young, close relative has become an "escort" WWYD?

[notreallymehere]

20 something low closeish relative has become an escort. She has been thinking about it for a while, tried it in London, stopped but now has gone back to it in her home town. She is with what appears to be reputable agency and seems to be making quite a lot of money. Lots of reviews now appearing on her webpage etc. She appears fully happy with her choice - she had a job before (working in a coffee bar) but says that the money is better with this (she has previously worked as a lap dancer). My question is what do I tell my friends/acquaintances if they ask about her. I've discussed this with some people when she first started in London and the reaction was very aggressive "well you should have stopped her" etc etc. (hence name change) Fact is that she is an adult and this is her choice and I cannot see how I can stop her - she is making a far bit of money at this and is very financially motivated. However she is part of the family and it is difficult to avoid the questions but many people are very judgemental (of me for somehow "allowing" this to happen).

Beachcomber -re "society accepts that men are entitled to buy this access to women, and that the demand this entitlement generates, is acceptable."

Acceptable to some, inacceptable to others. The fact is that there is demand. Where there is demand, there will always be those who supply - some because they don't share your moral viewpoint (I know these exist because I have met and talked to quite a few), and others out of desperation (I would sell sex if DC were hungry, wouldn't you?).

"Because money is involved there are always going to be people who will supply this demand"

So you agree with what I have said above.

Then you would also agree that criminalising prostitution would achieve nothing other than forcing it underground. I don't see how that would be good for anyone, except those interested only in a moral victory of sorts.

The very definition of "underground" is that you wouldn't know about it.

I like to think not Cote. I too take hope from the Swedish model.

I think humans are hugely influenced by their environment. I think an environment that says it is not acceptable for one gender to purchase sexual access to another gender will have significant influence on its citizens' behaviour.

I think men use prostitutes because it is; easy to do, condoned by society, something they think they are entitled to, and a consequence of unequal status and power in a male dominated society.

In order for society to accept prostitution, and men to demand prostitution, women must be dehumanised.

Most men who use prostitutes don't see any harm in what they are doing - they think they have the right to do it (and they are not wrong in societal terms are they?).

If society says prostitution of one gender for another is not acceptable, people will integrate that message and behave differently.

The notion that prostitution will just continue underground is deeply offensive to men IMO (and suggests that patriarchal society is inhumane and uncivilised).

Forgot to say - for me it is neither a question of a moral viewpoint nor a moral victory.

It is a purely political/human rights question.

Re "moral victory". I was referring to the achievement of having "eradicated" prostitution. Eradicated it from view, that is, since it would of course not be really eradicated.

dittany - re "if it's underground how will the punters find the women to buy?"

What now... You have never heard of people buying drugs?

And yet it is an underground trade. How do they manage to find those dealers? How, I ask you. This is a deep, inpenetrable, veritable mystery

Beachcomber - re "an environment that says it is not acceptable for one gender to purchase sexual access to another gender will have significant influence on its citizens' behaviour"

Making it illegal will have only a mild influence on citizens' behaviour. As with drugs, there will be some who will abstain because it is illegal or not so easily accessible, but there will be many many others who indulge because it is fun and/or because they don't believe state or society can tell them what to do.

"The notion that prostitution will just continue underground is deeply offensive to men IMO (and suggests that patriarchal society is inhumane and uncivilised)."

Please explain this. I didn't understand it at all. Why do you feel a realistic expectation in line with previous attempts to prohibit goods and services states find morally wrong at some point or another - drugs, alcohol, abortion, for example. None of these banned goods and services were "eradicated", just pushed underground.

NZ has decriminalised prostitution and it has improved conditions mostly for prostitutes across the board FACT
Sweden has criminalised it and pushed it underground to the point where prostitution has not disappeared but has made it even more unsafe for prostitutes to work FACT

dittany - I am actually making a point, not throwing punches, but you don't want to understand.

A prostitute does not sell a human being, she sells a service - sex. Like other services and goods banned on "moral" grounds in the past, it will go underground rather than disappear. This is a perfectly valid observation. You see it as "liikening women to an inanimate object to be purchased", because, well, that is how you always see things in these debates.

Hopefully, others have understood what I was saying.

I'm off to bed now. I'll try to answer your question tomorrow Cote - I don't think I can rattle off a quick and easy answer.

My previous post should read:

Why do you feel a realistic expectation in line with previous attempts to prohibit goods and services states find morally wrong at some point or another (drugs, alcohol, abortion, for example) would be offensive?

"As for the rest, well, it's just luck isn't it who ends up in the wives and girlfriends compartment and who ends up in the sex class (if you are a woman that is)? "

Never a truer word spoken, beachcomber

"
Also I've linked to details of murders of women in prostitution in New Zealand where decriminalisation of the whole trade has supposedly made it safer for prostituted women. Didn't seem to work for those particular women though unfortunately. I'm still waiting for the roll call of murdered women from Sweden because apparently it's dangerous out there in Sweden. Or you know, maybe not."

Exactly!
The murderered women, the most vulnerable women, are in countries that have decriminalised prostitution.

What is this strange logic of yours, COte, that states decriminalising automatically gets rid of exploitation, murders, the trafficking.
IF only that were true.
BUt evidence shows the opposite to be true. That decriminalisation can actually increase demand.

Ok will try to answer your question Cote - I hope this will be clear, I know what I want to say but it is quite tricky to put into words as is quite an abstract notion.

Another reason why what I want to say is hard to express is because we are all so used to, and accepting of, the current status quo.

It will help me to gather my thoughts, I think, to examine our starting point - the current status quo.

OK, so. Currently, the situation is one of patriarchy, male dominated society. One can argue the finer points, but most people can see that men have more power, status and privilege than women. Thereby we are starting out from a situation of inequality - one sex has a bigger slice of the capitalist pie than the other.

History has shown that when there is unequal status between groups of humans, the ones with the higher status develop a sense of entitlement, (white supremacy is a good example of this). The ones with the higher status are brought up to believe that they deserve this unearned privilege and that this is a natural and normal state of affairs. It kinda suits them to go along with this belief without too much questioning because it is nicer to be in the high status group. They do stuff like being benevolent and gallant towards the lower status group in order to make it a bit nicer for them too (white supremacy good example again).

The lower status group are also brought up to believe that this is a normal state of affairs. They are taught that the benevolence and gallantry are signs of the respect and admiration that the higher status group has for them (as opposed to patronising crumbs of manipulation from the table of power).

Both groups are encouraged to normalise and internalise all the above. All this stuff is reinforced, over generations, in a myriad of insidious ways. The higher status group have more power and get to set systems and hierarchies up to suit themselves and which reflect, reinforce and normalise the situation of unearned privilege. The lower status group are constantly told that this is normal, they internalise this message even though some of them have some sneaking doubts about this so called 'natural order'. Et voila - we have a status quo.

The lower status group generally have or can provide something the higher status group want or need - for example, labour in the case of white supremacy. In the situation of male dominance, there are various things the high status group want from the lower status group - one of these is sexual gratification and/or the opportunity to exert sexual power over them. The whole system of status is gendered, and therefore sexual power is a very powerful institutionalised tool (in addition to providing pleasurable orgasms).

This human/political aspect is what makes prostitution different from drugs or alcohol. The 'raw material' of prostitution is people, generally women and children. The raw material of drugs, alcohol and any other commodity is inanimate (although of course harm is done to people in the production of these commodities and the transformation of the raw material necessary).

The 'raw material' required to provide the 'service' of prostitution comes from the lower status group in our status quo. It is provided by the people who have fewer choices, less power and who are more vulnerable and more easily exploited and abused.

We can quibble over whether a prostitute is selling their body/access to their body/their bodily integrity/their consent/a sexual service, etc all we want. However the fact remains that people are required in order to commodify sexual intercourse. The sexual organs and sexuality of these people is commodified. I think most people who have any sense of empathy, can see how a punter penetrating a person is different to a punter using an inanimate male masturbater.

So back to Cote's questions.

Why do I think society condemning prostitution will change behaviour significantly when it doesn't with, say, drugs? Firstly, drugs are physically addictive in ways that orgasms aren't (I have no time for sex addicts). Secondly, orgasms will not be made illegal because prostitution is. Thirdly, sexual behaviour and sexual relations are hugely psychological and clearly influenced by culture and environment - just look at how different our own sex lives are to those of our grandmothers (my own mother never experienced oral sex in her 15 years of marriage despite having 2 children).

Finally (and this also answers the question about "The notion that prostitution will just continue underground is deeply offensive to men IMO") - I believe in the humanity of men. I believe that if society frowns on the sexual exploitation of one gender by another, and explains why that sexual exploitation is wrong, in a society where one sex has power than the other, that men as a group will listen and learn.

I believe that if you explain to men that civilised equal society will not accept sexual predation of the vulnerable, then men will respect that. If you continue to tell them that it is ok and not really exploitation because the vulnerable have 'chosen' to be vulnerable, lower status and exploited then men will continue to accept the status quo.

I think it is quite man hating to suggest otherwise - to suggest that if society educates its citizens to the harms and inherent injustices in prostitution, that men will carry on regardless. I think more of them than that.

If I were to be proven wrong then it would be proof to me that patriarchy is really women hating, that patriarchy spits on our freedom and on human integrity and justice and equality.

At that point I'll either call The Revolution or go off to live in a female only commune .

Apologies for essay of a post!

Also Cote asked the following question;

"(I would sell sex if DC were hungry, wouldn't you?)"

Yes, I suppose I would. If the only way to stop my children from coming to harm was for me to prostitute myself then I would no doubt do it. I think it would destroy me though. It would be an act of sacrifice - not an act of freedom and choice.

I don't want to have to do that and I don't want other women to have to do it either.

In the current set up, few people would think it was just dandy for my father's children to sell sexual access to his body in order for him to put food on the table. They would expect him to find other solutions to the problem - I think it is only just that it be the same be for women.

Dittany or Sakura

Could you post these links you're speaking about please?

I did a little bit of Goggling and reading up about the situation in NZ last night. I do not approve of prostitution for a variety of reasons, but I don't think it's helpful to reduce it to a caricature of bogey-men and helpless victims, as has been done in this thread at times. To do so requires as much denial of real experience and stretching of credulity as is demanded by those who would deny, hide or minimise the truth of some of the most foul and abhorrent ways in which human beings are exploited by other human beings. I think women who are in this situation would like to have their experience differentiated from the experience of women who are not in this situation. I think that those who would oppose abuse should try to keep somewhere to the front of their minds the fact that abuse is very precisely about the denial and misrepresentation of people's experience.

To get back to the point: I read the paper that was commissioned by the NZ government to review the effects of legalization on the lives of prostitutes 3 years after the legislation was passed. I also found a summary of some research performed in 2010 which looked at the experience of prostitutes, as recounted by themselves. These papers did not support the assertion that the lives of prostitutes had become more dangerous in NZ post-legalisation.

"They do stuff like being benevolent and gallant towards the lower status group in order to make it a bit nicer for them too (white supremacy good example again"

This is why when there is a general perception in society- true or false- that feminism is making ground, you will see a backlash in the media- lots of overt misogyny, women in overly-subordinate positions and the like. IT's as if the dominant class (men) have to reassert their position at any cost.

If the little woman at home can't be put in her proper place, because she earns more or won't be pushed around, a man can always pay a prostitute to make himself feel powerful and superior.　Prostitution will always reinforce the status quo of male dominance.

On the film thread it's being noted that females had much stronger roles film in the 1940s. It's as though this was a concession, they were allowed some humanity, because they had so little outside the home!!

CHivalry, benevolance, gallantry is a concession men make towards women, almost a covert apology for the inordinate amount of economic, social and political power they have compared to women

Cote,
I can't get my head around hte fact that one group of human beings- women- have to prostitute themselves to put food on their kids tables, or pay the rent.

Then, there is another group of human beings, who not only have enough money to eat and pay their rent, but also have enough surplus to rent the orifices of the first group.

Male economic power boggles my mind.

Andre your phrase about "a caricature of bogey-men and helpless victims" is really offensive. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and put it down to crassness and ignorance. I think the most vulnerable women in prostitution are generally considered to be pretty much expendable by larger society. They certainly don't have much of a voice - who will speak out for them if feminists don't? Why would anyone want to silence that?

Bit of reading for you if you've got the stomach for it.

www.prostitutionresearch.com/ChallengingDemandScotland.pdf

www.eaves4women.co.uk/Documents/Recent_Reports/Men%20Who%20Buy%20Sex.pdf

Prepare for some pretty harrowing stuff here too;

www.prostitutionresearch.com/