Laws that sex workers really want - anti-Nordic-model TED talk

[iismum]

A friend of mine just posted this video - it's a TED talk by a sex worker discussing how a NZ model is what (according to her) pretty much all sex workers want. She discredits full and partial criminalisation of sex work - which I quite agree with. She also talks about how the Nordic model is really bad for sex workers, whereas I support the Nordic model. But she made some interesting points - particularly how the Nordic model does not reduce the demand for sex work, it just makes it more dangerous and fosters more negative attitudes to sex workers. Is this really true?

I'd be really interested to hear people's thoughts about it. If you want to skip to what she says about the Nordic model, it starts at about 6 minutes in.

www.ted.com/talks/juno_mac_the_laws_that_sex_workers_really_want

Arguments made by people like tangoman are just incredibly ridiculous it really makes me wonder why they're given any airtime at all

A woman posting abolitionist views on a website dominated by men, most of whom were in favour of men having the right to pay for sexual use of women's bodies, would be given short shrift. Yet, here they expect women to listen to them and play naice. Because, patriarchy.

I totally agree Spartacus. But in spite of patriarchy etc I can't believe that there are intelligent people, both men and women, out there who swallow the idea that prostitution is just a job and actually advocate for it. How can allowing a person you don't know to use the most sensitive and delicate parts of your body for their pleasure be 'just a job'?

As a random example, take smear tests. They're shown to reduce your chances of dying from a cancer. They're free. And yet many women simply won't go to them. Why? Because they can't bear the thought of a kind and gentle healthcare worker putting instruments in their vagina for less than a minute. It's too traumatic. They'd rather take the risk of having cancer that isn't found early.

So then take a prostitute. She is supposed to be absolutely ok with a man she doesn't know putting his penis inside her for an undetermined amount of time. He may be gentle or he may be rough. He may be very kind or he may be distant or he may be aggressive. She just doesn't know. But the potential for her to be hurt, both physically and psychologically is absolutely massive. And she's supposed to be ok with doing this numerous times a day, perhaps hundreds of times a week, with different men.

How could anyone believe that that's an ok situation??

But in spite of patriarchy etc I can't believe that there are intelligent people, both men and women, out there who swallow the idea that prostitution is just a job and actually advocate for it

Agree totally. The sex industry has an excellent publicity wing ...

It's all such nonsense though. Women get raped and assaulted in their thousands upon thousands every year just going about their business. A a woman it is very dangerous to just live your life, the chances of sexual violence are very high. And yet people like tangoman will argue that prostitutes can easily deal with a man who is taller and stronger than she is, while they are alone in a room, when he is paying for and feels entitled to sex. WTF? That must be far and away the most dangerous situation a woman could ever be in. The chance of getting hurt is absolutely enormous.

TBH I didn't read past Tango's first post. I am over debating with men who come here because they think we owe them debate. I've decided I am here to offer and receive support from like-minded women and I'm not going to waste my time on anti-feminist men who are only here to flaunt their boring views.

Sensible move Spartacus.

Sparrow - "It's all such nonsense though. Women get raped and assaulted in their thousands upon thousands every year just going about their business. A a woman it is very dangerous to just live your life, the chances of sexual violence are very high. And yet people like tangoman will argue that prostitutes can easily deal with a man who is taller and stronger than she is, while they are alone in a room, when he is paying for and feels entitled to sex. WTF? That must be far and away the most dangerous situation a woman could ever be in. The chance of getting hurt is absolutely enormous."

Totally agree, nails it.

Tangoman can't you go away and write a book called Men Are Entitled To Sex or something?

Tango I cba to read a wall of text but this Nearly half the women (45 per cent) said they would change their occupation if they could doesn't sound like prostitutes love their job.

So you nitpick about how I spell a name and ignore everything else I say tangoman?

I suggest (kind of what I was trying to do with your earlier post) that every time Tango posts, we just scroll back up the thread to the last interesting post and carry on discussing that.

He's going to carry on trying to bury us in a landslide of a Gish-Gallop of made up statistics and anecdata, and seriously, the only thing we can do is ignore.

reneejg.net/2017/03/23/prostitution-less-like-a-job-more-like-the-prison-system/

That's an interesting piece of writing. Thanks venusinscorpio.

It parallels with a piece MacKinnon wrote about how prostitution limits women's "security of person" - something which is limited for women anyway due to society wide VAWG, and is particularly limited for girls and women in prostitution for obvious reasons.

MacKinnon is writing about this in the context of civil rights and equality of civil rights for the sexes. Prostitution not only violates the civil right to security of person but it violates it in a particular gendered manner which is deeply anti equality.

Will link to it later.

As our male pro prostitution for women poster has pointed out (and it may be his only good point), Professor MacKinnon is a lawyer and a brilliant one. She therefore has a way of thinking about things that is very much about justice, about equality before the law and about females having equality of humanity and the role that laws, legislation and society must play if we are sincere about those things.

Hers is a searingly logical and just position and I have never seen anyone effectively argue against it. The "choice" argument when attempted against MacKinnon shows itself to be an argument for inequality of civil rights for the sexes. Which in turn shows itself to be an argument for the subordination of women, for the awarding of superior status to men, their civil rights and their humanity and therefore shows itself to be a regressive, sexist and inhumane position. (That is if one considers girls and women to be human.)

I'd really like to read that MacKinnon piece, Beachcomber.

It was reading MacKinnon that changed my mind about pornography, and subsequently prostitution.

I was a porn user until I read a few pages of MacKinnon in a bookstore while on lunch from work. On those pages, she wrote about a porn scene where a woman asked a man to ejaculate inside her and he replied, "No, I only come on bitches, not inside them."

MacKinnon asked the utterly sensible question why, in a video with almost no dialogue, did the very few words spoken denigrate the woman? Why those words, in particular?

My life has never been the same since that lunch break.

Will post it later venusinscorpio

I'm reporting your posts Tangoman. I think it is hugely out of order to cite absent posters in this way and you've done it twice now.

I don't think it is just about male/female as there are male prostitutes as well, gay and straight. A man was telling me about someone he knew who was homeless so he was prostituting himself, he was straight but was working as a prostitute with gay men.

I hate it when people say there should be legal brothels, I always ask them if they want one next door to them. Oh no, put it in some rough area where the plebs can put up with it.

Equally, granny, it's very rare that men who support prostitution are in favour of their mothers/sisters/wives/daughters being prostitutes. Prostitution is for a sort of non-human woman who doesn't feel anything.

The percentages matter, though, Granny. The majority of prostitutes are women, and even more tellingly, the vast majority (I would guess well above the 95% level) of punters are male. In that respect, it is gendered - just like violent crime in general, sexual violence and domestic violence.

Totally agree about the "brothel next door" question, though. The other question I like is "If you really believe it's a job like any other, should unemployed people be threatened with having their benefits removed if they don't accept a job as a prostitute? And if you are prepared to go that far, in what respect does your proposal differ from state-sanctioned rape?"

The job centre threatening removal of benefits is a good reply. I did meet prostitutes with audited books who paid all their tax, they said the tax man was a pimp and I suppose they had a point.

I do think all prostitutes need protection, I can't imagine a teenage boy who is straight is going to be OK about men using his body so he can get somewhere to sleep for the night or a meal. Removal of housing benefits puts alot of young people, male and female, at great risk.

I liked alot of the prostitutes I met and it is really sad. The saddest thing I remember is a little girl being interviewed to see if she had information that could help catch the man who killed her mother who was a prostitute. It was the saddest little statement. He was caught but that didn't help her much did it?

www.prostitutionresearch.com/MacKinnon%20Prostitution%20and%20Civil%20Rights.pdf is the link to the article.

It is archived here prostitutionresearch.com/pub_author/catharine-mackinnon/

sillage that sounds like a lightbulb moment. MacKinnon is very very sensible and utterly awesome with it.

Thanks Beach, looking forward to reading that later.