Have you read about how legalization and regulation have worked for prostitutes in Germany? Spoiler alert: they haven't.
Do you have something on this? I will read it.
I think even given it not going well legally in Germany, I can safely assert it must be better than being chucked into an American prison.
A while back someone posted a lengthy article describing the rather horrifying problems with legalization in Germany. Essentially the politicians, led by women, sought to legalize prostitution for the same reasons you articulate and that I think we all could stand behind, at least in theory: safety, dignity, etc.. The problem is that legalization attracted an intense amount of trafficking under the guise of legality and the women who actually are reported to the government are terrified to speak up when interviewed by government officials because they still have to go back to their johns. Basically it has provided the aura of safety without actually decreasing the danger, thus essentially sanctioning abusive behavior. Moreover, there has been no decrease in the stigma attached to the profession. I want to say that poor women were also forced into it by the government, who called it legitimate employment and refused unemployment welfare to them because they could be prostitutes rather than jobless, but I may be making that up.
Because feminism is absolutely not about validating whatever choice a woman makes just because she has a vagina. That's absurd. We don't validate any and every choice a man makes, so why would this be the case for women? That's a terrible and frankly embarrassing distortion of feminism.
Moreover, I am in 100% agreement with iammalcolmx. You cannot have sex work without abuse. There is a power dynamic in play when it comes to sex work that makes it inherently misogynistic, full stop. The extraordinarily tiny minority of women who may *claim* to actually want to be in that line of work is far outweighed by the abusive aspects of the "profession." As a feminist in the proper sense of the word, I cannot tolerate that, period.
No True Scotsman makes an appearance!
So it should be criminalized, then? These women should go to jail? I don't know if that's the most feminist outcome.
What definition of feminism are we permitted to accept on this board, by the way? It looks like you guys decided this at some point and I missed it. What is a True Feminist?
Bunny - thank you for engaging!
The Swedish model that I mentioned in my comment before the article that is also mentioned within the article would prosecute the johns and the pimps, not the sex workers / prostitutes. This is the model that Catharine MacKinnon advocates for.
Prostitution is inherently misogynistic in that it commoditizes women for the pleasure of men. And even though there are sometimes male and trans prostitutes, the customers are still overwhelmingly male. To be a john is to exercise male privilege in the most invasive way possible.
First of all, this article is nearly a straw man, as very few in "the left," which is not a monolith, are pro-sex work.
Hmm... maybe it's because I've been in an academia bubble these past few years, but there seems to be quite an even split among the left re sex work. And the article doesn't claim all on the left feel that way.
Third, there's something very wrong and anti-feminist in telling a woman who wants to be a sex worker that it's not okay and it's not feminist enough. That's like saying being a SAHM isn't feminist enough, even if it's what a woman actively chooses for her family. Obviously, these two things aren't the same, but the principle is. Women should be able to freely and safely make choices here.
So it should be criminalized, then? These women should go to jail? I don't know if that's the most feminist outcome.
What definition of feminism are we permitted to accept on this board, by the way? It looks like you guys decided this at some point and I missed it. What is a True Feminist?
Bunny - thank you for engaging!
The Swedish model that I mentioned in my comment before the article that is also mentioned within the article would prosecute the johns and the pimps, not the sex workers / prostitutes. This is the model that Catharine MacKinnon advocates for.
Prostitution is inherently misogynistic in that it commoditizes women for the pleasure of men. And even though there are sometimes male and trans prostitutes, the customers are still overwhelmingly male. To be a john is to exercise male privilege in the most invasive way possible.
I want to hire this paragraph to be my bitch for the night because I really want to bang it. ETA: Too soon?
I think even given it not going well legally in Germany, I can safely assert it must be better than being chucked into an American prison.
A while back someone posted a lengthy article describing the rather horrifying problems with legalization in Germany. Essentially the politicians, led by women, sought to legalize prostitution for the same reasons you articulate and that I think we all could stand behind, at least in theory: safety, dignity, etc.. The problem is that legalization attracted an intense amount of trafficking under the guise of legality and the women who actually are reported to the government are terrified to speak up when interviewed by government officials because they still have to go back to their johns. Basically it has provided the aura of safety without actually decreasing the danger, thus essentially sanctioning abusive behavior. Moreover, there has been no decrease in the stigma attached to the profession. I want to say that poor women were also forced into it by the government, who called it legitimate employment and refused unemployment welfare to them because they could be prostitutes rather than jobless, but I may be making that up.
Good GOD, I hope you are. I'm going to go Google-ing now. I can't stomach the idea that this is true.
ETA: Well, Snopes says no (or that it was possible in "isolated cases), but I'm still looking.
"Not gonna lie; I kind of keep expecting you to post one day that you threw down on someone who clearly had no idea that today was NOT THEIR DAY." ~dontcallmeshirley
I am seriously a person who used to not care about sex work and was of the mindset "you do you". However sex work is unable to exist without people being abused, As a result I am against it. I apply the same logic to my pro-choice stance. If you ban abortions, women are going to risk their lives to have illegal ones. I can't stomach that thought hence my pro choice stance.
I mean, I get that on one level. But what about the women who say they like it and freely choose it? You can absolutely find those women.
Sure, I talked to one the other day. Long history of trauma and abuse, along with a severe mental illness. She equates it with being loved by someone. With someone caring for her.
Liking something and actively choosing it does not mean it is ok. Some people like and choose kiddie porn.
I thought we decided feminism was not about validating any and all choices a woman makes. I'm drunk and medicated so pretend something coherent follows that claim.
Haha, I love that you are drunk and medicated.
I didn't participate in that thread, but I don't agree with that assertion. At all. Like even a little bit. But I know some on the left do.
I'm confused....I don't think many would validate submissive wives or spouses. So why is that wrong but this is not?
I think even given it not going well legally in Germany, I can safely assert it must be better than being chucked into an American prison.
A while back someone posted a lengthy article describing the rather horrifying problems with legalization in Germany. Essentially the politicians, led by women, sought to legalize prostitution for the same reasons you articulate and that I think we all could stand behind, at least in theory: safety, dignity, etc.. The problem is that legalization attracted an intense amount of trafficking under the guise of legality and the women who actually are reported to the government are terrified to speak up when interviewed by government officials because they still have to go back to their johns. Basically it has provided the aura of safety without actually decreasing the danger, thus essentially sanctioning abusive behavior. Moreover, there has been no decrease in the stigma attached to the profession. I want to say that poor women were also forced into it by the government, who called it legitimate employment and refused unemployment welfare to them because they could be prostitutes rather than jobless, but I may be making that up.
Well that's truly disheartening. I don't think prostitution is something that is ever going to go away though, so how do we deal with it? Criminalizing it hasn't worked. And while I agree that the "happy hooker" is likely the exception and not the norm, I don't like the idea of repeatedly punishing women who are engaged in this industry.
I'm confused....I don't think many would validate submissive wives or spouses. So why is that wrong but this is not?
I don't think being a submissive wife is a good choice. I don't think being a prostitute is a good choice. I don't want either one outlawed and sent to prison. It's none of my business what adults choose to do with their lives, so long as they freely choose it and it's not endangering another person.
I think it does hurt other women. asdfjkl said it well - it turns women into commodities. And not just the women who are in it, but all women. It warps how women generally are viewed.
If it were legalized and some of the stigma went away, do you know how ugly the food stamp debate would turn? I don't want to live in a world were we allow women to choose between government assistance and sex work, and I sure as hell font want to see a day where sex work is less stigmatized than welfare. Because it's hard enough maintaining your dignity when you are poor and dealing with the accusations that you don't want to work, aren't trying hard enough to find a job, etc. Legalize sex work, and you are officially opening the floodgates to the expectation that poor women turn their bodies into fucking fantasyland for perverts to avoid assistance.
So, yeah, by letting some women "choose" it, you are hurting all women.
The Swedish model that I mentioned in my comment before the article that is also mentioned within the article would prosecute the johns and the pimps, not the sex workers / prostitutes. This is the model that Catharine MacKinnon advocates for.
Prostitution is inherently misogynistic in that it commoditizes women for the pleasure of men. And even though there are sometimes male and trans prostitutes, the customers are still overwhelmingly male. To be a john is to exercise male privilege in the most invasive way possible.
I want to hire this paragraph to be my bitch for the night because I really want to bang it. ETA: Too soon?
If only I had used the real word instead of inventing one...
ESF I love your point about welfare. But for unemployment insurance, we don't force people to take just any job--it has to be similar to or better than what they did before. So, for example, a lawyer who was laid off doesn't have to take a Walmart greater position just because it's open. What is the requirement for food stamps?
I think it does hurt other women. asdfjkl said it well - it turns women into commodities. And not just the women who are in it, but all women. It warps how women generally are viewed.
If it were legalized and some of the stigma went away, do you know how ugly the food stamp debate would turn? I don't want to live in a world were we allow women to choose between government assistance and sex work, and I sure as hell font want to see a day where sex work is less stigmatized than welfare. Because it's hard enough maintaining your dignity when you are poor and dealing with the accusations that you don't want to work, aren't trying hard enough to find a job, etc. Legalize sex work, and you are officially opening the floodgates to the expectation that poor women turn their bodies into fucking fantasyland for perverts to avoid assistance.
So, yeah, by letting some women "choose" it, you are hurting all women.
That's actually a great point, too. However, the government doesn't do that now. They don't say, "You could get a job at Burger King." They mandate you to APPLY for jobs (at least for unemployment in most states), but they don't mandate you take them. Fortunately we haven't slid into that yet.
However, between you and asdfjkl with your discussion about commodity and poverty, I am reminded that sex works falls heavily onto poor women, which is extremely problematic.
I am somewhat okay with the idea of criminalizing the johns and pimps, but definitely not the prostitutes. Because that just further victimizes these women, who as many of you have pointed out, have probably been victimized their whole lives.
The government doesn't mandate it, but society expects it.
And yeah, the johns need to be locked up and the whole way it is policed needs to change. If the government spent a fraction of the effect going after the demand here as they do going after the demand side for drugs, we would see a huge difference. Right now only the sex workers (ie the suppliers) carry the stigma, and most are victims. Start giving the sex workers immunity and witness protection the way we do with low level dealers to go after the big cartel fish and the buyers, and start throwing the pimps and johns in the cages. Do that enough, and demand will fall because these assholes aren't like heroin addicts, and they can control themselves.
I have no dog in the feminist fight as I do not consider myself one. My stance on prostitution stems from the fact that I don't believe you can separate sex trafficking, abuse, pimping, and the inherent one sided nature of it from prostitution as a whole. The idea of devaluing people to their ability to get someone off is abhorrent to me.
And for me, it's not even about women. There are child prostitutes. There are male prostitutes. To me, the entire industry of prostitution is like a big ass iceberg floating in the ocean. On the surface, you have women who willingly engage in it, who buy the idea that they are worth little more than what they are willing to do sexually. But those women cannot exist without the entire ugly and dark mass beneath the surface, lurking below.
I can't support that. I used to think I would be cool with legal prostitution under a narrow set of circumstances. But that is no longer the case. I believe the evils are prostitution are so intertwined and in fact, furthered by the so called safe types of prostitution that they cannot be separated.
To me, it's like being okay with heroin use. Sure, there are some people who enjoy it recreationally, whose lives aren't fucked up by its use, who can get up and go to work and be decent partners. But even if that person's life never falls apart, other lives are and the entire industry is keeping people in poverty, causing death, despair, and a devaluing of life and humanity.
I cannot in good conscious support any industry that's so destructive.
I want to hire this paragraph to be my bitch for the night because I really want to bang it. ETA: Too soon?
If only I had used the real word instead of inventing one...
ESF I love your point about welfare. But for unemployment insurance, we don't force people to take just any job--it has to be similar to or better than what they did before. So, for example, a lawyer who was laid off doesn't have to take a Walmart greater position just because it's open. What is the requirement for food stamps?
To be clear, I'm not saying the government will force people to do it. But society expects every welfare recipient to exhaust all opportunities to scrub toilets with their own toothbrush before accepting a dime of taxpayers money, so you are only just adding to the pressure and indignity if being poor. Particularly because unlike any other job out there, you don't need to wait to be hired, you be your own boss and be out on the street 24/7. Burger King takes two weeks to get back to you? Why should those women be taking a handout for those two weeks when they can make $100 for a blowjob? It's not that anyone will be forced to do it, it's that the conversation about what women should do will change in a way that will hurt us all.
I would assert it is the illegality that has made sex work more dangerous and abusive than it needs to be.
I fully disagree with this. And quite frankly, I don't think you understand the appeal of prostitution to the vast number of johns. Sure, some of them are merely looking for temporary companionship and mutual sexual release, either because they can't get it themselves or because they have no wish to be in a relationship or the right circumstances.
But the majority are looking getting off on the devaluation of the prostitute, the divorce of emotion, consideration, wants or desires of their chosen sex partner. They want a one sided exchange where they don't have to think about the person on the other end of their penis as a human. They also want to get the kind of sex they want from someone they don't have to think of as actively consenting. They've paid for a body, and they want it how they want it. There is also a wide swath of the john population that enjoys the power imbalance and/or is looking for the type of sex they couldn't get from a willing partner.
This includes coercive sex, underaged partners, getting off on having power over an individual for a defined amount of time. This is also why I have trouble with the mail order bride industry as a whole. It's taking advantage of someone's desperate straits to one's own end with little consideration to how the other person feels about it.
Because feminism is absolutely not about validating whatever choice a woman makes just because she has a vagina. That's absurd. We don't validate any and every choice a man makes, so why would this be the case for women? That's a terrible and frankly embarrassing distortion of feminism.
Moreover, I am in 100% agreement with iammalcolmx. You cannot have sex work without abuse. There is a power dynamic in play when it comes to sex work that makes it inherently misogynistic, full stop. The extraordinarily tiny minority of women who may *claim* to actually want to be in that line of work is far outweighed by the abusive aspects of the "profession." As a feminist in the proper sense of the word, I cannot tolerate that, period.
No True Scotsman makes an appearance!
So it should be criminalized, then? These women should go to jail? I don't know if that's the most feminist outcome.
What definition of feminism are we permitted to accept on this board, by the way? It looks like you guys decided this at some point and I missed it. What is a True Feminist?
Haven't read past this post. But there's a difference between decriminalization and legalization. I don't support jailing sex workers and giving them a record. I do support jailing johns and giving them a record. I support making if easier for prostitutes to report crimes without retaliation without making their trade legal.
No. It's much worse than being chucked into an American prison, as you will see.
The gist of it is that legalizing prostitution increases demand because men say "great!". But there aren't enough women who actually want to be prostitutes, so women are trafficked in from Eastern Europe and other very poor places. And the conditions are still horrific.
Alina says that she and the other women were required to pay the pimps €800 a week. She shared a bed in a sleeping room with three other women. There was no other furniture. All she saw of Germany was the Esso gas station around the corner, where she was allowed to go to buy cigarettes and snacks, but only in the company of a guard. The rest of the time, says Alina, she was kept locked up in the club.
Prosecutors learned that the women in the club had to offer vaginal, oral and anal sex, and serve several men at the same time in so-called gangbang sessions. The men didn't always use condoms. "I was not allowed to say no to anything," says Alina. During menstruation, she would insert sponges into her vagina so that the customers wouldn't notice.
She says that she was hardly ever beaten, nor were the other women. "They said that they knew enough people in Romania who knew where our families lived. That was enough," says Alina. When she occasionally called her mother on her mobile phone, she would lie and tell her how nice it was in Germany. A pimp once paid Alina €600, and she managed to send the money to her family.
I think I'd take American prison over this life, personally.
Alina says that she and the other women were required to pay the pimps €800 a week. She shared a bed in a sleeping room with three other women. There was no other furniture. All she saw of Germany was the Esso gas station around the corner, where she was allowed to go to buy cigarettes and snacks, but only in the company of a guard. The rest of the time, says Alina, she was kept locked up in the club.
Prosecutors learned that the women in the club had to offer vaginal, oral and anal sex, and serve several men at the same time in so-called gangbang sessions. The men didn't always use condoms. "I was not allowed to say no to anything," says Alina. During menstruation, she would insert sponges into her vagina so that the customers wouldn't notice.
She says that she was hardly ever beaten, nor were the other women. "They said that they knew enough people in Romania who knew where our families lived. That was enough," says Alina. When she occasionally called her mother on her mobile phone, she would lie and tell her how nice it was in Germany. A pimp once paid Alina €600, and she managed to send the money to her family.
I think I'd take American prison over this life, personally.
Let's say it does become legal. Let's say that women do start "choosing" it.
Are there any limits? Can you only hire for missionary and a BJ, or can you hire someone for any sick fantasy you could ever desire? Can you hire someone for long term services?
Are we going to start asking juries to decide if a women failed to live up to her promises to work as a sex slave and therefore has to refund what the customer paid her? Or whether a sexual situation was legal work and therefore should be paid for, a consensual sexual encounter for which no payment is necessary, or rape?
For example, if someone hires a prostitute for freaky, violent sex, and it turns even freakier and more violent than she thought, what happens? If after being tied up for 8 hours while he shits on her, literally and figuratively, what happens when she wants out if the deal? Is everything from that moment on rape, or in agreeing to 12 hours of abuse beforehand, did she consent? If they agreed to being tied up but not the shit, does that turn it into rape, or is she staying and participating by choice? Can she go to court to get extra money since he broke their contract, or was the shit part just a regular consensual thing. I mean, the whole premise behind legalization is that women have a choice in the matter so it's not rape, is it?
No fucking way are we giving sickos like this access to abuse the court system, and no way do we force juries to have to listen to this shit.
I think legalizing prostitution is one of those ideas that sounds like a good idea on the surface, especially among liberals who support legalization of marijuana. The problem I have with this, beyond the potential for abuse, is that the 'commodity' in question is a human body. There is no comparison to other industries because that fact makes it more complicated and more important than other industries, and it makes our failures in regulation immensely more important.
Those are truly awful stories, and that sort of thing should be outlawed forever.
I would think, however, that it doesn't have to go that way. It doesn't go that way in Nevada.
How it goes in Nevada is a gateway and permission slip to how it goes in the Philippines. Also you would be wrong because it does go that way in Nevada. It goes that way for women who don't work at the bunny ranch. It goes that way for women who work the strip, for girls who work off craigslist, who work on street corners in Reno, etc.
ETA: The legal prostitution available in Nevada has not put a damper on illegal prostitution in Nevada. The desire for many types of sex some people are looking for will never be filled by legal prostitution or by willing prostitutes and many forms of the type of sex people are trying to pay for cannot be legalized. Because of that, legal prostitution doesn't not solve the problems associated with illegal prostitution nor does it alleviate that industry.
Let's say it does become legal. Let's say that women do start "choosing" it.
Are there any limits? Can you only hire for missionary and a BJ, or can you hire someone for any sick fantasy you could ever desire? Can you hire someone for long term services?
Are we going to start asking juries to decide if a women failed to live up to her promises to work as a sex slave and therefore has to refund what the customer paid her? Or whether a sexual situation was legal work and therefore should be paid for, a consensual sexual encounter for which no payment is necessary, or rape?
For example, if someone hires a prostitute for freaky, violent sex, and it turns even freakier and more violent than she thought, what happens? If after being tied up for 8 hours while he shits on her, literally and figuratively, what happens when she wants out if the deal? Is everything from that moment on rape, or in agreeing to 12 hours of abuse beforehand, did she consent? If they agreed to being tied up but not the shit, does that turn it into rape, or is she staying and participating by choice? Can she go to court to get extra money since he broke their contract, or was the shit part just a regular consensual thing. I mean, the whole premise behind legalization is that women have a choice in the matter so it's not rape, is it?
No fucking way are we giving sickos like this access to abuse the court system, and no way do we force juries to have to listen to this shit.
'And how many women? How many like Zina and Veronica, forced into prostitution not by circumstance or poverty but by deception, threats, and violence? How many are trafficked from villages to cities, from poor countries to wealthier ones, lured by false promises, bought and sold like chattels?
No one knows. Among the tens of millions of bodies swirling through the global sex trade—the bar girls, the street whores and the escorts—they are surely a minority. Yet the victims, the Zinas and Veronicas, can’t be counted because they are nearly always invisible, even in plain sight. Hire a prostitute in Amsterdam or Frankfurt or Los Angeles and you will not know if she has been trafficked. She will look like every other woman in that brothel or on that street corner, her situation no more apparent. A woman such as Zina will not tell the men who pay to have sex with her that a Gypsy has threatened to cut off her hands, because she believes he will. She will not confess her fear because she is afraid. She will not go to the police because she believes they are corrupt, and she will not run away because she has no money and no passport and she’s not sure exactly where she is anyway. And because she will not do any of those things, she eventually will confuse her fear with shame, her captivity with complicity, and her shame will make her silent, a slave mistaken for a whore."
www.8newsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=6421545 "Las Vegas is known to be one of seventeen cities that is at high risk for human trafficking because of the nature of Las Vegas, because of the sex industry that exists here," Miller continued."
m.lvsun.com/news/2007/jan/29/do-we-have-a-human-trafficking-problem/ "The federal government believes Las Vegas is a top destination for "human trafficking" victims - from indentured servants to massage parlor workers and prostitutes held captive and forced to commit sex acts."
Yeah, I judge those who go full on support if sex work because .00002% of those in it chose to be. Reading these makes me sideye a lot. I just can't. It isn't feminism. It isn't progressive, sex positive thought. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Post by lasagnasshole on Apr 6, 2014 16:39:38 GMT -5
Even assuming there are a small number of sex workers who are mentally healthy and enter into the work completely of their own volition, I'm ok curving their freedom to be sex workers in order to try to protect the vast, vast numbers of sex workers who are victims of coercion or trafficking and to protect those who are otherwise endangered. We curb freedoms for societal good in matters far less pressing, so this seems sort of obvious to me.
Yeah, I judge those who go full on support if sex work because .00002% of those in it chose to be. Reading these makes me sideye a lot. I just can't. It isn't feminism. It isn't progressive, sex positive thought. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using pro boards
This is why we can't have anything nice. And everyone else was on such good behavior.
Not mad at her. I can't understand your viewpoint and I will cop 100% to judging your continued efforts to bury your head in the sand here. To what end, I do not understand. And really, this is pretty tame behavior for your position here. If you weren't a regular here, I really think you would be enjoying some very serious flames.
The only reason you think any of us are being immature is because you disagree with us. Personal ad hominem attacks? Because Tef says she judges you for your opinion? She didn't tell you to go fuck yourself or drop a snoddy little twat on you. She said she judges you for your opinion. If your opinion was so well thought out and based on realism, you would own the judgement. But it's not. It's simplistic. It's naive. And it condones the horrific situations many women and children find themselves in the world over.