuse of the expected women-use-sex-for-leverage/men-use-leverage-for-sex paradigm. More contemporary feminists, of course, see that paradigm itself as a abhorrent.
That doesn’t mean that sex work is all hunky dory or that we can all just take our clothes of and run naked. The dominant paradigm is, well, dominant. Especially among men who, as a (sex) class seem to be roughly 40 years behind the curve and thus even more mired in the transactional model of sex. (As I’ve mentioned if not all sex-workers are female, virtually all customers are male.) Until that changes, one way or another, and until the idea that sex is inevitably transactional is turned around, certain elements of sex work will remain problematic.
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-05-17 20:04.
Quickie note: most trans prostitutes, at least as I understand it, are women. 'Trans' is not a category separate from 'man' and 'woman', it's a modifier.
I understand your point - that cis women are the prostitutes that that particular paradigm cares about - but a lot of trans women really find categorisations like 'women and trans people' quite offensive and part and parcel of their experience of oppression. (You wouldn't say 'female and black prostitutes'; 'female and trans prostitutes' is exactly the same sort of statement.)
[Thanks for the tip - I'm obviously still mastering the vocabulary. I probably wouldn't say "female and trans prostitute" to speak of a single individual anyway but I'll tread carefully when referring to collective classes of discrimination. (I know, for instance that trans people of both sexes are both fetishized and targeted ways that are distinct from either gay or straight cis people.) --fl]
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-05-17 21:08.
the idea that almost all customers in the sex industry are male is incorrect. The majority are male, but "virtually all"? No. If we are discussing the wider sex industry, to include porn and stripping, virtually all is utterly incorrect. There are a lot of women who watch porn, and view strippers (both male and female).
And, alas, an EMT is never going to get looked down on by the majority of the world the way a sex worker is...there is no comparision with stigma via society between the two...
[Interesting points about degrees of stigma. As someone or other at Sex 2.0 said (I think) there's always that "well, I might be a stripper but 'at least' I don't do..." whatever they see as the next rung up the stigma ladder. Which, of course, shows how far we have to go even *inside* sex work! As for EMTs, the general population is glad to see them show up but from my peripheral experience it's kind of surprising how little respect they get from higher up the nurse/doctor ladder. Especially considering how front-line it is. But I digress. I need to apologize because while Holly was quite clear that she meant currently-illegal prostitution ought to be legalized, and I was speaking in reference only to that, I accordioned that out to "sex work," about which you're right that customers are more mixed. --fl]
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Sun, 2009-05-17 21:51.
Ren - I wasn't trying to imply that my job is just like sex work or just as hard and I'm sorry if I sounded that way. I was just trying to point out that certain objections to sex work also apply to a lot of non-sex jobs as well.
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-05-18 03:27.
The thing is, I think the objections to capitalism are also objections to the sex/no-sex class system as well, because modern western capitalism as we know it depends heavily on the value that is placed on sex, to function as a motivator within the system.
As with so many of capitalism's systems, prostitution is at once an inescapable consequence of capital, but also antithetical to the system, because of the ways in which capital and patriarchy are intertwined.
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-05-18 04:47.
"As someone or other at Sex 2.0 said (I think) there's always that "well, I might be a stripper but 'at least' I don't do..."
That was me. Actually, I think a couple of us said it.
Holly- I agree to a point...both jobs are hard and often under appreciated. Now, I have never been an EMT, so I am not at all sure what that is like. I worked in a morgue at one point, but the dead are different than the living and injured, so I am not sure if a comparision can be drawn there...and well, a sex worker, an EMT, and someone in a morgue all deal with crap like hysterical people and bodily fluids. And yep, all three are work, and not necessarily the most well thought of jobs that are respected in society. But I do think, society being as it is, that comparing anything but sex work with sex work- while it might be comparable in terms of actual effort-labor, is a bit off...because fucking for money has a stigma to it that few other jobs have. If an EMT is murdered, raped, beaten or robbed while working, there is a much higher chance for justice than there is for a prostitute...people forget things like that when speaking about sex work as a job like any other.
[Dang it, I thought that was you, Ren. I think Kimberlee said it in another workshop too. Each time it was about trying to organize people who might or might not see themselves as sex workers.... even though someone else doing the same work might. Agreed, by the way, that even low-contact, legal sex work is more stigmatized than EMTs. What I thought was important about that post (I stressed it in a different post) is *legal* marginalization such that contact sex workers like prostitutes and escorts lack critical rights and protections that EMTs and nearly everyone else has. And, for me anyway, until that changes there won't just be stigma (which might not change) there'll still be open season. Which, where Holly and I live, makes it more dangerous work than either coal mining or fishing. --fl]
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Mon, 2009-05-18 06:37.
I tend to think of the "sex work is a job like any other" argument as intended to mean that sex work would be a job like any other if it weren't specially stigmatized, or that the reasons given for stigmatizing it apply similarly to other jobs.
At the same time, I've never found "sex work is really like any other job" arguments persuasive (though I of course agree with the "sex workers should have the same ability as anyone to call the cops and otherwise make themselves safe" part of the argument), for a couple of reasons.
One is that part of my discomfort with the customers, part of the reason I do think less of someone if told that person visits prostitutes is the knowledge that some large portion of the customers (though I don't know exactly how large a portion, and imagine it varies from one segment of the market to another) themselves go along with the stigma; there's a creepiness to making use of someone's services while treating that person as an untouchable for providing those services that doesn't really apply for any other job. (Not, obviously, that people who don't visit prostitutes but do things that make prostitutes' lives more dangerous are on morally sound ground either.)
The other is that if we really thoroughly bought the idea that there was nothing different between sex on the job and other things on the job, that would undercut the rationale for the laws against sexual harrassment. We have those laws because there really is something worse about having sex imposed as a job condition in a supposed-to-be-nonsexual job than about having some other thing you dislike imposed (e.g. signing up for a marketing job and finding out you're expected to make sales calls, which does happen in small companies, and might be really unpleasant if you like marketing and hate direct sales).
There has to be some way of framing the "don't treat prostitutes as some sort of specially ruined women" argument that isn't at odds with many people's intuition that they have a much stronger aversion to unwanted sex than to unwanted most other things.
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-05-19 01:41.
@Lynn: I don't think your argument holds up. Unwanted sex is NEVER ok, not even in sex work! No one is arguing for unwanted sex.
The other is that if we really thoroughly bought the idea that there was nothing different between sex on the job and other things on the job, that would undercut the rationale for the laws against sexual harrassment.
Really? Like allowing professional boxing means we have undercut the rules against physical assault?
People can agree to hit each other for sport, but it's not OK to hit people without their permission. Sex work is the same way. There is informed consensual sex as part of the job, and there is harassment. Big difference.
We have those laws because there really is something worse about having sex imposed as a job condition in a supposed-to-be-nonsexual job than about having some other thing you dislike imposed (e.g. signing up for a marketing job and finding out you're expected to make sales calls, which does happen in small companies, and might be really unpleasant if you like marketing and hate direct sales).
I don't really see the parallel here. Finding out that your marketing job involves sales calls is at most a misrepresentation of the job: you can decide it's not a big deal and to do it, or decide that there was a misunderstanding, and you were hired for the wrong job, and leave. If that misrepresentation were vast and malicious (i.e. you thought you were going to be a marketer and instead you are chained up digging ditches against your will) suddenly it's trafficking and OMG, we do already have laws against forcing people to do things, period.
No one should ever be pressured into sex (with their coworkers or with anyone else), including sex workers. Unwanted sex is verboten in sex work, too. Some porn companies have sexual harassment training now! Being a stripper or porn actor or prostitute doesn't mean we put up with unwanted sex. It just means that if it happens, we don't have legal protection.
[Excellent point, Calico. Not intuitive to outsiders, obviously, including me, but once you mention it it's like, duh! The example that immediately comes to mind for me is the way street prostitutes are shaken down for sex by dirty cops. That's almost textbook sexual harassment. (Almost because legally speaking cops aren't employers but in principle the pressures brought to bear as a term of continuing employment, let alone continuing safety, is very similar.) As long as prostitution's illegal cops can get away with it. The instant it's legal they can't. And if cops aren't clear-cut cases there are instances where it is. --fl]
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-05-19 13:01.
I figured you just weren't aware of the thing, so it was worth the nudge. One of the major issues I've seen a lot of trans people speak on is being "third-gendered" or "ungendered", by which they mean being put in the neither-male-nor-female category when many trans people do consider themselves "male" or "female".
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Tue, 2009-05-19 23:07.
@Calico: I realize that being a stripper or porn actor or prostitute doesn't necessarily mean (and certainly shouldn't mean) that you put up with unwanted sex (that is, if you're an unwilling or trafficked sex worker, it does, but I'm not saying that's by definition all sex workers).
But here's why I still find a conflict between "just a job like any other," as I've often heard the argument made, and my sense that unwanted sex, and sexual harrassment, are really, really bad.
What happens if that I often hear discussion that goes something like this:
Person A: Sex workers often hate their jobs and want out.
Person B: So what? That's capitalism. I'm a cubicle rat, and I hate my job, too. Sex work's just a job like any other, and I see no reason why there's any difference between hating your job in the sex business and hating your job in an office.
Or Person B will bring up some horribly exploited set of non-sex workers, not in a way that says, hey, we need to do things about certain kinds of exploitation across the board, but in a "so what, that's capitalism" way, where the argument winds up headed toward not being obliged to care about anyone's exploitation.
So that the whole argument winds up as "well, work sucks for everyone, and everyone's exploited." Rather than the argument I'd want, which is, "Those sex workers who are miserable and want out sure aren't helped by being made to have a criminal record." (And this argument applies regardless of how many in any given part of the business do or don't actually hate their jobs.)
I've heard this version of "sex work is just a job" repeatedly, really, so that I now tend to wince a bit when I see the "just a job" words. Unless they're qualified in some way that gets rid of the possibility of Person B's version.
Submitted by 2945 (not verified) on Wed, 2009-05-20 05:31.
Further, part of the reason I'm really bothered by the Person B argument, as I've given it, is that, though nearly everyone does agree that unwanted sex is bad, some people have a very minimalist notion of what "unwanted sex" is. This is across the board, not just a sex work thing. Some people think sex with someone who's drunk should only be wrong if the person is utterly passed out and unresponsive; they react with outright indignation to the suggestion that you shouldn't have sex with someone way too impaired to drive, maybe slurred and staggering, but still visibly awake. Some people want only the most blatant quid pro quos to count as sexual harrassment. And so on. So I'm not at all sure, when I hear Person B say, "So? I hate my job, too," that Person B doesn't see it as more or less OK if some sizeable set of sex workers are living lives of quiet desperation, as long as they're not actually trafficked.
This also ties with a broader argument that goes beyond sex work, where some people tend to respond to "sex is extra special and meant only for your wedding day, or you'll be ruined" types of arguments with "sex really isn't special in any way at all" types of arguments, and I think it's really hard, within a "sex really isn't special in any way at all" type of argument, to explain why you shouldn't be minimalist about consent. After all, there are lots of other things which would be really, really awful if someone were outright enslaved or forced into them, but where we don't see more minimalist versions of consent as that awful.
I think there might be a way to preserve whatever's positive about "sex work is just a job" without falling into this. Perhaps it might go something like:
Sex work is a job that a number of people might find particularly arduous, and maybe it's even a job where you'd want some things you wouldn't need as much for other jobs. Maybe, for instance, some jobs are more prone to trafficking even if they're legal (part of the trafficking and coercion problem obviously is illegality, maybe even nearly all of it, but people are trafficked for housework and other forms of labor, even if those are legal, not so much for other jobs). Or maybe, for instance, there's extra reasons to want to offer help for sex workers who want out (and maybe not only for sex work, maybe also for other quite different jobs that some people find particularly difficult for one reason or another). Or maybe something else. But whatever you might want, it should be responsive to the actual expressed wishes of people doing the work, and not paternalistically come up with by outsiders who know nothing about it, and it sure shouldn't involve making it harder to call in help (because you can't call on the police), or to leave if you choose (because you have a criminal record).
But, taken by itself, without any such qualifications being made explicit, "just a job" arguments can mesh really easily with minimalist notions of what consent's about, and, I'm afraid I see minimalist consent as a really widespread attitude in our culture.