Demonizing sex workers

[Kelliezgirl]

And indeed, a great deal of research on the topic of sex work has taken place in the past half century. It just happens that what the research shows tends to be inconvenient for people who want to go on demonizing sex workers.

A multitude of cultures developed slavery and caste systems. We have plenty of data by this point to suggest that neither of these are actually good ideas, regardless of how many cultures developed them or what their proximate excuses were. The question then becomes how to defeat such heavily-embedded problems.

You are just using a guilt by association argument.
If there is this multitude of research that shows what you claim then provide that data. Don't use a cheap emotional argument "it's just like slavery!!!!".

 

[CyranoJ]

If there is this multitude of research that shows what you claim then provide that data.

I have done, in this very thread.

(I mean, I can't provide literally all the data in existence, obviously, but I have linked twice to some current and capable recent scholarship on the topic. You can just do a search of the thread.)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I have done, in this very thread.

(I mean, I can't provide literally all the data in existence, obviously, but I have linked twice to some current and capable recent scholarship on the topic. You can just do a search of the thread.)

I've been back through the entire thread, the only research you site that I could find was in reference to the legal and regulatory status of prostitution in Germany.
It focused on labor laws and the like and certainly didn't address societal harm, or damage to the women engaged in it themselves.

There is plenty of research to suggest it IS harmful to women and society however.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?...i#d=gs_qabs&t=1708625174196&u=#p=V-ySfkm9370J

https://jme.bmj.com/content/40/2/86.short

 

[Kelliezgirl]

See - we can agree on stuff

The past is an awful guide to the present.

Emily

George Santyana would like to have a word.

 

[EmilyMiller]

George Santyana would like to have a word.

I know the quote. Remembering the past is not the same as honoring its awful aspects. I don’t think he intended that interpretation whatsoever. Remembering how awful slavery was is an impetus not to repeat the mistakes of the past surely.

Emily

 

[MillieDynamite]

All the arguments about how much a sex worker can make. This view has the presumption that the sex worker keeps the lion's share of the money she brings in and doubts they do even where it is legal. I don't count modeling as being a sex worker. Yes, models are sexy, aren't they? But they are pushing products and guaranteeing that their employers make more than them; the companies they push the product for make far more of their efforts than their employer does.

However, on the streets, in-call, out-call, and in houses of prostitution, the worker keeps the smallest amount. It may be comparable, in some way, to any business, but not really. A whores value isn't so high she can demand more of the take, no matter how popular she may be, because they can replace her with little effort for a girl willing to do more for less. Especially so when the work is outside the law.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I know the quote. Remembering the past is not the same as honoring its awful aspects. I don’t think he intended that interpretation whatsoever. Remembering how awful slavery was is an impetus not to repeat the mistakes of the past surely.

Emily

We can learn nothing from the past because.... Slavery!

 

[MillieDynamite]

Slavery, the Holocaust, the ethnic cleansing around the world, we better learn something from them, or the Us vs. Them will never end.

We can learn nothing from the past because.... Slavery!

 

[djrip]

We can learn nothing from the past because.... Slavery!

No one has said we can't learn from the past. What has been said is that often, perhaps usually, the lesson we should learn from the past is what *not* to do.

 

[SimonDoom]

All the arguments about how much a sex worker can make. This view has the presumption that the sex worker keeps the lion's share of the money she brings in and doubts they do even where it is legal. I don't count modeling as being a sex worker. Yes, models are sexy, aren't they? But they are pushing products and guaranteeing that their employers make more than them; the companies they push the product for make far more of their efforts than their employer does.

However, on the streets, in-call, out-call, and in houses of prostitution, the worker keeps the smallest amount. It may be comparable, in some way, to any business, but not really. A whores value isn't so high she can demand more of the take, no matter how popular she may be, because they can replace her with little effort for a girl willing to do more for less. Especially so when the work is outside the law.

But why is this? The problem with so many criticisms of prostitution and laments about the poor status of the prostitute is that they are products of the moral/legal environment in which prostitution has always existed.

Prostitution is a contractual relationship: one person offers services; another offers money. For it to work as a business, somebody has to enforce the contract. Historically and traditionally, the woman could not do that, a) because until recently women were not equal under the law when it came to entering contracts generally, and b) because contracts for sex services are not legally enforceable. So women have had to turn to men--criminal men (pimps)--to assist them in enforcing the contracts. Of COURSE, this situation creates abuse. But it doesn't have to be like this.

If sex work were completely legalized and contractually enforceable under the law, there would be no need for pimps. Already, with the rise of escorts who use social media as advertising, the old model of prostitution is gradually fading away. Women have means other than low-life pimps to obtain business and to enforce getting paid. Is it perfect? Of course not, but nothing is.

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

Those women on only fans are great.

 

[XerXesXu]

But why is this? The problem with so many criticisms of prostitution and laments about the poor status of the prostitute is that they are products of the moral/legal environment in which prostitution has always existed.

Prostitution is a contractual relationship: one person offers services; another offers money. For it to work as a business, somebody has to enforce the contract. Historically and traditionally, the woman could not do that, a) because until recently women were not equal under the law when it came to entering contracts generally, and b) because contracts for sex services are not legally enforceable. So women have had to turn to men--criminal men (pimps)--to assist them in enforcing the contracts. Of COURSE, this situation creates abuse. But it doesn't have to be like this.

If sex work were completely legalized and contractually enforceable under the law, there would be no need for pimps. Already, with the rise of escorts who use social media as advertising, the old model of prostitution is gradually fading away. Women have means other than low-life pimps to obtain business and to enforce getting paid. Is it perfect? Of course not, but nothing is.

In common law jurisdictions, no contract for personal services is enforceable, as tending to slavery. One can't go to court to compel the contractor who agreed to tar your drive for X$ to do so. One can sue for the return of money paid or, if he hasn't been paid, for the difference between his agreed price and the price paid to another contractor, if it's more.

I was brought up in a culture (England) where the age of consent is 16 and prostitution has never been illegal. The girls didn’t have pimps. I moved to a culture (Philippines) where the age of consent is 18 and prostitution, widely defined to include eg: cam girls, is illegal. The girls don’t have pimps.

The cultural appreciation of who is a ‘pimp’ differs between the two. In England there’s an offence of ‘living off the immoral earnings of others’ and this can extend to landlords or the managers of common lodging houses or others who facilitate her work. There’s a cultural, but not a legal definition, of a ‘pimp’, which is a married man who prostitutes his wife as his living. The cultural perception of ‘pimps’ is that they’re low and disreputable sorts who, rightly, deserve to be jailed.

In the Philippines, there’s no extensive definition of ‘living off immoral earnings’, so no one who’s not directly involved in the sex act itself does anything illegal.

The owners and managers of Go-Go bars can showcase the girls, whose job is to sell drinks, but when a customer pays for the ‘early work release’ of a girl, it is only a prepayment of the drinks the customer would have bought her if they had stayed in that bar. Where they go and what they do is private business between the customer and the girl. It’s not uncommon for enpartnered girls with children to work in the bars to support their families, but no stigma attaches to their husbands who are often trike-drivers or construction workers whose income is precarious.

The OP did not explain her cultural context and, as with any social phenomenon, she did not contemplate that there may be cultural contexts other than her own.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Why do CEOs make millions and front-line workers struggle to get a 5% raise? The world isn't fair. Pimp or no pimp, you'll have a manager. If it is legal, it will not allow for an owner-operator solo operation. The fees will keep that from happening. Why does organized crime infiltrate unions? Because that's where the money is to be taken from. You're aiming nobly high, but there is no utopia in our foreseeable future. Less so for the sex trade. It draws the criminal element like flies to shit. I guarantee you, the houses in Amsterdam fare better than whores who work there. And even absent some religious convictions, people still look down on sex workers. Do you want your daughter to be one? Honestly, do you?

Wouldn't you rather her be the CEO than poor Schulp doing the hard work? And don't kid yourself, fucking isn't an easy way to make a living. Sex without real intimacy is just, FUCKING, work.

But why is this? The problem with so many criticisms of prostitution and laments about the poor status of the prostitute is that they are products of the moral/legal environment in which prostitution has always existed.

Prostitution is a contractual relationship: one person offers services; another offers money. For it to work as a business, somebody has to enforce the contract. Historically and traditionally, the woman could not do that, a) because until recently women were not equal under the law when it came to entering contracts generally, and b) because contracts for sex services are not legally enforceable. So women have had to turn to men--criminal men (pimps)--to assist them in enforcing the contracts. Of COURSE, this situation creates abuse. But it doesn't have to be like this.

If sex work were completely legalized and contractually enforceable under the law, there would be no need for pimps. Already, with the rise of escorts who use social media as advertising, the old model of prostitution is gradually fading away. Women have means other than low-life pimps to obtain business and to enforce getting paid. Is it perfect? Of course not, but nothing is.

 

[EmilyMiller]

We can learn nothing from the past because.... Slavery!

I didn’t say that. I said we must learn from the mistakes of the past. That’s what the famous quote by the gentleman you mention means.

Thats not a controversial interpretation, it’s clearly what he intended to convey.

Emily

 

[TarnishedPenny]

The only words which work, from the Box Tops:

 

[DrPope]

the one grand a night call girl with the stunning looks.

Where is a grand a night stunner? A grand or two a hour I could believe but an overnight will be $5-10K

you don't see z list slebs becoming prostitutes

Are you sure about that? Google "Yachting"

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I didn’t say that. I said we must learn from the mistakes of the past. That’s what the famous quote by the gentleman you mention means.

Thats not a controversial interpretation, it’s clearly what he intended to convey.

Emily

No, but when the point of my argument was we ought to consider WHY society views prostitution the way it does before we assume that "normalizing" doesn't come with a cost and the response is "who cares why they did things in the past, they had slaves!!!!" It shows a degree of temporal arrogance.
There is plenty of research discussing the various negative impacts of sex work on both women and society.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The notion that cultural norms opposing promiscuity are "anti-woman" or "just people trying to control women" completely ignores the benefit that accrues to women from that system.

 

[EmilyMiller]

No, but when the point of my argument was we ought to consider WHY society views prostitution the way it does before we assume that "normalizing" doesn't come with a cost and the response is "who cares why they did things in the past, they had slaves!!!!" It shows a degree of temporal arrogance.
There is plenty of research discussing the various negative impacts of sex work on both women and society.
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The notion that cultural norms opposing promiscuity are "anti-woman" or "just people trying to control women" completely ignores the benefit that accrues to women from that system.

It was an example - not initially offered by me - of why respecting decisions taken in the past may be a truly awful idea. I really can see nothing wrong whatsoever with either the example or the general principle it supports.

Saying “historically people have concluded X, so X must have some merit” is not a very good argument in my opinion. It would support all sorts of things that we now find abhorrent. It’s not unreasonable to offer the counterexample of slavey. It’s not unreasonable to offer the counterexample of women’s suffrage. It’s not unreasonable to offer the counterexample of rape being impossible in a marriage. It’s not unreasonable to offer the counterexample of legalizing homosexuality and allowing gay marriage. These are all logical things to mention. There are many others.

I don’t see any point debating this self-evident statement.

I have a view about the legalization of sex work that may - I infer - be different to yours. We can discuss this.

But it’s unhelpful to say that the wise humans of the past deemed this so and thus we must respect their conclusions. I’m not going to engage in refuting that argument, as it doesn’t merit refuting.

Your opinion on sex worker regulation may be a valid one to hold. But I don’t agree with the “tradition” element that you use to justify it.

Emily

 

[CyranoJ]

I've been back through the entire thread, the only research you site that I could find was in reference to the legal and regulatory status of prostitution in Germany.

Which also provides a specific window onto the various sweeping claims about "trafficking" typically used to justify paternalistic approaches to sex work and workers, and plenty of specifics about what those approaches actually lead to. I would take that to be quite material when aggressive claims come up that nobody is actually generating research about these topics (false), or that all the research supports the position of the antis (also false).

Of course, it's far from complete. But I will note that in fact, even several of the articles at your first link (here, for example, and here, in the top results of a search that was clearly skewed to avoid producing such results) take stigmatization to task as a major social harm related to sex workers. If we make it a search for "harmful effects of prostitution stigma" we can find many more. Give it a shot.

Now, we could easily get into a game of duelling citations here and I'm not interested in that. I'm just conveying to you that your apparent assumption that anyone who differs from your viewpoint has not done thinking or research (about either the broader history or the present nature of sex work) is simply not correct.

It also seems to me that you would benefit from actually checking out some of those different perspectives. It will make you considerably more interesting and convincing on the topic even if your underlying convictions remain unmoved; far more so than, say, misrepresenting other people's words and throwing around casual accusations about ignorance and bad faith. I hope you get there. Have a nice day.

 

[MillieDynamite]

There are several women here who have participated in Sex Work, and I don't think any of us think it was beneficial to our well-being.

 

[CyranoJ]

Part of the reason I have the perspective I have today comes from actually having known sex workers and discovering that listening to them in their own words is instructive. I didn't say anyone involved felt it was "beneficial to their well-being." I am saying, because many of them have said, that stigmatization and legislation based on it was the root cause of the many of the worst harms they encountered. In particular, being driven out of the mainstream was actively dangerous to the safety of doing the work.

There is no one-size-fits-all perspective on this. Sex work is complicated, the people who do it are likewise a complex population, their experiences are varied. It isn't my place to pronounce on yours. I have not done so and would not do so. But I can say that on the whole, I take the labor-rights approach to sex work far, far more seriously -- and personally -- than Me of Thirty Years Ago would have dreamed.

 

[EmilyMiller]

There are several women here who have participated in Sex Work, and I don't think any of us think it was beneficial to our well-being.

There are indeed and - given the stigma was have been discussing - I applaud those who are brave enough to state this publicly.

The question is what is best to do about that experience. To help prevent other women suffering in the same way.

This is where opinions bifurcate.

Emily

 

[CyranoJ]

There are indeed and - given the stigma was have been discussing - I applaud those who are brave enough to state this publicly.

The question is what is best to do about that experience. To help prevent other women suffering in the same way.

This is where opinions bifurcate.

Emily

See, we're agreeing all over the place out here. Well said.

 

[SimonDoom]

Anytime somebody says that a certain kind of experience is the same thing for all people, I'm inclined to be skeptical. That just doesn't match empirical reality, and it doesn't match what I've seen and heard. Experiences differ. I don't believe there's anything inherently harmful about doing sex work. Why would there be? What is inherently harmful about sex? The harm results from the social circumstances that surround it, which are themselves something worth questioning and perhaps capable of being changed. The woman I know who participated in that line of work for a little while didn't indicate that it was harmful, and she made a lot of money from it in a short time, and it wasn't going to a third party. She was no worse off for it. So circumstances and experiences vary.

 

[SimonDoom]

Here's a link to a YouTube video about and interview with Aella, a well-known and wildly successful OnlyFans performer who's also been a camgirl and a high-priced callgirl:

.

Her experience obviously is an outlier, but that raises the question: so what? Why should we judge what she does, which appears to have worked out spectacularly well for her, based on the experiences of others? She compares her sex work experience favorably with the factory job she held before she started camming. Sex work appears to have been EXTREMELY beneficial to her life. She speaks very positively about it.

There's a stubborn tendency in this forum to want to judge sexual activities and proclivities, whether sex work, incest, non-con, BDSM, or anything else, by what is perceived as the "standard" or most common experience, or, more annoyingly, one's own personal experience, rather than allowing for the reality that the variety of different experiences is extreme, and what's bad for one person might be good for another person.

I'm reminded of a friend of mine who some time ago worked in Saudi Arabia, back when women were not legally allowed to drive. A Saudi acquaintance of his justified the law because, of course, "women can't drive." When my friend pointed out that in other countries women actually DID drive, his Saudi acquaintance without skipping a beat simply repeated, "women can't drive." One's own personal experience is nothing more than one's own personal experience, and it's not a basis for moralizing about or criminalizing what others do.