How is it possible to be a feminist and support the sex industry?

Yes, OLKN, they are, which is why there are restrictions to their sale, and a conversation as to whether they should be legal.

Tobacco would never be legal if it were discovered now, its a cultural thing, and appears to be gradually becoming less and less acceptable. This is because of its consequences on others. I can choose to smoke, but that has consequences for others, which the law currently seeks to minimise.

Alcohol, one can make the same argument. (not stating where I stand on that, haven't really thought about it

Sadly, in the media there seems little balance or actually sensible reporting of the sex industry. Usually, journalists focus on sensationalist stories of enforced prostitution and trafficking. Undeniably that is one rather sad part of an overall massive global industry. But if anyone is focusing on for example the plight of these girls in Bangladesh than one should not forget that overall women there have few rights. The abuse of these girls forms part of a much wider mistreatment of the overall entire female gender. Neither situation so forms any basis for self appointed feminist moral apostles to fight or talk on behalf of UK sex workers! The biggest problem the likes of Julie Bindel have that there is a growing group of intelligent highly qualified group of ?self employed? escorts/sex workers who do not need ?rescuing? and resent being patronised. Sadly, the figures quoted for UK victims of sex trafficking are as reliable as most statistics, having once as a student worked for a few research companies I know all too well that research tends to consist of having a brief and then falsifying the great majority of results to meet the deadline. My so-called consumer research/works of utter fiction had really no impact but in the case of arbitrary totally inflated figures of sex trafficking victims that sadly means that lazy shoddy journalism perpetrates and quotes wrong figures over and over that in turn cause knee jerk reactions of politicians who tend to actually if anything make it unsafe and harder for any lady to work in this industry on her own volition.

The biggest issue a lot of feminist spokespersons have is the notion that anyone chooses to work voluntarily and gladly in the sex industry. Seems to me those that are most vocal have if anything a troubled attitude towards hetero sex anyway see Ms Bindel or that neurotic American writer Andrea Dworkin. If you actually took some of their more radical concepts to full conclusion than any relationship that gives a woman some financial security is a form of prostitution...

I have been working as an escort for the past 2 years and my only regret is that I have not started earlier. I am 41 and ?curvaceous? or to put it bluntly a little too short for my weight.... Men, including quite a number of younger and well adjusted attractive guys pay me £180 an hour or £320 for 2 hours or £1,000 a night for sex and often simply inter-human affection. And I actually have on the whole better sex now than I had in my long term relationships. Ironically, guys treat a lot of us ladies better with more respect than those trying to get free sex via adult dating! The only lack of respect I seem to encounter are from journalists and politicians who try to deny me the right to actually contradict their propaganda that we are all forced into prostitution. I find it far more perverse that there is still such a huge chasm in average salaries in higher positions among men and women. However, as an ?escort? I can earn a very decent wage for relative few hours. There is nothing exploitative about the chance to spend a lot of free time with my loved ones while working a mere few hours a week. I run a business that includes all aspects of marketing my site, scheduling appointments, renting ?business? premises. As such I feel being an independent woman working in the sex industry does not contradict being a true feminist!

Agree, dittany, that using the law to attack those who pay for sex, or profit from others is the most appropriate action. Most women involved in prostitution are not making a free choice, and should not be taking the blame for their own exploitation.

BdJ and her like on the otherhand, do hold some of the blame for the exploitation of other women, and although I'm not convinced they should be prosecuted for it (how would you seperate them from those with no choice in the matter) I do think they are behaving immoraly,(sp)and not in a feminist manner.

How about selling alcohol and tobacco? Aren't those acts with serious consequences for others?

Yes, Molesworth, but I also think it has to do with the false idea that feminism = absolute freedom of choice. As in, as a woman I should have the right to do what ever I please with my own body. I would argue that there are limits within an ethical society as to what choices can be permitted, not just by women, but by any member of society. If your choice has no impact on any other person at all, then fine. If your choice has consequences for others, then those choices must be examined. Some choices have too great a consequence for others to be an acceptable, moral act. I believe that using one's body as a comodity is one of those choices.

In a decriminalized environment, what is the offense? Buying sex, and not selling it? Wonder if it's mainly fines, community service, although for a lot of men, it's the shame.

No, she is sending the unwashed wankers to those who have less ability to say no - those in forced prostitution, or those with a drug habit to feed.

(Sorry, got my plurals mixed up there)

"When you sell your body, you tell the person purchasing that they don't need to act in a appealing/attractive/respectful manner, so long as they have the cash."

Hmm, I'm not sure that BdJ (or others like her) would agree; I've certainly read (on the dreaded punternet, no less) of plenty of "independent escorts", as well as women working (voluntarily) in parlours/brothels who say that the first sign of disrespect has the punter shown the door, and blacklisted. Apparently, the two main requisites for punters is that they are clean and respectful; physical attractiveness is obviously not an issue.

So, if sex workers agree to have sex with clean and respectful punters, but turns away unwashed wankers, isn't she starting to improve working conditions for other sex workers?

dittany - I think that may be true in other countries but I think it could work here and is indeed what the union of prostitutes (international union of sex workers) want.

Frankly I think it's worth a shot - I don't believe it could be worse than it is now.

And I think BdJ's rights should be infringed due to the consequences. We don't live in a free for all. I don't have the right to choose to do anything I wish, if it has negative consequences for others, society has a right to prohibit it. THats why its illegal for me to choose to make a living selling drugs, however I may wish to. ( I don't but you get the point )

last post in answer to Oldladyknows nothing!

Because they are one of the reasons for the continuation of a system which does exploit and abuse. As I stated before, if one sells ones body, one gives the message that a body is a comodity, not a human being with rights. In an ideal situation, one chooses to have sex with someone because they attract you, because they behave in a way that appeals to you, whatever that may be. When you sell your body, you tell the person purchasing that they don't need to act in a appealing/attractive/respectful manner, so long as they have the cash. You say that you are willing to sacrifice your own normal choice of partner in exchange for money. You are a comodity, not requiring normal human interaction. So the person buying doesn't need to treat you as a human being in order to get sex. And he doesn't need to treat a trafficked, exploited, drug addicted woman as human either.

Incidently, I'm only focusing on this due to the comments of others on the thread. THis is only part of the issue, don't get me wrong, I don't hold BdJ as solely to blame. I just feel that our choices come with consequences, and that in a moral society, we must take them into consideration. I may choose to lapdance for fun, but that choice has consequences, whether I mean them or not.

I don't think being a feminist is reconcilable with supporting the sex industry.

I am seriously in favour of legalised brothels, decent protection for the women, legalised prostitution, a much more open system where it's not just presumed that a person who is a prostitute is not assumed to be a bad parent and has their children taken away. I also want much tougher sentencers for traffickers and pimps.

So I am a feminist but I support proper protection for sex workers.

But I don't think our culture does says any of those things, does it? And the "laws of supply and demand" say that where there is a demand (and there undoubtedly is a demand for sex workers) there will be a supply - surely better that the "supply" end is the likes of BdJ, making the money for themselves?

I see what you're saying about unscrupulous pimps and so on, and completely agree that no-one should ever be forced into sex work - but how to deal with that, without infringing on the rights of BdJ etc to sell sexual services in a manner they choose?

If the cukture says it is ok for men to have sex on deman/pay for sex/look at a woman's naked body whenever he feels like it then you have to have enough women to have sex with and who are willing to take their clothes off. Once you run out of women willing to do this (this must happen by the laws of supply and demand) then those who make a great deal of money out of this will then start tricking or forcing vulnerable women into working in this "industry".

The sex industry also caters for those who want virgins, underage children, animals etc.

The cultural norm that men must and can satisfy their desires at will, can only lead to exploitation of someone, somewhere.

Do any of the known owners of sex magazines and films etc ever sold thenmselves on a street corner? No, they are businessmen supplying a need and by any means they can. And that includes co-ercion of workers.

I go to work and sell my labour, but I am guaranteed not to get an STD or a black eye from doing so.

But why are BdJ et al "attacked"/blamed/whatever the word is, for providing that which ideally should/can be provided - willing sex workers who are not exploited or abused? Aren't they exemplars of how the sex industry could be?

Yes, better for them, but what about all the other women who do not choose the profession but are forced into it. BdJ perpetuates the myth for punters that its Ok to buy sex.

Slavery has been around for thousands of years, as has rape, doesn't make it OK, and doesn't mean we should accept it.

I disagree that BdJ's choices cause the exploitation of other women - such explotation has been around for thousands of years. Surely it's better for sex workers like BdJ and similar that they at least profit from their own "explotation"?

But Belle du Jour's choices cause the exploitation of other women. It leads to a society in which the purchasing of a woman's body is acceptable, which leads to the exploitation of women to meet that demand.

Doing a mental or physical job involves selling the product of your mind or body, prostitution make the body itself the comodity. Not the same thing at all.