Sex: My British Job. Channel 4

www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/demand_for_victims.pdf

The above paper of hers is very good too and highlights how prostitution is about money. About pimps and traffickers making lots of money through the sexual abuse and exploitation of girls and women.

Arf at Buffy's dance

And yes, the idea that prostitution is a really practical choice for women because they can fit it in around their childcare responsibilities is fucking grim. On so many levels.

I'm reading this at the moment who might interest some of you.

www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/demand_sex_trafficking.pdf

It is a research paper by Donna Hughes, who is fab. www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/pubtrfrep.htm

hear hear

Oh I agree that he accepts the gendered nature of prostitution.

I'm asking him to address it.

And I'm asking him to address it because he keeps banging on about choice.

Women do not choose to be born women. And they do not choose their status in the binary sex hierarchy. Human females do not choose to belong to the sex class.

Wino's position disregards the above, it is a position with a starting point of an assumption that women's second class status in the binary sex hierarchy is rightful .

All his studies and stats do the same. They accept the gendered nature of prostitution. It is a hugely misogynistic starting point to fail to acknowledge that the institution of prostitution is hugely sexist.

Nowhere else (other than porn which is just filmed prostitution) can one find such overt sexism and it is ignored by those who justify prostitution. Brushed off as of no consequence, it doesn't even register. Which is extraordinary when you think about it.

Before we get into reams of studies about how many prostituted people are happy with their lot or not, we need to address the fact that not only are the vast majority of those people girls and women, but also that society doesn't see a problem with that or indeed give a shit about it. (With the exception of countries which apply the Swedish abolitionist model to prostitution).

The single most important deciding factor in a person's likelihood of ending up in prostitution (that of being born female) is not a choice, it is not something a person chooses. And the choicey choice brigade totally ignore this, which seems rather remiss of them as it invalidates their argument and shows it to be hollow and founded on nothing. Choice bullshit is intellectually dishonest smoke and mirrors.

Buffy the science is a mascaraed though, isn't it? If he were truly scientific in his approach there would be more power but he shoots himself in the foot every time. There is the wholesale acceptance of the methodologies of any survey whose outcome he likes and the rejection of any survey whose outcome he doesn't like. He brushes aside the problems of representation when it suits. Any gaps in the information are conveniently filled by typical pimp lobby myths - the women are enjoy the sex or this latest: "often to save for a particular project or finance their education or because it provides flexible working which can be fitted around child-care" - complete made up but fits with the PhD student myth. Pathetic.

And still not able to get off the ground floor and address the gendered nature of prostitution.

Gosh (post Tue 22nd Oct 23:02)

I am trying to be charitable in believing that you miss-read my post or have some how not grasped the meaning as I was not clear, but past experience makes me believe you deliberately misrepresent what I say for your own agenda. The whole point of my post about the percentage who wished to leave prostitution was to show the abolitionist claim was that 90% of prostitutes want to leave prostitution-based on a paper by Farley-is untrue (or needs qualification).

The agenda of the abolitionists (which you share) is to say prostitutes find it so awful they all want out (sometimes “immediately” or want to “escape” terms not mentioned in the Farley paper). Now (a) this statistic might be true for a great many people in work-only a fortunate few love their job so much they don’t want to leave at some stage-especially if they could find a job that pays as well or better (b) unless you are a Paris Hilton of this world everyone has to work for money.

What the survey evidence shows is the 90% quoted by Farley is only obtained by interviewing prostitutes working in the worst conditions. If you look at the whole spectrum of prostitutes, from those on the street to those who are high class escorts a more nuanced picture arises.

Again you can’t help yourself in misrepresentation with the “45% wanted to leave prostitution” what was actually said was “prostitutes when asked whether they had considered stopping selling sex in the next year 55% overall said no” Can you not see the difference? Can you see the qualifier that you omitted? Clue in the next year. Can you see how you have misrepresented what I said? Can you see how this is not the same as the 90% quoted from Farley (and misquoted by abolitionists) to say “immediately”, look at the other figures I showed, clearly a minority wish to leave even in the next year. Can you see how you miss represent what I said?

The true picture is that a large proportion of street workers would like to quit but for the majority-those indoors they take a pragmatic view of doing it for a bit (often to save for a particular project or finance their education or because it provides flexible working which can be fitted around child-care) and then consider leaving. I would like to think that you can see that but I am afraid are twisting it for your agenda.

And the misrepresentation continues-when I made the beer analogy it was in the knowledge there are two types of analogy-(n) that of things and (a)that of argument; it was clear as a pike staff that I meant the latter as I explicitly excluded “that of things” in my post by saying I was not equating women to beer. But oh no the wimmin deliberately interpreted it as the former. Why? Could it be that they were not very bright-or could it be because it suited their agenda?

As I pointed out on the IM thread the quotes (from Punternet) are highly selective and often edited to make them seem worse. The radfem/abolitionist agenda is quite clear that is to paint men as misogynist women haters (as Dworkin would have you believe When men use women in prostitution, they are expressing a pure hatred for the female body speech at a symposium entitled "Prostitution: From Academia to Activism," sponsored by the Michigan Journal of Gender and Law at the University of Michigan Law School, October 31, 1992.

But as I pointed out (endlessly) a different picture emerges if you take representative samples from Punternet –here are two examples in academic articles using representative samples from Punternet as a source here and here. Now there are doubtlessly some misogynists amongst the clients of prostitutes but the vast majority are not. But hey don’t let the truth interfere with the abolitionist agenda.

FFS grow up wino.

Most people with an interest in the politics of prostitution know that in the 90s Kings Cross was synonymous with pimpimg and prostitution - it has entered the language (of feminism) to say to someone who is pontificating about others being used for sex to get themselves down there.

Sounds like you don't fancy the 2013 equivalent no shit sherlock .

Sinister sal i go to kings cross a lot ( it's a railway station you know) and it has been years since it was cleaned up and gentrified. No street workers to be seen.

Wino, you are making a fool out of yourself with your limited grasp of Jeffreys' analysis. Mocking something you have failed to grasp is common amongst men who think they are superior to the laydeez (including famous published scholars such as Professor Jeffreys).

Have you been down Kings Cross yet, wino?

It might give an extra perspective to your writings.

Ah yes Jeffrey's who thinks piv is a social construct-tell that to the mammals

And until you address the universally gendered paradigm of the institution of prostitution, I have no desire to discuss the subject further with you. If we cannot even get off the ground floor, I won't get anything out of such a discussion so why bother.

Wino. You equated women with pints of beer.

That you then followed that by a claim that you were not equating women with beer (when you just had) does not change that. So no, we are not stupid - you are gaslighting. And yet again you post in a condescending manner "let's try again" and think what? That you are setting the laydeez right because their lady brains need you to explain that when a man equates women to beer it is up to him to decide how women are allowed to read him? And if he says that his equating women to beer was not him equating women to beer then the laydeez should STFU and allow him to wax lyrical using his dehumanizing and offensive analogy?

Fuck that for a game of soldiers.

As for the rest, you misinterpret what Jeffreys says about PIV.

Which specific sections of Right-Wing Women did you find "all over the place"? I have rarely read such a clear and incisive piece of radical feminist analysis. It is not a primer though and requires some understanding of radical feminist tenets. It is a challenging book -perhaps you are not ready for it (considering you equate women with beer and call their perspective loony) ?

And Dworkin's book is evidence based - it is based on observation and analysis of women's lived experience. It is a political work, not a biology textbook. The fact that you make that criticism of it confirms that it went over your head - probably because you read it from a position of privilege with an accompanying sense of superiority and contempt for the female perspective.

Your post is reminding me of what Dworkin says on the "politics of intelligence" and the difference between how women's intellectual work is received compared to that of men...

Ironically.

(Any man who says he "likes women" makes me go . Would he say that he "likes blacks" or "likes homosexuals" ? How crass. Sounds like the sort who compares women to booze - why is the comparison so often beer/booze, I wonder?)

Pala and beach
What did I say in the second para of my post 22nd oct about beer- that I was not equating women with beer? And predictably you all jump up and down and say I did. Is that because you cannot read? Or are stupid? I don't think so. Or is it because you are deliberately missunderstanding- much more likely. Lets try again.

Suppose a man likes women, suppose he buys services sexual service from one particular women ( either because he has seen her before so knows the contact will be enjoyable or he likes the look of her on her website). How does that equate with showing pure hatred of the woman's body as dworkin claims?
Only as Lala seems to believe he wants to do vile things to her she does not want or abuse her. In general prostitutes will say what services they do and do not provide and for what fee- and if some services are extra. In the vast majority of cases the clients are respectful and the conditions adhered to although sometimes clients try to push the boundaries ( this is the picture that emerges from a vast amount of qualitative data that accompanies the surveys I vie)
Now I know you lot bat on about prostitution being rape as the woman is not truly consenting out of her own desire for that man, but she is consenting in exchange for the agreed fee- that is the nature of the deal in prostitution. It might be something you could not countenance doing but for those who do provided both parties are adult sane and consent ( and although consent may be constrained as it is in any work situation) then what is the problem?

I did read some dworkin, right wing women. Couple of things strike me-she lacked a good editor as her arguments were all over the place- but also they were not arguments but a series of unqualified assertions- not backed up by any sort of argumental development based on any evidence. Give it a try- or maybe tie was just a bad choice of her work to read. Sheila Jeffrey's is a bit better but her facts are crap but she too says loony things like there is nothing natural about penis in vagina intercourse ( bang goes millions o years of mammalian evolution)

I don't understand why wino thinks his surveys prove him right, the last one said that 45% of women wanted to leave prostitution, that is a hideous amount of women having unwanted sexual acts performed on them. It's horrible.

I've just been looking at Invisible men tumblr, it's so so bleak, it just keeps getting worse

Some people here have mentioned about industry shills, I'd be interested in hearing more about that and what their tactics are.

Wino which prostituted people are you talking about then? I'm talking about the real ones on planet earth. You say that few of them have been coerced by poverty, drugs, etc into prostitution. I say that is a fantasy.

I suggest you read Dworkin if you want to know what she means - she makes herself exceeding clear generally. If you read with the preconception that her work is "radfem bollocks", that may well hinder your understanding however. Certainly it would be a waste of my time to discuss Dworkin with you as long as that is your attitude.

Well said LaLa.