Good piece on sex work by Laurie Penny

[SolidGoldFrankensteinandmurgh]

Here. She puts it a bit more elegantly than I usually do...

'The business of politicians is to make laws that protect people from "economic" exploitation' - yes absolutely. I remember vociferous right-wing complaining when the minimum wage was brought in, on the grounds that it would undermine people's free choice to work for very low pay.

It's worth pointing out that it's also illegal to sell one's own blood or body parts (eg kidneys). That reduces people's choices too, and for good reason.

I think the key to understanding that though, is the word "sell"

What do you mean exactly, Mini? Tbh I have no idea whether it is more illegal to sell blood or buy blood (but re prostitution would certainly favour focusing on the buyer rather than the seller).

It is legal to give your kidneys away but not ok to sell them (thankfully) you can donate blood but you can't sell it. But there is market for both. No amount of laws stop unscrupulous people when they pursue money.

Sex and prostitution is the same, you can (and we have) enacted all sorts of laws to punish and shame people but where there is money and there is unmet human need (ie as Penny says "how else will they pay the rent") we will have a sex trade.

I think it's massively ironic that Penny uses the term Neo-Victorian aka prude as a slur, which is very much a male insult towards women who step out of line.

Next she'll be calling us "ugly" and "frigid" next.

Also, I must have missed all the times prostitutes were raped and murdered by feminists, as surely those lovely male punters supporting the women in their career could never do such a thing.

She also ignores completely how so-called sex-worker organisations are often infiltrated by pimps in the sex industry, people who it is in their very interests for prostitution to become "mainstream" and have no stigma. Let's be clear, these people aren't happy with the status quo, they want the sex trade to expand and be even more popular.

After all, if prostitution became the norm for every stag night, every time you had an argument with your wife/girlfriend, every time you wanted a woman to be "sexually available", think how rich the pimps would be.

Meanwhile, the can be painting "sex work" as a liberating career. Just take a look as these posters by Turn Off The Blue Light, an organisation started by Irish Pimps at Escort Ireland:

www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/about/poster-campaign/

This demonstrates another reason why the term "sex work" is so vague and harmful, it allows pimps to portray themselves as "sex workers".

Excellent points, I think Penny has been very lazy with this piece and as SGM says up thread it seems have been motivated by spite towards Rad fems.

I have dug up these two pieces, one by Fin Mackay and one on Laurie's Blog.

pennyred.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/sex-work-shibboleth.html
finnmackay.wordpress.com/articles/prostitution-is-violence-against-women-labour-left-review-nov-07/

Both are worth a read, Penny in her blog specifically mentions Fin Mackay,

Penny says "Feminists need to put aside ideological differences and work towards a radical restructuring of neoliberal attitudes to sex, to work and to sex work" but it would seem that SHE has fallen into the trap of creating divisions.

She goes on to conclude that "If we want a world where women?s bodies are more than just commodities, feminists need to get radical, we need to get smart, and we need to be prepared to lay down our weapons and take the fight to the real enemies. If we stop fighting each other and turn our energies on the pimps, the abusers and the superstructure of misogynist free-market capitalism, there are exhilarating victories to be won"

So, in the final analysis, both want change under capitalism, both would agree that abolition of capitalism is either the way to achieve change or part of the change that is necessary to free women.

If Laurie really believes that it is time to put aside ideological differences, it might be better to find some way of synthesising Marxist and (patriarchy)radical theory rather than attacking rad fems as prudes.

What is really needed is a new theoretical framework that takes account of both the economic (historical materialist) and the humanist perspectives (radical feminist) and makes sense of women's oppression under one theory. Perhaps she could apply her planet sized brain to that

"She also ignores completely how so-called sex-worker organisations are often infiltrated by pimps in the sex industry"

Evidence?

www.turnoffthebluelight.ie/information/crime-statistics/human-trafficking/

49 recorded cases of trafficking for 2009. That's strange, the statistics used by the online tabloids quote figures of up to and beyond 100,000.

Since your google is broken, here you go: www.sundayworld.com/columnists/sw-irish-crime.php?aid=8634

What about these ones? Are they run by "sleazy" pimps too?

I quote the word sleazy since it doesn't actually tell you any facts it's just an emotive word tabloids love using.

www.scot-pep.org.uk

prostitutescollective.net/

What? There were plenty of facts in that article, actually women describing how they had been abused, but for the sake of one adjective you're ignoring them?

Actually, I myself get quite "emotive" (what a terrible, weak, stereotypically female thing of me to do ) about men who abuse women for profit, so I cannot dispute the paper's usage of the word in this case, I'd use far worse words.

Emotive is not the same as truth, your emotive Anne would be a considerable distortion of what is the reality of the situation of woman's organisations. Staffed by them and run by them in just the same way all other charities are.

Heaven forbid that women should be emotive about something that harms them.

Just had a look at the two links, I agree in principle to decriminalising sex workers, maybe it will lift the stigma attached to prostitution and in that way women can expect protection from violence and rape under the law. Ultimately though ALL workers rights are being eroded under advanced neo-liberalised free market economics.

Laws can be used to punish and stigmatise but the presence or lack of laws has never before stopped the trade in human flesh.Slavery was made illegal and it still exists some 200 plus years later.

Marxist feminists claim the root of the oppression of women is capitalism. In the case of sex work and prostitution, capitalism causes the migration of women into sex work. Capitalism exploits women

Migration into sex work because of poverty is a class issue. Caused by the power structures within society.....which are economic in nature.

I agree though that bodies of sex workers are commodities because as sex workers, women's bodies are for sale just as Radicals do. Perhaps in Marxist terms it could be compared to rental/rather than outright transfer of ownership.

The commodification of the body of the sex worker is also oppressive because the capitalist system allows women to make money through the sale/rent and use of their bodies.

Capitalist hegemonic dominance is the root oppressor of women and, in this case, the catalyst for sex work and prostitution. Of course one shouldn't make the assumption that this only happens under modern capitalism, the trade in slaves and women precedes this. But one constant remains throughout history from the time we created "surplus" value (when we started farming and settling) we created the commodity called money, that is used as the exchange medium for all other commodities. And it is for money that people exploit others and it for money that women enter the sex industry.

Mini what you have essentially said is that according to Marxism the exchange of labour in any format for payment of any kind, leads to capitalism, and that in turn gives us class conflict. So women who enter in to prostitution are both victims of capitalism and by and large class. All of which I agree with.

However Ann made spurious and uncorroborated statements about organisations, unions in some instances of women trying to engage with the capitalist system, that were actually run by and for the benefit of pimps and those involved in trafficking of humans.
She was provided with evidence of her mistake, and then choose to explain her views by saying she was being "emotive". Lots of emotive language on this thread but not many trying to pass it off as fact.

Sorry pressed to soon. The issue is one of who has the right to speak for whom. This is not a cut and dried debate as this thread like almost all of these threads have demonstrated, both sides like nothing better than throwing reports, facts, articles, at each other both sides claiming that they have the right to represent those who do and have worked in the industry. The fact that voices from inside and outside the industry call for different things is not seen as an opportunity to enter in to a sombre and quiet debate about all the many issues, it is just taken to reinforce the division of opinion. The only result of this is that the capitalist system that commodifies women's bodies is left unchallenged.

Frans does not appear to like the word sleazy in relation to pimps. I wonder what description he would use?

I think it is very difficult to remove emotion from this because of the basic inability to conceptualise whether the sale of sex, is the sale of a service (labour power which is not finite and is renewable) or whether it is the sale of people, their bodies.

I would agree with the analysis that in prostitution it is the sale of the body, the person but it is also a service! I think this because when you labour you produce a commodity that becomes appropriated by the capitalist and your labour is tied up in the commodity but you become alienated from that commodity when it has been sold. I think sex work is more akin to slavery, in fact the two share the same history. The slave is sold in perpetuity to provide labour but it isn't his/her labour alone that is exchanged, the slave (as person) is sold. There is a transference of ownership of the person. In prostitution there is a similar transference of person, albeit maybe temporary or in the case of trafficked and pimped women, a transference of ownership to the exploiter and that commodity which is women is sold at profit, Which is why in many cases consent is not obtainable, ie rape. What is being sold relies upon access to the body of the person. One can not be alienated from themselves as person and their labour in the commodity.The service, the person and the commodity are one and the same ? or maybe I am wrong but that is how I both think and quite emotively feel.

The only result of this is that the capitalist system that commodifies women's bodies is left unchallenged yy, definitely, which is why we are encouraged always to look at law and politics, keeps the proles from looking at the economics! Only very clever economists can understand these things

Everything is being denied to us, stolen, wrapped up and warped and sold back to us, our sexuality, our culture, our bodies, our sex lives and our own concept of who we are......all because someone makes money from this.

No Leithurker, there was no mistake.

I said that Turn Off The Blue Light was started by pimps. This is correct and I have provided evidence of this.

Or did you miss that part in your haste to dismiss me?

Here is another piece discussing how and why pimps like to involve themselves in "sex-worker activism". www.prostitutionresearch.com/blog/2012/05/pimps_will_be_pimps_whether_ma.html

Again, in the rush to smear smear those of us who seek to end demand rather then "harm reduction", you overlooked a key part of my post, that the sex industry, like any industry is always looking to expand.

Normalise/destigmatise the profession and you normalise/destigmatise the act.

This makes men (and it is nearly always men, so don't try that derail) purchasing women societal acceptable, if not even portrayed as a social good - see all the sickening claims that men need sex and would turn to rape if they didn't have access to prostitutes.

That is why pimps are using "sex-worker activism" as a trojan horse to push their own agenda.

Clear?

What a shockingly entitled response given that your whole point is based on a news report that goes out of it's way to clearly and specificly make clear that the example of the organised crime boss starting his web page, was to a web page that was set up by women.
"Anti-sleaze campaigners launched a website called 'Turn Off the Red Light', in which they hoped to end prostitution and sex trafficking in Ireland.

However, a rival site, called 'Turn off the Blue Light', was set up recently by the same design company that set up the lucrative sex website controlled by McCormick." www.sundayworld.com/columnists/sw-irish-crime.php?aid=8634

So instead of highlighting the women for it is mainly women who start and work in sex workers collectives or unions, (or is that too derailing for you Ann?) you pick up on the example of how organised crime often exploits legitimate protest in order to do what, undermine women who were trying to stop the abuse in the first place?
www.turnofftheredlight.ie/ This is the site that you failed to talk about, you know the one organised by women. Which unlike your very bigoted statement is not run by pimps or organised crime. The same as the two examples franz gave you, but no you would rather post yet another article about other false flag exercises run by criminals to justify not having to listen to a swath of opinion that you would rather dismiss. Would you like to have a member of scot pep come on here and tell you what they do and who is involved? You wont like it but if you then become more careful in your wild and mistaken allegations it would be worth it.

Then at least we can get on with talking about how we move society forward.

Leith - I have no problem with Turn Off the Red light - it seeks to end prostitution, not decriminalise it.

I will ask you again: where are my mistakes
?

International Union of Sex Workers - started and run by a pimp.

SWOP USA - run by a pimp

Turn Off the Blue Light - Run by a pimp.

Did you read the link I sent you, listing orgs, supposedly sex-worker lead, all wanting decriminalisation, all run by pimps?

What bigoted statement?

Is a feminist saying that the sex industry is inherently misogynist and exploitative bigoted? Really?

Tell me, would it really make me a nicer person if I just shrugged my shoulders and said that prostitution is no big deal, in fact it's a wonderful service that men must have? I'll just ignore the harm done to women by the punters.

And did you look at the links Franz sent and will you acknowledge that legitimate and fully independent organisations of women who have or still do work in the industry and who oppose criminalisation exist?

What would make everyone a nicer person would be to get sex workers off the street and either accepted or abolished. This can only be done by working with everyone, prostitutes, punters, law makers and the rest of society. The only exclusions should be criminals.

The sex industry is exploitative and misogynistic. It might also be said to be racist as well. Thing is though, from where does this misogyny come? what creates misogyny. How are people socialised to hold certain views to be justified. I would argue that it stems from the way in which the material exploitation must be justified. In the same way that racism is justified because of the economic imperative to enslave people. Historically man had to find a way of getting mass agreement to slavery, this was done by the capitalist/moral nexus of church, state and commerce.

men are not born women hating, abusers and exploiters.....they are made.

Leith - interesting how you put punters on the same level as the prostitutes, completely avoid the power differentials, abuse and exploitation.

As for your insistence that I acknowledge certain organisations, any organisation asking for decriminalisation is advocating for the select few over women as a whole. Their arguments do not convince me.

Anyone actually asking for decriminalisation of prostitution in GB is plainly talking utter shite as it is not currently a criminal offense to work as a prostitute or to engage their services.