Apparently, Feminism is dead!!!

[Random]

Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?

It's no more illegal than female prostitution http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexköpslagen

 

[Random]

I can see why you said it was informed by Lutheranism.

It's almost the same as the official attitude towards drugs.

 

[cesare]

A change from active to passive. Taking women's autonomy away from them, no? Denying the possibility of their agency?

I'm not trying to deny all the insidious power relations that are involved in prostitution, but aren't the worst excesses of these tackled by ensuring that pimping is cracked down on?

Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?

Talking of pimping, I recently read a piece that purported to give the Marxist perspective. One of the key points was that the sex industry has moved from the realms of the petit bourgeois pimps to employer relationships on a grand scale.

 

[cesare]

It's almost the same as the official attitude towards drugs.

And alcohol. "It was the drink that caused the problem!" I even read that suggestion put to Assange in those witness statements, however he didn't pick up on that clue in his response.

 

[sihhi]

A change from active to passive. Taking women's autonomy away from them, no? Denying the possibility of their agency?

I'm not trying to deny all the insidious power relations that are involved in prostitution, but aren't the worst excesses of these tackled by ensuring that pimping is cracked down on?

Presumably male prosititution is also illegal in Sweden?

Nasty encounters with a john, or a forced penetration beyond agreed terms - rape - suggest pimping is not the cause of the worst excesses, rather a manifestation of the general male-female inequality.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Talking of pimping, I recently read a piece that purported to give the Marxist perspective. One of the key points was that the sex industry has moved from the realms of the petit bourgeois pimps to employer relationships on a grand scale.

Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid arrangements so that they have protection. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.

 

[sihhi]

Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid arrangements so that they have protection. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.

Can you explain this?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Can you explain this?

A woman working on her own is incredibly vulnerable to abuse. A woman working as part of a group who are all looking out for each other is more protected. I admit that I don't have the evidence to back this up. Someone who knows more might be able to comment.

 

[sihhi]

A woman working on her own is incredibly vulnerable to abuse. A woman working as part of a group who are all looking out for each other is more protected. I admit that I don't have the evidence to back this up. Someone who knows more might be able to comment.

Protected from rape or mental and psychological harm?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Protected from rape or mental and psychological harm?

Protected from rape, yes. Their clients know there will be consequences if they misbehave.

As for psychological harm, hard to say. To an extent, though, yes, in that all of us are happier if we have a sense of autonomy and control in what we do.

 

[cesare]

Well fwiw, this would be my approach in tackling harm reduction - a crackdown on pimping, but one combined with an enabling of women to safely organise themselves in coop-style mutual aid arrangements so that they have protection. No moral judgement on what they do either way, just practical measures to reduce exploitation.

There is a labour movement for sex workers. Just some general info here, I haven't looked into the provenance of the author.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/ent...r_the_oldest_profession_sex_workers_organize/

 

[sihhi]

Protected from rape, yes. Their clients know there will be consequences if they misbehave.

As for psychological harm, hard to say. To an extent, though, yes, in that all of us are happier if we have a sense of autonomy and control in what we do.

Obviously it's a better situation than what we have at present if the sex industry were to become all-women, but given the reality of sex workers and johns, all-female brothels with protection afforded by women would be undercut by lone possibly trauma-survivors or former abuse victims or hard drug addicts working in single situations. Providing that extra security, an extra two women to the sex worker performing the sex act, means pushing up prices or devaluing the rate of your work/increasing the hours you work.
The situation you describe occurs, I believe, in some red light districts of India where women are forced to operate a system of housing their children in lower rooms looked after by sex workers off duty, while in the upper rooms the sex acts take place. It basically means committing your life to aspects of the trade, either enduring the sex act or providing defense for others doing likewise.

(Most men feel less dirty, by as much 'action' or 'experience' as they can get for as little as they can pay. The less money they pay the better they can feel about having degraded someone.)
For the situation you describe to make sense a social revolution would have to have occurred, where no weak and poor women would undercut the brothels. And if a social revolution does occur sex work will be swept away.

Alternative female employment should be opened for women - that's the only long-term way to struggle against the ills associated with sex work; the current decriminalisation or criminalisation debate is something of a red herring. Having said that, something inside me does believe men who are johns should have (at the very least) their income and assets seized and handed out to poor women including single mothers, abuse victims and former or current sex workers, pornography workers - but that's only going to come as a result of mass social struggle and/or social revolution. This would at least undermine those who say criminalisation is a bad thing in and of itself. The criminalisation in Sweden is not done properly or harshly enough, if we are going to argue over reform measures.

 

[cesare]

Sex work existed before Capitalism, what makes you think it wouldn't exist after it? (Sihhi)

 

[sihhi]

Sex work existed before Capitalism, what makes you think it wouldn't exist after it? (Sihhi)

Because the social revolution being fought for should be a feminist anti-capitalist one.

 

[cesare]

Because the social revolution being fought for should be a feminist anti-capitalist one.

First get your feminists agreeing then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Alternative female employment should be opened for women - that's the only long-term way to struggle against the ills associated with sex work; t

In the meantime, isn't the reality that many women can earn far more from prostitution than from any other kind of job open to them. The choices open to them may be earning 1k a week, perhaps, from prostitution or 200 a week from Tesco. This is one of the reasons why I'm uneasy with the approach that sees all prostitutes as victims. In purely monetary terms, they may be making more than their clients, and if they don't see themselves as victims, who are we to tell them that they are?

 

[sihhi]

There is a labour movement for sex workers. Just some general info here, I haven't looked into the provenance of the author.
http://inthesetimes.com/working/ent...r_the_oldest_profession_sex_workers_organize/

Virtually all the unions for sex workers mentioned are advocacy organisations led, most commonly, by former sex workers who get their resources from other groups. It doesn't change anything for them to be labelled one way or another, but it is worth remembering that they don't function in the way most unions (are supposed to) function i.e. they don't receive subs from members, don't have any kind of structure operating from the base to supposedly represent the interests of their members, and don't attempt to organise industrial action.

 

[cesare]

Virtually all the unions for sex workers mentioned are advocacy organisations led, most commonly, by former sex workers who get their resources from other groups. It doesn't change anything for them to be labelled one way or another, but it is worth remembering that they don't function in the way most unions (are supposed to) function i.e. they don't receive subs from members, don't have any kind of structure operating from the base to supposedly represent the interests of their members, and don't attempt to organise industrial action.

Are you suggesting that they're pointless?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The criminalisation in Sweden is not done properly or harshly enough, if we are going to argue over reform measures.

Problem with criminalisation of an activity is that it means that those who continue to engage in that activity can have no protection from the law. As with the illegal drugs trade, in which the very illegality of the activity means that you may be sold dangerously cut drugs by unscrupulous dealers. Criminalising prostitution potentially leaves prostitutes in a very dangerous position.

 

[sihhi]

In the meantime, isn't the reality that many women can earn far more from prostitution than from any other kind of job open to them. The choices open to them may be earning 1k a week, perhaps, from prostitution or 200 a week from Tesco. This is one of the reasons why I'm uneasy with the approach that sees all prostitutes as victims. In purely monetary terms, they may be making more than their clients, and if they don't see themselves as victims, who are we to tell them that they are?

I haven't used the v-word. I'm not telling anyone what they are; however the johns aren't simply consumers of a service like a haircut.

With all respect, LBJ is your point about working at Tesco meant to change the overall social importance of ending the sex-work relationship? People who sell a kidney of theirs on the black market will earn above what they can get working in a supermarket for a whole year. Cannabis dealing is far more lucrative as a simple economic equation for a teenager to do rather than £40 a week on an apprenticeship. Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless. Drug gangs, organ sales and sex work will need total social change to sweep them away.

 

[cesare]

Problem with criminalisation of an activity is that it means that those who continue to engage in that activity can have no protection from the law. As with the illegal drugs trade, in which the very illegality of the activity means that you may be sold dangerously cut drugs by unscrupulous dealers. Criminalising prostitution potentially leaves prostitutes in a very dangerous position.

I think you'll find that anything short of revolution, is reformist for Sihhi. Therefore if reformist (ie adapting current system) measures are to be suggested, then they must be done harshly/properly otherwise they'd be liberal.

 

[weepiper]

Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless.

This. I don't think either is helpful. Too black and white a view of something really complex.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

With all respect, LBJ is your point about working at Tesco meant to change the overall social importance of ending the sex-work relationship?

I'm not sure this is a realistic aspiration, tbh. And if it isn't a realistic aspiration, then harm reduction becomes the most important thing, imo.

I favour the decriminalisation of all drug use. Not because I think drug use is good, but because I think criminalisation of drug use makes a bad situation much worse. I have pretty much the same position wrt sex work.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Labelling the young part of cannabis gangs or kidney sellers or sex workers either victims or smart operators is meaningless.

Criminalising prostitution - at least in the way it has been done in Sweden, namely criminalising men who pay for sex - is labelling sex workers victims.

 

[sihhi]

Are you suggesting that they're pointless?

No. Where have I even said anything even remotely on those lines?

Pembe Hayat the organisation mentioned draws funding from: Mama Cash Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Fund, Global Fund for Women, HIV Young Leaders Fund, UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, Finnish Embassy, HIV Thematic Trust Fund, Transgender Europe, British Embassy, Swedish Consulate, Soros Foundations Network, Movies That Matter and others. None of that means it doesn't do important work such as sexual health advice and protests against the Turkish legal system that allows sometimes allows a leniency tariff reduction in cases of murder for travesti 'transvestites'.

Recently their leader received a short prison sentences over resisting police harassment, in connection with their campaign against the police intimidation. Some details here:
http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/16429

I merely pointed out that the name might cause a misunderstanding of who they are and what they do.
Because of their funding sources they are not able to link up with the "anti-capitalist" womens' movement in the country and struggle explicitly for alternative employment. That women's movement operates in a different way largely by helping women shift from brothel or sex work into womens' shelters to engage to do training in something else (as well as a range of other stuff).
In my estimation, neither should really be termed a sex workers' union, but the funding for Pembe Hayat would definitely dry up if they went on a plan of action to attack foreign business interests and organise women workers there.

 

[sihhi]

Criminalising prostitution - at least in the way it has been done in Sweden, namely criminalising men who pay for sex - is labelling sex workers victims.

Random will know better than me but very few men in Sweden are ever criminalised or brought to book just for transacting sex from a sex worker.

I state: describing "sex workers" as "victims" does as much good as describing them as (non-victim) "autonomous agents".

 

[cesare]

No. Where have I even said anything even remotely on those lines?

Pembe Hayat the organisation mentioned draws funding from: Mama Cash Foundation, Astraea Lesbian Fund, Global Fund for Women, HIV Young Leaders Fund, UN Voluntary Fund for Victims of Torture, Finnish Embassy, HIV Thematic Trust Fund, Transgender Europe, British Embassy, Swedish Consulate, Soros Foundations Network, Movies That Matter and others. None of that means it doesn't do important work such as sexual health advice and protests against the Turkish legal system that allows sometimes allows a leniency tariff reduction in cases of murder for travesti 'transvestites'.

Recently their leader received a short prison sentences over resisting police harassment, in connection with their campaign against the police intimidation. Some details here:
http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/node/16429

I merely pointed out that the name might cause a misunderstanding of who they are and what they do.
Because of their funding sources they are not able to link up with the "anti-capitalist" womens' movement in the country and struggle explicitly for alternative employment. That women's movement operates in a different way largely by helping women shift from brothel or sex work into womens' shelters to engage to do training in something else (as well as a range of other stuff).
In my estimation, neither should really be termed a sex workers' union, but the funding for Pembe Hayat would definitely dry up if they went on a plan of action to attack foreign business interests and organise women workers there.

Pembe Hayat was just one of the organisations mentioned in that article, but your original point was a *general* one about how the labour movement is organised for sex workers. Thanks for explaining about this particular aspect.

 

[cesare]

Random will know better than me but very few men in Sweden are ever criminalised or brought to book just for transacting sex from a sex worker.

I state: describing "sex workers" as "victims" does as much good as describing them as (non-victim) "autonomous agents".

The language now describes sex work as something that is done to them. How does that infer autonomy?

 

[Edie]

Obviously it's a better situation than what we have at present if the sex industry were to become all-women, but given the reality of sex workers and johns, all-female brothels with protection afforded by women would be undercut by lone possibly trauma-survivors or former abuse victims or hard drug addicts working in single situations. Providing that extra security, an extra two women to the sex worker performing the sex act, means pushing up prices or devaluing the rate of your work/increasing the hours you work.
The situation you describe occurs, I believe, in some red light districts of India where women are forced to operate a system of housing their children in lower rooms looked after by sex workers off duty, while in the upper rooms the sex acts take place. It basically means committing your life to aspects of the trade, either enduring the sex act or providing defense for others doing likewise.

(Most men feel less dirty, by as much 'action' or 'experience' as they can get for as little as they can pay. The less money they pay the better they can feel about having degraded someone.)
For the situation you describe to make sense a social revolution would have to have occurred, where no weak and poor women would undercut the brothels. And if a social revolution does occur sex work will be swept away.

Alternative female employment should be opened for women - that's the only long-term way to struggle against the ills associated with sex work; the current decriminalisation or criminalisation debate is something of a red herring. Having said that, something inside me does believe men who are johns should have (at the very least) their income and assets seized and handed out to poor women including single mothers, abuse victims and former or current sex workers, pornography workers - but that's only going to come as a result of mass social struggle and/or social revolution. This would at least undermine those who say criminalisation is a bad thing in and of itself. The criminalisation in Sweden is not done properly or harshly enough, if we are going to argue over reform measures.

Look I'm sorry but your just talking out of your arse.

First, no one calls punters johns here Punters, service users, clients, bookings. Not johns. That's american.

Second, a lot of brothels are female run. You see, brothel is a wide term. It basically means any indoor work, where there two or more working girls. So this can mean everything from a fairly well established sauna, with multiple wg's working shifts (these I grant you are most often owned by men, but not always, lot of madams out there too); an agency incall flat, used for incall bookings but used by all girls from the same agency (at different times obv); right down to two working girls working out the same incall flat (by FAR the most common set up in terms of 'brothels').

A fact for you: in Leeds about 600 working girls working as independents and on top of that about another 200 agency-only wg's. There are about 40 (most) girls who work street.

And yes, you say in India that shock horror prostitutes swop childcare, well guess what! They do here too (although thank christ conditions are better and it's not in the same building, it's babysitting swops). And wg's look out for each other too, pool resources for flats security, act as buddys (where you ring to check in before/after punts), or tour together. As it should be.

You saying that anything that pushes up prices (such as it costing more to get security) will be undercut by street, shows that you have NO real understanding of the industry. Yer sure, some punters want as cheap as they can get. And those are the fucking scum (and believe me you will NEVER hate them as much as me) who use street girls, who almost always have drug problems and abusive pasts and presents. But a lot of punters don't just want cheap. There is an entire section of punters who don't pay below £100/hr (even if they are reverse booking). And a whole lot of punters who treat wg's with respect, before during and after a booking.

Finally, decriminalisation/criminalisation is not a red herring. You scorn what happened in New Zealand. Lemme tell you, that has been welcomed with open arms by prostitutes there, it has increased their access to healthcare, increased their security, lessened the stigma. Sure they still have a problem with street. But it is a very well supported (by NZ society) legislation, that has been challenged yet upheld each time.

There are enormous problems associated with sex work. The biggest of which is the danger of working alone. Views like yours endanger working girls.

 

[Edie]

And to the person who PMd me asking why I was banging on about sex work and feminism again, let me tell you this... I don't bring it to feminisms door, they bring it to mine. Every fucking time I read a piece about 'the new feminism' the 'leading feminist' ALWAYS spouts of views about prostitutes. They stand outside fucking clubs. And they tell us we're letting the sisterhood down.

Frankly I would be glad not to have to defend sex workers rights from feminists (it seems so utterly insane that I do that I despair), but they are one of the major groups (with religious people) making working conditions more dangerous and actively promoting stigma against working girls.

That said cesare is doing a better job than I can cos it's all too emotive for me, as we all know lol.