The greens and prostitutes

Flora absolutely spot on.

Posted too soon. If the buyers are to be treated with such levels of disapproval how can it possibly be acceptable for the sellers to be involved in the transaction?

And no, I am not defending men. I am not saying we should not view punters as being exploitative and abusive . I'm puzzled at the notion a transaction so apparently wrong can be tolerated.

Is it crazy to completely believe it should be impossible and inconceivable to buy or sell sex AND that the best first step to achieving this is through legalization?

Yes I think that is crazy. Legalisation will imprint prostitution with the state seal of approval, as a service provided by women for the gratification by men. In Germany, one million men go to prostitutes every day. Men currently wrestling with a desire to use a prostitute will receive a loud and clear message that it's hunky dory.

If you want to reduce prostitution, it has to be by tackling demand and sending a strong message to men that buying sex from someone who doesn't want to have sex with them is not acceptable.

The decision to sell sex in the current social environment doesn't seem to me to be a feminist decision. But then neither is wearing make up or high heels. Obviously their are degrees, but we are likely all guilty of propping up the patriarchy one way or another

I profoundly disagree with this comment.

The problem I have with prostitution being ok and a postive choice for women like Kim is the view point that at the same time her customers are still despicable. It's illogical

Buffy -

But the critical social (un)scientist in me questions the freedom of all choices made in our capitalist, male dominated society with attitudes shaped by the history we have

The problem with that is that all choices made in ANY "society" (ie, pretty much all of those made by any human who has ever existed or will ever exist) are shaped by the conditioning of that society. There is nothing unique about male dominance or capitalism in this regard.

Which means that if you're ever going to acknowledge any validity in free choice ever, you're going to have to accept the fact of that choice being formed within a context of social conditioning. The idea that we acknowledge freedom of choice - but we just want to wait until there's a completely open and unconditioned human state in which power and history play no part in such choices before acknowledging them as valid - is really a non-idea. People saying that need to own up to the fact that they really DON'T acknowledge freedom of choice, in any meaningful sense.

A slight derailment but slaves were and are seen as "property." Seen as no more important than a house, dog or horse. They couldn't leave, and had no choice over what they did, and no legal rights. 3/5 a human being in America at the time.

I don't think anyone can argue that slavery takes place in sex work today. Women are owned by pimps, cannot leave and have no choice in what they do.

That is illegal, and all sorts of crimes from kidnap, false imprisonment, fraud and numerous of sexual offences will have been committed.

I just find the idea that all prostitutes, regardless of circumstances, are comparable with slaves as troubling.

Many slaves died of starvation after the end of slavery as their previous owners had no motivation to keep them fed. My Mum used this example to point out that capitalism can be a worse option than slavery as the employer has no "investment" in paying the worker a decent wage, unless there is a shortage of workers.

www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/16/slavery-starvation-civil-war

A government could discuss a form of bonded indenture where a person could choose to sell themselves into slavery for a period of time. That would be consensual, so would that be okay?

Buffy, at the time of slavery, wasn't it the case that black people were not seen as full persons and that was how it was justified - these "others" need a hierarchy, to know their subordinate place in it etc.

Slavery is so different as there is never choice involved. Another person owns you and there is nothing you can do about it. The contributer to this thread is doing sex work through choice. Different context entirely.

A political party can talk about legalising prostitution, and a debate can be had.

If a political party talked about legalising slavery, they would be insane.

And no one should listen to those stupid runaway slaves, who obviously are biased against masters in the first place and probably just couldn't handle the work.

The fact that some slaves were cared for by their masters very wellthat some slaves, indeed, may have been happy with their lotmakes literally no ethical difference to whether slavery is wrong. It is.

The existence of prostitutes who enjoy their job does not make prostitution as a system ethically sound. Imagine if the response of slaveholders to abolitionists was to start having a bunch of happy slaves penning articles about how for them, this was really work like any other, and they really always enjoyed farming or housework, and their owners were quite kind.

I bet it would have worked on a lot of guilty white people: "Oh, it's not as bad as those abolitionists made it sound. We shouldn't be so fast to judge. Quick, go buy some more cheap cotton and we'll make it into dresses."

"However, as I wrote that the thought occurred to me that if punters actually lived in a society where the only prostitutes available were the truly happy ones, they would probably have - or be forced to recognise - much less entitlement than many of them currently seem to feel. That is, some of them (not all of them) strike me as thinking that they should be able to have sex with any woman they choose for a relatively low price whenever they like."

Interesting insight, Kimcar.

We have this terrible habit in our society that unless a 100% guaranteed to work solution is presented, nothing should change. Then we go round the houses with vested interests vs proponents of change throwing statistics, studies and everything but the kitchen sink at one another. With whomever is representing the status quo at a natural advantage as whilst there is constant debate and argument it is harder to enact change.

Put simply and I believe I can say this without reference to figures and statistics: "There are vulnerable people who suffer within sex industry."

Just in relation that single statement illustrates the status quo has to change. Is the Nordic Model the right answer? Honestly I don't know, but I sure as shit realise that things cannot carry on as they are.

We could try it, but I don't think if we did just by itself the problem goes away. The absolute primary laser like focus should be focused on two areas. Protection and ensuring that it becomes harder for vulnerable people to find their lives made all the worse by falling into it.

I think we "Happy Hookers" dominate the discourse because we're the ones who blog, or read MN, or organise conferences, etc.

KimCar first of all, thank you for coming on here - I have found it genuinely useful. I have especially appreciated your willingness to engage with women who don't take the "sex work is work like any other" line.

I think what you said (quoted above) hits the nail on the head. I don't want to go into too much detail without namechanging, as it would out me, but although I've never worked in prostitution, I've known enough women (not a huge number, but enough) who have, over the years, and I cannot imagine a single one of them writing a blog or attending a "sex workers' conference" or anything like that. They've either moved on, got regular jobs, have hidden that information away as though that chapter of their life never happened - or they are dead, from various things usually linked to drug use.

It's why when I see panels discussing sex work/prostitution at conferences, and people complain that there are no "sex worker voices" represented, it really annoys me - because how do we know? If we demand that people out themselves before deciding whether their opinion on the sex industry is valid, then we will necessarily limit the voices we listen to, to those who can for whatever reason be semi-public or public about it.

when I think about it yes thats true blackrider, I found it horrific that someone even came up with the term child prostitute. Didn't that radio DJ use some excuse that he gave his boys gifts?

Sorry - haven't caught up with whole thread - on small lunch break - Buffy I thought the same re the living wage, however what then hit me was that this would ensure trafficking was at the very heart of prostitution (s these girls wouldn't be entitled to our benefit). It would increase that problem and legalise it, making it very hard to discover slavery or pimps who are acting illegally with a legal 'front'. Hope that makes sense.