Thierry Schaffauser, President of the GMB Sex Workers Branch, has had a letter published in the Morning Star in which he responds to the news that UNISON Women’s Conference voted overwhelmingly in support of the Demand Change motion.
Entitled “Unison women taking wrong tack on prostitution”, Schaffauser’s letter is, well, for the sake of civilised debate, let’s just say predictable….
Unsurprisingly there are a couple of points I’d like to pick up on in his response, not least of which are his claims that prostituted people are workers and trade unionists just like everyone else in the trade union movement; an argument I know we’ve rehearsed on this blog a gazillion times before (here for instance, and here) but what the hell, if the GMB/IUSW aren’t bored with it yet then neither am I.
So for a start, sex work is not “work like any other” as pro-prostitution apologists like Schaffauser like to claim. For example, there aren’t many, if any other jobs in the world where rape, physical violence, abuse and degradation are regarded as occupational hazards, or where your chances of a premature death are as greatly increased as they are in prostitution. Equally there aren’t many jobs around that state in the person spec a need for the applicant to have been abused either sexually or physically as a child; to have been in the care system at some point in their earlier years, or to be a substance abuser; and yet a disproportionate number of prostituted women tick all of those boxes.
Prostitution is not a victimless crime, and nor is it the squeaky clean career option that Schaffauser, Belle de Jour or our old friend Douglas Fox like to paint it as: the sex industry for instance is inextricably linked to organised crime, trafficking, and sexual exploitation, and contributes to a myriad of other harms, both individual and social, besides those I’ve already listed. And if you don’t believe me, listen to the voices of those who have managed to escape the industry, just as the authors of the Demand Change motion did before they submitted it to the conference agenda.
As for the GMB Sex Workers Branch members being trade unionists just like the rest of us: no, just no. UNISON for example does not accept into membership supporters and allies of the public sector, just the people who work in it. That’s unlike the GMB/IUSW, which accepts into its membership anyone and everyone involved in the sex industry, including agency owners, pimps, punters and sympathetic/interested-in-earning-yet-more-bucks-off-women’s-backs academics. In fact I’m so interested in the sex industry myself I’m even considering signing up. How about it Thierry – see you at the next branch meeting?
Most trade unionists are interested in exposing and eradicating gender and other inequalities and oppressions, not in defending them and promoting them as Schaffauser and his ilk do. Note his assertion that: “It is incorrect to suggest that the Olympic Games will lead to an increase in trafficking – no increase has been proven during previous sport events.” for example.
And finally, most trade unionists and political activists know that if you want to give a lecture on sexism, it’s probably not a good idea to refer to women as sodding girls throughout the duration of it.
well said once more. we have to get past this view of prostitution as a sanitised safe ‘career choice’. maybe i read biased publications, but apart from belle de jour i have never read or seen on TV a prostitute talking calmly about how much she enjoys her work. all the voices of sex workers i have read talk about how degrading and awful it is. not to deny the voices of the women who say different, if that is their experience then it is their experience, but douglas fox et al deny the voices of the women who are damaged by prostitution. even one of the women who wrote a similar book to belle de jour- cited in living dolls writes about the inherent violence of her time as a prostitute. (i’ve forgotten her name!)
why does douglas fox get to speak for all sec workers? or belle de jour? what about the women who don’t have a high media profile? are their experiences less worthy of note because they are traumatic or damaging? we seem to comfort ourselves about prostitution and therefore society’s view that women are sex objects that can be bought by denying the horror of it. by only listening to those who praise it. and i am sick of it.
Thierry Schaffauser is actually quite correct in saying that major international sporting events do not lead to an increase in sex trafficking. It certainly didn’t happen during the 2006 World Cup in Munich, where such fears were found to be entirely imaginary.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68984-8/fulltext
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/03/world/europe/03berlin.html?_r=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1252025420090612
http://www.sports-city.org/news_details.php?news_id=8405&idCategory=1
Dave
Is that so David….
Have a read of the post-world cup statement from CATW.
And here’s an extract of the letter from the Chair of the Women’s National Commission to Lord Coe regarding the 2012 Olympics:
From here
If anyone can find me a copy of the “Faster, Higher, Stronger” report I’d be grateful though – the copy on the Future Group site appears to have been corrupted.
It’ll be interesting to see what the GMB comes up with on librarianship!
“Prostituted people”?
Oh, librarianised person, the weight of evidence from the bulk of academics suggests that premature deaths and other untoward incidents in sex work could be much reduced by decriminalisation, and are only likely to be exacerbated by further criminalisation.
I tried to sum up the lack of evidence for surges in trafficking for sexual exploitation at major sports events here:
http://stephenpaterson.wordpress.com/2009/07/29/traffickingtheolympicsandthebill/
Recently, this has just come from a number of academics on the World Cup in South Africa. The table on the final page is very interesting:
Oh, but of course, they’re just “interested-in-earning-yet-more-bucks-off-women’s-backs academics.”
So much for the world of learning.
“I’ll let you punch me in the face for five dollars” is not work.
For those who reject that prostitution increases where men gather to play and watch sports, I offer the words of Vancouver’s sex industry preparing for the Olympics:
http://www2.canada.com/scripts/story.html?id=2505591
I suppose it’s possible all these strip club managers, madams, escorts, advocates, and streetwalkers have been fooled by rumors of increased men’s demand during the Olympics. But how likely is it that they are making up the increase in phone calls and lying about the countries of origin men are calling from?
Experienced pimps like those quoted in the article are not so gullible or clueless as to not know how to maximize their profits. Trust them and the insatiable maw of capitalism if you don’t believe the evidence collected by researchers.
Oh yet more denial, denial and yet more denial. Don’t we all know that women involved in prostitution always ‘choose’ to enter the oldest male oppression of women. After all the great and wise (sic) men such as Douglas Fox and his pro-prostitution apologists all claim to be speaking on behalf of prostituted women.
Douglas Fox of course is male and this alone entitles him to pontificate on prostitution as just a job. We can ignore factual evidence from feminist organisations such as Coalition Against Trafficking In Women because they are feminists and apparently hate men. So this in itself negates CATW’s evidence obtained directly from prostituted women.
No trafficking of women into sexual slavery does not exist and no prostitution is not male sexual violence against women – which is why men are flocking in droves to become ‘sex workers.’ Only these men are not actually lying down and inviting other males to penetrate their bodies – no instead these men are the pimps, brothel owners and so-called business men earning huge profits by selling women and girls to Johns of every ilk, nationality and ethnicity.
Don’t you dare take men’s pseudo unlimited sex right to women and girls away – that is one of the last bastions of men’s pseudo rights – so we are led to believe. Who cares about the prostituted women and girls – after all as Victor Malarek shows in his book The Johns – the male buyers hold women in contempt and prostituted women are held in even greater contempt.
Keep up the good work Cath and continue to demolish male-centered claims that prostitution is just ‘sex work.’ Every time we challenge men’s pseudo rights we are demanding that all women are seen and treated with dignity and respect – not as men’s dehumanised sexual service stations.
Hi Cath,
I will be happy to meet you and discuss with you if you’re interested in as I am sure we have more points in common than what it seems.
I know perfectly what are the risks of violence in the industry as I experienced them myself. But I have a different analysis on their cause which I think is prohibition and criminalisation more than being penetrated by a stranger in itself, otherwise it would happen all the time when some workers never experience it.
Personnaly I have started sex work very young. I left home at 18yo and 1 day. I started working on the streets and I know what it is to wait by night in the cold with passerbys and the police attacking you and trying to steal your money.
I agree with you that many workers face poverty and exploitation and that is the reason why I am involved in the sex workers movement. But I think that in order to fight against exploitation we need sex work being decriminalised, and clients included, otherwise it will be a direct attack on our incomes.
Personnaly I am not interested only in decriminalisation but I see that as the first step to fight against exploitation. For me the fight for sex workers rights is not exclusive from the fight for more economic options and for the choice not to be a sex worker.
But I think it is more efficient if we give sex workers more options rather than if we take the sex work option away when it may be the last one people have.
Instead of criminalising clients, I think it would be more efficient if women didnt face twice more unemployment than men and a gender pay appartheid.
It would be more efficient if migrants could travel and move freely.
It would be more efficient if trans’ people could change the gender mention on their official documents even without surgery so they wouldnt be excluded from the “normal” labour market.
It would be more efficient if young queers were not kicked out by their family.
It would be more efficient if drugs were decriminalised and people suffering addiction helped enough not to depend on a dealer.
There are many ways we can think about before prohibition and clients’ criminalisation.
Repression is the easiest thing to do but I don’t think it is efficient. Because sex work won’t disappear like that even if you do everything you can to criminalise it.
There will be still poverty, drugs addiction, sexist economic exclusion, anti migration controls, etc.
The cause is not just the demand for sex. It’s too simple to think just that as the main cause when there are plenty.
I don’t know if it is worthy to write that as usually the “two sides” fight each other and never really discuss.
I will probably not convince you but at least I hope you understand my point and where I come from.
I am a sex worker. I am not a pimp or a supporter.
The Oxford Union debated the motion “This house would decriminalise prostitution” on Tuesday, 23rd February. The motion was carried by 127 votes to 90.
http://www.oxford-union.org/term_events/prostitution_debate
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/national/3371372/Kiwi-debater-convinces-Oxford-Union-on-prostitution
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/6850794/prostitute-spokeswoman-wins-prestigious-debate
How does women facing twice the unemployment of men inspire or force punters into offering necessary resources in exchange for unemployed women’s sexual submission?
How does the migrant movement inspire or force punters into offering necessary resources in exchange for migrant women’s sexual submission?
How does transwomen’s unjust exclusion from some types of work inspire or force punters into offering necessary resources for unemployed transwomen’s sexual submission?
How does teen queer homelessness inspire or force punters into offering necessary resources in exchange for queer teen’s sexual submission?
How does dependence on drug dealers inspire or force johns into offering necessary resources in exchange for drug-addicted women’s sexual submission?
In other words, what social or psychological mechanism(s) do punters employ when seeing a vulnerable woman that compels them to demand sex before helping vulnerable women get what they desperately need?
Poverty never raped anyone because Poverty doesn’t have a corporeal body and the will to rape when it thinks it can get away with it.
Cath quotes two documents as evidence to refute my colleague’s assertion that “no increase [in trafficking] has been proven during previous sport events,” CATW’s Post-World Cup statement of August 2006 and a letter from the Women’s National Commission.
Neither are pieces of research, neither have involved discussions with sex workers in the relevant countries.
The CATW statement talks about the number of sex workers and estimates of the number of non-German sex workers before the World Cup, and police were able to monitor workspaces easily due to the less criminalised nature of the German sex industry. CATW suggests: “Women with legal papers still may have been trafficked” – note: “may” – and then offers various unreferenced assertions to support this hypothesis. A link to a Dutch forum in which clients allegedly discuss this is broken.
CATW identifies one of the problems with legalisation, the difficulty of accessing venues that are still criminalised. This is one of the reasons the IUSW campaigns for a decriminalised rather than legalised system – it’s the only way to protect the most vulnerable. The CATW statement then talks about client numbers, quoting no research, but a number of journalists. Only a few weblinks are given and they do not work. Further assertions as to the level of trafficking in the German industry are made, again quoting journalists rather than research; no sources are given.
The WNC letter includes dramatic scare stories and unsubstantiated numbers for which no sources are given (e.g., the rescue of a Russian former Olympic competitor and 300 victims of trafficking in the Canaries). No sources are given; they are not mentioned in the Future Group report, the only document offered as a reference.
WNC allege this report “highlights the correlation between major sporting events and an increase in human trafficking”. This can be most kindly described as an exaggeration: in the report’s Executive Summary, the Future Group states that a correlation “cannot be discounted” and acknowledge “numerous factors come into play”. The report looks at only two events: the German World Cup and the Athens Olympics.
Regarding the World Cup, it states ‘The German Government also reported that five cases of human trafficking “were assumed to have a direct link to the 2006 World Cup … four women and one man.”’.
As regards adult trafficking during the Athens Olympics, over the entire year (the Olympics lasts a fortnight), over all kinds of trafficking (construction, agriculture, domestic labour etc), the number of victims increased by 95%. The number of cases rises from 49 to 65 (only 32%). There is no breakdown of the number of cases relating to the sex industry, or the two weeks the Olympics took place. At least one local NGO reported that child trafficking for prostitution did not increase during the Athens Olympics, despite concerns that it would occur; in fact the number of children on the streets declined.
Knowledge of the evidence base (particularly that produced to recognized standards of academic professionalism in terms of ethics, transparency, etc) will not assist the case propounded at the Unison women’s conference.
Cath, if there is research out there proving a link between sporting events and increased trafficking into the sex industry, please present it to us.
What a non-surprise that out of all the women currently in the sex industry compared to the handful of men, the GMB’s first branch secretary of its sex worker branch was a man, the new one is a bloke too, and not only that but they got Douglas Fox, another bloke, to write their policy document on prostitution.
Yet these men are supposed to be representing women in the sex industry and in particular in prositution. I don’t think so.
Catherine
I am really not sure this is all about peer reviewed research at all.
For me this is all about the society I want to live in, what sort of world we want to inhabit.
You seem to be happy to campaign for maintenance of a world where women can be bought for sexual services, where those that have money (men) can buy whoever and whatever they want, where women who do not have financial resources are encouraged to sell their bodies to survive. You seem to want a world which condemns women to be the purchased sexual servants of men, one which supports the continuation of male domination and patriarchy.
Whereas I want to live in a world that truly values women and girls, one that allows women and girls to live without sexual objectification; violence and abuse from men. A world where women can walk the streets at night in absolute safety. As a friend said to me a while ago –
As long as prostitution remains in our world, the idea of equality remains just that, an idea. And that aspiration is undermined; is crushed, every time a woman is bought. It is ripped apart every time a man assumes a right to buy the body of another human being. And this is what prostitution is really about, it is about men’s rights.
Catherine, that’s an incredibly selective reading of the Future Group report. Did you miss this bit:
It’s long been acknowledged that the reason the expected upsurge in trafficking during the 2006 World Cup in Germany didn’t happen is precisely because the German authorities and NGOs anticipated it well in advance and actually worked hard at raising awareness and putting measures in place to combat it both before and during the event.
In Greece on the other hand, where as you at least admit the 2004 Olympic year saw a 95% increase in human trafficking victims, up from 93 in 2003 to 181 in 2004, the authorities didn’t take so many precautionary measures. What did happen though was that as the report makes clear, NGOs put in a lot of work , or should I say:
And it’s largely due to this focus that, as you say “At least one local NGO reported that child trafficking for prostitution did not increase during the Athens Olympics, despite concerns that it would occur; in fact the number of children on the streets declined.”
In fact let’s have the full quote from the report, including the line you appear to have deliberately missed out:
In other words, when efforts are taken to curb trafficking for major sporting events, such as during the 2006 World Cup and the focus on trafficking in children during the 2004 Athens Olympics, they tend to work. When little to no effort is made, such as during the 2004 Olympics with regard to the trafficking of adults, trafficking does indeed increase.
Or as the report puts it:
Delphyne – factually incorrect in every single instance.
The IUSW was founded by a migrant sex worker, and she was branch secretary when the GMB set up a branch for people working in the sex industry and adult entertainment. Since then, three of four branch secretaries have been female.
Thierry states clearly that he is President not Secretary; all previous post holders have been female. Finally, Douglas Fox has authored no policy documents, which are produced by the group.
Ms Virago
I want to live in a world in which women (and men, and transgender people) have freedom to choose and respect for those choices, including the absolute right to say no.
I want to live in a world in which policies on the sex industry and adult entertainment are made by consulting those most affected and prioritise human rights and safety.
Your “idea” of prostitution is not the same as the reality; however, you wish my body to bear the impact of your ideology.
Cath
Of course the quoting is selective, it’s a 25 page report. And in those 25 pages, there is no proof that major sporting events cause trafficking.
Five cases are assumed to be associated with the World Cup, we have no knowledge _from that report_ if trafficking cases in the whole of Greece over the whole year related to the two weeks of the Athens Olympics. Given the relative size of the events, probably not:the German World Cup was a far larger and longer event than the Athens Olympics (from 9 June to 9 July 2006 as opposed to13 to 24 August 2004; 3.36 million attendees as opposed to over a million visitors and about 70,000 volunteers and media members).
Incidentally, the only UK academic to repeatedly examine the role of demand in trafficking into the sex industry, Julia O’Connell Davidson, concludes: “…we could almost say that supply generates demand rather than the other way about… attempts to suppress the prostitution market, whether focused on sex workers or their clients, necessarily implies subjecting those who sell sex to what Radin describes as “the degradation and danger of the black market … it is … hard to see why anyone genuinely concerned with protecting and promoting human rights would place measures to tackle consumer demand for commercial sex at the top of their policy agenda”.
If there’s new data available, I’ll reassess. Please provide.
Douglas Fox was on his own agency’s website boasting about how he authored GMB policy which they circulated to MPs Catherine. Maybe you need to take it up with him.
On the IUSW website itself, there’s a blog post about Chris Student, the branch secretary of the GMB’s “sex work branch” who was charmingly doing investigations into graveyards of prostitutes – what a super hobby for a bloke. The post refers to him as “he” so I guess he’s a man Catherine.
http://www.iusw.org/node/55
He’s also listed as the current branch secretary (so indeed you were right that Thierry, another bloke, hasn’t taken over) of the London Entertainment and IUSW branch on the GMB London website. No mention of a sex workers branch funnily enough, maybe that’s a titillating moniker for the media which might not fly so well in a union that has so many female members.
http://www.gmbunion.org/memb/membra.htm
How many members does the IUSW have now Catherine? When you were interviewed in 2008 you only had 100 members, yet there you were promoting yourself as the voice of women in the sex industry:
http://www.truthout.org/article/interview-international-union-sex-workers
Although given that you invite punters and pimps in the number is probably meaningless anyway.
Catherine – you say
“I want to live in a world in which policies on the sex industry and adult entertainment are made by consulting those most affected and prioritise human rights and safety.”
most affected? My life and my opportunities are directly affected by the sex industry. I have to work in proximity to sex encounter establishments; massage parlours; lap dancing clubs and I have no doubt brothels too. I have to visit areas of towns and cities where street prostitution happens, I have to walk down those roads. I have to live in a world that allows men to put a price on women. Your choice to be a sex worker and every punters choice does impact on and affect me.
I have to deal with men through my work – some of whom may be punters, who clearly consider that women are for purchase – not equals.
I have no wishes for your body, I just dont think men should be able to purchase you.
*tap tap* is this thing on?
“you wish my body to bear the impact of your ideology.”
You can do whatever you want with your body, but money is a social product that is subject to social scrutiny.
‘most affected’ – so that would be the many women survivors of the ‘sex industry’ who have suffered torture and rape, and who would like their rights as human beings recognised, then? Those who want their abusers – the johns- punished? You mean them, right?
“Most affected” – that’s everybody in the sex industry, including those whose experience of violence goes unreported for fear of the police. For example, the IUSW campaigned against the changes in the Policing & Crime Act that defined “persistent”soliciting for women on street as twice in every three months.
Street prostitution is the minority of sex work, estimated as 3,000 to 22,000 of the 80,000 people in the industry; 70-90% are non-trafficked off street workers.
Almost all outdoor sex work is by women: some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Street sex work shows a high prevalence of problematic drug and alcohol use, generally estimated at upwards of 85%, a correlation with a background in care, frequent low educational achievement, homelessness and a host of other problems.
These women – referred to by Jacqui Smith when Home Secretary as a “blight” – are now able to have contact with the police _four times a year_ without fear of arrest.
Where are your figures from, out of interest?
Who does ‘people in the industry’ include?
Who commits the violence?
Why do you tell us about how many women *aren’t* trafficked? I don’t see how not being ‘trafficked’ equates to ‘not being harmed’. And do your figures included internal trafficking, or merely that that involves state boundaries?
Why the concern to separate street prostitution from other forms? What purpose does that serve for you?
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that street prostitution is necessarily more dangerous than brothel prostitution. The biggest difference to me seems to be that the former is more visible to the public than the latter. And one can be very well controlled, drugged, raped, tortured in the confines of a building just as in the streets.
I think you’ll find that Jacqui Smith said that ‘street prostitution’ is a blight- not the women themselves- and then proposed measures to punish *kerb crawlers*- not prostitutes.
You haven’t addressed the 100-strong membership of the IUSW in 2008 Catherine, a pitiful number for a group claiming to be a union for sex workers representing the voice of women in prostitution. Where does your membership stand now, and how many of those are women in prostitution, rather than punters, pimps or workers in other parts of the sex industry?
Also, you’ve ignored my point that the branch secretary, president, and the most vocal spokesman for this GMB sex workers branch are all men. Not a surprise given that the GMB is a very sexist organisation, but again it completely undermines the IUSW’s/GMB’s claims that they represent women in prostitution.
Are you going to address that, or do you only jump on people when you think you’ve caught them in a mistake?
The frustrating things about these discussions about the sex industry is that I bet that most of us feminist-identified bloggers & commenters who are sceptical & wary of the IUSW are in principle 100% supportive of sex workers organising together as a union. I bet that most of us are very much in favour of workers collectively organising in defence of their rights. Problem is, the public/media representation of the IUSW stinks in this respect.
Or rather, I’m sure (& would hope) that there probably is a lot of useful organising & mutual support work going on among the sex worker members of the GMB, but this is never what we hear about when IUSW spokespeople are quoted in the media or are commenting on blogs.
I can’t recall seeing prominent IUSW contributions to blog & media articles and discussions on legal areas of sex work such as stripping, phone sex or porn, or you plugging work you’ve done in supporting workers in standing up to exploitative bosses. I’m not saying that doesn’t go on, but that’s not your current public face.
Instead you ALWAYS are there to speak in defence of the institution of prostitution. You come across as lobbying for protection of the sex industry, under the veil of lobbying for the protection of sex workers. It seems very much as if when you speak against criminalisation of parts of the sex industry, it’s because that criminalisation gets in the way of profitably running a prostitution business.
I mean, for example, one would think that in discussions about prostitution, sex work union activists would have a lot to say about working conditions in the semi-legal prostitution businesses, namely escort agencies and massage parlours. What are the common problems that sex workers have with the owners of such businesses? How could sex workers’ ability to demand of those bosses improvements in working conditions be strengthened? (oh, I forgot, according to Douglas Fox, in prostitution/escort work it’s all one happy family of benevolent agencies, escorts and punters together).
Clearly, the current fudged legal status of prostitution severely undermines the bargaining position of people working in prostitution. But we never hear much from the IUSW about what kind of industry regulations & protections sex workers would fight for in a completely decriminalised prostitution industry.
Obfuscations by the most vocal IUSW spokespeople (or people who claim to be speaking for the IUSW) detract from the organisation’s credibility as a genuine voice for sex-workers. Most notably the ubiquitous & ridiculous pronouncements of Douglas Fox, too numerous to cite, but who for example consistently and carefully stretches his definition of the sex workers that the IUSW exists to protect to include “Managements, prostitutes, maids, drivers, photographers, web site designers, the list is endless” [emphasis added]. Or Stephen Paterson, whose online comments are often defences of the roles of pimps (sorry, “indirect sex workers”) and punters.
Another misrepresentation and obfuscation is repeated above by Catherine:
This strongly implies, that Ana Lopes, the founder of the IUSW, was someone who had come to the UK as a sex worker. She was a migrant, from Portugal, and she became a sex worker, so the assertion is not strictly untrue. But she came here as a student, eventually gaining a PhD in anthropology and became involved in sex workers rights when she started working on a phone sex chatline, while doing her Masters degree, and felt that the pay was exploitative. She also subsequently worked as a stripper and in prostitution. She set up the IUSW and also used her activism & work in the sex industry as the basis for her PhD research.
The fact that you omit this fuller context from your description (here & elsewhere) of the origins of the IUSW again detracts from the credibility of the IUSW.
Articles & interviews with Lopes show no reason to gloss over her academic career. She is clearly a passionate and engaged radical activist and sex worker who believes strongly in workers rights. She does idealise sex work and underestimates the impact of gender oppression in society, but there is a lot to applaud in what she says.
2002 – interview on Sexworkerspride.org about the IUSW’s involvement in May Day protests and events – the interviewee is not identified, but it is very likely Lopes. She defines a sex-worker as “somebody who uses their body or sexuality for an economic gain, usually for money, but not always simply money”, and interestingly states that that definition is inclusive of unpaid sexual labour within relationships
2002 – Gay & Lesbian Humanist – another article that gives an idea of the grassroots, worker-centred activism of the IUSW
account of Ana Lopes’ presentation to socialists & trade unionists about the IUSW (date unknown)
2003 – The Independent – article about how IUSW unionising has benefited strip club dancers – insight into working conditions and interview with Lopes
2007 – Red & Black Revolution (anarchist journal) – long & interesting interview with Lopes about the politics of sex work and sex worker organising.
I’m all for an IUSW that declares, in the editorial of the first issue of it’s now defunct journal Respect, in 2000, “When the oldest profession comes out, pimps and capitalists beware!”(quoted about half way down the article, which is an international overview of sex worker organising).
Now that sounds a lot more like a trade union to me.
MariaS Many thanks for such a detailed and interesting comment. And thanks especially for laying out the history of the IUSW and explaining Ana Lopes’s role in that, especially re her PhD work – I was planning to write it up myself, so ta for saving me a job 🙂
Hugely relevant & excellent article:
Sex Work from an Anarchist Perspective (Autonomous Radical Feminists):
Let’s also not forget Chris Knight’s role in the setting up of the IUSW. Knight was a co-founder with Lopes, he was also Professor of Anthropology at UEL, where Lopes studied for her PhD. Knight and Lopes were members of what was (and still is) known as the Radical Anthropology group:
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker2/index.php?action=viewarticle&article_id=533
Crikey I thought it was only the ECP who were Marxist entryists, now the IUSW too. Who’d have thought it?
Funny how they don’t mind working with Dougie Fox when he’s a great big Tory. Sexual exploitation of women has always been the place where men of the left and the right can agree though.
“Clearly, the current fudged legal status of prostitution severely undermines the bargaining position of people working in prostitution. ”
I think you’ll find that being raped to make your living undermines the ability of people in prostitution to organise. Rape kind of messes up your head so you can’t really focus on anything else. PTSD doesn’t make a person a better shop steward either.
The idea of organising prostituted people, as if that could ameliorate the intrinsic harm to a human being of having their body prostituted, is moron-leftism. In countries where prostitution is legal and unions for prostituted people exist, nobody joins them. Like the IUSW, the Red Thread in Holland for example only has a handful of members, despite prostitution being legal there. That’s because prostitution isn’t a job, it’s an abuse of human rights, which people in prostitution know better than anyone, even if they don’t express it in those exact words.
Thanks Cath! 🙂 I had the links to hand on a half-written comment intended for one of your blog posts from ages ago but never finished or posted it.
Thierry,
As a feminist I completely agree that there are many kinds of inequality that make people vulnerable, desperate and narrow their choices, and that the only real solution is ultimately to challenge and uproot those inequalities. But demand is not one incidental factor among many, it is absolutely central. These inequalities, these vulnerabilities, directly shore up the social and economic power of men as a class to, as individuals, choose to coerce and command sexual service from women (including trans women), and also from children and marginalised men.
The Autonomous Radical Feminists post is actually one of a short series, basically responses to a conference panel in which it was argued (by a man) that sex work would still exist even in a non-hierarchical, post-capitalist society.:
The Flaws in this Anarchist Response to Prostitution
Hello all, and thank you for linking to the ARF blog. As an added note on the dishonesty of the IUSW, for the Anarchist Bookfair 09 this is how they described themselves:
They’ll describe themselves however they imagine will best suit their audience at the time. Completely dishonest.
I do not normally write hear for I find it quite overwhelming.
But as an exited prostituted woman, who had no rights to safety and dignity, I do not believe that unions would of made any difference to my conditions.
This is because prostitution is not “a job like any other job”, as pro-sex trade advocates continually state, no, for the vast majority of prostituted women and girls it is equal to slavery.
This is because all basis human rights are taken away from the vast majority of prostituted women and girls.
They have no right to safety when the sex trade make it major profits by allowing violence and rape.
They have no freedom of speech, when user and profiteers of the sex trade create the language that they speak, cut them off from the outside world that may give them independence.
Prostitutes have no right to dignity – how can you when your role is to holes for men to fuck into.
Without those rights, unions are really just a sick joke.
Unions are for the benefit of the profiteers of the sex trade.
It is an union that speak false words of making it safer for prostituted women and girls – but does nothing to stop men feeling they are entitled to own a woman or girl that they can rape, use sexual torture on, etc.
None of this matters if there is a profit – for in the sex trade money is more important than the lives of prostitutes.
It is not about better conditions, or making it clean and safer – it is about fighting for a world where men are not given the right to buy and sell other human being just for something as unimportant as their orgasms.
It is also worth noting that at the ABF, Schaffauser was referring to himself as a ‘migrant’, as if being an EU citizen who travelled from Paris to France gave him something in common with African migrants crossing the Mediterranean in rubber dingies.
We also had Catherine Stephens claiming that men “didn’t want to have coercive sex”, which, given that she was claiming to be a feminist at the time, kind of blows the mind.
Sorry, that’s meant to read Paris to London.
Sure this Nordic Model works?
Reykjavík + escort = 53,000 results in 0.28 seconds
Helsinki + escort = 114,000 results in 0.24 seconds.
Oslo + escort = 347,000 results in 0.14 seconds
Stockholm + escort = 475,000 results in 0.24 seconds
Not all of them with four wheels…..
Gad, those Nordic models are quick!
rmott62 – thanks for your comment and for sharing your experience. it seems that in the midst of chatting about the theoreticals and hypotheticals of this debate we forget about the women who are sex workers and exited prostitutes, and we don’t hear their voices. so thank you for speaking out.
What sianushka said.
There are few areas of knowledge where blind certainty trumps actual research save that of human sexuality, and in particular the related topics of pornography and prostitution. I doubt that either side in the above debate will be swayed by any facts, no matter how compelling.
With reference to the current fascination with linking sexual demand and sport, it is important to unpack demand per se from the other topic to which many seem to link it – coerced migration, or human trafficking.
Naturally if one’s convictions are that the exchange of intimacy is by definition rape and violence against women, the link will appear intuitive.
As I see it an argument is being made that sport generates demand and hence trafficking, and that if the latter is not apparent it is due to increased reactive vigilance.
So one asks whether the experiences of the Vancouver Winter Olympics bears this theory out. A campaign was mounted well ahead of the Olympics, just as the current one seems to be for the summer games. However the campaign failed to persuade the authorities to take any action, and the organisers expressed dismay that they were not successful.
What is interesting is the official police response after the games.
They stated that the claims of a link or a problem were simply “speculation. We have to go with the hard evidence and empirical evidence, [and that] is that there has been no documented increase during the Olympic Games… We don’t have
any confirmation in terms of solid cases.”
“There’s been an erosion between some of the distinctions between human trafficking and sex trade and victimization…While there may be an increase in prostitution, there hasn’t been any link between human trafficking and prostitution.
“As far as I know we haven’t had a spike in investigations in human trafficking or human smuggling that we can link to the 2010 Olympics in any way.”
Is Catherine not going to come back to tell us how many prostituted women are members of the IUSW. Inquiring minds want to know Catherine.
I have a question and a comment.
Question: who are you quoting, Cath, when you write in quotation marks ‘work like any other’?
Comment: I can think of a few ‘other jobs in the world where rape, physical violence, abuse and degradation are regarded as occupational hazards, or where your chances of a premature death are as greatly increased as they are in prostitution.’
In the first case, domestic labour. I wonder how many Unison women members have paid other women to clean their homes and/or look after their kids, compared to how many have paid for sexual services. Is this actually a consumer rights issue as well as a workers’ rights one?
Re premature death – mining leaps to mind. I wonder how many British trade unionists would refuse to support the rights of miners?
This is a labour issue – the sex industry sucks. So does domestic labour. So does the mining industry along with most industries in late capitalist society. Workers deserve rights no matter where they work. And they deserve the solidarity of other workers. Without that the trade union movement is sunk.
I’m not quoting anyone specifically Carrie, ‘work like any other’ is a standard trope in the prostitution debate.
Incidentally, I enoyed/found interesting your piece for the Journal of Romance Studies: “Feminist testimony in the internet age: sex work, blogging and the politics of witnessing”, although not being an academic I’m not quite sure how sex work and romance studies fit together……
First time I’ve ever found myself being analysed in an academic text mind you:
Unsurprisingly I’ve got some issues with some of your analysis – am I allowed to quote extensively from it at some point for the benefit of those who can’t access it?
And one final question: why are so many academics so involved in sex workers rights organisations? I see you’re involved with x:talk as well as being a prof at Roehampton for instance.
I get so mad at the concept that it just as another dangerous job.
For the vast majority of women and girls in the sex trade, the dangers are not just a few bad employers abuse them – but it is consider to their role full-time.
Rape is normal in prostitution, so normal that to survive the woman and girls has completely deadened all emotions. She loses the language of rape and abuse, because it so continual.
Yes domestic workers are sexually abused, but they are often like prostituted women and girls, in situations where all human rights have been stripped from them.
But rape and sexual torture is not the norm for the vast majority of cleaners and domestic workers – it not their only purpose.
As for comparing miner’s deaths with the deaths of prostituted women and girls – you are comparing apples with pears.
Miners died in man-made or natural disasters – while the majority of deaths in prostitution is murders by punters or profiteers of the sex trade or suicide because of living inside mental, physical and sexual torture.
Deaths of miners are recognise of importance, and often will be used to improved conditions.
Whilst the deaths of prostituted women and girls is made invisible. The sex trade is not bother about deaths of prostituted women and girls – or should I say goods – for they may replaced with plenty more damaged girls.
Punters can kill prostituted women and girls, for they know they considered to be throwaways.
Usually when a prostitute dies from murder or suicide, she is blame for being stupid, weak or too bad to live.
For the vast majority of prostituted women and girls, there is no romance in their existence – all there is survival inside hell.
I just want to say, Carrie, that your tone strikes me as highly disrespectful to survivors of the ‘sex’ industry, particularly since rmott had already told you that
‘prostitution is not “a job like any other job”, as pro-sex trade advocates continually state, no, for the vast majority of prostituted women and girls it is equal to slavery.’
In her comment above. To then swan in and say ‘oh this is a labour issue’, directly contradicting what a survivor has clearly told you, is insulting and callous.
I suggest you do some research into the experiences of formerlly prostituted women, instead of sweeping everything under the comforting ‘legalisation’ rug.
There are plenty of links to the works of survivors of the ‘sex’ industry on my blog, right-hand column, under ‘anti-prostitution links’.
‘a supposed majority collective of female victims of the sex industry’
Wow. That’s just…. wow. How ignorant and cruel.
Michael Goodyear, are you describing prostitution as ‘the exchange of intimacy’?
Unbelievable.
Why are so many academics involved in campaigning alongside pimps and punters to legalise the industry. Can you tell me Michael?
Hi Cath:
Feel free to cite my article, and to disagree with it. That’s what academic and political discussion are for!
Re the quotation marks – I made that point because I’ve never heard anyone in the sex workers’ rights movement say sex work is ‘work like any other’, yet I often hear anti-sex workers’ rights activists claim we say this. Serious political debate should be based on a response to what people actually say – not to what one thinks/claims they say. Of course, this doesn’t exclude interpretation of other people’s language. Hence my argument that in your earlier piece on the IUSW you ‘rhetorically construct’ your voice as one that is silenced. That’s my interpretation of your argument, but does not, I think, make up words you don’t use – instead it interprets the words you do use.
Re my job/activism. I’ve been active in feminist, queer, trade union and sex worker rights activism for much longer than I’ve been an academic. I don’t specialise on sex worker issues in my academic work – that article was the first I’ve published specifically on the topic, and it focuses, as with some of my other recent work, on debates about sex work within the history of feminism. You’ll notice that whenever I post about sex worker issues I use my personal email. I write as an activist here, not an academic expert. Of course, both areas of my life inform each other, but I still think it’s good to keep the boundaries clear. My activism in all areas is very much shaped by more than two decades of reading feminist theory, so in that sense those boundaries are never totally fixed.
Great, so you’ve got multiple interests in your life and you can switch personas at will.* Congratulations. Now can we get back to your dismissive and disrespectful attitude to the survivors on this thread? Your response shows no acknowledgement of fault, and is very- I’m gonna say it- academic in tone.
*I’m being sarcastic. You can’t close off avenues in your life when you comment on blogs. You are the same person here as anywhere.
Goodyear’s know-it-all and wonderfully detached attitude was something special, I agree. How wonderful to be so unconnected with the reality of the ‘sex’ industry. It must enable many to look upon the issue dispassionately – and callously.
By the way, I am an academic also, if anyone’s wondering.
“This is a labour issue – the sex industry sucks. So does domestic labour. So does the mining industry along with most industries in late capitalist society. Workers deserve rights no matter where they work.”
Have you ever actually had sex Carrie? Have you ever had sex with someone you didn’t really want to but had to for other reasons?
Because I’m assuming you’ve never experienced either of those things, as if you had, you really wouldn’t be talking about prostitution and its abuses and violations of women as a labour issue. You don’t use a vagina to mine for coal, you don’t use a rectum or mouth to do the ironing. Being penetrated isn’t work. Only someone who is completely disassociated from the body could make that claim.
“And they deserve the solidarity of other workers. Without that the trade union movement is sunk.”
So is that what this is about? Unions trying desperately to get members, because they are struggling in other areas? Turning pimps and brothel owners into managers and employers so you can negotiate with them? What a joke. If unions’ survival (and I’m a big supporter of trade unions) rests on turning prostitution as a job like any other then unions deserve to disappear. Luckily most people in the labour movement don’t agree (including Unison women) and see what prostitution is – an abuse of women’s and human rights, not an organising opportunity.
“Why are so many academics involved in campaigning alongside pimps and punters to legalise the industry.”
That’s a bloody good question.
Julie,
So vast is the chasm of beliefs between those who hold the conviction that the very concept of transaction of intimacy or sexuality is a social problem, and those who believe otherwise, that anything the other says will appear incredulous.
The phrase ‘exchange of intimacy’ was chosen to illustrate the way both providers and consumers have described the encounter. However I would advise caution about making any generalisations around sex work which is a very diverse activity, that is perhaps best understood as a social construction rather than a discrete entity.
You and Delphyne ask “Why are so many academics involved in campaigning alongside pimps and punters to legalise the industry.” That is a gross mischaracterisation. Again, we should avoid sweeping generalisations. Academics whose work is related to this seek to better understand the issues, and whether popular depictions can be substantiated by the results of empirical research. They seek to examine inter alia how our reactions to sex work inform our understanding of social control, sexuality and the role of women. They also inquire as to how public policy is constructed and the degree to which it is informed by evidence versus popular culture.
In so much as some academics have been outspoken about our current laws it is because their day to day contact with sex workers arouses concerns about the violence of stigmatisation, the deprivation of civil rights and the oppressive nature of such punitive laws.
Laurelin suggests I “know-it-all”. I don’t of course and nor does anyone else here. We only know what we know, which in my case comes from years of studying the subject, working with and providing services and care to sex workers and coordinating research networks.
Yes, I did try to be detached – there is enough emotion on this page, and not enough examination of what we know and what we don’t know. A better understanding of sex work will only come from such an objective stance.
As far as the ‘realities’ of sex work go, it is fairly clear that everyone on this page has a different reality. It has nothing to do with callousness. You cannot be in daily contact with such people and be callous, but you can be very concerned by the injustices they suffer.
In the 79s when I was in university, women enrolled in droves in courses where men like Michael proliferated, as the professors, sessional lecturers and as students. They talked to us the way the Michaels do. Told us what. Stroked us. Patronized us.
We stood up and shouted. We read loudly from the text we wanted studied. We wouldn’t let them talk, we shouted sang and screamed when they tried to speak, we resigned their courses, we refused to listen to them, would not let them march with us or attend our meetings and rallies.
We refused them.
What has happened to the women’s movement? Listening to the Michaels lecture us. Drone on and one pedantically, masturbating to the sound of their own voices.
Are there any “women’s” blogs discussing WOMEN’S ISSUES?
“there is enough emotion on this page”
Actually callousness, feelings of superiority (e.g. your nonsensical claims to be “objective”), cold-heartedness and woman hatred are all emotions Michael. I think denial might even be an emotion too – it’s certainly an emotional coping mechanism.
If you mean that there are far too many people outraged and appalled about prostitution and the people who support pimps and johns, I’m sure you’re right, but outrage can be based in logic and fact, which it is with regards to the radical feminist position on prostitution. When people are so attached to arguments that have no basis in reality e.g. the idea that prostitution is simply “work”, ignoring that it is a fundamental abuse of a human being, you can be pretty sure they are having to work overtime to maintain their emotional equilibrium and hold reality at bay.
Oops that reads wrong, s/b
“If you mean that there are people outraged and appalled about prostitution and the people who support pimps and johns, I’m sure you’re right, but outrage can be based in logic and fact, which it is with regards to the radical feminist position on prostitution. “
I’ve not only read it all before, I’ve written most of it myself before, but geez Louise the wording on AutonomousRadFem’s blog is manna for the winter-weary anarchist soul.
(…) the sex industry sucks. So does domestic labour.
LOL
Why do I get the feeling Carrie has done neither of these.
I’ve done both. Domestic labour is vastly preferable. When you clean a toilet you feel good, productive. When you’ve been used like a toilet you feel like shit.
These arguments have gone on now for about 200 years, and given how far apart we are, I suspect our grandchildren will be having the same conversations and nobody’s lives will be any better.
Nobody is being lectured to, I am merely stating that not everyone holds the same beliefs that most of the people on this page do. One might expect that people will be attracted to views that support their own beliefs, that is only natural. I am not going to change anyone’s minds here. People have simply had different experiences and been exposed to different influences.
By the way – did anyone else listen to Generation Gap?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qzrjg
I know that bloggers cant be held responsible for the comments posted on their sites, but one of the things that is very disturbing about blog comments is the number of people – like ‘delphyne’ above – who publish comments anonymously and use this anonymity to make personal attacks that no academic, activist, journalist or other figure writing under their own name could ever get away with.
I support anonymity when it is necessary to protect the writer, for example, when sex workers or former sex workers don’t use their real names because they fear the very real stigma attached to words like ‘prostitute’. I oppose anonymity entirely as a mask used to make silly personal attacks which take the focus away from serious political discussion.
I take feminist arguments against the sex industry very seriously. I would never say they are a ‘joke’ or suggest they reflect the lack of sexual experience of those feminists (remember the old ‘feminists and dykes don’t have sex cause they can’t get a man’ argument). I take feminist arguments against the sex industry seriously for at least two reasons: 1) because I think many of them are based in part on very serious concerns about the ongoing misogyny and violence against women in our society, even if I disagree fundamentally with the conclusions; and 2) because these arguments currently carry a lot of mainstream political weight, and therefore have material consequences for sex workers.
It’s a shame some people would rather engage in speculation about other feminists’ sex lives and dismiss their arguments as ‘a joke’, rather than engage in serious discussion. I’ve seen feminism taken as a joke for rather too long to take that swipe seriously. For all I know, delphyne could be some misogynist bloke jerking off over feminist debates about sex work.
Michael
Don’t be absurd – ‘objective stance’? What a joke. You are a campaigner for legalisation of the sex industry and spend much of your time hanging around with and lobbying alongside scum of the earth such as pimps and two-faced, unethical and deceiptful academics.
You could think that but you’d be wrong Carrie.
I don’t understand why you’re denying the physical reality and experience of sex – that was why I asked if you’d ever experienced it, because if you have, it’s beyond me how you can liken it to domestic labour or mining. Feel free not to answer the questions though, they were rhetorical, to remind people to remain connected to reality rather than indulging in the fantasies about sex that the pro-sex industry lobby prefer where the actual physical reality of prostitution and what it means to women’s bodies and souls is completely erased. It makes sense that you prefer the academic debate because everything exists safely in the abstract there and you can compare being penetrated by numerous strange men, with doing the cleaning or working in a mine, and not a single person will hold you to account.
If I’d asked you if you’d ever done domestic labour or worked in a mine would you have taken so much offense and called it a personal attack? Your offense seems to acknowledge that sex is a different experience from those two activities, even if you refuse to fully admit it to yourself. You even say that sex belongs to someone’s private life, yet you still support the idea of women being publicly available to any men who happen to have the money to pay for them. How do you reconcile all those contradictions?
And I”m not ‘delphyne’, I’m delphyne Carrie. No need to put me in inverted commas.
Rmott, the person who *has* experienced the ‘sex’ industry, is still being ignored by Carrie and Michael.
Either
a) you have not read her comments (in which case do so now; no excuses) or
b) you have read her comments and chose not to respond because you
– don’t think what she’s saying is important (in which case you need to grow a conscience)
– are ashamed to respond (which makes sense)
– are afraid to respond (also makes sense).
Pick one, my darlings. Or show me your courage.
“there is enough emotion on this page”
Yeah, all these stupid bitches getting all huffy about rape and torture. Who the hell do they think they are, eh? Why can’t they be the Objective Reasonable Man like meeeeee? Haven’t they read [insert name of theorist here]?
No one has any idea how many people on this comments list have *experienced* the sex industry from inside, especially since many of the people on this blog post anonymously. Moreover, those of us who have had direct experience do not have a monopoly on this debate. I’ve spent much time reading and listening to the testimonies of current and former sex workers. Our experiences are vastly different, so while they’re important, they alone cannot form the basis for a political movement. For that we need to be willing to listen to different experiences, and not only privilege the ones that legitimise our political views.
Carrie
Could you give me one or two examples of what I would call the pro-prostitution academic cabal (i.e. the 27 who signed the complaint about Big Brothel; the 15 who signed the complaint about Melissa Farley et al research into men who pay for sex in Glasgow; the 20 who signed a letter to the Guardian in praise of Nick Davies’s atrocious incentive for UKBA to deport trafficked women, etc, etc) privileging the voices of abused women in prostitution in their research? And can you clarify why, bearing in mind the collective obsession with peer reviewed work, so many of them quote research in their own work which has never been anywhere near an ethics committee or been peer reviewed?
Best, Julie Bindel
‘Carrie’- your response addresses precisely *none* of the complaints about your poor behaviour, nor the solid trouncing of your argument.
Oh, and Carrie- has it ever occurred to you that there might be damned good reasons why women have to use anonymity on a thread about prostitution? Think about it.
“Moreover, those of us who have had direct experience do not have a monopoly on this debate.”
That seems to imply that you have direct experience. Is that the impression you were trying to give or was it just poor wording Carrie?
Agree with Laurelin that you haven’t addressed any of the points made to you Carrie.
Are you still going to go around claiming that being penetrated by penises for money is just like working as a cleaner, miner or academic. I’m sure you don’t have to suck fellow professionals penises in order to persuade them to peer review your work, give you funding or publish you in their academic presses for example.
http:// teencourtesan.wordpress.com /2010/03/03/ body-image-self-esteem/
I’ve added some gaps to your link Stephen. If people want to go there they can copy and paste to their browser and put the gaps back in themselves. Sorry, but I’m not happy having a direct link to that site from here.
Words of present/past sex workers seem lauded on this thread, then, so long as they’re the right type of words from the right type of sex workers.
I sometimes read those “discussions” on “feminists” blogs, and am amazed by the level of aggressivity … so hesitate before stepping in.
I am a sex worker, nor proud or ashamed of it.
My experiences are not the same as the ones of Riverin for example. When she/he says :
“I’ve done both. Domestic labour is vastly preferable. When you clean a toilet you feel good, productive. When you’ve been used like a toilet you feel like shit.”
I could write exactly the opposite, and that wouldn’t mean i am right.
When i was working 40 hours a week in a very nasty fast food place, burning my self in the oils, for an abusive and humiliating boss for miserable wages, i felt like shit.
When i was working 10 hours a week , sucking cock , getting fucked or pissing on ugly but respectful bankers, for what was a very very good price, i felt like i was in a position of power.
If Riverin, dont feel humiliated by cleaning toilets 40 hours a week for miserable wages, thats s great for her/him..doesnt mean other people should feel the same way or take his /her point of view as representatives!
I am not asking anyone to believe me, or to take my experience of sex work as representative.I know many many sex workers who have the same relationship to their work as i do. I also know ( quite less because they wont talk about it easily ) ex-sex workers who are really really glad they were able to leave the industry, and had an extremely negative relationship to it. Kids who started way too young, people with addictions etc..
Both those realities exist, and hundreds of others… please try to accept that before taking sides!
I just want to share one very little fact about my life as a prostitute.
The country i come from criminalise prostitution. Sex workers face more harrassment from police and clients than here.
Condoms confiscations, violence, rape… and it s impossible to report all this..because it s done by the police mostly.
Criminalisation is just simply not the way. And it s actually going to change soon due to efforts of sex workers groups!
And one thing i d love to say to Julie Bindel if she is reading this list. You once wrote:
“Imagine earning your living in a way that means people generally think of you as scum, where you have to cope with the constant threat and reality of violence, and are very likely to develop mental and physical health problems”
( lol no it wasnt an article about working in the Army! )
You might do but people dont think i m scum. Your attitude is just reinforcing stereotypes and
participating in stigmatisation.
This could have been said ( and was said ) about lesbians and gays 40 years ago : ” Imagine living a life where everyone thinks you re disgusting, where your lifestyle include great risks of alcoholism and violent relationship, your kids taking away and you being arrested and loosing you job! Nobody in their normal mind would choose such a lifestyle ! But you did….”
It s the same with sex work. it s not the work so much that is damaging but stigmatisation LGBT have done such an amazing job at fighting discrimination and are able to live more or less a life without it ( well… some of us ) And thats what feminist of all sides should be fighting against. Stigmatisation of sex workers.
In solidarity
Yaawn. Yeah, whatever Stephen. And I’m a puritanical anti-sex second waver and all the rest of that crap.
Truth be told I didn’t have an issue with the actual piece that you linked to, hence I kept your post up so those who want to read it can. But the rest of the site? If people want to read about bukake etc that’s up to them, but I’m not having direct links to that shit from here.
My site: my rules. And If you don’t like it, well, I’m sure you know the drill.
It hurts my head to try to parse the inanities that are posted here by JOHNS. But that’s a point eh? You’re right; we do not know for sure which women posting here are prostituted women. We do know for sure who the JOHNS are (no matter what sex they’re posing as).
OK, well, in that case for those who don’t wish to stitch links back together to that post in that (porn-free) sex workers’ blog, it reads:
So, the above – and people have the source if they want to check it out – comes from the liberal feminist perspective, and I think we can all agree here that in this place it seems about as ‘at home’ as a minnow in the jaws of a whale. But, taken together with your previous commenter’s testimony, it illustrates a clear gulf.
I’d suggest there are as many different attitudes to sex work among past and present sex workers as there are past and present sex workers – many positive, many negative. Many see plusses and minuses.
“Many see plusses and minuses.”
I’m sure pimps see many plusses.
[pressed ‘send’ too soon, oops]
…And since, ahem, ‘management’ are included in the membership of the IUSW, I’d imagine they are very enthusiastic about speaking of the plusses.
Still no-one on the pro-prostiution side has addressed rmott. Funny that. It’s like you’re ashamed, or cowardly or something.
And yes, we can all ignore the many many many survivors of rape and torture in the ‘sex’ industry because a vocal minority say all is well.
Never mind the vast amounts of research that show the vast majority of prostituted women want out and suffer sexual violence on a regular basis at the hands of pimps and johns. Nah. Let’s just take the word of the pro-pros boys who. I’m sure have noooo stake in the status quo whatsoever.
Tut, tut, Laurelin. We don’t do ‘research’ here. Cath’s told us it’s done by “sympathetic/interested-in-earning-yet-more-bucks-off-women’s-backs academics.” Unless, of course, it’s a the right kind of research, coming to (or should that be starting from?) the right kind of conclusions, like the right kind of sex workers’ voices.
I am a sex worker, nor proud or ashamed of it.
I hear this exact phrasing so much, the claim to perfect emotional neutrality about being a prostitute. A person I loved often said exactly the same thing, “I’m not proud and I’m not ashamed” before launching into emotional rants about prostitution, johns, and the men who raped her as a child.
I never questioned her need to disassociate herself from the truth of her very strong emotions about prostitution, but my need to make sense of it for myself led me to write a poem. Because “Want to hear my poem?” is the worst phrase in the English language, I’ll let y’all choose to click or not.
“poem for a prostituted sister”
http://www.genderberg.com/phpNuke/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=34
So are you going to address anything I said, Stephen, or just try and push the attention away onto those who have called you out?
You are in no solidarity with me or any woman. You are simply wrapped up in so much fiction and psychotic fantasy passing as something you’ve ‘experienced’.
I do still wonder at the purpose and goal of running threads like this that just give air to this kind of wallowing in insanity.
And I’m damn certain of one other thing; the lurkers and majority of the posters here who are whacking off to the posts.
Stephen
The above also, if the site is kosher and I have my doubts ‘cos the more I read there the more it sounds like the product of a 50+ year old man’s fantasy, is written by an 18 year old who’s been in the industry for approximately 5 minutes. Yet another sex industry tourist from the sounds of things, dipping her toe in to the world of escorting to help finance her gap year.
Is it any wonder that her experience is entirely different from that of rmott and others who were never privileged enough to have the choices privately educated Naughty Little Nina undoubtedly has, and will continue to have once the initial ooh aren’t I edgy and kewl sheen wears off?
I’ll give you three guesses as to which one I find the more legitimate voice, and the one I’m more inclined to listen to……
(Pssst. I’ll give you a clue: it’s not Nina.)
“I am a sex worker, nor proud or ashamed of it.
I hear this exact phrasing so much, the claim to perfect emotional neutrality about being a prostitute”
Thanks Sam for this brilliant analysis of my relation ship to my job! I wrote this sentence to not go in details about it. Did you read the rest of my post ? Sometimes i love it, and sometimes well ..i dont !
But please, dont hesitate to manipulate my story to fit into your view of the world 🙂 it s so much easier than you challenge it.
“I wasnt proud or ashamed to be flipping burgers for a whole year ” It seems like i had a dissociative personality already 🙂
Everyone has to eat. We don’t all have to be raped for a living and call it “sex” work. Let’s call it what it is: rape work.
And by the way; only someone who is not a woman (or a Stolkholmed woman whose handler is reading here or watching her) would refer to what millions of women do daily (clean toilets, clean floors, clean babies nappies) as disgusting. Only someone who has never been a prostituted woman would think going down on some fat old loser with a cheesy smelling dick and smiling with it and cooing over him for a couple bills was being in control of your life.
For what it’s worth, as far as I’m aware, Luca is a male name. (At least all the Lucas I have met in my life have been male).
From: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23667820-open-university-skills-classes-for-sex-workers.do
So yet again it’s the men organising and representing themselves as the voice of women in prostitution.
Lol yes Luca is a boy s name.
You just refuse to accept that other people can feel differently than you.
I m not saying that someone who enjoys cleaning toilets is manipulated or brain-washed. Some people could even be proud of it. Some people might want to do it for a few years to pay for education. They are allowed to their opinion and feelings.
But when it comes to sex work..no. We can t own our feelings. We can’t own our thoughts. And if we express them publicly , like i m doing, we re being told we are liars or manipulated or have false counsciouness….
The Sex Worker Open Univeristy was organised by men and women. Most of the workshops were presented by women. The 200 people crowd was mix, with men, women and trans-men and trans-women.
One workshop was untitled “Taking the abolitionist argument seriously” and was offering a platform to read and debate from abolitionist feminist texts. Many women from Object or related groups came and we had a debate about different aspects of sex work. Like the article written by Thierry and Cath, there is a lot we would agree on if we stopped accusing each others of all sorts of evil.
And fighting together on some issues would be so much more effective.
oh by the way : some clients are fat ( omg yuk a FAT man ), some are old ( er… how gross..an OLD man …), some are ugly ( ok u got the joke ) but most clients wash .. they are normal human being. stereotyping our clients wont convince anyone. it will make you pass as some intolerant person. (and i m sure you re not, a respectable feminist as you are would never discriminate againt fat, old or ugly people would they ? )
Til next time !
riverein – But what about the young, slim, athletic, good looking, edgy, considerate, complimentary and generous clients? What about us?
Gulfstream- that’s a joke, right? Please tell me that’s a joke.
“it will make you pass as some intolerant person. ”
Apparently Riverein speaking of her own experiences makes her ‘intolerant’. Women are always told by men to moderate their words so they won’t offend people. Maybe sometimes men deserve to be offended? Maybe you’re not all so precious and untouchable after all? Maybe you need to (heheh) man up and face your responsibilities and the consequences of your actions?
“Most of the workshops were presented by women. The 200 people crowd was mix, with men, women and trans-men and trans-women.”
How many people in the crowd were prostituted people and how many were johns or voyeurs?
200 sounds like it might be a bit like the IUSW’s hundred strong membership (last time they openly counted) – full of people who have nothing to do with actual prostitution unless they are pimps or punters.
Laurelin – There’s many a true word spoken in jest!
That’s interesting, the sex workers open university blog has been shut down by Blogger for violation of terms of service:
https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=http%3A%2F%2Fsexworkeropenuniversity.blogspot.com%2F
It turns out it’s an IUSW event. Busy bees aren’t they? Here’s a film:
http://current.com/items/90496517_sex-worker-open-university.htm
Don’t think any of the first four speakers Camilla Barbagallo (she works at the LSE), Cari Mitchell, Laura Schwartz or Niki Adams are prostituted women. Why are they presenting themselves as such? Who are these women who want to see other women bought and sold by men?
A big part of the film is attacks on feminists, nothing to do with teaching “sex workers” skills. Attacks on Jacqui Smith too. Typical of Marxist entryists though to disguise their political activism as something else.
You’re even on it Carrie, noting that there are clients who are misogynist murderers, but let’s to criminalise clients. Once again you’re using the term “us”. Are you meaning to represent yourself as working in the sex industry.
Last word to an actual prostituted woman: “One mistake and someone can kill you – this angst is always in your mind”
Just a job like any other.
“Let’s not criminalise clients”
I know of a lot more radical anti-pornstitution feminists who have been prostituted or worked in other parts of the sex industry than I do of the spokespeople for the pro-sex industry lobby.
The claim that abolitionists know nothing of the sex industry is a myth put about by people who that is really true of.
I think they should be ashamed of themselves trying to disguise themselves as being in the sex industry when it’s hardly true for any of them.
Sometimes it’s difficult to see where the discussions here are actually going. As far as I can see it started with a discussion about organisation and trade unions and their relationship to sex work.
Julie Bindel questions whether I can be objective, and supports this by describing me as a campaigner. Perhaps I am unclear what definition she is using here, but campaigning is not what I do. Nor do I support ‘legalisation’ as she says – although I will grant that people seem to have differing notions of what that word means. I have no idea where she gets the idea that I ‘hang around’ and ‘lobby’ . Clearly her opinion of who is a ‘scum of the earth’ or ‘two-faced’ , unethical or deceitful, is her opinion, and just that. I don’t recall ever coming across someone that I would call a pimp – possibly its a matter of definition again. Let me see… there was the husband of one of the sex workers who works for our outreach programme, who helped her with the business side – would that fit?
However I do find the general ad hominam/ad feminam tone here unhelpful in terms of leading to any better understanding of the issues.
The criticism that some people’s voices were being ignored here is valid. So I will say from the outset that everyone’s voice is valid, and has meaning. It is just that as in other occupations or encounters, there is diversity of experience and we need to recognise that and avoid essentialist arguments. Some people probably enjoy working in a minimum wage service sector – others feel exploited.
Keeping in mind that it is International Women’s Day, and setting aside for the moment the issue of male and trans sex workers, perhaps we can try and establish what might be considered common ground – and work from there?
I suspect that most people here are well motivated, and are genuinely concerned about the health and welfare of those women who work in the sex trade. It is the solutions that divide. This dilemma appears frequently in feminist literature on this issue.
I think we all accept that there are gross power and economic inequalities between men and women and wish to remedy this. What I question is whether a punitive approach to male clients is the best feminist solution, as opposed to empowering and enabling the women.
I see some peace appears to have broken out:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/mar/08/women-sex-workers-decriminalise-soliciting
Hurrah! But I wonder if you can tell me, Cath, what is your definition of rape, exactly?
As a possible addition to the common points of agreement, could I proffer the need for much improved drug rehab facilities in red light areas, which everyone seemed in accord with at the Commons committee stage of the Policing and Crime Act?
I’d be happy to work with you on campaigning to get laws to criminalise men who pay for sex Michael.
I’d also be happy to support any campaign you might like to start addressing men’s self-awarded entitlement to pay for access to women’s bodies, and all the abuse and violence to women that that entails.
Very worthwhile projects for International Women’s Day. It would be marvellous if men would start challenging other men on their sexual violence to women, rather than devoting their energy to attacking feminists or trying to interfere in the important work we are doing.
Can I ask what your own activities are as a man with regards to the sex industry? Do you use pornography? Have you ever paid for a prostitute? Have you ever been to lap-dancing or strip clubs as a customer?
I have to ask those questions because obviously you couldn’t expect feminists to work with sexually abusive men who are supporting the sex industry.
You still haven’t addressed rmott, Michael. Nor told me why you will not.
“However I do find the general ad hominam/ad feminam tone here unhelpful in terms of leading to any better understanding of the issues.”
Read Rmott and Riverein, and then you will understand the issues better. No need to thank me; I’m generous with my advice.
“The criticism that some people’s voices were being ignored here is valid. So I will say from the outset that everyone’s voice is valid, and has meaning.”
Oh how cute- thank you so much! Now all the women on the thread have permission to speak!
“I’d be happy to work with you on campaigning to get laws to criminalise men who pay for sex Michael.”
Me too. The choice is in your hands. These are real women’s lives that you are fucking with.
(unless the answer to Delphyne’s question is ‘yes’, I mean ‘fucking with’ in the sense of ‘messing with’. Will go and wash my mouth out. Issues deserving anger and indignation arouse my anger and indignation).
On ‘objectivity’:
http://laurelin.wordpress.com/2007/10/12/i-am-not-objective/
This topic is not deserving of intellectual comment. Attempting to “intellectualize” these violences toward women is the men’s diversion game. I won’t play. I won’t call such comments cute, and I won’t banter back and forth with rapists.
Apologies, Riverein, my ‘cute’ was meant to be bitterly sarcastic, but maybe that doesn’t make it any better. I’ll try to be more sensitive with my language in future.
The thing I don’t get with academics like Carrie and Michael, is the way they seem to think that just because a handful of people in prostitution defend it, that makes the enormous harm (including violence, rape and murder) done to everyone else in prostitution OK . It’s a very odd way of balancing situations. Someone being raped and someone not being raped are not equivalents. We need to eliminate the former. An industry that creates the rapes of millions of women and children has no business being in existence.
Carrie in that film even says specifically that despite the horrendous customers that women in prostitution have to face (she was talking about the Ipswich murderer) punters should not be criminalised. Why are punters at the top of her thoughts?
I don’t know how people can read these words from RMott, but still do the “blah, blah, defend prostitution, defend punters” thing. What’s really going on here?
“Rape is normal in prostitution, so normal that to survive the woman and girls has completely deadened all emotions. She loses the language of rape and abuse, because it so continual.
…….the deaths of prostituted women and girls is made invisible. The sex trade is not bother about deaths of prostituted women and girls – or should I say goods – for they may replaced with plenty more damaged girls.
Punters can kill prostituted women and girls, for they know they considered to be throwaways.
Usually when a prostitute dies from murder or suicide, she is blame for being stupid, weak or too bad to live.
For the vast majority of prostituted women and girls, there is no romance in their existence – all there is survival inside hell.”
Why are you defending hell Michael and Carrie?
“Why are you defending hell Michael and Carrie?”
A very good question.
It’s only men who put about the argument that johns are desirable, that only street hookers are in danger, and you’re in control when you’re a hooker with a arts degree.
A rape worker knows what the men want is to dehumanize, degrade, and harm the women he buys. It’s worth her life to say that when she’s in, and she’s never going to deny it when she’s out. That’s how you know a exited rape worker.
Harm is not only bruises. It’s harmful to have to fuck someone for money, that you do not desire, whether you want to NOW or not. Someone who does not provide YOU with sex, but merely demands it. That’s not sex. It’s rape. It’s psychologically harmful.
It’s not the bruises that make rape workers take drugs and suicide. It’s the psychological harm from being raped over and over. And having to smile and pretend you’re all sexy and hot and she really really wants to be there.
Thanks Riverein, for describing the rape industry as it is – and not as apologists choose to portray it.
There is no excuse for making the extreme violence that is the foundation of the sex trade invisible.
Do not make invisible that the vast majority of the profits of the sex trade is through giving johns full permission to use the prostituted women and girls as a porn-toy.
This means he has full permission to rape, mentally abuse, sexually torture and murder her without any emotions of guilt. For his actions are made into a non-crime and invisible.
Do make invisible that the sex trade makes massive profits from “recruiting” women and girls that can manipulate and brainwash to be nothing but three holes and two hands.
They come from sexual abuse in their families.
They come from care homes that refuse to notice men and boys keeping them out all night.
They come believing that prostitution and other aspects of the sex trade is glamorous, and will make them rich. Then cannot leave after the first rape or first torture.
Do not make it invisible that the vast majority of prostituted women and girls are living in terror and degradation without any realistic exit.
Do not make invisible that every john can and refuses to make the choice not to own another human just so he can have the power of raping her, degrading her or pretending he is a decent man.
And do not make invisible that to survive the torture that is prostitution, that the vast majority of prostituted women and girls learn to smile, to say it was brilliant, to act happy.
Being happy might save your life.